How a Single Weed Restored a Forest

 

Regenerating New Zealand: Using nature to restore forests

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 7, 2019
Source

 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The documentary, “Fools and Dreamers: Regenerating a Native Forest,” features botanist and nature buff Hugh Wilson and his work to regenerate 1,500 hectares (3,706 acres) of native forest in New Zealand
  • The film shows how conservationists used the power of nature to regenerate native forests
  • Under the theory of “minimal interference,” Wilson and others embraced the presence of an exotic native “weed” called gorse to turn pastureland into a thriving forest
  • Gorse, which is hated and considered a nuisance by pastural farmers, helped regenerate forests by providing a canopy for native forest plants to grow and thrive
  • Restoring forests provides many benefits, including an increase in native vegetation and biodiversity, improved water flow and carbon sequestration, which help fight climate change by capturing excess atmospheric carbon and storing it in the soil

Imagine a place in nature that’s thriving with life, where native plants and wildlife exist in abundance, and the crystal-clear flowing streams are clean enough to drink. Welcome to the Hinewai Nature Reserve & Wildlife Sanctuary, an ecological restoration project located in New Zealand’s Banks Peninsula that’s open for the public to visit and enjoy.

A new documentary titled, “Fools & Dreamers: Regenerating a Native Forest,” produced by Happen Films, features the project and one of its key supporters, botanist, nature buff and native New Zealander, Hugh Wilson, who serves as the day-to-day manager of the reserve.

The Hinewai Reserve aims to promote the natural regeneration of native vegetation and wildlife on about 1,500 hectares (3,706 acres) of land in the south-eastern corner of Banks Peninsula on the South Island’s east coast.

In its natural state, the region was covered by thick, healthy forests ripe in diversity. But over time, the forest was cleared and nearly completely destroyed by human settlers from Polynesia and Europe. By 1990, less than 1 percent of the old-growth forest was left, according to the film.

From a young age, Wilson, who grew up in the area, took a liking to plants and wildlife, particularly bird life. He dreamed about what it would be like to restore or regenerate the forests in the Banks Peninsula. His dream became reality when he met Maurice White, who had established a fund to purchase land for conservation.

Native Forest Trust purchases ground to regenerate the forest

When asked if he wanted to be involved, Wilson quickly agreed, and the pair began searching for land to buy. Due to his familiarity with the area, Wilson suggested a piece of land that was a little over 100 hectares (247 acres) in size and was an original part of Hinewai. The land was ideal because it was reasonable in size, but not too big, and it had old-growth forest, which meant it would be easier to track the results of a regeneration program.

In September 1987, 109 hectares (269 acres) were purchased by the Maurice White Native Forest Trust. Over time, the conservation project expanded to about 1,500 hectares (3,706 acres) with the purchase of Ōtānerito Station in 1991, as well as several other additions.

From the very beginning, the idea was to harness the power of Mother Nature to speed up the regeneration of forest and biodiversity — and to make the restoration project open to the public so people could come and enjoy nature in its purest form.

Using a “minimal interference” approach, Wilson had this idea to use the exotic plant gorse to regenerate native forest plants and trees. Once word of his method spread, it drew quite a bit of skepticism and doubt from the locals.

Regenerating landscapes with a pesky weed

Gorse is considered one of New Zealand’s most pesky weeds. It first originated in Europe but was introduced to New Zealand as a hedge species.1 Characterized by its yellow flowers and sharp spiny leaves, Gorse can grow from about 6 to 9 feet tall. It matures and grows quickly, and is highly resilient to herbicides. It’s also tolerant of hot and cold temperatures, high-to-low rainfall and wind and salt.2

Gorse became hated by pastural farmers because it reduced the area available for grazing livestock on pasture land. Most people go to extreme lengths to fight and kill gorse. But not Wilson. He understood that the “weed” had its benefits, too. “Nothing is black and white,” said Wilson in the film.

Gorse is an opportunistic plant that takes advantage of clear ground and forest climates. But it must have full sunlight. It can’t survive in the shade. As soon as it’s shaded, it’s dead, he says.

Gorse grows fast in full sunlight, which allows other plants to grow underneath it, such as shade-tolerant trees. This is how gorse provides the perfect canopy for native forest plants to grow and thrive. It’s also an excellent nitrogen fixer, which means it fertilizers the soil, and in turn, promotes new plant life. Another benefit to gorse is that it can stop steep hillsides from eroding due to its ability to spread and cover the ground in dense vegetation.

Returning to its roots

Within a short decade, Wilson has made significant progress in regenerating native forests in the Hinewai Reserve. A local farmer interviewed in the film said:

“I initially thought that the progression from gorse to native trees would take 50 years. But in 10 years you can see it. You can see them coming up through the gorse, and in areas I didn’t know there would be native growth.”

Thanks to the efforts of Wilson and the restoration project, the Hinewai Reserve has returned to its roots. The forest has 47 waterfalls that never dry up, and is home to trees that are centuries old. The reserve hosts 60 different species of fern, including six species of tree fern.

It also supports many native birds such as bellbird, brown creeper and the grey warbler, just to name a few. It’s home to green and brown geckos, Australian frogs, native eels and fish such as galaxiids, torrentfish and bullies. The coastline nearby supports more diversity including seabirds, marine mammals and fish.3

Many people have asked Wilson if he himself helped replant the forest bed. In the film, he chuckles and explains that there’s no way to physically do it because of the rough terrain and vast size of the land. “Nature plants the forest bed, in ecologically appropriate and scientifically interesting ways,” he says.

Local hero

The local community was initially skeptical of Wilson and his idea to use gorse to regrow native forest trees and plants. But he’s proved that nature knows best. Wilson is now regarded as a hero both locally and abroad.

Not only do the locals support the work being done at Hinewai, but they have also started to change the way they think about food and farming. Wilson has shown that instead of trying to farm all land intensively — especially land that’s not all that productive in terms of producing food — it’s beneficial to set some aside and let nature take over. “Let’s stop trying to farm that land and let it regenerate on its own and act as one big carbon sink,” says Wilson.

The end result is a surge in biodiversity — plants, animals, insects — which support a healthier environment, and healthier humans. Regenerating native forests is also beneficial for the climate, as they act as giant carbon sinks that help capture and store excess atmospheric carbon in the soil.

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels

But regenerating native forests and other wildlife areas isn’t enough if we want to solve climate change, says Wilson. We must also significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels, he says, adding:

“The forest here alone might save us from global warming because a lot of the sequestered carbon is locked up in fossil fuels. But even covering every inch of dry land in the world with forest wouldn’t sequester enough if we keep on burning the fossil fuels that have been sequestered for millions of years.

“So, forest is definitely part of the solution, but not the whole part. We have to change the way we use energy, and in a big way. We have to do it really quickly or we’re going to be really stuck.

“No one person can solve these massive problems. All you can do and all the universe can expect you to do is to do your best. Your best can be all sorts of different scales. We’re doing our best here in terms of human life and the ecology and biodiversity and climate and other species sharing the planet with us. All those things.”

Wilson practices what he preaches. He rides his bicycle most places and walks two hours to and from work every day. He also lives in a house with no electricity and uses water heated by solar energy. His primary mode of communication is through a landline telephone.

The work at Hinewai Reserve is made possible in part due to the donations of generous supporters from all over the world. Find out how to support the reserve at FoolsandDreamers.com.

The big takeaway of the featured film is to encourage people to do their part in protecting the planet. That could mean planting for the birds and bees and putting a few flowers in your garden. It could mean riding your bicycle more, using solar energy or growing your own food. For tips on how to grow your own garden using permaculture or regenerative agriculture practices, click here.




Psychiatry in Charge of Gun Control: Utter Disaster

by Jon Rappoport
September 5, 2019
Source

 

During the reign of Barack Obama, mass shootings prompted a White House declaration that community mental health centers would be created across America, in order to spot and treat persons before they committed violent acts. Now, under Trump, we are seeing a similar reaction, with a twist.

The Daily Caller, Aug 22, 2019: “Trump Admin Is Considering Using Amazon Echo And Apple Watch To Determine If Citizens Should Own A Gun”

“The Trump administration is considering a proposal that would use Google, Amazon and Apple to collect data on users who exhibit characteristics of mental illness that could lead to violent behavior, The Washington Post reported Thursday.”

“The proposal is part of an initiative to create a Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), which would be located inside the Health and Human Services Department, the report notes, citing sources inside the administration. The new agency would have a separate budget and the president would be responsible for appointing its director.”

“HARPA would develop ‘breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,’ according to a copy of the proposal. ‘A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis’.”

“The document lists several technologies that could be employed to help collect information, including Apple Watches, Amazon Echo and Google Home. Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA, told reporters Thursday the plan would require enormous amounts of data and ‘scientific rigor.’”

Translation: Use all available resources to spy on Americans; and by deploying psychiatric definitions of mental disorders, somehow intercede before potentially violent individuals can legally obtain a weapon. Whether or not you favor gun control, creating this new federal agency would be on the order of injecting poisons in people to prevent poisoning.

Why? Because some of the most popular psychiatric drugs, given for “mental disorders,” cause people to go over the edge and commit violent acts, including murder. Once diagnosed, an uninformed person is at the mercy of psychiatrists who refuse to admit what their drugs are creating.

NOTE: Withdrawing from the drugs without expert supervision can result in effects which are even worse than those resulting from taking the drugs.


Here is an excerpt from my 1999 white paper, “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”:

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A study from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was titled, “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—


There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

I’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac.

Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.


Mainstream psychiatrists would certainly be in charge of any new Trump program to “predict violent individuals” before they obtain a gun or commit heinous acts. The program wouldn’t just fail. It would increase violence.

Two questions always pop up when I write a critique of psychiatry. The first one is: psychiatric researchers are doing a massive amount of work studying brain function. They do have tests.

Yes, experimental tests. But NONE of those tests are contained in the DSM, the psychiatric bible, as the basis of the definition of ANY mental disorder. If the tests were conclusive, they would be heralded in the DSM. They aren’t.

The second question is: if all these mental disorders are fiction, why are so many people saddled with problems? Why are some people off the rails? Why are they crazy?

The list of potential answers is very long. A real practitioner would focus on one patient at a time and try to discover what has affected him to such a marked degree. For example:

Severe nutritional deficiency. Toxic dyes and colors in processed food. Ingestion of pesticides and herbicides. Profound sensitivities to certain foods. The ingestion of toxic pharmaceuticals. Life-altering damage as a result of vaccines. Exposure to environmental chemicals. Heavy physical and emotional abuse in the home or at school. Battlefield stress and trauma (also present in certain neighborhoods). Prior head injury. Chronic infection. Alcohol and street drugs. Debilitating poverty.

Other items could be added.

Psychiatry is: fake, fraud, pseudoscience from top to bottom. It’s complete fiction dressed up as fact.

But the obsessed devotees of science back away from this. They close their eyes. If a “branch of knowledge” as extensive as psychiatry is nothing more than an organized delusion, what other aspect of science might likewise be parading as truth, when it is actually mere paper blowing in the wind?

And yet, the Trump administration, following the same general game plan as the Obama administration, is seriously considering the creation of a whole new federal agency that will somehow use “psychiatric knowledge” (an oxymoron), as a guide, to carry out new forms of surveillance on the whole population and intercede, when individuals with “mental disorders” try to buy a gun in order to commit a violent crime.

Not only will this strategy utterly fail, it will, through the prescription of violence-inducing drugs, make the tragedies expand and multiply.




Research Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Source: Mercola

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 3, 2019

 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ
  • A 1 milligram per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in IQ among boys only, while a 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score in both genders between ages 3 and 4
  • The findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre (SMC), two well-known front groups for the chemical industry
  • There are at least 60 other studies showing fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ. There are also more than 2,000 other studies detailing other health effects
  • Research published in 2017 found that, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. They also found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ

The August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics1 delivered an unexpected bombshell: A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ.

The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy.

They also estimated the women’s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children’s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):2

“They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls.

When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQ’s in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.”

Support for the importance of this study

The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date.

Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it’s accompanied by an editor’s note3 explaining the journal’s decision to publish the study, and a podcast4 featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study.

An additional editorial5 by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also points out that “The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.” Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment. According to the editor’s note:6

“Publishing it serves as a testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be.”

 

https://traffic.libsyn.com/jamapediatricseditorssummary/association_between_maternal_fluoride_exposure_during_pregnancy_and_iq_scores_in_offspring_in_canada.mp3

 

Chemical industry front groups defend fluoride safety

Surprisingly, the findings were widely reported by most major media outlets, including Reuters,7 The Washington Post,8 CNN, NPR, Daily Beast and others, effectively reigniting the scientific debate about whether water fluoridation is a good idea.

Not surprisingly, the findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Dental Association (ADA),9 the American Council on Science and Health10 (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre11 (SMC).

It’s well worth noting that the ACSH and SMC are well-known front groups for the chemical industry, and they will defend all chemicals, regardless of what’s under discussion, so seeing dismissive articles from these groups is more or less par for the course. You can learn more about these groups in the articles hyperlinked above.

It’s also worth noting that Fox, which in 2014 made a similar study headline news,12 wasn’t satisfied with just presenting the latest study as news and, instead, invited its resident doctor, Marc Siegel, to comment13 — and that comment began by blaming tooth decay, not fluoride, on lower IQs. Siegel ended with a rambling diatribe against the study and a scathing criticism of JAMA Pediatrics for even having published it:

“I’m far more worried about tooth decay than I am about fluoride … There’s no way that fluoride would lower your IQ more than having tooth decay … It’s a ridiculous study … complete poppycock … The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics should not have put this in.”

As for the ADA, it’s been promoting water fluoridation as a health benefit for over a century and a half. To change its stance would clearly result in a loss of face, and might even expose the association to liability. The loss of scientific credibility alone is likely enough to encourage the ADA to hold on to the status quo.

The same goes for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which, despite the more than 2,700 studies14 against it, maintains water fluoridation is one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.15

AAP support of water fluoridation is hypocritical

A bit tougher to explain is the American Academy of Pediatrics’ support of water fluoridation.16 Of any group, the AAP really should reconsider its stance on this issue, seeing how it has officially recognized the hazardous influence of hormone-disrupting chemicals on child development.

In 2018, the AAP issued a policy statement17 warning parents to avoid endocrine disrupting chemicals — commonly found in processed foodfast food wrappers and plastics, for example — and while fluoride was not specified as an example of a chemical to be avoided, research shows fluoride has hormone disrupting potential, placing it in the exact same category. As noted by FAN:18

“Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report19,20 by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:

‘In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response … Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response … The mechanisms of action … appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms …”

Fluoride Action Network addresses study critique

In the featured video, Paul Connett, Ph.D., founder and current director of the FAN, addresses some of the criticism and why this particular study is such an important wake-up call for health care practitioners and pregnant women.

“[Fluoride exposure] during pregnancy will lower the IQ of their children. Only if you think a child’s tooth is more important than a child’s brain would you not be disturbed by that,” Connett says. “You can repair a child’s tooth. You cannot repair a child’s brain once it’s been impacted during fetal development.”

One pro-fluoride critique against the JAMA Pediatric study is that it doesn’t show cause and effect. “Well, no epidemiological study proves cause and effect,” Connett says. “That’s a given! To say it doesn’t show cause and effect is a redundant statement.” Other pro-fluoride voices argue the effect size is small — only 4.49 IQ points21 for boys, on average. However, as Connett points out:

“If you shift the entire population over by 3 or 4 IQ points, you would almost halve the number of geniuses in your society … and you would increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children. So, on a population [basis] such shifts are highly, highly significant.”

A third manufactured controversy revolves around the fact that only boys were impacted by maternal urine levels of fluoride. Some hitch their critique of the study on this simple gender difference.

However, it should come as no surprise that boys and girls can be affected in different ways by the same toxic compound, as their development is affected by various hormones, including sex hormones, and toxins affect various hormones in different ways. We’ve seen this type of gender difference in many other instances as well.

“However you cut it, you have to be so wedded to fluoridation not to take this incredibly seriously,” Connett says. “Remember, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever — no scientific evidence — that a fetus exposed to fluoride has lowered dental decay.

There’s no evidence you’re protecting the baby from future decay during pregnancy. So, ANY evidence suggesting it may be damaging the brain has to be taken seriously …

We have potential harm [on the one side] … and on the other side you have something that is totally unnecessary. Why on earth would any doctor hesitate to advise pregnant women: ‘Don’t drink fluoridated water during pregnancy’?”

Other studies support link between fluoride and IQ loss

What’s more, as Connett so strongly points out, while this particular study has received a great deal of media attention, it’s not the only one raising a red flag. There are at least 60 other studies listed in FAN’s scientific database22 showing that fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ.

There are also a couple of thousand other studies detailing other adverse health effects. When you add in animal research, there are more than 300 studies demonstrating fluoride can cause:23

  • Brain damage, especially when coupled with iodine deficiency
  • Reduced IQ
  • Impaired ability to learn and remember
  • Neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spatial organization
  • Impaired fetal brain development

In his video commentary, Connett briefly mentions the importance of the 2017 “Bashash study.” This was an international study effort led by professor Howard Hu, who at the time of the study’s publication was at the University of Toronto. The study is known as the “Bashash study” after the lead author, Morteza Bashash, Ph.D. The team also includes researchers from McGill, Harvard, Mount Sinai, Michigan, Indiana and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.

Funding for this research came from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The finalized study24,25 was published in the September 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

This study was remarkable for the fact that it followed participants for 12 years, involved several well-respected researchers, employed rigorous methodology and controlled for virtually all conceivable factors.

Here too, they found a strong relationship between the urinary level of fluoride in pregnant women and the subsequent IQ in their children. They also found a dose-dependent relationship, so the higher the mother’s urine level of fluoride, the lower the IQ in the offspring.

According to the Bashash study, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. What’s more, they found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ.

Your contributions are making a difference

FAN is part of the Mercola Health Liberty Coalition, founded in 2011 — the mission of which is to inform and educate about the fraud and deceptions created by the junk food, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Other Health Liberty partners include the National Vaccine Information Center, the Organic Consumers Association and Consumers for Dental Choice.

Not only has your support been helpful to catalyze the removal of fluoride but you have been able to help us make massive changes with two other health issues as well:

  • GMOs — When we first started, the average person in the U.S. did not know what GMOS were. Now, not only do they know but they are also aware how dangerous they are. Your support has allowed FOIA requests to be filed that produced critical evidence resulting in juries awarding plaintiffs billions of dollars from Bayer/Monsanto, with another 13,000 cases pending and a possibility of bankrupting this evil giant.
  • Dental mercury — Charlie Brown has coordinated worldwide bans on the use of mercury in dentistry that has already resulted in banning mercury in dentistry in many countries, with the likely complete elimination of amalgam within the next few years.

Again and again, we see “controversial” and “contentious” stances proven prudent and correct given enough time for sufficient science to accumulate. It’s important for you to recognize that your donations to these organizations through the years have allowed these successes to manifest. The latest JAMA Pediatrics study brings us another major step forward in the process to eliminate water fluoridation.

Editors compare anti-fluoridation to anti-vaccine sentiments

As noted by JAMA Pediatrics editor-in-chief, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, in the JAMA podcast (embedded above):

“Before there were anti-vaxxers there were anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency in my early professional career was, ‘fluoride is completely safe and all of these people trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health and we need to push back and get it into every water system’ …

So, when I first saw this title [‘Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada’], my initial inclination was, ‘What the hell?”

Christakis goes on to express shock at the discovery that only 3% of European residents, while 66% of Americans and 38% of Canadians drink fluoridated water (statistics noted in the JAMA Pediatrics paper26), as he was under the assumption that all developed countries fluoridated all their water supplies. This just goes to show the general ignorance that still exists even among well-educated health professionals.

Christakis and JAMA Network Open editor-in-chief Dr. Frederick Rivara also express mutual surprise that the effect of water fluoridation on IQ was so great. They point out that a 5-point reduction is significant indeed, as it’s “on par with lead.”

Christakis goes on to discuss the fact that there have been other studies suggesting fluoride may be a neurotoxin. “Which, again, was totally news to me. I thought it was junk science,” he says. Rivara agrees, saying such studies have in the past been likened to “junk” anti-vaccine science.

Christakis admits he struggled with the findings — basically because of his preconceptions of the science. He certainly did not want to be the one putting out “junk science” that might lead to a deterioration of children’s dental health. This is precisely why the study was put through additional reviews to make sure the methodology and findings were sound. In the end, the research was solid enough to pass the tests.

It’s interesting to hear Christakis and Rivara talk about their struggle to accept the idea that water fluoridation may be harmful — at the very least until the child starts developing teeth. But even toddlers may be harmed, the pair admit, as toddlers and young children’s brains are still developing.

It’s even more interesting to hear them equate their struggles to that of the vaccine safety question for, indeed, the very same struggle to accept the idea that vaccines can cause harm is identical to the struggle to accept that water fluoridation may be damaging our children.

Both are considered unassailable public health victories, and no one wants to entertain the idea that we may inadvertently be causing grave harm on a populationwide basis. Yet that’s a very real probability, as this study shows (and many others as well).

Fluoride is an environmental pollutant as well

Overall, it makes absolutely no sense to fluoridate municipal water supplies. First of all, it’s forced medication without oversight — there’s no way to ascertain the dosage any given person is getting, or what effect it’s having on their health.

When it comes to fetuses and infants, water fluoridation is useless, as there’s no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest it has a beneficial impact on future dental health, and it certainly does not make sense to “prevent cavities” in those without teeth.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the fluoride in the water never ever touches a tooth. It’s simply flushed down the drain, becoming an environmental pollutant. As noted by Edward Groth III, a staff officer on the Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, with the National Research Council back in 1975:27

“Environmental contamination by fluorides exposes many organisms to potentially toxic effects and may exert some stress on the ecological interrelationships among plant and animal populations … [T]he available evidence does support the view that fluorides are pollutants with considerable potential for producing ecological damage.”

Groth’s article, “Fluoride Pollution,”28 which appeared in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, summarizes the ecological impacts of low-level fluoride pollution, pointing out fluoride has been found to accumulate in the bodies of insects, birds and mammals, in some cases to potentially toxic levels, thus increasing fluoride levels in the food chain as a whole.

There are also reports of toxic effects in algae and freshwater vertebrates, and “indications that aquatic vegetation may also concentrate the element.” Substantial amounts of fluoride are also entering farmland, where it’s taken up by soil organisms.

“Possible conversion of fluoride into fluoracetate (more toxic than fluoride itself and related organic forms), and the likelihood that fluoride may enter into synergistic actions with other contaminants, greatly expand the potential for ecological damage by low-level fluoride contamination,” Groth writes.29

Water fluoridation is a clear form of water contamination

It’s also important to realize that the fluoride added to our water is an untreated industrial waste product from the fertilizer industry — not a pharmaceutical grade product — that is suddenly deemed a health product once it’s purposely added to water.

As long as the chemical is on the premises of a fertilizer company, it’s actually classified as hazardous waste, requiring costly disposal measures to comply with hazardous waste regulations.

This fluorosilicic acid is frequently contaminated with lead, arsenic, uranium, radium, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. In other words, water fluoridation can be likened to a legal water contamination scheme.

For a review of the oft-neglected history of water fluoridation, read through “Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,30 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University. As noted in “Toxic Treatment:”

“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

There’s also very little evidence to suggest water fluoridation actually has a beneficial impact on tooth decay, while there’s unequivocal evidence of harm, as it causes dental fluorosis. Origins writes:31

Only a handful of countries fluoridate their water — such as Australia, Ireland, Singapore, and Brazil, in addition to the United States. Western European nations have largely rejected the practice. Nonetheless, dental decay in Western Europe has declined at the same rate as in the United States over the past half century …

This is not to vilify the early fluoridationists, who had legitimate reason to believe that they had found an easy and affordable way to counter a significant public health problem.

However, the arguments and data used to justify fluoridation in the mid-20th century — as well as the fierce commitment to the practice — remain largely unchanged, failing to take into account a shifting environmental context that may well have rendered it unnecessary or worse.”

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.




Rapid Expansion of Erratic & Destructive Global Weather

In this episode of Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, Dane connects many dots linking hidden controllers, governments, academia and elites to the destruction of our planet.

Topics discussed include:
  • Our air is being systematically contaminated by sources that are hidden from the public.
  • Microplastic pollution have been found in snow from again the Arctic to the Alps.
  • Micro plastics and polymers are present in cancerous human lung tissue.
  • Covert climate engineering operations, known scientifically as Solar RadiationManagement (SRM), involved jet aircraft spraying of heavy metal, chemical and polymer nano particulates into the atmosphere for the stated purpose of blocking some of the sun’s incoming thermal energy — for the stated purpose of slowing down global warming.
  • Aluminum, barium, strontium, and other toxic heavy metals are all climate engineering elements, all highly toxic, all are showing up in lab tests of precipitation all over the world.
  • The intentional dumping of tens of millions of tons of toxic particles in the atmosphere, part of SRM operations, is the biggest single source of incredibly dangerous atmospheric particulate pollution of all.
  • Vaccines and fluoride are discussed as assaults on human health.
  • Geoengineering is linked to collapsing food supplies.
  • Censorship and surveillance are being used to control the masses.
  • We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. ~  Krishnamurti

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history. ~ Mahatma Ghandi

 


Source: Geoengineering Watch

by Dane Wigington
August 17, 2019

 

Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, August 17, 2019, #210 ( Dane Wigington )

https://youtu.be/MQBYfGw-qdQ?list=PLwfFtDFZDpwtijqkJiOyc-WJOaGWOfVGG

 

Extreme heat and haze continues here in Northern California, while plastic particles are being found in the air from Colorado to the Alps, and even in the Arctic.

Weather all over the world is becoming rapidly more erratic and destructive.

What factors are playing a part in the complex weather/climate equation?

How can we know what we are not being told by any “official” source?

Who gets to decide what is “real” news, and what is not?

What happens when governments know they can no longer hide dire unfolding scenarios from the public?

The totality of converging challenges that we collectively face is daunting. Can we yet make a difference for the better?

Waking populations to the wider horizon is imperative, that task will require the effort of all who are awake and aware already.

Share credible data from a credible source, make your voice heard, make every day count.

Dane Wigington

 

 




Activist Post Applies for NewsGuard’s Coveted “Conspiracy” Blacklist

Source: Activist Post

 

Activist Post Response To NewsGuard’s Request About Editorial Practices

by Activist Post Editors
August 16, 2019

 

Activist Post is being considered for NewsGuard’s exclusive “conspiracy” news blacklist. They recently contacted us about our editorial practices to see if we qualify for this great honor. For those who don’t know, NewsGuard is creating warning labels to protect you from misinformation on the interwebs. They’re very credible with a former Director of CIA and Secretary of the DHS on their board.

Activist Post came from humble beginnings as a free Blogger site during the wild days of the Internet. Back then, Facebook recklessly allowed grown adults to freely discover and share content without any filters or pseudo-state fact checkers. Feral humans could feast on any information they desired. Greedy advertisers didn’t care about your political leanings or if you believed in chemtrails. It was a level playing field for independent bloggers to compete in the marketplace of ideas. As a result, millions consumed Activist Post content without knowing it can turn their minds into gravy.

Because someone may be exposed to untruths on the Internet, warning labels are just common sense. A wise man named Morpheus once said “Most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to defend it.” That’s why we support NewsGuard’s mission of “restoring trust and accountability” in news.

And, if we’re being honest, landing on another conspiracy blacklist would give us major street cred. Imagine an upstart “truther” blog trying to compete with us without NewsGuard’s mark. Imagine anyone seeking to question the official narrative of events. Who are they going to trust? That’s right, a NewsGuard certified conspiracy site.

Editorial Practices

Activist Post does exactly opposite of the corporate media: we ask questions, research, and give our honest take on events. Our agenda is to expose corruption and promote peace and individual liberty.

Our information-gathering process begins by wearing our most comfortable pajama pants, making fresh Costa Rican coffee, and taking a deep drag of sativa cannabis to get the creative juices flowing. Then we examine the corporate media to find which lies piss us off the most. We expose those lies with data and sources, and explain why they threaten peace and freedom. Rinse and repeat.

For instance, every source that NewsGuard labels as “trusted” produces a constant stream of lies and propaganda to promote more war abroad and a nanny police state at home.  Their pathetic journalism and naked agenda gives us an endless supply of content.

Conspiracy Credentials

  1. We don’t believe the official story of September 11th. Building 7 and all. We don’t know what really happened, but it seems clear that someone in power “hated us for our freedoms” judging by how many we lost following that event. Ask your NewsGuard advisors Tom Ridge and Michael Hayden for more details about spying on all Americans without a warrant and molesting innocent people at airports after 9/11.

  2. We think the official reasons for going to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iran are complete bullshit. Non-existent WMDs and humanitarian bombs to spread democracy, really? Some alternative sources claim they’re about resource control which seems plausible. However, we go even further. We believe the cabal wants to gain control of the few remaining independent central banks on earth. After all, why occupy nations by force when you can enslave them through phony debt? And somebody’s got to protect the US dollar from competition, right?

  3. We think the left-right political paradigm is manufactured to give people the illusion of choice. It’s never been more obvious that politics is a reality show. Incidentally, democracy doesn’t ensure freedom anyway, especially when the public is brainwashed with only one narrative.

  4. We believe central banking and the fractional reserve system makes politics irrelevant.

  5. We think the war on drugs is immoral, illogical, ineffective, and criminally harmful. It destroys more lives than drugs themselves. And it’s a convenient excuse for government to violate the rights of peaceful people. It appears to be a conspiracy too.

  6. We are pro-choice for vaccines. We oppose forced medication. Gasp!

  7. We don’t think CO2 is a pollutant.

  8. Our YouTube channel was terminated before it was cool for saying sex robots were objects, not subjects. It must’ve triggered the robot censors presumably because it thinks it’s alive.

  9. We were labeled “Russian Propaganda” for publishing unfavorable things about Hillary Clinton. A claim we admitted to here.

  10. We have acquired “Strong Conspiracy” ratings from other agencies:

  • MediaBiasFactCheck about Activist Post – “Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.”

  • Washington University academic paper features Activist Post as one of the “Influential Domains in Alternative Narratives.”

  • SourceWatch labels us a conspiracy site for the books we recommend. Whatever you do kids, don’t read these books.

  • RationalWiki says Activist Post’s specialty is “left-wing conspiracy-mongering.”

  • US News and World Report says Activist Post is a “fake news site to avoid at all costs” citing FakeNewsWatch.com, a site that no longer exists likely due to civil lawsuits…

We hope this is enough to qualify for NewsGuard’s conspiracy warning. The label would help us keep undesirables away. We only want free-thinking individuals who prefer peace, love and liberty at Activist Post. Close-minded, indoctrinated tools who want more war, hate, and oppression will have a safe space at NewsGuard’s green-check websites.




Americans Can Handle an Open Discussion on Vaccines—RFK, Jr. Responds to Criticism from His Family

from Children’s Health Defense

 

CHD NOTE: In early May 2019, Politico Magazine published an article written by three of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s relatives, criticizing his advocacy for safe vaccines. After numerous requests, Politico magazine has refused to publish his response.

 

by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
August 15, 2019

 

Three of my Kennedy relatives recently published an article criticizing my advocacy for safe vaccines. Our contentious family dispute highlights the fierce national donnybrook over vaccinations that has divided communities and raised doubts about the Democratic Party’s commitment to some of its defining values: abhorrence of censorship, wariness toward excessive corporate power, support for free speech, religious freedom, and personal sovereignty over our bodies, and the rights of citizens (codified in the Nuremberg Code and other treaties to which we are signatories) to decline unwanted government-mandated medical interventions. The debate has also raised questions about the independence of our press and its role as a champion of free speech, and First Amendment rights as a bulwark against overreaching by government and corporations.

I love my family and sympathize with their anxieties when I call out government officials for corruption. The Kennedys have a long, close, and continuing relationship with public health agencies so it is understandably difficult for us to believe that powerful regulators would lie about vaccines. “All issues are simple,” the saw goes, “until you study them.”

Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.

 

My skepticism

I’ve arrived at my skepticism after 15 years spent researching and litigating this issue. I have watched financial conflicts and institutional self-interest transform key sectors of our public health bureaucracies into appendages of the very pharmaceutical companies that Congress charged them to regulate.

Multiple investigations by Congress and the HHS Inspector General have consistently found that an overwhelming majority of the FDA officials directly charged with licensing vaccines, and the CDC officials who effectively mandate them for children, have personal financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers. These public servants are often shareholders in, grant recipients from, and paid consultants to vaccine manufacturers, and, occasionally, patent holders of the very vaccines they vote to approve. Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.

HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.

The pharmaceutical industry also enforces policy discipline through agency budgets. FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations.  And CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents  and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. Further, Pharma directly funds, populates and controls dozens of CDC programs through the CDC foundation.  A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.”

HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on. For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties. Furthermore, under the 1986 Act that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, HHS is the defendant in Vaccine Court and is legally obligated to defend against any claim that a vaccine causes injury. Despite high hurdles for recovery, HHS pays out hundreds of millions of dollars annually (over $4 billion total) to Americans injured by vaccines. Hence, if HHS publishes any study acknowledging that a vaccine causes a harm, claimants can use that study against HHS in Vaccine Court. In June 2009, a high-level HHS official, Tom Insel, killed a $16 million-dollar budget item to study the relationship between vaccines and autism by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Insel argued that petitioners would use these studies against HHS in vaccine court.

Such conflicts are a formula for “agency capture” on steroids. “Instead of a regulator and a regulated industry, we now have a partnership,” says Dr. Michael Carome, a former HHS employee who is now the director of the advocacy group Public Citizen. Carome says that these financial entanglements have tilted HHS “away from a public health perspective to an industry-friendly perspective.”

In 1986, Congress—awash in Pharma money (the pharmaceutical industry is number one for both political contributions and lobbying spending over the past 20 years) enacted a law granting vaccine makers blanket immunity from liability for injuries caused by vaccines. If vaccines were as safe as my family members claim, would we need to give pharmaceutical companies immunity for the injuries they cause? The subsequent gold rush by pharmaceutical companies boosted the number of recommended inoculations from twelve shots of five vaccines in 1986 to 54 shots of 13 vaccines today. A billion-dollar sideline grew into the $50 billion vaccine industry behemoth.

Since vaccines are liability-free—and effectively compulsory to a captive market of 76 million children—there is meager market incentive for companies to make them safe. The public must rely on the moral scruples of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer. But these companies have a long history of operating recklessly and dishonestly, even with products that they must market to the public and for which they can be sued for injuries. The four companies that make virtually all of the recommended vaccines are all convicted felons.  Collectively they have paid over $35 billion since 2009 for defrauding regulators, lying to and bribing government officials and physicians, falsifying science, and leaving a trail of injuries and deaths from products they knew to be dangerous and sold under pretense of safety and efficacy.

Doesn’t it require a kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that vaccines are untainted by the greed, negligence, and corruption that bedevil every other pharmaceutical product?

For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.

 

No safety testing

Such concerns only deepen when one considers that, besides freedom from liability, vaccine makers enjoy another little-known lucrative loophole; vaccines are the only pharmaceutical or medical products that do not need to be rigorously safety tested. To win an FDA license, companies must safety test virtually every other drug for years in randomized comparisons against an inert placebo. Yet, not a single vaccine currently on the CDC schedule was tested against an inert placebo. Without placebo testing, regulators have no capacity to assess a medicine’s risks. During a January 2018 deposition, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world’s most influential vaccinologist, acknowledged that researches who try to ascertain vaccine safety without a placebo are in “La La land”. According to Dr. Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “It is the marketing department, not the science, that is driving the research.”  It seems plain wrong to me that Democratic-controlled legislatures across the country are frantically passing coercive mandates for pharmaceutical products for which no one knows the risks.

Furthermore, safety testing, which typically requires five or more years for other medical products, often lasts only a few days with vaccines—not nearly long enough to spot cancers or chronic conditions like autoimmune disease (e.g., juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis), allergic illnesses (e.g., food allergies, allergic rhinitis, eczema, asthma), or neurological and neurodevelopmental injuries (e.g., ADD, ADHD, narcolepsy, epilepsy, seizure disorders, and autism). Manufacturers’ inserts accompanying every vial of mandated vaccines include warnings about these and over 400 other injuries including many serious immune, neurological, and chronic illnesses for which FDA suspects that vaccines may be the cause. Federal law requires that the package insert for each vaccine include “only those adverse events for which there is some basis to believe that there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.”

Many of these illnesses became epidemic in American children after 1986, coterminous with the exploding vaccine schedule. For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.  Evidence including HHS’s own surveillance reports, manufacturers’ inserts, and peer-reviewed studies link all of these injuries to vaccines. However, the associations are not definitive because CDC has failed to conduct the necessary randomized studies to prove or disprove causation.

HHS has directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) to oversee the CDC’s vaccine safety science. IOM has repeatedly rebuked the agency for failing to study whether vaccines are causing these epidemics. In my experience, vaccine proponents rarely cite specific peer-reviewed studies to support their assertions that all vaccines are safe, relying instead on appeals to authority; CDC, FDA, WHO, or the AAP. My relatives, for example, argue that vaccines are safe because WHO, HHS, CDC, and FDA say so. But HHS designated the IOM as the ultimate arbiter of vaccine safety. And IOM says that the existing scientific literature does not support these claims.  Despite requests by the IOM, CDC has steadfastly refused to perform safety studies.

In total, three IOM reports (19911994, and 2011/2012) investigated 231 adverse events associated with vaccines. For 34 conditions, IOM found that the evidence supported a causal connection between the vaccine and the adverse event. But for 184 adverse events, fully 80% of the conditions reviewed, the IOM found that HHS’s evidence was inadequate to accept or reject vaccine causation. How can our public health officials claim safety when there is no follow-up research on reported adverse events?

… the  IOM [Institute of Medicine now the National Academy of Medicine] study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.

 

Autism and vaccines

Let’s drill down on bedrock dogma that science has thoroughly debunked any links between autism and vaccines. That assumption is so engrained that media ridicules anyone who questions this orthodoxy as a dangerous heretic. But, look for a moment, at the facts. In 1986, Congress specifically ordered CDC to determine if pertussis-containing vaccines (DTP, later DTaP) were causing autism.  Then, as today, many parents with autistic children were claiming that vaccines were a cause of their child’s autism and DTP/DTaP vaccines were/are a popular suspect.

On its website, CDC declares that, “Vaccines don’t cause autism,” citing IOM’s comprehensive 2011/2012 literature review of vaccination safety science. However, the IOM study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.  The same is true for Hep B, Hib, PCV 13, and IPV. The only vaccine actually studied with regard to autism is MMR, and a senior CDC scientist claims the CDC did find an increased rate of autism after MMR in the only MMR/autism study ever conducted by the CDC with American children. Moreover, HHS’s primary autism expert recently provided an affidavit to the DOJ explaining that vaccines can cause autism in some children.

Autism has grown from about 1 in 2,500 prior to 1986 to one in 36 among vaccine generation children today. Why are we content with the CDC’s claim that the exponential explosion of autism is a mystery? CDC spares no expense systematically tracking the source of 800 measles cases. But when asked about the cataclysmic epidemic of upwards of 68,000 new autism cases annually, CDC shrugs. Why are we not demanding answers? “CDC is paralyzed right now when it comes to anything to do with autism,” explains former senior vaccine safety scientist Dr. William Thompson, who is still a CDC employee. Thompson told Congressman Bill Posey under oath that CDC bigwigs ordered him to destroy data that showed a link between autism and vaccines and to publish a fraudulent study dismissing the link. Today, he is remorseful, “When I see a family with a child with autism, I feel great shame because I have been part of the problem.”

… there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported.

 

We are killing children

HHS has also ignored its statutory obligations to study vaccine injuries and improve vaccine safety. In 1986, Congress—recognizing that drug companies no longer had any incentive to make vaccines safe—ordered HHS to study vaccine injuries, work to improve vaccine safety, and report to Congress on its progress every two years. A year ago, I brought a lawsuit that forced HHS to admit that in 36 years it had never performed any of those critical studies.

Post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance is also in shambles. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), to which doctors and patients may voluntarily report adverse vaccine events, received 58,381 reports in 2018, including 412 deaths, 1,237 permanent disabilities, and 4,217 hospitalizations. An HHS-funded review of VAERS concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS. This suggests that there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported. The CDC has nonetheless refused to mandate or automate VAERS reporting.

Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children.

On March 9, 2019, Dr. Peter Aaby issued a scathing rebuke to the world’s public health agencies for continuing to allow pharmaceutical companies to sell vaccines without proper safety testing.  Dr. Aaby, who has authored over 300 peer-reviewed studies, is one of world’s foremost authorities on WHO’s African vaccine program and the winner of Denmark’s highest honor for health care research. Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children. For thirty years, doctors, including Aaby, never noticed the danger because vaccinated children were succumbing to illnesses and infections apparently unrelated to the vaccine. It turns out that while the vaccine protected children from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it so badly weakened their immune systems that they were dying in droves from unrelated infections. The researchers concluded: “The DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.”  In March, an alarmed Aaby plead for a policy change, “Most of you think we know what our vaccines are doing. But we don’t…. We are killing children.”

The world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule has not given our country the world’s healthiest children. We now rank 35th in overall health outcomes—just behind Costa Rica, making the U.S., by most measures, including infant mortality, the sickest in the developed world. In addition to those 400 chronic diseases and injuries that FDA suspects may be vaccine related, the vaccine generation suffers unprecedented levels of anxiety and depression and behavioral disorders running the gamut from aggression to anorexia. Peer-reviewed animal and human studies have linked all these symptoms to vaccines. The present generation is the first in a century to lose I.Q., having suffered an extraordinary drop of seven points.  Researchers concluded that some environmental cause is the trigger. In the U.S., SAT and, more recently, bar exam scores are plummeting. Could these declines be the outcome of injecting virtually every child with multiple doses of two of the world’s most potent neurotoxins—mercury and aluminum—in bolus doses beginning on the day of birth? Shouldn’t we be doing the research to reject this hypothesis? The logical approach to doing so would be to compare health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. For years, public health officials, including the IOM, have urged CDC to conduct such studies.

In 2013, the IOM found that, “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes… between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children…. Furthermore, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.” In a 2008 interview, former NIH Director Bernadette Healy explained that HHS refuses to perform safety studies out of fear that they will expose dangers, “that would scare the public away” from vaccines.  Healy continued, “First of all, I think the public is smarter than that… I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

… the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.

 

Media malpractice

The suppression of critical safety science documented by the IOM would not be possible without a mass epidemic of media malpractice. Mainstream and social media outlets which collectively received $9.6 billion in revenues from pharmaceutical companies in 2016 have convinced themselves they are protecting public health by aggressively censoring criticism of these coercively mandated, zero liability, and untested pharmaceutical products.  But, the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.  Muzzling discussions of government corruption and deficient safety science and abolishing vaccine injuries by fiat is not a strategy that will solve the growing chronic disease epidemic.

The children who comprise this badly injured generation are now aging out of schools that needed to build quiet rooms and autism wings, install wobble chairs, hire security guards and hike special ed spending to 25% to accommodate them. They are landing on the social safety net which they threaten to sink. As Democratic lawmakers vote to mandate more vaccines and call for censorship of safety concerns, Democratic Presidential candidates argue about how to fix America’s straining health care system. If we don’t address the chronic disease epidemic, such proposals are like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The good news for Pharma is that many of these children have lifelong dependencies on blockbuster products like Adderall, Epi-Pens, asthma inhalers, and diabetes, arthritis, and anti-seizure meds made by the same companies that made the vaccines.

My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate.

My belief that all or some of these injuries might be vaccine related has been the catalyst that wrenched so much of my focus away from the environmental and energy work that I love, and prompted me to become an advocate for vaccine safety. I have sacrificed friendships, income, credibility, and family relationships in an often-lonely campaign to force these companies to perform the tests that will definitively answer these questions.

People will vaccinate when they have confidence in regulators and industry.  When public confidence fails, coercion and censorship became the final options.  Silencing critics and deploying police powers to force untested medicines upon an unwilling public is not an optimal strategy in a democracy.

My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate. What we need is science, not censorship. I am not anti-vax. I am pro-safety and pro-science. I want robust, transparent safety studies and independent regulators. These do not seem like the kind of radical demands that should divide our party or our families. As Americans and Kennedys, we ought to be able to have a civil, science-based debate about these legitimate concerns.

 




Aluminum, The Smoking Gun: Author of Retracted Aluminum Adjuvant Sheep Study Speaks

Source:  The Highwire

 

Lluís Luján from the Department of Veterinary Pathology University of Zaragoza, Spain is a respected researcher. But when his study with sheep showed disturbing behavior changes when injected with aluminum adjuvants, his paper was suddenly retracted. Read the emails and watch the interview below and judge for yourself if Luján experienced scientific censorship.


“This is the story of a scientific misconduct and editor & editorial corruption. An accepted paper in Pharmacological Research (Elsevier) was withdrawn last March 8th 2019 by the editor without a single reason other than non-declared conflicts of interest, fear of science and for sure pressure from external, not-revealed forces. You can read the story in the following emails and make your own conclusions. Our paper links the use of aluminum as vaccine adjuvant with behavioral changes in sheep and it must be extremely relevant to the field of vaccine safety that has forced them to behave in such a non-scientific, corrupted way.“

Lluís Luján
Department of Veterinary Pathology
University of Zaragoza, Spain


Del Bigtree’s interview with Lluís Luján:

 

https://youtu.be/q7x-tYmiwfk

 

THE SMOKING GUN: ALUMINUM – Symbol AL | HighWireTalk with Del Bigtree

Video Notes:

How a Shocking Aluminum Study Was Censored;

Research Scientist Injured During Merck’s Gardasil Trial;

Prof. Chris Exley “Aluminum is a Greater Threat Than Global Warming.”

At the center of the safety of vaccines is aluminium.

Join the HighWire as we look at aluminium from the 13th Keele Meeting on Aluminium held in Mexico.

Scientists come together to look at the dangers of aluminium. Everything we use contains aluminium, so we need to make sure it isn’t creating long term issues.

We interview Dr Lluis Lujan on the study he did around aluminium and pigs concerning vaccines and the causes vaccines containing aluminium had on these animals. Dr Lujan’s study was withdrawn before published. Today he is here to speak about his research.

In this episode, we speak to Sesilje Peterson, MSc, PhD about her experience of the Merck’s Gardasil Trial.

Prof Chris Exley joins to discuss aluminium and how it is “a Greater Threat Than Global Warming”.

Here is some more information on aluminium:

Symbol: Al

Atomic mass: 26.981539 u

Atomic number: 13

Density: 2.7 g/cm³

Melting point: 1,221°F (660.3°C)

Discoverer: Hans Christian Ørsted

Did you know: Aluminum is used to make aluminium soda cans, which are easily recycled to make new things as well as used in vaccines.




Chlorpyrifos: Playing Pesticide Politics with Children’s Health

Source: Children’s Health Defense

by the Children’s Health Defense Team
July 25, 2019

 

Chlorpyrifos—described by some as “the most dangerous pesticide you’ve never heard of”—is an insect-killing organophosphate. Organophosphates trace their roots back to Nazi-era IG Farben nerve gases; contemporary scientists still describe the compounds as “junior-strength nerve agents” that have a mechanism of action comparable to sarin. Dow Chemical—the company that helped bring the world mustard gas during World War I and napalm and Agent Orange during the Vietnam war—is the manufacturer of chlorpyrifos-containing insecticides.

In the U.S., the agriculture industry applies millions of pounds of chlorpyrifos annually to at least 50 major food crops. Farms around the world also use the chemical “heavily and ubiquitously.” Chlorpyrifos-sprayed crops include some of the foods most likely to be consumed by children, such as corn, soy, apples, oranges, strawberries and nuts. Researchers have linked both prenatal and postnatal chlorpyrifos exposure to brain damage even at the lowest detectable doses. They also note that exposure “is not limited to agricultural environments, as [organophosphates] are ubiquitous in food, dust, and air”—although adults and children who eat an organic diet display significantly reduced levels.

Flagging exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates as a risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and other developmental problems—including higher-order cognitive deficits, attention deficits, lower IQ scores and impaired working memory—concerned scientists have been sounding the alarm for quite some time. Yet, despite the substantial body of evidence documenting adverse effects not just on human health but also on wildlife and the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proclaimed on July 18 that it will take no action other than to “continue to review the safety of chlorpyrifos.”

… the agency admitted that it was unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos met federal safety standards.

A history of stonewalling

As the Union of Concerned Scientists has remarked, the EPA does not regulate chemicals “willy-nilly” but “usually has to be pushed, sometimes hard.” This observation may help explain the EPA’s erratic behavior and frequent stonewalling with regard to chlorpyrifos over the past two decades. For example, emerging health and environmental concerns prompted the slow-moving agency to disallow household uses of chlorpyrifos in 2000, but in 2006, the EPA did not hesitate to reauthorize the insecticide for widespread agricultural use.

In 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) petitioned EPA to ban chlorpyrifos, citing its neurotoxicity. The EPA ignored the petition until November 2015, when, under pressure from a federal court of appeals to respond to the petition, the agency admitted that it was “unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos” met federal safety standards. After hinting at the strong possibility that it would ban chlorpyrifos in or on food, the EPA received over 80,000 public comments supporting such a ban. Yet, even as sister countries such as the United Kingdomwithdrew their approval for most agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos around the same time, the EPA then made an about-face decision, rejecting the “science-based conclusion reached just a few months before.” The EPA also chose to ignore a 2017 report written by some of its own scientists (along with researchers at the Departments of Interior and Commerce), which concluded that chlorpyrifos was “likely to adversely affect” 97% of the nearly 2000 endangered species examined (1778/1835), including plants, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and others.

To explain the reversal, observers have pointed to massive lobbying by Dow Chemical in 2016—to the tune of $13.6 million—while also calling attention to meetings in this time frame between the company and Administration officials. In April 2019, noting the EPA’s 12 years of foot dragging on the NRDC/PAN petition, a federal appeals court again scolded the EPA, ordering it “to issue a final decision with respect to the petition objections within 90 days.” On July 18, the EPA complied with the court order by stating that it would do exactly…nothing.

… the authors noted that while the inherent toxic properties of pesticides warrant the strictest and most comprehensive risk assessment possible, regulators mostly rely on industry-driven research that often biases safety assessments in an industry-favorable direction.

Reliance on biased toxicity studies

Just half a year prior to EPA’s July 2019 reiteration of its do-nothing stance on chlorpyrifos, leading toxicology experts at Harvard, the Karolinska Institute and Stockholm University published a scathing critique of the chlorpyrifos regulatory review process. Writing in the journal Environmental Health, the authors noted that while the “inherent toxic properties” of pesticides warrant the strictest and most comprehensive risk assessment possible, regulators mostly rely on industry-driven research that often biases safety assessments in an industry-favorable direction.

And so it has gone with chlorpyrifos. The authors of the critique point to the multiple strands of evidence from independent studies (epidemiological, in vivo and in vitro) that consistently highlight “adverse health effects of chlorpyrifos exposure on the developing nervous system, associated with lowered IQ at school age,” noting that these harmful outcomes occur “at exposure levels far below those recognized to cause effects on brain development in an industry-funded developmental neurotoxicity…study commissioned for regulatory purposes.” Curious about the “divergence” in the conclusions of independent and industry-funded researchers, the Environmental Health authors obtained and examined the original raw data and study methods used by industry, identifying a number of omissions and irregular research practices that “inappropriately decrease the ability of the studies to reveal true effects.” Concluding that the test reports submitted by the chlorpyrifos manufacturer “may be misleading,” the authors state:

This discrepancy affects the ability of regulatory authorities to perform a valid and safe evaluation of these pesticides. The difference between raw data and conclusions in the test reports indicates a potential existence of bias that would require regulatory attention and possible resolution.

Moreover, the EPA has shown itself to be all too willing to ignore science or make do with manipulated science for other neurotoxins as well.

Par for the course

The EPA’s betrayal of its mandate to protect the public and the environment has prompted some to describe the agency as “a hall of funhouse mirrors,” where organizational goals get “distorted and twisted from their original form, reversed and turned upside down until you start to wonder what exactly was real in the first place.” Although some are portraying the EPA’s regulatory capture as a recent phenomenon, the agency’s decades-long chlorpyrifos saga reveals this assertion to be disingenuous. Moreover, the EPA has shown itself to be all too willing to ignore science or make do with manipulated science for other neurotoxins as well. In the fall of 2019, for example, a lawsuit against the EPA will move forward that faults the agency for its “exceptionally cavalier” (but industry-friendly) decades-long dismissal of the large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that the fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are neurotoxic.

Nor is the EPA the only captured federal agency “dominated by the industries it presumably regulates.” Accounts are legion of federal agencies predisposed to cater to corporate agendas rather than the public interest—including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and energy agencies. Without pressure from the citizens to whom they are ultimately accountable, it seems likely that these agencies will continue to place children’s health somewhere toward the bottom of their priority list.




U.S. Congress Bipartisan Vote for Pentagon to Be Investigated for Using Insects as a Biological Weapon

Source: Activist Post

By Aaron Kesel
July 26, 2019

 

In a real-life X-Files episode, United States House members are reportedly concerned in a bipartisan vote that the Pentagon may have unleashed biological weapons or entomological warfare in the form of ticks or other insects that caused the spread of Lyme disease.

Roll Call, a congressional-focused newspaper reports that on July 11th the House secretly decided through a voice vote to support adding an amendment to the 2020 defense authorization bill that would require the Department of Justice to look into whether the Pentagon/CIA/DoD umbrella weaponized ticks.

According to Roll Call, New Jersey Republican Rep. Christopher Smith wrote the amendment demanding the inspector general “conduct a review of whether the Department of Defense experimented with ticks and other insects regarding use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975.”

Smith, also ironically a co-chairman of the Congressional Lyme Disease Caucus, further told Roll Call,“We need answers and we need them now.”

First, let’s define biological warfare based on the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The definition of a BW agent is pretty clear:

Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.

It’s an indisputable fact that the U.S. has had a longstanding policy for human experimentation, experimenting on its civilian population for decades since the 1950s (Cold War) doing a total of 239 “germ-warfare” tests over populated areas, according to The Washington Post. Even before the Cold War and WW2, the U.S. was involved in eugenics experiments like forced sterilization for undesirables across at least 24 states — prior to even the Nazis being involved in the same practice years later.

In fact, there were a whopping 64,000 cases of forced sterilization in the United States, but this number does not take into account the sterilizations that took place after 1963. Around that time, women from different minority groups were singled out for sterilization in various different experiments. The number increases even more if the sterilizations after 1963 are taken into account, increasing the number of sterilizations in the United States to a massive 80,000. The documentary in the tweet below tells the tale.

 

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.

In 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge, according to an in-depth article on eugenics in the U.S. entitled “6.6: Eugenics in the United States.”

This author has previously written about one biological warfare project used during the Cold War, Operation LAC, or (Operation Large Area Coverage.)

Yes, this is your secret history of previous deep state experiments. The U.S. Army inside the continental United States, revealed by a professor of sociology at St. Louis Community College, Lisa Martino-Taylor, experimented by spraying zinc cadmium sulfide particles over much of the U.S. across several cities including St. Louis and Texas; that project was known as Operation LAC (Large Area Coverage.)

To recap, the U.S. Army also secretly tested carcinogenic chemicals on unknowing residents of Canada in Winnipeg and Alberta during the Cold War in testing linked to weaponry involving radioactive ingredients meant to attack the Soviet Union, as Activist Post reported.

The incidents occurred between July 9, 1953, and Aug 1, 1953, when they sprayed six kilograms of zinc cadmium sulfide onto unsuspecting citizens of Winnipeg from U.S. Army planes. The Army then returned 11 years later in 1964 and repeated the experiments in other parts of Canada including  Suffield, Alta. and Medicine Hat, Alta., according to Lisa Martino-Taylor, National Post reported.

Even further, the United States held open-air biological and chemical weapons tests in at least four states – Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland and Florida – during the 1960s in an effort to develop defenses against such weapons, according to Pentagon documents. According to the documents, artillery shells and bombs were filled with nerve agents like sarin and VX gas.

These tests were part of Project 112, a military program in the 1960s and 1970s to test chemical and biological weapons and defenses against them. Parts of the testing program done on Navy ships were called Project SHAD, or Shipboard Hazard and Defense, Miami Herald reported.

The CIA also did several unethical human experiments in the United States. In one instance they injected radioactive material into hospital patients without their consent at all. Other experiments were performed on pregnant women in Nashville who were given a radioactive iron cocktail to ingest so that researchers could determine if cancer could be passed on to their offspring. Even children were fed radioactive oatmeal as part of a “science club,” Martino-Taylor said.

The previous report didn’t note whether the experiments in Canada were connected to Operation LAC, though it has several similarities to the project. It also wasn’t mentioned whether this was a bigger part of Project 112. However, for years the Canadian government has denied that it tested any bioweapons in Alaska and Alberta, as well as spraying “simulated bio-weaponry across North American cities, including Winnipeg.

Pathogens for War, by University of Western Ontario historian Donald Avery, notes that Canadian scientists were intimately involved in U.S. bioweapons research until 1969 when then-president Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the program. Significant quantities of toxins, including sarin and the nerve agent VX, were stockpiled at Canada, Suffield until at least 1989, The Star reported.

The United States allegedly scrapped its biological weapons program in the late 1960s and agreed in a 1997 treaty, the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons” to destroy all its chemical weapons.

The goal “was to deter the use of biological weapons against the United States and its allies and to retaliate if deterrence failed,” the government explained. “Fundamental to the development of a deterrent strategy was the need for a thorough study and analysis of our vulnerability to overt and covert attack.”

For years many rumors have surrounded New York’s Plum Island and Maryland’s Fort Detrick (the same base that anthrax originated from that was used in an attack on media and politicians after 9/11) may have infected insects for biological weapon tests and then released those insects outside of the lab in a live experiment, leading to the spread of viruses/diseases.

Fort Detrick is home to Battelle’s Top Secret Bio laboratory the (National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center – NBACC) under a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contract for the last decade. Battelle was awarded a $344.4 million federal contract (2006 – 2016) and another $17.3 million contract (2015 -2026) by DHS.

There are three main forms of entomological warfare – insects directly used as weapons, insects used to destroy crops, and insects used as vectors to inflict disease, according to Ryan C. Gott, Ph.D.

Early History Of Entomological Warfare:

R.K.D. Peterson in 1990 at the University of Nebraska detailed the history of insects allegedly used as biological weapons also known as entomological warfare (EW) throughout history. (archived.)

According to Peterson, the American Civil War from 1861-1865, marked the first instance of alleged use of an insect as a weapon of war. The Confederacy accused the Union of deliberately introducing the harlequin bug, and Murgentia histrionica, into the South.

Tremendous crop damage resulted in the South because of this pest. This allegation was never proven, and it now appears that the harlequin bug moved on its own into the South from Mexico. However, humans may have aided in the movement of this pest.

Disease relationships (microbial and insect vector) were elucidated in the early twentieth century. As soon as the mechanisms were known, military planners began to apply them as possible warfare agents.

The next alleged use of insects as a biological weapon that is notable was in 1943 when Adolf Hitler agreed to establish an SS biological weapons research station at Posen. As the Russians got closer to the research station, work then accelerated at the station, but no real advances were made before the Russians occupied the station on March 1945.

At the Posen BW research station, the Germans performed work on diseases such as the plague, cholera, typhus and yellow fever.  They also performed experiments on the feasibility of using insects such as the Colorado potato beetle to attack Allies’ potato crops. The Germans were accused of dropping cardboard boxes filled with Colorado potato beetles over England from 1941-1943, according to research by Peterson. However, the containers were never recovered, but abnormalities associated with the presence of the beetles prompted Sir Maurice Hankey, head of Britain’s biological warfare effort, to write a memo to Winston Churchill airing out his concerns.

That’s not the only alleged insect biological weapon; as British invasion fears grew after the successful evacuation from Dunkirk, rumors spread that the Germans had created an omnivorous strain of grasshopper which would soon starve the British into surrendering. It turned out that this was a myth. However, the fact that Nazi doctors used human subjects for experiments into insect-borne diseases is no myth. Concentration camp inmates were intentionally infested with typhus-infected lice by SS doctors at Natzweiler, Dauchau, and Buchenwald. Many of these doctors and scientists were sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal after the war.

There was also several attacks launched against China by Japan from 1939-45; plague-infected fleas were disseminated directly out of aircraft or via specialized bombs that deployed the fleas. In 1944, an assault team was assembled to sprinkle plague-infested fleas around the Saipan airfield, which the Americans held at the time. However, that operation was stopped after the ship carrying the assault team was sunk by an American submarine and the experiment was never accomplished. But just because that attack failed doesn’t mean that other attacks didn’t.

Potentially one of the most disturbing cases involves Dr. Shiro Ishii a microbiologist and a Japanese army medical officer during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. As Ishii moved through the ranks, Ishii was placed in charge of building and running Unit 731, a top-secret biological weapons research and development facility, The Guardian reported.

Unit 731 was established in northeast China in a Japanese puppet state on nearly 6 square kilometers of land. Officially, Unit 731 operated as a water purification plant and lumber mill, part of the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army. Ishii and others working at Unit 731 would eventually kill well over 10,000 Chinese citizens and prisoners of war (POWS.) If that’s not enough, the scientists referred to their victims as maruta or “logs,” both of which referenced the cover story of being a sawmill and revealed their complete disregard for the lives of the people they tested.  Unit 731 investigated, among many deplorable things, the best disease and vector combinations to attack an enemy and the best way to introduce that vector, via water supply, air, and through insects, i.e. entomological warfare.

The Soviets also ran experiments with fleas in Mongolia before and during the war. In one account, political prisoners and prisoners of war were chained in tents with pens of diseased rats until the subjects were bitten by disease-infected fleas. Supposedly, in the summer of 1941, one of the prisoner/experimental subjects escaped and began an epidemic that was controlled only because the Soviets then bombed the entire Mongol community.

In 1952, China accused the U.S. of engaging in germ warfare against the people of North Korea. The Chinese began producing large amounts of evidence which suggested that the U.S. was spreading bacteria-laden insects and other objects over the Korean countryside.

Also, various plagues suddenly appeared in areas where there had not been a single documented plague for over 500 years.

Chinese entomologists accused the U.S. of distributing disease-carrying anthomyid flies, springtails, and stoneflies with P-51 fighters. Also, accusations were leveled stating that America was contaminating areas with plague-infested rats and fleas, and anthrax-infected flies and spiders. In all, the U.S. was accused of dropping ants, beetles, crickets, fleas, flies, grasshoppers, lice, springtails, and stoneflies. The alleged associated diseases included anthrax, cholera, dysentery, fowl septicemia, paratyphoid, plague, scrub typhus and typhoid, according to Peterson.

The Chinese also set up an international scientific commission for investigating the facts about bacterial warfare. The commission, consisting of scientists from all over the world, ruled that the United States probably did engage in limited biological warfare in Korea.

In 1962, General Stubbs went on the record and admitted to Congress that insect strains were being developed that were resistant to insecticides.

Finally, in 1969, President Nixon stated for the unilateral destruction of biological weapons. Just three years later, the U.S. signed on to the Biological Weapons Convention, which banned the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and acquiring of biological weapons. In 1975, the U.S. also signed the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which further banned the use of these weapons in war. The treaties, however, do not ban research by nations, which in the U.S.’s case may mean it continued the entomological warfare experiments it started on fleas, rats and other creatures that were used as carriers of diseases.

Covert Operations Using Entomological Warfare:

In 1970 and 1972, Sand Fly Fever tests were performed on humans according to a declassified U.S. Army report – US Army Activities in the US, Biological Warfare Programs, 1977, vol. II, p. 203. During the operation known as Whitecoat volunteers were exposed to bites by infected sand flies.Operation Whitecoat was a bio-defense medical research program carried out by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland between 1954 and 1973.

For decades, the U.S. Army examined whether infected mosquitoes could be used to kill our enemies in “entomological warfare.”

Some of the most notable entomological warfare experiments include – Operations Drop Kick, Big Buzz, May Day, Whitecoat, Big Itch and Bellweather. And these are just what are public knowledge and declassified.

“In these excerpts from a March 1981 Army report, you can marvel at how much it would have cost to launch a yellow fever-infected mosquito attack on a city (with a handy ‘Cost per Death’ chart included!),” Smoking Gun writes. (archived)

Smoking Gun also wrote an in-depth article analyzing the documents (here.)

Operation Whitecoat: Infected flies tested to bite humans.

Operation Big Itch: Field tests were performed to determine coverage patterns and survivability of the tropical rat flea Xenopsylla cheopis for use as a disease vector in biological warfare.

Operation Big Buzz: 1 million A. Aeugupti mosquitoes were produced, 1/3rd were placed in munitions and dropped from aircraft, or dispersed on the ground. The mosquitoes survived the airdrop and actively sought out human blood according to the experiment.

Operation May Day: Aedes Aegupti mosquitoes were dispersed in Georgia, USA.

Operation Bellweather: The U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Command, Biological Weapons Branch, studied outdoor mosquito biting activity in a number of field tests at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, in 1960. Virgin female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which had been starved, were tested on soldiers out in the open.

Still, parts of the 1981 U.S. Army report such as the “Mass production of Aedes Aegypti” have not been declassified like Operation Drop Kick which was fully redacted. This means the experiments could still be ongoing under a different name or the same operation moniker.

Aedes Aegypti, also known as yellow fever mosquito, has been widely used in U.S. military operations. The same species of mosquitoes are alleged to be the cause of dengue, chikungunya and even the Zika virus.

If the current review by U.S. Congress determines that the Pentagon has created insects as biological weapons, the House is demanding that the inspector general must present Congress with information including “whether any ticks or insects used in such experiments were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment design.” It is an unnerving truth that the government may be responsible for having unleashed a custom-made pathogen as part of a biological human experiment.

Synthetic Biology And Manmade Viruses

Even if by accident (which is less likely given the deliberate releasing of insect weaponization above), that’s not so bizarre either. In 2009, the German news agency Spiegel reported that a Swine Flu container exploded on a train in Switzerland. This may have been what was behind the outbreak of Swine Flu during the same year despite denial in the article.

In the midst of global fears of a swine flu pandemic, a container with swine flu exploded on a train carrying over 60 people.

Luckily, however, it was not the mutated swine flu virus that has killed around 150 people in Mexico. The police quickly reassured the public that there was no danger of any infection.

Likewise, China also had an incident of an outbreak which resulted in five top officials of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) punished for the outbreak of SARS. The investigation found that the release of the virus was due to the negligence of two CDC employees who were infected and not deliberate, China Daily reported.

In 2017, scientists at the University of Alberta put together from scratch a relative of the smallpox virus, the horsepox virus, Scientific American reported. Although not deadly to humans, or horses for that matter, the fact remains that such a feat can be accomplished by scientists.

In 2014, another scientist – Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison – genetically manipulated the 2009 strain of pandemic flu virus H1N1 Swine Flu in order for it to “escape” the control of the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies, effectively making the human population defenseless against its reemergence, Independent UK reported. 

That same year, scientists at the same University in Wisconsin-Madison headed by Kawaoka created a life-threatening virus that closely resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50 million people, which was condemned by their colleagues as “crazy.”

Last year, a major U.S. government report from  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine warned that advances in synthetic biology now allow scientists to have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. The report did not mention entomological warfare weapons.

The Guardian reports:

In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, “enhances and expands” opportunities to create bioweapons. “As the power of the technology increases, that brings a general need to scrutinize where harms could come from,” said Peter Carr, a senior scientist at MIT’s Synthetic Biology Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts.”

The report calls on the U.S. government to rethink how it conducts disease surveillance, so it can better detect bioweapons, and to look at ways to bolster defenses, for example by finding ways to make and deploy vaccines far more rapidly. For every bioweapon the scientists consider, the report sets out key hurdles that, once cleared, will make the weapons more feasible.

The Guardian references one of the first believed cases 20 years ago where geneticist Eckard Wimmer of Stony Brook University in New York recreated the polio virus in a test tube. Also occurring last year, a team at the University of Alberta built a vaccine for their infectious horsepox virus. “The virus is a close relative of smallpox, which may have claimed half a billion lives in the 20th century,” reports The Guardian. “Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesized.”

A book published earlier this year titled Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons—predated the House call for an investigation. This book may have inspired Smith to propose the bipartisan amendment that is co-sponsored by Maryland Republican Andy Harris and Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson who are echoing the calls for an investigation.

Another book that is recommended reading by this reporter and that was used in excerpts of writing this article is Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War. by Jeffrey A. Lockwood, a professor of natural sciences and humanities at the University of Wyoming.

If the U.S. used vector-borne diseases such as plague (carried by fleas), yellow fever and malaria (mosquitoes), typhus (lice), Q fever (ticks), and dysentery (flies) in conflicts from the Napoleonic campaigns through World War I, what was stopping the continuation of those entomological warfare experiments until the modern-day era on ticks with Lyme disease? The answer is: absolutely nothing.  It’s clear that the Pentagon’s umbrella in the military was experimenting on entomological warfare, and now the government needs to compensate millions of Americans who may have been infected from the covert release of pathogens piggybacked on insects and animals alike.


Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support them at Patreon.




Acid and Alkaline Foods: The Real Story

Source: Orthomolecular Medicine News Service

by Robert G. Smith, PhD and Andrew W. Saul
July 18, 2019

 

Alkalizing foods are sometimes believed to be healthier because they prevent acid buildup in the body. This is a myth. [1-3]

Alkalizing foods such as vegetables, fruits and nuts are healthy: not because they prevent acid buildup, but because they contain more essential nutrients, fiber, and a healthy balance of carbohydrates and fats. [3]

Foods in the diet contain a variety of biochemicals and essential nutrients. Some foods are acid, some neutral, and some alkaline. During digestion, all foods are acidified by very powerful stomach acid. In the metabolic process, some foods such as meat, cheese, fish, and eggs generate acid (low pH). Other foods such as vegetables, fruits, and nuts cause alkalinity (high pH).

How your body manages pH

The pH of the blood and body organs is kept within very tight limits near 7.4 (between 7.35 to 7.45). This is accomplished by several mechanisms. The pH of blood and body organs is largely controlled by the level of carbonic acid (H2CO3), which is in equilibrium with the bicarbonate ion (HCO3-). More carbonic acid in the blood plasma causes lower pH, and less carbonic acid causes higher pH. [4]

CO2 CO2 + H2O H2CO3 H+ + HCO3
(gas) (dissolved)

 

On the scale of seconds to minutes, pH is regulated by the rate of breathing. Faster breathing exhales more carbon dioxide from the lungs. Since carbonic acid in the blood is in equilibrium with carbon dioxide in the lungs, faster breathing removes acidity from the body, causing higher pH.

On the scale of hours to days, pH is also regulated in the kidneys by less or more excretion of bicarbonate and other ions such as ammonia, causing the urine to be more or less acidic. Acid urine is the natural consequence of eating foods that contain acid or generate acid in the metabolic process. Mountain climbers must breathe faster to get enough oxygen, but this causes their blood to lose carbonic acid and become more alkaline. Indeed, too alkaline. They must often rest at high altitudes for several weeks to allow their kidneys to secrete enough sodium bicarbonate to lower the pH to normal. [4,5]

While pathological relative acidity (pH ~7) is a problem, the healthy body carefully controls pH to keep it in the physiological range (~7.35 – 7.45). That includes the effect of acid foods and acid-causing foods. The body regulates blood pH by breathing faster (to increase pH), by breathing slower (to reduce pH) and by excreting acid or alkaline components into the urine to keep the pH within range. For example, when you consume ascorbic acid (vitamin C), the urine turns acidic but the blood will not. Yes, the ascorbic acid was absorbed into the body and bloodstream. But the blood nevertheless maintains a constant pH of 7.35- 7.45.

The process of maintaining a nearly constant level of acidity is done automatically by the body. We may not always know why we breathe faster or slower — there are a multitude of reasons — but one is to maintain a close control of blood acidity. It is not necessary to be concerned about acidity of the body or the urine when choosing foods to eat. Antacids taken to lower the acidity of the stomach will interfere with normal digestion and absorption of food, including magnesium, which is deficient in a majority of people who eat the “modern diet,” especially the elderly. [6]

Cancer and acidity

Some have believed that eating foods that cause acidity can promote cancer because cancer thrives in an acidic environment. In the early 20th century, Otto Warburg and others found a correlation between cancer and low blood pH. We now know that cancer can thrive in a low-oxygen environment because it stops using the citric acid cycle and instead metabolizes sugar by fermentation, releasing lactic acid. It is now generally agreed that Warburg got the cause and effect in reverse. That is, many types of cancer thrive in low-oxygen environments (e.g. tumors without much blood supply) because they don’t require oxygen to utilize sugar as an energy source. Then when the cancer releases lactic acid (which requires oxygen to be fully metabolized) the body pH goes down. The acid is an effect, not a cause for cancer. [7-9]

There may be some interaction between a low-oxygen environment and cancer, because when cancer cells are evolving due to mutations in DNA, the mutant cells in a tumor that thrive without oxygen are the ones that grow the fastest.

Other normal body cells can survive for a while without oxygen. For example, retinal photoreceptors in some animals go virtually anoxic every night and rely on fermentation of glucose. [10,11] They release lactic acid which the body very effectively counteracts to prevent the blood pH from going lower than 7.35. Muscle cells generate lactic acid in intense exercise because their need for ATP is greater than can be supplied by the citric acid cycle. When lactic acid accumulates in the blood, we get “tired” and need some time to recover. The body accomplishes this by oxidizing the lactic acid with the citric acid cycle. [4]

However, the situation is more complicated than this. In a way, oxygen is a poison. Reactive oxygen species (ROS), oxidized molecules of many types, are a severe problem for all cells, and can cause genetic mutations in DNA. [12-14] Scientists of Warburg’s time didn’t know about all these details. Cancer was once thought to be one specific disease, but we now know that it is not one disease but many. There are thought to be many initiating factors, among them ROS, other toxins, and radiation. Some other types of mutation-causing mechanisms even originate within normal cells.

However, Warburg was correct in believing that toxins are a major cause of cancer, which in later stages can lead to pathological acidity in the body. And he was correct in believing that nutrients from vegetables in the diet are a big boost to the body’s recovery — and can help to prevent cancer and other progressive diseases. So in retrospect, his later emphasis on removing toxicity and supplying a healthy diet with lots of vegetables was correct. It just turns out that the diet heavy in vegetables is “alkalinity-generating.”

An excellent diet

An excellent diet can comprise a variety of foods including moderate portions of: high-protein foods such as meat, eggs, and fish; high-fat foods, including cheese, butter, nuts, avocados; small portions of starchy carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, sweet potatoes, and brown rice; a variety of colorful vegetables eaten raw such as tomatoes, carrots, radishes, peppers, salad greens; generous portions of cooked colorful vegetables such as winter squash, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, green beans, kale/collards; and fruits such as oranges, cherries, berries, kiwi, peaches, and apples. The proportion of different foods may be important for individual choice or biochemistry.

Rationale for supplements

When served a portion of processed carbohydrates such as white rice, bread, or pasta, that is made from grain products that do not contain the original whole-grain components, it is prudent to eat only a small quantity and balance that with a portion of fat-containing food if possible. Then, take supplements containing the nutrients that were lost in the processing, such as magnesium, B vitamins, and vitamins C and E in adequate doses. And eat healthy portions of vegetables whenever possible.

(Dr. Robert G. Smith is Associate Research Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and is Associate Editor of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service . He is the author of The Vitamin Cure for Eye Diseases and coauthor of The Vitamin Cure for Arthritis . Andrew W. Saul, OMNS founder and Editor-in-Chief, has coauthored four books with Abram Hoffer, MD, and is editor of the textbook The Orthomolecular Treatment of Chronic Disease. )

The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent those of all members of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service Editorial Review Board. OMNS welcomes submissions of drafts taking varying positions, which may be emailed to the contact address below.

References

1. Alkaline diet. US News and World Report. https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/acid-alkaline-diet .

2. Collins S. (2018) Alkaline Diets. https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/alkaline-diets .

3. Blackburn KB. (2018) The alkaline diet: What you need to know. https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/the-alkaline-diet–what-you-need-to-know.h18-1592202.html

4. Gropper SS, Smith JL. (2013) Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. Chapter 9: Integration and Regulation of Metabolism; Chapter 12: Water and Electrolytes. Wadsworth, Belmont CA. ISBN-13: 9781133104056.

5. West JB (2006) Human responses to extreme altitudes.Integrative and Comparative Biology, 46:25-34. doi:10.1093/icb/icj005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672720

6. Dean C (2017) The Magnesium Miracle, second edition. Ballantine Books, ISBN 9780425286715.

7. Quora. (2016) Why does Krebs cycle not occur in cancerous cells? https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Krebs-cycle-not-occur-in-cancerous-cells

8. Isaacs T. (2016) What Otto Warburg Actually Discovered About Cancer. https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/otto-warburg-cancer

9. Piepenburg D (2014) Acid – Alkaline Balance and Cancer: The Truth Behind the Myth. http://mnoncology.com/about-us/practice-news/acid-alkaline-balance-and-cancer-the-truth-behind-the-myth .

10. Yamamoto F, Borgula GA, Steinberg RH. (1992) Effects of light and darkness on pH outside rod photoreceptors in the cat retina. Exp Eye Res. 54:685-697.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1623953 .

11. Linsenmeier RA. (1986) Effects of light and darkness on oxygen distribution and consumption in the cat retina. J Gen Physiol. 88:521-542. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3783124 .

12. Winslow RM. (2013) Oxygen: the poison is in the dose. Transfusion. 53:424-437. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03774.x. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22804568 .

13. Gebicki JM (2016) Oxidative stress, free radicals and protein peroxides. Arch Biochem Biophys. 595:33-39. doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2015.10.021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27095212 .

14. Dizdaroglu M, Jaruga P. (2012) Mechanisms of free radical-induced damage to DNA. Free Radic Res. 46:382-419. doi: 10.3109/10715762.2011.653969.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22276778 .


Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive linkhttp://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.




Laughing All the Way to the Bank: Vaccine Makers and Liability Protection—Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health: Part III

Source:  Children’s Health Defense

by the Children’s Health Defense Team
May 23, 2019

 

[Note: This is Part III in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

…the unprecedented health crisis beleaguering American children began around the same time that Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

When it comes to telling the story of vaccine injuries and how frighteningly commonplace they have become, denial, censorship and lies seem to be ruling the day—for now. However, future public health historians will surely acknowledge that the unprecedented health crisis beleaguering American children began around the same time—1986—that Congress let the genie out of the bottle by passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).

While the Act marked a depressing turning point for American children and their families, it was a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. The industry protections offered by the Act—which essentially awarded vaccine makers blanket immunity from liability for injuries resulting from childhood vaccines, “no matter how toxic the ingredients, how negligent the manufacturer or how grievous the harm”—sparked a gold rush of vaccine development.

By the close of 2017, analysts valued the highly consolidated global pharmaceutical market at over $1.1 trillion (U.S. dollars).

The big four

The Act’s banishment of liability as a business worry catapulted vaccines from a “neglected corner of the drugs business” into a major economic driver of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. In the U.S., four companies have been the principal beneficiaries of the no-liability business environment for childhood vaccines. The four pharmaceutical giants—GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi Pasteur—manufacture every vaccine on the U.S. childhood schedule. In addition to the “big four,” companies such as Seqirus and MedImmune(AstraZeneca) have been crowding into the increasingly lucrative adult vaccine market.

By the close of 2017, analysts valued the highly consolidated global pharmaceutical market at over $1.1 trillion (U.S. dollars). The four leading vaccine makers ranked third, fifth, sixth and seventh globally in terms of total revenues. All four also registered increases in annual revenue from 2017 to 2018–5%-6% for Merck and GSK and 2%-3% for Pfizer and Sanofi.

 

Manufacturers of Vaccines for Children and Adolescents in the U.S.

 

The companies’ strong vaccine sales helped ensure these record profits. For example, Pfizer’s $136-a-shot Prevnar-13 vaccine (with four doses advised before preschool age) earned the company nearly $4 billion in a single year, “about double what it made from high-profile drugs like Lipitor and Viagra.”

There are also other factors working in favor of record-breaking vaccine profits, outlined in a 2014 report in The New York Times on “soaring” vaccine prices. These include:

  • Market entry of new vaccines at “once-unthinkable” prices
  • Reformulation of old vaccines with a higher price tag
  • Requirements for multiple doses and boosters
  • Monopoly market positions for some vaccines
  • Patents on manufacturing processes (vaccine patent applications rose “tenfold in the 1990s to more than 10,000”)
  • Guaranteed purchases by the federal government (Vaccines for Children Program)
  • Guaranteed coverage by private insurance and the Affordable Care Act, meaning that “patients often do not notice the prices.”

Convicted felons

None of the leading vaccine manufacturers are strangers to lawsuits or large financial settlements for drugs in their product line that, unlike vaccines, are subject to courtroom liability. Over the past decade, in fact, GSK, Pfizer, Merck and others have paid out billions in punitive settlements for products deemed to be deceptive or harmful. In the case of Merck, the company’s payouts included $950 million in federal fines following evidence of a “deliberate corporate conspiracy” related to its bestselling painkiller Vioxx. The FDA approved the drug in 1999, but Merck reluctantly withdrew it from the market in 2004 after studies showed that it doubled serious health risks and had resulted in at least 60,000 deaths. Merck pleaded guilty to criminal charges over its illegal marketing of Vioxx and settled 27,000 lawsuits for $4.85 billion.

Dubbed by some as the “Help Pay for Vioxx” vaccine, Gardasil has been a major revenue booster.

Merck enjoys a unique monopoly position for four vaccines, including its blockbuster human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil vaccine and both measles-mumps-rubella vaccines (MMR and MMR-plus-varicella or MMRV). Merck brought Gardasil to market in the aftermath of the Vioxx scandal. Dubbed by some as the “Help Pay for Vioxx” vaccine, Gardasil has been a major revenue booster. In a single quarter of 2016, for example, in which Merck posted a profit of $2.2 billion, the company saw a 38% jump in sales of HPV vaccines (due to “increased pricing and demand”). Similar trends have been evident for Merck’s other vaccines, with a 27% increase in MMRV vaccine sales in the same quarter of 2016 after the CDC added the vaccine to its pediatric stockpile. Growing global vaccine sales, including in China, helped Merck continue to “beat Wall Street expectations” in 2018.

What, me worry?

From a consumer standpoint, Merck’s track record with Vioxx raises the question of whether the American public can believe the company’s claims about the safety of its vaccines. Can a company that confessed to illegal activity and paid out almost $5 billion to settle lawsuits for a drug it knew to be harmful be considered trustworthy when it markets expensive and profitable vaccines such as Gardasil? The same question can be asked regarding the other vaccine manufacturers.

In 2007, Merck had to recall over a million doses of two childhood vaccines because it “could not guarantee the products’ sterility.” A year later in 2008, an investigation by the Philadelphia Inquirer described an unpublished FDA review of one of Merck’s largest U.S. vaccine plants, which identified contaminated children’s vaccines and a failure to follow good manufacturing practices. The review noted 49 areas of concern in all. What was the plant leadership’s response to the FDA’s troubling findings? “Nobody’s perfect.” Considering that pharmaceutical companies want to continue injecting our children with liability-free and largely untested vaccines from pregnancy on, this executive’s cavalier attitude hardly inspires confidence.

In our FREE eBookConflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health, CHD takes the position that conflicts of interest and unethical behavior encumber the key public and private players involved in U.S. and global vaccination programs to such an extent that public skepticism is not only understandable, but justified. The loss of confidence in vaccine safety must be addressed with independent, unbiased science. As we publish subsequent parts of the eBook, we will illustrate how lack of integrity and ethical betrayals are impeding sound public health policy and vaccine safety science, while gravely undermining children’s health.




Xenobiotics in Vaccines: The Place to Start REAL Scientific Investigations

Source:  Natural Blaze

by Catherine J. Frompovich
May 19, 2019

 

Since vaccine issues are ramping up on both sides of that unique ‘political spectrum’, i.e., legislation introduced almost daily at both state and federal levels, which specifically mandate vaccines while adding penalties for not submitting oneself or one’s children to “poison darts” called vaccinations, AND consumer push-back more evident now than ever, I thought it might be helpful to understanding and to discussing intelligently the topic of toxic vaccines and their ingredients [XenobioticsIF there were broader or more comprehensible information, including definitions of just what is in most, if not all, vaccines.

Thanks, and a big hat tip to Eileen Dannemann for sharing recent information wherein I found a most significant file titled “Vaccine Ingredients” published online by WAVE (Worldwide Association For Vaccine Education) embedded wherein vaccine ingredients are listed alphabetically along with their chemical signatures; possible/probable adverse health effects and/or reactions; and even their common industrial uses.

However, I think the list, for as extensive as it is—220 entries, probably is not complete since no recombinant DNA [DNA that has been formed artificially by combining constituents from different organisms (online Dictionary)per se are listed; no growth mediums, e.g., vaccine growth “broths” per se, as listed in the CDC pink book of Excipient and Media Summary”; nor what probably could be termed “trade secrets ingredients,” which are certain elements that gain or guarantee U.S. patents as “proprietary secrets.” Even FDA and CDC may not know what they are!

WAVE’s alphabetical chemical listing includes the following number of entries:

# 1; A 21; B 6; C 8; D 14; E 4; F 6; G 8; H 13; I 8; K 1;
L 7; M 24; N 4; O 2; P 25; R 3; S 30; T 12; V 20; X 1; Y 2
[It’s a great resource to save and introduce as part of any vaccine discussion.]

To my way of thinking, an in-depth, analytical science discussion—not consensus science as practiced by the CDC, FDA and Big Pharma—must become the basis for considering ANY legislative actions regarding vaccines/vaccinations since they, by their very chemical natures, violate basic human rights, regardless of “herd or community immunity,” an impossibility since diseases have ways of outsmarting and morphing into other organisms.

No one—not even governments, as the Nazis in World War II found out—can get away with using humans as guinea pigs to determine ‘science research data’, even for national security projects! Wasn’t that what the Nuremberg trials after World War II were supposed to have established?

However, I really don’t think so. The United States government, under Project Paperclip, for all intents and purposes, performed and still is carrying on ‘weaponized medicine’ experiments.

Are vaccines a part of that agenda?

Should we and/or Congress ask that question of the U.S. military?

The only way to find out is to hold the U.S. Congress accountable for the 1986 Vaccine Law, plus demand Congress exercise its oversight powers, instead of being cozy friends with Big Pharma’s lobbyists who generously donate and fund pro-vaccine Congress members’ election campaign coffers.

See Database details drugmakers’ contributions to Congress”

“Contributions help keep the door open for company lobbyists,” said Brendan Fischer, Director, Federal Reform Programs at the Campaign Legal Center.

Here’s a website that can give you the contributions any member of Congress received from Pharma: Pharma Cash To Congress. Have fun!




RFK, Jr.: Gardasil “The Science” Video and Other Jaw-Dropping Facts

Source:  Children’s Health Defense

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—“Many of the things I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they weren’t true. And, if they are not true, then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that. And they won’t do that because in the United States, truth is an absolute defense against slander.”

 

https://youtu.be/aluDs5SQjD8

 

This must-watch video details the many problems with the development and safety of Merck’s third-highest grossing product, Gardasil. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD’s Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel, ask that you watch and share this video so that you, and others, may make an informed decision of whether or not to give your child, boy or girl, a Gardasil vaccine. It can also be a useful tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine, that is actually causing health problems with young people, could have been approved by FDA and then recommended by CDC. The video is full of jaw-dropping facts about Gardasil and the clinical trials leading up to its release upon an unsuspecting public.

 


Transcript of “The Science” presentation:

Download “The Science” Transcript

Read transcript below images.










 

Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Science Day Presentation for Gardasil

 

Hi, I’m Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I’m making this video for the sake of parents who are trying to make an informed decision of whether or not to give their child, their boy or girl the Gardasil vaccine.

I’m also making this video as a tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine—if it’s actually causing all of these problems with young girls—could have been approved by FDA and then mandated by CDC.

Virtually all of the things that I’m going to talk about in this video are available to the public on public documents as I’m going to show.

Finally, I want to say this about Merck which is the company that makes the Gardasil vaccine.

Many of the things that I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they were not true. And if they’re not true then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that and they won’t do it because in the United States truth is an absolute defense to slander. And second of all Merck knows that if they sue me, I’m going to immediately file a discovery request, and many, many, more documents are going to emerge that illustrate even more fraud by this company on the American public and the people all over the world.

Finally, as a footnote I’m not going to talk today about the specific biological mechanisms that allow this vaccine to cause harm in human beings. That information is out there it’s in dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific documents. Many of these are described on our website and I urge people to go to the Children’s Health Defense website to educate themselves on those issues.

Today we’re going to talk about the clinical trial about Merck’s fraud in that process…and this is Merck’s claim:

The HPV vaccine will “eliminate cervical cancers and other HPV associated cancers.”

The danger of dying from HPV cancer in this country is 1 death in 43.5 thousand people.

Imagine you have a deck of cards but instead of 50 cards. There’s 43,500 on a on a big, big table and one of those cards is a black card. If you get that, you die.

So, Merck’s deal is that it’s going to remove that black card from the deck. But in order to play the game and make sure that Merck removes the black card, everybody who participates has to put in $420 because that’s the cost of the three-dose Gardasil vaccine.

So, here’s Gardasil by the numbers. So, the cost of the three-jab series average is about $420. There are 76 million children who essentially have been mandated by CDC to receive these vaccines. A blockbuster product from Merck, and global revenues from this vaccine today are about $2.3 billion dollars. It’s the third largest product in the company’s inventory.

The cost of saving one American life is 18.3 million dollars. People could argue whether or not that’s a reasonable value of a human life. What I would say was is that the criteria that we should use for evaluating reasonableness—is there a cheaper way to save more lives? And people would argue that Pap smears are the most effective way that 80 percent of cervical cancer deaths have already been eliminated by Pap smears. And this is the most effective technology.

Incidentally in another context HHS has already put a value on human life and the value is $250k. That is the maximum number that the vaccine compensation program will pay for killing an American citizen.

Prior to marketing the vaccine, the FDA licenses the vaccine, and in that licensing process Merck had to show that the vaccine was safe. According to Federal regulations the word “safety” means “relative freedom from harmful effects, taking into consideration the character of the product in relationship to the condition of the recipient at that time.”

So, what is the condition of the recipients of that target group for this vaccine. And this vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens, for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Cervical cancer’s median age of death is 58. It is first diagnosed at age 50 (median).

A teenage girl or boy has zero chance of dying of this illness. Which means the threshold for giving this medication is very, very high.

Secondly it is mandated in some jurisdictions So the government is actually—government officials are actually—coming in and ordering people to take this medical intervention. So, we have to be sure that the threshold for risk, “the risk profile” for that medical intervention should be very, very low.

Third, unlike other medical interventions Gardasil recipients are perfectly healthy. So, when you give medication to a healthy individual you have to make sure that the risk profile is practically zero. And in order to determine risk, there is a standardized protocol. And it’s called double-blind placebo studies. What does that mean?

It means that the drug company that’s trying to license this product gives the medication to one group of people, maybe 5,000 or 10,000 people, and gives a placebo, an inert placebo, either an identical looking pill that is inert—it’s either saline or sugar—to a similarly situated group of 5,000 or 10,000 people and it’s double blind meaning that neither the patients nor the researchers knew who got the placebo and who got the actual medication.

And you can see here, here’s what the NIH says about the National Institute for Health placebos: an inactive substance that looks like a drug.

So here are typical examples:

Lipitor was given during its study phase to about 17k subjects. Half of them received Lipitor half of them received a sugar pill that looked identical to Lipitor and they were observed and studied for up to 3.3 years.

Why for so long? Because many of the injuries that are caused by medication are latent—they don’t show up for two or three or four or five years cancer for example may not show up for four or five years after the exposure. Autoimmune diseases and allergies and these kind of things take a long time to diagnose. Enbrel for that reason was delayed for 6.6 years and against a control group that received a saline injection.

Botox, there was a national emergency to get Botox to market so people could get their wrinkles cured, was studied for 51 weeks and it was studied against a saline injection.

Now I’m going to show you one of the really outrageous frauds that Merck committed during the clinical trials. This is an insert that is part of every vaccine package. And you can go on the Internet right now and look up that Merck product and search and find these two tables.

In the initial table you can see a there are three columns and this is a table that just looks at injuries at the vaccine site for redness and itching and bruising and pain at the vaccine site and they use one…there were 5,000 girls—5,088 girls who got the Gardasil vaccine.

Number two, there were 3,470 girls who got the AAHS control, what is that? That is the adjuvant in the vaccine. That is a toxic neurotoxin, that’s put in the vaccine to make it more long-lasting to provoke an immune response in the subject of the vaccine.

And most people believe that it is that aluminum adjuvant that is causing all of these injuries in the girls who are getting the vaccine. And there were 3,470 people who received just the neurotoxin with no antigens and no other vaccine components.

And you have a third group which is the placebo group. What I want you to look at is at these numbers. That in the Gardasil and AAHS control there is virtually the same number of injuries.

And when you get to the saline placebo, that injury rate is cut in half.

Now let’s go to the table where they talk about real systemic injuries…autoimmune diseases, and instead of showing us real science, which is to show us what happened to the saline group, they hide the saline group as a way of fooling you, your pediatrician and the regulatory agency by compressing it into the aluminum group and they never tell us. They say this is a combination of the aluminum adjuvant and the saline placebo. They don’t tell us how many in each category were compressed there. The real thing that you need to watch here is what happened.

These are all very, very serious injuries. These are injuries that in some cases people would feel were worse than death—and that affect people and debilitate for a lifetime in many cases.

And if you look at the bottom of the Gardasil group an astonishing 2.3 percent of the girls in the clinical study who received the Gardasil vaccine got ill from autoimmune diseases, many within seven months of taking the vaccine.

And look what happened in the aluminum group—the same number exactly. 2.3 percent.

Nobody, no parent would allow their daughter to take a substance that had a one-in-40 chance of giving them a lifetime disability.

World Health Organization says that using a spiked placebo, or a faux-cebo as Merck did with Gardasil, puts you at a methodological disadvantage that “it may be difficult or impossible to assess vaccine safety.”

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed the polio vaccine…who developed the pertussis vaccine, who developed the rotavirus vaccine—the Stanley Plotkin award is the Nobel Prize of vaccinology it’s given to the top vaccinologist every year—and what he says is:

Unless you have a true control group you are in LA LA LAND.

Finally, the American Medical Association says the absence of double-blind placebo testing and short-term studies of chronic disease are “the indicia of marketing masquerading as science.”

And that’s what Merck gave us.

The Cochrane Collaboration—thirty thousand scientists from all over the world who came together to create an independent assessment of medical protocols which they saw as being increasingly controlled by the industry—The Cochrane Collaboration said the use of active comparators probably increased the occurrence of harms and the comparative group thereby masking harms created by the HPV vaccine.

And that indeed was Merck’s point…to hide those harms.

So, if you do the math women are 100 times more likely to suffer serious adverse events from the Gardasil vaccine than they are to be protected from cervical cancer.

So now we have a very different bargain in this card game that we’re playing with Merck.

If 43 thousand cards and the black card—the death card is gone—but now, there are a thousand blue cards which if you pick one of those by mistake you have a good chance of getting an autoimmune disease. Nobody would take that bargain.

So, in order to get the FDA license to market this vaccine Merck did a number of studies, which are called protocols. We don’t know how many they did because they’re not telling us they never disclosed it.

The one we’re most concerned with is protocol 18. The reason protocol 18 is critical is because that was the basis for FDA giving Merck the license to produce and market the vaccine.

Why is that? Because protocol 18 is the only one in which the target audience for this vaccine. 11- and 12-year old girls was actually tested, and had a control group. The other ones looked at big cohorts of women were 16 to 25-year old and 16 to 26-year old women.

Protocol 18 looked at girls and boys from ages 9 to 15. It was a total of 1200 children. and almost 600 controls. That is a very, very, tiny group of people to study in order to determine the safety of a product is going to be marketed to billions of children around the world.

Now I’m going to show you one of the key fraudulent flimflams that Merck used to get this license. FDA said they approved Gardasil based on protocol 18 because protocol 18 was of particular interest because it’s the only protocol in which Merck used a true saline placebo instead of the aluminum adjuvant as a control.

That’s what Merck told FDA and the CDC but Merck was lying. It actually did not use a true saline placebo. It used what Merck called the “carrier solution.” Which is all of the components of the vaccine except for the aluminum and the viral particles the antigen.

Among the compounds that we know were in the carrier solution are Polysorbate 80 which we have no idea what the safety profile is because it’s never been tested for safety independently in vaccines. Sodium borate which is borax which is banned by FDA in food products and all food products in the United States, and is banned altogether in Europe, genetically modified yeast, (there’s no safety test ever been done on it in vaccines) L-histidine, the same, and possibly DNA fragments.

I say possibly because we know there are DNA fragments in the final vaccine, we don’t know how they got there. And Merck has lied about the DNA fragments from the outset.

And despite these potentially toxic components of compounds that are in the vaccine, the 596 children that were given the carrier solution fared much better in the other than any other cohort in the study. The girls and boys who receive the carrier solution were the only significant cohorts with no serious adverse events for the first 15 days.

And here’s another one of the gravamen of the fraud that Merck committed in its Gardasil trials, but it turns out in the protocol 18 study, it appears Merck cut the amount of aluminum that was given to the vaccine group in half. They tested a completely different formulation. If true, we theorize that they took the aluminum out to reduce the number of injuries and to mask the really bad safety profile of this vaccine.

And since the protocol 18 data are not based on the Gardasil vaccine formulation, the trial itself constitutes rank scientific fraud.

Here’s another bag of tricks that was used by Merck in order to skew the clinical trials results in favor of Gardasil.

Merck and its researchers use what they call exclusion criteria—for example people who had zero allergies, people who had prior genital infections were thrown out of the clinical trials. People who had over four sex partners in their entire lives were excluded from the trials. Anybody who had a history of immunological or nervous system disorders, people with chronic illnesses and seizure disorders, people with other medical conditions, people who had reactions to vaccine ingredients including the aluminum, yeast and the benzonase. or anybody with a history of alcohol and drug abuse.

If you really wanted to know whether the vaccine was helping people—if it was effective—wouldn’t you want those people in your study wouldn’t you want people who had a genetic vulnerability to cancer in your study to see if it actually was capable of preventing cancer.

Then Merck had one catch all exclusion category which was any condition which in the opinion of the investigator might interfere with the evaluation of the study objectives. Well, that gave Merck and its paid investigators complete control to throw people out of the study who they thought might make the study look not successful. All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit the study to people who were like All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit this study to people who were like an elite club of superheroes…the people who get the vaccine are not the same people they tested on. They tested it on the Avengers. They didn’t test it on, you know, Joe Bag-of-Donuts … the people are actually receiving this vaccine in day to day life. And by doing that they were able to mask whatever injury might show up in a larger and more vulnerable population who are actually receiving the vaccine.

Experts used an arsenal of sloppy protocols to again, hide vaccine injuries. Among these, Merck gave report cards—the daily journal report cards— only to 10 percent of the people who they tested the vaccine on and told those people only make reports for 14 days after the injection. And the report cards were only designed to collect jab site information. So, redness, itching, bruising, fever.

And they ignored altogether the autoimmune diseases and menstrual cycle problems and fertility problems and pain and dizziness and seizures and all of the other things that we’ve now seen are associated with the vaccine. In fact, there are numerous girls who report that they were injured that they attempted to report those injuries to Merck, and that Merck rebuffed them.

Furthermore, Merck gave extraordinary discretion to its researchers to determine what was a vaccine injury in what was not a vaccine injury and because there was no inert placebo, it was completely within their discretion. If a girl came back with seizures or autoimmune disease or menstrual cycle problems they could just say to the girl, well that’s not related to the vaccine.

In some cases, we know that Merck actively covered up and lied about injuries that it had a duty to report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. For example, in the case of Christina Tarsell, a Maryland girl, who died from the Gardasil vaccine, Merck lied about that death in its official reports of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It told the system that Christina’s doctor had told Merck that her death was the result of a virus.

And the doctor adamantly denies that. Merck has refused to remove the misinformation from the VAERS system.

Furthermore, Merck lied to the girls who participated in these studies, telling them No.1, that the placebo was saline and that it contained no other ingredients. And No. 2, that the study in which they were participating was not a safety study. They were told that there had already been safety studies and that the vaccine had been proven safe.

What did this do for Merck? It made it so the girls were less likely to report injuries associated with the vaccine. Because they believed that the vaccine that they were receiving had already been proven safe and that any injuries they did experience maybe a month or two months or three months after the vaccine must be simply coincidental and had nothing to do with the vaccine.

Despite all of these efforts by Merck to discourage those from reporting vaccine injuries during the clinical trials, half of the girls in the Gardasil group and half of them in the aluminum adjuvant group reported serious injuries after receiving the vaccine.

In order to conceal the link between these injuries and the vaccine, Merck invented a brand new medical metric that had never been heard of before called “new medical conditions” and it dismissed all of these new injuries which affected 50 percent of the girls who received the vaccine and the adjuvant as “new medical conditions”, unrelated to the vaccines, simply sad coincidences.

Many of these diseases were serious diseases—blood lymphatic diseases, anemia, endocrine diseases, autoimmune diseases, G.I., Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, vaginal infections musculoskeletal injuries, arthritis, neoplasm, Hodgkin’s disease, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, depression, reproductive and breast disorders, menstrual irregularities, and pain. Over 3 percent of the girls—1 in 30—in both groups required surgical and medical procedures.

So, this card game that we’re playing with Merck has now become a really bad bet.

Merck has removed the one black card but you now have a 1 in 40 chance of drawing a blue card and getting an autoimmune disease that may afflict you for the rest of your life and you have a 1 in 2 chance of having some other serious medical condition.

So now let’s look at Merck’s central claim which is that the Gardasil vaccine will prevent cervical cancer.

Merck’s in a sweet position here, let’s face it because the target group vaccine is 11-year olds, and the median age of death for cervical cancer is age 58. Merck essentially is making this bargain.

It’s telling the 11-year old girl if you take our vaccine 47 years from now you won’t die of cervical cancer. And of course, that truth is you can’t make a vaccine that proves that it’s going to prevent cancer 47 years from now. There’s no way to test for that.

So, Merck used a shortcut. It said we’re going to prove that it prevents these what it called surrogate end points. The best thing that Merck had come up with was CIN2 and CIN3 lesions which it called precancerous lesions even though most of those lesions never mature into cancer.

So how can you call something precancerous when it was never going to turn into cancer?

And here’s what a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology said about Merck’s scheme: CIN3 is an imperfect diagnosis of precancer, and an intermediate surrogate for cancer.

Their own attorneys told them for these products, the indication is the surrogate, not the ultimate.  Promotion cannot make any claim, vis-a-vis the ultimate end point, based upon the fate of a surrogate endpoint.

Merck has another problem. Recent peer reviewed scientific studies indicate that perhaps only a third of cervical cancer cases are even associated with the HPV vaccine. That would completely put the lie to Merck’s claims that Gardasil is going to eliminate cervical cancer altogether.

So now we have a really dubious deal because we need to put that black card back in the deck because now, we have doubts about whether or not this vaccine can prevent cervical cancer at all.

But the news gets worse. Gardasil may actually cause cancer. Gardasil’s insert states Gardasil has never been evaluated for potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity. And Gardasil’s ingredients include possible carcinogens including human DNA.

And look at this…This is Merck’s own pre-clinical trial records and those records show that girls or women, who already had HPV—had been exposed at some point in their life to it—actually had a negative efficacy of 44.6 percent.

What is negative efficacy? It means those girls had a 44.6 increased risk of getting those precancerous lesions. To make things even worse, there are recent scientific studies that suggest a phenomena of what is known as type replacement—some 200 different strands of HPV, some of them are more cancerous than others, and the current HPV vaccine goes after 9 of those 200 viral types. What these studies indicate is by eliminating those particular strains of the virus it opens up an ecological niche in the woman so that more lethal and virulent viruses can actually colonize that spot and dramatically increase the risk of cervical cancer.

So now Merck’s deal is looking really grim. Not only do we have a one-in-40 chance of getting an autoimmune disease and a 50 percent chance of getting some serious medical condition but now the cancer risk has been reinserted and actually amplified.

And now let’s look at some of the non-cancer injuries that Merck found in its preclinical studies.

The miscarriage rate in the preclinical studies after Gardasil doubled the background rate. The birth defects in the Gardasil group were five times the rate of birth defects from the control group. As to reproductive disorders an astonishing 10.9 percent of the women in the pool group reported reproductive disorders within seven months of receiving Gardasil compared to 1.2 percent in the placebo group. The death rate in the Gardasil group and the clinical trials was 8.5 per 10 thousand.

Death risk from this vaccine according to Merck’s own studies is 37 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.

Oh, now look at the deal that Merck has offered us they’ve actually increased our risk of dying by 37 times.

So now let’s look at post-licensing surveillance. So, Merck can argue that we might have missed something in our pre-licensing studies but surely if there were any injuries being caused by this vaccine we would see them in post-licensing surveillance.

And the problem with that is that the post-licensing surveillance system, the principle one, is called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The system is a voluntary system that simply does not work. It’s broken. In fact, in 2010 HHS hired another federal agency the agency for healthcare research quality and a group of Harvard researchers to study Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and those researchers found fewer than 1 percent of adverse events of vaccines are ever reported.

But even under that system, Gardasil has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.

In fact, when you compare it to Menactra which is a meningitis vaccine that’s given to the same age group—teenagers—Gardasil had an 8.5 times more emergency room visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disabilities than Menactra.

The vaccine court which is within HHS has made awards for numerous deaths and very, very serious injuries from the Gardasil vaccine. So, HHS itself admits that this vaccine kills people and it’s given compensation to the families that were injured.

The same wave of serious injuries and deaths that have been seen in nations around the globe, when they adopt mandates for the Gardasil vaccine. Even Gardasil’s own insert, the package insert that the company provides, acknowledges that the injuries that can be caused by this vaccine include death, pancreatitis, fatigue, malaise, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, anaphylaxis, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, nervous system disorders, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, that’s brain injuries, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other neuron diseases, paralysis, seizures, Transverse myelitis, and vascular disorders.

In Australia, in 2015, the Australian Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration reported that the adverse rates in girls is 17 times the incidental rate for cervical cancer throughout their lifespan. The country only looked at a handful of conditions including demyelinating disorders, complex regional pain syndrome and premature ovarian failure. There are many, many other injuries that included hospitalizations that were not subject to that study.

India suspended its Gardasil trials after numerous deaths and serious injuries.

A south Asian Journal of Cancer found that “a healthy 16-year old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small, but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”

Japan de-recommended Gardasil three months after it had added the vaccine to the immunization schedule. Japan’s health ministry discovered adverse events reported after Gardasil’s approval were many times higher than other vaccines on the recommended schedule—these included seizures severe headaches partial paralysis complex regional pain syndrome and an undeniable causal relationship between persistent pain and the vaccination.

Japanese researchers found that the adverse event rate for the HPV vaccine was as high as nine percent and that pregnant women injected with the vaccine aborted or miscarried 30 percent of their babies.

In 2015 the Japanese Association for Medical Sciences issued official guidelines for managing symptoms of injuries caused by the Gardasil vaccine and the association announced there was no proof that this vaccine even prevents cervical cancer.

Alarmingly Merck’s own studies indicate that the Gardasil vaccine may disproportionately impact Asian women. For example, in protocol 19 there were 8 deaths among 3800 women and 7 those were Asians. That was 87 percent for Asian women, while only 31 percent of study participants were Asian.

Denmark in 2015 announced the opening of five new HPV clinics to treat women who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine. The day that they announced that opening there were 1300 applicants for treatment in those clinics.

In Colombia in 2014 800 girls in the town Carmen de Bolivar were grievously injured by Gardasil vaccine. Protests erupted all over Columbia. The attorney general of Colombia ordered the National Health Service of that country to immediately begin treating girls who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine and 2017 Colombia’s highest Constitutional Court ruled that the HPV vaccine would no longer be considered mandatory in Colombia and ordered that girls who showed symptoms after receiving the vaccine be given appropriate medical care.

Pompilio Martinez, who now teaches at the National University of Colombia, described the HPV vaccine as “a crime against humanity.”

Recent studies have shown that in nations with robust HPV vaccination programs and heavily vaccinated populations—in the UK and Sweden and Australia—were actually seeing dramatic upticks rises in the rate of cervical cancer rather than the downtrends that Merck promised everybody.

Now I’m going to show you some of the reasons why your pediatrician is insisting despite all of this evidence that your daughter or son gets the HPV vaccine. And the reason is the pediatrician is getting his information from agencies that have compromised through financial entanglements with Merck.

This is what the FDA is telling the public about vaccine safety:  it says that vaccines are regulated by FDA and undergo a rigorous review of laboratory and clinical data to ensure the safety efficacy and purity and potency of these products.

But this is a very different story the FDA is acknowledging in-house, (and this comes from a 2007 document—this is the year that Gardasil got its license from the FDA), FDA’s inability to keep up with scientific advances mean that American lives are at risk. FDA is evaluations and methods have remained largely unchanged over the last half century. The world looks to FDA as a leader today. Not only can the agency not lead, it cannot even keep up with the advances in science.

But, the most troubling problem at FDA is it has nothing to do with incompetence. It has to do with corruption. The panel within FDA that licenses new vaccines and anoints them as safe is called the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, the acronym is VRBPAC. And in 2000 Congress investigated VRBPAC because of charges of corruption from outside the agency.

And here’s what the congressional committee found: the overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants have substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Conflicts of interest rules employed by FDA have been weak enforcement has been lax. Committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies are given waivers to participate in committee proceedings. In many cases significant conflicts of interest are deemed to be in conflict at all.

And here are some specific examples of the conflict of the advisory committee that approves vaccines:

  • Three out of five FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December of 1997 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members had a 9 plus million dollar contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop the rotavirus vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members received approximately a million dollars from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.

Once they get by FDA, vaccine companies then go to CDC, where another committee, which is called ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, will then take that vaccine that FDA has licensed and they will put it on the recommended list which means it becomes essentially mandatory for 76 million American children.

A listing on CDC’s recommended list is the holy grail for vaccine companies. It means a bonanza of wealth for those companies. If ACIP votes to add your vaccine to the recommended list, it means:

  • mandating the vaccine to millions of American children, (half of those are paid for by the government);
  • Immunity from liability for the manufacturers so nobody can sue them no matter how dangerous that vaccine is, no matter how toxic its components no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that vaccine manufacturer for damages liability;
  • Inclusion of the Vaccine for Children’s program which is a program that guarantees that half the vaccines that you manufacturer are going to be purchased by the CDC at full cost.

This means billions of dollars for companies that are fortunate enough to get their vaccines listed on this recommended list. It means that you’re going to sell 74 million vaccines to people who have no choice—you have no marketing cost you have no advertising cost, you have limited testing expenses, and you have no liability for injuries caused by your vaccine.

In 2006 and 2007 while Gardasil was getting its approvals, ACIP did not pretend to base its recommendations on scientific evidence. It only adopted evidence-based standards in 2011.

But what did it base its recommendation on? It turns out it was mainly just friendships and money.  The conflicts at ACIP are as bad as the conflicts within the FDA.

This is from the same year—2000— investigation by Congress quote the CDC grants blanket waivers to ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject regardless of their conflicts for the entire year. ACIP members are allowed to vote on vaccine recommendations even when they have financial ties to the drug companies related to similar vaccines.

The ACIP’s prolific use of working groups to track vaccine policy is outside the specter of public scrutiny, opens the door to special interest access. ACIP’s policy of allowing government employees to vote encourage the system where government officials make crucial decisions affecting American children without advice or consent of the governed.

Here is a typical committee panel that approved Merck’s rotavirus vaccine. The majority of ACIP’s members were conflicted and their most recent vote. Again, this is Congress’s words not mine.

  • The chairman served on Merck’s immunization Advisory Committee the same committee that approved Merck’s vaccine.
  • Another member who shares the patent on a vaccine underdeveloped for this same disease at $350,000 grant from Merck to develop this vaccine and was a consultant from Merck.
  • Another member was under contract with the Merck Vaccine Division.
  • Another member received salary from Merck and other payments.
  • Merck another member was participating in vaccine studies with Merck.
  • And another member received grants from Merck.

And unfortunately, that congressional investigation had virtually no impact on the way CDC does and continues to do business. For example, a 2009 report by the inspector general of HHS on the same conditions existed at CDC had systematic lack of oversight. Ninety seven percent of committee members’ conflict disclosures had omissions. 58 percent had at least one unidentified potential conflict. 32 percent of the committee members had at least one conflict remained unresolved and the CDC continues to grant waivers.

This shows that CDC is really just an arm of the vaccine industry it shouldn’t be regulating the industry. It’s part of it.

This is CDC’s entire budget $11.5 billion, and almost half of that almost 5 billion dollars goes to purchasing and promoting vaccines. And this little sliver here is the Immunization Safety Office.

That’s how much money, less than 1 percent of the total goes to vaccine safety.

Not only that but Merck exercises control over CDC through the CDC Foundation. Merck contributes millions of dollars every year to the CDC Foundation. The CDC Foundation has received six hundred and twenty million dollars from Merck and other pharmaceutical companies to pay for 824 programs at the CDC.

Merck representative sit on the CDC Foundation Board and control the agency activities.

This is what the British Medical Journal said about those conflicts:

“Most of us were shocked to learn that the CDC takes funding from the industry. It is outrageous that industry apparently is allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has the potential to cut into profits.”

Corruption is systemic at FDA too shockingly 45 percent of FDA’s budget comes from the industry. Pharmaceutical companies pay billions of dollars in fees annually to FDA to fast track drugs. Between 2000-2010 pharmaceutical companies paid 3.4 billion dollars to FDA to get drug approvals, and those payments by industry have caused FDA and CDC to treat the vaccine makers not as a regulated entity but as partners and clients and friends.

According to Michael Carome, who is a former HHS employee “Instead of a regulator and regulated industry, we now have a partnership that relationship has tilted the FDA away from public health perspective to an industry friendly perspective. And that’s why your doctor does not know the truth about Gardasil.”

This is another thing your doctor probably doesn’t know. The government agency NIH actually developed the key component for the Gardasil vaccine and NIH owns part of the patent and receives royalties on it. Not only does NIH the agency receive millions and millions of dollars annually from the vaccine, but also the individual scientists who worked on the vaccine within the agency are entitled to make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year in royalty payments from Merck.

Oh, every time your pediatrician sells one of those four hundred and twenty dollar vaccines to your child or you, NIH scientists and HHS scientists and the agencies themselves are making money on that transaction. And that’s why your doctor doesn’t know what’s happening because he’s getting his information or her information from those agencies.

So, there are many, many, other shocking conflicts that I don’t have time to talk about today between Merck and the other regulated vaccine makers and the industry that’s supposed to be protecting the public from that regulated industry.

I just want to talk for a moment about one example. From 2002 to 2009 Julie Gerberding was the director of CDC and she oversaw all, all of this crooked science that went into the approvals in 2006 and 2007 of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. She was rewarded by Merck.

When she left the agency in 2009, she was hired by Merck as the president of its vaccine division and Merck gave her a salary of 2.5 million dollars a year, and 38 million dollars in stock options. And that kind of dough buys a lot of loyalty from regulators.

They know what’s at the end of the line for them if they behave and if they do what Merck and the other company has asked them to do. And these are the reasons that your pediatrician, who’s giving your daughter that Gardasil vaccine believing that it may someday save her life doesn’t know about the risk and perils and the inefficacy that are attended to that vaccine cause that regulators from whom he’s getting or she’s getting her information have been corrupted by this company.

And most of you probably know this is a difficult issue for people like myself who are concerned with vaccine injuries to address, because the press will not cover these issues because there’s 5.4 billion dollars that go from these companies to advertising on TV and radio and newspapers and on the web every year and nobody wants to lose advertising revenue. And the Congress has been bought off the regulatory agencies have been captured and we can’t use the courts because you can’t sue a vaccine maker for injuring yourself or your child.

We’ve figured out ways around those laws and we’re going to sue Merck. And if you are Merck and you’re listening to this tape.

We’re going to come for you and we’re gonna get justice for these girls and these boys who you’ve injured because of your greed.

And if you’re a mother or a father who are listening to this, we’d like your support. It’s just the fact that the more monetary support the Children’s Health Defense has, the more of these cases that we can bring and we’re going to get justice. And we’re going to bring these cases, and sue companies like Merck until we get that justice. We want your money and we want your support and we want your membership.

But more than anything, we want you to protect your child on this vaccine and for other injuries and for that reason we made this tape. Not only so that you can be informed about the science and you can ask the questions of your pediatrician or you can give him a copy of this tape and ask him to watch it and respond to it.

And if you’re a pediatrician I would ask you to actually look at the science and not resort to appeals to authority because, to say “well I know it’s safe because CDC says it’s safe”, or WHO says it’s safe or the AAP says it’s safe because all of those agencies and organizations have been corrupted by pharmaceutical industry money. You need to actually look at the science.

And you need to read the science critically and if you do that, you’ll find that the things that I’ve talked about in this tape are real. That these injuries are real and that we have got to save our children from this cataclysm.

I want to thank you for listening to this video and urge you to join Children’s Health Defense.




Jon Rappoport Speaks Out About WordPress Take-down of His Blog

Source:  Jon Rappoport’s newsletter

by Jon Rappoport
May 13, 2019

 

I say, “Dear Parents, All over the world they are injecting your children, from the day of their birth, with poisonous chemicals and germs, and they’re calling it a miracle.  But it isn’t.  It’s devastating.”

And then, someone somewhere behind a curtain who’s hidden his name-badge in his underpants says, “Censor that man.  Cut off his expression.  He has no right to say what he’s saying.”

The Soulless Ones are at it again.

Many of you now know that, last Saturday, WordPress took down my blog without warning or notice.  After 10 years—boom.  Gone.  We are in the process of restoring the blog through “other means.”  Meanwhile, my home page at NoMoreFakeNews.com is still up, and you can let others know to go there to sign up for the email list to receive my articles in their inbox on a regular basis.  You can also order products at that same home page.

I strongly suspect that my articles criticizing vaccines triggered the censorship move.  The justification would be: well, we must protect the health of the public and your influence could be quite negative in that regard, etc.

Information, evidence, opinion are all now subject to the preferences of “those in charge,” who of course “only have the best interests of The People at heart.”  Sure.

The reality is: when there is something called official science, then unofficial science must be trampled on and stamped out—the word “official” tells you that authorities are pushing lies down on people’s heads and those lies must be maintained and never doubted.  Unofficial science becomes dangerous.  It contains repressed truth.

I’ve learned that first-hand over the past 35 years working as a reporter.  All my major investigations have been “unofficial,” and in every one of those cases, there was someone standing in the middle of the road behind barricades shooing people away and warning that there was nothing OFFICIAL to see by going farther.

THE RIGHT TO HAVE AND EXPRESS AN OPINION OR VIEW OR FINDING are under attack.  Structures that would enable persons to express an opinion publicly are censoring certain voices.  They don’t have to give a reason.  They just do it.

They might say a writer “violated community standards.”  What community, and what standards?  Oh, the ones they make up and pretend exist.  Those communities and standards.  Or perhaps “the community” they’re talking about is some collection of goody two-shoes robotic idiots they’ve convinced to form an organization and make a so-called mission statement in line with official truth.  Blank minds, blank stares, earnest faces.

The age of rational argument and debate, if it ever existed, appears to be over.  Now it’s just FIND THE CONTRARY VIEW and silence it.

Of course, I’m not the first person to be censored recently.  And I’ve noticed that the black-listing hasn’t worked.  Those independent reporters and analysts and editorialists and activists are still talking and writing.  I’ll do the same.

You can help.  Spread my articles any way you can.  Get others on my email list.  Consider ordering my three MATRIX collections. Get in touch with WordPress and let them know how you feel and what you think.  Refuse to obey the Law of Silence.

There is a WE here.  It isn’t a collection of dumb know-nothings.  It’s many individuals who happen to have arrived, separately, at a similar place: the crossroad where a choice is made for justice and against surrender.

If you’re not already there, get there.  If you’re there, make your presence count.

The game isn’t lost.  It isn’t over.

It’s never over.




Vaccination as Orthodoxy: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health — Part I

Source: Children’s Health Defense

 

by the Children’s Health Defense Team
May 9, 2019

 

Note:  With this article, Children’s Health Defense is launching its second eBook:  Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first  eBook,  The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule. This part of our new eBook outlines the political developments in the late 1980s that allowed these changes to happen and describes the widespread conflicts of interest that continue to overshadow the U.S. vaccine program.


Vaccination has been a cornerstone of U.S. government public health policy for decades. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—initially called the Communicable Disease Center—opened its doors in the early 1940s with a mandate primarily focused on malaria eradication, it rapidly pushed to “extend its responsibilities  to other communicable diseases,” including many of the illnesses subsequently targeted by vaccination.

The CDC has operated as the standard-bearer for the nation’s vaccination efforts ever since. However, a close look at the agency’s behavior—and the statements of internal whistleblowers—reveals that, for all intents and purposes, the CDC functions as a subsidiary of a  “rapacious”pharmaceutical industry  in partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous “outside parties  and rogue interests” that all benefit from their endorsement of a highly profitable vaccine orthodoxy. The powerful vaccine “gospel” has swept up regulators, medical trade associations, physicians, science journals, the popular press and others “in a kind of  consensus dogma” that has become “more important than the children [these institutions were] supposed to protect.”

Over a century later, it is clear that vaccine policy-makers are the ones whose “organized and aggressive” public relations apparatus is relentlessly waging war on questioners, effectively branding them as heretics.

The Medical Marketplace Comes First

Economic and political interests have steered U.S. vaccination programs since at least the  19th century, when the medical establishment and its government and industry allies recognized that vaccination provided a new income stream and a compelling opportunity “to augment their authority in a competitive medical marketplace.” Historical documents show that, from the earliest days, vaccine proponents have promoted a one-sided agenda, sidelining deeper inquiry into safety and efficacy and castigating individuals who dare to raise questions. In a blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black, Dr. William Bailey belligerently declared in an  1899 issue of  Public Health Papers and Reports  (a precursor to the American Journal of Public Health) that vaccination’s “enemies are organized and aggressive in their warfare against it.”

Over a century later, it is clear that vaccine policy-makers are the ones whose “organized and aggressive” public relations (PR) apparatus is relentlessly waging war on questioners, effectively branding them as  heretics.

Independent scientists who cast doubt on vaccine orthodoxy find themselves facing  personal attacks  rather than impartial scrutiny of their research.

In recent months, the “war” has intensified, seemingly with buy-in from legislators, regulators, researchers and the private sector. Consider the following:

  • In November 2018, payouts from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program crossed over the $4 billion threshold, and the government reported a surge in autism rates (1 in 40 children)—yet when two congressional Committees held kangaroo-court vaccine hearings a few months later, they ignored vaccine safety issues and instead used the proceedings to demonize the unvaccinated.
  • Reflecting the “outsized dependence of both political classes and media outlets on pharmaceutical industry contributions and advertising revenue,” a Congressman requested that private social media and Internet companies censor information critical of current vaccine policies and products. In a cogent response, another Congressman asked, “If vaccines do not cause injuries, why has the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund paid out $4,061,322,557.08 for vaccine injuries?”
  • 2019 has marked a ballooning of legislative attempts to violate the bedrock principle—and fundamental human right—of free and informed consent to all medical interventions, including vaccines. Citizens seeking to uphold their religious and philosophical rights to vaccine exemptions face increasingly punitive actions. Even medical exemptions are under attack.

There is more and more evidence of a coordinated effort to suppress any and all information that might be unfavorable to the vaccine program. Some of this verges on the slapstick, such as the last-minute cancellations by four pro-vaccine-mandate speakers who declined to show up at a scheduled event at Yale to debate “The Science of Vaccines” with Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in March 2019. Other incidents are less entertaining:

  • In February 2019, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), gave false information to Congress, denying that measles vaccination can cause encephalitis (brain inflammation), even though vaccine package inserts have always listed encephalitis as a risk of measles vaccination.
  • In January 2019, a renowned medical expert signed a sworn affidavit explaining how he told Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers in 2007 that “vaccinations could cause autism” in a subset of children. The DOJ fired him as an expert witness, kept his opinion secret from the public and misrepresented his opinion in federal court in order to continue to debunk vaccine-autism claims.
  • In a March 2017 publication, CDC authors acknowledged that many individuals involved in California’s 2015 measles outbreak were “recent vacinees,” briefly citing “unpublished data” showing that the vaccine strain of measles caused the infection in almost two-fifths (38%) of the tested cases.

Nonetheless, the CDC continues to demand that parents unhesitatingly allow their children to receive endless vaccine doses during pregnancy, infancy, childhood and adolescence. If someone (even an experienced doctor) dares to propose a less immunologically burdensome approach, the PR machine instantly jumps into overdrive to discredit him or her, despite the fact that respected, peer-reviewed science—including from the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—supports these concerns.

When companies perpetuate misleading vaccine safety claims—exaggerating the benefits and concealing the risks—and regulators obligingly politicize their vaccine recommendations and decisions, trust is damaged still further.

Waning Public Confidence

Although a barrage of assurances, both nationally and globally, continues to tell consumers that vaccines are safe, confidence in vaccine programs is declining worldwide. The medical journal Pediatrics reported in 2013 that nearly nine in ten U.S. pediatricians (87%) had encountered parents who questioned the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, up from 75% of children’s doctors in 2006. The surveyed pediatricians also reported receiving frequent requests to follow an alternative vaccine schedule (almost one in five parents) and, over the seven-year period, a doubling of the percentage of parents refusing at least one vaccine. Where honored, parents’ wishes for a slower and more selective vaccine schedule are amply rewarded, with practice data demonstrating better health outcomes and a far lower risk of autism.

Even the most ardent vaccine proponents recognize that the erosion of public trust is at least partially their own fault—the result of factors such as “heightened [public] awareness of the profit motives of the vaccine industry,” lack of transparency on the part of industry and conflicts of interest among policy-makers. These observers even admit that “financial and bureaucratic reasons” prompt “vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals… not…to acknowledge the risks of vaccines.”

When companies perpetuate misleading vaccine safety claims—exaggerating the benefits and concealing the risks—and regulators obligingly politicize their vaccine recommendations and decisions, trust is damaged still further.

In 1967, when childhood vaccines were much fewer and farther between, Dr. Graham Wilson (one-time Director of the Public Health and Laboratory Service for England and Wales) warned of the need to pay ongoing attention to vaccine safety, stating:

“It is for us, and for those who come after us, to see that the sword which vaccines and antisera have put into our hands is never allowed to tarnish through over-confidence, negligence, carelessness, or want of foresight on our part.”

Forty years later, Congressional Representative Dave Weldon, himself a physician, harshly criticized the federal agencies charged with ensuring vaccine safety for failing to heed Wilson’s cautions.

The loss of confidence in vaccine safety must be addressed with independent, unbiased science.

The U.S. government’s Healthy People 2020 initiative states that “childhood immunization programs provide a very high return on investment,” but Americans should be asking just who is garnering the positive returns. Globally, the vaccine industry is on track to more than double its worldwide revenues by 2024—from $32 .5 billion in 2015 to a projected $77 billion—but highly vaccinated children in the U.S. and elsewhere are suffering. As described by Children’s Health Defense in the eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, children’s health has worsened dramatically since the late 1980s—“precisely the same time that the U.S. started expanding the types and total number of vaccines required for school attendance.” Over half of American children have at least one chronic illness, and neurodevelopmental disorders and pediatric autoimmune conditions have climbed to historically unprecedented levels. There is abundant evidence that vaccines are making children sicker, not healthier—representing an unquestionably negative return on investment for children, families and society.




Dr. Brian Hooker Exposes Fraud at the CDC – Congress Refuses to Hold Hearings

Source: Vaccine Impact

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

 

In what is perhaps one of the most in-depth public interviews ever recorded with Dr. Brian Hooker (over 90 minutes), who is featured in the recent film VAXXED which is creating major controversies in film festivals all across the U.S. as powerful vaccine special interest groups try to censor the film, Dr. Hooker reveals on the National Safe Child Show how his 10 year fight with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) resulted in one of the top vaccine scientists at the CDC contacting him to become a whistleblower regarding vaccine research fraud.

Dr. William Thompson of the CDC was a co-author of a landmark vaccine research paper published in 2004 that supposedly proved that there was no correlation between the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella 3-combo vaccine (MMR) and autism. However, in phones calls between Dr. Thompson and Dr. Hooker in 2014 that were secretly recorded, Dr. Thompson revealed that the CDC deliberately hid and destroyed data that showed there was in fact a link between the MMR vaccine and autism among certain groups of children.

Since that study was published in 2004, justifying retaining the MMR vaccine in the CDC schedule of childhood vaccines, autism rates have sky-rocketed, with over 1 million children being diagnosed with autism during this period.

After the phone conversations between Dr. Hooker and Dr. Thompson went public, Dr. Thompson hired a whistleblower attorney, and sent all of the data that he had retained showing the fraud to U.S. Representative Bill Posey. According to Dr. Hooker, Dr. Thompson was also deposed and filed an affidavit that Congressman Posey retains in his possession.

Yet in spite of these revelations, not one Congressional committee chair has called a hearing to subpoena Dr. Thompson and investigate fraud at the CDC.

In this interview with Dr. Hooker on the National Safe Child Show and Tammi Stefano, Dr. Hooker explains how he was harassed and opposed by the CDC as he spent over 10 years filing over 100 freedom of information acts (FOIAs) to recover raw data sets used to publish research on vaccines by the CDC. After 10 years, and with the help of Congressman Bill Posey, Dr. Hooker finally got the raw data he had been seeking, and performed his own analysis on the data. He found that the CDC had deliberately hid data that opposed their own public statements on vaccine safety and autism. His press release announcing this CDC fraud quickly went viral in social media and in the Alternative Media, while the mainstream media used the usual analysts to defend the vaccine industry and attack Dr. Hooker.

That would all change a few months later, as Dr. Thompson from the CDC began telephone conversations with Dr. Hooker leading him to even more data that had been hidden by the CDC. The news never received mainstream media attention, and nothing was done in Congress. In this interview with Tammi Stefano, Dr. Hooker will reveal why this information continues to be censored. It became the subject of the film VAXXED produced by Del Bigtree (see: Producer of VAXXED Speaks Out: “This is Bigger than Watergate”) and directed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Every citizen of the United States, whether pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine or anywhere in the middle, should be outraged at this fraud, and the ongoing censorship of this CDC fraud.

Watch this comprehensive interview with the man who uncovered this fraud, and then urge your elected officials to also watch it, and to immediately call Congressional hearings on CDC vaccine fraud, and subpoena Dr. William Thompson.

Outline of Interview with Tammi Stefano and Dr. Brian Hooker

1. Intro: VAXXED Movie, background on Dr. Brian Hooker – Researcher and father of vaccine-damaged son

beginning to 7:54

2. Does the public currently have access to all the information available regarding vaccine safety to make wise choices?

7:54 to 9:23

3. Vaccines forced upon Parents – Mary Holland, Law Professor and Researcher at NYU, Addresses U.N. on Informed Consent – Nuremberg Code on Medical Ethics

9:23 to 13:26

4. Parents of Vaccine-damaged Children and Families Refusing Vaccines Risk Losing Their Children to Child Protective Services (CPS)

13:27 to 14:40

5. The CDC Guidelines/Vaccine Schedule with 47 Vaccines by Age 6 – Is There Solid Science/Research on Vaccine Safety and Injuries for so many Vaccines?

14:40 to 19:00

6. Corruption and Conflicts of Interest at the CDC – CDC Largest Purchaser of Vaccines ($4 billion per year) Yet Oversees Vaccine Safety

19:00 to 24:00

7. Brian Hooker’s 10 Years Fighting the CDC to Recover Raw Data and Reveal Fraud on Vaccine Studies – Dealings with Dr. William Thompson

24:00 to 29:30

8. Dr. Thompson of the CDC Contacts Dr. Hooker in 2013 After Fighting for more than 10 Years – Confesses that Fraud Did Occur at the CDC – Dr. Hooker’s Son Targeted

29:30 to 38:23

9. Is there a Connection Between the MMR Vaccine and Autism?

38:24 to 45:54

10. Secretly Recording the Dr. Thompson Phone Calls to Protect the Truth about Vaccine Fraud at the CDC

45:54 to 50:00

11. One Million Children Diagnosed with Autism – At this Rate will be One out of Every two Children with Autism by 2032

50:01 to 52:03

12. How Congressman Posey Got Involved – A Lone Voice in Congress Opposing the Pharmaceutical Industry

52.03 to 59:55

13. Why is the CDC still Employing Dr. William Thompson since he has become a Whistleblower on CDC Fraud?

59:56 to 1:11:26

14. What is this CDC Vaccine Fraud Costing the American Public? (Trillions of dollars!)

1:11:27 to 1:16:05

15. Mercury in Flu Shots is Negatively Affecting our Senior Citizens Health

1:16:05 to 1:17:43

16. Dr. Julie Gerberding Ran the CDC when the MMR Vaccine Fraud was Occurring – She Later Left the CDC to Work in Merck’s Vaccine Division (Maker of MMR Vaccine)

1:17:44 to 1:22:52

17. The CDC Routinely Destroys Federal Records Illegally by Deleting Emails and Erasing Hard Drives

1:22:53 to 1:28:57

18. Is the Entertainment Industry Our Best Hope to Bring This Corruption to the Public? Film Producer Picks up Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Story

1:28:57 to 1:34:54

19. Dr. Brian Hooker – A True American Hero!

1:34:55 to end

Take Action!

Contact Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and ask him to hold a hearing on CDC vaccine fraud and subpoena Dr. William Thompson!




Glyphosate Worse Than We Could Imagine

by F. William Engdahl
April 14, 2019
Source

 

 

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated, “It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.” It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

New independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly, “Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.




Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?

If you are being introduced to some of the topics covered in this article for the first time, it might come across as “conspiracy theories” or far-fetched sensationalism.

And while some of the predictions of how this technology can be used in the future might seem to be speculative at this point, it is based on hard evidence of what is really happening TODAY, in areas like geoengineering, nanotechnology, and the new proposed 5G networks.

None of these technologies are speculative. They are already being used. The only questions remaining are who will control these technologies, and to what extent will they be implemented?

What is written here by John P. Thomas is the result of years of research. To fully understand these topics, you will need to read the links to previous investigative reports, and follow the footnoted references as well to examine the evidence for yourself.

You will not read any of this in the corporate-sponsored “mainstream” media networks.

~ Brian Shilhavy




Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?

 

by John P. Thomas
April 17, 2019
Source

 

When the nanotechnology in human bodies is activated by special frequencies from the 5-G network, we could experience the most powerful weapon system that has ever been invented.

Unlike atomic weapons that kill everyone and create a toxic disaster for both the winners and the losers of war, the pairing of nanotechnology that is in our bodies with the high frequency radiation in the gigahertz and terahertz range will create weapons that can fulfill an incredible number of functions for those who control the technology.

 

Clean and Neat

This weapon system has the potential to individually identify and monitor the location of all people on the Earth.

This weapon system has the potential to monitor emotions and thoughts of individual people.

This weapon system has the potential to transmit instructions to individuals and to groups that will create thoughts and trigger emotional responses. It will even be able to restrict the ability to logically evaluate situations and create alternative solutions to problems.

This weapon system has the potential to target individuals who have been deemed as uncooperative and neutralize them for the greater good of society. This will be accomplished by disrupting neurological activity, weakening human immune systems, causing pain, creating life-threatening illnesses, and producing premature death.

I realize that this all sounds like rather far-fetched speculation and fantasy, but there is enough evidence to support these claims and enough evidence to begin taking proactive steps to protect ourselves from what is rapidly coming toward us.

Let’s look at some of the powerful evidence that has led me to draw these conclusions.

 

Former Catholic Nun Sister Keri Burnor Targeted for Death through Nanotechnology

 

Keri Burnor was a Roman Catholic nun when she was sexually assaulted by a priest. She filed criminal charges against the priest in 2001. He was found not guilty. [1]

She did not understand why the district attorney failed to adequately work to obtain a conviction. As she investigated the collusion between the attorney, the judge, the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the members of St. Joseph’s Abbey in Massachusetts where the sexual assault occurred, she opened a Pandora’s box of systemic evil emerging from the deep state. The deep state refers to the financial power structure that controls governments around the world. [1]

Keri Burnor did not shrink back with her defeat in court, but began to position herself as a helper to others who had been abused by clergy.

Eventually her work with other victims of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church and the information she learned about the activities of the Jesuit order and their infiltration of the command structure of the U.S. military led to her being interviewed on several internet radio programs.

She documented her findings on her website and spoke openly about what she knew to be the truth. She then became a marked woman and her activities were monitored from that point forward. [1]

Eventually there would be more than ten attempts on her life using nanotechnology, high frequency energy transmission systems, radioactive substances, sound weapons, and various other weapons. [1]

See also:

The Catholic Church and Pedophilia: Trafficking Children as Sex Slaves

Whistleblowing Priests Killed to Prevent Exposing Pedophilia Problem in the Catholic Church?

 

There is much more Behind her Story than a Sexual Assault

Keri Burnor discovered that St. Joseph’s Abbey was built with funds donated in large part by a Knight of Malta and his wife. Their names are inscribed on the front of the Abbey’s main altar – J. Peter Grace and his wife Margaret. [1, 2]

 

Mr. Grace was the president of the giant chemical manufacturer called W. R. Grace and Co. Mr. Grace played an instrumental role in bringing Nazi SS officers and Nazi scientists to the United States after World War II. He did this through project Paper Clip, which wiped away evidence of their Nazi involvement and approved more than 900 German scientists to come to the United States. [2]

Mr. Grace then put many of the former Nazi scientists to work in his company. He also worked with the CIA to imbed many others in CIA mind control programs such as MK Ultra. [2]

As a high-ranking Knight of Malta, he occupied one of the highest non-ecclesiastical positions in the American Roman Catholic Church. It has been said that Knights of Malta are free to pick up the phone and chat with the Pope whenever they have the need or desire. [2]

Keri Burnor also had evidence that St. Joseph’s Abbey continued to be an undercover location for CIA operations. She believed that some monks (not all of them) in the abbey were actually CIA operatives engaged in clandestine activities. [1]

 

Keri Burnor became a Targeted Individual Marked for Death

In 2011, she had sinus surgery. After the recovery she knew that somehow things were not right. She eventually discovered that she had been implanted with weaponized military grade nanotechnology during the surgery. She went through highly specialized testing, which conclusively showed that her body was transmitting radio wave signals to an unknown receiver. [1, 3]

She had pain, bloody ears, noises in her head, and numerous other unexplained symptoms. She had to shield herself from frequency transmissions, take 75 pills a day, and sit in a sauna for an hour a day for 3 months in order to get the stuff to break up. [3]

Eventually highly sensitive scientific instruments confirmed that her body was no longer emitting frequencies. [1, 3]

 

Psychological Evaluation

Keri Burnor arranged for an extensive psychological evaluation. The evaluation confirmed that she was not delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic, or abnormal in any other way. [1, 3, 4]

Based on scientific evidence of having been exposed to military grade nanotechnology and having had that technology cleared from her body, the doctor concluded that her mental status was normal. [1, 3, 4]

These are Keri Burnor’s comments about why this happened to her. She stated:

I believe it was because I exposed St. Joseph’s Abbey as a CIA front. Not all the monks are bad or all the monks are CIA covers, but there is no question in my mind now that the monastery was erected for a specific purpose and it is related to national security.

The monastery was protecting those who were conducting mind control MK ultra experiments. They used children for this. [3]

 

Additional Attempts on Her Life

Keri Burnor then started being stalked by various men. She took a close-up photo of one of the men and gave it to the private investigator she hired to keep her safe. He discovered that the man was an international hired assassin. [3]

The private investigator was then picked up and chained to a chair and subjected to four hours of questioning. One of her attorneys was beaten close to the point of death and the lives of other attorneys were threatened. [3]

After all this, the private investigator advised Keri Burnor to assume an alias and go into hiding. He helped her do this and she spent more than five years on the run. [3]

There were numerous other attempts on her life. One of which involved the spraying of her car’s interior with nanotechnology. Laboratory tests confirmed that the nanotechnology was designed to promote the rapid onset of three kinds of cancer, which could have caused death in as soon as 30 days. [1, 3]

Keri Burnor now works with other targeted individuals who have been intentionally exposed to military grade nanotechnology to help them detoxify the technology from their bodies and to restore them to health. [5, 6]

 

How can Nanotechnology become a Weapon against the General Public?

It might be easy to assume that Keri Burnor’s story is unique, because she was specifically targeted for death because of what she knew. However, that would be a misguided assumption.

The truth is – we are all being exposed to nanotechnology every day through the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the pharmaceuticals and supplements we take, and of course through vaccines. This is not military grade nanotechnology, but it still can become a weapon against people.

Over time, nano exposure, when combined with radiation from the 5-G system, will become a mechanism of human control and even become a threat to our lives.

 

Smart Cities will be the Command Center for Human Control

I have previously written extensively about 5-G and its dangers. I have discussed various reasons for the international fervor about deploying the 5-G system as fast as possible to create “Smart Cities.” See:

20,000 Satellites for 5G to be Launched Sending Focused Beams of Intense Microwave Radiation Over Entire Earth

What Do Crowd Control, Burning Skin, and Superbugs Have in Common? 5G

Telecom Giants and Federal Government Forcing Local Governments to Radiate Your Home with 5G Microwaves

5G Technology is Coming – Linked to Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Death

Can New 5G Technology and Smart Meters be Used as Weapons?

Based on my recent investigations, I now see an even deeper plan behind the Smart Cities movement. It is about targeting us all for control, and when necessary, targeting us for elimination.

We are all being targeted, not because of what we know, but because that is the plan of the deep state to manage and control all human life. This is the ultimate aim of “Smart Cities.”

The real agenda behind Smart Cities is not fast internet downloads and self-driving cars! The real agenda of the Smart Cities movement is to control what we think and how we behave. It is about keeping tabs on our physical locations and to make sure we don’t do anything other than the jobs that we have been assigned.

Ultimately, the controllers of the worldwide network of Smart Cities will decide who lives and who dies. They will kill through targeted use of the 5-G Smart grid. They will stimulate accelerated disease progression – unexplained heart attacks, rapid onset cancer, untreatable flu, and trigger depression and suicide.

For those who need more evidence, I refer you to a page of U.S. patents describing some of the technology that has already been designed to monitor human activity from a distance and to influence human activity.

November 15, 2015 – Invasive Tech Patents

 

How is this Possible? – How will this be Accomplished?

To answer these questions, we need to begin by looking at the nature of nano substances.

Nano structures are built up from nano particles. They are assembled to form nano crystals, nano films, nano wires, nano tubes, etc.

Nano particles are very tiny. The measurement of the smallest dimension will be between 1 NM (nano-meter) and 100 NM. One nano meter is 1 billionth of an inch. A human hair is between 50,000 NM and 100,000 NM thick. [7]

Other components of nanotechnology are viral-like fragments, which contain XNA. The laboratory manufactured XNA components will insert themselves into human cells and take over the functioning of some of the DNA and RNA which are the building blocks of our genetic material. XNA is chemically very similar to DNA and can be easily incorporated into human cells and can reproduce itself. [9]

 

Nano Particles don’t Behave like Larger Particles

The nature of nano structures is to gather together. When conditions are just right, they will become self-assembling. [7, 8, 9]

In other words, they will join together in planned configurations to form technology that can be used for a variety of purposes. [7, 8, 9]

Nano materials are much more likely to be toxic to human life even though larger particles of the same materials may not be harmful. [10]

 

Three Phases of Development Leading to Smart City Control over Human Life

There are three phases to this program – expose, replace, and activate.

This entire process became possible when our immune systems were disarmed by glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide. This allowed nanotechnology to enter our bodies and our cells to reload new information into our genetic code. [11]

Once the information is fully loaded it can be activated by frequencies. Not the Gigahertz frequencies that will be used in 5-G, but by the next level up – Terahertz frequencies, though the same 5-G hardware may be used to beam terahertz frequencies at our bodies. [11]

When a person is targeted for activation he will experience symptoms such as: pain and aching, feeling like you are on fire, feeling like electric shocks are moving through your body, experiencing severe fatigue, feeling physically and emotionally drained, and feeling as if you have been beaten up and taken out of action.

You will be overwhelmed by thoughts that tell you it is impossible to resist or stop what is happening – so just give up. [11]

It is important to know that there are countermeasures that can be taken at the current time to reduce nano from the human body and if the point has been reached where activation is in process, it is still possible to resist and recover. The situation is not hopeless. [11]

 

Exposure to Nano – It cannot be Avoided

There are at least six sources of exposure to nano materials. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the pharmaceuticals and supplements we take, and of course vaccines.

Historically, the beginning point for a large portion of our exposure to nano substances came from aerial spraying programs. Various substances have been sprayed into the atmosphere for many decades some of which are nano size materials.

This geoengineering program (chemtrails) is supposedly designed to protect us and the Earth from the effects of the sun in an age of elevated atmospheric carbon. This propaganda campaign is designed to convince us that human use of fossil fuels is the cause of disruptions in the Earth’s climate.

Previous articles on geoengineering:

Controlling Weather for Profit: Geoengineering and World Dominance

Artificial Clouds and Geoengineering: Public Exposed to Toxic Chemicals

Covert Chemical Geoengineering Programs – A Real Threat to Public Health

The aerial spraying program consists of both high altitude and lower altitude particle releases.

The high-altitude spraying seems to be more about supplying material that benefits the HARP program, [11] which is a directed energy weapon system that is used by the U.S. government and the Canadian government [12] to prevent rain, or to create destructive storms, floods, earthquakes, and fires.

The lower altitude spraying appears to be releasing particles that are intended to infect or expose human beings to nano substances of various types.

These substances enter our bodies when we breathe. These substances also fall into the water we drink and are taken up by plants into their systems. These substances collect on our skin and are difficult to remove. They coat the leaves of plants and cannot be washed off. Nothing can escape this exposure. [12]

In addition, nano substances are intentionally added to thousands of manufactured foods and cosmetics as colorings, flavorings, preservatives, and stabilizers.

Products that contain glyphosate residue such as most grains produced in the United States (both organic and non-organic) also contain nano substances which are plant adjuvants. These nano plant adjuvants make the herbicide work more effectively and cannot be removed from the grain. [12]

Nano titanium dioxide is added to many pharmaceuticals and even supplements to facilitate absorption of other substances in the pills and capsules.

Most colloidal products such as colloidal silver, gold, zinc, and other metals now contain nano particles of these metals. They no longer contain moderately large particles of the metals, which the body can easily excrete. Nano-sized particles behave very differently in the body. Instead of providing health giving benefits, nano size metals act like toxins. [12]

 

Putting the Pieces Together

So, all human beings on the planet have been and are being exposed to the building blocks of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is slowly and systematically being built up in our bodies.

When the 5-G system gets fully implemented it will secretly use terahertz frequencies to turn on and utilize the nanotechnology that has been incorporated in our bodies.

The nanotechnology has the potential to receive and transmit data, influence our minds, and exert harmful effects depending on the will of those who control the system of Smart Cities.

 

Self-Repairing and Self-Reproducing Technology

Nanotechnology is not only self-assembling – it is also self-repairing and self-reproducing. [12]

This means that even if we could surround ourselves with a bubble and somehow only consume unadulterated nano-free food and water, we will still have to contend with existing nanotechnology in our bodies that will seek to keep expanding its presence.

 

Ultimately Everyone Could be Targeted for Activation

In the future when the systems of 5-G and nanotechnology are fully activated, we could all be targeted individuals. Not just a few dissenters and outspoken people, but all of us will be potential targets – to be used, influenced, abused, and destroyed based on the will of those who manage the activities of the deep state for the sake of the greater good.

 

New 5-G Documentary

I interviewed filmmaker Sacha Stone in January of 2019 when he was in the process of finishing his latest film. His name will probably be familiar to you if you read the Health Impact News article about the International Tribunal on Natural Law, which has been gathering evidence about child trafficking and child sacrifices during the last year. See:

800K Children in the U.S. Missing Each Year – International Tribunal Exposes Pedophilia Problem – Victims Testify of Child Sex Trafficking and Satanic Ritual Abuse

Former Catholic Nun Keri Burnor’s testimony that we referenced at the beginning of this article is part of this Tribunal’s efforts.

During my interview with Sacha Stone, we discussed a wide range of topics which included the position of the Vatican in world politics, the under-reporting of children who are being trafficked and sacrificed in satanic rituals, and his latest documentary on the topic of 5-G, which was in the process of being finished at that time.

His new documentary was released to the public at the beginning of April and is entitled: 5G APOCALYPSE – THE EXTINCTION EVENT – Monitoring the Planned Poisoning of Humanity.

Sacha Stone described the film. He stated:

I am about to release a film on the subject matter of 5-G. In the film I interviewed weapons development experts and world leading molecular biologists. The film speaks to the truth of what is going on with phased array antennas and interrogation technology.

Putting phased array antennas in orbit around the Earth is about the most godless and frankly wicked thing our governments could do. They have no idea of what they are doing, because they are comprised of a body of technocrats and bureaucrats – they are simply pen-pushing functionaries. The people who are driving the functions that those people undertake are vested and nested special interests.

Behind those vested and nested special interests are invariably occultic interests. Again, that takes us back to the Vatican complex and the Jesuitical complex of issues. [13]

 

Watch Sacha Stone’s Documentary:

 

Countermeasures Designed to Overcome the Newest Weapon System

It should not be assumed that our exposure to nanotechnology and the 5-G system represents a hopeless situation.

First of all, there is a small movement to reject 5-G. The city of Brussels has rejected the installation of the 5-G network. [14]

Perhaps this is a beginning point for a movement that other cities will follow.

As Keri Burnor learned, it is possible to excrete nanotechnology from the body. I found equipment for helping the body eliminate nanotechnology which can be built at home. Taking baths with certain ingredients can remove nano materials. There also are many ways that can be used to block gigahertz and terahertz electromagnetic frequencies from entering our homes and offices.

For those of us who value the clear functioning of our minds and want to protect ourselves from thought control, emotional lethargy, chronic disabling pain, paralysis of the will, and death from this system – we will need to take strong steps to protect ourselves and our families.

As the 5-G system is implemented around the world – including 5-G from satellites, we will no longer be able to go to remote locations with the hope of escaping EMF exposure.

We also can’t avoid nano contamination. We all have been infected with nano substances from numerous sources, including even organic food.

The good news is that it is possible to expel nanotechnology from the body and to prevent nano from reaching a level where it can be activated with terahertz frequencies.

Future articles will address some of the things that we can do to reduce our exposure to nano substances and our exposure to electromagnetic frequencies.

The future may be grim for humanity, but we don’t have to lay down, roll over, play dead, and wait until the newest weapon system takes control over our minds and brings us to an early grave. There are steps we can take to protect and preserve our lives and our freedoms.

The first step is awareness, and that is the main purpose of this article.

 

References

[1] “Testimony from Targeted Individual, Keri Burnor,” Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sex Abuse, International Tribunal for Natural Justice, September 14, 2018.

[2] “Who is J. Peter Grace?” Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[3] “Weaponized Nano! Part 2 Ex Catholic Nun Sister Keri Burnor speaks with Erik Markham,” February 2019.

[4] “Targeted2Free Success Results by the grace of God,” Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[5] “History of Sister Keri Burnor,” Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[6] “Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[7] “Nano Data,” Augment in Force.

[8] “Nano-Modifications,” Charlotte McCoy, Augment in Force, 2003.

[9] “XNA – Artificial Life-Artificial Intelligence or Alien Life-Alien Intelligence,” Augment in Force.

[10] “Engineered Nano Materials,” Augment in Force.

[11] “TIs activated w/Terahertz radiation,” Tony Pantalleresco, Augment in Force, 7/12/2018.

[12] “Tony Pantalleresco The Dangers Of Nano Particles To Your Health!,” 1/11/2016.

[13] I interviewed Sacha Stone by Skype at his home in Bali on 1/17/2019. His documentary can be viewed here.

[14] “Brussels: The First Major City To Halt 5G Due To Health Effects,” Worldhealth.net, Anti-Aging News, 4/5/2019.




Organic Glyphosate: Just When You Thought Organic Compromise Couldn’t Get Worse

Source: The Lunatic Farmer

Organic Glyphosate

by Joel Salatin
April 11, 2019

 

The Real Organic community is abuzz about new confirmations that organic certifiers are okay with hydroponic plants grown in pots sitting on black plastic over glyphosate-laden soil.

Black pots the size of a 5-gallon bucket sit on acres and acres of land.  How do you maintain that land like a sterile table top for those buckets of hydroponic (without soil) blueberries?  You kill all the vegetation with Roundup, turning the soil to concrete, and then you place the buckets on top.  Organic certifiers are fine with that.

The reasoning is that the herbicide is not actually in the buckets holding the plants; just in the soil on which the buckets sit.  But since the plants don’t go into the soil, the plastic bucket barrier keep things on the up-and-up for certification.

Just when you thought organic compromise couldn’t get worse, it does.  This is a classic case.  Not only is the U.S. the only country that certifies plants grown without soil as organic, we’re the only country that allows such a deadly herbicide to be used as part of the system.  It shows how once you open that door of organic fraud, you head down a slippery slope of more egregious fraud.

A little fraud does not morph into no fraud.  It progresses into greater fraud.

Why in the world the organic community ever thought the government could be trusted with something as idealistic and full of integrity as organic production is beyond me and why here at Polyface we don’t play the gamesmanship of the program.  It is becoming more rotten by the day and proves the best way to know what’s going on is to buy from sources you vet yourself.  Interestingly, these organic producers often show how they’re growing and make no attempt to hide it.

That shows that they believe the brazen adulteration of the National Organic Products Act is now so embedded in the consumer psyche that all of this is broadly and unquestionably accepted.

Why should we pay more for organic blueberries when they’re grown on top of Roundup and in buckets without soil?




Why Use Baking Soda for Fungus Infections

Source: Dr. Sircus

by Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD
April 15, 2019

 

a

A projection of the C. auris fungus on a microscope slide.
CreditMelissa Golden for The New York Times

 

A hushed panic is playing out in hospitals around the world as a deadly fungus is spreading killing a lot of people. Individual institutions, national, state and local governments have been reluctant to publicize outbreaks of this drug resistant infection, arguing there is no point in scaring patients — or prospective ones, meaning they do not want to scare patients away from going to hospitals. Officials are still scrambling to keep a lid on it as the infection is spreading around the globe, yet with the Measles, a dramatically less dangerous disease, they are getting hysterical.

Dr. Johanna Rhodes, an infectious disease expert at Imperial College London said “We are driving this with the use of anti-fungicides on crops and we have no idea where it’s coming from. We’ve never heard of it. It’s just spread like wildfire.”

Thanks to the over-prescription of antimicrobial drugs had also laid the groundwork for this relatively new germ that preys on people with weakened immune systems according to the New York Times. The infection – a fungus known as Candida Auris, kills almost half of all patients who contract it within 90 days, according to the CDC – as it’s impervious to most major anti-fungal medications. First described in 2009 after a 70-year-old Japanese woman showed up at a Tokyo hospital with C. Auris in her ear canal, the aggressive yeast infection has spread across Asia and Europe – arriving in the US by 2016

Many of these patients do not need to die but it seems like doctors, hospitals and medical institutions would rather them perish than admit that sodium bicarbonate is the best anti-fungal for this and other fungal infections. Baking soda, also known as sodium bicarbonate, has significant anti-fungal effects. Laboratory studies show that baking soda is effective against most fungal species. Bicarbonate inhibited the growth of 80 percent of fungal isolates tested in one study. Many studies have shown that sodium bicarbonate at high concentrations has an antimicrobial effect over several microorganisms isolated from the oral cavity, including Candida albicans.

Some think that baking soda is the most potent anti-fungal substance there is because of its ability to rapidly change the Candida colonies’ pH from acid to alkaline, which  effectively kills off the yeast before it has time to adapt to new environments. The problem with anti-fungal drugs, is that fungi are extremely adaptive, and can accommodate themselves to a new environment in three to four days. This renders anti-fungal drugs largely ineffective. The fungi do not adapt to the baking soda.

“It is a creature from the black lagoon,” said the CDC’s Dr. Tom Chiller, who heads the fungal branch. “It bubbled up and now it is everywhere.” In the last five years alone, it it has swept through a hospital in Spain, hit a neonatal unit in Venezuela, spread throughout India, Pakistan and South Africa, and forced a prestigious British medical center to close its ICU for nearly two weeks.

Simply put, fungi are evolving defenses to resist and survive modern medications. “It’s an enormous problem,” said Imperial College of London fungal epidemiology professor Matthew Fisher, who co-authored a recent scientific review on the rise of resistant fungi. “We depend on being able to treat those patients with anti-fungal medications,” that are no longer working for this infection.

Science Daily said, “Infectious diseases are the world’s number-one cause of death, with pathogenic fungi being responsible for extremely dangerous infections. Worldwide, more than €6 billion are spent each year on anti-fungal medications, and the total costs of the medical treatment of infectious diseases caused by pathogenic fungi are estimated in the order of hundreds of billions of Euros.”

Fungus, Tuberculosis and Cancer

Dr. Luke Curtis is reporting on research that deals with 27 lung “cancer” patients who were later diagnosed with lung “fungus” instead of lung cancer. “Fungal infection can present with clinical and radiological features that are indistinguishable from thoracic malignancy, such as lung nodules or masses.” Doctors who diagnose lung cancer are unaware of the fact that cancer mimics fungal infections. Over one million people worldwide are misdiagnosed with tuberculosis when in reality they have an incurable disease with a similar outlook to many cancers, says a recent report published in 2011 in the Bulletin of the WHO.

The disease called “chronic pulmonary aspergillosis” (CPA) is a fungal infection not a bacterial infection. It looks very much like, or identical to TB when doctors look at it on a chest X-ray. Fungal infections kill at least 1,350,000 patients with, cancer, TB, asthma, or following AIDS; as well as causing untold misery and blindness to tens of millions more worldwide. Yet, like a Trojan horse its symptoms are mostly hidden, and occur as a consequence of other health problems.

Fungal disease is like the Trojan horse that threatens the world as deaths reach approximately 150 people per hour. Doctors need to wake up to the plight of millions people worldwide who suffer and die every year from fungal disease. Fungal disease is worldwide catastrophe that is growing year on year and now with this new anti-fungal resistant strain more deaths can be anticipated.

Conclusion

There is no hiding the fact that baking soda, the same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary safe and effective fungal treatment. In 2014 GAFFI– ‘The global action fund for fungal infections’ called on all policy makers and health agencies to wake up to the plight of more than 300 million people worldwide who suffer and die every year from fungal disease. So why do doctors not prescribe sodium or potassium bicarbonate?

Though it  kills yeast and other infections quite quickly, its main function is to increase CO2 and oxygen levels, which are not conducive to cancer, tumor growth or fungus infections.

 




Toxic Aluminum in Vaccines

Source: Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport
April 15, 2019

 

I hope that aluminum, an ingredient in many vaccines, keeps moving up on the chart of key issues in the vaccine wars. The mainstream medical forces believe they can ward off any critiques. They’re wrong. But the exposure of the truth has to keep escalating.

At Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s site, the World Mercury Project, there is a science library of studies referring to toxic aluminum in vaccines. I recommend reading all the citations. They’re highly informative, and some of them make excellent ammunition. Here are a few examples:

“Aluminium has been shown to be present in brain tissue in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. We have made the first ever measurements of aluminium in brain tissue from 12 donors diagnosed with familial Alzheimer’s disease. The concentrations of aluminium were extremely high…Overall, the concentrations were higher than all previous measurements of brain aluminium except cases of known aluminium-induced encephalopathy…The unique quantitative data and the stunning images of aluminium in familial Alzheimer’s disease brain tissue raise the spectre of aluminium’s role in this devastating disease.” (“Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease,” Ambreen Mirza, Andrew King, Claire Troakes, Christopher Exley. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, November 2016.)

“Vaccine adjuvants and vaccines may induce autoimmune and inflammatory manifestations in susceptible individuals. To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant exposures can be toxic to humans and animals…It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes…In light of these findings, this study highlights the necessity of proceeding with caution with respect to further mass-immunization practices with a vaccine of yet unproven long-term clinical benefit in cervical cancer prevention” (Rotem Inbar, Ronen Weiss, Lucija Tomljenovic, Maria-Teresa Arango, Yael Deri, Christopher A Shaw, Joab Chapman, Miri Blank, Yehuda Shoenfeld. Immunol Res, July 2016.)

“Infants and young children throughout the world receive high quantities of aluminum from multiple inoculations. Incremental changes to the vaccination schedule during the past several years significantly increased the quantity of aluminum in childhood shots. Numerous studies provide compelling evidence that injected aluminum can be detrimental to health. Aluminum is capable of remaining in cells long after vaccination and may cause neurologic and autoimmune disorders. During early development, the child’s brain is more susceptible to toxins and the kidneys are less able to eliminate them. Thus, children have a greater risk than adults of adverse reactions to aluminum in vaccines. Millions of children every year are injected with vaccines containing mercury and aluminum despite well-established experimental evidence of the potential for additive or synergistic toxicity when an organism is exposed to two or more toxic metals.” (Neil Z. Miller. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Winter 2016.)

“In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome [Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants]. Aluminum is added to vaccines to help the vaccine work more effectively, but unlike dietary aluminum which will usually clear rapidly from the body, aluminum used in vaccines and injected is designed to provide a long-lasting cellular exposure. Thus, the problem with vaccine-derived aluminum is really twofold: It drives the immune response even in the absence of a viral or bacterial threat and it can make its way into the central nervous system. It is not really a matter of much debate that aluminum in various forms can be neurotoxic.” (Chris Shaw, L. Tomljenovic. Immunologic Research, (2013) 56:304–316 DOI 10.1007/s12026-013-8403-1.)

Based on these, and many other suggestive citations from studies, what honest researcher wouldn’t want to probe the aluminum-vaccine issue to its depths?

A recent paper by several authors, including aluminum expert, Christopher Exley, details a finding of alarmingly high levels of aluminum in the brains of children with autism. The research doesn’t implicate vaccines directly, but it certainly points the way to follow-up investigation—and what should be a moratorium on the production of vaccines using aluminum.

Robert Kennedy, Jr.: “Dr. Exley’s findings have shocking implications for today’s generation of children who receive 5,000 mcg. of aluminum in vaccines by the age of 18 months and up to 5,250 additional mcg. if all recommended boosters, HPV and meningitis vaccines are administered.”

Here is a list of U.S. vaccines containing one or more aluminum adjuvants: Dt, Td, DTaP, Hib, Hep A, Hep B, HPV, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal, DTaP-IPV, DTaP-IPV/Hib, Hep A/HepB.




CHD Launches Immediate Legal Challenge Against NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Forced-Vaccination Order

Source: Health Impact News

BREAKING: NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Orders Forced Vaccinations in Brooklyn

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

 

Just days after the New York Supreme Court struck down a ban on unvaccinated children in Rockland County, New York, after declaring a state of emergency over a measles outbreak, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has taken even more drastic actions in certain Jewish populated neighborhoods in Brooklyn, ordering forced vaccinations for measles.

“There’s no question that vaccines are safe, effective and life-saving,” de Blasio said. “I urge everyone, especially those in affected areas, to get their MMR vaccines to protect their children, families and communities.”

There have been no reported deaths due to measles anywhere in the United States this year.

The Mayor’s order goes beyond what Rockland County Supervisor Ed Day ordered, and includes EVERYONE who is unvaccinated within zip codes 11205, 11206, 11221 and 11249 which are part of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to be vaccinated within 48 hours.

From the order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person who lives, works or resides within the 11205, 11206, 11221 and/or 11249 zip codes and who has not received the MMR vaccine within forty eight (48) hours of this Order being signed by me shall be vaccinated against measles unless such person can demonstrate immunity to the disease or document to the satisfaction of the Department that he or she should be medically exempt from this requirement.

According to WCBS radio in New York:

Members of the city’s Health Department will check the vaccination records of any individual who may have been in contact with infected patients.

Those who have not received the vaccine or do not have evidence of immunity may be given a violation and could be fined $1,000.

Health Department Banning Unvaccinated Students from School

Accoriding to Spectrum News NY1:

“The school will be held responsible if an unvaccinated child is there. In that case, there can be fines levied,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Mayor de Blasio says the health department is now issuing what’s called Commissioner Orders to force yeshivas and childcare centers in Williamsburg  to comply.

“If a school does not address this situation in short order, there’s even the option for the Health Commissioner to have the school close down,” De Blasio said.

State Sen. David Carlucci is pushing legislation that would end most exemptions for vaccinations for children going to school.

“If you have a medical exemption and a doctor signs off on it, then that is totally fine. But we have to stop this practice of allowing people to opt out of the vaccination process,” Carlucci said. (Source.)

Watch the announcement:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense have joined the legal response to this order, and issued the following Press Release:

CHD Launches Immediate Legal Challenge Against
New York City’s Public Health Emergency Due to Measles

In an unprecedented move, the New York City Health Commissioner on April 9, 2019 has imposed an emergency forced vaccination order, requiring ALL people living in four Brooklyn zip codes to receive the MMR vaccine (if they do not have proof of immunity or medical contraindication) within 48 hours or risk criminal and civil penalties. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio made the announcement.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said today that it’s “legally questionable” whether people can be forced to get vaccinated if it violates their religious beliefs.

“Look it’s a serious public health concern, but it’s also a serious First Amendment issue and it is going to be a constitutional, legal question,” Cuomo said.

“Do we have the right — does society, government have the right to say ‘you must vaccinate your child because I’m afraid your child is going to infect my child, even if you don’t want it done and even if it violates your religious beliefs?’ So that is, that’s an issue that’s going to be legally questionable and I’m sure it’s going to go down that path,” Cuomo added.

Children’s Health Defense is supporting a legal effort to restrain this order immediately. Vaccination choice is a human right. While New York City unquestionably has the authority to isolate infectious individuals, and even to quarantine them, and to exclude unvaccinated children from schools during an outbreak in that school, it does not have the authority to require vaccination for all individuals on the basis of zip codes with vaccines that explicitly carry the risk of death. This government overreach requires challenge.

Thank you for your support.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the CHD Team

READ THE ORDER




If Truth Be Told About Aluminum (Aluminium), A Neurotoxin In Vaccines

If Truth Be Told About Aluminum (Aluminium), A Neurotoxin In Vaccines

by Catherine J. Frompovich, Natural Blaze
April 8, 2018

 

Aluminium is neurotoxic. Its free ion, Al3+ (aq), is highly biologically reactive and uniquely equipped to do damage to essential cellular (neuronal) biochemistry. This unequivocal fact must be the starting point in examining the risk posed by aluminium as a neurotoxin in humans. Apr 30, 2014

Source: What is the risk of aluminium as a neurotoxin?

Nothing explains the aluminum free ion Al3+ more intelligently than the following:

The likely principal antagonist in all such events is Al3+ (aq) and its mechanism of action will involve numbers of different agents or intermediates. For example, we know that aluminium is a potent pro-oxidant, its interaction with the superoxide radical anion establishing, fuelling and sustaining redox cycles. The potency of these effects are all the more significant in that the enhanced formation of reactive oxygen species may be accelerated at sites which are distinct and divorced from locations housing the cell’s anti-oxidant machinery. For example, aluminium sinks such as the extracellular senile plaques of Aβ42 and the intracellular chromatin of neuronal nuclei are both likely targets of aluminium-driven oxidative damage. Aluminium is an excitotoxin and a number of mechanisms have been described, whereby aluminium induces elevated and sustained levels of intracellular Ca2+ with significant implications not only for cellular energy metabolism, but also uncontrolled phosphorylation of biomolecules. The presence of biologically reactive aluminium imposes an immediate energy requirement upon a neuron, whether simply because of the need to produce more Ca2+-buffering proteins or because of the requirement to clean-up the consequences of hyperphosphorylation, for example, through autophagosomal activities. Aluminium is a mutagen and the phosphate-rich environment of the nucleus predisposes it to the accumulation of aluminium and subsequent alterations in the expression of genetic materials. The latter may be subtle but sufficient to bring about significant alterations in neuronal physiology over extended time periods. Aluminium is, of course, a powerful immunogen, being the preferred adjuvant in vaccination and immunotherapy. This activity as an adjuvant, and concomitantly as an antigen, at injection sites in skin or muscle must also be considered for focal accumulations of aluminium within the CNS and such reactivity may underlie aluminium’s suggested roles in autoimmunity. [3–5]

[CJF emphasis]

Source: Taylor & Francis Online

And yet, consensus-vaccinology-science doesn’t get it! Why?

There has to be another designated reason, plus rationale, for poisoning the CNS (central nervous system) of a human starting in infancy with mandated hyper-containing-aluminum-salts (as adjuvants) in any of 3 formulations, i.e., Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and potassium aluminum sulfate (alum):

Aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines such as hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-containing vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and pneumococcal vaccines, but they are not used in the live, viral vaccines, such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and rotavirus.

Source: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Proving the above

To check the quantities of aluminum in any vaccine on the CDC/FDA schedule for infants, children and adults, please search each vaccine using the following resource: Vaccine Package Inserts. Scroll to Section 11 Description, which lists the type of aluminum and the number of micrograms, plus other ingredients.

Medical Care

The most important part of emergency medical treatment is the recognition of possible aluminum toxicity based on risks (eg, renal insufficiency, aluminum exposure) and symptoms (eg, altered mental status, anemia, osteoporosis).

Treatment of aluminum toxicity includes elimination of aluminum from the diet, TPN, dialysate, medications, antiperspirants, and an attempt at the elimination and chelation of the element from the body’s stores.

Source: Aluminum Toxicity Treatment & Management (July 10, 2017)
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-treatment

Research

Research at Keele University in Staffordshire, UK, has shown for the first time that an individual who was exposed to aluminum at work and died of Alzheimer’s disease had high levels of aluminum in the brain.

[….]

Professor Chris Exley, of The Birchall Centre, at Keele University, said: “The results showed unequivocally that the frontal lobe contained an average aluminum content which was at least four times higher than might be expected for an age-matched control brain.

Source: Elevated brain aluminium, early onset Alzheimer’s disease in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212093300.htm

Dr. Christopher Exley, PhD, premiere aluminum researcher for close to 30 years, recently has had his funding in aluminum research halted!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/funding-halted-for-professor-chris-exley-linking-vaccines-to-autism-8xvwp0g8p

Medications

The medication, deferoxamine mesylate, may be given to help eliminate aluminum from your body. This substance works through a procedure known as chelation, which helps the body remove poisonous materials.

Source: Aluminum Toxicity

http://www.winchesterhospital.org/health-library/article?id=164929

Notation should be made, and even emphasized, that the allopathic medical paradigm disapproved of chelation as a “quack-medicine” modality when used by holistic and integrative physicians, and actually prosecuted some physicians for using the modality! The above indicates just how screwed up allopathic medical science actually is, since allopathy now incorporates what it previously condemned. Go figure!

Thus, the mechanism of Al toxicity appears to be different in the two cell lines. It is possible that the principal neurotoxic target of the metal is glial and when these cells are in a compromised state, this may secondarily impact the neuronal population and thus eventually lead to neurodegeneration.

Source: Differential Toxicity of Aluminum Salts in Human Cell Lines of Neural Origin: Implications for Neurodegeneration
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X00000073

The purported ‘science’ behind vaccines must be investigated.

Why? Most annual flu vaccines are not subject to the testing as other vaccines. The reason: Because they are formulated from a ‘sophisticated guessing game formula’ based upon what strains appeared prevalent in the previous Australian winter flu season!

However, veterinary medicine has taken a different look at animal vaccines, which is discussed in Vital Vaccination Antibody Titers Versus Vaccination
https://todaysveterinarypractice.com/vital-vaccination-series-antibody-titers-versus-vaccination/

All the above indicates the need for independent – no Big Pharma – involvement in assaying the neurotoxic effects of aluminum in vaccines given to infants as early as 24 hours old, especially in view of the Autism epidemic in the USA, i.e., one in 34 in New Jersey!, and spreading globally.

Congress, why aren’t you performing your Oversight duties?

Resources:

Aluminum Toxicity
https://myersdetox.com/aluminum-toxicity/

8 Ways to Protect Yourself from Aluminum Poisoning
https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/nutrition/8-ways-to-protect-yourself-from-aluminum-poisoning/

 

Connect with Natural Blaze




Switches Off Chronic Pain Without Opioids, 3-Step Surprise

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 7, 2019
Source

 

 

Three Alternative Strategies That Can Address Severe Chronic Pain

 

https://youtu.be/gw2jS0reGvo?list=PL7YKya_R1ROuUrNMcz0GSieM4qjsQL1Oj

 

Story at-a-glance

  • Dr. Mark DeBrincat, a chiropractor also known as the “Good News Doctor,” recovered from severe injuries that kept him in severe chronic pain for 15 years using neurofeedback, essential oils and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatments
  • With the use of eight essential oils, DeBrincat was able to remodel the tissue in his spine, reducing his pain from a 10 to a 5, and then to zero
  • The neurofeedback device consists of a cap with 19 leads hooked to a computer that register neural activity, giving you a three-dimensional map of your neurology
  • Once dysregulated areas of your brain have been identified, they can be targeted to increase neuroplasticity. Once neuroplasticity kicks in, you start growing new tissue
  • Essential oils are volatile compounds found in grasses, trees, roots, bark, leaves and flowers. Essential oils in general are about 50 to 70 times more powerful than herbs, and should be used sparingly

 


Dr. Mark DeBrincat, a chiropractor and natural health physician also known as “The Good News Doctor,” has a most amazing story of recovery from one of the worst chronic debilitating pain syndromes that I’ve ever heard of, so I asked him to share his journey with you, in the hopes it may motivate you to seek natural approaches to pain.Many see opiates as the only option for severe pain, which can have severe health consequences. Opioids are extremely addictive and 130 Americans die from opioid overdoses each and every day.1 The death toll from opioids is so great it has actually contributed to lowered life expectancy in the U.S.

 

A Terrible Accident

Twenty-one years ago, traveling from Georgia to Florida to attend a chiropractic conference, DeBrincat and his wife were in a terrible car accident. That they both survived was a miracle in itself. His wife ended up with whiplash and fractured C3 through 5.

“I remember laying in the hospital and threatening her doctor that if he didn’t put a perfect curve into her neck or if he fused all her bones together, he’d never hear the end of my name,” DeBrincat says.

“He literally took the titanium plate home and pounded in a nice curve for me. Here, 21 years later, she’s got a beautiful cervical lateral curve and she still has her joint below a fusion, which is just amazing.

She healed in just a few months and then took care of me for years. I was a hot mess. Bracing my legs on the dashboard on impact saved my life, but also literally split my pelvis in half. The pubic bone snapped in the front, and my sacrum cracked top to bottom in the back.

I ripped the muscles off most of my legs [on] both sides … Then I lost my sigmoid and descending colon in all of that, amongst many other injuries. I spent months confined to a hospital bed. It took me several years to be able to go back to work again as a chiropractor. I had to become my own patient …

By 2010, I was permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair. I had stabbing pain from my neck, all the way to my tailbone. I had no feeling in my arms or legs, but my hands and feet felt like burning broken glass all the time. I was trying everything.”

 

Remembering the Body’s Self-Healing Capacity

Raised by holistic parents, DeBrincat was determined to heal from his injuries without drugs, but after seven back surgeries and years of pain, he succumbed to Oxy, Soma and Xanax.

“I let them just throw any medication at me that would take my pain level from a 10 down,” he says. “We found the combination of narcotics, muscle relaxers and anti-anxiety pills that would take me from a 10 to an 8. That was survivable; 10 was just — you cannot live in that environment for the rest of your life.”

Eventually, he also had a computer implanted in his spinal cord at T10, which when turned on would numb his entire spine. “It was basically radar-jamming the pain so that I could move my limbs and actually start to be a little bit independent. That was a big breakthrough,” he says. Still, even this device was not enough to get him off the narcotics. It signified a turning point though. Fifteen years after the accident, he had an epiphany.

“I remembered back in school we talked about healing, getting better and overcoming anything. It’s always innate. We heal from the inside out. We get harmed from the outside in. I really started studying more epigenetics.

In studying the health of our cells, something clicked one day and I thought to myself, ‘You know, every cell has a turnover rate. If I can just simply make the next version of my cells be better than this one, I think I might actually be able to overcome this problem …

Our eyes only take two days. Our gums take two weeks. All the cells are replaced. Our throat takes two months. The lining in our lungs takes eight days. I started having hope, [thinking] ‘I can start doing more things now to impact the health of the cell. The new versions of these cells are going to be better than the last.’”

 

Step 1: Aggressive Neurofeedback Training

One of the strategies he used was neurofeedback, which is also recommended for people recovering from traumatic brain injuries. For years, he’d been doing quantitative electroencephalography (qEEGs) and neurofeedback training, but only for 30 minutes, two to three times a week. “We were told that you could never do more than that because your brain can’t handle it. You’ll fatigue and it’ll cause more problems,” he says.During the time he was wheelchair bound, his brain map indicated neural overactivity, and the neurofeedback training wasn’t correcting that. He then heard a lecture in which it was stated that patients addicted to narcotics for pain need very aggressive neurofeedback training. DeBrincat immediately began doing hours of neurofeedback each day.

“In a few short months, my ability to feel more in my legs, to do more for myself and get myself dressed, was amazing. It was like I’d had the answer all along. I didn’t know I could be tapping into that. With my newfound freedom of, ‘I’m growing new cells, now I can grow new cells in my brain and spine where I have all this damage,’ that was super exciting.”

 

Discovering Essential Oils

Shortly after that, he met a woman who gave him a bottle of an essential oil. “She says, ‘Honey, just put this wherever it hurts and all your pain is going to go away’ … I remember putting it in my bag and rolling away thinking, ‘Come on. I’ve got the best doctors in the world who get me the best, strongest medications. And your little oil, it’s kind of a joke to me,’” DeBrincat says.He admits he knew nothing about essential oils, and the oil sat in his bag, untouched, for five weeks. During a vacation, his wife ended up using it while giving him a massage one day. Remarkably, it eased his pain. That was five years ago, and for the first time, he felt no pain anywhere.“I just sat bawling and crying,” he says. He’d been in pain for so long, he’d forgotten what it felt like to be pain free. With the computer in his spine, he could normally walk 20 to 30 steps max at a time. If he pushed further, he’d be bedridden for days.That day, he set the pedometer on his watch and started walking. “I walked 5,700 steps,” he says. “I could not believe it.” The next morning, he was still pain free. From there, he went on to study essential oils.

“I found eight different oils that remodeled all the tissue in my spine. I put them on and it would bring me to a pain level 5 from a 10,” he says. “Then somebody who knew a whole lot more about oils looked at my list and goes, ‘You know what? Just turn your list upside down and do it in the other order. When you do it that way, it’s going to have a much greater effect on you.’

I did that and, oh my goodness, it went to pain level zero. Now, I could be pain-free completely for literally 12 hours before any pain came back. I would do it twice a day …

The body is remodeling itself. The oils that are helping remodel tissue are literally getting in there with the DNA when it makes 3 billion copies of itself before it finds the cleanest one to go into the new cell. It helps take out debris, damage, toxins, scars … so that you can give back to your root cell, which is the purest form before you had all your problems …

I did this back protocol for 90 days, then stopped. Within 24 hours, I was right back in this horrible pain again … I went another 90 days and then stopped, and made it four days before any pain came back. Now, this was a second epiphany, because now I really, honest to God, believed I was getting better … [I did] another 90 days and then stopped. That was August 2014. I’ve never had to do that protocol for my back since.”

He used peppermint, Siberian fir, cypress for his essential oils. Remarkably, the stenosis in his neck and low back is now gone, herniations throughout his spine are gone, as is his arthritis. Even the scars on his back have radically improved.

“I got my life back. I was so passionate. I could teach again. Anybody who saw me walking was like, ‘This is an absolute true miracle. I can’t believe what I’m seeing. Are you a twin brother?’ I taught continuing education in a wheelchair for a lot of years. For them to see me walking was astonishing.”

 

PEMF — Another Breakthrough

He still had limitations though. He couldn’t exercise, lift weights or stretch, for example, and his feet would go numb when walking. His next breakthrough came when he discovered pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy. After five weeks of PEMF treatments, his blood circulation dramatically improved, resolving the remaining limitations.

“My kids grew up with me in a wheelchair most of the years, especially during all their middle school years, and that was so crucial. To be able to have this amazing abundant life with them now and to be able to mountain bike, snow ski, dirt bike, snowmobile, hike and all the wonderful fun things we love doing, it’s just a dream come true.

We’re always looking for products and things that impact us, that give us hope again. That’s why I’ve been known as the ‘Good News Doctor.’ People say, ‘You know what? I always get bad news from my doctor. You’re the first one who’s given me hope again.’

When you’ve been through any major health crisis and you come out the other end, your purpose kind of changes. It evolves into, I guess, how God wants to use you to help people. From being in a wheelchair for so many years and coming out, our main passion is helping people with neurofeedback.

We do the brain mapping … in the privacy of their own home … We can literally give [patients] two years of care in one month, aggressively, and then make those breakthroughs happen over and over again. That’s so exciting.”

While DeBrincat’s story may sound too good to be true, it’s important to realize he did a lot of work on himself throughout. He juiced every day, ate whole food, avoided toxins, and would do his own physical therapy for three to four hours a day for all those years. Still, his recovery is astounding, considering the extent of his injuries and the time spent in disability.Neurofeedback ExplainedThe neurofeedback device basically consists of a cap with 19 leads that hook to a computer. The leads can be likened to very sensitive microphones that register neural activity. Placed around the head, you end up with a three-dimensional image or map of your neurology.Once the dysregulated areas of your brain have been identified, those areas can be targeted to increase neuroplasticity in that region. Once neuroplasticity kicks in, you start growing new tissue.

“This is inspiring for those who are stuck in pain, because you have what’s called a pain network. When that network is not functioning right, you are experiencing pain through your nervous system and you can’t just turn it off …

Knowing there’s technology that can pinpoint a specific network and grow tissue to help that network, this has given us so much hope to help people who are needlessly suffering in pain, because honestly, there’s no drug that’s going to heal them …

I think doctors who don’t either refer out to this or don’t have [neurofeedback] in their practice have a big black hole in trying to help people, because there’s so much information that we’re getting from the brain …

It really should be the foundation, and part of the initial examination … We need to see how well your brain’s functioning, because that’s controlling everything … A great starting point is to get everything back online, then everything else you’re doing after that will work better.”

 

Essential Oil Benefits

Essential oils are volatile compounds found in grasses, trees, roots, bark, leaves and flowers. Essential oils in general are about 50 to 70 times more powerful than herbs, so must be used sparingly. Quality and purity are of the utmost importance when seeking medicinal benefits, so it’s important to do your homework.

“Some of them help wake you up, like peppermint oil. One drop of peppermint on your hand, rub your hands together, hold it in front of your nose; in 15 seconds, you’re going to have about 20 percent more oxygen in your brain.

Some of these oils are so small they can go right through your blood-brain barrier and actually enhance your mood and change the way you’re feeling. That’s phenomenal as far as people who are depressed and have anxiety and so forth.”

DeBrincat found there’s a definite synergy between the brain mapping and the oils. Using qEEG, he could see the effect of an essential oil on the brain, often in as little as 30 seconds, either calming down an overexcited area or waking up a low-functioning region.Essential oils also work as adaptogens. For example, the same oil that works to calm anxiety will work to ease depression, which are two poles on the spectrum. Helichrysum is a blood adaptogen. “I put that over my heart every day,” DeBrincat says.

“If my blood’s too thick, it’s going to thin it. If my blood’s too thin, it’s going to help thicken it. Oils are very intuitive in nature to know what properties you need. The way it does that is by using different vibrations on both sides of the active ingredient to be able to illicit different responses with the same oil.”

 

More Information

You can get more information about DeBrincat and his practice on TheGoodNewsDr.com. He takes care of patients all across the U.S. In closing, he stresses the importance of neurofeedback for getting more rapid results when you’re trying to address severe pain. You have a number of options for that. You can try doing an online search for local doctors that provide the service. Some will offer home units for rent, which is the most ideal option if you’re going to use it daily.




Three New Reasons to Question Vaccine Effectiveness Amid “Anti-Vaxxer” Censorship

Source: Truthstream Media

by Melissa Dykes
April 5, 2019

 

There are a lot of reasons people question vaccines in a country with the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world where citizens are not allowed to directly sue vaccine manufacturers for vaccine-induced injuries.

While the censorship rages against the so-called “anti-vax” community to shut down online content that even questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines on various platforms including YouTube, Facebook, and even Amazon, it’s quietly coming out all over the place that our vaccines just really aren’t as effective as the CDC, Big Pharma, it’s lackeys (again, this), and the pro-vaccine crowd would have everyone believe.

Straight away, here are three reasons that have popped up in recent weeks why people are questioning the effectiveness of vaccines.

Fully Vaccinated Sailors & a Mumps Outbreak

The Business Insider reported March 29, 2019 that 27 US Navy sailors have been quarantined at sea for several months now due to a viral outbreak of what they are craftily referring to as a “probable case of the mumps”:

A US Navy warship deployed to the Persian Gulf has been stuck at sea for months due to a viral outbreak of what’s likely the mumps, and servicemembers are continuing to fall ill as the medical workers try to get the situation under control, Fifth Fleet told Business Insider Thursday.

If you were not aware, all branches of the US military require a full battery of vaccines for all new recruits. According to this chart on military vaccines administered for Basic Training and Officer Accession Training, updated Feb. 2019, “Measles Mumps and rubella (MMR) are administered to all recruits regardless of prior history”. Meaning, that even if these servicemembers received their required MMR vaccines as children, they would have been given yet another upon entering the Navy.

So… Why are they getting mumps?

Well, that depends who you ask. The Business Insider promptly changed its headline to add the word “rare”.

Meanwhile, what most people don’t know is that two former Merck virologists blew the whistle on the MMR vaccine’s effectiveness nearly a decade ago by filing a qui tam action lawsuit against Merck & Co. in August 2010.

As you can see from the suit, the former Merck scientists claim that “by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data,” Merck is concealing the fact that the company knows specifically that its mumps vaccine is “far less than” the 95 percent effectiveness the company claims.

The introduction to the 2010 whistleblower lawsuit against Merck & Co.

Note that the suit is specifically about the efficacy of the mumps vaccine, including MMR II and ProQuad versions.

Not only that, but the former Merck virologists also claim this is a “decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine”. So this has allegedly been going on since at least 2000, and the lawsuit has been prodding along ever so slowly since 2010.

It’s 2019 now. I wonder how long they’re gonna drag this thing out, don’t you?

On an MMR aside, it was also reported in the March 2017 edition of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology (Vol. 55, Issue 3) that, “During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees” and “Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015” a whopping “73 were identified as vaccine sequences”.

So there’s that. New technology is allowing researchers to sequence viruses and find out if they are wild — or from a vaccine.

CDC Announces in March 2019 that Children Are “Less Protected” by Whooping Cough Vaccines than They Once Were

On March 14 it was reported that CDC researchers analyzed lab samples from whooping cough patients between 2000 and 2013 and determined that the bacteria that causes whooping cough has undergone genetic changes over time. In short, the vaccination they are currently administering to children for pertussis, including in the DTaP vaccine, is no longer effective because the whooping cough bacteria has mutated. How long has that been the case? Hard to say.

And yet, the USA Today article still went on to claim, “The best protection against whooping cough remains the DTaP vaccine”.

Really? How does that work? (Oh, right…)

“We’re making the best use of the vaccine, while we’re frantically doing research to make a better one,” Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told NBC News. Not sure how they can “make the best use” out of a vaccine that they basically just admitted is pretty well worthless.

Dr. Schaffner also noted that a new vaccine for whooping cough “is nowhere near ready”.

CDC Says This Year’s Flu Vaccine Has an Overall Effectiveness of Just 47%

But take a look at this breakdown, as per Table 2 of the CDC’s Feb. 15, 2019 MMWR (click to enlarge):

While the overall adjusted effectiveness for all age groups comes out to 47 percent, the older one gets, the less effective the flu vaccine becomes. That 47 percent actually breaks out as 61 percent overall for ages six months to 17 years; 37 percent overall for 18-49 years; and just 24 percent overall for people age 50 and over.

CNN once again spoke to Dr. William Schaffner (guess he’s the go-to soundbite guy on vaccines for our nation’s mainstream media outlets this year?) who said, “those who get flu after receiving vaccine” (Wait, isn’t that supposed to be the point? Taking a vaccine to prevent the flu? Oh sorry, continuing — ) “are less likely to require hospitalization and are less likely to die of the illness”.

He followed that with, “The vaccine is not perfect, but give the vaccine credit for softening the blow.”

Is that the best spin they’ve got? How many other times in life is a 47 percent hailed as a success? That’s less than half a chance that the shot is worthless.

Then again, maybe they are comparing the 2019 flu vaccine to last year, when it was reported that the 2018 vaccine would only be 10 percent effective. At the announcement, doctors were still telling people that 10 percent is quote “better than nothing” and Dr. Pardis Sabeti, a Harvard professor and infectious disease expert, doubled down on CBS This Morning with, “In fact, in a year where it’s low effectiveness, it’s even more important that everybody get it so we can get as much resistance and we don’t allow the virus to thrive and grow and keep changing.” [emphasis added]

That logic is just… painful to behold.

Cui Bono?

Maybe now is a good time to point out that major pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars every year peddling their wares.

By billions, we’re talking nearly $30 billion in 2016 alone. Big Pharma forked over $9.6 billion to mainstream media outlets for the privilege of running direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads that year. That means American viewers saw an astounding 663,000 TV commercials for pharmaceuticals in 2016. You can barely make your way through a show on most major networks these days without at least one generic stock footage filled commercial where a friendly voiceover actor — after listing off a vague set of symptoms followed by a bunch of nightmarish side effects — implores us to become our own drug sales rep and ‘ ask our doctor today’ for whatever drug will supposedly make our lives as great as the people smiling their way through the generic stock footage.

The US is one of only two countries in the entire world where pharmaceutical companies are legally allowed to sell drugs directly to consumers (the other is Australia). Nowhere else on the planet is DTC pharmaceutical advertising allowed. Our government representatives, well funded by Big Pharma campaign contributions and surrounded by the industry’s lobbyists ($27.5 million in 2018), are well aware of the fact that this practice is a cost effective way of turning viewers into patients. A 2008 House Commerce Committee report states,

“Every $1 spent on direct-to-consumer advertising results in up to a $6 increase in sales. One study demonstrated that every $1,000 spent on direct-to-consumer advertisements resulted in 24 new prescriptions.”

Recently, an FDA medical adviser straight up told Yahoo! Finance, “Congress is owned by pharma.”

The point, however, is with numbers that substantial, there is no possible way for mainstream outlets to pretend with a straight face that they do not have a vested interest in how their reporters treat topics like, oh, I dunno, vaccines.

“If nearly $10 billion was spent on advertising, where did the other $20 billion go?” you might ask. Well, dear reader, it went to persuading doctors and other medical professionals (who may or may not get interviewed by media outlets for their “professional” opinion) of “the benefits of prescription drugs”.

The Bottom Line

The establishment figures that sell vaccines and the corporations that produce them act like vaccines are completely risk-free, so even if there’s only a ghost of a chance a vaccine will actually be effective as promoted or promised, then it’s worth it. The problem is, more and more people are realizing that vaccines are not 100 percent safe and without side effects. Those side effects are worth discussing, especially when we’re dealing with vaccines which the CDC has admitted are not as effective as they should be or Merck scientists-turned whistleblowers are litigating over.

The package inserts for vaccines list a wide and sometimes horrifying array of side effects. The MMR Insert, directly off Merck’s own website, says, “M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.”

Ahem. Why not? Doesn’t that seem like an important thing to evaluate??

The government’s no-fault Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out $4 billion to vaccine injured Americans since it was set up in 1986. That’s the same year Congress signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which in essence set up a system that does not allow Americans to directly sue vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injuries.

It’s probably not a coincidence that the schedule of vaccines went from seven injections and 24 doses in 1983 before this legislation was passed, to a whopping 51 injections of 70 doses by 2016.

Meanwhile, this is the kind of sentiment being posted on social media about so-called “anti-vaxxers”:

Sigh…
Where do I even begin?

 

We the People have to be able to talk about vaccines.

https://youtu.be/a3EHrjfLXaw

 




Vaccines for Profit and Destruction

Source:  Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport
April 3, 2019

 

“Whatever else modern medicine has wrought—and it has given birth to some impressive technical fixes and pinpoint trauma care—it has produced an unprecedented transformation of society into a universal hospital. Medicine, Rockefeller motivated, makes disease, and then treats what it has made. There is no other commercial operation on the planet that exceeds its reach or profit. Create an endless problem, and then pretend to solve it: that is the secret mission. Make the solution a new problem begging for more answers: that is the strategy. Reduce vitality and life-force: that is the objective. Control of the disabled is far easier than control of the robustly healthy.” (Notes on Vaccines, Jon Rappoport)

I point your attention to a recent riveting article, “Vaccines: Gateway Drugs by Design,” at Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s World Mercury Project. The author of the article is Kristina Kristen.

Kristen lays out a case for drug companies as creators of disease, via their childhood vaccines—which diseases they then treat with their own hugely profitable drugs. A closed circle.

Key quotes from the article:

“The main vaccine producing companies, the ‘BIG 4’, Merck, GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, who make all our children’s vaccines, list the very illnesses now seen in epidemic numbers in our children, in their own vaccine inserts, as potential adverse effects.”

“The drug ‘treatment’ side of the equation, which is substantially more lucrative than the ‘gateway’ vaccine side the BIG 4 already monopolized, now also increased substantially. The vaccine manufacturers began to capitalize on the known adverse effects of their vaccines, and have since created drugs for the ‘treatment’ side of the equation as well. The lack of incentive to make safe products, which created the bloated vaccine schedule, became the gateway to the lucrative drug treatment side for these companies. Today, the BIG 4 monopolize vaccines as well as the drug ‘treatments’ for chronic illnesses known to be induced by vaccines. First, vaccines push kids off the cliff, and then vaccine makers profit from ‘rescuing’ those they don’t kill.”

“It is NOT A COINCIDENCE that the same BIG 4 companies, GSK, Merck, Sanofi and Pfizer, the largest manufacturers of vaccines in the U.S., happen to also produce the top grossing drugs that treat the most common side effects from their own vaccines: Autoimmunity, asthma, anaphylaxis, allergies, ADHD, rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, etc.”

“Vaccines, in fact, make up the foundation of the BIG 4 trillion-dollar drug skyscrapers [companies] built on treating the chronic illnesses they KNOWINGLY create with their vaccines (again, the adverse effects are written in their vaccine inserts).”

One example among many: Advair, a drug for asthma, manufactured by vaccine giant GSK, which brought in $4.36 billion in sales, in 2017. Asthma is a common effect of childhood vaccinations.

Author Kristen is documenting the charge that medical drug producers are essentially creating the diseases they then “treat” with their own medicines.

From my own experience with hospitals and doctors, I can say that, for the most part, medical personnel are unaware of any possible connection between vaccines, childhood diseases, and drugs purportedly designed to reduce the effects of the vaccines. These doctors and nurses would never believe there is a closed circle based on profits.

But there is more. The drugs used to treat the adverse effects of vaccines cause their own expanding disease outcomes—and then new drugs are developed to treat these illnesses.

The federal government, in collusion with media networks, has covered up the disastrous death numbers resulting from medical care. For years I’ve been documenting the research that reveals those numbers. For instance, see “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” This review was written in 2000 by Dr. Barbara Starfield, at the time a revered expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Starfield concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system killed 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million deaths per decade. In a 2009 interview, Starfield told me that 225,000 was a conservative estimate…




If Truth Be Told About Cowpox & Smallpox Diseases: Scientific Differences That Caused a Pharmaceutical Fairytale

Source:  Natural Blaze

by Catherine Frompovich
March 25, 2019

 

 

“I hope that someday the practice of producing cowpox in human beings will spread over the world – when that day comes, there will be no more smallpox. – Edward Jenner

 


 

Holy cow!

Edward Jenner did not know cowpox and smallpox were/are two different organisms or diseases!

And the pharmaceutical industry followed charlatan Edward Jenner into a perpetuity of high profits and criminal scientific misdemeanors for which Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers are not being held accountable within product liability law, at least in the USA, due to the actions of the U.S. Congress in 1986 when it passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).

By 1985, vaccine manufacturers had difficulty obtaining liability insurance. … Because of this, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986, establishing a federal no-fault system to compensate victims of injury caused by mandated vaccines.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act]

[Who says vaccines are safe, if Congress in 1986 recognized injuries caused by vaccines? Don’t people have the inherent right to protect themselves and their children from known vaccine adverse health effects, especially neurotoxins and toxic chemicals?]

 

Cowpox Definition

noun

a viral disease of cows’ udders which, when contracted by humans through contact, resembles mild smallpox, and was the basis of the first smallpox vaccines.

[Dictionary online]

Cowpox is a viralskininfectioncaused by the cowpox or catpox virus. This is a member of the Orthopoxvirus family, which includes the variola virus that causes smallpox. Cowpox is similar to but much milder than the highlycontagious and sometimes deadly smallpox disease.

[https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cowpox/]

 

What is the treatment for cowpox?

However, studies in mice suggest a role for the viral DNA polymerase inhibitor cidofovir, given parenterally, topically, or in an aerosolized form, for disseminated cases of cowpox. Patients should be made aware that their lesions are potentially infectious, but no person-to-person transmission has been reported. Jun 19, 2018

[https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1131886-treatment]

 

Medical Care

Because cowpox is generally a self-limited disease, treatment is largely supportive. Patients often do not feel well and require bed rest or, occasionally, hospitalization.

[https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1131886-treatment]

 

What is the treatment of cowpox?

There is no cure for cowpox, but the disease is self-limiting. The human immune response is sufficient to control the infections on its own. The lesions heal by themselves within 6–12 weeks. Often patients are left with scars at the site of the healed pox lesions.

Patients may feel unwell and require bed rest and supportive therapy. Wound dressings or bandages may be applied to lesions to prevent spread to other sites and potentially to other people.

Patients with underlying skin conditions, such as atopic dermatitis, may be at greater risk of generalised cowpox.

[https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cowpox/]

 

How many people have died from cowpox?

The scourge of the world. An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone. This virulent disease, which kills a third of those it infects, is known to have co-existed with human beings for thousands of years. Feb 17, 2011

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml]

 

The question above refers to cowpox, but the data “spinmiesters” cite smallpox deaths!

What kind of transparency, plus scientific accuracy, is that in reporting medical and health information over the Internet? Doesn’t that represent an example of real fake news?

Vaccine MIS-information probably is the primary example of fake news on the Internet!

I believe I can make that statement unequivocally, as the above discussion of cowpox not being smallpox clearly demonstrates, plus my researching vaccine science data since the 1980s!

In England, the Royal Society For Public Health, Vision and Practice published online its 36-page report “Moving The Needle, Promoting vaccination uptake across the life course,” which clearly sets out the projected long-range plans for all the vaccines coming from Big Pharma.

In the above Report’s section titled “Responsibility of the press,” we find this:

The press, therefore, has a responsibility to share accurate, evidence-based information about vaccinations, given the vital role vaccinations play in improving and maintaining the health of the population. [Pg. 32] [CJF emphasis everywhere]

No truer words spoken, but definitely not practiced by mainstream media!

There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles regarding the dangers and downfalls of vaccines, their ingredients and harms [vaccine package inserts Contraindications, Adverse Events] etc. published online, and

Is there an obvious Conclusion?

If Jenner’s ignorance, misinformation and ‘scientific’ lie(s) have been promoted since the 1700s, isn’t it time to confess the mistake; correct the science; and re-establish scientific integrity within medicine and pharmacology?

Remember, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.




A Perfect Nightmare: Cryptoklepto

Source:  Giza Death Star

by Joseph P. Farrell
March 25, 2019

 

Regular readers here will be accustomed to my occasional rants and warnings about crypto-currencies. And those who are familiar with those rants will understand that I’m not an investment advisor, much less a “policy maker” (thank God!). I’m a hack from South Dakota who likes to indulge in high octane speculation. And today I want to do double duty and give not one, but two, high octane speculations about three very seemingly unrelated articles, shared by Ms. K.M., Mr G.L.R.,  and Mr. E.G. (who also kindly shared his own speculations in his email, which I will attempt to outline because they impact on my own). In addition to that, Catherine Austin Fitts also shared a story from the Bank of International Smugglers… er… I mean… the Bank of International Settlements, that is also germane to my high octane speculations. So with all those caveats on the record, let’s dive into the first article:

Oregon Bill Would Create Banking Alternative for Cannabis Industry, Bypass Federal Reserve

Now let’s cite a few paragraphs then summarize what the implications are:

A bill filed in the Oregon House would establish limited state-chartered banks to serve the cannabis industry. Final passage of this legislation would remove a major federal roadblock in front of the developing industry in the state and further nullify federal prohibition in practice.

Rep. Pam Marsh (D) and Rep. Ken Helm (D) introduced House Bill 3169 (HB3169) on Feb. 28. The legislation would create a self-contained, state chartered banking system for the cannabis industry in Oregon.

Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, cannabis businesses in states that have legalized marijuana remain effectively locked out of the banking system. If a federally chartered or insured financial institution touches marijuana money, it takes on significant legal risk. The federal government insures or charters virtually every bank in the U.S. As a result, cannabis businesses have been forced to transact almost exclusively in cash. Passage of HB3169 would bypass the federal banking system and create a limited banking alternative for the marijuana industry in Oregon.

HB3619 would authorize banking institutions and credit unions to organize as limited charter cannabis financial institutions. Cannabis businesses would be able to deposit funds in these institutions and write “special purpose checks” for the following:

(a) To pay fees or taxes to a public body;

(b) To pay rent on property that is leased by, or on behalf of, a cannabis business;

(c) To pay a vendor that is physically located in Oregon for goods or services associated with a cannabis business; and

(d) To purchase bonds issued by a public body.

Oregon is among a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.

So what do we have? (1) A growing number of states that are fed up with the ever-growing unmanageable marsh monster in Swampington, D.C.; and by the same token (2) a growing popular distaste for far-off bureaucrats making decisions as representatives of corporations and banksters about how local people with live, run their lives, and govern themselves; (3) a determination to create local or regional means of financial transaction, with media of exchange actually backed by something (in this case, marijuana). When Ms. K.M. sent along this email, she indicated that her suspicion was that this was but the camel’s nose in the door.

If one looks at this list, I suspect she’s right, for almost anything could be used to create such banks, from marijuana to gold – think of Texas’ state bullion depository – to food or, to borrow a page from the Nazis for a moment, Feder’s “labor treasury certificates,” which represented a kind of “state surplus” medium of exchange. In other words, Oregon’s move is of a piece with Texas’ bullion depository in a sense, and part of wider moves by several states in the United States that have passed “constitutional money” resolutions. These moves all occur, let it be noted, in the same time frame that several countries are trying to repatriate their physical gold reserves, a trend that was kicked off by Germany a few years ago, and which list has grown to include Australia, Austria, the Netherlands, and of course, Venezuela.

Meanwhile, of course, the globalist banksters are not idle, and have been noticing the growing trend of dissatisfaction with their grand scheme of creating a global centralized government with billionaire busybodies telling everyone else how big their toilet bowls can be, how many vaccines their children must have, how many showers per week they can take, and most importantly, has been throwing up road blocks to those countries trying to repatriate their gold. Recall the difficulty Germany encountered for a while trying to do so. Venezuela was simply told “you can’t have your gold because we don’t like you,” no doubt because Venezuela was not Germany and could not make as big of a fuss.

Which leads to the second article shared by Mr. E.G.:

Gold – Preparing For The Next Move

Now, again, I’m not an investment advisor, nor are my speculations to be construed as such. I only share my own personal reactions to what appears to be emerging, which brings us to Mr. E.G.’s speculations which are quite similar to my own. The crucial crux interpretum of this second article appears to be this:

The finances of any government whose unbacked currency is the national pricing medium are central to determining future general price levels. Just taking the US dollar for example, the government’s debt to GDP ratio is over 100% (in 1929 it was less than 40%). At the peak of the cycle, the government should have a revenue surplus reflecting underlying full employment and the peak of tax revenues. In 1929, the surplus was 0.7% of estimated GDP; today it is a deficit of 5.5% of GDP. In 1929, the government had minimal legislated welfare commitments, the net present value of which was therefore trivial. The deficits that arose in the 1930s were due to falling tax revenues and voluntary government schemes enacted by Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt. Today, the present value of future welfare commitments is staggering, and estimates for the US alone range up to $220 trillion, before adjusting for future currency debasement.

Other countries are in a potentially worse position, particularly in Europe. A global economic slump on any scale, let alone that approaching the 1930s depression, will have a drastic impact on all national finances. Tax revenues will collapse while welfare obligations escalate. Some governments are more exposed than others, but the US, UK, Japan and EU governments will see their finances spin out of control. Furthermore, their ability to cut spending is limited to that not mandated by law. Even assuming responsible stewardship by politicians, the expansion of budget deficits can only be financed through monetary inflation.

That is the debt trap, and it has already sprung shut on minimal interest rates. For a temporary solution, governments can only turn to central banks to fund runaway government deficits by inflationary means. The inflation of money and credit is the central banker’s cure-all for everything. Inflation is not only used to finance governments but to provide the commercial banks with the wherewithal to stimulate an economy. An acceleration of monetary inflation is therefore guaranteed by a global economic slowdown, so the purchasing power of fiat currencies will take another lurch downwards as the dilution is absorbed. That is the message we must take on board when debating physical gold, which is the only form of money free of all liabilities.

Gold can only give an approximation of the loss of purchasing power in a fiat currency during a slump, because gold’s own purchasing power will be rising at the same time. Between 1930 and 1933 the wholesale price index in America fell 31.6% and consumer prices by 17.8%. These price changes reflected the increasing purchasing power of gold, because of its fixed convertibility with the dollar at that time.

When Mr. E.G., shared his speculations on what all this meant, he proposed the following: that there were discernible signs that central banks were moving toward the creation of a crypto-currency world, or a cashless society, with the crypto-currencies or some type of digital currency backed by (1) gold, and (2) collateralized space assets.  This, in essence, was my own speculation at the 2014 Secret Space Program Conference in San Mateo, Nuttyfornia. There I proposed that space assets had been collateralized from a very early period in the post-World War Two era as a component of a secret system of finance. More importantly, recent stories seem to indicate this may have been the case, as a few years ago we were treated to stories about certain asteroids having astronomical resources that were valued in the quadrillions of dollars, handy things to have floating around when the toxic derivatives on the books are calculated to be in the quadrillions of dollars. Additionally, he pointed out that some governments have already committed to becoming cashless within a few years, for the simple reason that it gives them – and their controlling central banks – the ability to tax in real time.

I suspect – strongly – that Mr. E.G.’s and my own speculations about the collateralization and backing of digital currencies are, indeed, the “game plan” of the banksters who, sensing the rising tide of revolt against their plans for centralization and telling everyone else how they can and should live, are speeding up the process as fast as they can. With that in mind, consider this article shared by Catherine Austin Fitts about digital and crypto-currencies from the BIS (the Bank of Institutionalized Swag…er… Bank of International Smugglers… er… Bank of International Settlements… it is difficult to keep all these players sorted out):

1/10The future of money and payments Speech by Agustín Carstens General Manager, Bank for International Settlements

There’s so much in this speech to give one pause that to do a thorough job of reviewing it would require several blogs. But there are a few paragraphs that jumped out(Note, in the article, CBDC stands for “central bank digital currencies”):

Banks play an important role as provider of financial services to citizens and businesses. Imagine that the Central Bank of Ireland and the ECB were to offer deposit accounts to everyone and then issue debit cards and mobile phone apps for you to make payments with. In such a scenario, the central bank would be taking on the customer-facing business lines. Presumably, the central bank would need to recruit new staff to handle this line of business and to handle customer enquiries (sic). Now, I can tell you that central bank staff are very good, and they would be capable of taking on customer-facing tasks. But that is not the main issue.

Safety could be an important reason to deposit money in the central bank. In times of uncertainty, more customers would prefer to have deposit accounts at central banks, and fewer at commercial banks. A shift of funds from commercial banks to the central bank could be gradual at first. But the trickle could turn into a flood.

If bank deposits shift to the central bank, lending would need to shift as well. So, in addition to the deposit business, the central bank would be taking on the lending business. The central bank would need to meet business owners, interview them about why they need a loan, and decide on how much each should receive.

We can ask ourselves whether this is the kind of financial system that we would like to have as the ultimate set-up. I grant that this thought experiment may have gone too far. For instance, the central bank could make do without a lending operation if it sends customer deposits to the commercial banks by opening central bank accounts at commercial banks. In effect, the central bank would be lending to the commercial banks so that they could lend on to the customers.

In his speech, Mr. Carstens points out that the above scenario is a “thought experiment”, and throughout the rest of the speech he simply points out that cashless payments are a growing trend in certain countries (notably China). The implication is that “it’s a technological inevitability,” and of course, he gives the usual caveats that central bankers are extraordinarily cautious people and don’t want to leap into a course of action without knowing the full consequences.

But the consequences are spelled out in his speech: central banks simply take over all the functions of ordinary banks, including direct deposits, lending, and clearing functions for individual and corporate customers. With the BIS sitting on top of it all, of course. Notably, there is not much said about accountability in such a system, so the question needs to be baldly and nakedly stated: should we trust such a system, given what we’ve seen from Mr. Globaloney lately?

I don’t. Given my “druthers,” I’d much rather trust Texas’ bullion depository, or Oregon’s “cannabis certificates” than the Tower of Basel. And that brings us to the final article. At the beginning of his speech, Mr. Carstens points out that there is much discussion about the “digital” component of “central bank digital currencies.” However, he quickly (and deftly) shifts the discussion to the “central bank” component as if it were another implied inevitability. In doing so, he avoids the real issue: cyber systems are simply not secure, and as such have no integrity and make it much easier for looting, fraud, and outright theft to occur, and in a central banking pyramid, that means the banksters themselves will be the primary looters, frauders, and thieves. Consider this final article shared by Mr. G.L.R:

Study Finds That Overwhelming Majority Of Bitcoin Trading Volume Is Faked

And what’s true of Bitcoin is true for all cryptocurrencies, without exception. What’s of concern here is the same problem I’ve raised elsewhere, and in different contexts: crypto-currency works for those who have the ability to create large computer systems and algorithms to execute trades, and do so with the most efficient speeds. Accordingly, market activity is not reflective of genuine human trading activity. In other words, take the same criticism of equities, commodities, securities and currency markets, and now apply it to crypto-currencies. Ultimately, the trend is toward ever greater centralization, because this is what the technology requires and demands to function profitably. And none of it – none of it – is secure.  Add to this the fact that one must trust these banks to tell us the truth about how much gold, or space assets, is really backing those blips on the screen. And the more centralized, the more remote from your neighborhood, and its economic realities, they will be.

So, as far as I can see, this is a recipe for a perfect nightmare for pretty much everyone, except, of course, the banksters.

What this means is, I suspect, that one will see increasing local and regional pushback from states, provinces, and localities and more abandonment of the globalist agenda.

See you on the flip side…




Solutions: Open Science

Source:  The Corbett Report

 

“The idea that science should be opened to the wide public—even to the wild public—is one that produces a great deal of consternation among the defenders of the scientific status quo. What role do the unwashed masses have to play in the hallowed halls of the modern Church of Science? Aren’t these spaces reserved for the white-robed priests of this secular religion?

Thankfully, as more and more innovators step up to the plate to provide ideas for the wider public to access scientific knowledge and play an increasingly important role in developing, sharing and using that knowledge, the ideas of “citizen science” and “open science” are no longer something to be laughed at.” ~ James Corbett

 

by James Corbett
March 22, 2019

 

In the face of the crisis of science, it is easy to throw our hands up and watch as the old guard of the scientific establishment circles the wagons and goes back to business as usual. But there are real solutions to these problems, and we all—scientists and non-scientists alike—have a part to play in implementing them. Today on The Corbett Report we explore Solutions: Open Science.

 

https://youtu.be/MlVVUgWsBRo

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / YouTube or Download the mp4

 

TRANSCRIPT

Biostitutes selling dodgy data to to the highest bidder. Scientific frauds fudging figures to publish before they perish. Statistical charlatans p-hacking significant results in the confidence that no one will be checking their work.

Last time on The Corbett Report, we examined The Crisis of Science, or, more precisely, the crises of science: the Replication Crisis; the Crisis of Fraud; the Crisis of Publication; and the Crisis of Peer Review. We also explored the shared root of these problems in the rise of Big Science, where large-scale capital investments are increasingly a requirement for cutting edge research.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER: Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

SOURCE: Eisenhower Farewell Address

Big Science requires Big Money, either from Big Corporations or Big Government. But as we have already seen, when Big Corporations are funding the research, the “science” is invariably skewed in the interests of the company who is paying for it, and when Big Government is funding the research, the “science” is invariably skewed by political interests, lobbyists, and military contractors. Even worse, we sometimes get the admixture of the two, combining Eisenhower’s twin nightmare of a military-industrial complex with a scientific-technological elite.

This is the problem facing humanity at the crossroads of the 21st century, on the cusp of innovations in robotics, computing, genomics and other breakthrough sciences that have the potential to transform our world forever—for better or for worse.

In the face of such monumental challenges, it is easy to throw our hands up and watch as the old guard of the scientific establishment circles the wagons and goes back to business as usual. But there are real solutions to these problems, and we all—scientists and non-scientists alike—have a part to play in implementing them.

Today let’s explore Solutions: Open Science.

This is The Corbett Report.

Ever since the publication of John Ioannidis’ groundbreaking 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” the scientific community has been engaged in a debate about what this crisis of science signifies, what kinds of measures are needed to fix it, and even whether there is really a crisis at all.

But as the data continues to pour in from every field of study, the results are by now unquestionable: the scientific institutions that exist today are producing extremely untrustworthy results.

BRIAN NOSEK: […][I]s there actually a reproducibility crisis? And Nature went as far as to say “Let’s ask people and see if they agree that there is a crisis.” And so they surveyed 1,500 researchers and 90% of them agreed that there is a significant crisis or I don’t know what a slight crisis is but a slight crisis.

SOURCE: Professor Brian Nosek on the reproducibility crisis and open science in psychology

JEVIN WEST: In industry, CEOs and leaders in the field of in biotech and pharma are coming out and saying “Well, we’ve known this for a long time. We already know that, you know, probably fifty percent of the studies published in top-tier academic journals can’t be repeated. We know it. We can’t repeat it in our labs.” This should be unnerving because we depend on science to fly in those planes, to get that antibiotic that you need when you get sick and have an infection when you land in the emergency room. This is a big deal.

SOURCE: Calling Bullshit 7.4: A Replication Crisis

IOANNDIS: They could replicate only 6 of the 53 landmark studies for oncology drug target projects and the conclusion was that “the failure to win the war on cancer has been blamed on many factors but recently a new culprit has emerged: too many basic scientific discoveries are just wrong.” And we just need to do the whole job from scratch as if these papers did not even exist.

This is very worrisome. Hedge funds don’t trust science any longer. So this is from a business journal. They claimed that at least 50% of published studies, even those in higher academic journals, cannot be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. And the potential for not being able to reproduce academic data is a disincentive to early stage investors. At least one firm now is hiring CEOs to independently validate academic science prior to putting up serious money. What this means is that these companies, these hedge funds, they they say that the scientific literature it’s just for the scientists, it’s not serious. It’s more of a toy. And if you really want to be serious and not waste your money, you’d better try to do it from scratch and make sure that it works. Otherwise, you’re running a very large risk.

SOURCE: CLB | Dr. John Ioannidis on The Reliability of Biomedical Evidence and How to Improve It

It is getting harder for researchers to deny that there is a problem. But as with any such crisis, if the problem is defined narrowly enough then the “solution” to that problem can be limited to a few cosmetic alterations of the existing system.

If we take the crisis of science as merely a problem with shoddy statistical analysis, for example, then surely all that is needed is to put more time and effort into training scientists in the proper use of statistical tools. With an increased awareness of the problem of p-hacking or other statistical tricks, journal editors and reviewers could put extra time into scrutinizing the results of statistical analyses in research papers.

Or if the crisis is simply a problem of fraud, then an awareness campaign about the problem could pressure researchers to publish their raw data for scrutiny by the wider scientific community.

If the crisis is just a result of the publication pressures that modern academics are subjected to, then the creation of alternative journals that publish negative results or inconclusive findings could provide an outlet for researchers to earn publication credit while being forthcoming with their failures.

Indeed, all of these problems and many more have been identified and all sorts of solutions have been proposed or even implemented to help remedy them.

There are growing calls to raise the threshold for “statistical significance,” issuing guidelines for the use of p values in research, or even outright banning the use of p values in papers, as the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology did in 2015.

There are calls for more publications to require scientists to publish raw data, methodology and other relevant information along with their research so that their experiments can be more reliably replicated.

A number of journals dedicated to publishing negative and null results have been created in recent years, and in 2017 the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine ceased publication after declaring that it had succeeded in its mission of convincing other, mainstream journals to publish more articles reporting negative or null results.

Sites like RetractionWatch keep an eye on the fraud, abuse, mistakes and misdeeds of scientists, publishers and institutions around the world, drawing attention to scandals and problems in the system rather than trying to sweep them under the rug.

All of these ideas, and many more, are important and necessary steps in fixing some of the problems that have come to plague modern institutional science. But they are not sufficient to solve the crisis of science. Because, as even the leaders of this movement to re-imagine science will readily admit, this crisis is not about p values or publishers or practices. It is about the nature of the scientific community itself.

IOANNIDIS: Who should take responsibility for the replication culture? Well, I think that one option is if you have the whole field coalescing—which is what’s happening in genetics—it could be the same investigators. If you have multiple investigators, each one of them kind of cross-checking each other, they can have multiple analytical teams look at the same data. Hopefully that would be pretty objective.

Someone might fear that this might be too much inbred so you need different investigators, and if you want different investigators then who is that going to be? If you have an all-inclusive consortium approach it’s difficult to find such people. Maybe you can find some who still belong to the same school and therefore you don’t have really independence in the replication process.

One option is to try to see if there’s investigators of competing theories and hypotheses. If they can be convinced, if they can look at the data—well, provided the data, the methods, the software, the script is available—if they can also repeat a study according to what they think is the best way to do it and they get the same results, I think this is very very strong evidence. But that model may not necessarily always be available.

You can have also combinations to the above, or you can open the process to the wide public. Now, the wide public could also be the wild public. Now lots of senior investigators will start saying, “I’m a senior scientist. I have trained for 500 years to become so experienced, and how can I have someone who’s clueless, who has never tried his hands on the field look at my research? We need to be careful, but we also need to be open. And there’s many research questions that indeed involving the wide public in some sort of citizen scientist model might be the way to go and to compare notes on what we get.

SOURCE: ESOF 2018 – Enhancing reproducible research – John Ioannidis

The idea that science should be opened to the wide public—even to the wild public—is one that produces a great deal of consternation among the defenders of the scientific status quo. What role do the unwashed masses have to play in the hallowed halls of the modern Church of Science? Aren’t these spaces reserved for the white-robed priests of this secular religion?

Thankfully, as more and more innovators step up to the plate to provide ideas for the wider public to access scientific knowledge and play an increasingly important role in developing, sharing and using that knowledge, the ideas of “citizen science” and “open science” are no longer something to be laughed at.

At the root of this revolutionary approach to the scientific process is the understanding that access to scientific knowledge is the key to enabling meaningful public participation. In the wake of the open everything ethos that the internet has helped to foster it may be difficult to remember, but the debate over whether or not scientific data and discoveries should be locked away behind paywalls and kept within the cloistered confines of academia was one that was raging just a few short years ago. And it was a debate that cost at least one activist his life.

ALYONA MINKOVSKI: Well, today we have news for you about Aaron Swartz. He’s the executive director of Demand Progress, a co-founder of Reddit, and he’s been a frequent guest on this show. But yesterday he was arrested and charged with violating federal hacking laws for downloading four million document documents from JSTOR from MIT’s network. Now, if convicted of the felony charges Swartz could face up to 35 years in prison and a 1 million dollar fine.

JSTOR is a company that provides digitized copies of academic journals. It’s used in universities all over the country, and they’ve already come out saying that they did not refer this case to the feds and that all the information has been returned. But the arrest is once again shone a light on the fight for open access to information.

SOURCE: Aaron Swartz Arrested: The Open Access Debate

AMY GOODMAN: Aaron Swartz committed suicide on Friday. He hanged himself in his Brooklyn apartment. He was 26 years old.

His death occurred just weeks before he was to go on trial for using computers at MIT—that’s the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—to download millions of copyrighted academic articles from JSTOR, a subscription database of scholarly papers. JSTOR declined to press charges but prosecutors moved the case forward. Aaron Swartz faced up to 35 years in prison and million dollars in fines for allegedly violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. When the case first came to light the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz said, quote, “stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars.”

SOURCE: “An Incredible Soul”: Lawrence Lessig on Aaron Swartz After Leading Cyberactivist’s Suicide. 1 of 2

In 2008, internet pioneer and cyber visionary Aaron Swartz penned the “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” laying out the basis for the Open Access Movement.

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it.

The document ended with a call to action:

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

As we now know, this document, innocuous as it may seem, led to tragedy, as Swartz’ own attempt to liberate the information from JSTOR—a digital library of academic journals—led to his arrest and, ultimately, his death. But the Open Access Movement did not die with Aaron Swartz. Today, an increasing number of researchers are committed to publishing in open access journals and in online spaces, like the Public Library of Science (PLoS) website, that are freely available to the public.

But the idea of open access is not about knowledge for its own sake. It is about the radical potential of such a movement to open the doors of academia’s ivory towers and to encourage a greater role for the public in the scientific process. Open access is just the first domino in a series of ideas that lead to a radically different view of science and its place in society.

The first level of public participation in the scientific process itself involves a “citizen scientist” model that is drawing increasing attention from the wider scientific community. In this model, interested amateurs help scientists to collect, store, process and even analyze data as part of a wider research project. The modern manifestation of this idea takes its cue from the life sciences, where outdoor enthusiasts have been called upon to help projects like the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, tracking the range and size of local butterfly populations, and the North American Bird Phenology Program, keeping tabs on the location and migration patterns of various bird populations.

With the advent of personal computing and the internet, these initiatives were extended to even more arcane fields of scientific research. Pioneered by projects like SETI@home, which uses spare computing resources of volunteers on the internet to analyze radio signals for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence, citizen science portals such as Zooniverse have been created to allow non-specialists to participate in a wide array of research projects across nearly every conceivable discipline.

But this model of citizen science, heavily promoted on the Ted Talk circuit and in the mainstream scientific press, does not question the fundamental divide between scientists and the wider public. In these cases, volunteers are merely being used to collect data or to dedicate their spare computing power to analyzing data as part of a larger project directed by a team of scientists.

More radical still are ways that people are coming together to collaborate on solving problems themselves. In these projects, participation in every step of the process is encouraged and ideas are debated and discussed openly as a self-formed group discovers the answer to a question they themselves have asked.

MICHAEL NIELSEN: So my talk today is about open science, which sits in roughly the same relationship to science—basic scientific research, mostly academic research I’ll be talking about—as open source software does to the commercial software world. And so what I want to explore is the extent to which open-source principles or style principles can be applied to the practice of basic scientific research.

We’re going to start off with an example where this has been done successfully. So, the example starts with this man: Timothy Gowers. Gowers is a mathematician. He’s actually one of the world’s leading mathematicians. He’s, amongst other things, the recipient of the Fields Medal, which is often called the Nobel Prize in mathematics. Gowers, in addition to being a Fields Medal-winning mathematician is also a blogger. That’s not that uncommon actually amongst leading mathematicians. Of the 42 living Fields medalists, four of them in fact have started blogs. So that’s about one in ten, which I don’t know how that compares to the general population but it’s pretty good.

Anyway, in January of 2009, Gowers wrote this very interesting post with the title “Is massively collaborative mathematics possible?” And what he was proposing to do in this post was to use his blog as a medium to attack a difficult unsolved mathematical problem—a problem which he said he would “love to solve”—completely in the open using his blog as a way of posting his partial progress and his ideas. And what’s more, he issued an open invitation inviting anybody in the world who thought that they had an idea to contribute to post that idea in the comments section of the blog. So he called this experiment “the polymath project.”

Well, the polymath project got off to actually quite a slow start. In the first seven hours after he opened his blog up to comments, not a single person wrote in with any suggestions. But then a mathematician at the University of British Columbia named Jozsef Solymosi posted a suggestion—basically it’s a simplified variation of the original problem, which he was suggesting might be a bit easier to attack. And then 15 minutes after that, a high school teacher, in fact, from Arizona named Jason Dyer wrote a short suggestion. And just three minutes after that Terence Tao—also actually a Fields medalist, he’s a mathematician at UCLA—posted a suggestion. And so things were really off and running at this point.

Over the next 37 days, in fact, 27 different people would post 800 substantive mathematical comments containing 170,000 words. That’s a lot of mathematics done very quickly. It was hard actually . . . I was following along—I didn’t contribute substantively, but I was following along quite closely—and it was difficult simply to find the time just to read all the contributions. It was really going remarkably quickly. You’d see people you know they propose an idea in a very half-baked form and then often it will be very rapidly developed sometimes by other people. Sometimes of course it would be discarded, but other times it would then be incorporated into the canon of knowledge. Gowers described this process as being to normal research as driving is to pushing a car.

And at the end of the 37 days he used his blog to announce that the problem had most probably been solved. In fact, a generalization of the original problem which they were attacking. They still had to go back and check that they hadn’t made any silly mistakes. In fact, everything did indeed check out ultimately and they wrote two papers based on it. It took months more to do all the cleanup work, but the back of the problem had in fact been solved at this point.

Now of course the reason I’m talking about this polymath project is not really so much because of the particular mathematical problem. You know, it’s not important because it solved a particular mathematical problem; it’s, rather, important because of what it suggests. It suggests that we can use some of these sorts of tools as kind of cognitive tools to potentially speed up the solution, not of simple everyday problems but actually of problems which challenge some of the smartest people in the world. Yeah, that’s really exciting. These are problems right at the limit of human intellectual ability. And not just, you know, one particular problem, but perhaps broadly across many different fields.

SOURCE: Michael Nielsen: “Reinventing Discovery” | Talks at Google

The implications of this type of spontaneous, collaborative problem solving extend far beyond the field of mathematics. In a world that is increasingly being transformed by scientific pursuits—and where the cost of mistakes are correspondingly high—a public that is skeptical about scientific institutions, government regulators and other supposed “authorities” is increasingly taking responsibility for scientific fact-checking into their own hands.

One stark demonstration of this fact came in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdowns in March 2011. As we now know, Japanese officials withheld data from the government’s own “SPEEDI Network,”  a computer system that had been set up specifically to provide forecasts of nuclear radiation fallout in the event of an emergency. When the data was finally released months later, it was revealed that local officials, having been kept in the dark by government scientists, had evacuated residents directly into the path of the fallout.

The situation left residents and concerned citizens around the globe scrambling for accurate, up-to-date information about radiation readings, and distrustful of the government agencies who were interested in keeping that information from the public. The response was a spontaneous, volunteer-organized citizen science project called Safecast that designed a radiation measuring device that would be able to take radiation readings of an area every five seconds and upload that data to an open source database.

The product of this remarkable initiative has been the creation of the largest database of its kind in the world, one that has been independently verified as accurate. And it was started and continues to operate as an independent, decentralized, global volunteer project of concerned citizens, scientist and non-scientist alike.

SEAN BONNER: “[. . . ]And then [in] March 2011 in Fukushima, this earthquake tsunami and nuclear meltdown, like, triple thing happened, and everybody was very confused. We didn’t know what was going on and I had these connections in Tokyo, so I was reaching out to try to find out what’s going on.

Other people were scrambling around and nobody really knew what was happening, and the little bit of information that was starting to come out really made no sense. People would see a map like this would be published and, like, what does this even mean? I don’t even know. Nobody knew. And so I started talking to Joi again, and Joi introduced me to his friend Pieter, who lived in Tokyo and had lived in Tokyo for like 35 years and had family who was in one of the areas that got really severely impacted by the tsunami.

So we just started talking about how can we get some information together, because there’s no information available for people. Nobody knows what’s happening. And so we thought, “OK, let’s reach out to everybody we know. We’ve got to find somebody who knows something about this—the different pieces—and we can pull them together and, you know, continue this conversation somehow. So we all reached out to whoever we might know that might have some connection.

And so, for me that looked like my hacker friends at their crash base in Los Angeles and at Tokyo hackerspace. My friend Matt Alt, who I had done the Toei website with, who was now living in Tokyo, and he helped translate a lot of the Japanese stuff that was coming out from the official news sources on stuff. Bunny, who I knew from hacker conferences and who jumped in and started helping us build hardware. Haian, who was a designer that I knew from Ideo, and she was creating visualizations with the data we were putting together. And Paul, who I knew from the Metro blog in Dublin who jumped in and started helping us write the back-end software to manage it all. And Joi and Pieter had the same sort of thing. They found all these people and pulled them together. And so we all got together and created this thing that ended up being this organization called “Safecast.”

At first, we just duct taped some Geiger-counters to car windows and started driving around and tried to get an idea of what was happening. And [we] realized that those measurements were changing much faster and it was a little bit of a different story than kind of these big averages that were being published by any thing official . So we created a hardware and software platform and these little devices that have GPS on them and Geiger counters, and they take readings every five seconds and then upload it into this giant data-set. You could attach them to cars or bikes or anything and we could take them around. And so we started putting these maps together, and these circles are the evacuation zones.

So we started seeing this story where inside of the evacuation zones, maybe the levels weren’t necessarily that bad, but outside of the evacuation zones they were they were much worse. And this this was kind of conflicting because there were most certainly situations where people had been moved from areas with low radiation into areas with high radiation and we didn’t quite get what was going on.

So seven years on, this is what our data looks like in that area. We really mapped out every street and created this absolutely perfect picture of what’s happening. But an important piece of this is that we’re not going and measuring. Rather we created the tools and the platform so that the people there can measure on their own. So these areas are being measured by the people who live there and are impacted by it and this really gave them a chance to have a say in what was going on with it. They got to measure stuff, they weren’t getting answers from other places. But it also had some very interesting real-world impacts in that it forced the officials to do something.

They actually changed the evacuation zones after we published this data showing that these things were different. And we expanded this out and this is the data we have for Japan. It’s basically every single street in Japan. We’ve measured time and time and time again. But it turns out that the data that wasn’t available in Japan, also [it] wasn’t available anywhere else in the world. Nobody had this kind of stuff, so we started reaching out to other people, and people in other places are measuring.

So this is what we have in Europe and this is what we have in the US. And you can see these, they’re—you know, Sony attached a sensor to a car and went on a drive down a road, right? This is what we have around the world. And obviously there’s some major holes that we still need to help fill in, but it’s getting there and it’s already the largest data-set that’s ever existed of its kind in any way. Almost 100 million data points. And we put all of the data into the public domain. And it’s actually growing faster all the time, it’s not slowing down in any way.

So, if you remember, I said that maybe some people will kind of participate once something gets going. I’ve learned through this that sometimes some is all you need. You don’t need everybody to do it, you just need some people who are gonna be active with it. And with Safecast I tried to build in these things that that I noticed in all of these other things, where the people are independent on their own. We gave them the tools, we gave them the best practices, but they’re doing the thing on their own without any hindrance or control from outside on this.

There’s lots of different ways for people to help with the project. Some people are making visualizations, some people are collecting data, some people are building devices. All of these different things people can do with it and then again, it removes the reliance on some outside authority for the people in the areas that are measuring it.

But it’s not just about disaster and stuff. So this is Peter—who I mentioned before—and a few years ago we went to Washington DC to put on a workshop about Safecast and what we’re doing with this.

So if you wanted to see the publicly available radiation data for Washington, DC, the day before our event, it would have looked like this. There’s absolutely nothing available. So we had this two-day event where people came in and they built their own sensors, found out how they worked, understood it, got their sensors up and running, and then we sent them out [to] walk around Washington DC and just measure stuff and then come back and we’ll put everything together. And so this was the data that was available just after one day of people walking around. We mapped out the whole city and found some interesting stuff. There’s, like, the World War II memorial over here that was built with very radioactive granite and all these different things that you might not have known otherwise and that was really cool for people.

But a much more interesting thing happened shortly thereafter, in that the US government released their data-set of radiation in Washington, DC, right? So they had this data, but since they were the only people that had the data they kept it secret and then as soon as there was another comprehensive data-set available there was no reason for them to keep it secret anymore and so they released it.

And so it’s this kind of thing where releasing this open data actually creates even more public data than we had our hands in at all, which is where people start throwing around these kind of words like “revolution.” Which is cool, but the result of that is that, you know, this does in fact change the world in in all of these ways.

And so I’ve been talking a lot about radiation, but last year we actually started measuring air quality as well because that’s another thing that maybe if we’re putting sensors in it might be really useful to people. And so this is where we just put a bunch of them around Los Angeles last year and on the system right now you can see what’s happening right now, or five minutes ago, or historical over the last week, or over the last month. And you start seeing these trends, and where all this—and you start comparing the data from all the different sensors, and start kind of understanding what it is that people are breathing in the city.

So, to tie this back into the sort of citizen science idea right, I don’t really like separating this out like somehow “citizen science” is different than real science or something. Because if it’s valid science it’s valid science. It doesn’t matter who’s doing it as long as the results stand up.”

SOURCE: re:publica 2018 – Sean Bonner: Citizen Science and Environmental Data: Why Everybody beats Anybody

In some ways, Safecast is the fulfillment of the vision that Aaron Swartz laid out in the Guerilla Open Access  Manifesto. Open access, open source data, extended peer review and other such proposals for reforming the practice of science do not offer the public the chance to peek behind the curtain at the doings of the scientists; they help tear down that curtain, and the distinction between scientists and the wider public generally.

But the story of Safecast also provides a key insight into why citizen science is needed now more than ever. From nuclear energy to genetically modified foods to vaccines to gene editing to nanotechnology to autonomous weapons, the debate over scientific knowledge and discoveries is increasingly important, and political. The pace of science in the 21st century is dizzying, and as the abilities of science to transform our world accelerates, the debate over the proper place for these technologies in society is increasingly being handed over to the scientists themselves.

But this has the process exactly backwards. As philosophers of science like Andrea Saltelli and the co-authors of Science On The Verge point out, our naive conception of scientists as apolitical arbiters of truth is going to have to be adjusted to the reality of modern day science before the entire process of scientific knowledge production is undermined.

JAMES CORBETT: In this day and age, science has become specialized on models and statistics in a way that, I think, in the popular conception of “folk science,” is not the central pursuit of ultimate truth. In what could be termed “folk science” or the “Cartesian dream”—[which] are a couple of terms that are used in Science On The Verge—people tend to think of science in a certain mindset, but obviously that doesn’t apply to the way that science is conducted these days. What can you tell us about that difference between the popular conception of science and the way it is actually practiced in modern policy settings?

ANDREA SALTELLI: For me, this is a core problem of modernity. There is really a chasm between how science is perceived by the general public and by the scientists themselves for a large majority. A kind of positivistic vision of science as an offspring of the Enlightenment, which is concerned with the production of fact separate from values and emotion, and science as objective, and so on and so forth—and hence a science capable of informing policy with the production of disinterested and objective knowledge—and the reality of what science is, and the many uses to which science is put—from the construction of algorithms, to visual intelligence, to the production of various kinds of chemicals which may or may not be extremely dangerous, opioids, neonicotinoids for pesticide, and then the chapter of military technology and and so on and so forth. So we have a science today in the practice of the working scientist which is quite far from the vision of Enlightenment science, and I think this difference is a problem in the center and we should resolve it. Otherwise we risk having a very polarized discussion about science which can only have as a result a collapse of trust in science

CORBETT: And of course that is part and parcel of that “Crisis of Science” that I was gesturing towards recently on the podcast. And I did note a specific line jumped out at me from the preface of Science on the Verge which was written by Daniel Sarewitz. He wrote, “The use of science in guiding human affairs is always a political act.” Now that’s a bold statement because again I think that rubs up against the conception—the sort of folk science conception—that science is completely value neutral and we’re just looking at facts and evidence about the world. But the use of science and guiding human affairs is always a political act. What does that mean in the modern context, where we’re dealing with such incredibly important matters that have policy implications for everyone around the globe?

SALTELLI: Well there is a long chain of consideration which should be put down there. [The] first one is even when we are talking about a simple piece of datum—as Jerry Ravetz writes in one of his early books—before a single datum is collected, a lot of the work has already been done by way of framing the problem, defining what it is that needs to be tackled and how it can be measured and so on and so forth. So, when the social scientists say that data or evidence is a result of a social construction, this doesn’t mean that this is arbitrary. It’s simply what it means. It’s the result of a negotiation, a social construction but unfortunately there is—because of this postivism or neo-positivism very often found in natural sciences—this tendency to regard this as a dangerous intrusion of social sciences into natural sciences.

So that, for instance, typically—you may know that natural scientists strongly resent being the subject of study from the social sciences. When they go there as anthropologists and measure what science in action actually does, following the title of a famous book of Bruno Latour. So there is this kind of science war now always boiling in the underground, which makes this conversation a bit difficult because if it were not for that, the idea that the production of evidence for policy is a political affair, it would be a no-brainer! Of course! Because not only you have the datum, but then the datum becomes evidence, and then the evidence must be constructed as an argument. And this is not something which a policymaker does by himself, he does it with a scientist. So obviously it’s a high political affair.

SOURCE: Interview 1424 – Andrea Saltelli on The Crisis of Science

If science is always a political act, then drawing a line around scientific activity and preserving it as the special domain of an elite cadre of specialists is itself an act of disenfranchisement. By pushing the public away from the scientific field, those with a political or corporate agenda to push can use their money to subvert the scientific process behind the scenes, and hide behind the ivory tower walls when the public questions the pronouncements of the scientists.

This is why open access, open data, open science is so feared by the status quo establishment, which benefits from the symbiotic relationship between big business, big government and big science.

None of this is to say that the expertise of trained scientists will no longer be needed as radically decentralized scientific endeavours like Safecast rise to the fore. But it is a sign that the public no longer has to sit on its hands and watch helplessly as an unquestioned and unquestionable priest class hoards their data and their findings for the benefit of the corporations and governments who foot their bill.

Given the immensity of the challenges we face as humanity pushes the boundaries of the possible in ever bolder ways, it’s easy for those on the sidelines to throw their hands up and leave this all for the scientists to sort out. Or, worse yet, to turn their backs on science and the scientific method altogether. But these problems are bigger than the scientific community, and their solutions will involve all of us to engage in the process of redefining science and its place in society.

As concerned citizens, we either become part of the solution by engaging in the emergence of the open scientific community, or we become mere spectators as the big questions are increasingly asked and answered for us.




German News About HPV Vaccine Injuries & Lack of Transparency of Side Effects

Source: Children’s Health Defense

March 25, 2019

https://youtu.be/sowhw-r59-c

Translation (editor’s notes in parentheses) –

Moderator:
Good evening. Welcome to Westpol. Ten years ago, it was a world sensation. The cervical cancer vaccine was the first cancer vaccine. A breakthrough in cancer prevention. It certainly protected many girls and women from the disease. But even this vaccine can have side effects. And this even though the European Medicines Agency considers this vaccine safe and that it is unnecessary to educate patients and doctors about risks. 
The 15-year-old Paula from Langenfeld trusted this assessment. Now she is paraplegic, recognized as vaccine injury.

Paula:
Everything changed. I always wonder what I will do after graduation. Will I be accepted despite my wheelchair?

Nina Katzemich:
We are not sure the European Medicines Agency is always acting in the interest of patients.

Jan Salzmann, Internist:
The risk outweighs the medical benefits.

Male Voiceover:
Just two years ago, sports were Paula’s favorite hobby. Today even small movements are problematic. Two years ago, the now 15-year-old felt a strong back pain. Only hours later, her legs were paralyzed.

Paula:
I worry how others perceive me. They see a wheelchair and think, “That poor girl.” But I despise pity.

Male Voiceover:
A look back. Westpol had previously visited the family six months ago. Paula was vaccinated against cervical cancer shortly before the paralysis, her mother told us then.

Mother:
We had not been well informed. We slid trustingly into the biggest disaster of our lives.

Male Voiceover:
Back then, everybody denied the possibility that Paula’s paralysis could have been related to the vaccine.

Now suddenly state support is available for the necessary lift Paula needs to navigate the stairs. For retrofitting the bathroom. To widen doors so that they will accommodate the wheelchair. At the end of April, the Landkraft Verband (this is a regional government agency) recognized what has been clear to the family for a long time: Paula suffers from so-called vaccine damage.

Mother:
The third question the doctors asked us was, “Was she vaccinated?” which we could undoubtedly confirm, and in that moment, it was clear to me that the vaccine and the illness of our daughter which is an autoimmune disease are very closely connected.

Male Voiceover:
Doctors have noticed for years massive side effects in those who received the cervical cancer vaccine: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, joint pain, seizures, ovarian failure, muscle atrophy, and POTS (Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) which also affects Paula.

Facts that are known to the Europäische Arztneimittelaufsicht, or EMA for short. The agency is responsible for the approval and monitoring of vaccines. Enrica Alteri heads their safety department. She did not grant us an interview but addressed the afflicted a few weeks ago on Danish TV.

Enrica Alteri:
They are absolutely right to be heard. Is that due to the vaccine? We don’t think so.

Male Voiceover:
Statements on which not just patients but also doctors like Jan Salzmann must rely.

Jan Salzmann:
When the health agency informs us that a vaccine or prescription drug doesn’t currently have any pertinent side effects, we accept that as fact.

Male Voiceover:
What even doctors don’t know is that in internal EMA documents which Westpol obtained, experts doubted the safety of the vaccine as far back as 2013.

The document reads, “Researchers were divided over whether or not the diagnosis of POTS was triggered by the vaccine. (…) it required investigation.”

The agency did not find the need to inform doctors or the public. To the contrary. Independent researchers are outraged that the concerns are no longer part of the official EMA report on the vaccine.

A few days ago, the Forschernetzwerk Cochrane wrote a blistering letter which reads in part, “The official EMA-Report is deceptive. It tries to convey the impression that concerns over the safety of the vaccine are groundless.”

Nina Katzemich from the organization Lobbycontrol has been watching the EMA for a while. She tells us that the pharma industry finances the EMA up to 85%. The controlee pays the controller.

Nina Katzemich:
We have observed that the EMA absolutely sides with the pharma industry when it comes to medication safety and transparency.

Male Voiceover:
And then there is also personnel entanglement. Thomas Lönngren, former longtime director of the EMA, is now a pharma lobbyist. Stefano Marino transformed from pharma lobbyist to director of EMA’s legal department. These are only two of many examples. Because even Enrica Alteri switched sides. She worked until 2012 for the manufacturer of the vaccine. But she does not see a problem with this.

Enrica Alteri:
Our procedures against conflicts of interest are solid and we review it all the time.

Male Voiceover:
We showed Paula’s mother our research. She learns for the first time that the European Medicines Agency concealed warnings from researchers.

Paula’s Mother:
It is outrageous that agencies know but don’t complete further studies, research, anything. These agencies have a responsibility. If we had access to this information back then, we would not have vaccinated.

Male Voiceover:
Paula and her mother wish they would have been given more information about the risks, but the agencies are still recommending the vaccine as safe.

Moderator:
Business is good for the manufacturer of the vaccine. While vaccines against tetanus or the flu range in price between 5 and 10 euro, the rate for a dose of the cervical cancer vaccine is around 300 Euro. So far, the worldwide revenue has been more than 30 billion euro.




Vaccines, an Appraisal by a Practicing Medical Doctor

Those Measles Outbreaks: Thoughts out of Season

by Richard Moskowitz, MD
March 1, 2019
Source

 

Before the current measles hysteria gets even further out of hand, a little common sense could help us think more carefully before rushing to take action that won’t work and will actually do harm. Refusing unwanted medical treatment is a basic human right that all civilized nations have sworn to uphold, with the sole possible exception of a dire and imminent threat to the public health, which a few localized measles outbreaks, numbering no more than a few dozens or hundreds of cases, decidedly are not.

All of these outbreaks are typical of those that have occurred ever since the vaccine was introduced, and others just like them will undoubtedly continue to occur even if the drug industry’s well-funded campaign succeeds in vaccinating everybody. Yet the Washington State Health Department has declared a public health emergency on the basis of them; several other states are considering doing the same; and the news media have enthusiastically joined in, with editorials and Op-Eds in the New York Times,1 the Boston Globe,2 and other major outlets, as well as talk shows on NPR and other radio stations, all well-meaning but repeating the same alarmist fears and exaggerations as if they were settled truths, and citing these modest outbreaks as ample justification for eliminating personal-belief exemptions from the states that still honor them.  A clear violation of the First Amendment, the latest and most ominous example is Congressional pressure on Facebook and other social media to censor postings that dare raise doubts or questions about vaccines or their mandates.

On the other hand, these politicians and journalists have done nothing more than simply taking on faith the information that prominent doctors and public health authorities are  telling them.  Unfortunately, what they’re being told is not only bad ethics, but also bad science, based on assumptions that are flatly contradicted by current research, and violate basic human rights and moral values that we still profess to hold dear.

Often assumed to be self-evident without even having to be stated, much less proved, their bottom-line assumptions are really two postulates that depend on each other to support them — namely, 1) that these small outbreaks of measles and other infectious diseases that we vaccinate against are initiated and propagated by unvaccinated individuals; and 2) that vaccines are not only miraculously safe, but also uniformly effective in rendering people immune to these diseases without having to contract them, so that only the unvaccinated are still susceptible and thus capable of transmitting them to others.

But you can’t have it both ways.  For if these postulates were really true, if the immunity conferred by the measles vaccine were truly comparable to the absolute, lifelong immunity that results from coming down with and recovering from the actual disease, then the unvaccinated would pose no threat to anyone but themselves, based on a free choice of their own making, such that those taking the vaccine would have nothing to worry about. Conversely, if vaccinated individuals are indeed at risk of acquiring the disease from the unvaccinated, then the vaccine is clearly ineffective to that extent, and whatever it does offer cannot be a genuine or reliably effective immunity.

In any case, there’s plenty of good scientific evidence that both of these assumptions are just plain false.  The vast majority of cases of measles, mumps, and other vaccine-preventable diseases in both past and recent outbreaks, typically between 75 and 95%, have been in vaccinated individuals,3 while a recent study of measles in China, where over 99% of the population are vaccinated by the same sort of strict government mandate being advocated here, nevertheless reported over 700 localized outbreaks in a single year, totaling almost 26,000 cases.4  Much the same is true of recent mumps outbreaks in the United States, where typically 95-100% of the cases have been vaccinated.5

So even if all non-medical exemptions were eliminated and virtually everyone were vaccinated, as the proposed new laws would require, similar outbreaks would undoubtedly continue to occur.  In other words, the so-called immunity conferred by vaccines is a trick, a counterfeit of the real thing; and “herd immunity,” the stated goal of the mandates, customarily tied to a vaccination rate of 95% or more in the case of measles, is a chimera of wishful thinking that vaccination simply cannot achieve, in contrast to the natural disease, regarding which public health experts have long known that large-scale outbreaks no longer occur when at least 80% of the population have already contracted and recovered from it.6   That, and only that, is herd immunity: to expect a vaccine to achieve an even higher level, with no outbreaks at all, is pure fantasy, and the polar opposite of hard science.

Moreover, scientists have also demonstrated that individuals receiving vaccines made from live viruses, like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, rotavirus, oral polio, and some versions of influenza, regularly “shed” them and are thus contagious for many weeks afterward.7  Regarding the resurgence of whooping cough in recent years, for example, numerous studies have shown that the increasingly large and frequent outbreaks of the disease are likewise being spread by vaccinated individuals, even though the bacterium is no longer alive, in part through natural selection for vaccine-resistant strains,8 as has been documented in the case of other non-living vaccines (HiB, pneumococcus, and possibly injectable polio) as well.9  In short, the entire rationale of vaccinating as many people as possible, and the bullying and resentment of parents who choose not to vaccinate that always accompanies it, is not only cruel and misplaced, but helps to create and propagate the very diseases that the vaccines were designed to eradicate.

Rather than simply accepting the fact that vaccines have at best a partial and limited efficacy, we are allowing the CDC and the drug industry to play on our fears to the extent of inflating these small, localized outbreaks of measles into the dreaded semblance of a looming public-health emergency, posing a serious threat to society, justifying forced vaccination of everyone, even against their will if necessary, and thereby nullifying our co-authorship of and continuing allegiance to the Nuremberg Code of Human Rights and the Helsinki Declaration governing Biomedical Research, both of which insist upon the right of every patient and every experimental subject to give informed consent to all medical and surgical procedures, and explicitly forbid administering them by force.10

Although one could imagine a genuine public health emergency that might justify and even require temporarily waiving such rights, such as a large-scale bioterrorist attack or the rapid dissemination of a deadly plague, that is precisely what these small, localized outbreaks of ordinary childhood diseases are not.  The truth is that there is no emergency, that we vaccinate purely as a matter of long-term health policy, and that most of the diseases that we vaccinate against were

1) already rapidly declining, thanks to improvements in sanitation, water
quality, and other aspects of public health (pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus);11

2) ordinary diseases of childhood that most people contracted and recovered
from without complications or sequelae (measles, mumps, rubella, flu,
rotavirus, chickenpox);12

3) or caused by mutant strains of organisms that are part of our normal flora
and only occasionally cause invasive disease (HiB, pneumococcus).13

Measles is indeed a perfect test case of the vaccination concept, as the most highly contagious of them all, with an attack rate approaching 100% in susceptible individuals; and the measles vaccine has in fact reduced the annual incidence of the disease in the United States from about 400,000 cases to less than 10,000, surely a historic achievement, no matter how it was done or why it was thought necessary.  But inasmuch as these small, localized outbreaks are still occurring, and will undoubtedly continue do so in the future, no matter what we do, the CDC surely owes us a more convincing explanation than the impossible dream of “herd immunity” for why they don’t simply declare victory and let it go at that.

So for all of these reasons, contrary to what we’re being told, the science is far from being settled when it comes to vaccine effectiveness.  Even that much would be enough to deflate the myth that vaccine mandates are necessary.  But it’s not the only reason, or even the most important one.  Vaccine safety is even further from being settled, to put it mildly, and for very good reasons.  In the first place, many studies have shown that children who come down with and recover from acute febrile infections like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and influenza are much less likely to develop chronic autoimmune diseases and cancer later in life than those merely vaccinated against them.14

Still other studies link the risk of death, hospitalization, and other serious adverse reactions not so much to any particular vaccine or vaccines, but rather to the total number of vaccines given, both simultaneously at the same visit,19 and cumulatively over the patient’s lifetime.20  In other words, these worst outcomes cannot be simply written off as idiosyncratic aberrations of certain hypersensitive individuals, but rather appear to be built into something about the nature of the vaccination process itself.

These findings are already more than sufficient to question if not discredit the almost universal reverence accorded to the concept of vaccination, not to mention the blank check that allows and even incentivizes the drug industry to develop, market, and ultimately mandate more and more vaccines, based on the assumption that vaccines are safe and effective across the board, that they save vast sums of money from not having to care for patients suffering with these diseases, and that it is therefore OK and even desirable to pile on as many doses of as many different vaccines as the traffic will bear, often for no better reason than that we have the technical capacity to make them.

It is the same assumption that allows and even blesses the drug industry to conduct its own safety studies without genuine placebo controls of unvaccinated individuals;15 that limits adverse effects to those appearing within a few hours or days of the shot,16 thus automatically excluding the chronic diseases from consideration; that gives the lead investigator unlimited authority to determine whether a reported adverse reaction is or is not vaccine-related, according to criteria that are never specified;17 and that allows the CDC to insist that vaccines are uniformly safe and effective without conducting independent studies of its own, even though Congress has legislated and the Supreme Court has upheld that they are “unavoidably unsafe,” in order to shield the manufacturers from liability for the deaths and injuries they cause,18 a free ride granted to no other industry.

In short, these assumptions are not science, but merely scientism, a reverent, quasi-religious faith characterized by dogmatism in the name of science, which stifles the critical thinking, questioning, and doubting of allegedly settled truths that real science requires, and helps explain why the news media refrain from reporting deaths or injuries from vaccines without having to be told, and why most physicians offer up their own children for the same vaccinations they administer to their patients.  The late Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics, sums it up admirably:

[In science] we must leave room for doubt, or there is no progress and no learning.

There is no learning without having to pose a question, and a question requires doubt.

Before you begin an experiment, you must not know the answer, [or] there is no need to gather any evidence; and to judge the evidence, you must take all of it, not just the parts you like.  That’s a responsibility that scientists feel toward each other, a kind of morality.21

Which brings me to my final point, that if vaccination and vaccines were indeed safe and effective across the board, then the thousands upon thousands of parents who sincerely believe that their children were maimed or killed by them and must live with that existential reality every day of their lives must be either lying, ignorant, or stupid, and thus perhaps even deserve to have their stories ignored and dismissed out of hand by the medical community, the news media, and the public at large.  Yet their suffering, whatever may have caused it, surely cries out at the very least for caution, restraint, and simple compassion for the viewpoint of those whose lived experience is so tragically different from that of everyone else privileged enough to be ignorant of or somehow unmoved by their loss.

As a family physician who has cared for many of these children over the years, I can say with complete assurance that the vast majority of their parents are by no means ignorant or credulous “anti-vaxxers” or hostile to science.  Quite the contrary, in fact: they are often well-educated, have devoted their lives to unraveling the mystery about what really happened to their kids, and ask no more than that vaccines be made as safe as possible, based on careful investigation by independent scientists unaffiliated with the drug industry. After more than fifty years in the trenches, I can also attest that the instinctive, practical sense of caring parents is often a far more accurate and trustworthy guide to the truth about what caused the specific tragedies that they have had to endure than any preformed, generic pronouncement that pre-empts any need to consider the details of their actual, lived experience.

Finally, the widespread and indeed almost universal reverence accorded to vaccination, based on the catechism that vaccines are not only safe and effective, but also among the  supreme achievements of modern medicine, has impelled me to write with a sense of urgency and foreboding at this critical moment in our history, when the time-honored rights of patients to refuse unwanted medical treatment and to make such decisions on behalf of their children are being challenged as never before.  I will feel well rewarded if my words, my reasoning, and the commingled sadness, fear, and outrage I have long felt about this subject will promote a healthy debate and elicit more of the rigorous scientific work that still remains to be done.

Given the legitimate doubts and fears surrounding their use, the simplest and wisest solution would be to make the vaccines optional, that is, available to all those who want them, once fully apprised of their risks, so that exemptions will no longer be required.  For if vaccines  and vaccination are truly as safe and effective as the CDC and the industry have been insisting, it shouldn’t be that difficult for them to convince the public to the extent of wanting to give them to their children, without needing mandates to impose them by force.

Until that happens, the most pressing issue before us is to preserve the frail remnant of personal liberty embodied in the few remaining exemptions that most citizens in our democracy have long been rightly proud of, and that the influential and well-funded drug industry has always been eager to take away.  My fervent hope and heartfelt plea is that good common sense will prevail and the American people will be sufficiently aroused to not let that happen.

Notes.

1. Editorial, “How to Inoculate against Anti-Vaxxers,” New York Times, January 20, 2019.

2. Editorial, “With Vaccine Rejection Reaching Alarming Levels, the State
Should Act,” Boston Globe, February 10, 2019.

3. Cf. Matson, et al., “Investigation of a Measles Outbreak in a Fully-Vaccinated School Population,” Pediatric Infectious Diseases 12:292, 1993.

4. Ma, et al., “Monitoring Progress toward Elimination of Measles in China,”
Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92:390, 2015.

5. ‘Mumps Outbreak at Harvard,” NBC News, April 2016.

6. Schlenker, et al., “Measles Herd Immunity,” JAMA 267:823, 1992.

7. Cf., for example, Payne, et al., “Sib Transmission of Vaccine-Derived
Rotavirus,” Pediatrics 125:938, 2010; and Murti, “One Case of Vaccine-
Associated Measles 5 Weeks Post-Vaccination,” British Columbia, Canada,
Eurosurveillance 18:12, 2013.

8. Althouse and Scarpino, “Asymptomatic Transmission and the Resurgence of
Bordetella pertussis,BMC Medicine 13:1186, 2015.

9. Cf., for example, Cantekin, Letter, NEJM 344:1719, 2001.

10. World Medical Association, Ethical Principles for Medical Research
      Involving Human Subjects, Helsinki, 1964, amended 2008, par. 24, p. 3.

11. Cf., for example, Dauer, “Reported Whooping Cough Morbidity and Mortality in the United States,” Public Health Report 58:661, 1943.

12. Cf., for example, “Varicella,” American Academy of Pediatrics Brochure, 1996.

13. Vide supra, note 9.

14. Cf., for example,  Kubota, et al., “Association of Measles and Mumps with
Cardiovascular Disease,” Atherosclerosis 241:682, 2015.

15. Dr. Colleen Boyle, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, November 29, 2012.

16. “How Are Vaccines Evaluated for Safety?” insidevaccines.com.

17. Cf. vaccine package inserts.

18. Cf. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 2011.

19. Goldman and Miller, “Relative Trends in Hospitalizations and Mortality among Infants by the Number of Vaccines and Age, 1990-2010,” Human Experimental Toxicology 30:1420, 2011.

20. Glanz, et al., “A Population-Based Cohort Study of Under-Vaccination in Managed Care Organizations,” JAMA Pediatrics 167:284, 2013.

21. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Basic, 1999, pp. 103, 108, 111, 112, passim.




Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.: Vaccines ARE Linked to Autism. We Must Preserve Medical Freedom.

Source: The HighWire with Del Bigtree
Published on Mar 19, 2019

 

AMERICA’S PEDIATRICIAN REVEALS SHOCKING AUTISM DISCOVERY

 

https://youtu.be/Bjvjf4MnFqc

 



Source:  Vaccine Impact

 

Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D. – Preserve Medical Freedom – Vaccines Linked to Autism

March 20, 2019

Dr. Paul Thomas in Oregon, prior to testifying in a committee hearing on proposed bill SB 442 to remove vaccine exemptions for children.

Health Impact News Editor Comments

Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D. was born in Portland Oregon, and grew up in Southern Africa. He has a masters degree in biology, an M.D. from Dartmouth Medical School, and completed his pediatric residency at the University of California, San Diego. He is a board-certified fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and also carries board certifications in Addiction Medicine and Integrative Holistic Medicine. He started the Pediatric After-hours Clinic (now Pediatric ER) at Emanuel Children’s Hospital, where he also taught medical students and residents from 1988-1993.

Dr. Thomas is obviously knowledgeable in the area of immunization, as a practicing pediatrician and currently one of the few actual board-certified fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics residing in the State of Oregon. He took time out of his busy schedule to appear at the hearing earlier this year before the Oregon Senate Committee on Health Care, regarding Bill SB 442, written by Oregon State Senator and physician Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, which seeks to remove all philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccines in the State of Oregon.

Here is Dr. Paul Thomas’ testimony and comments regarding his concerns about this proposed law:

 

Dr. Paul starts out his comments by mentioning how SB 442 will remove all philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccines, and that the only medical exemptions that would be allowed would be from “certain pre-selected medical providers.”

He states: “This is a travesty.”

Dr. Paul then stated why this bill is such a travesty:

This is powerful. This is important. This is for our children. We need to protect our children and preserve the right for freedom of choice, and the right to give informed consent when your child is about to get a vaccine.

Dr. Paul then begins his testimony by stating that he represents 11,000 patients and that 500 new babies come into his practice each month wanting informed consent about vaccines.

informed-consent-vaccines-dr-paul

He states that it is his responsibility as a physician to point out the risks and benefits of every medical procedure, but that this proposed bill would not allow him to do this for his patients.

Next, Dr. Paul addresses the Hepatitis B vaccine routinely given to newborn babies in hospitals. He states that the amount of aluminum contained in this vaccine is 10 to 15 times the limit allowable for infants.

dr-paul-testimony-aluminum-hepatitis-b-vaccine

He provided handouts for each committee member showing the peer-reviewed studies linking toxic aluminum exposure to brain damage and autism.

dr-paul-aluminum-toxicity-brain-damage-autism

According to Dr. Paul, the only people who need the Hepatitis B vaccine are moms who are positive for Hepatitis B, which is less than 1% in Oregon and the rest of the country:

So we are going to poison the other 99%, and it is going to be mandated by this law, so that we cover that 1%. And our Ob Gyns are doing a masterful job. We know who needs the vaccine and who doesn’t.

Dr. Paul also pointed out a study conducted in Norway that followed 85,000 pregnancies over 6 years which tracked folate intake and autism.

dr-paul-JAMA-link-to-Autism

Norway only had a 1 in 1000 rate of autism, while the U.S. had a rate of 1 out of 100. As Dr. Paul looked for the differences in newborn pediatric care between the U.S. and Norway, he noticed that Norway does not give the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth like the U.S. does.

Dr. Paul then made the stunning statement that in his practice he currently has over 1000 kids at least 3 years old, and there are no new cases of autism, while nationally, his peers in pediatric care are seeing 1 out of 50 children on the autism spectrum. He tells the committee that we can greatly reduce the rate of autism by understanding that increased vaccines are in fact correlated with increased rates of autism. He referenced the 2004 CDC study that supposedly showed no link, but which now is known to show an increased link to autism among African-American boys after the release of all the data sets last year (2014).

dr-paul-hooker-autism-cdc-study

Dr. Paul ends his brief testimony before the committee by stating that the “science is not settled” linking vaccines to autism, and that we need more studies.




USDA Fails: New Report Puts Farmers Back in Charge of Organic Certification

Source: The Cornucopia Institute

March 14, 2019

 

USDA Has “Willfully Failed” on Congressional Mandate to Prevent Fraud

 

When farmers lobbied Congress to pass the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, their intention was to create a level playing field in the market and to affirm the credibility of organic labeling in the eyes of consumers. Unfortunately, according to a newly released report by The Cornucopia Institute, the USDA’s poor oversight of federally accredited third-party certifiers has paved the way for illegal output from “factory farms” that now dominate the $50 billion organic market basket.

 

Prior to 2002 when federal regulations kicked in, a hodgepodge of state laws and dozens of independently owned certifiers created their own organic standards. Although Congress intended the enforcement of uniform national regulations, a handful of the largest certifiers have allowed livestock factories producing dubious milk and eggs and hydroponic, soil-less indoor farming to illegally squeeze out legitimate family scale organic farmers and ranchers.

In addition to Cornucopia’s investigative analysis, the nonprofit farm policy research group also released a guide rating all 45 domestic certifiers on their adherence to the “spirit and letter of the organic law” as gauged by the most prominent allegations of malfeasance currently facing the organic industry.

“This might be the most provocative project we have worked on during our 15-year history,” said Mark A. Kastel, a Cornucopia founder and its current Executive Director. “Make no mistake about it, farmers will be empowered to disrupt the revenue streams of some of the largest and most powerful certifiers in the organic industry by switching to truly ethical alternatives.”

Cornucopia alleges that many of the certifiers established by farmers, some in existence since the 1970s and 80s, have morphed from nonprofits dedicated to helping promote environmental animal husbandry and the economic justice benefits of organic farming into multimillion-dollar corporations more interested in pursuing multibillion-dollar corporate agribusinesses.

The report focuses on three hot button issues in organics:

  • Milk produced on giant industrial dairies, managing 2,000-20,000 animals each and pushing them for high production resulting in short lives and nutritionally deficient milk. Instead of grazing on pasture as legally required, these cows spend most of their lives in filthy feedlots;
  • Industrial-scale, primarily conventional, egg producers housing as many as 200,000 birds in a single building with minuscule enclosed porches substituting for federally-mandated access to the outdoors; and
  • Multinational agribusinesses producing soil-less, hydroponic fruits and vegetables in the desert Southwest or importing them from Mexico, Canada, and Europe, despite USDA standards that clearly call for careful soil stewardship that results in the superior flavor and nutrition of authentic, organically-produced produce.

 

An “organic” hydroponic operation: 60 acres under glass
Certified by QAI

 

“For the first time, farmers will be able to invest their hard-earned money with certifiers based on their dedication to maintaining a fair and balanced playing field in the competitive market for organic food,” said Marie Burcham, a Cornucopia attorney and policy analyst who helped write the report. “Consumers will also be better able to judge whether food products meet their expectations, based on which certifier is listed on the package.”

Federal law requires that manufacturers and distributors of certified products that prominently display the word “organic” and/or the USDA organic seal specify on their packaging which certifier has audited their supply chain and manufacturing process. This facilitates wholesale buyers’ and consumers’ use of Cornucopia’s certifier ratings.

A number of the largest certifiers, many affiliated with the powerful industry lobby group the Organic Trade Association, promoted a boycott of Cornucopia’s research and sent preemptive, damage-control letters to their farmer-clients. One organic farmer receiving such a letter from his private certifier, Pennsylvania Certified Organic (PCO), was Neal Laferriere of West Virginia.

“Why didn’t my certifier just respond to the [Cornucopia] survey? What don’t they want me to know?” asked Laferriere.

“Subversion tactics aren’t going to work,” he said. “Farmers want answers. Certifiers are the gatekeepers to organic production. We want to know who and what they’re letting through the door.”

In addition to surveys signed by officers of the certifiers, The Cornucopia Institute’s ratings depended on the USDA organic database, aerial photography, satellite imagery, and documents secured through the Freedom of Information Act.

“You can run but you can’t hide,” said Kastel. “Congress intended this to be a transparent process and we aim to shed sunlight on the cozy relationship between organic scofflaws and the certifiers they are paying.”

Farmers, and their customers who want to invest in truly organic food, might want to do their homework.

“That’s not what Congress had in mind when they handed over the reins of the rapidly growing organic industry to USDA regulators,” said Kastel. “But the reality is, sadly typical in Washington, the regulators have conspired with the regulated to place profits over integrity and it’s time for organic stakeholders to regain control.”

MORE:

Pam Smith, a former board member of Florida Organic Growers (FOG) who resigned in protest recently because of what she perceived to be a tenor change in the organization, told the Washington Post, “It’s a constant fight on the national level to keep the spirit of organics alive, that the earth is as important as the people eating the food.”

“I started feeling like the [FOG] director himself wanted to make more money. There’s more money in the certification than in the farming itself, especially if you’re no longer concerned about small family farms. It’s way easier to certify the large ones.”

FOG’s former executive director, who just left the organization, was a long time board member of the Organic Trade Association (OTA).

“Although we did not rate certifiers based on their membership status in the industry’s preeminent lobby group, The Organic Trade Association, the pattern illustrated on our scorecard is pretty revealing,” said Cornucopia’s Kastel.

Of the bottom-ranked certifiers, categorized “Documented Unethical Behavior,” 53% are OTA members, some making substantial contributions over and above their base membership fees. In contrast only 9% of the balance of certifiers rated as fair to exemplary hold OTA memberships.

The Cornucopia Institute has been a longtime critic of what it calls a “cozy” relationship between the certifiers and USDA regulators charged with overseeing their conduct.

Cornucopia filed two ethics complaints regarding conflicts of interest against the National Organic Program’s (NOP) former director, Miles McEvoy, who had previously run a certifying agency himself.  McEvoy “waltzed through Washington’s revolving door,” going to work for the country’s largest certifier, CCOF. More recently the former federal bureaucrat accepted a consulting position with the OTA, focusing on helping the industry trade and lobbying group ferret out fraud in the industry —a problem that had soared while he was in charge at the NOP, despite McEvoy’s long assertion about the rigor of the agency’s oversight.

“You don’t need to take the word of The Cornucopia Institute on the inadequacy of the accreditation process. The program has been the subject of critical reviews by the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General with no discernible changes in the NOP’s approach,” said Burcham.

In their most recent audit, the OIG stated, “…our interviews with six certifying agents disclosed that three of the six allowed organic herds to continue to be transitioned and producers to add cattle to organic herds while the remaining three do not allow the additional conversion of conventional cattle to organic status.”

“The passage above illustrates one of the criterion we used to separate the ethical certifiers from others that are all-too-accommodating to factory farm interests in organics. The USDA should not allow a free-for-all where certifiers create their own rules,” Burcham added.

Other examples of corruption by major certifiers that Cornucopia cited included Quality Assurance International (QAI) approving major pharmaceutical companies, like Parke-Davis and Abbott Laboratories, adding a gimmicky, genetically mutated DHA oil derived from algae in certified organic infant formula even though the material hadn’t gone through the legally-required review by the National Organic Standards Board to assure its safety.

“Not only was this accommodating certifier sidestepping legal requirements for prior review and approval of the product by the NOSB,” said Kastel, “the oil is extracted from the biomass of algae using hexane, a volatile solvent that is a byproduct of gasoline refinement and specifically banned in organic production.”

Along with scorecards ranking dairy products, eggs, soy foods, breakfast cereals, and more on their adherence to fundamental organic philosophy and legal requirements, Cornucopia describes the Certifier Guide as another tool families can use to purchase the safest and most nutritious food when paying premiums for organics.

 

 

Domestic USDA Accredited Certifiers
[ABO] A Bee Organic; [ASCO] Agricultural Services Certified Organic; [AI] Americert International; [BARO] Basin and Range Organics; [BOC] Baystate Organic Certifiers; [CCOF] CCOF Certification Services, LLC; [CU] Clemson University; [CDA] Colorado Department of Agriculture; [ECO ICO] ECOCERT ICO; [GCIA] Georgia Crop Improvement Association, Inc.; [GLO] Global Culture; [GOA] Global Organic Alliance, Inc.; [ISDA] Idaho State Department Of Agriculture; [ICS] International Certification Services, Inc.; [IDALS] Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship; [KDA] Kentucky Department of Agriculture; [MOCA] Marin Organic Certified Agriculture; [MDA] Maryland Department of Agriculture; [MOSA] Midwest Organic Services Association, Inc.; [MCIA] Minnesota Crop Improvement Association; [MCS] MOFGA Certification Services, LLC; [MTDA] Montana Department of Agriculture; [MCCO] Monterey County Certified Organics; [NFC] Natural Food Certifiers; [NICS] Natures International Certification Services; [NHDAMF] New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food; [NJDA] New Jersey Department of Agriculture; [NMDA] New Mexico Department of Agriculture; [NOFA-NY] Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York; [OEFFA] Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association; [ODAFF] Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry; [ONE] OneCert, Inc.; [ODA] Oregon Department of Agriculture; [OTCO] Oregon Tilth Certified Organic; [OC] Organic Certifiers, Inc.; [OCIA] Organic Crop Improvement Association; [PCO] Pennsylvania Certified Organic; [PL] Primus Labs; [QAI] Quality Assurance International; [QCS] Quality Certification Services; [RIDEM] Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management; [SCS] SCS Global Services; [TDA] Texas Department of Agriculture; [UDAF] Utah Department of Agriculture & Food; [VOF] Vermont Organic Farmers, LLC; [WSDA] Washington State Department of Agriculture; [YDA] Yolo County Department of Agriculture




‘I Will Never Get Over Feeling I Killed My Son’: Anti-Vaccination Activists Refuse to be ‘Silenced’

Image Credit: © Krystle Cordingley; Reuters / Lindsey Wasson

 

Source: RT

by Igor Ogorodnev
March 17, 2019

 

Vaccination skeptics say the US government has joined with pharmaceutical companies to shut them down, and the veil of silence over the true dangers of inoculation is secretly killing hundreds of children each year.

‘Broken’ 

When she checks on one of her three living children sleeping, Krystle Cordingley will sometimes see not their faces, but the “grey and lifeless” face of her son Corbyn, whom she found dead in his bed 14 hours after a flu vaccination.

That was over five years ago.

“I’m broken. I am not suicidal or unable to function, but my heart will always be shattered. I will forever feel guilty for being the one that took my son in to be vaccinated, and I don’t know if I will ever get over the feeling that I killed him,” says Cordingley, who now dedicates her life to fighting against vaccination.

She recalls October 18, 2013, the last day of her 13 month-old son’s life, in perfect detail.

From the uncomprehending, tearful look he gave her after the flu shot, to the meal she prepared for him before her evening shift at the hospital – which she still keeps in her freezer, unable to throw it away – to how his dad peeked into his room, thought that his son was sleeping peacefully on his stomach and didn’t come closer.

Then, how when she returned home, and was preparing to nurse him, she noticed his chest was not moving, turned over his face, and screamed, aware straight away it was too late. Then, the vainly desperate attempts to revive him.

“Of all my years of emergency response training I never thought the first child I would use my emergency training on would be my own,” says Cordingley. “I still have flashbacks of the medical personnel cracking my child’s sternum to continue a more productive CPR, compressing his chest like he was a rag doll.”

 

Corbyn ©  Krystle Cordingley

 

The official medical cause of death was the deeply unsatisfying “Unknown”.

Assured only that her son did not suffocate, Cordingley, who lives in Ogden, Utah, wanted to know more, and would not let it go. She says that a third-party neuropathologist identified severe damage to Corbyn’s brain stem and hippocampus, and told the mother, that “she sees that much damage from younger SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] babies all the time, but never in older children and she is surprised he lived as long as he did.”

Cordingley believes that it is not unrelated that as well as the flu shot, Corbyn received five different vaccines, including MMR, 43 days before his death.

‘Government’s mocking our loss’

Cordingley’s second life as an activist began there and then, though she does not pretend that it in any way compensates for the loss of her first.

As a medical lab scientist in her day job, it is hard to caricature Cordingley as a hippie vaccine refusenik, and her arguments are decidedly post-Wakefield – medical terms abound, she sends references to studies.

‘I will never get over feeling I killed my son’: Anti-vaccination activists refuse to be 'silenced’

 

Cordingley says her quest is not about turning down decades of medical research, but coming to independent conclusions from papers that are out there, and the real ignorance is among those who simply believe what they are told by health professionals.

“I have many parents who reach out to me, asking me what they should do. My response every time is: do your research,” she says. “I am not forcing their hand. They are coming to the conclusion on their own. Never once have I told a parent not to vaccinate.”

The concerns voiced by Cordingley and several other leading vaccination skeptics are varied – from severe side effects, to the impact of preservatives used, to individual biological intolerance, to a lack of effectiveness.

But the overall view of the situation was almost identical: health impacts are systematically under-reported, dissent dismissed, and the government is in the pocket of large medical corporations who create a web of conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, those who have suffered are dismissed as numerically insignificant.

“My son was not one in a million injured as I’ve now become friends with hundreds of individuals claiming their children died or are continuing to suffer side effects,” says Kathleen Berrett, mother of teen Colton, who developed a disabling inflammation of the spine, shortly after being administered an HPV vaccine, and later took his own life.

 

“I feel that the government’s mocking our loss and telling us our children don’t matter – just an acceptable number WE have to sacrifice,” says Cordingley.

The solution: massive fresh research by independent bodies, a return to legal liability for vaccine producers, and more training and encouragement for doctors to report their concerns about side effects. In totality, an attitude change to caution, rather than unquestioning endorsement, or worse than that, forced vaccination.

“The system they have set up is not designed to create ‘safe’ vaccines. It is a system designed to provide substantive monetary incentive, while shielding from any liability for damages caused. This is inherently unsafe,” says Kristen Chevrier, director of the campaign group Your Health Freedom.

Establishment fights back

For the medical establishment, the anti-vaxxers make for an awkward opponent. The optics favor the renegades: passionate grassroots advocates with devastating backstories versus the might of an establishment represented by lecturing affluent doctors and politicians, who may not actually vaccinate their own children either.

Also on rt.com Toxic reaction: Anti-vaxxers may be wrong, but Facebook censoring people for being wrong is worse

With greater access to medical information that anyone can cite, and with campaigners’ ability to self-organize through social media, the size and authority advantages are further eroded for the government. To a lay eye, the links presented by Cordingley look no less imposing than those on the CDC website.

And that’s before taking into account a population naturally apprehensive about actively injecting their healthy child for diseases that are either vanishingly rare, like polio, or mostly trivial, like chicken pox.

But it is a battle that health authorities feel they must win.

The WHO, which officially proclaimed vaccination hesitancy as one of the top global health issues of 2019, says that 2-3 million lives are saved annually by effective vaccinations, and an additional 1.5 million could survive annually if their coverage spreads.

 

 

But tendencies in the West, at least, point in the opposite direction. In the UK, nine out of 12 vaccines had lower uptake than the year before in 2017/8 (though levels are still above those of a decade ago) while in the US popularity has remained static. Between the turn of the millennium and 2015, the number of entirely unvaccinated infants rose fourfold, though still constitutes less than two percent.

While overall, herd immunity is holding up, Europe suffered its worst measles outbreak in a decade with 80,000 cases last year, with Japan reporting similar spikes. The US, which eliminated the disease altogether by 2000, is on pace to suffer its worst measles statistics since 1992, though the absolute numbers of patients remain in the hundreds.

Authorities are trying disparate measures – from playing up the impact of epidemics, to vaccination campaigns, to a lap of honor in Congress for a teenager who asked Reddit how he could get shots, after being denied them as a child by his anti-vaxxer mother, to publicizing stories of unvaccinated children suffering from preventative illnesses that are every bit as devastating as Corbyn’s.

Also on rt.com ‘No vaccine, no school’: Italy starts punishing parents who refuse to immunize their kids

There are also sterner suggestions: from creeping compulsory vaccination, which Italy has just reintroduced, to blaming Russian agents for amplifying debate, to calls from top officials in Washington and healthcare bodies for social networks to shutter anti-vaccination groups.

Turning point

But for Cordingley, all these measures are a sign that they are closer than ever to a flip of public consciousness.

“The smear campaigns, the censoring, and mandating is a huge cry for help by the pharmaceutical companies before they drown in their own deceit. They can only go so far before it backfires and parents see it all on their own,” says Cordingley, who uses social media to spread her message.

 

Vaccination Liberation, an activist group from Idaho, believes that as the battle intensifies, this will become a civil rights issue, particularly as ever more hardline measures are handed down from above.

“The presumed and unconstitutional authority of legislators to mandate vaccines, a form of medical rape, has not abated in the face of two generations of extremely unhealthy children and adults,” says its founder, Ingri Cassel.

And having spent years fighting their cause on the margins, they are not about to stop now.

“They are trying to suppress the wrong group of people. Parents who have lost their children are the last group you want to silence. They will only get louder and fight harder,” says Cordingley.




The Oxidative Effects of Wireless Radiation

The Oxidative Effects of Wireless Radiation

 

Illustration by Don Carroll

by Dr. Mark Sircus
March 11, 2019

 

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are all around us, even if you live in rural areas. They emanate from power lines, televisions, household electrical wiring, appliances and microwaves, cellphones, cellphone towers and wireless internet connections. Of course in cities one opens their WiFi and see limitless signals penetrating one’s personal space. Some people are very sensitive to EMF and suffer greatly from it.

The Nation published, “The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause cells to shed electrons, which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects.”

The Nation continues and raises the alarm, “The wireless industry’s determination to bring about the Internet of Things, despite the massive increase in radiation exposure this would unleash, raises the stakes exponentially. Because 5G radiation can only travel short distances, antennas roughly the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. “Industry is going to need hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of new antenna sites in the United States alone,” said Moskowitz, the UC Berkeley researcher. “So, people will be bathed in a smog of radiation 24/7.”

“The global rollout of 5G is well underway, and we soon may see new small cell towers near all schools, on every residential street, dispersed throughout the natural environment, and pretty much everywhere. Among the many potential problems with exposure to 5G radio waves are issues with the skin, which is interesting when you consider that this technology is already being used in the military for crowd control purposes.”

“The 5G rollout is absolutely insane.” Dr. Martin Pall addressing the NIH

“Allowing this technology to be used without proving its safety is reckless in the extreme, as the millimeter waves are known to have a profound effect on all parts of the human body.” Prof. Trevor Marshall, Director Autoimmunity Research Foundation, California

“The plans to beam highly penetrative 5G milliwave radiation at us from space must surely be one of the greatest follies ever conceived of by mankind. There will be nowhere safe to live.” Olga Sheean former WHO employee and author of No Safe Place.

“We simply can’t escape the exposure to this radiation. It’s everywhere. There are so many people using cell phones and wireless connections today that you don’t even have to own a cell phone to be exposed. You’re just as exposed as everyone else. Every time someone makes a call from a mobile phone the signal is sent to a cell phone tower. There are so many calls being made by everyone all around us and now there are so many mobile phone towers in operation, that all of us are caught in the crossfire. It’s like second-hand smoke from cigarettes, except that we can’t get away from it. There simply isn’t anywhere to escape,” writes Lynn Quiring.

 

image

 

Writing back in 2008 Quiring notes, “Today cell phone towers have increased dramatically in number. There are now more than 1.9 million cell phone towers and antenna towers spread throughout the U.S. They are now found on churches, schools and firehouses as well as being seen on the rooftop of buildings everywhere.” 5 G will take this to an entirely new level. We are no better than experimental lab rats except we are allowed to walk freely though all these networks and frequencies with no assurances of saftey.

All of us alive today must worry about oxidative stress. In July 2015, a review of existing studies on radiofrequency radiation (RFR) was published by National Academy of Sciences in Ukraine, Indiana University, and the University of Campinas in Brazil. Based on “93 out of 100 peer-reviewed studies, it concluded that low-intensity RFR [radiofrequency radiation] is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential, and that oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of primary mechanisms of biological activity of this kind of radiation. This explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which includes both cancer and non-cancer pathologies.”

Neuropsychiatric Effects

Low intensity microwave EMFs have been proposed to produce neuropsychiatric effects, sometimes called microwave syndrome. Soviet and Western literature shows that much of the impact of non-thermal microwave exposures in experimental animals occurs in the brain and peripheral nervous system. These may be generated through roles of VGCC activation, producing excessive neurotransmitter/neuroendocrine release as well as oxidative/nitrosative stress and other responses. EMFs act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation.

Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes.

In a recent scientific study conducted by a team of researchers from Israel, a possible link between microwave radiation, similar to the type found in cellular phones, and different kinds of damage to the visual system was found. At least one kind of damage seems to accumulate over time and not heal.

Killing Off the Human Race Slowly With Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress (OS) has been identified as one of the many mediators of male infertility by causing sperm dysfunction. Excessive production of free radicals or reactive oxygen species (ROS) can damage sperm, and ROS have been extensively studied as one of the mechanisms of infertility. Spermatozoa are sensitive to OS because they lack cytoplasmic defenses (Donnelly et al, 1999Saleh and Agarwal, 2002). No wonder sperm counts are crashing the world over.

Oxidative stress is getting out of hand already for many reasons including the increases of cosmic rays because of our weakening sun, continued increases of radiation from multiple sources including never ending nuclear diagnostic tests, Fukushima and other sources. 5 G will make matters worse.

A study from Israel’s Tel Aviv University, examined people living near a cell phone transmitter station for 3-7 years. The results were startling. Out of the 622 exposed patients, eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of just one year (July 1997 to June 1998): three cases of breast cancer, one of ovarian cancer, lung cancer, Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymphatic system), osteoid osteoma (bone tumour) and kidney cancer. The relative risk of cancer was 4.15 for those living near the cell phone transmitter compared with the entire population of Israel. Women were more susceptible. As seven out of eight cancer cases were women, the relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for those living near the transmitter station and 0.6 for the controls relative for the whole town of Netanya.

In her extraordinary article The Radiation Poisoning of America, by Amy Worthington, we find that studies confirm that non-ionizing communications radiation in the RF/microwave spectrum has the same effect on human health as ionizing gamma wave radiation from nuclear reactions. Leading German radiation expert Dr. Heyo Eckel, an official of the German Medical Association, states, ‘The injuries that result from radioactive radiation are identical with the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The damages are so similar that they are hard to differentiate.”

Amy Worthington writes, “Because gamma waves and RF/microwave radiation are identically carcinogenic and genotoxic to the cellular roots of life, the safe dose of either kind of radiation is zero. No study has proven that any level of exposure from cell-damaging radiation is safe for humans. Dr. Carlo confirms that cell damage is not dose dependant because any exposure level, no matter how small, can trigger damage response by cell mechanisms.”

A study by Dr. Bruce Hocking in Australia found that children living near three TV and FM broadcast towers (like cell towers) in Sydney had more than twice the rate of leukemia than children living more than seven miles away. According to the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, “Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other serious illnesses.”

Conclusion

Gabriel Cousens writes, “It is already clear from over 10,000 studies on 2G, 3G, and 4G that these wireless network radio frequency (RF) radiation network systems are causing significant acute and chronic health problems, including life-threatening diseases such as cancer, heart disease, type-2 diabetes, and mental disturbances, such as depression, anxiety, and increased suicidal tendencies.”

However EMFs are not the only thing increasing oxidative stress. Oxidative stress increases significantly when we are either physically and/or emotionally stressed out. This is something to worry about with stress and anxiety going off the charts in the age of Trump, and for sure its not all his fault. One easy way to acess this problem is by looking at the quality of our sleep and heart rate variability (HRV), which offers the best measurment of our stress.

Oxidation increases when we are exposed to toxins, and infections. It is also increased by sugar and chemicals, so the more you can minimize your exposure to these things, the better.

Thus reducing the amount of oxidative stress, we are constantly faced with, is one of the most important things we can do for our health. Though there are many ways of reducing oxidative stress nothing will take down oxidative stress like hydrogen medicine. Inhaling hydrogen gas with a hydrogen device can extinguish the most intense oxidative fires and inflammation.

Runner up to hydrogen is glutathione and even properly made coffee can help as well as an excellent diet and supplements high in antioxidants.  Also meditation, yoga and other forms of soft exercise including walking. PEMF is another important way but hydrogen, because of its small size offers us the perfect antioxidant because it turns the most offensive free radicals into water.




Vaccine Censorship Backfiring…What To Expect Next

Source: Jefferey Jaxen

by Jefferey Jaxen
March 3, 2019

 

Representatives from government and the corporate media will have you believe that due to an unsensational number of measles cases in the U.S., the fabric of American society must take historically dangerous and authoritarian measures. According to both media and government talking points, in order to combat an ambiguous specter of ‘misinformation,’ America must rapidly sink into a communist-slanting, medical corporatocracy. In the age of information, is censorship really that effective? In 2003 Barbra Streisand attempted to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California. Her efforts had the exact opposite effect by inadvertently drawing further public attention to it. The phenomenon is now coined the Streisand effect whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the internet.Channeling his inner Joseph McCarthy, Rep. Adam Schiff decided to weigh-in on parents sharing dissenting vaccine information online. Rep. Schiff, in a letter to Amazon head Jeff Bezos, employed his own vaccine misinformation to suggest the e-commerce giant censor certain vaccine-centered videos and books on its site. Schiff writes, “There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases…” Unfortunately, there are entire books written on the topic of vaccine injury, its biological mechanisms, and the “vaccine court” which has paid out over $4B in compensation awards for injuries and deaths at the hands of vaccination.

Amazon jumped at Schiff’s anti-American suggestion by hiding or demoting dissenting vaccine books and videos on its search engines and removing the streaming options for the documentary and Amazon best seller Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.

Is the censorship working? Author and co-founder of Generation Rescue J.B. Handley reported that before calls for censorship these past weeks, his book How To End The Autism Epidemichovered around #5,000 on Amazon’s Best Seller list. At the time of this writing his book has raced to #106. Handley’s book is also #1 in the book categories of Immunology, Disability Parenting, and Popular Child Psychology.

Meanwhile, another popular book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History by Suzanne Humphries MD and Roman Bystrianyk has similarly raced to #33 on Amazon’s Best Seller list in addition to grabbing the #1 slots in the book categories of History of Medicine, History, and Viral Diseases. As for the film documentary Vaxxed, at the time of this writing it is currently ranked #9 in Amazon’s overall ranking of Movies & TV behind such titles as the 7-time Oscar-nominated A Star Is Born and 4-time Oscar-winning Bohemian Rhapsody.

Facebook, Pinterest, and YouTube have also announced internal methods they are now employing to censor vaccine speech on their platforms. Articles and accounts who adhere to the limited and insulting talking points protecting Big Pharma’s vaccine products from proper scrutiny and science will rank higher in people’s Facebook feeds. As Vox writes, “These moves are encouraging for one reason: Misinformation about vaccines is dangerous.” The irony of witnessing a slew of journalists and media outlets promoting and celebrating censorship is not lost.

One place that the educated public and the censorship authoritarians see eye to eye on is that vaccine misinformation is dangerous. However, the lion’s share of such misinformation appears to be created and disseminated by the U.S. government and its regulatory agencies which is then parroted by media and mainstream medical bodies. Vaccine injury denier Rep. Schiff claiming “There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases…” came after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Anthony Fauci’s lie heard around the world. Fauci recently gave testimony in front of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. A committee whose pre-hearing memorandum brief written by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. contained vaccine misinformation which was pointed out to him prior to the hearing by the group Physicians for Informed Consent to no avail.

Under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in title 18, section 1001 of the U.S. Code, Fauci was asked by Rep. Brett Guthrie if the measles vaccine can cause encephalitis. Despite the encephalitis warning being listed on the MMR II’s package insert as well as being on the table of vaccine injuries recognized for compensation in vaccine court by the Health Resources and Services Administration, Fauci said “no.” In short, Fauci lied. If it wasn’t for the slew of parents seated behind Fauci who then loudly voiced their disapproval, there would likely have been no correction. As it were, Fauci felt the pressure and then shouted out “rare” before Rep. DeGette had to bang a gavel to restore order.

Once the hearing concluded, Fauci scrambled to gather his belongings and exit the committee to a overwhelming and constant barrage of parents expressing their discontent for his underhandedness. Martha Stewart, General Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos were each charged, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, with lying to federal government agents. With sweeping censorship happening and over 100 active vaccine-related bills in 30 states, Fauci’s lie was capable of influencing the decision of the committee to which it was addressed. Will legal action be pursued?

The mad rush to pass legislation at the state level to eliminate all non-medical vaccine exemptions has seen record turnout against the bills. Testimonies across the country are being given by doctors, scientists and parents methodically dissecting every angle of inconvenient truth surrounding the unsettled vaccine science and broken government oversight apparatus. Roughly half of the over 100 active vaccine bills are aimed at expanding and protecting the people’s rights, informed consent, and vaccine exemptions.

The heavy-handed move to censor and demote all dissenting vaccine information running counter to Big Pharma’s limited talking points couldn’t come at a worse time. Untold numbers of families have already had experiences with vaccine injury and have been indiscriminately labeled anti-vaxers for years by media and government agencies when they speak out. In addition, it is now public information that both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have long-abdicated their duties to ensure vaccine safety and oversight.

The FDA was legally forced to admit that it granted approval to both the inactivated influenza and TdaP vaccine for use in pregnant women without any clinical trials and safety studies enrolling pregnant women. In addition, HHS was legally forced to admit that it could not produce 30 years of periodic reports showing the agency had fulfilled it Congressional mandate to “promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market…” and to “make or assure improvements in…the manufacturing, testing, warning, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting and researching on vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines.” Furthermore, HHS was also unable to provide sufficient answers and missing scientific proof vaccines are safe, to show pre-licensure vaccine safety testing was done properly, to show improvements in adverse event surveillance, and many other basic tenets of the claimed settled vaccine science.

Hearings in D.C. along with inappropriate public comments by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb have signaled a possible overarching U.S. government play to trample state’s rights and current active legislation to eliminate all non-medical vaccine exemptions. However, the federal government has no power to mandate vaccines or tell states what to do on the issue. The U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment dictates that all powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states or the people. Even the Supreme Court has recognized vaccine mandates as a state issue. ​

As the censorship continues to creep from the government organs, social media giants, and pharmaceutically-influenced media outlets, the public is signaling a growing hunger for the truth about vaccines beyond canned talking points. Unfortunately, the above listed entities have refused to leave the comfort of their limited echo-chamber rhetoric of ‘settled science’ and vaccine injury denial. With all other factors remaining the same, expect an inverse relationship as increases in multilevel vaccine censorship drive greater awakenings and hunger for the newly censored truth about vaccines.




Low-Maintenance Forest Garden Offers 500 Edible Plants

Low-Maintenance Forest Garden Offers 500 Edible Plants

by  Permaculture Research Institute

 

 

Instead of neat rows of monoculture, forest gardens combine fruit and nut trees, shrubs, herbs, vines and perennial vegetables together in one seemingly wild setting.

This type of agroforestry mimics natural ecosystems and uses the space available in a sustainable way.

UK-based Martin Crawford is one of the pioneers of forest gardening.

Starting out with a flat field in 1994, his land has been transformed into a woodland and serves as an educational resource for others interested in forest gardening.

This short film by Thomas Regnault focuses on Crawford’s forest garden, which is abundant, diverse, edible, and might be one answer to the future of food systems.

 


See also How to Design and Build a Forest Garden

 

Connect with Permaculture Research Institute

 




Effects of Heavy Metals in Vaccines (Pharmacogenetics)

Source:  Vaccine Liberation

 

Aside from the known DEPOPULATION trends such social programs to reduce births, abortion legislation, reduced male sperm count via toxic agriculture (50% reduction as early as 1945), the increasing need for in vitro derived pregnancies, iatrogenic deaths, etc, the worldwide establishment is actually “poisoning” all neonates and infants under 3 years old.The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics
“Developmental Pharmacokinetics in Pediatric Populations”
Hong Lu, PhD and Sara Rosenbaum, PhD

*Ped cyp enzymes  (see graph)  (very important study of the immaturity of cyp 450 superfamilies in infants and children.

Synopsis:  Infants do not have a mature liver or liver enzyme function such as Cytochrome P450 and its various metabolites until the age of three years old. Hence upwards of 36 vaccine doses by 18 months old containing the above excipients are poisoning the world’s emerging humanity. DOWNLOAD STUDY

Detoxification mechanism (Fish Study/Liver)

Effect Metals on Cyp 450PHD_Thesis_Eng(1)

CDC vaccine excipients

Failure of Infants to metabolize due to immature Liver Cyp450 system of enzymes until 3 years old.

The Effect Of Heavy Metal on Hepatic Chromosome P450

The results of our experiments have demonstrated that heavy metal ions react with cytochrome P450 dependent enzyme system of fish species leading to changes in confirmation of protein structure they resolve in inhibition of activity of enzymes involved in biotransformation, decrease in detoxifying enzymes. In conclusion the difference changes in enzyme activity and cytochrome P450 content induce by the various heavy metal treatments may also be explained by the living and feeding habits of individual fish species.

Like with all living organism, the body of the fish has a quite conserve protein systems providing molecular defense to insure metabolism and elimination of the foreign material. The main region of metabolism of pollutants entering into the fish body is the liver. Due to biotransformation processes these substances are converted to other compounds that can be eliminated from the body thereby becoming less toxic. The hepatic detoxifying enzymes, the cytochrome P450 dependent mixed function monooxygenases, have an important role in this process.  P450 enzyme activity in the body is not constant.  Foreign substances, Xenobiotic or some endogenous regulating molecules are able to increase (inducers) or decrease (inhibitors) the activity of cytochrome P450 enzymes.

Aluminum + Cytochrome P450 -Study:

Suppressive effect of accumulated aluminum trichloride on the hepatic microsomal cytochrome P450 enzyme system in rats.

Vaccine Excipients

Which ones need a mature Cyp 450 to metabolize out of the body?

  • aluminum hydroxide
  • aluminum phosphate
  • ammonium sulfate
  • amphotericin B
  • animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
  • dog kidney, monkey kidney,
  • chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
  • calf (bovine) serum
  • beta propiolactone
  • fetal bovine serum
  • formaldehyde
  • formalin
  • gelatin
  • glycerol
  • human diploid cells (originating from aborted human fetal tissue)
  • hydrolized gelatin
  • mercury thimerosal (thiomersal, Merthiolate®)
  • monosodium glutamate (MSG)
  • neomycin
  • neomycin sulfate
  • phenol red indicator
  • phenoxyethanol
  • potassium diphosphate
  • potassium monophosphate
  • polymyxin B
  • polysorbate 20
  • polysorbate 80
  • porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
  • residual MRC5 proteins
  • sorbitol
  • squalene
  • sucrose
  • tri(n)butylphosphate,
  • VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells, and
  • washed sheep red blood



Vaccine Mandates: Ignoring Human Rights and Informed Consent

Source:  The Vaccine Reaction

 

The U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing on Mar. 5, 2019 titled “Vaccines Save Lives: What is Driving Preventable Disease Outbreaks?”

The very title of the hearing tips the committee’s hand. “Vaccines save lives” is a conclusive statement that preemptively answers the question that follows, making it clear there would be no divergent exploration of the question of what is driving preventable disease outbreaks. Even further, while it is true that some vaccines may save some lives, it is also true that vaccines are not studied for their unintended long- and short-term effects on the body, and that many people’s bodies respond to vaccines in ways that prove harmful to them.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out more than $4 billion dollars for vaccine injuries since 1988.1 The passive reporting system for vaccine injuries, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), which captures between one and 10 percent of all adverse reactions,2 receives thousands of reports of injury every year.

If vaccines are saving lives, they are also doing it at the expense of those who are injured or killed by those same vaccines. Where is the “greater good” in that?

Reviewing the testimony of those selected to give testimony in the Senate hearing, they all beat a predictable drum: more mandates for more vaccines to be given to more people. There was a push to curtail parental rights and eliminate vaccine exemptions to those vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now recommends 69 doses of 16 vaccines be given to children before age 18, with hundreds of vaccines in the pipeline. Many of these vaccines are fast-tracked for approval without adequate safety studies, and each carries both known and unknown risks.

Vaccines are a medical intervention given to healthy people that carry a risk of death and serious or debilitating consequences for some individuals. Because of this risk, there must always be choice!

Who will be allowed to speak in Congress to the issue of human rights, the ethic of medical informed consent, and the right to bodily integrity and autonomy when it comes to vaccine mandates? The United States has confronted and repudiated the ugliness that comes with eugenics, utilitarianism, and medical experimentation in the labs at Tuskegee and the courts of Nuremberg following the horrors of Nazi medical experimentation on human subjects.

Although it is currently in fashion to think otherwise, the science is not settled on vaccines. There is not adequate testing on vaccines to make assurances of safety (new vaccines are usually tested against other vaccines, not inert placebos), and there has never been a true scientifically credible study of those who are vaccinated compared to those who are completely unvaccinated.

It is a violation of human rights to use people as guinea pigs in the great vaccine experiment, and it is immoral for the government to collude with the pharmaceutical companies through the use of vaccine mandates.

There was no one on the panel of witnesses at the Mar. 5 Senate hearing who gave a voice to that point of view. Why was Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a longtime advocate of vaccine safety and an expert on vaccine policy and informed consent, not called to testify? Why was a high school student who has spoken with friends and done a bit of Google research asked to participate in a hearing of such serious magnitude when parents of vaccine injured children—people who vaccinated their children in good faith and paid a horrible price—have been left out of the conversation?

If we applaud this child’s right to make medical choices, shouldn’t the choice of informed parents who have come to a different conclusion also be included? Are we abandoning the fundamental American value of intelligent dissent in favor of totalitarianism? 

It’s hard not to conclude that this hearing was set up as a one-sided, unfair and incomplete conversation with a pre-determined outcome. Shame. 

I will close with the words of Dr. Christine Stabell Benn, a vaccine researcher and Professor of Global Health at the University of Southern Denmark. Dr. Benn’s opinion was published in The Times of London on Mar. 2, 2019 in response to a previous article about vaccine hesitancy…

As a vaccine researcher, I strongly oppose mandatory vaccination. The vaccines that are in use were only tested for effects on the vaccine-targeted disease and on side effects in relation to the vaccination. However, there is increasing evidence that vaccines also affect the immune system broadly, reducing or enhancing susceptibility to unrelated diseases. Hence, the vaccine skeptics have a right to point out that we do not know the full effects of vaccines on overall health. It should therefore be a human right to weigh pros, cons and unknowns to make one’s own decision.3


References:

1 Health Resources & Services Administration. Vaccine Injury Compensation Data. HRSA.gov.
2 National Vaccine Information Center. Can Measles Vaccine Cause Injury & Death? NVIC.org.
3 Stabell Benn C. Times Letters: Immunisation science and ‘vaccine hesitancy’. The Times Mar. 2, 2019.




Are There “Sleeper” VACCINE-Caused Mutations Which Medicine Deliberately Ignores?

Source: Natural Blaze

Are There “Sleeper” VACCINE-Caused Mutations Cytochrome P450 Genes Produce Which Medicine Deliberately Ignores?

by Catherine Frompovich
March 4, 2019

 

Cytochrome P450 enzymes metabolize external substances, such as medications that are ingested, and internal substances, such as toxins that are formed within cells. … Common variations (polymorphisms) in cytochrome P450 genes can affect the function of the enzymes. [1]

Diseases caused by mutations in cytochrome P450 genes typically involve the buildup of substances in the body that are harmful in large amounts or that prevent other necessary molecules from being produced. [1] [CJF emphasis]

Abstract

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) superfamily comprises 57 genes. These genes code for enzymes that can have a role in: metabolism of drugs, foreign chemicals, arachidonic acid and eicosanoids; cholesterol metabolism and bile-acid biosynthesis; steroid synthesis and metabolism; vitamin D(3) synthesis and metabolism; retinoic acid hydroxylation; and those of still unknown function. Cytochrome P450 was once believed to be mainly a hepatic drug detoxication system, but is now understood to include a myriad of enzymic reactions implicated in important life processes. Mutations in many CYP genes cause inborn errors of metabolism and contribute to many clinically relevant diseases. [2]

Question: Are metabolism differences in CYP genes the cause of many vaccine adverse reactions, especially brain encephalopathy that precipitates Autism and other clinically relevant diseases in infants, toddlers and even adults? Was that the reasoning why a Vaccine Court Master awarded Hannah Poling’s Autism claim $1.5 million plus ongoing $500,000 per year for life [4]?

The government lawyers mumbled something Orwellian and incoherent about a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and how vaccines didn’t cause Hannah’s autism — the condition just “resulted” from the vaccines. [4]

Or was it because Hannah’s father is an MD (neurologist) [5], who was astute enough to realize what happened to Hannah, and the CDC/FDA and Vaccine Court wanted to prevent the ultimate of vaccine damage whistleblowers to emerge?


Free radicals are toxic; can damage living cells and tissues in a process known as oxidative stress.

What role, if any, do cytochrome P450 enzymes have in producing oxidative stress?

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and oxidative stress have been considered in a variety of disease models, and cytochrome P450 (P450) enzymes have been suggested to be a source of ROS.

[….]

The biochemistry of oxidative stress includes several issues. One is the nature of the damage to proteins, DNA, and lipids caused by ROS (8, 9). Another aspect is the nature of the biochemical processes involved in the production of ROS. Several enzyme systems have been considered in the production of ROS, including NADPH oxidase, xanthine oxidase, (uncoupled) mitochondrial electron transport, and P450 (1, 4, 10). [3] [CJF emphasis]

Excipients (ingredients) in vaccines are transformed by Cytochrome P450 enzymes in the human liver, and are metabolized out of the body through the kidneys. However, due to the immaturity of CYP450 in infants and children under 3 years of age, plus the assault of adjuvants in vaccines—Aluminum, in particular—it is well-established in the field of PHARMACOGENOMICS that Aluminum interferes in CYP 450 metabolism in fetuses, infants and children.

The underlying cause of chronic disease is obfuscated and results routinely in misdiagnoses of Autism spectrum as mental illnesses labelled as ADHD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Bipolar, etc. The use of psychiatric drugs to mitigate the symptoms propels the individual deeper into a lifetime of contraindicated drugs, special needs education, depression and a devastatingly health-compromised life.

Interestingly, the detox mechanism of the body, Cytochrome P450, is found in most systems, including the mitochondria and the gut, but not in the bloodstream. Since CYP450 is not fully developed in infants and toddlers, vaccines given during gestation; within 24 hours of birth; and every several months during a toddler’s life up to around 2 years of age contain highly neurotoxic chemicals and other excipients that would take a mature CYP450 system to metabolize, i.e., methylate those poisons out of their less-than thirty pound bodies.

CDC/FDA, vaccine manufacturers and licensed medical doctors ought to know that infants have immature Cytochrome P450 liver enzymes. Plus, every race and ethnicity, i.e., Asian, Black, Caucasian and Hispanic, have a certain percentage of CYP450 non-metabolizers who cannot metabolize chemicals, toxins, and pharmaceuticals, which includes vaccine biologicals.

Images for aluminum adjuvant interferes with CYP450

Furthermore, it is thought that 10% of the Caucasian population falls into a “metabolism affecting cellular mitochondria classification,” which government health agencies really must recognize so as not to subject infants to damaging cellular mitochondria from vaccine excipients that CYP450 metabolism issues cannot methylate.

However, Autism Spectrum Disorder anomalies actually can be prevented if the CDC and FDA were to permit physicians to perform a PCR test (Polymerase chain reaction) prior to administrating any vaccinations and similar to the Apgar test [6] an infant receives immediately after birth. PCR testing could eliminate the mandated problematic Hepatitis-B vaccine given within 24 hours of birth, unless the birth mother had an STD (sexually transmitted disease).

Here’s proof for what is said above:

A mitochondria disorder is a vaccine injury, not a genetic pre-existing condition.

Why? A genetic test of the child’s parents would confirm whether either of the parents have a mitochondrial disorder that was passed down, thereby confirming the disorder to be a genetic pre-disposition, thereby providing for a valid medical exemption to vaccinations.

However, in my opinion, no health directive—mandatory vaccinations—should be enforced to initiate an iatrogenic disease (8) resulting in a life-long disability.

As an aside, the HPV vaccine may have an exceptional capability to involve CYP450 and cell mitochondria damage. Recently emerging research apparently indicates the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine contains human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), the anti-fertility ingredient also found in the Tetanus vaccine given to child-bearing-age females in Kenya, Africa, that was confirmed by independent testing.

Lifelong immature CYP450 enzymes possibly can be responsible for many chronic diseases due to the liver’s inability to metabolize environmental toxins, food chemicals, fluoride in municipal water systems, and the inordinate amount of vaccines given since 1989!

Source

Instead of government health agencies exacerbating the growing number of those children on the Autism Spectrum Disorder, i.e., one in 40 children in the USA [7] have that diagnosis, it ought to be incumbent upon those disciplines dedicated to children’s health and wellbeing to study the real science of what happens at cellular level after vaccination, then take the necessary steps to prevail upon Big Pharma and all involved in disease issues to realize vaccines are not what they are cracked up to be and remember the Hippocratic Oath all doctors take: First, do no harm!

References:

[1] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genefamily/cytochromep450
[2] Clinical importance of the cytochromes P450 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387968
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427356/
[4] https://www.ageofautism.com/2010/09/government-awards-hannah-poling-15-million-in-vaccine-injury-case.html
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Poling
[6] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2303
[7] https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/health/autism-prevalence-study/index.html
[8] https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-iatrogenic-2615180

Resources:

Many thanks to Eileen Dannemann & Vaccine Liberation Army
Inability of Infants to Metabolize Vaccine Excipients CytochromeP450
http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2015/05/27/inability-of-infants-to-metabolize-vaccine-excipients-cytochrome-p450/

Pharmacogenetics: Inability of Infants to metabolize Vaccine Excipients – Cytochrome P450
http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2015/05/27/inability-of-infants-to-metabolize-vaccine-excipients-cytochrome-p450/

Effects of non-ionic surfactants on cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism in vitro.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220010
Re: Polysorbate 80, a vaccine excipient

Oxidative and reductive metabolism by cytochrome P450 2E1
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.320.1093&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Re: Ethanol and formaldehyde, vaccine excipients

Adverse effects by artificial grapefruit seed extract products in patients on warfarin therapy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468864
Re: Benzethonium Chloride, a vaccine excipient

Cytochrome P450 isozymes involved in the metabolism of phenol, a benzene metabolite
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11701230
Re: Phenol, a vaccine excipient

The cytochromes P450 (CYP) response to allergic inflammation of the lung
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003986106003791
Re: Aluminum Hydroxide, a vaccine adjuvant




Amazon Joins Big Tech Assault on Anti-Vaccine Information

Source:  Natural Blaze

by Jason Erickson
March 2, 2019

 

As major media and big tech continue freaking out over 159 measles cases in the U.S., anti-vaccine campaigners are increasingly being likened to terrorists as their ability to share information and earn money is being cut off.

The origin of this latest move against the free flow of information seems to have stemmed from a letter sent by Adam Schiff (D-CA) to the heads of Facebook and Google wherein he lamented the increased viewership of the vaccine debate:

“There is strong evidence to suggest that at least part of the source of this trend is the degree to which medically inaccurate information about vaccines surface on the websites where many Americans get their information,” Schiff wrote in the letter. “The algorithms which power these services are not designed to distinguish quality information from misinformation or misleading information, and the consequences of that are particularly troubling for public health issues.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Facebook was the first to agree with Schiff’s call to action and vowed that they were “exploring additional measures” to fight the appearance of anti-vaccine messaging to the reading public.

But it was YouTube (Google) that appears to have taken the swiftest measures against anti-vaccine proponents by announcing that their two-pronged approach would include demonitizing videos with “dangerous and harmful” content, plus adding a stern warning from the World Health Organization that being anti-vaccine is “one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.”

In the true spirit of competition for which big tech company can foster the most censorship and destroy the key values of democracy, Amazon has followed suit by burning the digital books (videos) of those who have made it their life’s work to educate the public and spur debate.  And, again, it seems that the public comments made by a single rep – Adam Schiff – have been enough to alter company policy which affects millions of people.

The move came days after a CNN Business report highlighted the anti-vaccine comment available on the site, and hours after Rep. Adam Schiff wrote an open letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, saying he is concerned “that Amazon is surfacing and recommending” anti-vaccination books and movies.

Anti-vaccine movies that were previously available free for Prime subscribers, like “We Don’t Vaccinate!,” “Shoot ‘Em Up: The Truth About Vaccines,” and “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” are now “currently unavailable.” (Source: Fox2now)

As the Fox report referenced above highlights, while some items have fully disappeared from “recommended” areas of the site, others do remain.  Fox specifically cites one of the more egregious offenders still in front of the delicate eyes of viewers: “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.” Because why should anyone be encouraged to read primary research into the efficacy of something being injected into their own body and the bodies of their loved ones — it almost sounds like informed consent.  It’s also a sign that Amazon holds its own core system of peer-to-peer reviews and recommendations in contempt as it resorts to algorithmic adjustments to hide the realities of real-world discussion.

Perhaps most troubling here is that this tactic, as well as the rhetoric being used, is straight out of the anti-terrorism lingo that we hear from the government and their revolving-door corporations like Facebook, Google, Amazon, et al.  It’s the same strategy that has resulted in cutting off the funding of people from all walks of independent media for all types of different and “dangerous” thoughts that could “radicalize” the unsuspecting public.

Some still continue to argue that these are private companies with private policies that can do what they wish with their own businesses. That sounds true until a single U.S. representative sends a letter that changes the policies of multiple companies virtually overnight. And it sounds OK until an entire country revokes the visa of David Icke for his brand of “dangerous” information, which was assumed to include anti-vax and global warming questions, as Activist Post recently reported.

The virus-spreading anti-vaxxers — if that is what one chooses to believe — are no match for the infection that has spread like wildfire across our formerly free and open Internet. Perhaps we have given too much of ourselves to the middlemen of big tech and have forgotten the value of direct communication.  Now is the time to remember how to communicate without the contrived structures of “social” systems of media, and without their approval.




Dr. Fauci Gives False Information to Congress About Vaccine Reactions

Source: The Vaccine Reaction

Dr. Fauci, It’s Not Nice to Fool Congress About Vaccine Reactions

by Barbara Loe Fisher
February 28, 2019

 

On Feb. 27, 2019, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a public hearing on “Confronting a Growing Public Health Threat: Measles Outbreaks in the U.S” that was also broadcast live on C-span. Parents across the nation watched and heard the renowned Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),1 either tell a bald faced lie or show his ignorance when he testified, under oath, that MMR vaccine does not cause encephalitis. This large dose of disinformation drew gasps of protest from parents attending the Capitol Hill hearing and prompted Committee Chair Diana DeGette (D-CO) to bang the gavel and warn that “manifestations of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House and this Committee.”

It is really hard to watch a distinguished physician like Dr. Fauci mislead legislators by blatantly denying the damage that serious vaccine reactions like brain inflammation can do to children’s brains. It is also hard to watch legislators believe everything they are told by government employees just because they have MD or PhD written after their names.

At 53:05 in the 95 minute House public hearing (42:05 on C-Span), Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) asked this question: “I want to look at some of the concerns. I’ve heard some parents claim that measles vaccine can cause brain inflammation, known as encephalitis. Is that true? Is that true?”

Looking like he was buying time, Dr. Fauci answered, “Brain inflammation…encephalitis…”

Rep. Guthrie persisted, “Can measles vaccine cause encephalitis? The vaccine…”

Dr. Fauci without blinking took a Pinocchio turn and answered, “The vaccine? No.”

When the audience broke out in audible disbelief and as the Chair brought the gavel down, Fauci knew he was busted and quickly murmured, “…rare.”

Then Nancy Messonnier, MD, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases,2 jumped in to help Fauci out. She stated authoritatively, “In healthy children MMR vaccine does not cause brain swelling and encephalitis.”

Rep. Guthrie appeared concerned and continued to pursue the line of questioning, “So if a child was unhealthy when they got the vaccine, would it…?”

Messonnier replied, “There are rare instances in children with certain very specific underlying problems with their immune system in whom the vaccine is contraindicated. One of the reasons it’s contraindicated is, in that very specific group of children, there is a rare risk of brain swelling.”

Rep. Guthrie followed up with a logical and very important question, “But would a parent know their child was in that category before…”

And then Dr. Messonnier proceeded to tell a whopper of her own, quickly reassuring the congressman that parents would know if their child’s brain was going to swell before getting MMR vaccine because doctors would tell them so. She answered without hesitation, “Certainly. And that’s why parents should talk to their doctor.”

Let’s more closely examine the disinformation (false information intended to deceive or mislead3) dished out to legislators on Capitol Hill by two of the highest-ranking public health officials in the U.S.

DISINFORMATION: MMR vaccine does not cause encephalitis (brain inflammation).

THE TRUTH: MMR vaccine can cause encephalitis and acute and chronic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction).

Here is THE EVIDENCE:

MMR Vaccine Manufacturer Package Insert

The MMR product manufacturer package insert published by Merck & Co., the manufacturer of MMR vaccine, states: “Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of M-M-R II or measles-, mumps-, and rubella-containing vaccine administered since licensure of these vaccines. The risk of serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains less than the risk of encephalitis and encephalopathy following infection with wild-type measles (1 per 1000 reported cases).” Warnings include: “Due caution should be employed in administration of M-M-R II to persons with a history of cerebral injury, individual or family histories of convulsions, or any other condition in which stress due to fever should be avoided.” The same warnings are included for Merck’s MMRV vaccine.

CDC’s Vaccine Information Statement (VIS)

Under the informing, recording and reporting safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,4 doctors are required by law to give the VIS to parents before children receive a CDC recommended vaccine. The VIS handouts for MMR and MMRV vaccine state that “severe” adverse events may include “deafness; long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness; and brain damage.”  The VIS for MMRV vaccine states that one of the “moderate” adverse events that can occur is “Infection of the lungs (pneumonia) or the brain and spinal cord coverings (encephalitis, meningitis).”

Medical Literature Reports

There is additional evidence in the medical literature that MMR vaccine can cause encephalitis and encephalopathy, including the following references.

The large prospective case controlled National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) conducted in Britain, which investigated all causes of encephalitis, encephalopathy and chronic neurological dysfunction in children, was published in 1981. Researchers concluded that, “The risk of a serious neurological disorder within 14 days after measles vaccine in previously normal children irrespective of eventual clinical outcome is 1 in 87,000 immunizations.”5

In 1998, federal public health officials published a report in Pediatrics reviewing the medical records of children who had filed claims in the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) and had suffered “acute encephalopathy followed by permanent brain injury or death” following receipt of live attenuated measles vaccine alone or in combination with rubella and mumps vaccines (MR, MMR). They stated, “Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.”6

A report, “Inflammatory/Post-Infectious Encephalomyelitis,” was published in 2004. The authors stated, “The non-neural measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations are most commonly associated with post–vaccination encephalomyelitis. The incidence is 1-2 per million for live measles vaccinations.”7

In 2007, another prospective study conducted in Britain investigating the risk of serious neurologic disease after vaccination in early childhood (2-36 months old) was published in Pediatrics. The researchers concluded, “There was no evidence of a raised relative incidence of serious neurologic disease in any of the specified risk periods with the exception of a raised relative incidence of 5.68 in the 6–11 days after measles, mumps, rubella vaccine.”8

In 2013, a study was published in 2013 in PLOS One that evaluated cases of post vaccine acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) reported to the U.S. vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) and the EudraVigilance post-authorisation module (EVPM) of the European Union.9 Researchers described ADEM as “an immune mediated inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) that commonly occurs within one month from antigenic challenge.”

When looking at ADEM reports in the VAERS database related to a specific age group, they stated, “We observed that vaccines against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and FLU were those most commonly involved in the 0-5 years age group (13%), followed by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (11%) and DTaP (9%).”

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Vaccine Injury Table

According to the March 21, 2017 Vaccine Injury Table in the VICP, “encephalopathy or encephalitis” occurring within 5 to 15 days of receipt of vaccines containing measles, mumps, and rubella virus or any of its components (e.g. MMR, MM, MMRV) is a compensable illness, disability or injury.10

DISINFORMATION: Parents know whether their child will suffer encephalitis or encephalopathy after MMR or MMRV vaccination because doctors identify those children and do not vaccinate them.

THE TRUTH: There are very few CDC approved contraindications to vaccination, and doctors cannot reliably predict which children will be harmed by MMR vaccine or any other vaccine before they are vaccinated.

Here is THE EVIDENCE:

Few Vaccine Contraindications or Medical Exemptions

According to CDC guidelines, almost no health condition qualifies for a contraindication and a medical exemption to vaccination, including for measles containing vaccines.11 Children with HIV and cancer and those who have suffered convulsions after vaccination and other serious vaccine reactions are routinely vaccinated.12

Doctors Cannot Reliably Predict Who Will Be Harmed by Vaccines

The Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, published a report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality in 2012 and noted that, although there is individual susceptibility to vaccine reactions, doctors are unable to reliably identify those who are genetically and otherwise more susceptible:

“Both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a pre-existing susceptibility. These predispositions can exist for a number of reasons – genetic variants (in human or microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, illness or developmental stage, to name just a few, all of which can interact. Some of these adverse reactions are specific to the particular vaccines, while others may not be. Some of these predispositions may be detectable prior to the administration of vaccine; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not.”13

Limited Scientific Evidence About Children Susceptible to Vaccine Harm

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine published a report examining the safety of the CDC’s recommended early childhood vaccine schedule (0 to 6 years old), The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety, and reiterated that there is limited scientific knowledge about how to identify children at higher risk for suffering vaccine reactions:

“The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children, who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) is limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definition of exposures or outcomes.”14

$4 Billion Government Payout to Vaccine Victims

If individuals more susceptible to being harmed by vaccines are being identified by doctors before vaccination takes place, if children are not suffering encephalitis, encephalopathy and other crippling vaccine reactions that end with a lifetime of chronic illness and disability or even death, then why has the government paid out $4 billion in compensation to vaccine victims, including to those who have been harmed by measles containing vaccines like MMR?

If FDA licensed, CDC recommended and state mandated vaccines like MMR vaccine do not cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage, why did Congress give the vaccine industry a partial liability shield in 1986 and the U.S. Supreme Court declare vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe” and hand the vaccine industry complete immunity from vaccine injury lawsuits in 2011?15

Disinformation About Vaccine Reactions Betrays the Public Trust

Parents, who trusted and did what they were told to do when they took their healthy children into a doctor’s office to be vaccinated and then watched their children suffer brain inflammation and regress into chronic poor health, learn that it is not a good idea to believe everything that doctors say about vaccines. People who were healthy, got vaccinated and were never healthy again, quickly learn how to tell the difference between a doctor telling the truth about vaccine safety and one who is not, because their lives depend upon it.

If public health officials can go before Congress and provide demonstrably false statements about MMR vaccine reactions, what else are they fooling the public about?

Federal Health Officials Influence State Vaccine Laws

On Jan. 30, 2019, Dr. Fauci gave an interview to CBS and said, “These [measles] outbreaks are due to the anti-vaccine movement.” He also said that scientific studies show claims about vaccine risks are “based purely on fabrication” and that, “There’s a category called philosophical reasons not to get vaccinated and that particular category has been abused. So I’m in favor of states or cities making regulations that require a more strict interpretation of the exemptions that one has to not get vaccinated.”16

As noted in a press release issued by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) on Feb. 25, 2019, state legislatures have the constitutional authority to make vaccine laws and the federal government should not be interfering in state rights. Although federal health officials make vaccine use recommendations and state health officials use that information to encourage state legislators to turn those recommendations into state vaccine mandates, state legislatures have the power to decide which vaccines to mandate and what kind of exemptions to allow.

Right now, the NVIC Advocacy Portal reports that 140 bills are pending in 31 states that propose to restrict, eliminate or expand medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions. Thousands of parents have already lined up to attend public hearings in state legislatures to defend the legal right to exercise parental and informed consent rights and make voluntary decisions about vaccination for their children without being punished for the decision made.

Federal Officials Should Be Held Accountable

There are more than a dozen new vaccines being developed that likely will be federally recommended and states will be encouraged to mandate in the future.17 Decisions are being made in state legislatures and in Congress right now that will affect the health and lives of this generation and generations of Americans to come. For the health of our nation, Congress should take the blinders off and hold federal officials accountable for the false statements they make about vaccine safety.

 


References:

1 Anthony S. Fauci, MD. Biography. Oct. 9, 2018.
2 Nancy Messonnier, MD. Biography. Mar. 28, 2016.
3 The Free Dictionary. Definition of Disinformation.
4 National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
5 Alderslade R, Bellman MH, Rawson NSB, Ross EM, Miller DL. The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A Report on 1000 Cases of Serious Neurological Disorders in Infants and Young Children from the NCES Research Team. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1981.
6 Weibel RE, Casserta V, Benor DE et al. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated with Further Attenuated Measles Vaccine: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Pediatrics 1998; 101(3): 383-387.
7 Bennetto L, Scolding N. Inflammation/Post Infectious Encephalomyelitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75 (Suppl 1): 122-128.
8 Ward KN, Bryan NJ, Andrew NJ et al. Risk of Serious Neurologic Disease After Immunization of Young Children in Britain and Ireland. Pediatrics 2007; 120(2): 314-321.
9 Pellegrino P, Carnovale C, Perrone V et al. Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Onset: Evaluation Based on Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting SystemPLOS One Oct. 18, 2013.
10 HRSA. Encephalopathy, Encephalitis, Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Vaccine Injury Table. Mar. 21, 2017.
11 CDC. Recommendations and Guidelines of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Contraindications and Precautions. Table 4-2. Conditions incorrectly perceived as contraindications or precautions to vaccination (i.e., vaccines may be given under these conditions). Jan. 10, 2019.
12 Rubin LG, Levin MJ, Lyungman P et al. 2013 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Clinical Practice Guideline for Vaccination of the Immunocompromised Host. Clin Infect Dis Dec. 4, 2013; 58(3).
13 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality.(Evaluating Biological Mechanisms for Adverse Events: Increased Susceptibility). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2012. Chap. 4 (103-238)
14 Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule. Summary: Health Outcomes (p. 5-6) and Conclusions About Scientific Findings (p. 11) and Review of Scientific Findings (p. 75-98). The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies; Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press 2013.
15 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big PharmaNVIC Press Release Feb. 23, 2011.
16 CBS News. Measles Outbreak Fueled by Anti-Vaccination Movement, Infectious Disease Expert Says. Jan. 30, 2019.
17 World Health Organization. WHO Product Development for Vaccines Advisory Committee (PDVAC) meeting. June 26-27, 2018.




Sudden Cardiac Deaths in Young People

Source:  Children’s Health Defense

by the Children’s Health Defense Team
February 28, 2019

 

The death of a child is always a shocking event, but perhaps even more so when a young person dies abruptly and unexpectedly. When a previously healthy child dies because their heart suddenly stops, parents are bound to have questions about “why.”

The federal government defines sudden cardiac death as follows: “The heart suddenly and unexpectedly stops beating and blood stops flowing to the brain and other vital organs.” Medical websites make a distinction between sudden cardiac deaths and heart attacks, characterizing the former as an electrical “short-circuit” rather than a problem with circulation. Just what is causing the “short-circuits” has stumped many researchers, who say that identifying the “elusive” causes of sudden cardiac arrest or death in young people is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Ohio doctors who studied the nonfatal occurrence of heart spasms in male adolescents professed that they remained “uncertain” of the cause after finding that none had a family history of heart problems or any other cardiac risk factors.

In some instances, experts have placed the blame on preexisting health conditions such as epilepsy or asthma, or on an underlying cardiovascular or genetic weakness. Other probable culprits include pervasive exposure to microwave electromagnetic fields, which have been documented to provoke cardiac changes that include accelerated or irregular heart rate (tachycardia and arrhythmia) and sudden cardiac death; and environmental factors such as fine particulate matter air pollution (a well-known contributor to cardiovascular disease in susceptible older adults that is now recognized as a risk factor for healthy young individuals as well). Some medical professionals have occasionally noted the potential for sudden cardiac death to result from substance use—whether illicit stimulants or prescription medications (such as ADHD drugs and antipsychotics). All of these factors and more may be at play, but there is one other plausible contributor that most experts studiously ignore—and that is childhood vaccines, many of which clearly list the potential for adverse cardiac effects in their package inserts.

As of 2013, Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) accounted for about one in seven infant deaths (about 3,700 annually), with about 20% thought to be related to cardiac vulnerabilities activated by exogenous stressors.

Piecemeal reporting of cardiac deaths in the young

Children born in the U.S. are 76% more likely to die before their first birthday than infants born in 19 other wealthy nations, and sudden infant deaths are one of the top five causes. Since 2009, these deaths have been monitored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) Registry, which operates in 22 states and jurisdictions. As of 2013, SUID accounted for about one in seven infant deaths (about 3,700 annually), with about 20% thought to be related to cardiac vulnerabilities activated by “exogenous stressors.”

Until 2013, reporting of sudden cardiac deaths in young people over age one was haphazard. In that year, the CDC joined forces with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish a Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry (SDY-CR) in 10 states and jurisdictions. The SDY-CR surveillance system now collects comprehensive information on sudden cardiac deaths (as well as sudden epilepsy-related deaths) in youth under 20 years of age—but the registry has yet to produce any significant reports.

Prior to either registry, in the early 2000s, reports began surfacing of an increase in sudden cardiac deaths in adolescents and young adults. CDC researchers reported a 10% increase in deaths from cardiac arrest in 15-34-year-olds over the seven-year period from 1989 to 1996—a finding reiterated in 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The increase translated into about 3,000 deaths annually by the mid-1990s. Although more recent numbers are harder to come by, in 2015, the American Heart Association reported over 6,300 “out-of-hospital cardiac arrests” in American youth less than 18 years of age, citing survival rates ranging from about 10% to 31%. A single state (Michigan) reported an average of 35 sudden cardiac deaths a year in children and teens under age 20 as of 2009.

Cardiac problems described in vaccine package inserts

Many vaccine package inserts list cardiac-related adverse events that have occurred either during clinical trials or during postmarketing. For example:

  • Recombivax hepatitis B vaccine: hypotension, tachycardia
  • Engerix hepatitis B vaccine: hypotension, tachycardia, heart palpitations
  • Infanrix (diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis) vaccine: sudden infant death syndrome
  • Boostrix and Adacel (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccines: myocarditis
  • Flulaval and Fluzone (influenza) vaccines: chest pain

Death (listed as a “general disorder”) is one of the adverse experiences reported after approval and marketing of the Gardasil and Gardasil-9 human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. In an intriguing article in Autoimmunity Reviews just published by leading autoimmunity expert Yehuda Schoenfeld and an international team of colleagues, the authors propose that an autoimmune mechanism—namely, vaccine-induced autoantibodies against cardiac proteins—may be related to cardiac-related adverse reactions to HPV vaccination, including sudden cardiac death.

Another factor potentially linking vaccines and sudden cardiac death is thimerosal, the ethylmercury-based preservative. Thimerosal is still present in significant quantities in influenza vaccines and as a “trace amount” in the tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccine. Mercury has been shown to damage the cardiovascular system even at low levels of exposure.

…studies have highlighted a positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, and case studies have described compelling temporal associations between vaccination and death.

Finally, where sudden infant deaths are concerned (some of which are cardiac in nature), there is abundant evidence that vaccines may be contributing in several ways. Epidemiological studies have highlighted a positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, and case studies have described compelling temporal associations between vaccination and death.

A toxic world

Children today live in a toxic world. There is little doubt that multiple factors are interacting synergistically to stress the heart’s exquisitely fine-tuned electrical system. In addition to the powerful influences already mentioned—microwave electromagnetic radiation, fine particulate air pollution, pharmaceuticals and vaccines—media reports continue to identify other toxic exposures besetting our youth, with some of the latest dangers cropping up in personal care products and energy drinks. We owe it to children to protect them as much as possible from these external stressors so that they can use their hearts for what really matters.




Who is Beating the ‘We MUST Vaccinate’ Drum?

by Adam Abraham
February 23, 2019
Source

 

 

“If 100% of the population were vaccinated, there would be no disease. ”That appears to be the implied and I’ll say baseless motivation behind the legislative efforts to induce or coerce people to think that they should give up their option to refuse vaccine administration to their children. Of course it’s not baseless. They are beating the ‘We Must Vaccinate’ drum like there’s no tomorrow. Except that there is, and will always be one.

 

 

Such is the subtext that is unfolding in the state of Washington after a late-January measles outbreak in Portland led to several cases in Vancouver (Clark County), across the Columbia River to the north, to which Gov. Jay Inslee declared a public health emergency for reasons of “vaccine hesitancy”.

 

Del Bigtree, producer of the film “Vaxxed” covers talking points with local TV reporter.

 

Interesting term, “vaccine hesitancy”. I’d use the words legitimate reason, common sense, overwhelming evidence that something is not as it should be.

Not only are legislators maintaining a blind eye to the ample evidence, and dismissing a parent’s natural instinct to protect their children, they (or those who are urging them on) are systematically attempting to establish their authority to dictate to the public what is or is not permissible to disagree on.

As of February 21, almost one month after the outbreak, 63 people in Clark and King County had contracted measles (44 under 10 years of age with one 50 years of age). This group represents less than 0.03% of a population of roughly 231,200 people, the response for which is estimated to be over $1 million.

 

 

My question is why?

Since the large majority ~ not all ~ of the cases were “unvaccinated” children, state law conjurers have elected to make this the reason to attempt to take away parents’ options to use “philosophical grounds” as a reason to refuse to allow vaccinations on their children.

 

Standing behind “science” is a weak attempt to marginalize this fundamental truth.

 

While a parent’s power of non-consent is inalienable and inviolate, there remains a very clear effort to have the public believe that the state has some power or right to force them to do something that is against, not only their conscience and will, but their own personal knowledge, whether “science” acknowledges or admits it, or not.

 

 

Unvaccinated children that get measles don’t get it a second time. Having had measles in my youth, I can say that it was no big deal. It came, then it left. Yet, it appears that getting an MMR vaccination was not enough to ensure that a child won’t still get measles, and getting it one time is no guarantee that they won’t get it again.

However, chances are increased that vaccinated child will have to deal with one or more of a much wider list of chronic and degenerative conditions that are all on the rise.

 

The 25 healthiest countries (shaded in gold), according to Bloomberg Health Index.

 

‘Leading’ to Health Ignominy

America has become a “leader” of far too many dubious distinctions. To be “the land of the free,” more Americans are in prison, by a wide margin, than any country on Earth.

However, there are prisons, and there are prisons. The social, psychological,and metabolic fallout from the unmitigated push to force unnatural chemical agents into human biological systems, hints at an agenda that appears to be about more than money. The absence of objectivity from the medical/professional sector, the blindly obsessive push to raise vaccine rates up (already over 90%), reveals a complete disregard for the trail of trampled and obliterated hopes and dreams, and the utter bewilderment when what would be a common sense response by any rational human being ~ i.e., dial vaccine schedules back, or even stop them altogether to see if the sudden injuries stop ~ are ignored.

The general health trend in the United States is down. An undeclared state of emergency sparks a new wave of dubious American leadership with the continuing advance in frequency of conditions known variously as ADHD, Asperger syndrome, autism or ASD (which in 2014 had reached a frequency of 1 in 59 children), asthma (affecing 25 million people including 7 million children), diabetes (100 million people affected according to CDC), and many more. including childhood cancers.

And “science” sees no connection between its standard policies and practices, and shattered lives.

In fact, Commissioner Scott Gottlieb of the FDA (an un-elected official who is not fettered with concern over being re-elected) told CNN that some states with “lax” vaccine requirement laws may eventually “force the hand of the federal health agencies.” (See U.S. News article.)

 

SOURCE: US NEWS

 

Sounds like a less than veiled threat, which may also be why the big hullabaloo about “the outbreak”. See if the elected officials can snark their illogical and baseless proposition pass the people, and whether the people will be distracted or incoherent enough to let it happen.

It’s not really about the “philosophical” reasoning. It is whether you continue to allow these people to convince you to give them your authority.

No Matter How Many Times ‘Scientists’ Say Otherwise, Baseless is Baseless

By sticking to a narrow and implausible assertion that there is no scientific link to the MMR vaccine and autism, proponents of vaccinations dodge calling attention to the far greater evidence that the institutionalized use of various delivery modalities of unnatural chemicals is, in fact, connected to all of the maladies that could go under the umbrella of “vaccine damage”.

Whether causal or not, vaccines significantly contribute to the pathogenesis of a myriad of ailments that eventually become chronic and degenerative. Virtually all of which are met by an apparently puzzled research body that professes to feverishly look for “cures”.

This is the psychological morass that is life n America today. Freedoms are being assaulted right at home, by people who would convince us that we need a wall, but deny the damage to health that they are supporting by not halting , or even questioning, their “marching orders.”

I wonder who is beating their drum?




Vaccination, Not Raw Milk, Source of Infective Brucella RB51

Source:  The Family Cow Newsletter

by Edwin Shank
February 19, 2019

 

Vaccination…
Source of Infective Brucella RB51

 

Good morning folks!

Recently, you have seen scary headlines something like this.

“People in 19 states exposed to Brucella from drinking raw milk.”

You probably saw these headlines on your own… but if you didn’t, I’m guessing that some concerned family member or friend has made sure you heard about it. And they may have even rubbed it in like, “See… we told you that raw milk is terribly dangerous!”

So what is the truth? Is your family at risk? Are you at risk? Is Family Cow raw milk a risk? Where did this Brucella infection suddenly come from?

Well, we all know that truth is stranger than fiction. But this truth is SO strange that you might not believe me even if I tell you. Let’s try you out!

Here’s the TRUTH:

The RB51 strain of Brucella is an antibiotic resistant, modified live strain of Brucella that veterinarians give to cows as a vaccination.

Yes… RB51 is a direct transfer of unintended consequences of a brucellosis vaccination. It does not exist in nature. RB51 is a mutant, rifampicin-resistant bovine Brucella vaccine strain developed in a laboratory specifically for vaccination. That is why it is so traceable. It is unique. There is nothing else like it out there in nature. [Source]

Still Don’t Believe Me?

I understand. That’s why I’m linking the official letter which PA Department of Agriculture sent out to all PA raw milk farmers when it first became apparent that this RB51 vaccine had jumped species lines. Notice: toward the bottom of the letter, the state actually goes on official record advising raw milk farmers against using this Brucella vaccine. Here are their exact words: “PDA recommends that producers who sell raw milk stop immunizing their cattle for Brucella.”

Family Cow Raw Milk is NOT at risk.

Why? Well, one reason is that we do not vaccinate our cows for Brucella. And that decision was in place a long time before the PDA issued their warning. In fact, we have not vaccinated for Brucella on our farm since my father’s day, which, next year, will be 30 years. The second reason is that we have been testing our Family Cow herd every year for over 11 years specifically for Brucella. We have never had a positive. And we really do not expect to since Pennsylvania has been classified as a brucellosis free state since April 1, 1983.

4 Crucial Points to Understand this Brucella Story

1st: ALL cows in PDA approved raw milk herds are annually blood tested by a licensed veterinarian specifically for Brucellosis. The test is mandatory. There is a zero tolerance. As I stated above, we’ve tested our Family Cow herd every year for over 11 years. We have never had a positive.

2nd: The farm in this brucellosis case was not licensed or permitted by PDA for raw milk sales. Therefore, prior to this incident, these cows were not required to be blood tested for brucellosis. I do not take the position that all farms must be permitted and licensed. There is a place for private clubs and herd shares… but… folks who choose to source their food from private arrangements such as these will need to be responsible to ask more of their own questions about testing (or the lack thereof) and make their source selection accordingly.

3rd: We never endorse selling raw milk from untested herds. And neither does RAWMI, the high integrity raw milk farmer group that we support and are a part of. Even if a herd is not going to be state permitted because they sell via a private co-op… annual blood testing of every cow, and regular lab testing of the milk is, in my conviction, an absolute must. You all know where we stand on this.

4th: It is important to read the news very carefully. Even though we do not advocate untested raw milk herds… even in this case we are still disappointed at the way the news media is misrepresenting this.

There is one person from NY ill that is linked to Miller’s Biodiversity farm. The milk was sold to customers in 19 states but people are not sickened in 19 states. The sneaky word here is ‘exposed.’ “People in 19 states were exposed” just sounds so bad. Yet in most industrial food contamination events which happen all the time, often the whole nation and even other countries are exposed! Most folks hear “19 states exposed” and understandably are led to believe there is a huge, scary, imminent, apocalypse of epic proportions.

And if that is not bad enough… some media have actually twisted it further to announce headlines like this: “People in 19 states infected with brucellosis after drinking raw milk.” This is totally irresponsibly false! There is one ill person with a link to the farm in question.

And how often is the word ‘outbreak’ used? Is that for max fear effect too? It certainly works that way. Something big and bad has broken out and it’s coming our way! With only one ill person, this case does not even fit the CDC definition of an outbreak. To call an incident of any illness an outbreak, long accepted epidemiology standards require there be at least two links to the suspected source.

It’s almost enough to make a person wonder… Do you think it’s possible that the media in conjunction with the CDC maybe even want to make raw milk look bad? Hmm…

To be continued…

All the best of food and blessings…

Your Farmer ~ Edwin Shank and Family,
and the whole Family Cow Team

God Designed it. We Respect it. That Explains it!

 


NOTE: These newsletters are crucial to our family mission of spreading truth and transparency in food, farming and faith. If you have friends and family whose “truth source” is the mainstream media, (and therefore think you’ve lost your marbles) forward this email to them. Maybe, just maybe they’ll wake up and sign up and catch up with the rest of you. 🙂

 

That’s right! Fresh Thoughts on Real Food is not just for Family Cow customers. It is free for anyone who is intrigued enough to follow our family’s struggle for God-honoring methods of soil-healing farming, growing people-healing foods and planting non-industrial, farmer-connected, community-healing food systems.

 




One More Precious Baby Dies After Vaccination

Source:  The Vaccine Reaction

 

A Baby Died After Vaccination

 

I watched every mother’s nightmare unfold yesterday in a conversation on a local online mom’s group.  It began when the baby’s aunt asked frantically for prayers for her nephew, who had gotten his four-month shots that day and was found unresponsive in the evening.  Then we learned the baby had apparently bled from every orifice and had swelling of the brain. The aunt shared that they kept the baby “alive” to give family time to arrive at the hospital.  And then, the baby died.

The aunt told us the probable diagnosis was SIDS. When the family questioned the doctor about whether the vaccines (pneumococcal, H. influenza (HIB), rotavirus, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DTaP) and polio, and perhaps hepatitis B if he had not yet received that at birth) administered just hours before could have caused this massive organ failure and death, the doctor denied the possibility of any causal relationship between the baby’s death and the vaccinations he was given. The doctor justified that conclusion on the basis of the infant not reacting poorly to the series of shots given at two months.

So a healthy baby goes in for a well child check with a minor cold, receives multiple vaccines and is dead within hours but there is no possibility the vaccinations played any role in the infant’s sudden death?

It is always tragic when an infant dies. As a family physician responsible for the care of many children, my distress is felt at a professional as well as a personal level when a child dies. Why did this child die and what could have been done to prevent this baby’s death and saved these parents from the lifetime of grief that results from such a loss?

I reached out privately to my colleagues for support.  Some responded with sincere sadness and worry. One physician friend recalled a night on call as a resident when a two-month-old died following a hepatitis B vaccination given earlier that day. The attending physicians wouldn’t let my friend report the death to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) because they deemed the death after the hepatitis B vaccination to be “a coincidence.” My story brought back those memories for her and she felt awful and conflicted.

Another physician friend told me “It’s sad when babies die,” and went on to admit concerns about vaccines, but ended by saying, “But of course the benefits outweigh the risks.” In response to my concern about the temporal relationship between a healthy child receiving vaccines and that child dying within hours, a common theme among these doctors seemed to be, “correlation does not equal causation,” and “they may harm some but overall they’re more beneficial to the majority.” No one seemed interested in exploring the deadly correlation in this case or in learning more about how injecting not just disease antigens but many other chemicals, adjuvants and foreign DNA into infants might affect them.

As a physician, stories like this one make me ask some difficult questions. Since nothing in our medical training has prepared us to recognize or respond to treat vaccine reactions, and we don’t seem to be able to recognize death as an adverse reaction when it happens within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine, how in the world are we going to recognize any of the other milder warning signs of vaccine adverse events that could harm a child’s health? Is it possible that this baby had symptoms that his body wasn’t handling his earlier shots, and due to adherence to the prevailing one-size-fits-all mindset, those signs went unnoticed?

A colleague of mine stumbled upon a book called Every Second Child by Archie Kalokerinos, MD. Dr. Kalokerinos found that many babies who presented similarly to the baby in my town turned out to have vitamin C deficiency (scurvy). He found old studies supporting the use of high dose vitamin C, and began using that treatment. Dr. Kalokerinos won the Australian Medal of Merit in 1978 for lowering the infant mortality rate from 50 percent to almost none. He felt so strongly about sharing his findings that he gave his book away rather than selling it.1

If we care about protecting the “greater good” then why is it so politically incorrect to care about the individual casualties of what is presumed to be a “good” medical intervention? If we are so smart and have so much science behind our decisions, why would we not look at those who die after vaccination to find commonalities for the purpose of finding ways to prevent a vaccine-related death or injury?

We should not be afraid to explore the relationship between vitamin levels, electrolytes, genetics, family history, breastfed versus formula fed status, method of birth, prenatal history and antibiotic use, and the specific and nonspecific negative effects of vaccines. It seems unethical for physicians to demand the full cooperation of parents in vaccinating their children with every one of the 50 doses of 14 vaccines currently recommended by the CDC starting on the day of birth through age six, only to be abandoned with a shrug and “it’s for the greater good” when their child is injured or dies after receiving those vaccines.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I want to know why the lives of those who might die from “vaccine preventable diseases” matter more than those who die from vaccines? If we don’t know why a four-month-old baby in our community died, don’t we owe it to that child and his family to at least be curious?


References:

1 Kalokerinos A. Every Second Child. Sept. 1, 1981.
2 Buttram HE. Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis? Hacienda Publishing Fall 2001.
3 Innis MD. Autoimmune Tissue Scurvy Misdiagnosed as Child AbuseClinical Medicine Research Nov. 10, 2013 (6); 154-157
4 Ward  Iwasa S, Ishida S, Akama K. Swelling of the brain in mice caused by pertussis vaccine: its quantitative determination and the responsible factors in the vaccine. Jpn J Med Sci Biol April 1985; 38(2): 53-65.
5 Beckenhauer WH, Gill MA. Immunosuppression with combined vaccines. J Am Vet Med Assn 1983; 183(4): 389-390.
6 Munoz JJ, Bernard CC, Mackay IR. Elicitation of experimental encephalomyelitis in mice with the aid of pertussigen. Cell Immunol January 1984; 83(1): 92-100.
7 Behan PO, Moore MJ, Lamarche JB. Acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy. Postgraduate Medicine 1973; 54(4): 154-160.
8 Flexner S. Post-vaccinal encephalitis and allied conditions. JAMA Feb. 1, 1930; 94: 305-311.
9 Karlsson L, Scheibner V. Association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections and cot death. Presented at Second Immunization Conference, Canberra, May 27-29, 1991.

 




NVIC’s “No Forced Vaccination” Message Back Up in Times Square as Americans Fight for Human Rights

Source:  The Vaccine Reaction

 

There have been 101 cases of measles that have been reported in 10 states since the beginning of 2019,1 hardly a public health emergency in a U.S. population of more than 320 million people where 94 percent of school children have received two doses of MMR vaccine and only two percent of children have a vaccine exemption for any reason.2 In what looks like a repeat of the “measles in Disneyland” media feeding frenzy that stampeded California state legislators into eliminating the personal belief vaccine exemption in 2015,3 4 the tiny minority of parents who have made a conscious choice not to give their children every one of the dozens of doses of federally recommended and state mandated vaccines are being once again relentlessly stereotyped, demonized and bullied.5 6 7 8

In what appears to be another well-orchestrated campaign to pressure state legislatures to remove all personal belief vaccine exemptions in the U.S. and further restrict already narrow medical exemptions to vaccination,9 10 11 12 13 forced vaccination proponents are whipping up irrational fear to justify attacking human rights, including freedom of thought, speech, religious belief and conscience.14 15 16 17 18 It is a spectacle unworthy of a nation where human rights19 and civil liberties have been valued since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in 178920 and the informed consent principle became the anchor for medical ethics after World War II.21 22 23

During this time of discrimination and oppression, the nonprofit educational charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), is back up in Times Square with NVIC’s “Vaccinations: Know the Risks and Failures” and “No Forced Vaccination” animated digital message. Displayed on a giant 56 foot by 29 foot electronic screen in the heart of New York City’s Times Square Plaza at 1500 Broadway (where the ball drops on New Year’s Eve), NVIC’s 10-second spot celebrating the human right to freedom of thought and conscience will be broadcast a minimum of three times per hour for 20 hours per day from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. through April 2019. More than one million people pass through Times Square daily. View the digital ad on NVIC’s referenced Vaccinations: Know the Risks and Failures page on NVIC’s website here.

During the past decade, NVIC has sponsored national vaccine education campaigns to encourage well-informed, voluntary vaccine decisionmaking. In 2011, NVIC sponsored a digital vaccine education billboard in New York City’s Times Square on New Year’s Eve24 and produced a flu prevention video for Delta Airline’s in-flight programming.25 In 2013, NVIC launched a national vaccine education billboard and ad campaign that featured billboards on highways and buses New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Illinois, Texas, Georgia and Colorado, Vermont and other states.26 In 2015 and 2016, NVIC’s message advocating for vaccine education and choice was up in Times Square, as well.27 28

Founded by parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982 to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education, NVIC has steadfastly defended respect for the informed consent principle and its protection in vaccine policies and laws because vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death. More than $4 billion has been paid by the government since 1988 to children and adults who have been harmed by FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.29 Some people are biologically more susceptible to suffering vaccine reactions but doctors are unable to reliability predict who will be harmed before vaccination.30 This fact makes protection of personal belief vaccine exemptions  even more important, as does the fact that Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have shielded vaccine companies and vaccine administrators from liability for vaccine injuries and deaths.31 32

In a population of more than 320 million people, a few hundred cases of measles is not a public health emergency and should not be used to justify eliminating the legal right to exercise informed consent to vaccination, which is protected by the inclusion of flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions in public health laws.33

The human right to freedom of thought, speech, religious belief, conscience and informed consent will be preserved if Americans stand up for human rights that protect against tyranny. Only if we elect and support lawmakers who protect human rights will human rights be protected in government policy and law.

Whether it is in the states, on Capitol Hill or in Times Square, our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.


References:

 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles Cases in 2019. Feb. 1, 2019.
2 CDC. Vaccination Coverage for Selected Vaccines and Exemption Rates Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2017–18 School Year. MMWR Oct. 12, 2018; 67(4)): 1115-1122.
3 Fisher BL. The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready? National Vaccine Information Center Mar. 8, 2015.
4 Richardson D. Fallout from California SB277: What Happens Next? NVIC Newsletter Aug. 5, 2015.
5 Editorial Board. How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. New York Times Jan. 11, 2019.
6 Cohen E, Bonifield J. Some states allow parents to get out of vaccinations. Then this happens. CNN Jan. 29, 2019.
7 Keneally M. Parents who don’t vaccinate kids tend to be affluent, better educated, experts say. ABC News Jan. 29, 2019.
8 Cáceres M. Media Takes Low Road by Pitting Children Against Their Parents To Promote Vaccines. The Vaccine Reaction Feb. 13, 2019.
9 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Advocacy Portal: 2019 State Legislative Session Vaccine-Related Bills.
10 CBS. Hundreds rally to preserve right not to vaccinate children amid measles outbreak. Feb. 8, 2019.
11 Douglass J. Oregon lawmaker wants to end non-medical exemptions to school vaccine requirements. KATU2 Feb. 11, 2019.
12 MacReady N. Questionable Medical Exemptions for Vaccines Up After New Law in California. Emedicine health Oct. 29, 2018.
13 CDC. Recommendations and Guidelines of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Contraindications and Precautions. Table 4-2. Conditions incorrectly perceived as contraindications or precautions to vaccination (i.e., vaccines may be given under these conditions). Jan. 10, 2019.
14 Fisher BL. The New Internet Police Protecting You From Freedom of Thought and Speech. NVIC Newsletter Dec. 3, 2018.
15 Ad Age. Google, Facebook Queried on Anti-Vaccine Information by Democrat. Feb. 14, 2019.
16 Najera RF. Measles Epidemic Continues and Grows in Washington State, New Cases in Houston, Texas. History of Vaccines Feb. 6, 2019.
17 Newsday. End the religious exemption for vaccines in New York. Editorial Feb 8, 2019.
18 Fisher BL. Forced Vaccination: The Tragic Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. National Vaccine Information Center Nov. 2, 2016.
19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly Dec. 10, 1948.
20 National Archives. America’s Founding Documents: The Bill of Rights.
21 Annas GJ, Grodin MA. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg CodeOxford University Press 1992.
22 U.S. Library of Medicine. Informed Consent – Adults. Medline Plus Jan. 28, 2019.
23 Fisher BL. Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination a Human Right? National Vaccine Information Center June 28, 2017.
24 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Educates One Million Plus in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.  NVIC Newsletter Dec. 26, 2011.
25 National Vaccine Information Center. Flu Prevention Video. November 2011.
26 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Launches National “Know the Risks” Billboard Vaccine Education Campaign. Mar. 12, 2013.
27 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC’s “No Forced Vaccination” Message in Times Square, Philadelphia and New Jersey. Apr. 13, 2015.
28 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Back in Times Square for Christmas and New Year’s Eve. Dec. 17, 2015.
29 DHHS. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Vaccine Injury Compensation Data. Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) Feb. 1, 2019.
30 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Evaluation of Biologic Mechanisms of Adverse Effects: Increased Susceptibility. Chapter 3 (p. 82). Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press 2012.
31 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. NVIC Press Release Feb. 23, 2011.
32 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Position Statement on National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. May 2018.
33 Fisher BL. Guide to Reforming Vaccine Policy and Law. National Vaccine Information Center 2014, Revised 2017.




Nurses Speak Out Against Circumcision

Nurses Against Circumcision

 

Childbirth is miraculous, beautiful, traumatic, and overwhelming, all at the same time, for both the baby and the mother. But for many children born today, squeezing through the birth canal is the easy part. Soon after birth, males born to North American women routinely face amputation of a fully functioning, healthy organ – the foreskin.

Circumcision is so commonplace in North America, it has long been considered the norm. The World Health Organization estimates the male circumcision rate in the U.S. to be 76% to 92%, while the rates in most of the Western European countries are less than 20%. Globally, more than 80% of the world’s men are left intact. An intact penis is not rare – an intact penis is the norm.

Medical professionals tell parents that circumcision is relatively painless, just a snip and it is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the rare but possible complications, which include mutilation of the penis or death, the practice of circumcision is painful and traumatic.

The following nurses have come forward to share their knowledge and experience, to tell the truth about this practice.

Related: Circumcision Linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

 

Nicole, A Former Nursing Student

A few years ago, I began an OB/GYN hospital clinical as a student nurse. One day, I was enlisted to attend a ‘routine circumcision.

… I did not anticipate the lurching sensation that gripped my heart as I looked upon that baby. He was laying strapped down to a table, so small and new – pure and innocent – trusting – all alone – no defenses.

I walked toward the baby and wanted to take him off the table and shelter him – to tell him that it would be okay, that nobody would hurt him on my watch.

Then in walked the doctor. Loud. Obnoxious. Joking with his assistant. As if he was about to perform a 10-minute oil change.

Not once did he talk to this little baby. I am not sure he even looked at him – really looked at him.

Rather, he reached for his cold metal instruments and then reached out for his object of mutilation: this sweet newborn’s perfect, unharmed, intact penis.

I recall this little baby boy’s screams of pain and terror – his small lungs barely able to keep up with his cries and gasps for breath.

I turned in horror as I saw the doctor forcefully rip and pull the baby’s foreskin up and around a metal object.

Then out came the knife. Cut. Cut. Cut. Screaming. Blood.

I stood next to the baby and said, “You’re almost done sweetie. Almost done. There, done.”

Then came the words from the doctor, as that son-of-a-b***h dangled this little baby’s foreskin in midair and playfully asked, “Anybody care to go fishing?”

My tongue lodged in my throat.

I felt like I was about to vomit.

I restrained myself. It was now my duty to take the infant back to the nursery for “observation.”

… Back in the newborn nursery, rather than observing, I cradled the infant. I held him and whispered comforting words as if he were my own. I’ll never forget those new little eyes watch me amid his haze. He knew I cared about him. He knew he was safe in my arms. He knew that I was going to take him to his mommy. But, deep in his little heart, at some level, I know he wondered where his mommy was. While he lay there mutilated in a level of agony that we cannot imagine, in what was supposed to be a safe and welcoming environment after his birth, where was his mommy?

Related: Religious Reasons Not To Circumcise

 

Betty, RN

We are saying what is happening, because the male myth is, “Well, I was circumcised and I am fine, and my son was circumcised and he’s fine.”

But we’re saying, “Maybe you were circumcised, but it wasn’t fine, because we were there, and we saw what happened. It’s the same thing with your baby. We were there, and we saw it. It was not fine.”

… That is the next step, for the grown men to come forward. It’s happening now. There is a powerful coalition forming. We women are coming out as mothers and as witnesses to this brutal sexual assault. Women who have been circumcised in Africa are coming forward, too. We’re all saying this isn’t okay.

 

Mary, RN

We just wanted people to stop hurting babies. In 1992, we started a petition. Before that, I think we all had the sense that something was wrong, but we had never communicated about it. Everything I’d read said circumcision isn’t a necessary thing to do, from a medical or health standpoint. So why are we doing it? You take a newborn baby, strap him down to a board, and cut on him. It’s obviously painful!

Circumcision became so intolerable that five of us wrote a letter saying that ethically we could no longer assist. When we were getting ready to present the letter, other nurses came out of the woodwork and asked to sign it. Out of about 50 nurses, 24 signed it.

Now we’re conscientious objectors, but it’s still going on. We can still hear it.

… Behind closed doors, you can hear the baby screaming. You know exactly what part of the operation is happening by how the screams are.

 

Mary-Rose, RN

My dreams were about taking the babies and strapping them down, participating in the whole thing, and having the babies say to me, “Why are you doing this? You were just welcoming me, and now you’re torturing me. Why, why, why?”

I’ve watched doctors taking more foreskin than they should. When there’s too much bleeding, they burn the wound with silver nitrate so that the penis looks like it’s been burned with a cigarette. Then the doctor will tell us to go tell the mother that this is what it’s supposed to look like.

Related: Celebrities Against Circumcision

 

Chris, RN

I worked with countless intact men, mostly European immigrants in Chicago: Poles, Serbs, Lithuanians, etc. Younger men and older men. Men who could walk to the bathroom and men who constantly soiled themselves. Men who had indwelling Foley catheters and men who didn’t. Men who were impeccably clean and men who were homeless. Men who were healthy and men who were critically ill and severely immunocompromised. Never once did I encounter an adult male patient who had ever had a medical problem due to being intact.

… In fact, female patients are far more prone to fungal and bacterial genitourinary infections than male patients are—yeast infections, urinary tract infections, abscesses, etc. And we know that this is largely due not only to their shorter urethra, but also to their labial folds—their “excess” skin. Why don’t we cut that off? Why isn’t female circumcision considered for infection prophylaxis? That’s how we think of male circumcision. Except the reality is that, as with male patients, the “benefit” of circumcision would be negligible, because the number of serious complications with women staying “uncircumcised” is extremely minor.

So as it stands, we have two sons who are intact. One is almost five years old and the other is nearly three. They’ve never had a problem. During diapering they required less care and bother than our daughters did. And now, during bathing, we don’t retract or mess with their prepuce (foreskin).

They’re clean. They’re fine.

I suspect that someday they’ll be like my patients were: ninety years old and intact—with no regrets.

Related: Circumcision, the Primal Cut – A Human Rights Violation

 

Patricia, RN

I am a neonatal nurse practitioner with over 42 years of experience in maternal newborn health. I have seen many circumcisions, and I have been appalled at the pain that they have caused.

… In my experience as a neonatal nurse, I know that circumcisions are painful, that little boys will cry for days after the procedure. They need to be medicated with Tylenol. They need to have injections at the penile nerve to try to prevent the pain, but it doesn’t completely eliminate it. I have seen excessive bleeding after the procedure. I’ve seen disfigurement. I believe that little boys are made the way they are because it’s absolutely fine to be intact. If there was a problem with foreskin, nature would not have put it there. So let little boys decide when and if they want to be circumcised. But parents, please spare your child the pain and unnecessary surgery that is not without risk. Just think about it.

I have seen, not loss of the entire penis but definitely disfigurement, and definitely excessive bleeding that has required intervention by GU specialists, suturing. Complications occur frequently.

…When babies are born, one of the first developmental tasks is to learn to trust the world, which means being in the comforting arms of their mother and father. To subject them in the first couple of days after birth to this terribly painful procedure just seems like the wrong way to start life. But the bottom line is: it is not necessary.

 

Jacqueline Maire, RN

I am a retired nurse in France as well as in British Columbia, a mother, a grandmother, and today I really want to speak specifically to female circumcisers, those who cut the penis of little boys. I have questions. What is your excuse? Were you at one point molested by a male in your youth that makes you now take revenge on any penis whatsoever and whatever the age of the victim, in this case, a defenseless little boy? Did you ever have an orgasm? And I’m not talking while you’re making love, I’m just talking about sex. Never had an orgasm with an intact male and discovered the wonders and the perfection of the act? Well. I feel sorry for you, but this is not an excuse to take revenge on defenseless children, baby boys mostly and I don’t understand how you can do that without being ashamed of yourself. Well, it’s just excuses, or medical excuses, or plain and simple fallacies. I feel sorry for you, but I also feel ashamed in the name of womanhood. You don’t respect your Hippocratic oath if you even know what it’s all about. Well, I’ll remind you it’s first “do no harm.” You’re just plain bitches, and I’m not insulting the female dog there. You are very mean, and I’m disgusted.

Related: 10 Circumcision Myths – Let’s Get the Facts Straight 

 

Dolores Sangiuliano, RN

I’m a registered nurse, and we have an ethical code, the AMA Code of Ethics for Nurses, and it states very clearly that we are charged with the duty to protect our vulnerable patients. If we’re not protecting our vulnerable patients, then our license isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If anybody is vulnerable, it’s a newborn baby. You know, a child with no voice, and that’s why I carry this sign: “I will not do anything evil or malicious and I will not knowingly… assist in malpractice”.

Infant circumcision is maleficence and malpractice. It’s totally unethical. Proxy consent is only valid for a procedure. In other words, parents can give consent for a procedure for their child. That’s proxy consent in a case of treatment or diagnosis, and circumcision is neither. You’re not treating a disease, and you’re not trying to diagnose an illness. So it just flies in the face of everything we know to be ethical, right, and moral. And I believe that forced genital cutting, all forced genital cutting, is always wrong. It should be consented to, fully informed consent, and that fully informed consent needs to include what you’re cutting off the penis, the value of the foreskin, and the consequences of changing the structure from a mobile, fluid unit to this dowel like structure, and that needs to be included. Ethical nurses educate their patients. Ethical nurses teach intact care, and ethical nurses don’t participate in forced genital cutting ever.

A woman from Egypt came up to us and she said,” I totally agree with you. Female circumcision happens in our country all the time, and it’s illegal but it still goes on. And it’s our cultural shame.” And she said, “I totally understand you having your cultural shame for doing this and it is the same thing.” And we just had a total agreement conversation about, and it doesn’t matter the varying degrees. We don’t need to compare the varying degrees of harm. Because a lot of people say female circumcision is much worse. But right out of her mouth she said, “But no, it’s the same. To the person having it done, it’s the same.” That was really good.

A Danish woman came and said, during her college days, she came to the United States and had a little bit of fun one season and she had sex with an American man. She was horrified because she didn’t know what had happened to him. She thought he had been in some sort of industrial accident. She didn’t know how to ask him or how to approach it. So that was an interesting tale, and I really appreciated the term industrial accident in a new way cause this is an industry, the medical industry. It’s not so accidental. Although their intention is to say that they’ve improved our males, they, perhaps by accident, devastated us and devastated so many men sexually and in their souls.

 

Kira Antinuk RN

Feminism, at its best, encourages me to think broadly and critically about the potentially harmful effects of gender constructions on all people. To me, feminism should be more than a narrow interest group of women who care only about women’s issues or women’s rights. My feminism is bigger than that. I believe that feminism can help us to identify and challenge discourses and practices that engender all of us.

… Upon review in 2009, scholars Marie Fox and Michael Thompson found that most feminists’ considerations of female genital cutting either omit to consider male genital cutting altogether or deem it a matter of little ethical or legal concern. Why might this be? So biomedical ethicist Dena Davis observed that the very use of the term “circumcision” carries vaguely medical connotations and serves to normalize the practice of male genital cutting.

Conversely, it’s worth noting, how the term female circumcision was essentially erased from academic, legal, and to some extent popular discourse following the World Health Organization’s re-designation of the practice as FGM or female genital mutilation in 1990. The WHO’s justification was that the new terminology carried stronger moral weight. So, terminology then, as well as the differential constructions of the practices themselves seems to protect male genital cutting from the critical scrutiny that other practices like female genital cutting attract.

Now it seems pretty clear to me, that this asymmetry extends to the very different understandings of genitalia and human tissue that we all have. Here in the West, for example, we’re heavily invested in the clitoris to the extent, that its excision results in what Canadian anthropologist Janice Body referred to as “serious personal diminishment.” Janice Body went on to say, “We customarily amputate babies’ foreskins, not with some controversy, but little alarm. Yet global censure of these practices is scarcely comparable to that level of female circumcision. Is it because these excisions are performed on boys and only girls and women figure as victims in our cultural lexicon?”

 

Sophia Murdock, RN

After we had taken the newborn back to the “circ room” in the nursery, I watched the nurse gather the necessary supplies, place him on a plastic board [a circumstraint], and secure his arms and legs with Velcro straps. He started crying as his tiny and delicate body was positioned onto the board, and I instantly felt uncomfortable and disturbed seeing this helpless newborn with his limbs extended in such an unnatural position, against his will. My instincts wanted to unstrap him, pick him up, and comfort and protect him. I felt an intense sensation of apprehension and dread about what would be done to him. When the doctor entered the room, my body froze, my stomach dropped, and my chest tightened.

This precious baby was an actual person. He was a 2-day-old boy named Landon, but the doctor barely acknowledged him before administering an injection of lidocaine into his penis.

Instantly, Landon began to let out a horrifying cry. It was a sound that is not normally ever heard in nature because this trauma is so far outside of the normal range of experiences and expectations for a newborn.

The doctor, perhaps sensing how horrified I was, tried to assure me that the baby was crying because he didn’t like being strapped onto the board. He began the circumcision procedure right away, barely giving the anesthetic any time to take effect.

Landon’s cries became even more intense, something I hadn’t imagined was possible. It seemed as if his lungs were unable to keep up with his screams and desperate attempts to maintain his respirations.

Seeing how nonchalant everyone in the room was about Landon’s obvious distress was one of the most chilling and harrowing things I had ever witnessed. I honestly don’t remember the actual procedure, even though the doctor was explaining it to me. I can’t recall a word he said during or after because I wasn’t able to focus on anything but Landon’s screams and why no one seemed to care. I only remember that the nurse attempted to give him a pacifier with glucose/fructose at some point.

Landon was “sleeping” by the end of the circumcision, but I knew it was from exhaustion and defeat. I had watched as his fragile, desperate, and immobilized body struggled and resisted until it couldn’t do so anymore and gave up.

Seeing this happen made me feel completely sick to my stomach, and I told myself that I would absolutely refuse to watch another circumcision if the opportunity presented itself again. I was unable to stop thinking about what I saw and heard…

The sounds that I heard come from Landon as he screamed and cried out still haunt me to this day.

 

Darlene Owen, RN

The truth about circumcision is that it is not medically necessary. It is not cleaner. Studies have proven again and again that it has no direct relation on cancer etc. as was once thought. It is also a very painful procedure. The baby does feel it, experience it.

There have been studies that demonstrate actual MRI changes within an infant’s brain after a circumcision has been performed.

As for those who claim “it looks better”, my response is, “Really? Based on whose decision?” A penis with a foreskin is how the penis is supposed to look. The foreskin has a function. It provides protection of the very sensitive glans (head) of the penis, and it provides ease during intercourse. During intercourse, the penis moves within its foreskin, preventing rubbing or friction of the vagina, which makes intercourse far more pleasurable for both the man and woman.

Many people will respond in outrage over female circumcision, yet still consider circumcision of males “the norm.”

Many parents aren’t properly informed of the procedure. It IS a very serious procedure with very many real risks involved. In my experience as a post-partum nurse, many parents who were led to believe it was a “minor” procedure and observed their sons’ circumcision, were sickened just as I was at the actual pain and distress it caused their infant. I have had many patients who, after witnessing their first son’s circumcision, decided immediately that they would not get any other boys they may have circumcised. Many parents told me that they wished they had known just how painful it would be for their son, that they would not have even considered it if they had known what is actually involved.

As for the argument that many men want their son to look like them, my answer is, “Why?” It is a stupid argument. Why can’t parents simply teach their son that their son’s penis is “normal and healthy”, that “Daddy had his normal, healthy functioning skin of his penis removed surgically, unnecessarily.” I also always say to those people, “Really? Well, watch an actual circumcision, and see if you still feel that way afterwards.” I have yet to see any parent watch a video, or view an actual circumcision procedure, who is not completely against the idea afterwards.

An uncircumcised penis is very easy to keep clean. There is no special care required. The saying goes, “Clean only what is seen.”

As for worrying about the son’s foreskin not retracting, and needing a circumcision later in life, that actually only occurs in a very, very small number of males. However, even if the male does need the surgery later in life, he will be put to sleep for the procedure and will not feel it. He will also be managed comfortably with pain medication. A newborn doesn’t have any of those benefits. A newborn is awake for it, will feel it, and doesn’t receive any pain medication.

Ask any grown male if he’d get his penis circumcised while awake, with no freezing, and I guarantee you’d hear a very loud resounding “NO!” Yet, many men will put their newborn son through it. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

I realize that at one time it was considered the norm. Now, however, with all of the education about it, I cannot understand why parents still proceed to put their tiny little newborn son through such a horrific experience.

I am proud to say that I am an intactivist and the proud mom of two gorgeous, healthy, intact boys.

Related: Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

 

Andrew, RN

I am a registered nurse. I work at a DC hospital. It’s not part of my current job, but when I was in nursing school, I witnessed several circumcisions as part of my rotation, and I was interested in it because personally, I had developed an opposition to circumcision.

As an adult, I never had to be part of that decision not having a child. But I knew that if I did, it was one that I would want to make. And when I had the opportunity, I asked a doctor whom I watched perform it if he thought it was medically necessary because in my education, it is no longer stated, there is no longer a valid medical claim being made in the literature including in my nursing textbooks and so how can you justify it? And he said that he doesn’t personally justify it. He just knows that for the time being, it will continue to be done and he wants it done humanely and as well as possible. And he said “And I do it well” And indeed, he seemed to be proficient in it. I then asked him if he had noticed that the husband of the couple who had just had it done had seemed like he had his doubts and he said, “Yeah, I noticed that too”. “Do you think someone should have discussed it further with him because he clearly didn’t support the decision.” And then he said that that happens all the time, that one of the two of the couple want that decision made and the other go along with it.

My nurse’s perspective is that part of our job as an educator is to give more information, and so that would have been a great opportunity for someone to give that couple more information about whatever concerns the mother had that made her think that circumcision was the best decision. She seemed actually like she had some ill-conceived notions about the difficulty of keeping it clean, things that I knew that medically were not actually accurate. I actually thought at that time that I saw an opportunity for nurses to step in and educate her, to help and not tell the couple what they should do, but make sure they had the best information possible to make a decision, that again, is no longer being promoted clearly on the literature as medically necessary, including in my textbooks, and this was just last year.

 

Carole Alley, RN

And after the strap down and tie, they’re still screaming. The screaming lasts the entire time. And I don’t know if you’ve ever heard a baby scream like that. It’s not a regular cry. It’s not a cry of hunger or a cry of wanting to be hugged or a cry of having a wet diaper. This is a cry of incredible pain. I mean, it goes right through your body. Every cell in your body responds. And then the child is circumcised. You know, there are two different ways of doing it. Sometimes anesthesia local will be used but for the most part, I’ve never seen babies stop crying, even if that’s given. A lot of the time, it’s not used. More often than not, it’s not used. And then the clamp goes over the baby’s penis and the foreskin is cut off.

 

Patricia Worth, RN

In my opinion, this is an abuse. There is not enough information out there to convince me that this is medically necessary. And just as I can read through the Old Testament of the Bible, and stoning women to death because they committed adultery, I see as abusive, this “ancient covenant,” I look at it as a well, the human race has done all kinds of things and thought was the best thing at the time, and in retrospect, we can look back and go, blood sacrifice of human beings? This is not right. This is not morally right. This is not ethical. And especially when you’re taking someone who has not consented. Parents can consent all they want. This does not mean the child has consented to this.

 

Marilyn Milos, RN The Mother of the Intactivist Movement

While working as a nurse in a hospital, she learned about circumcision by assisting doctors during the procedure. The obvious pain and distress felt by the infant prompted Marilyn to research circumcision. Afterwards, she was able to provide parents with all of the facts.

By offering true informed consent, she dramatically cut into her hospitals’ cutting business. She was fired. Undaunted, she went to work saving our sons. She founded a non-profit known as NOCIRC, demonstrating that one person can still make a difference.

Here are her words:

The more we understand what was taken, the more we understand the harm of circumcision, that it is a primal wound, that it does interfere with the maternal-infant bond, that it disturbs breastfeeding and normal sleep patterns. Most importantly, that it undermines the first developmental task, which is to establish trust. And how can that male ever trust again? And I think that’s very hard for a lot of men and why men need to have control and be in control, and their reactions to make themselves more safe.

It was so amazing to me when I worked in a hospital, and my first question would be, “I see—I see that you’re gonna have the baby circumcised, and may I ask why you’ve chosen circumcision for your baby?” And they would say, “Oh, because I’m a Christian.” And I said, “Do you know that there’s 120 references to circumcision in the New Testament, that circumcision is of no value? If you’re a Christian you don’t live by outward signs. You live by faith expressed through love. Christ shed the last—was the last to shed the blood. He was the ultimate blood sacrifice for everybody. We don’t need to do this again.”

 

Conclusion

The hardest moral dilemmas seem to lie at the crossroads of two or more moral principles. In this instance, the right to religious freedom and the right to bodily integrity are in conflict for some parents. But if we are to uphold the right to bodily integrity for girls regardless of religion (Muslims often circumcise girls), shouldn’t we allow the same protection for boys?

Although religion is a factor, many parents choose circumcision simply because it is considered the norm. Myths about disease and cleanliness add to the confusion. When parents are not given all the facts, they cannot make an informed decision. On average, nurses are poorly equipped to answer their questions about circumcision. They do not educate parents, explaining the 16 functions of the foreskin or teach parents how to care for an intact child. (Nothing! Do not retract the foreskin. It cleans itself!)

Our sons’ genitals are carved apart in the name of healthcare when in actuality the practice is a profit-making enterprise. Circumcisions generate a lot of money for hospitals, while intact penises bring in no money at all. So while it is ethical for a nurse to provide parents with informed consent, it is wholly unprofitable for them to do so.

The truth will win. Circumcision is a profound violation of human rights. This conclusion is inescapable once we begin to think critically about the practice.

 

Author’s Note:

Male genital mutilation is still legal in all 50 states, and although Marilyn Milos hasn’t yet completely changed the world, she changed mine.

I am the second born of two sons. My older brother was circumcised. I was not.

Before my birth, my mother met a neighbor who had been given literature from NOCIRC. The sharing of this information about the benefits of the foreskin and the dangers and drawbacks of circumcision is the reason I was left intact.

Marilyn Milos bet on the idea that when given all the facts, more parents would make the right decision, and in my case she was spot on. I am intact, my sons are intact, and my nephews are intact.

Marilyn, I can never thank you enough for what you’ve done for me and for my family. You are an inspiration to us all.

Sources

 


Joel Edwards is a senior at Kennesaw State University, an anthropology major with a broad interest in the humanities and an organic lifestyle.




Vaccines Cause Brain Damage: The Mothers Know

Source: No More Fake News

February 15, 2019

 

I’ve spent many pages laying out how the medical cartel plays semantic games, in order to “prove” vaccines don’t cause “autism.” (See here, here and here.)

There’s a simpler conclusion.

The mothers know.

They know what happened to their children. They don’t need sophisticated analyses. They don’t need disease or disorder labels. They don’t need the very doctors who administered the vaccines turning around and lying to them.

And the lying is vicious. It’s coming out of the mouths of physicians who are indifferent to human life.

Doctors, underneath their layers and layers of hostile fakery, know the truth, too.

So does the CDC. That agency spends billions defending the indefensible.

William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower who admitted to gross fraud and lying, in order to exonerate the toxic MMR vaccine…he knows, too.

He knows the fraud is rampant inside the CDC. He knows it isn’t just a matter of one subset of data that was omitted in one study.

The vaccine manufacturers know, too. Long ago, they consummated a deal with the US government to forbid citizens from filing lawsuits as a result of vaccine damage. That was the whole point: vaccines inflict damage; let the federal government and the taxpayer carry the burden of financial compensation.

And the labyrinthine system through which a parent must pass, when filing a petition for compensation, is an affront to human dignity.

In that “court,” the full semantic shell game is on view.

“You say your child was severely damaged by a vaccine? First, you must prove the child developed a recognized and labeled neurological disorder. Then you must prove that a vaccine can and did cause that specific disorder. We have erected all sorts of roadblocks to keep you stymied…”

This is a grotesquery. The people who run this system should be in prison for the rest of their lives.

But regardless, the mothers know. They know when and how and why their child withdrew from the world, and was, afterward, never the same.

It was a vaccine.

An empire can be built, and has been built, to avoid that stark truth.

The CDC is the Orwellian Ministry of Truth of the empire. It lies about case numbers of diseases—inflating them—in order to sell vaccines.

It holds meetings to discuss how to frighten the public into getting vaccines.

It beats the drum every hour of every day to assure us that vaccines are the wonder of modern science. Safe and effective. Safe and effective.

The CDC’s propaganda allies and their chosen experts attack the “anti-vaccine people” as close cousins to terrorists.

At the center of this storm stand the mothers.

They know.

They live with their knowledge. They care for their children, who have been driven out of the futures they would have had by poison.

Nothing can shake the mothers’ knowledge.

Not the doctors, not the fake experts, not the government-compensation overseers, not the CDC, not smooth-talking television anchors, not teachers, not school counselors, not school administrators, not city “officials”, not neighbors, not friends, not family.

The mothers know.

And if by some great effort, against odds, as they continue to care for their vaccine-damaged children, they organize and rise up, you who are lying to them and passing them off as inconsequential will know they are coming.

You’ll feel the nightmare you’re perpetuating turn around and engulf you.

And somewhere inside you, you’ll recognize this is what justice is.




Maine’s Vaccine Exemption Removal Bill Has Been Released, and It Is the Most Draconian Bill Filed In the USA Yet

Source: Age of Autism

 

by Ginger Taylor, MS
February 12, 2019

 

LD 798, An Act To Protect Maine Children and Students from Preventable Diseases by Repealing Certain Exemptions from the Laws Governing Immunization Requirements

The Bill simply removes all religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions, for anyone, from anywhere in the Maine Department of Education and the Maine Health and Human Services law.

“SUMMARY
Current law allows exemptions from immunization requirements based on religious or philosophical beliefs for students in elementary and secondary schools and schools and health care facilities. This bill removes those exemptions. The bill also directs the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services to remove any immunization exemptions based on religious or philosophical beliefs from their rules and requires the Department of Education to adopt rules allowing a student who is covered by an individualized education plan and has elected a philosophical or religious exemption from immunization requirements to continue to attend school under the existing exemption as long as an appropriate medical professional provides a statement that the medical professional has provided information on the risks and benefits associated with the choice to immunize.”

“School” means any public or private, post-secondary school in the State including, but not limited to colleges, universities, community colleges and schools for the health professions.”

This is daycare, preschool, k-12, colleges, nursing schools, medical schools… ALL SCHOOLS, public and private, IEP or not, 504 or not.

Medical exemptions will remain restricted, the most narrow in the country and are next to impossible to get in Maine.
Read here.

There is a carve out to grandfather current IEP kids until they graduate, but next year, kindergartners with IEPs will be denied FAPE. Even children with cancer will not get a legal medical exemption from DTaP or TDaP.

It also extends to staff of medical facilities, and even declarations of state emergencies.

Maine can also add required vaccines to the schedule by fiat, without passing a law, and without public hearings. So in June you may leave school, only to come back in September to find that Gardasil has been mandated for school and you cannot opt out.

To sum up, it completely removes religious and philosophical exemptions in Maine.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, all religious sects and all people of conscience will be forced to inject WI-38, MRC-5, RA237 and other morally objectionable material into their own bodies and the bodies of their own children.

We will be forced to buy and use Stanley Plotkins products.

We urge Mainers to Call your legislator today and demand that he or she oppose this bill.

We urge you to call all the Mainers you know and tell them to get to Augusta, as often as possible, to walk the halls and talk to legislators.

This bill has to be defeated.  For all states’ sake.




Iodine Supplements and Dosages

Iodine Supplements and Dosages

by Dr. Mark Sircus
March 27, 2017

 

Iodine is necessary for the proper function of many of the body’s tissues including the breasts, pancreas, brain, stomach, adrenal glands, skin, salivary glands, and cerebral spinal fluid. Iodine deficiency can lead to a dysfunction of these tissues and cause symptoms such as dry mouth, dry skin, reduced alertness, brain fog, fibromyalgia, fibrocystic breasts, and many others. Some studies have shown that iodine deficiency leads to a higher risk of developing various cancers, especially of the breast, prostate, and ovaries. Do not wait for any of these symptoms to arrive, everyone today will benefit from higher iodine intake.

Humans tolerate large doses of iodine. The ultra-high doses that were used a century ago are helpful in medical emergencies—specifically when facing antibiotic resistant infections, viruses and stubborn fungal and yeast infections.

Iodine’s true role—making up more than 1/2 of the body’s Immune System—is not well understood. Deficiencies in iodine have a great effect on the immune system and its response to infectious diseases including cancer, which in many cases, up to 40 percent, are caused by infections.

The National Health and Nutrition Survey undertaken by the CDC showed iodine levels falling over 50% in the last 30 years. In 1940, the average American got 800 micrograms of iodine in their diet. In 1995 we averaged 135 micrograms, an 83% decline!

The Japanese consume 89 times more iodine then Americans, due to their daily consumption of sea vegetables, and they have reduced rates of many chronic diseases, including the lowest rates of cancer in the world. Why is your oncologist so ignorant, why does your government not inform you, why do medical organizations and the medical press promote everything but iodine for the treatment and prevention of cancer?

Even at low dosages, iodine is a powerhouse. So effective is iodine that aerosols can be effective in sterilizing a room at levels not even detectable by humans. However, Dr. David Derry says, “Dietary iodine found in iodized salt is below the amounts needed to fill mucus defense roles. To protect themselves, people wishing to boost their defense against infections should use Iodine supplement in their diets. Why would people need the larger doses of iodine? Why have iodine levels fallen 50% in the last 30 years? As I pondered these questions, I came to the conclusion that the toxicity of modern life must be impacting iodine levels. It is well known that the toxic halides, fluoride and bromide, having a similar structure as iodine, can competitively inhibit iodine absorption and binding in the body. Because of the elevated levels of toxic halides in the environment and in the food supply, iodine levels have not only fallen but larger amounts of iodine are necessary to correct iodine deficiency as well as to promote a detoxifying effect of heavy metals.”

When treating life-threatening diseases we do not have months to fool around with low dosages. The anti-microbial process of iodine quickly kills bacteria, viruses, fungi, and various other microorganisms if a high enough dosage is used. We need to dial up iodine levels quickly when we use it to fight infections. Iodine can be taken internally in large quantities and will have the same effect internally as it does on external surfaces. In addition, as in breast cancer, we often need to get it concentrated to certain tissues or organs and we do that by painting the breasts with iodine.

Just to give you an idea of how high iodine dosages have been taken to in the past we have to revisit the 1930s when iodine was still a universal medicine, present in the US Pharmacopeia and was used at much higher dosages than anyone even dreams of using today. The usual dose for treatment was 300 mgs (46 drops of full strength Lugol’s) to 1 gm (1000 mg, 154 drops).

“Extremely high doses of iodine can have serious side effects, but only a small fraction of such extreme doses are necessary to kill influenza viruses,” continues Derry who tells us, “In 1945, a breakthrough occurred when J.D. Stone and Sir McFarland Burnet (who later went on to win a Nobel Prize for his Clonal Selection Theory) exposed mice to lethal effects of influenza viral mists. The lethal disease was prevented by putting iodine solution on mice snouts just prior to placing them in chambers containing influenza viruses.”

Dr. David Brownstein says, “Of all the elements known so far to be essential for human health, iodine is the most misunderstood and the most feared. Yet, iodine is the safest of all the essential trace elements, being the only one that can be administered safely for long periods of time to large numbers of patients in daily amounts as high as 100,000 times the RDA.” The current US daily recommended allowance (RDA) for iodine is set at 150 mcg for non-pregnant adults.

Dr. Michael B. Schachter says, “The treatment dose when a person is iodine insufficient is generally between 12.5 mg and 50 mg daily. Preliminary research indicates that if a person is iodine insufficient, it takes about three months to become iodine sufficient while ingesting a dosage of 50 mg of iodine daily and a year to achieve that while ingesting a dosage of 12.5 mg of iodine daily.

For those who are interested in maintained dosages after disease and deficiencies have been dealt with understand that your thyroid gland alone needs about 6 mg of iodine per day for optimal function; the breasts of a woman will need approximately 5 mg/day (women with larger breasts need more); and other body tissues such as your adrenal glands, thymus, ovaries, hypothalamus, and pituitary gland need about 2 mg/day. Thus for optimal wellness adults should consider approximately10 to 12 mg/day.

Dr. Gabriel Cousens wrote, “Recently Dr. Mercola surprisingly stated that the highest amount of daily iodine intake should be no more than 400 micrograms. This is only slightly higher than the FDA recommendation, which is 150-290 micrograms daily, dependent upon age, gender and life cycle. However, it is dramatically less than what some of the leading iodine medical experts suggest, as closer to, at least, 12-18 milligrams daily, approximately 45 times higher. Why this discrepancy? And how can Dr. Mercola, who is often so correct in his understanding, in my opinion, miss the mark exponentially?”

Cousens states, “Historically, as early as 1911, (11th edition of the 1910-1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) people normally took between 300,000-900,000 micrograms daily without incident. This is over 2,000 times more than Dr. Mercola’s recommendation. How is it that now only 1/5,000th of this dose is now considered safe? In 1948, there was a poorly performed and, since then, never replicated study alleging what is known as the Wolff-Chaikoff effect. The Wolff-Chaikoff effect suggested that theoretically hypothyroidism could occur as a result of excess iodine. This study indicated a decreased dosage to 2 milligrams daily would be safer. (This is still an amount 5 times higher than what Dr. Mercola is recommending.) Even the Food and Nutritional Board at the Institute of Medicine has set the tolerable upper limit of 1,100 micrograms of iodine daily (3 times higher than Dr. Mercola’s recommendation). Other researchers have used between 3,000 and 6,000 micrograms/day to prevent goiter (14 times higher than Dr. Mercola’s recommendation). Iodine is found in every single one of our body’s hundred trillion cells. Without adequate iodine levels life is impossible. Iodine is the universal health nutrient and brings health on many levels.”

One of my neighbors, who had cancer, visited the Gerson Clinic in Mexico and came back with a protocol suggesting one drop of Lugol’s a day. I of course have him taking much more. When I take, I do not count the drops. Easier and more efficient to just use a dropper or two though there are iodine sensitive people who need to be extremely cautious about dosages especially when just starting iodine supplementation.

Dr. David Brownstein said, “After testing individuals and finding low iodine levels, I began to use smaller milligram amounts of iodine/iodide (6.25 mg/day). Upon retesting these individuals 1-2 months later, little progress was made. I therefore began using higher milligram doses (6.25-50 mg) to increase the serum levels of iodine. It was only with these higher doses that I began to see clinical improvement as well as positive changes in the laboratory tests.” Brownstein has sometimes used between 200 and 300 milligrams of iodine daily, with higher doses for more serious and difficult diseases.

“At 6 grams daily (which is 6 million micrograms/day or 6,000 milligrams/day!), a much higher dose, iodine has been used to cure syphilis, skin lesions, and chronic lung disease,” says Cousens. “From a larger physiological perspective, it is important to realize that the thyroid is only one gland of many glands and tissues that needs iodine. Other glands/organs/systems with high iodine uptake are the breasts, ovaries, cervix, blood, lymph, bones, gastric mucosal, salivary, adrenal, prostate, colon, thymus, lungs, bladder, kidney, and skin. Iodine is found and used in every hormonal receptor in the body.”

Dr. George Flechas has found that iodine can reduce the need for insulin in diabetic patients, using 50 to 100 mg of iodine per day. Of 12 patients, 6 were able to completely come off their medications with random glucose readings below 100 mg/dl and a HbA1c less than 5.8 (normal), and the other 6 were able to reduce the amount and/or number of medications needed to control their diabetes.

Dr. Hulda Clark said, “Six drops of Lugol’s solution can end it all for Salmonella. If you have gas and bloating, pour yourself 1/2 glass of water. Add 6 drops of Lugol’s (not more, not less), stir with wood or plastic, and drink all at once. The action is noticeable in an hour. Take this dose 4 times a day, after meals and at bedtime, for 3 days in a row, then as needed. This eradicates even a stubborn case of Salmonella. Notice how calming 6 drops of Lugol’s can be, soothing a manic stage and bringing a peaceful state where anxiety ruled before.”

Retired biochemist and toxicologist Walter Last has this to say about Lugol’s:

“Lugol’s solution is an internal iodine solution designed to eliminate Candida and possibly viruses and other microbes from the bloodstream. Take a test drop in liquid other then just water to make it taste less strong. If this does not cause an allergic reaction, continue to take 4 x 6 drops daily in liquid or mixed with food, but not together with vitamins A, C, E, grape seed extract or cysteine. Iodine is an oxidant and it is best to reduce the intake of antioxidants while using it.”

“If the blood was contaminated, then you may initially experience a die-off reaction of the Candida, causing weakness and possibly headache or nausea. If this happens cut temporarily back on the amount of Lugol’s solution and drink plenty of water and diluted teas or juices. Continue for 3 weeks, but interrupt if you develop a serious reaction. Do not take the iodine for more than 3 weeks at high dosages as that interferes with thyroid activity. If necessary repeat the course after several months.”

Gradual Dose Buildup

Many people will find that it is important to build up gradually in order to experience the least amount of detoxification reaction from taking iodine. It is best when using strong chelators, which iodine is, to moderate the amount of detoxification symptoms or what is called the Herxemeirs reaction, which is the experience of poisons being dumped into the blood stream from the cells or from large-scale yeast die offs. This is most readily controlled with iodine in the Nascent atomic form simply because it is so easy to control and regulate low dosages.

Iodine sensitive and thyroid compromised patients should read Dr. David Brownstein’s works on iodine and thyroid conditions. Many people are already severely thyroid compromised and are on drugs that complicate things.

Supplementing with iodine can replenish your iodine stores while flushing out poisons. People usually do not experience the negative effects of some type of detoxification when using iodine unless they are removing unusually high levels of bromide and fluoride. Most people actually notice increased energy, better sleep, and mental clarity. Over the last 30 years, our iodine intake has declined 50%, while the ingestion of toxic competing halogens (bromine, fluorine, chlorine, and perchlorate) has dramatically increased.

Iodine Products

These are the two iodine products I use and recommend. The Nascent Iodine is better for iodine sensitive individuals and for children where lower dosages are needed and recommended. Lugol’s is less expensive and better for transdermal applications as well as higher oral dosages. When I take iodine orally, I also drop in a good amount of an exceptionally strong liquid selenium into the glass because even a small amount of selenium reduces the chances of dying of cancer by almost fifty percent. There are other products in solid form but have never used or recommended them.

Bottom Line

Without iodine to control infection, surgery and hospitals in general become inherently more dangerous. For that matter, in the future, without iodine, no one would go into a hospital unless they absolutely had to because of all the germs on floors and other surfaces and floating around in the air and nothing the doctors will give in terms of antibiotics will help because they have already created so many antibiotic resistant strains of pathogens

The last thing we need to be afraid of is iodine used in high enough dosages to take down infections that are life-threatening. Do not be shy about administering high dosages unless it is the first administration of iodine to a thyroid-compromised patient. That said, if there is time, always start out with low dosages. It is like putting your toe in hot water to see if you can get safely into the tub. Check out your sensitivity to iodine if you are a first time user.

See Recent Essay – Main Reasons Iodine supplementation is Essential

 

Connect with Dr. Mark Sircus




The Facts About Measles

 

Articles in the media aimed at drumming up fear and whipping the public into a frenzy about nothing is happening with greater frequency. Such is the case with the latest “measles epidemic” in WA state. Headlines include dire warnings about the “deadly” measles with the solution being more vaccination. One shot for your child and he/she is saved! What could be easier?

…vaccine injuries can and do happen.

While instilling fear, rarely do any of these mainstream media announcements alert parents to the downsides of vaccination. And, should something go horribly wrong with the vaccination of their child, they are on their own as vaccine manufacturers are liability free due to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). It is a disservice because the fact is vaccine injuries can and do happen. To date, this program has paid out in excess of $4 billion dollars injuries.

According to a Medalerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

Several studies have found significant risks of serious conditions following the MMR-II vaccine. These studies have revealed an elevated risk of seizures, Type 1 diabetes, and thrombocytopenia (a serious autoimmune bleeding disorder) following MMR-II or MMRV vaccination. One study reported that infants who received the combination measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine (MMRV) had an even a higher risk of seizures following the vaccination and recommended that providers who recommend MMRV should communicate to parents that it increases the risk of fever and seizure over that already associated with measles-containing vaccines.

The manufacturer’s package insert lists all of these conditions as potential adverse reactions to the MMR-II vaccine.  These serious and sometimes deadly adverse events should not be taken lightly by parents or the media.

A person is 100 times more likely to die by lightening strike than to die by measles.

In an effort to add perspective to what the risk is of contracting the measles we pulled together a list of reported annual deaths in the U.S. A person is 100 times more likely to die by lightning strike than to die of measles. And that is one that is closest to the risk of measles death.

More Facts and Resources

Here are a few CHD articles and research that help to build understanding about measles, risks of vaccination, herd immunity, and the benefits of natural vs. artificial immunity:

When it comes to any medical intervention, parents deserve the truth. They deserve to know the risks vs. benefits. And they deserve the right to refuse any vaccination for themselves or their child. Mandated vaccines are in direct opposition to informed consent, the number one tenet of the Nuremberg Code:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

It is wrong for the media, CDC and other public health officials to misrepresent the facts when it comes to measles or any other “epidemic.”




Vaccine-Induced Disease Now a Top Global Health Threat for 2019 and Beyond

Source:  NewsTarget

by S.D. Wells
January 31, 2019

 

Contrary to what the propaganda-spreading World Health Organization (WHO) purports, modern day vaccines are responsible for more deaths than the diseases they are intended to create immunity against. This is a fact based on sound science. Let’s review some examples, and then we’ll discuss shedding – the common way infectious diseases are spread by children and teens during the first two weeks after they are injected with multiple strains of diseases, when their own immune systems are severely compromised, as are the other vaccinated children around them.

First off, there have been 127 deaths caused by the measles vaccine in the past 15 years, but only 2 deaths caused by the measles disease itself. Secondly, just take a look at GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) 6-in-1 jab called “Infanrix Hexa” (meaning six diseases are injected into a baby’s muscle tissue all at once – a science phenomena no studies have ever shown to be safe).

That toxic GSK hexa-jab has killed three dozen infants already, and over 2,000 reports have flooded in regarding adverse reactions (of which 500 were termed “serious”). This immunization combo is deadly, but the mass media has buried these reports, as usual, so hardly a soul knows to avoid this shot like the modern-day plague.

Then there’s the most toxic and deadly vaccine of all – the influenza vaccine, a.k.a. the flu shot. Damage from the flu shot is responsible for the majority of the secretive vaccine court’s payouts in settlements that have breached a mind-blowing (pun intended) $4 billion (the number increased vastly since 2016). Yes, you read that right.

Recently, a Las Vegas man became paralyzed and blind the day after he got the flu jab. Could it be because many flu shots still contain up to 50 parts per million (ppm) of mercury, listed as “thimerosal?” The guy was perfectly healthy before he got the vaccine. Now he can’t breathe, speak, or walk on his own anymore. Is the vaccine worth the risk? Most people with even a partially functional immune system can beat the flu in a few days.

No doubt the flu vaccine itself is a global health threat, especially since the CDC recommends it for pregnant women. Is there a coupon in the vaccine insert for Planned Parenthood that comes with that jab? If so, New York State will be the first to offer that deal.

The shedding pandemic exposed

Folks, “safety in numbers” is a myth. You think it’s safe for your babies to sit and wait with you in a doctor’s office waiting room, playing with germ-laden toys, while everyone around you is contaminated with the flu, hepatitis B, and other viruses they’re shedding from the vaccines they recently got jabbed into their muscle tissue?

All vaccine proponents always blame unvaccinated children or teens when a disease starts spreading around a school, theme park, or college. Why? That’s what they hear on TV, read in the MSM lying newspapers, or heard from their doctor or nurse, who got the script straight from Big Pharma.

It’s all fear-based propaganda to sell more toxic vaccines. Now the World Health Organization is spreading hyper-propaganda about the unvaccinated people of the world being one of the greatest health threats to society, when actually the opposite is the case.

Watch this short video and learn why you should fear vaccines and the vaccinated children much more than you should ever worry about the people who avoid getting those toxic jabs:

https://youtu.be/VKSeiAs_A4w

 

Failed theory of “herd safety” exposed

Stop putting your trust in a medical society that profits greatly from you and your family’s sicknesses, and makes zero money from your good health. It’s just common sense. Are you the sheeple in the herd that’s spreading the diseases you’re so afraid to get – the very ones that are swimming in your blood and shedding from your mucus and saliva right now?

The most dangerous time for spreading infectious disease is the first 14 days after a person is injected with that immunization that contains genetically modified versions of the virus, often mixed in dangerous, experimental, untested combinations. The viruses are NOT dead, they are just hibernating inside a formaldehyde formula, waiting to be fed.

The polio vaccine (injected or given as nasal spray) causes new polio cases, including spreading it to the siblings of those vaccinated. The same happens after the measles and flu shots – the disease is shed and spread. History has proven a huge spike in crippled children (47,000 cases reported in India alone in 2011) right after receiving the oral polio vaccine. This means polio vaccines are the leading cause of polio paralysis. Do you really want to wander around in that sickened flock? So much for safety in numbers, huh?

Want to build your immunity (or your children’s) to infectious diseases, pathogens, parasites, viruses, and bacteria, instead of weakening your immunity while spreading all of those infections? Look into natural remedies like elderberry (great for the flu), Vitamin D, Vitamin C, oil of oregano, garlic, cinnamon, licorice root, blackberry seed oil, and of course, colloidal silver. Check out Vaccines.news for more updates on immune system killers that the WHO does NOT want you to know about. This has been a public service announcement from Natural News.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

Vaccines.news

News3LV.com

NaturalNews.com

NCBI.nlm.nih.gov




Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward

Source: Children’s Health Defense

by Lyn Redwood, R.N, M.S.N., President, Children’s Health Defense
January 29, 2019

 

On Wednesday January 9th, I attended Science Day Presentations in the Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente case in Los Angeles Superior Court. I want to report to our community on the outcome of this important event and provide some personal commentary.

It is difficult to describe the feelings of elation and frustration that I experienced during the full day of furious arguments that began at 9:30 am before Judge Maren Nelson. Due to the restrictions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, my son and thousands of children like him, have never been able to have their injuries acknowledged in a court of law.  This day gave families around the globe whose children’s health was permanently harmed by the HPV vaccine a glimmer of hope that their injuries and suffering would finally be acknowledged. The frustration I felt came from the obvious fact that the science relied on by our federal agencies to approve the HPV vaccine was criminally inadequate and that Jennifer’s injuries and those of the thousands of others like her could have been prevented.

Prior to Science Day, plaintiffs’ attorneys worried that because Judge Nelson threw out a $472 million 2017 jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson for causing ovarian cancer in women exposed to its asbestos-containing baby powders, the Court might not be very receptive to their arguments here. However, Judge Nelson gave scrupulous attention to the science presentations by both sides and clearly seemed to be approaching the Robi case with an open mind.

A red-letter day

After 20 years of advocating for vaccine safety, this was the first time that I’ve watched vaccine science issues adjudicated in a true court of law.  It was truly a red-letter day. Jennifer’s lawyers brilliantly laid bare Merck’s anemic case for Gardasil, dissecting the science in withering presentations challenging both the efficacy and safety of the Gardasil vaccine, and then chronicling the horrifying agency and corporate corruption that lead to its approval.

Jennifer Robi is a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccines at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation.

Jennifer’s attorney, Sol Ajalat, initially brought her case in Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and then, following a judgment in the program, elected to proceed in civil court. Since VICA (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act) forbids recoveries for product defect or negligence, Ajalat brought Jennifer’s civil case under the theories that Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Jennifer (and, by implication, other injured girls) about the high risks and meager benefits of the vaccine.

In order to support Sol Ajalat and his sons Greg, Larry, and Steve, who compose the Los Angeles firm Ajalat & Ajalat, a blue ribbon A-Team of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms have joined Jennifer’s trial team. These include the firms most feared by Pharma: Weitz & Luxenberg (countless major pieces of litigation over 30 years), Morgan & Morgan (Vioxx, Phenphen, Breast Implants, Tobacco), Baum Hedlund, (Monsanto $289 million verdict 2018 and the $54 million 2000 verdict against Bayer in Haemophiliac/AIDS case) as well as Children’s Health Defense’s own Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Kim Mack Rosenberg (a co-author of The HPV Vaccine on Trial). The plaintiff’s bar has steered clear of vaccine lawsuits since the 2008 Thimerosal fiasco which nearly bankrupted several big firms. Now, Merck, through its reckless overreaching with Gardasil—a public health flimflam currently emerging as the most dangerous vaccine in history—has brought the nation’s leading trial lawyers back to the brawl.

The three Merck attorneys who made presentations were Dino Sangiamo, Sally Bryan, and Christina Gaarder. Jo Lyn Valoff represented Kaiser.

Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity.

Gardasil’s super-powered aluminum adjuvant

Plaintiffs began the day with a 2.5 hour presentation. Sol Ajalat first introduced Paul Pennock of Weitz & Luxenberg. Pennock ran through a riveting 50-minute slide show demonstrating how Gardasil’s super-powered Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) adjuvant over-stimulated the immune systems of vaccine recipients tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies’ own organs. This “autoimmune process” causes a cascade of illnesses that, in Jennifer Robi’s case, resulted in damage and deterioration in diverse organ systems throughout her body.

Victims like Jennifer are left exhausted as the body fights off disease on multiple fronts.  Pennock explained that vaccine makers add aluminum adjuvants (to weak antigens and a long list of other potentially toxic ingredients) to elicit an immune response, hoping to extend the short-term immunity otherwise provided by most vaccines. Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity. Most vaccines provide immunity for only 5-10 years. Gardasil’s promoters were promising lifelong protection, and needed a super toxic adjuvant that would provide this unprecedented level of protection. After all, Merck was promising regulators, pediatricians and the public that inoculations given to 9-12-year-old girls would provide immunity against a relatively rare cancer that typically doesn’t kill until age 58!

Pennock explained that Merck has refused to disclose the contents of AAHS or to provide samples to independent and university scientists for testing.  AAHS, astonishingly, has never been safety tested by government regulators or by Merck. Studies on animals conducted by world renowned independent scientists like Dr. Chris Exley, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, Dr. Chris Shaw and others have found that mice and sheep exposed to aluminum adjuvants, at concentrations comparable to those found in vaccines, develop strange behavioral patterns and illnesses resembling autoimmune diseases.

Using a poisonous placebo in the control group allowed Merck to mask the cascade of injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials.

A parade of deceptive canards

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. next gave the court an explosive 50-minute presentation of 112 disturbing slides describing the parade of deceptive canards that composed Merck’s clinical trials. Kennedy described a series of fraudulent gimmicks employed by Merck to deceive regulators during the clinical trials including the use of a “spiked” extremely toxic AAHS placebo rather than a true inert placebo that is standard for control groups in blue ribbon safety studies for other pharmaceutical products. Using a poisonous placebo in the control group allowed Merck to mask the cascade of injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials.  Half the girls in the Gardasil group and half the girls in the spiked placebo group suffered serious injuries, including several deaths, in the first seven months of the clinical trials, yet Merck was able to claim that reactions in the study group “were similar to the reactions in the placebo group,” and that, therefore, the vaccine was safe. Merck reported most of these serious injuries as “new medical conditions” not adverse events, dismissing any connection to the vaccine by fiat. Information about this parade of grave injuries appears nowhere in the Gardasil package insert.

Merck committed its boldest fraud in its key clinical trial, Protocol 18.  Merck told FDA that Protocol 18 was the single study in which its researchers gave the control group a true inert placebo.  For this reason, FDA declared Protocol 18 “of special interest.”  However, in reality, Merck appears to have taken the precaution of removing half the aluminum from the vaccines administered to this study group. Plus, The Company laced the “placebo” with a witches’ brew of other toxic chemicals. This study, the only “controlled” study that included children in the target cohort of 9-12-year olds, may not have in fact tested the vaccine that Merck went on to inject into millions of young children around the world. Kennedy told the judge that this is not just scientific malpractice, it is outright fraud!

… Merck’s control groups did not reflect the target population for its drug.

Another tactic utilized by Merck was to purge the study group of anyone with the slightest vulnerabilities to the vaccine or its ingredients despite the fact that the vaccine would ultimately be marketed to girls with the very vulnerabilities excluded during the clinical trials.  This precaution allowed the company to mask effects that occur only in vulnerable subgroups.  Mr. Kennedy drew laughter from the large court room audience when he described how Merck had prescreened the study subjects to exclude people with allergies, immunological or nervous disorders, more than 4 lifetime sexual partners, genetic vulnerabilities to cancer or to any other medical condition, or with any hint of general infection, a history of alcohol or drug abuse, or a serious or chronic illnesses, and so forth. Finally, Merck told its researchers to exclude any individual with “any condition which in the opinion of the researchers might interfere with the study objective.” The remaining participants were an elite club of super healthy individuals. “You couldn’t get into the clinical trials unless you were a superhero,” Kennedy told Judge Nelson. “You had to be eligible for the Avengers.” The problem, of course, is that none of the people receiving the vaccine under CDC’s mandate are screened for these vulnerabilities. In other words, Merck’s control groups did not reflect the target population for its drug.

The mayhem caused by Gardasil

Even these flimflams could not conceal the mayhem caused by Gardasil.  Kennedy showed the court data from Merck’s own package insert showing that 2.3 % of the girls receiving the vaccine complained of symptoms of autoimmune disease within 7 months. Since cervical cancer kills only 1.5 Americans in every 100,000, he noted, “Merck’s own data show that the chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 1000 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.”

Merck’s own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%.

Not only did a heartbreaking 50% of the subjects in both the study group and the spiked placebo group experience a serious adverse event within the seven months of the trial, death rates among girls in the study were double background rates. In fact, the rate for girls during the clinical trials (85/100,000) was 37 times the death rate from cervical cancer!  Birth defects among children conceived during the study period were 5x those of the control group and miscarriages were doubled over background rates. Reproductive problems among vaccinated girls were 10x background rates. Finally, Merck’s own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%. This revelation is particularly frightening since sexual behavior is only one of many vectors for acquiring HPV. Many children are exposed in the birth canal. Kennedy cited numerous studies showing many very young children are exposed to HPV, including one in which upwards of 34% of girls had exposure to HPV prior to age 10.

Kennedy closed his powerful presentation by chronicling the parade of corrupt conflicts that caused HHS officials to turn a blind eye to the rife fraud that characterized the clinical trials. Merck loaded the two FDA and CDC panels that approved Gardasil, with paid toadies. He showed that the pharmaceutical industry actually pays 45% of FDA’s annual budget and that NIH and its officials own part of the patents to the Gardasil vaccine and collect royalties on every vaccine sold.  NIH collects tens of millions of dollars annually from Gardasil sales.  Finally, 45% of CDC’s budget goes to promoting and purchasing vaccines.  Merck exerts control over the CDC with millions of dollars in contributions to the CDC foundation, which allows funding for pet projects.  This level of support gives Merck the power to also punish the CDC by withholding funding if displeased by the agency.

Jennifer’s illness due to Gardasil

Nicole Maldonado of Baum Hedlund next described the onset of Jennifer’s illness which worsened with each stage of the three vaccine series and how her symptoms were identical to the symptoms seen among hundreds of injured women during the clinical trials around the world, in places as diverse as Japan, Australia, Colombia, and Denmark (where special clinics have been set up to treat Gardasil’s victims), as well as among many girls here in the United States. These symptoms included menstrual irregularities, gastrointestinal dysfunction, musculoskeletal pain, neurological conditions and even death.

One courtroom observer, a concerned mother identifying herself as Rachel Harris said she felt sick to her stomach at the revelations. Jennifer Robi’s mom told me that she felt elated that Mr. Kennedy had mastered the facts so completely and that their family’s story was finally being told.

…Merck’s AAHS adjuvant was safe because of the small quantities of this known neurotoxin in each vaccine.  She told the judge that ‘the dose makes the poison,’ and that even water in large enough doses can be toxic.

The rebuttal

The Defendants’ three-hour rebuttal was mainly toothless. Sangiamo doggedly described six studies, that he claimed were relied upon by the plaintiff, that had been retracted. However, only one of those studies was even mentioned on the plaintiff’s lengthy exhibit list (Plaintiff’s attorneys never referred to it in their briefs) and that study was republished elsewhere after the original journal retracted it under pressure from its pharmaceutical advertisers.

Sangiamo argued that the plaintiff had relied on case studies rather than large scale epidemiological studies of the kind largely funded by industry or the NIH which owns the Gardasil patent and profits on every injection sold.  He cited five of those NIH and industry-authored epidemiological studies that found no causal relationship between Gardasil and autoimmune diseases.  All are plagued by fatal defects such as only looking for a very limited number of potential injuries for a short period of time following exposure to the vaccine, despite the fact that autoimmune diseases can take months or years to manifest.  The authors of these studies had financial ties to Merck.

Finally, Merck’s Sally Bryan rose to the podium to explain to Judge Nelson that Merck’s AAHS adjuvant was safe because of the small quantities of this known neurotoxin in each vaccine.  She told the judge that “the dose makes the poison,” and that even water in large enough doses can be toxic. She pointed out that there are only 225 micrograms of aluminum in each vaccine. To illustrate how small this is, she asked Judge Nelson to imagine a dollar bill – which weighs one gram – cut into 1 million tiny pieces. She pointed out that only 225 of these pieces would be in any Gardasil vaccine, far too little to cause any adverse outcome. So in one breath, Merck was telling Judge Nelson that the amount of aluminum in Gardasil was substantial enough to permanently alter a person’s immune system to prevent cancer for the next half century and, at the same time, small enough to cause no harm.

The path forward

At the end of a long day, Judge Nelson ordered both sides to work out a discovery schedule and to reappear in court on February 7 to resolve any differences.

In Merck’s zealous promotion of the Gardasil vaccine, the company and its allies have shamed parents into vaccinating their children, through a series of misleading ad campaigns which play on parental instincts to protect their children from harm, especially from a disease as frightening as cancer. One commercial depicts young girl and boy actors recounting how they developed cancer from HPV and asking their parents if they knew this could have been prevented. “Did you know – Mom and Dad?”  Jennifer Robi has had the courage to tell a real-life story that the public rarely hears – about the risks of the Gardasil vaccine itself.

Watch RFK, Jr. describe his plan to take this issue to the courts

 

https://youtu.be/w9y-OTaJPOQ

RFK, Jr. (from the video):

“We’re going to fight this battle for you. We’re going to take it to the streets. We’re going to take it to Congress. We’re going to take it to the regulatory agencies. We’re going to force the press to start covering this issue honestly for the first time, and allowing this debate to take place. And above all, we’re going to take it to the court room, and we’re going to win these cases. We’re going to find justice for you, for your families and for our country at last. If we’re going to do this effectively, we need your support.”

www.childrenshealthdefense.org/donate