Author Archive for James Robert Deal

Mercury in Flu Vaccine

Irrefutable proof that influenza vaccines routinely given to pregnant women still contain mercury

Thanks to Natural News.

vaccine

(NaturalNews) Believe it or not, there are still millions of people, doctors, pharmacists and even journalists who do not yet realize there is a very high concentration of mercury in influenza vaccines given to pregnant women. Most people, you see, have been lied to by the media which has stated over and over again that mercury was removed from all vaccines.Not true.It’s still there. And toxic mercury is present in influenza vaccines at a level that’s literally 25,000 times higher than the EPA limit of mercury in drinking water. (1) It’s 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury contamination I’ve ever tested in ocean fish.To prove the presence of mercury in influenza vaccines, I’m going to show you four irrefutable pieces of evidence:1) Photographs of a 2013 / 2014 influenza vaccine box admitting, in very small print, to the addition of mercury to the vaccine as a preservative.

2) Photographs of the influenza vaccine insert once again repeating the admission that the vaccine contains mercury.

3) A screen shot from the Centers for Disease Control website which admits that vaccines still contain the following ingredients: Aluminum, Antibiotics, Egg Protein, Formaldehyde, Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) and Thimerosal, a mercury-containing chemical compound.

4) Lab results from the Natural News Forensic Food Lab which confirmed almost precisely the same level of mercury claimed by the manufacturer (GlaxoSmithKline).

Before I show you the irrefutable evidence, there is some good news in all this testing. As part of this Natural News investigation, I tested several different vaccines, including an HPV vaccine. Mercury levels were extremely low in these other vaccines. Only the flu shot contained extremely high mercury levels. (More results will be released on other vaccines shortly…)

Influenza vaccine box admits safety never established for pregnant women

As you can see below, the box for this Flulaval Influenza Virus Vaccine readily admits the use of thimerosal which contains mercury. (Of course, you have to use a magnifying glass to see this.) In microscopic text on the package insert, it says straight out, “Register women who receive Flulaval while pregnant in the pregnancy registry by calling 1-888-452-9622.”

Yet, at the same time, the insert also admits that “safety and efficacy have not been established in pregnant women.”

In other words, this vaccine containing mercury is being promoted for use in pregnant womeneven when no safety in pregnant women has ever been established.

It’s also important to note that when people are being given flu shots, they are never handed the package or the insert, so they have no opportunity to read any of this information unless they specifically ask for it.

It’s not like a food item with a “Nutrition Facts” label. Vaccines are sold in “stealth” mode where patients have no idea what’s in them and no opportunity to read possible warnings.

As further proof of this point, consider the fact that this flu vaccine comes with only one insert, yet it’s a 10-dose vial intended to be injected into 10 different people. Clearly, if there’s only one insert but 10 people, then 9 out of 10 people can’t possibly be handed the insert.

In fact, from a legal perspective, vaccines are routinely injected into people without informed consent. Virtually no one administering vaccines ever explains the risks vs. benefits of vaccines as is required under medical ethics and state medical law. In nearly all cases, patients are simply hoodwinked and told there are no risks at all.

Vaccine insert also admits use of thimerosal and formaldehyde

The second piece of evidence to reveal here is the package insert for the influenza vaccine, a document printed in microscopic text that’s almost impossible to read without a magnifying glass.

Of course, the intention is that no one ever read this document, because it contains shocking admissions of the total quackery and marketing deception behind flu shots.

As you can see from this snapshot, the package insert readily admits that each vaccine dose “contains 50 mcg thimerosal (<25 mcg mercury).”

In case you’re wondering, “mcg” means micrograms. A microgram is 1/1000th of a milligram. Mercury is toxic at any dose when injected into the body, even in micrograms. There is no such thing as a “safe” form of mercury when injected. In fact, the ethyl form of mercury used in vaccines is many times more toxic than methyl form once it enters human cells. Click here for a fascinating interview with mercury toxicity expert Dr. Chris Shade who explains this.

The same paragraph shown above also admits the vaccine contains formaldehyde, a potent neurotoxic chemical.

Vaccine insert admits safety and effectiveness have never been established

What’s even more astonishing about this insert is that it openly admits the flu shot is a complete medical hoax, backed by nothing but voodoo woo woo faith-based dogma (and clever marketing).

Here are actual words from the insert (which is much more lengthy than the snapshot shown above):

“There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval.”

“Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children.”

“Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval in pediatric patients have not been established.”

“Flulaval has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.”

“Do not administer Flulaval to anyone… following previous administration of any influenza vaccine.”

CDC admits use of mercury, MSG, formaldehyde

For those “mercury denialists” who still can’t believe flu shots given to pregnant women contain high concentrations of toxic mercury, even the CDC reluctantly admits this fact on its own website.

Here’s a screen shot from the CDC’s vaccine additives page, which miraculously hasn’t yet been yanked off their site:

Laboratory results from the Natural News Forensic Food Lab

The final piece of irrefutable evidence on all this comes from my own scientific laboratory, where I run ICP-MS instrumentation to test foods, beverages, dietary supplements and other items for heavy metals contamination.

I was the first food researcher to document high levels of tungsten in brown rice protein, and I’ve exposed alarming levels of lead in pet treats. I’ve also exposed high lead in ginkgo biloba herbal supplements imported from China.

When I finally got around to testing vaccines, I was shocked to find over 51,000 ppb mercury in the Influenza Virus Vaccine.

Why was I shocked? Because I don’t recall ever seeing anything run through my ICP-MS instrument with that high a concentration of mercury. The mercury in this flu vaccine was the HIGHEST concentration of mercury I’ve ever seen in anything, period!

And this is a product that’s injected directly into the bodies of pregnant women, where mercury goes right into the developing fetus. Amazing, huh?

What’s even more interesting is that this finding once again confirms the accuracy of my lab instrumentation because it’s almost in perfect agreement with the level of mercury detailed on the vaccine package insert.

Let’s do the math together:

* Each dose of an influenza vaccine is 0.5 mL in volume
* My lab found just over 50 ppm of mercury in the vaccine liquid.
* 50 ppm (concentration) x 0.5 mL (volume) equals 25 mcg of mercury.

Guess what the package insert says? (Up to) 25 mcg of mercury per dose. Near-perfect agreement, in other words. My finding of 51 ppm rather than 50 ppm either means my own tests were off by about 2% (which is still considered very accurate for ICP-MS testing) or that GSK put 2% extra mercury into the vaccine.

And just so you know I actually did the tests, here’s what else we found with other analytes:

Aluminum: 0.4 ppm
Arsenic: zero
Cadmium: zero
Lead: zero

So, I can confidently say that the flu vaccine won’t poison you with lead, cadmium or arsenic because it contains none of those things. Even the aluminum level is quite low and not a concern at this very low level. The real problem is just the mercury, at least as far as elements go.

Why won’t vaccine makers remove the mercury?

Good question. Everybody knows mercury is toxic to inject into the human body. That’s not debated except by irrational anti-science denialists who refuse to acknowledge the Table of Elements.

You have to wonder: why choose mercury as a preservative? And why do both the CDC and FDA continue to look the other way as an entire branch of modern medicine poisons our women and children with a neurotoxic heavy metal?

And if vaccine promoters, propagandists and patent holders want the world to accept all their vaccines, why don’t they just remove the mercury and be done with it? If they take out all the toxic elements, resistance to vaccines would all but evaporate.

Why vaccines are the “anti-science” medical voodoo of the modern world

Ever wonder why they don’t conduct legitimate clinical trials on flu vaccine efficacy? Probably because they know the results would have to be faked to show any efficacy at all. That’s whatMerck did with its mumps vaccines, according to two former virologists who worked there. They spiked human blood samples with animal antibodies to fabricate positive results. Yep, vaccines work so poorly that even the manufacturers have to fake their own results to show any efficacy.

Vaccines are the one medicine where no scientific evidence of safety or efficacy is required by anyone: not the FDA, not the CDC and not the media. Congress even passed a law protecting the vaccine industry with absolute legal immunity, even when they manufacture and sell defective products that injure and kill people.

How’s that for medicine we can all trust? Think about it: this is a product that contains multiple neurotoxins in very high concentrations; a product backed by no safety trials or efficacy data; a product linked to numerous serious adverse reactions; and yet a product that enjoys absolute legal immunity thanks to the U.S. government.

If that’s not outright medical quackery, I don’t know what is.

For the record, I’m not an opponent of all vaccines. But I do believe — as do a rapidly increasing number of other clear-thinking people — that medicine should not poison our women and children. It’s time for mercury to be removed from all vaccines, once and for all. Anything less is medical negligence.

Natural News content secret: vaccine stories go viral when they tell the truth

Ever wonder why most of my stories on vaccines go viral across the ‘net? The answer is simple: People are hungry for the truth, and even when desperate naysayers try to attack what I’m saying, all they do is send more people to Natural News to check out the facts. Those people then discover the truth and share it.

When the facts are on your side, you will always win over more people to your message of truth. And when it comes to mercury in vaccines — and the hilarious medical hoax that claims flu shots are safe and effective — the truth is printed right on the package insert, in black and white. Every time we print the truth, we gain more amazing fans and readers who keep sharing that truth with others. We are powered by all those who seek the truth and seek to protect and defend our children and our planet from toxic chemicals and heavy metals.

It’s also a truism that the 99% don’t trust the lying 1% who run drug companies in the first place! Everybody knows the drug companies are criminal operations. The U.S. Dept. of Justice has proven that over and over again with criminal felony prosecutions and billion-dollar settlements against the world’s top vaccine manufacturers (including GlaxoSmithKline).

That’s primarily how we’ve grown from zero readers to over 7 million monthly readers: by boldly telling the truth and trusting in the intelligence of readers to recognize the difference between compassionate truth and for-profit corporate propaganda.

Ultimately, We the People will be victorious in the removal of mercury from all vaccines – an idea that’s already well accepted across much of Europe. And when that day comes, it will be yet another victory for the Natural News fan base, an amazing community of millions of remarkable people working together for the protection of our children, our health and our world.

This short video explains more about my personal mission and why I’m being called the “Ralph Nader” of the natural health industry:

Sources for this article include:
(1) http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basi…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/045434_influenza_vaccines_pregnant_women_mercury.html#ixzz33eXA7Jdb

Weather Modification by USA

 

Friday, May 23, 2014

Thanks to Activist Post

Who gave the U.S. gov’t permission to control the ionosphere in the first place?

Melissa Melton
Activist Post

Yes, HAARP — the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program — can be used to manipulate the weather

…but even though the actual HAARP patent itself —

Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved.” [emphasis added]

the government —

David Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, very-matter-of-factly states that they took over from the Navy and will be moving on —

— to managing the ionosphere, what the HAARP was really designed to do, to inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it… [emphasis added]

many meteorologists —

Some meteorologists believe that the ionospheric changes in turn influence the weather in the lower atmosphere, but the physical mechanism by which this may occur has not been definitely identified. [emphasis added]

and other prominent scientists —

scientistshaarp

have said so, according to the mainstream media, you’re a scientifically unjustified conspiracy theorist if you do.

Listen to David Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, say it at a recent defense appropriations subcommittee hearing right here.

The real question isn’t whether or not HAARP can be used to control or manipulate the weather.

The real question is, who gave the U.S. government the authority to “inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it” in the first place?

Melissa Melton is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com, where this first appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free. 

Vaccine Impurities

I do not oppose all vaccines. I oppose vaccines which are not thoroughly tested. I oppose vaccines produce where the producer is protected from liability, as is the case with the “<a title=”vaccine cases” href=”http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions_decisions_vaccine/Published” target=”_blank”>Vaccine Court</a>”. I oppose a factory fast production and marketing system that churns out new vaccines and sets up a regimen where a child receives scores of vaccinations before age 12. We should think critically about vaccines because the published warnings admit that serious complications occur, and the <a title=”Vaccine Court” href=”http://www.naturalnews.com/038858_vaccine_court_autistic_children_damaged.html#” target=”_blank”>Vaccine Court</a> has paid out some $4 billion in damages to children the Court admits were harmed by the vaccines.
<h1>Safety dangers exposed at vaccine factories</h1>
Sun. Oct. 13, 2013 by Blanche Levine   <a title=”Vaccine Impuritiesq” href=”http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine_dangers/vaccine_factories.html” target=”_blank”>Thanks to NaturalHealth.com</a>

<img alt=”Vaccine Factory Health Alert” src=”http://www.naturalhealth365.com/images/vaccine-factories.jpg” width=”100″ height=”120″ align=”left” hspace=”9″ />(NaturalHealth365) Here’s something you won’t find published in the mainstream news – yet it’s true – vaccine manufactures run contaminated, poorly-managed facilities. These factories fail to sterilize their equipment; allow cross contamination; produce uneven doses – with some vaccine lots having higher amounts of cancer-causing substances.

In truth, the great number of vaccines pushed upon the uninformed public are providing a fertile environment for a doomsday scenario.

<b>Contamination of vaccines are particularly dangerous because all vaccines bypass an intact immune system.</b>

Most organisms enter the body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive system. All of these areas have their own immune system with the help of immunoglobulin (IgA). IgA acts like your first line of defense, helping to fight off invading organisms at the point of entry.

Bypassing the immune system is one of the reasons why accepting a toxic vaccine could be a tragic mistake.

<b>Are vaccine producers ignoring safety concerns?</b>

The Prevnar (vaccine) is for the prevention of streptococcus pneumonia and is given to infants 6 weeks and older and adults 50 years of age and older. This means two of the most vulnerable populations are given this vaccine.

Two whistleblowers accused the vaccine producer of making false statements to the government concerning the manufacturing problems with this vaccine.

Anthony Sokol, a manufacturing scientist was fired after he raised concerns over the vaccine. He claimed that Wyeth had concealed and misrepresented the data it gave to the government.

He stated that they hired large numbers of new employees with limited backgrounds in vaccine production. Because of the complex nature of biological vaccines it takes lots of training to understand the complicacy of the process.

Livington, the second worker, complained about the dangerous working conditions which also affected the safety of the vaccine. He pointed out that many manufacturing technicians didn’t want to work in the manufacturing area for fear of the chemicals used in the production process – including cyanide.

Sodium cyanide is dangerous and mixed with water forms hydrogen cyanide, <b>the gas used in the Holocaust chambers</b>. Wyeth uses it in the manufacturing process, but trace amounts remain in the vaccine itself.

Many toxic substances are in the vaccine and some of them aren’t labeled such as sodium cyanide. Unsuspecting parents are never told about the presence of these substances and the harm they can cause. He further stated that “employees have to keep their mouths shut or face losing employment.”

<b>The history of vaccine dangers continues…</b>

Merck Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Gardasil, has been cited with warning letters from the FDA as far back as 2008 for sub par manufacturing practices. As of 2011, Merck was found not to have produced the changes.

The specific manufacturing concerns stated that more than once Merck has failed to check the dosage strengths on batches of vaccines prior to distribution. These discrepancies were found in the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine that they produced.

Vaccine risk may be a difficult thing to precisely assess, but undeniably each vaccine includes a significant risk. Merck compounded the risks by not investigating why some batches were outside of specifications and its failure to maintain production and process control, according to the FDA.

They also were cited because vaccine vials were over-pressurized and leaking, while rogue fibers were contaminating some of the vials. In addition, it was found that filters used in the bioprocess had material leaching out.

In 2008, inspectors found instances of contaminated children’s vaccines, Samuel Young – a retired FDA deputy director – stated that vaccine makers were suppose to investigate vaccine lots if their use was associated with either someone losing their life or experiencing a life-threatening event from the shot.

The FDA reported that Merck had failed to investigate such cases. For example, the Merck plant in Pennsylvania was cited for 49 items related to poor manufacturing practices at the facility. I wonder what their doing about all of these problems?

<b>Before your next flu shot – you better read this…</b>

Sanofi Pasteur is the vaccine division of Sanofi – the largest company devoted to human vaccines. They distribute more than 1 billion doses of vaccines a year. And, they are capable of vaccinating more than 500 million people.

They were by far the largest producer of seasonal influenza vaccines in 2012; they provided more than 200 million doses. The U.S. government awarded Sanofi Pasteur a contract to ‘improve’ the egg supply for vaccines.

Sanofl Pasteur restructured its bird flock management so that embryonated eggs would be available to support vaccine production. These can be potentially susceptible to avian influenza so flocks associated with vaccine production are under strict contract and must be completely housed, monitored by veterinarians, and raised under biosecurity regulations.

<b>Can we trust Sanofl Pasteur with our health?</b>

The FDA found significant objectionable conditions and deviations from good manufacturing practices at Sanofl Pasteur. Bloomberg News reported that the plant was cited with 24 violations including failure to follow procedures to prevent vaccine contamination.

Sanofi vaccine unit was sent a warning letter from the FDA in July of 2012 containing a laundry list of infractions. The things found were inadequate product sterility and environmental monitoring, unapproved manufacturing changes and a failure to follow training protocols.

Their Canadian plant was sent a warning letter because they failed to follow proper procedures to prevent microbiological contamination of their products or to test products adequately to ensure they all met the same scientific standards.

Safety violations are routine at drug factories and so are filthy conditions. Contaminated injectable vaccines can contain black fungus, wrong dosages and a larger quantity of cancer-causing toxins to be injected into the body.

<b>What’s wrong with this picture?</b>

Vitamins and whole food supplements have a manufacturers name on them, vaccines do not. Pharmaceutical companies spend virtually ungodly amounts of money on lobbyists, lawyers, and media but very little on safety issues. A disaster may be brewing behind the walls of vaccine manufacturing plants – let the buyer beware.

<b>Looking for natural health solutions?</b> <a href=”http://www.naturalhealth365.com/free-shows” target=”_blank”><span style=”text-decoration: underline;”><b>Sign up now</b></span></a> – for our free, weekly show featuring the greatest minds in natural health and science <i>plus a free gift!</i>

<i>About the author:</i> Blanche Levine has been a student of natural healing modalities for the last 25 years. She has the privilege of working with some of the greatest minds in natural healing including Naturopaths, scientist and energy healers. Having seen people miraculously heal from all kinds of dis-ease through non-invasive methods, her passion now is to help people become aware of what it takes to be healthy.

References:

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm201667.htm

http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=18

http://www.prevnar13.com/What-is-Prevnar13

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/fda-seeks-meeting-with-sanofi-executives-after-warning-on-plants.html

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/07/news-scan-mexico-h7n3-culling-flumist-uk-kids-severity-influenza-b-vaccine

http://www.whale.to/a/prevnar4.html

http://www.vaccineinjuryhelpcenter.com/merck-plant-cited-for-violations-some-resolve-while-other-problems-continue/

http://www.law360.com/articles/363430/sanofi-warned-by-fda-over-conditions-in-2-vaccine-plants

http://www.vaccineinjuryhelpcenter.com/merck-plant-cited-for-violations-some-resolve-while-other-problems-continue/

GMO Vaccines

<div>
<h1>Modified Vaccines?</h1>
<iframe src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/kbMAlKDrj38″ width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”></iframe>
<div></div>
<h5>October 02, 2012
By Dr. Mercola  <a title=”Mercola on GMO Vaccines” href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx” target=”_blank”>Thanks to Dr. Mercola</a></h5>
<blockquote>If you’ve ever had qualms about eating genetically modified (GM) foods, you’d likely be deeply concerned about receiving a GM vaccine as well.

Such vaccines are already being produced – some are even on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule – even though, as is the case with GM foods, we know very little about their long-term effects.

In the interview above, <strong>Vicky Debold, PhD, RN</strong>, director of research and patient safety with the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), spoke with me about the many reasons to be very wary of this new technology, which is far more intertwined with other biotech “innovations,” like GM food, than you might think.</blockquote>
<h2>Nobody Knows What Happens When You Inject People with GM Vaccines</h2>
<blockquote>There have been some fair warnings, though. In 2006, researchers wrote in the<em>Journal</em> <em>of Toxicology and Environmental Health</em>:<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn1″ name=”_ednref1″>1</a></sup>
<blockquote><em>”Genetically modified (GM) viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards… Horizontal transfer of genes… is well established. New hybrid virus progenies resulting from genetic recombination between genetically engineered vaccine viruses and their naturally occurring relatives may possess totally unpredictable characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing potentials.</em>

<em>…There is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications.”</em></blockquote>
Though this was six years ago, little has changed even as the technology has advanced. Today we have several different types of GM vaccines in production, development or research phases, such as:
<ul>
<li><strong>DNA vaccines:</strong> DNA for a microbe’s antigens are introduced into the body, with the expectation that your cells will take up that DNA, which then instructs your cells to make antigen molecules. As the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (a division of the National Institutes of Health) put it, “In other words, the body’s own cells become vaccine-making factories.”<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn2″ name=”_ednref2″>2</a></sup></li>
<li><strong>Naked DNA vaccines:</strong> A type of DNA vaccine in which microscopic particles coated with DNA are administered directly into your cells.</li>
<li><strong>Recombinant Vector vaccines:</strong> Similar to DNA vaccines, but they use a virus or bacteria to act as a vector (or “carrier) to introduce microbial DNA into your cells.</li>
</ul>
There are experimental GM vaccines being developed that use tumorigenic cancer cells and cells from humans, dogs, monkeys, cows, pigs, rodents, birds and insects. What happens when foreign DNA is inserted into the human body is a mystery. Will it trigger undesirable changes in human cells or tissues? Will it combine or exchange genetic material with human DNA? Will it transfer to future generations? No one knows…
<blockquote><em>”We don’t know what portion of the [GM] DNA can be incorporated into our own genome, we don’t know what portion could be inheritable to our children, we also don’t know what happens when the immune system is exposed to DNA that has been recombined in lots of ways that the human body, through the course of time, has never had any exposure to… what diseases of the immune system may occur because of these exposures,”</em> Debold said.

<em>”Use of foreign DNA in various forms has the potential to cause a great deal of trouble, not only because there is the potential for it to recombine with our own DNA, there is the potential for it to turn the DNA ‘switches,’ the epigenetic parts of the DNA, on and off.”</em></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<h2>Vaccine Adjuvants Used in GM Vaccines May be Even More Toxic Than Usual</h2>
<blockquote>An adjuvant is added to a vaccine in order to boost the body’s immune reaction to the viral or bacterial antigen contained in a vaccine. Under ideal circumstances, the antigen is what your body responds to and makes antibodies against (e.g. the lab altered viral or bacterial organisms being injected). By boosting your body’s immune response in this artificial way, the vaccine manufacturer can use a smaller amount of antigen, which makes production less expensive and the product more profitable (although definitely not safer, as adjuvants are usually foreign substances, metals or chemicals which can cause the immune system to overreact and attack the host body.)

Aluminum is a common vaccine adjuvant and also a well-known neurotoxin that can cause chronic inflammation in the body, including the brain. Although aluminum adjuvants have been added to inactivated vaccines used for decades in the U.S.,<a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/11/vaccination-impact-on-childrens-health.aspx”>aluminum-based adjuvants</a> are not strong enough for GM vaccines, according to Debold, so drug companies are primarily interested in using oil-based adjuvants, like squalene, and other substances that can hyper-stimulate the body’s immune response.

While oil-based vaccine adjuvants like <a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/04/Squalene-The-Swine-Flu-Vaccines-Dirty-Little-Secret-Exposed.aspx”>squalene</a> have been proven to generate powerful acute inflammatory immune responses that stimulate increased production of antibodies, they have also been associated with unresolved, chronic inflammation in the body that can cause brain and immune system dysfunction, including autoimmune diseases.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn3″ name=”_ednref3″>3</a></sup> While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far not licensed any vaccines distributed in the U.S. that contain squalene as an adjuvant, squalene adjuvants are used in some vaccines sold in Europe and other countries.</blockquote>
<h2>GM Vaccines You May Have Given to Your Kids…</h2>
<blockquote>Many are unaware that, despite the completely unknown long-term health consequences, GM vaccines are already in use and have been administered to American infants, children and adults for many years. Among them:
<ul>
<li>Hepatitis B vaccine: An inactivated recombinant DNA vaccine licensed for newborn infants and children in 1991, in which parts of the hepatitis B virus gene are cloned into yeast</li>
<li>Rotavirus vaccine: Live attenuated vaccines first licensed for infants and children licensed in 2006, which either contain genetically engineered human rotavirus strains or human-bovine hybridized reassortment rotavirus strains<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn4″ name=”_ednref4″>4</a></sup></li>
<li>HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Cervarix): A recombinant vaccine licensed in 2006, which is prepared from virus-like particles (VLP’s) and may also include use of an insect-cell Baculovirus expression vector system for production</li>
</ul>
Then there are those “hybrid” vaccines that cross the (very narrow) threshold into the GM food realm… for instance, goats are being genetically engineered to become “<a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/20/genetically-engineered-goats-produce-vaccine.aspx”>pharm animals</a>” that carry vaccines in their milk. If the experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&amp;M are successful, they will produce an “edible” malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process. If vaccines in your milk sounds a bit to “out there,” it shouldn’t, as there are many connections between the companies that make GM food and those that make GM vaccines.</blockquote>
<h2>The Close Ties Between GM Foods and GM Vaccines</h2>
<blockquote>The companies that make vaccines and GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are deeply intertwined, only recently spinning off or merging to specialize in one or the other. Most vaccine revenues are earned by five companies that together held nearly 80 percent of the market in 2010:<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn5″ name=”_ednref5″>5</a></sup>
<ul>
<li>Sanofi Pasteur</li>
<li>GlaxoSmithKline</li>
<li>Merck &amp; Co.</li>
<li>Pfizer</li>
<li>Novartis</li>
</ul>
These companies, which use genetic engineering to produce vaccines, are also primarily responsible for the introduction of genetic engineering into the food supply. For instance:
<ul>
<li>Genetic engineering giant Syngenta (third in total sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market) is the progeny of parent companies Novartis and AstraZeneca.</li>
<li>In 2001, Bayer CropScience became a leading genetically engineered crop producer with its purchase of Aventis’ agribusiness division.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn6″ name=”_ednref6″>6</a></sup></li>
<li>In 2004, Aventis merged with and into Sanofi. The new Sanofi-Aventis Group became the world’s 3rd largest pharmaceutical company. Aventis Pasteur, the vaccine division of Sanofi-Aventis Group, changed its name to Sanofi Pasteur. Sanofi Pasteur is the vaccines division of Sanofi Group. It is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to vaccines.</li>
<li>Prior to splitting its genetically engineered crop business from its vaccine business, Aventis was known primarily for the StarLink corn debacle (a type of GM corn grown for use in animal feed that contaminated the U.S. food supply in 2000). Bayer now sells Aventis’s Liberty Link crops, engineered to tolerate high doses of the company’s toxic herbicide called Liberty (glufosinate).<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn7″ name=”_ednref7″>7</a></sup></li>
<li>Stauffer Seeds was a spin-off of Stauffer Chemical, formerly a division of Novartis.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn8″ name=”_ednref8″>8</a></sup> Stauffer Seeds and Prodigene conducted clinical trials on pigs using an edible vaccine for transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) expressed in corn.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn9″ name=”_ednref9″>9</a></sup></li>
<li>Prodigene was caught contaminating the food supply with its edible vaccine and the company went out of business, but not before it received a $6-million investment from the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, chaired by Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Vilsack, now the Obama Administration’s USDA Secretary, didn’t want any restrictions placed on experimental pharma crops. In reaction to suggestions that pharma crops should be kept away from food crops, Vilsack argued that ‘we should not overreact and hamstring this industry.’<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn10″ name=”_ednref10″>10</a></sup></li>
<li>Prior to 1997, Monsanto (the world leader in GM crops) operated under three parts, the Ag Business (for agricultural products), the Chemicals Business, and the Pharmaceuticals Business, which is now Pharmacia, a subsidiary of Pfizer, the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world and the largest manufacturer of vaccines for food animals.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn11″ name=”_ednref11″>11</a>, </sup><sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn12″ name=”_ednref12″>12</a></sup></li>
<li>GlaxoSmithKline, while producing few products for food or agriculture, has been genetically engineering plants, animals and microorganisms for use in vaccines, pharmaceuticals and medical research.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn13″ name=”_ednref13″>13</a></sup></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<h2>Bill Gates, Warren Buffet Supporting Propagation of Both Vaccines and GMOs</h2>
<blockquote>The most influential, and, of course, richest advocates for genetic engineering and vaccines are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have business as well as philanthropic interests in these technologies and their Gates Foundation (Buffet has donated over $1.5 billion to the Foundation) allows them to mix business with philanthropy.

They – and the corporations they invite to join them – use the tax shelter of a non-profit organization to invest in for-profit enterprises. Gates &amp; Buffet get tax write-offs for putting money in their foundation, but their foundation can give money (both as grants &amp; investments) directly to for-profit corporations creating for-profit products.

This, obviously, creates huge conflict of interests.

For instance, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and ‘sustainability,’ but in reality it’s anything but. It’s just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent. The Foundation has also invested heavily in Monsanto stock, purchasing over $23 million worth in 2010.<sup><a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx#_edn14″ name=”_ednref14″>14</a></sup>

The Gates Foundation is also closely partnered with Big Pharma, to whom Bill Gates pledged $10 billion to distribute and administer multiple vaccines to children around the world. This, too, is billed as a humanitarian effort to save lives, but what children living in poverty in developing countries need most is healthy, plentiful food, clean water, better sanitation and improved living conditions. These are the keys to preventing the spread of infectious disease, and they appear to be wholly ignored by Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and non-profit organizations with financial ties to Big Pharma – at the children’s expense.

The Gates Foundation is even <a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/18/vaccine-exemptions.aspx”>funding surveillance of anti-vaccine groups</a>, and the following vaccine companies are supported by the Foundation through both investments and philanthropic projects:
<ul>
<li>Sanofi</li>
<li>GlaxoSmithKline</li>
<li>Merck</li>
<li>Pfizer</li>
<li>Novartis</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<h2>Important Movements on the Horizon for Both GM Foods and Vaccines</h2>
<blockquote>It’s important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that in many state public health laws you still have the legal right to <em>opt out</em> of using a vaccine that you or your child do not want to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 17 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

However, Washington state now requires parents to obtain the signature of a medical doctor or state-designated medical worker to obtain a philosophical exemption to vaccination. That is because non-medical vaccine exemptions have been restricted in Washington and Vermont and are under attack in California and New Jersey, while there is evidence that medical trade association lobbyists will be working to eliminate or severely restrict vaccine exemptions in Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Colorado and many other states.

Health liberty in America is being threatened by forced vaccination proponents employed by federal and state health departments, who are working with pharmaceutical companies and with Pharma-funded non-profit organizations to encourage government-enforced implementation of “no exceptions” one-size-fits-all vaccine laws. If you want to protect YOUR freedom to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions in America, you need to take action today. (National vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact).

Signing up to be a user of NVIC’s free online Advocacy Portal at <a href=”http://www.nvicadvocacy.org/”>www.NVICAdvocacy.org</a> gives you access to practical, useful information to help you communicate with your elected state legislators and become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen, you will be put in contact with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.

I also recommend that you join <a href=”http://www.facebook.com/national.vaccine.information.center”>NVIC on facebook</a>, and if you can contribute monetarily, doing so at<a href=”https://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=6718″> NVIC.org</a>.

As for GM foods, you can help to pass the United States’ first GMO labeling law – <a href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/13/california-gmo-labeling.aspx”>Proposition 37</a> – that will require labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods and food ingredients – and ban the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as “natural.” Prop 37 is the best chance we have of defeating the corporate agri-giants, and of forcing food manufacturers to stop hiding dangerous ingredients in our food, without our knowledge.

<a title=”Mercola on GMO Vaccines” href=”http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/02/vicky-debold-on-gmo-vaccines.aspx” target=”_blank”>Thanks to Dr. Mercola</a></blockquote>
</div>

Poisoned by Mercury Fillings

Are Millions of Americans Being Poisoned by Their Own Dental Fillings?

By Jill Richardson   Thanks to Alternet
A controversial theory linking amalgam fillings and mercury poisoning is starting to gain scientific acceptance.

Kris Homme, a retired engineer, did not know what was happening to her. At age 33, she was diagnosed with macular degeneration — a disease that usually does not appear until old age. Not one to give up, she somehow managed to complete two graduate degrees with impaired vision. Then, in her 40s, she developed chronic fatigue and multiple chemical sensitivities.

“I was pretty much housebound for a couple years,” she recalls. “I just didn’t have the strength to leave the house by myself. I was able to keep my house fragrance-free but I had trouble being in a crowd, like on a bus or in an audience where you’re sitting next to people because so many people wear fragrances. Or walking on the streets, the car exhaust would be overpowering.”

A friend suggested her problem might be mercury exposure from her dental fillings, but she dismissed the idea. After all, her neurologist had already tested her blood for mercury and did not find anything to worry about.

Homme had a mouth full of amalgam fillings, each of which is 50 percent mercury. The mercury in them was long thought to be inert, but scientists later discovered that some of the mercury is released as vapor and absorbed into the body. Still, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Dental Association maintained they were perfectly safe.

As an engineer, Homme cannot be easily fooled. Even when telling her own story, she repeatedly questions why anyone would want to hear one story when it cannot constitute proof of anything. Knowledge and facts come from carefully controlled, randomized, statistically significant scientific studies, not anecdotes and stories.

The theory that amalgam fillings caused mercury poisoning “all sounded so flaky,” she remembers. “The anti-mercury movement has a lot of unfortunate bedfellows so I dismissed the argument.”

What’s more, she had a degree in Environmental Health Sciences from UC Berkeley. “I just thought that if that was an issue it would have been covered in my prestigious degree program.”

Finally, her friend gave her a book to read, Amalgam Illness, Diagnosis, and Treatment by Andrew Hall Cutler. “I stayed up late, reading and crying. All my symptoms fit and all the theory fit, the theory about how it’s not going to show up in a blood test because you’re retaining it, you’re not excreting it. My whole world turned upside down when I realized my doctors and dentists were so wrong and my degree program was so inadequate and it was like, if I can’t believe any of that, what is true? Who can I believe?”

Today Homme is one of several plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the FDA, demanding it respond to several petitions that ask it to ban — or at least seriously restrict — the use of amalgam fillings. Other plaintiffs include the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Mercury, and the Cooperative Food Empowerment Directive (CoFED), as well as several individuals. She’s also published a peer-reviewed paper summarizing new studies demonstrating the harm of amalgam fillings.

The FDA’s strongest evidence of the safety of amalgam fillings are two studies published in 2006 called the “Children’s Amalgam Trials.” One was conducted in New England, the other inPortugal. In them, hundreds of healthy children with low levels of mercury and lead, plenty of unfilled cavities and no previous amalgam fillings were divided into two groups. One group received amalgam fillings, and the other received composite fillings. The children were then monitored over a period of years for changes in mercury levels, IQ, memory and several other neurological tests. They also tracked major health problems in the children over the course of the study.

Both studies found higher levels of mercury in the urine of children who received amalgam fillings, but, on average, they found no significant differences in neurological development and function between the two groups. The New England study also tested kidney function and found no significant differences between the two groups.

But reanalysis of the data from these studies show that perhaps the amalgam fillings were not so benign.

As Homme points out, humans differ both in their exposure to mercury and their susceptibility to it. When a person who is highly susceptible to mercury is exposed to enough of it, he or she gets sick — even if the same dose would not cause problems for someone who is less susceptible.

Scientists have already identified several genes that cause increased susceptibility to mercury. One of them is called CPOX4. A 2012 study looked at a subset of 330 children from the Children’s Amalgam Trial conducted in Portugal and found that about 28 percent of them had the susceptible variant of the CPOX4 gene.

Rather than simply averaging the results of the amalgam group and the composite group, the researchers looked at the correlations between urinary mercury levels and neurological test results. Among boys (but not girls) who had the CPOX4 gene variant, the researchers found several significant neurobehavioral deficits associated with increased mercury exposure.

Three other studies also re-examined the data from the Portugal study. One found evidence that amalgam fillings are a “significant chronic contributor to Hg [mercury] body-burden.” A secondfound that children with the CPOX4 gene variant also had biomarkers of mercury-related kidney damage. The third found neurobehavioral deficits in children who had two other gene variants that made them more susceptible to mercury.

In other words, amalgam fillings impact on your health depends on your genes, your exposure (how many fillings you have and how long you’ve had them) and maybe your sex. But if you’re among the susceptible population and your exposure is high enough, it appears that you might suffer health consequences as a result.

These latest studies were all published between 2011 and 2013, but critics of amalgam fillings sounded the alarm long before then.

The story of U.S. regulation of amalgam fillings begins in 1976, when Congress passed theMedical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Safety Act. The amendments required the government to place all medical devices into one of three classifications based on risk. The riskiest items would be put into Class III, which means they would require pre-market approval by the government to verify their safety and effectiveness before they could be sold.

Years went by, and the FDA did nothing. In 2006, it released a draft white paper on amalgam filling safety and held a two-day meeting with a panel of experts to discuss it. The experts voted down the white paper by a margin of nearly two to one.

The next year, Moms Against Mercury and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the FDA commissioner, asking the FDA (which still had not classified amalgam fillings) to remove the fillings from the market. The case was settled a year later, with the FDA promising to classify amalgam fillings by July 28, 2009.

A few days before the deadline, Moms Against Mercury and others submitted a Citizens Petition, again asking the FDA to ban amalgam fillings, or — if it was unable to do that — classify them as Class III and “seek strict proof of safety and effectiveness” before allowing them to be sold. At the very least, the group asked the FDA to place restrictions on the use of amalgam fillings in the most susceptible populations, such as pregnant women and children. Additionally, they called on the FDA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment for amalgam fillings.

Days later, the FDA issued a final rule, classifying dental amalgam fillings as Class II. Class II medical devices are subject to what the FDA calls “special controls,” which might include testing or warning labels, but they do not require any FDA approval before they are allowed on the market.

The petitioners almost immediately submitted a second petition, this one asking the FDA to reconsider its classification. At the time, scientists already knew the significance of the CPOX4 gene variation. The petitioners also disputed the FDA’s estimation of how much mercury one was exposed to from amalgam fillings, particularly because the FDA ignored children under six and assumed that nobody got more than 10 amalgam fillings. And they felt that some of the FDA’s data was out of date.

One important part of the debate is the idea of a “reference concentration,” the amount of mercury one can be exposed to without “appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime,” even for sensitive individuals.

In 1995, the EPA set its reference concentration for elemental mercury (the type of mercury in amalgam fillings) at 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter. (Jim Love, the lawyer who filed the petitions on behalf of Moms Against Mercury and others, calls their number “outdated.”) California’s EPA set its reference concentration 10 times lower, at 0.03 micrograms per cubic meter.

Using 2001 to 2004 population statistics, a 2011 study estimated that, using the U.S. EPA’s reference concentration, 67.2 million were getting too much mercury from their fillings. The number of Americans absorbing an unsafe level of mercury from their fillings jumps to 122.3 million if one uses California’s lower reference concentration instead.

In other words, how much mercury are Americans getting from their fillings, and how much mercury equals too much? According to the FDA, Americans are not getting too much mercury from their fillings, and according to the petitioners — and the 2011 study — they are. Love, the petitioners’ lawyer, feels, “It’s beyond debate based on the weight of the evidence that we’re getting too much mercury.”

After several years without a response from the FDA, the group filed an addendum to their petition with updated science in 2013. Love is passionate about the cause.

“If we do clinical studies, are we going to find people with neurobehavioral harm?” he asks. “Are we going to find people with impaired kidney function? The answer is yes, and those studies have come out also. So when you talk to a dentist and he says there isn’t any evidence, ask him if he’s read our 2013 petition. I wouldn’t have filed the petition if I didn’t think the evidence was there.”

Now, in 2013, the FDA has yet to respond to the petitions. On behalf of his clients, Love has filed a lawsuit against the FDA.

“It’s a very simple lawsuit,” he says. “It’s under the Administrative Procedure Act. FDA is duly obligated to respond to our petition. They haven’t done that. They are allowed 180 days by statute and they can ask for and receive more time.”

The 180-day mark passed long ago, in 2010. The plaintiffs cannot force the FDA to ban amalgam fillings, but they can push the FDA, through the courts, to respond to their petitions. And that’s what they are trying to do.

“We don’t think there is an intellectually honest response that can continue to justify the ongoing use of mercury fillings,” continues Love. “Our contention is that the court should and almost certainly will compel the FDA to file a response to our citizens’ petitions.”

He adds, “In our complaint, we spell out the fact that the largest purchaser of amalgam fillings is the US government and they supply them to the indigent, those on welfare, the US military, those on Indian reservations, and as far as we can tell from where we sit, other alternatives are not available … One of our plaintiffs in fact is in prison. He would like his amalgam fillings removed.” But since the government says the fillings are safe, the prisoner is stuck with them.

Initially, Love thought that amalgam fillings were going the way of cassette tapes and VCRs. “Lots of people get composite fillings [instead of amalgam] because they are white and they are more attractive.” But, it turns out that even today, the majority of new fillings are still amalgam.

As the insurance company Delta Dental notes, tooth-colored composite fillings are more expensive than amalgam fillings and sometimes insurance companies do not cover them, or only cover them in teeth visible in a patient’s smile. The last time I had dental insurance, my insurance would have covered 90 percent of the cost of amalgam fillings but about half the cost of composite fillings. I found that out only after the dentist had placed several composite fillings in my mouth and the receptionist handed me a large bill. If I were informed of the cost difference in advance, would I have opted for mercury?

If you are worried about amalgam fillings in your mouth, you can have them removed. Kris Homme, who had hers removed in 2008, cautions that you should seek out a safe removal specialist because “a normal dentist might not use proper precautions.”

Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of “Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It.”

NY Times – Everett Herald – No Vaccine Exemptions

Comment: Saying all vaccines are safe and effective for all children is as extreme as saying that no vaccines are safe or effective for everyone. This unthinking doctor is an extremist. Some 73% of pertussis cases in Washington struck fully vaccinated children. Is the pertussis vaccine effective? The Vaccine Court has paid out around $2.5 billion to vaccine damaged people, an admission that some vaccines are not safe for some people. Children who are sick may have especially adverse reactions to vaccines. Only the parents should make vaccination decisions. 

Eliminate Vaccine Exemptions

Kristen A. Feemster

Kristen A. Feemster is a pediatric infectious diseases physician and health services researcher at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Thanks to the New York Times

UPDATED MARCH 23, 2014, 7:01 PM

At the crux of this question is whether individual choice can be subverted for public good. Vaccines work by protecting individuals, but their strength really lies in the ability to protect one’s neighbors. When there are not enough people within a community who are immunized, we are all at risk.

Vaccines protect our neighbors — like following traffic laws, drug tests at work, paying taxes — they are a shared responsibility.

Personal and religious belief exemptions should be curtailed because some people, whether because of age or compromised immune systems, cannot receive vaccines. They depend on those around them to be protected. Vaccines aren’t the only situation in which we are asked to care about our neighbors. Following traffic laws, drug tests at work, paying taxes — these may go against our beliefs and make us bristle, but we ascribe to them because without this shared responsibility, civil society doesn’t work.

Public health is no different.

To justify the subversion of individual choice to public good, there are some conditions that need to be met. The behavior or intervention needs to be safe and effective, and the risk of not participating in the behavior needs to outweigh any risk from the behavior. The currently recommended vaccine schedule meets those criteria. Vaccines are safe and effective. The significant reduction in illness and death from vaccine-preventable diseases is testimony to how well they work. Yet this success likely contributes to the reason requests for personal belief exemptions have proliferated.

We are fortunate to live in an era when we rarely see many vaccine-preventable diseases — the risk of these diseases seems minimal while the perceived risk of vaccination becomes larger. This is compounded by the proliferation of misinformation, readily available from the news media and other sources. This has resulted in what many describe as the “vaccine confidence gap.” There is no doubt that this gap needs to be addressed. It is the responsibility of the scientific and public health community to ensure that vaccines are safe. It is that community’s responsibility to listen to concerns and provide accurate and clear information.

However, it is also the scientific and public health community’s responsibility to support the health of patients and ensure the health of the communities in which they live. As more people choose not to vaccinate based on personal belief, our communities are at risk — we have seen recent outbreaks of diseases like measles, mumps and whooping cough throughout the U.S. It is prudent policy to limit such exemptions to protect our own and the public’s health.

***

THE HERALD – EVERETT WASHINGTON
March 28, 2014
IN OUR VIEW / IMMUNIZATIONS

Tighten state exemptions

Fatal, infectious diseases are an abstraction for most Americans, however commonplace just a century ago. Vaccines literally are a panacea. Today, immunizations prevent between 2-3 million deaths a year around the world, primarily among children under the age of five, according to the World Health Organization. The death rate globally for measles, for example, has decreased by 74 percent since 2000, from an estimated 535,000 deaths per year to 139,300 deaths in 2010.

In the early 20th century, the childhood mortality rate before age five was 20 percent in the United States. Immunizations changed the equation. Today, many parents choose not to vaccinate their children based on the thoroughly debunked myth that it causes autism or, worse, figuring that vaccines are no longer necessary. And when parents choose not to vaccinate their children, it puts other lives at risk.


A certain level of the population must be immunized in order to fully protect the community, known as “herd immunity.” When enough people are vaccinated, then it’s more difficult for a disease to spread. Specifically, it protects the most vulnerable who cannot be vaccinated, such as infants, those with immune-system disorders, or even cancer patients.


In recent years, herd immunity has been compromised as parents choose not to immunize. One strategy to boost the immunization rate is to require proof of immunization for children to enter public schools. Today, 18 states allow parents to apply for an exemption based on religious or personal beliefs, and Washington has one of the highest rates of exemptions. In Snohomish County, 5.9 percent of K-12 children were granted exemptions for the 2012-2013 school year (higher than King County which came in at 5.2 percent.)


In 2011, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a law that requires a physician’s signature to verify that exemption-requesting parents have been given the facts on immunization. Currently Colorado’s legislature, a state with an even higher immunization-exemption rate than Washington, is considering a bill that would require parents to participate in an online education seminar. The political response was sparked by Colorado’s whooping cough outbreak, an outbreak that also hit the Pacific Northwest. In August 2011, a 27-day old infant died from whooping cough in Lake Stevens, exposed to a carrier but sadly too young to be immunized.


Vaccinations are designed not only to protect every child, but the community as a whole. That’s why Washington lawmakers must make immunization exemptions as strict and infrequent as possible.

***

Parents Deserve to Have a Choice

Jennifer Margulis

Jennifer Margulis, a fellow at the Schuster Institute at Brandeis University, is the author of “The Business of Baby.”

Thanks to the New York Times.

UPDATED MARCH 23, 2014, 7:01 PM

This January lawmakers in the United Arab Emirates mandated that women breastfeed for two years, announcing that breastfeeding is a “duty, not an option.”

Officials should encourage childhood vaccinations, but they shouldn’t have the right to force parents to vaccinate their children.

Should public health officials do everything they can to encourage, inform and facilitate breastfeeding? Yes. Do they have the right to force women to breastfeed? Not in a country that believes in freedom of choice.

There is tremendous evidence showing vaccinations prevent childhood diseases. Should public health officials do everything they can to encourage, inform and facilitate childhood vaccinations? Yes. Do they have the right to force parents to vaccinate their children? Absolutely not.

An American parent could reasonably decide not to follow the C.D.C.’s current vaccination schedule by choosing to vaccinate on the schedule they use in Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. In Norway no childhood vaccinations are routinely given in the first three months of life whereas a 2-month-old American infant has been vaccinated against at least four diseases. At the same time, 99 percent of Norwegian infants are breastfed when they leave the hospital and generous family leave policies facilitate successful (and exclusive) breastfeeding. For an American mom who is exclusively breastfeeding and not putting her child in daycare, following the Norwegian schedule would be a philosophical, evidence-based, demonstrably better choice.

It is a news media-driven misperception that parents who claim philosophical or religious exemptions are uneducated or misinformed. Most parents who individualize the vaccine schedule are actively educating themselves, continually assessing their family’s specific health needs, and doing everything they can to keep their children safe and healthy.

Unlike in the United Arab Emirates, in America we believe parents are capable of making their own decisions about their children’s health. We believe in freedom of choice. This freedom of choice extends to when — and even whether— parents vaccinate their kids.

Roundup In GMO Foods

MARCH 27, 2014

Roundup Contamination of GMO Soybeans

How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm

by THOMAS BOHN and MAREK CUHRA  Thanks to CounterPunch

Food and feed quality are crucial to human and animal health. Quality can be defined as sufficiency of appropriate minerals, vitamins and fats, etc. but it also includes the absence of toxins, whether man-made or from other sources. Surprisingly, almost no data exist in the scientific literature on herbicide residues in herbicide tolerant genetically modified (GM) plants, even after nearly 20 years on the market.

In research recently published by our laboratory (Bøhn et al. 2014) we collected soybean samples grown under three typical agricultural conditions: organic, GM, and conventional (but non-GM). The GM soybeans were resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

We tested these samples for nutrients and other compounds as well as relevant pesticides, including glyphosate and its principal breakdown product, Aminomethylphosponic acid (AMPA). All of the individual samples of GM-soy contained residues of both glyphosate and AMPA, on average 9.0 mg/kg. This amount is greater than is typical for many vitamins. In contrast, no sample from the conventional or the organic soybeans showed residues of these chemicals (Fig. 1).

This demonstrates that Roundup Ready GM-soybeans sprayed during the growing season take up and accumulate glyphosate and AMPA. Further, what has been considered a working hypothesis for herbicide tolerant crops, i.e. that, as resistant weeds have spread:

“there is a theoretical possibility that also the level of residues of the herbicide and its metabolites may have increased” (Kleter et al. 2011) is now shown to be actually happening.

Monsanto (manufacturer of glyphosate) has claimed that residues of glyphosate in GM soy are lower than in conventional soybeans, where glyphosate residues have been measured up to 16-17 mg/kg (Monsanto 1999). These residues, found in non-GM plants, likely must have been due to the practice of spraying before harvest (for desiccation). Another claim of Monsanto’s has been that residue levels of up to 5.6 mg/kg in GM-soy represent  “…extreme levels, and far higher than those typically found” (Monsanto 1999).

bohnfig1 FIGURE 1. RESIDUES OF GLYPHOSATE AND AMPA IN INDIVIDUAL SOYBEAN SAMPLES (N=31). FOR ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL SOYBEANS, GLYPHOSATE RESIDUES WERE BELOW THE DETECTION LIMIT.

Seven out of the 10 GM-soy samples we tested, however, surpassed this “extreme level” (of glyphosate + AMPA), indicating a trend towards higher residue levels. The increasing use of glyphosate on US Roundup Ready soybeans has been documented (Benbrook 2012). The explanation for this increase is the appearance of glyphosate-tolerant weeds (Shaner et al. 2012) to which farmers are responding with increased doses and more applications.

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of glyphosate in food and feed

Globally, glyphosate-tolerant GM soy is the number one GM crop plant and glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, with a global production of 620 000 tons in 2008 (Pollak 2011). The world soybean production in 2011 was 251.5 million metric tons, with the United States (33%), Brazil (29%), Argentina (19%), China (5%) and India (4%) as the main producing countries (American Soybean Association 2013).

In 2011-2012, soybeans were planted on about 30 million hectares in the USA, with Roundup Ready GM soy contributing 93-94 % of the production (USDA 2013). Globally, Roundup Ready GM soybeans contributed to 75 % of the production in 2011 (James 2012).

The legally acceptable level of glyphosate contamination in food and feed, i.e. the maximum residue level (MRL) has been increased by authorities in countries where Roundup-Ready GM crops are produced, or where such commodities are imported. In Brazil, the MRL in soybean was increased from 0.2 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg in 2004: a 50-fold increase, but only for GM-soy. The MRL for glyphosate in soybeans has been increased also in the US and Europe. In Europe, it was raised from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg (a 200-fold increase) in 1999, and the same MRL of 20 mg/kg was adopted by the US. In all of these cases, MRL values appear to have been adjusted, not based on new scientific evidence, but pragmatically in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans.

Has the toxicity of Roundup been greatly underestimated?

When regulatory agencies assess pesticides for safety they invariably test only the claimed active ingredient.

Nevertheless, these do not necessarily represent realistic conditions since in practice it is the full, formulated herbicide (there are many Roundup formulations) that is used in the field. Thus, it is relevant to consider, not only the active ingredient, in this case glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA, but also the other compounds present in the herbicide formulation since these enhance toxicity. For example, formulations of glyphosate commonly contain adjuvants and surfactants to stabilize and facilitate penetration into the plant tissue. Polyoxyethylene amine (POEA) and polyethoxylated tallowamine (POE-15) are common ingredients in Roundup formulations and have been shown to contribute significantly to toxicity (Moore et al. 2012).

Our own recent study in the model organism Daphnia magnademonstrated that chronic exposure to glyphosate and a commercial formulation of Roundup resulted in negative effects on several life-history traits, in particular reproductive aberrations like reduced fecundity and increased abortion rate, at environmental concentrations of 0.45-1.35 mg/liter (active ingredient), i.e. below accepted environmental tolerance limits set in the US (0.7 mg/liter) (Cuhra et al. 2013). A reduced body size of juveniles was even observed at an exposure to Roundup at 0.05 mg/liter.

This is in sharp contrast to world-wide regulatory assumptions in general, which we have found to be strongly influenced by early industry studies and in the case of aquatic ecotoxicity assessment, to be based on 1978 and 1981 studies presented by Monsanto claiming that glyphosate is virtually non-toxic in D. magna (McAllister & Forbis, 1978; Forbis & Boudreau, 1981).

Thus a worrisome outlook for health and the environment can be found in the combination of i) the vast increase in use of glyphosate-based herbicides, in particular due to glyphosate-tolerant GM plants, and ii) new findings of higher toxicity of both glyphosate as an active ingredient (Cuhra et al., 2013) and increased toxicity due to contributions from chemical adjuvants in commercial formulations (Annett et al. 2014).

A similar situation can be found for other pesticides. Mesnage et al. (2014) found that 8 out of 9 tested pesticides were more toxic than their declared active principles.

This means that the Accepted Daily Intake (ADI) for humans, i.e. what society finds “admissible” regarding pesticide residues may have been set too high, even before potential combinatorial effects of different chemical exposures are taken into account.

For glyphosate formulations (Roundup), realistic exposure scenarios in the aquatic environment may harm non-target biodiversity from microorganisms, invertebrates, amphibians and fish, (reviewed in Annett et al. 2014) indicating that the environmental consequences of these agrochemicals need to be re-assessed.

Other compositional differences between GM, non-GM, and organic

Our research also demonstrated that different agricultural practices lead to markedly different end products. Data on other measured compositional characteristics could be used to discriminate statistically all individual soy samples (without exception) into their respective agricultural practice background (Fig. 2).

 

bohn2

FIGURE 2. DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FOR GM, CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC SOY SAMPLES BASED ON 35 VARIABLES. DATA WAS STANDARDIZED (MEAN = 0 AND SD = 1).

Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fiber, compared with both conventional and GM-soy. Organic soybeans contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soy.

Conclusion

Roundup Ready GM-soy accumulates residues of glyphosate and AMPA, and also differs markedly in nutritional composition compared to soybeans from other agricultural practices. Organic soybean samples also showed a more healthy nutritional profile (e.g. higher in protein and lower in saturated fatty acids) than both industrial conventional and GM soybeans.

Lack of data on pesticide residues in major crop plants is a serious gap of knowledge with potential consequences for human and animal health. How is the public to trust a risk assessment system that has overlooked the most obvious risk factor for herbicide tolerant GM crops, i.e. high residue levels of herbicides, for nearly 20 years? If it has been due to lack of understanding, it would be bad. If it is, the result of the producer’s power to influence the risk assessment system, it would be worse.

Thomas Bøhn
 is a Professor of Gene Ecology,  at the Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway, 
 Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway

Marek Cuhra is a Phd student at the Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway
, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

References


American Soy Association, Soystats.  2013. 16-5-2013.
Annett, R., Habibi, H. R. and Hontela, A. 2014. Impact of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides on the freshwater environment. – Journal of Applied Toxicology DOI 10.1002/jat.2997.

Aumaitre, L. A. 2002. New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence and safety for animals and animal products. – Productions Animales 15: 97-108.

Benbrook, C. M. 2012. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years. – Environmental Science Europe 24:24.

Binimelis, R., Pengue, W. and Monterroso, I. 2009. “Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentina. – Geoforum 40: 623-633.

Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J. and Primicerio, R. 2014. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. – Food Chemistry 153: 207-215.

Cuhra, M., Traavik, T. and Bøhn, T. 2013. Clone- and age-dependent toxicity of a glyphosate commercial formulation and its active ingredient in Daphnia magna. – Ecotoxicology 22: 251-262 (open access). DOI 10.1007/s10646-012-1021-1.

Duke, S. O., Rimando, A. M., Pace, P. F., Reddy, K. N. and Smeda, R. J. 2003. Isoflavone, glyphosate, and aminomethylphosphonic acid levels in seeds of glyphosate-treated, glyphosate-resistant soybean. – Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 340-344.
EC . Review report for the active substance glyphosate. 6511/VI/99-final, 1-56. 2002.  European Commission. Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General.

Forbis, A.D., Boudreau, P. 1981. Acute toxicity of MON0139 (Lot LURT 12011)(AB-81-074) To Daphnia magna: Static acute bio- assay report no. 27203. Unpublished study document from US EPA library

Harrigan, G. G., Ridley, G., Riordan, S. G., Nemeth, M. A., Sorbet, R., Trujillo, W. A., Breeze, M. L. and Schneider, R. W. 2007. Chemical composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean 40–3-2 grown in Europe remains equivalent with that of conventional soybean (Glycine max L.). – Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55: 6160-6168.

James, C.  Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012. ISAAA Brief No. 44. 2012.  ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

Kleter, G. A., Unsworth, J. B. and Harris, C. A. 2011. The impact of altered herbicide residues in transgenic herbicide-resistant crops on standard setting for herbicide residues. – Pest Management Science 67: 1193-1210.

McAllister, W., Forbis A. 1978. Acute toxicity of technical glyphosate (AB–78–201) to Daphnia magna. Study reviewed and approved 8–30–85 by EEB/HED

Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Vendômois, J. S. and Seralini, G. E. 2014. Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their declared active principles. – BioMed Research Internationalhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/179691.

Monsanto . Residues in Roundup Ready soya lower than conventional soy.http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/99/june99/220699_residue.html . 1999.

Moore, L. J., Fuentes, L., Rodgers, J. H., Bowerman, W. W., Yarrow, G. K., Chao, W. Y. and Bridges, W. C. 2012. Relative toxicity of the components of the original formulation of Roundup (R) to five North American anurans. – Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 78: 128-133.
Pollak, P. 2011. Fine chemicals: the industry and the business. – Wiley.

Shaner, D. L., Lindenmeyer, R. B. and Ostlie, M. H. 2012. What have the mechanisms of resistance to glyphosate taught us? – Pest Management Science 68: 3-9.
USDA . National Agricultural Statistics Service.  2013. 16-5-2013.

This article was originally published by Independent Science News.

Hepatitis B Vaccine

Hepatitis B Vaccine: Refuse This Routine Procedure – Or Expose Your Baby’s Brain to Severe Danger…

November 03, 2010 | Thanks to Mercola.com

Hepatitis B vaccination has been recommended by federal health officials since 1991 for all infants and children.

There are now hepatitis B vaccine mandates for children to attend daycare or school in 47 states, despite strong evidence that the health risks of doing this outweighs the benefits for your child.

Three hepatitis B shots are part of the standard government-recommended childhood vaccination schedule,1 with the first dose given at 12 hours of age in the newborn nursery of most hospitals.

But hepatitis B is a primarily blood-transmitted disease associated with risky lifestyle choices, such as unprotected sex with multiple partners and intravenous drug use involving sharing needles—it is NOT primarily a “children’s disease.”

As Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) so eloquently testified to Congress:

“With hepatitis B vaccine, the case for mandatory immunization with few exemptions is far less persuasive than with smallpox or polio vaccines, which protected against highly lethal or disabling, relatively common, and easily transmissible diseases…

“For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.”

There are more reports of serious adverse reactions in children than there are cases of childhood hepatitis B reported in America and, despite what you may hear in the media, reactions can be serious.

Just this month, China Daily reported 44 children became sick 2 and were taken to the hospital after receiving injections from a “bad batch” of hepatitis B vaccine. After examining the side effects of this vaccine, you might wonder if every batch is a “bad batch.”

In 2008, French authorities launched a criminal investigation of two vaccine company managers (from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur) for failing to disclose dangerous side effects of their hepatitis B vaccines.

When babies die after hep B vaccinations, most of the time their deaths are automatically attributed to SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) without investigation into whether the vaccine caused the baby’s sudden death.

When a baby’s death is listed as “SIDS,” rarely does anyone ask about the deceased infant’s vaccination history to find out whether there were symptoms of vaccine reactions before death.

Hepatitis B vaccine as a contributing cause of “sudden infant death” cannot be automatically ruled out if a baby dies suddenly after getting a hepatitis B shot, especially if there were symptoms of a potential vaccine reaction before death such as:

  • High-pitched screaming or prolonged crying for many hours or days
  • Collapse/shock (pale skin, blue lips, unresponsiveness)
  • Excessive sleepiness (failure to feed, baby cannot be easily awakened)
  • Fever, diarrhea, or vomiting
  • Hives, rashes, or swelling of the body
  • Convulsions (jerking of fingers, hands, arms, legs)
  • Other serious change in mental, emotional, or physical behavior

Is Your Baby Really at Risk for Hepatitis B?

There are two primary circumstances in which your baby would be at significant risk for contracting hepatitis B and both are quite rare in the U.S.:

  1. If you are pregnant and are a carrier for the hepatitis B virus, your baby could be at risk for being infected during childbirth. However, you can easily find out if you are hepatitis B positive by getting tested while pregnant.
  2. Your infant could be at risk for hepatitis B infection by receiving a blood transfusion using hepatitis B infected blood. In America, all blood products are required to receive proper screening3 for hepatitis B virus and other pathogens prior to use. There is no way to achieve 100 percent safety with blood transfusions, however.

Universal hepatitis B vaccination might be a good idea IF the vaccines gave lifelong immunity and were very safe but they are not.

Hepatitis B Infection, in a Nutshell

Hepatitis B is a viral infection that affects your liver, and spreads through direct contact with the body fluids (particularly blood and semen) of an infected person.

The symptoms are similar to the flu—weakness, muscle and joint pain, loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting, low grade fever, diarrhea, and in some cases, a swollen liver and jaundice (yellowing of your skin and eyes).

In many cases, carriers of the hepatitis B virus exhibit few or no symptoms. Most infected people don’t require hospital care and the majority recover without complications and are left with natural, lifelong immunity.

If the infection becomes chronic, however, it can be very serious. Twenty percent of chronic cases eventually progress to liver damage, and potentially even cancer, resulting in about 4,500 deaths annually in the United States.

There is some debate about the prevalence of hepatitis B in American adults.

As of 2005, there were 5,119 cases of hepatitis B reported in the U.S. However, U.S. authorities estimate more than one million Americans have chronic hepatitis B infections.

Other authorities say true carriers of the virus represent less than one tenth of 1 percent of the population in North American, Europe, and Australia, which amounts to about 300,000 people in the U.S.

So the range seems to be somewhere between 300,000 people and 1.25 million people in the U.S. who are carriers of the hepatitis B virus.

Adverse Reactions to Vaccines Far Outnumber Hepatitis B Infections

According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),4 operated jointly by the CDC and FDA, there were 36,788 officially reported adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccines between 1992 and 2005. Of these, 14,800 were serious enough to cause hospitalization, life-threatening health events or permanent disabilities.

And 781 people were reported to have DIED following hepatitis B vaccination.

Vaccine adverse events are substantially underreported—some estimate by as much as 90 percent—even though the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19865 mandated that all doctors and other vaccine providers report serious health problems, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination. The 1986 Act did not include sanctions for failing to report to VAERS and so most vaccine providers do not file a report. Many vaccine reactions are not even recognized by medical personnel as vaccine-related.

Historically, hepatitis B very rarely has infected children in America. In the U.S., less than 1 percent of all reported hepatitis B cases are in children under age 15.

Before the hepatitis B vaccine was mandated in the U.S., how many cases of hepatitis B were reported in children compared to the number of reported health problems following hepatitis B vaccination?

To answer that, let’s look at the figures for 1996 included in a special report6 and press release published in 19997 by the National Vaccine Information Center:

  • In 1996, 872 vaccine adverse events were reported in children under the age of 14 who had just received the hepatitis B vaccine, or a combination vaccine with hep B as one component
  • 48 children died following hepatitis B vaccination
  • In 1996, only 279 total cases of hepatitis B were reported in children under the age of 14 during that entire year

Are public health policies directing children to get three doses of hepatitis B vaccine creating more health problems than they are preventing?

List of Medical Conditions Now Linked with Hepatitis B Vaccines Is Disturbingly Long

What sorts of reactions have people had to the hepatitis B vaccine?

Common reactions include the following symptoms: fatigue, muscle weakness, fever, headache, irritability, and joint pain. But there have been reports of disabling neurological and immunological disorders that have developed following hepatitis B vaccinations as well.

You can find many of these tragic cases presented in peer reviewed medical journals over the past twenty years. (For scientific references, go to this page.)

The array of serious health problems people have reported experiencing after hep B vaccinations is quite shocking:

  • Multiple sclerosis (MS)
  • Guillain-Barre syndrome
  • Bell’s Palsy
  • Diabetes
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Lupus
  • Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia purpura
  • Convulsions, and brain disorders such as encephalitis (brain swelling) and brain demyelination8
  • Immune dysfunction
  • Visual and hearing impairments, including optic neuritis
  • Pancreatitis

According to a study in the United Kingdom, hepatitis B vaccines may increase risks for developing multiple sclerosis (MS) by a factor of three. Researchers discovered that people showed a three-fold increase in the incidence of MS within three years of being vaccinated. They weren’t able to determine if the vaccine triggers the disease in those already susceptible, or if it speeds up the onset.

In addition to MS, studies also reveal a link between hepatitis B vaccines and the development of type 1 diabetes (insulin-dependent). In New Zealandthe incidence of type 1 diabetes rose 60 percent9 among children following a mass hepatitis B immunization campaign.

J. Barthelow Classen, MD, a researcher investigating vaccination and diabtes, estimates10 that the U.S. has 10,000 new cases of diabetes each year, costing $1 million in lost productivity and medical expenses, as a direct result of hepatitis B vaccination.

According to Burton A. Waisbren, MD, a cell biologist and infectious disease specialist, “Some babies who have little or no chance of getting hepatitis B will suffer unnecessary damage to their nervous system” after getting hepatitis B shots.

A study published September 2009 in Annals of Epidemiology found that giving hepatitis B vaccine to infant boys more than tripled their risk for an autism spectrum disorder. This was doubly concerning because an earlier study by the same researcher group, using a different database, found the same results.

Yet another study, this one published in the journal Neurology in 2009,11 revealed that children who received a particular hepatitis B vaccine were more likely to develop “central nervous system inflammatory demyelination” than children who did not receive the vaccine.

Given all of these serious risks, why did public health officials recommend that every infant be vaccinated against hepatitis B in the first place?

And why did state legislators pass laws requiring the vaccine’s use by children?

Your Baby Is an Easy Target!

If infants and children rarely acquire hepatitis B, then why must they be vaccinated at birth?

The rationale for this national vaccine policy is fundamentally flawed.

The policy was, in part, based on the fact that adults, who are at high-risk for being infected with hepatitis B (namely, mostly those who are IV drug users or are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners or prostitutes) are difficult to reach and do not get vaccinated. Infants and children are a much easier population to control, and easier to access.

The thinking was that hepatitis B could be prevented in the U.S. with mass use of hep B vaccine by all infants and children so they would be protected from birth and early childhood. However, a policy that attempts to prevent an infectious disease in adolescents and adults by vaccinating infants and young children assumes the vaccine provides long lasting protection.

Science has proven this is simply not the case for hepatitis B vaccine.

Of course, like a runaway train—or should I say, runaway GRAVY train—the hep B vaccine quickly became a huge moneymaker for vaccine manufacturers assured of a stable, predictable market. Hepatitis B vaccine mandates for children in almost every state has kept that market profitable ever since.

But does the hepatitis B vaccine even work the way it’s supposed to?

Hepatitis B Immunity Fades After Just a Few Years

Hepatitis B vaccine requires three doses for “seroprotection” (vaccine-induced antibodies measured in the blood). However, all vaccines only confer temporary, partial immunity and the length of time you are protected from hepatitis B after receiving the vaccine series has gotten shorter and shorter as studies have revealed antibody levels decline much more rapidly than vaccine developers and policymakers expected.

Consider these findings:

  • In a study involving dental healthcare workers published in the New England Journal of Medicine,12 it was demonstrated that within just 5 years after vaccination, antibody levels had sharply declined or no longer existed in 42 percent of hepatitis B vaccine recipients.
  • A study in the American Journal of Public Health reported a significant antibody loss in 36 percent of healthcare personnel after just 3 years.
  • Still other studies have found more than 60 percent of vaccine recipients are no longer protected from hepatitis B after 5 years, and one found that HALF of vaccinated people were not protected after 4 years!

So, if seroprotection is gone in less than 5 years, your baby is being subjected to ALL of the risks of the hepatitis B vaccine with NONE of the promised benefit.

Antibodies will have disappeared long before your child is old enough to potentially make lifestyle choices that could place them at higher risk for hepatitis B infection.

Your Baby Does NOT Respond Like You to Vaccination

Neonates are hit with their first hepatitis B injection within 12 hours of birth. Even premature infants are hit with hep B vaccine while in Neonatal Intensive Care Nurseries!

What does this do to your infant’s immature, developing brain and immune system?

Russell L. Blaylock, MD, board-certified neurosurgeon and vaccine expert, has written an extensive article about the danger of excessive vaccination during brain development.

He explains that your baby’s immune system is very complex, and at birth is incompletely formed. Studies in both humans and animals have shown that immune reactions to vaccinations differ depending on age—so, your baby will have a very different reaction to a vaccine than you will.

This has been shown to be true for hepatitis B vaccine.

How Vaccines Damage Your Infant’s Developing Brain and Immune System

A 2004 study13 looked at the immune reaction in newborns up to the age of one year who had received the hep B vaccine to see if their immune reaction differed from adults getting the same vaccine. What they found was that infants, even after age one year, did react differently. Their antibody levels were substantially higher than adults (3-fold higher), and it remained higher throughout the study.

In essence, they found that babies responded to the vaccine by having an intense, persistent and completely abnormal immune response.

To simplify this very complicated topic, this abnormal immune response to hepatitis B vaccination could ultimately result in your child developing permanent brain and immune system dysfunction.

According to Blaylock:

“The human being has an unusual brain development in that there is a prolonged period of maturation and neuroanatomical pathway development occurring years after birth.

The most rapid brain development occurs during the last trimester of intrauterine life and two years after birth – what is referred to as the brain growth spurt. It is the areas regulating higher brain functions, such as emotions, emotional control, thinking, complex memory and language function that is last to develop.

What this means is, during the first two years of life, your child’s brain is undergoing rapid and very critical development, and the more advanced cognitive portions of the brain continue their development even later – much later.”

Add to this the potentially damaging effects of hepatitis B vaccine ingredients, including aluminum adjuvant, yeast protein, formaldehyde, and other chemicals, and you have a noxious cocktail that could have permanent negative effects on your child’s health and development.

A syndrome that has recently been linked with hepatitis B and tetanus vaccines is called “macrophagic myofasciitis”—a reaction to the aluminum adjuvant in vaccines. Victims of this syndrome suffer severe muscle and joint pain and weakness.

It is known that aluminum accumulates in your brain and results in neurodegeneration, leading to diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. But aluminum also activates microglia, which can result in brain inflammation.

According to Blaylock, these neurologically damaging processes may also be contributing heavily to today’s exploding autism rates.

Government’s ‘Shoot First, Ask Questions Later’ Approach

Before we began giving hepatitis B shots to infants within their first 12 hours of life, the U.S. had one of the lowest hepatitis B infection rates in the world (unlike in Asia and Africa). Less than one half of one percent of all mothers giving birth were hepatitis B positive.

Current U.S. policy mandating that infants and children receive hepatitis B vaccine is based on an exaggerated perception of the prevalence of hepatitis B both before and after the vaccine was recommended for all children in 1991.

The pre-licensure “safety studies” for hepatitis B vaccine were woefully inadequate, consisting of only a few thousand babies, born to infected women, who were given the vaccine and monitored for less than a week.

The “long-term” vaccine studies in America,” boil down to a national, uncontrolled experiment being conducted on innocent babies, who are getting bombarded with one vaccine after another throughout childhood, starting with a hepatitis B shot at birth.

It certainly isn’t the first time American children and adults have been used by doctors and scientists as guinea pigs!

So what’s the bottom line when it comes to hepatitis B vaccination?

Your newborn infant is being deliberately exposed to life-threatening health risks from a vaccine to theoretically prevent infection with a virus that he or she has almost ZERO percent chance of being exposed to in childhood!

This is bad policy based on bad science, and it’s time to make some changes before damage to the health of future generations is beyond repair.

What You Can Do

All of this information is meaningless unless you can take some sort of action that will move you, your family and your community toward better health. So, here is a list of what you, as a consumer, can do:

  1. Educate yourself, your family, and your community by circulating this newsletter among your friends, neighbors, doctors, lawyers, teachers, school principals, nurses, local newspapers, and TV and radio stations. Send a copy of this newsletter with a personal note to your elected representatives.
  2. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) provides information for consumers about vaccines and diseases and works to protect vaccine choices. Register today for the NVIC Advocacy Portal, an online interactive database and communication system that will help YOU protect vaccine exemptions in YOUR state.
  3. Report vaccine reactions to the federal government (VAERS) and to the NVIC Vaccine Reaction Registry by visiting theNVIC website. This reporting is EXTREMELY important and necessary if we are to accelerate change.
  4. If you are pregnant, get tested for hepatitis B disease. If you are infected, your baby is a candidate for vaccination, and you should explore all sides of the issue with your physician.
  5. Stand up for your informed consent rights. If you are opposed to the hepatitis B vaccine for your baby at birth, you can amend the “consent for medical treatment” forms you sign upon entering the hospital before giving birth by writing on the form that you do not give consent for your baby’s hepatitis B vaccination in the newborn nursery.
  6. Vaccine exemptions: Although hepatitis B vaccines may be “mandated” for your child to attend school, each state offers different legal exemptions (medical, religious, and philosophical). Research your state’s specific vaccine requirements14and find out what kind of exemption to vaccination you are allowed to exercise in your state.

My Appeal to You

Don’t sit this one out! We need to take action NOW.

NVIC Advocacy PosterTell your friends and your family. Tell everyone. With a little bit of effort, we can make big strides toward preserving our freedom to make voluntary health decisions affecting our future, especially our children’s future.

One of the top goals for NVIC is preserving your freedom of choice about when to use vaccines. This non-profit charity has been fighting for your right to make informed VOLUNTARY vaccine choices since 1982.

Mercola.com and NVIC dedicated Nov. 1-7, 2010 Vaccine Awareness Week in a joint effort to raise public awareness about important vaccine issues. Vaccine Awareness Week featured a series of articles and interviews on vaccine topics of interest to Mercola.com newsletter subscribers and NVIC Vaccine E-newsletter readers.

During the Vaccine Awareness Week, NVIC launched the online NVIC Advocacy Portal that will give you the tools you need to take action to protect legal medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination in YOUR state.

Your Donations to the NVIC help fund efforts that raise vaccine awareness, including the following excellent vaccine resources:

For information about legally avoiding immunizations in Canada, please see the Canadian Vaccination Liberation website
www.vaclib.org.

Stay tuned to this newsletter for more updates, or follow the National Vaccine Information Center on Facebook. Together we CAN make a difference!

***

Hepatitis B Disease and Vaccine Facts – Thanks to National Vaccine Information Center

  • People at high risk for getting hepatitis B disease (which is transmitted by coming into direct contact with an infected person’s body fluids) are IV drug users, prostitutes, prisoners, sexually promiscuous persons and babies born to infected mothers. (1)
  • 90-95% of all hepatitis B cases recover completely after 3 to 4 weeks of nausea, fatigue, headache, arthritis, jaundice and tender liver. (2)
  • Up to 17 percent of all hepatitis B vaccinations are followed by reports of fatigue and weakness, headache, arthritis and fever of more than 100 F.. (3) The vaccine can cause death, according to a 1994 Institute of Medicine report. (4)
  • According to Merck and Company: “The duration of the protective effect of [the vaccine] in healthy vacinees is unknown at present and the need for booster doses is not yet defined.”
  • In 1996, there were 10,637 cases of hepatitis B reported in the U.S. and the CDC stated that “Hepatitis B continues to decline in most states, primarily because of a decrease in the number of cases among injecting drug users and, to a lesser extent, among both homosexual and heterosexuals of both sexes.”(5)
  • In 1996, 279 cases of hepatitis B disease were reported to have occurred in the U.S. in children under 14 years old. (5)
  • An historic report in 1994 published by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, reviewed the medical literature for evidence that vaccines, including hepatitis B vaccine, can cause a variety of immune and neurological health problems. An independent committee of physician experts concluded that there were no case controlled observational studies or controlled clinical trials conducted on hepatitis B vaccine either before or after licensure to scientifically evaluate persistent reports that hepatitis B vaccine can cause sudden infant death syndrome; Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and other central demyelinating diseases including transverse myelitis, optic neuritis, and multiple sclerosis; and immune system dysfunction including chronic arthritis.

The IOM report concluded: “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee…the committee encountered many gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines. These include inadequate understanding of the biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events following natural infection or immunization, insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series, inadequate size or length of follow-up of many population-based epidemiologic studies….” (5)

  • There are more than 200 vaccines being created by federal health agencies and drug companies, including Hepatitis C, D and E; Herpes simplex types 1 and 2; gonorrhea; rotavirus (diarrhea); Group A and B streptococcus; meningitis A, B and C; and HIV for AIDS. (6)

(1) CDC Prevention Guidelines: A Guide to Action (1997); (2) Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (1994); (3) Merck & Co. Hepatitis B Vaccine product insert (1993); (4) Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines (1994; (5) Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines (1994); (6) The Jordan Report (DHHS-1995).

***

Mindless Vaccination Bureaucracy

Thanks to National Vaccine Information Center

By Michael Belkin

My daughter Lyla Rose Belkin died on September 16, 1998 at the age of five weeks, shortly after receiving a Hepatitis B vaccine booster shot. The following comments are intended to be a heads up to parents and potential parents about the risks of the Hepatitis B vaccine (HBV), and a firsthand report questioning the scientific legitimacy of the vaccine industry, which provides $800 million of annual revenue to Merck – the company which makes the Hepatitis B vaccine distributed in the US.

Lyla Rose Belkin was a lively, alert five-week-old baby when I last held her in my arms. Little did I imagine as she gazed intently into my eyes with all the innocence and wonder of a newborn child that she would die that night. She was never ill before receiving the Hepatitis B shot that afternoon. At her final feeding that night, she was agitated and feisty — and then fell asleep and didn’t wake up.

The autopsy ruled out choking. A swollen brain was the only abnormal finding. Most doctors I spoke to at the time said it must have been Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), a catch-all diagnosis for unexplainable childhood mortality.

The first instinctive reaction in such a situation is for parents to blame themselves. For many weeks, my wife and I agonized over what we might have missed or could have done differently. Meanwhile, the logical part of my brain kept returning to the obvious medical event that preceded Lyla’s death — and that internal voice kept asking the question could the Hepatitis B Vaccine that Lyla received that afternoon have killed her?

Most doctors I asked scoffed at that notion and said the vaccine was perfectly safe. But I began to search around on the Internet and Medline and discovered disturbing evidence of adverse reactions to this vaccine.

In the US, the Hepatitis B disease mainly infects intravenous drug users, homosexuals, prostitutes and promiscuous heterosexuals. The disease is transmitted by blood, through sex or dirty needles. How could a newborn baby possibly get Hepatitis B if the mother was screened and tested negative, as my wife was? It is almost impossible. Unless a newborn child is having unprotected sex or sharing needles with an infected junkie, it is extremely unlikely to get the Hepatitis B disease.

So then why are most US babies inoculated at birth by their Hospital or Pediatrician with the Hepatitis B vaccine? That is a question every parent should ask before getting this vaccination. I’ve discovered the answer is — an unrestrained health bureaucracy decided it couldn’t get junkies, gays, prostitutes and promiscuous heterosexuals to take the Hepatitis B vaccine — so they mandated that all babies must be vaccinated at birth. Drug companies such as Merck (reaching for new markets) were instrumental in pushing government scientists to adopt an at-birth Hepatitis B vaccination policy, although the vaccine was never tested in newborns and no vaccines had ever been mandated at birth before. It is widely recognized that newborns have under-developed immune systems, which can be overwhelmed or shocked.

My search for answers about a link between the Hepatitis B vaccine and my daughter’s death led me to a Hepatitis B vaccine workshop on October 26th at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Institute of Medicine entitled Vaccine Safety Forum — Neonatal Deaths. The NAS was concerned enough about reports of Hepatitis B vaccine-related infant deaths and adverse reactions to hold a special workshop on the subject. Doctors and scientists flew in from all over the US and Europe to attend. I sat in the back and soaked it all up. It was a real eye-opener. There were basically four constituencies represented: 1) Serious scientists observing or presenting research studies. 2) Center for Disease Control (CDC) pseudo-statisticians and FDA officials. 3) Merck and other corporate drug officials and 4) Parents of vaccine-related dead or severely injured children.

The presentations included a study of Animal Models of Newborn Response to Antigen Presentation, which showed that newborn immune systems were undeveloped and strikingly different than those of adults. The message I received was that immune response in a newborn to shocks such as being injected with a vaccine was potentially unknown, since newborn T-Cells have a radically different behavior then those of adults. Another presentation was Strategies for Evaluating the Biologic Mechanisms of Hepatitis B Vaccine Reactions, in which vaccine researcher Dr. Bonnie Dunbar of Baylor College related numerous Hepatitis B vaccine related cases of nervous system damage in adults, such as Multiple Sclerosis, seizures and blindness. On the more positive side, the FDA presented a seemingly reassuring study from its Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS), which showed only 19 neonatal deaths reported since 1991 related to Hepatitis B vaccination.

I found the VAERS study data to be completely deceptive. Since I was sitting in that room and my daughter had died during their sample period and wasn’t counted — I wondered why. In fact, the New York City Coroner called VAERS to report my daughter’s Hepatitis B vaccine related infant death and no one ever returned their call! What kind of reporting system doesn’t return the calls of the NY City Medical Examiner — and how many other reports were ignored? This is supposed to be the emergency 911 number for disasters such as bad lots of vaccine that could poison thousands of other babies. With the personal knowledge that the VAERS data was completely flawed, I sat in that room and listened in amazement as CDC officials and Merck’s head of vaccine safety made disparaging comments about any possible risk from Hepatitis B vaccination, despite the evidence just presented by impartial scientists.

I studied statistics and econometrics at UC Berkeley and have developed innovative methods of applying probability to financial and economic data in my consulting business with some of the largest financial institutions in the world. That training and experience qualifies me to criticize the statistical legitimacy of the VAERS study, on which Merck and the CDC pseudo-scientists based their pro-vaccination stance. Their comments were scathingly dismissive of any possible risk from the vaccine.

But that VAERS study is not a legitimate sample of a data set from which any conclusions about the larger population can be made. VAERS doesn’t return coroner’s calls, leading to the suspicion that deaths and adverse effects from vaccination are woefully under-reported. To conclude that the Hepatitis B vaccine is safe because VAERS only reports 19 deaths is scientific fraud.

In fact, I obtained the raw data from the VAERS system and found 54 reported SIDS cases after Hepatitis B vaccination in just the 18 months from January 1996 — May 1997. That’s almost 15 times as many deaths per year as their own flawed study reported. There are 17,000 reports of adverse reactions to Hepatitis B vaccine in the 1996-97 raw data. Clearly something is fishy about VAERS.

VAERS was set up by the FDA and CDC. If there are 17,000 reports and VAERS doesn’t even return the NY Medical Examiner’s call, how many other deaths and injuries go unreported?

I came away from that NAS workshop with the distinct impression that Merck and the CDC didn’t know and didn’t really want to know how many babies are being killed or injured by Hepatitis B vaccination. This is a bureaucratic vaccination program that is on auto-pilot flying into a mountain.

The CDC bureaucrats have a vested interest in the status quo. If there were 17,000 reports of a dangerous disease in an 18-month period, the CDC would be all over the case. But when there are 17,000 reports of adverse reactions to a vaccine the CDC advocates for “public health” — the CDC dismisses it as a coincidence. Merck makes $50 a shot from the three-shot series and has sales of upwards of $800 million a year from vaccines.

Vaccination can be a lifesaver if an epidemic is raging, but in this case the risk of vaccination outweighs the risk of infants getting the disease. Surely, the hepatitis B vaccine doesn’t injure every child that gets it, but in some unknown number of cases, it appears to be a death sentence and/or a nervous system toxin to innocent children who are at no risk of getting the disease the vaccine is supposed to protect against.

My observations of Merck and CDC scientists at the Vaccine Safety Forum left me with the distinct impression that they had absolutely no idea which babies might be killed or injured by this vaccine. Furthermore, they used obviously flawed scientific data to arrogantly steamroller any opposition to their power.

Parents should be aware that the Hepatitis B vaccine is not administered for the well being of their child. Rather, it is delivered by the long arm of some incompetent and mindless bureaucracy in the name of stamping out a disease most babies can’t possibly get.

The Drug Company/CDC/FDA alliance has really pulled the wool over the medical profession’s eyes with the Hepatitis B vaccine. The American Academy of Pediatrics bought the alliance’s sales pitch and now recommends that all infants get this vaccine at birth. So now the first thing most babies get in life is a shock to their immune system from a vaccine against a non-existent risk of contracting Hepatitis B.

Clearly, the interests of newborn babies were not represented on the CDC panel that created this vaccination policy in 1991. This vaccine has no benefit whatsoever for healthy newborns born to healthy mothers, in fact it wears off and they will need booster shots later in life when they actually could get exposed to the disease. This is simply a case of ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy teaming up to overwhelm common sense

Nothing will ever bring my lovely daughter Lyla back, but other needless deaths and injuries can be prevented if this senseless Hepatitis B newborn vaccination program is halted. Please contact Belkin Limited in New York City if you are aware of other infant deaths that may be related to the Hepatitis B vaccine.

***

From vaccines.procon.org

Aluminum – Fluoridation and Vaccine Connection

First Case Study to Show Direct Link Between Alzheimer’s and Aluminum Toxicity

March 22, 2014 | Thanks to Mercola.com
From James: Vaccines generally contain aluminum, which is there as an adjuvant. An adjuvant boosts or “riles up” the immune system, creating a stronger reaction to the antigen. Aluminum is added to drinking water in treatment plants in the form of alum, where it serves as a flocculant.   A flocculant causes dirt to clump so it can be filtered out. The problem arises when the aluminum remaining in the water meets fluoride ion and bonds with it, forming aluminum fluoride. AlF is a neutral molecule and as such can penetrate the fatty lipid layer of the stomach and the walls of blood vessels. AlF can thus pass from stomach to blood vessels and into the brain. Aluminum itself may not be the major cause of Alzheimers, however, aluminum is always present in the brains of people with Alzheimers. So there is both a vaccine and a fluoridation link with aluminum and the problems it can cause. Aluminum, like fluorine and fluoride, has no use in any human biological process. Neither belongs in the body, and that should server as a warning to us to avoid both.
From Dr. Mercola:

By Dr. Mercola

Aluminum has been long known to be neurotoxic, with mounting evidence that chronic exposure is a factor in many neurological diseases, including dementia, autism, and Parkinson’s disease.

However, definitive scientific proof is difficult to establish due to the lack of longitudinal studies, as well as pushback from industries that use aluminum in their products. Despite the shortage of conclusive studies, mounting scientific evidence really leaves little room for doubt.

Case in point: a new case study from Keele University in the UK1 unequivocally shows high levels of aluminum in the brain of an individual exposed to aluminum at work, who later died from Alzheimer’s disease.

While aluminum exposure has been implicated in Alzheimer’s and a number of other neurological diseases, this case claims to be “the first direct link” between Alzheimer’s disease and elevated brain aluminum following occupational exposure.2

The Aluminum-Alzheimer’s Link

The 66 year-old Caucasian man developed an aggressive form of early onset Alzheimer’s disease after eight years of occupational exposure to aluminum dust, which scientists conclude “suggests a prominent role for the olfactory system and lungs in the accumulation of aluminum in the brain.”

This is not the first time high aluminum levels have been found in the tissues of someone who died from Alzheimer’s disease. For example, in 2004, high aluminum levels were found in the tissues of a British woman who died of early-onset Alzheimer’s.

This was 16 years after an industrial accident dumped 20 metric tons of aluminum sulphate into her local drinking water. And there are many studies showing elevated aluminum levels in living individuals displaying a wide range of neurological symptoms.3

Aluminum Can Be an Occupational Hazard

Exposure to aluminum is unfortunately an occupational hazard for those who work in industries like mining, factory work, welding, and agriculture. Not to mention that you ingest aluminum vapors every time your nose catches cigarette smoke wafting by.

Inhaling aluminum dust or vapors sends aluminum particles directly into your lungs in a highly absorbable form, where they pass into your bloodstream and are distributed throughout your body, including your bones and brain. Aluminum powder has been known to cause pulmonary fibrosis, and aluminum factory workers are prone to asthma. Studies of the health effects of aluminum vapors have been grim, pointing to high levels of neurotoxicity.4

So why are most government regulators and physicians so resistant to looking at the health and environmental effects of aluminum? One filmmaker is shining a light on this issue by way of a documentary.

The ‘Dark Side’ of Aluminum Exposed

The featured documentary, The Age of Aluminum, reveals the “dark side” of this toxic metal, exploring the scientific links between aluminum and diseases such as breast cancer and neurological disorders. Also exposed is how aluminum mining and manufacturing have created acute ecological problems across the globe, leading to environmental disasters in Hungary, South Africa, and the UK. In the film, neuroscientist Christopher Shaw reports:5

“Many researchers are beginning to accept that aluminum has some sort of role to play in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Whether it does in others is still an open question, but Alzheimer’s is really coming into focus and it’s fairly clear that the body burden of aluminum from all the sources to which humans are exposed may be contributing to Alzheimer’s disease.”

Aluminum Is Everywhere

Although aluminum occurs naturally in soil, water, and air, we are contributing to the load with the mining and processing of aluminum ores, manufacturing of aluminum products, and the operation of coal-fired power plants and incinerators. Aluminum can’t be destroyed in the environment—it only changes its form by attaching or separating from other particles.

Rain washes aluminum particles out of the air and into our water supply, where they tend to accumulate rather than degrade. If you live in an industrial area, your exposure is undoubtedly higher than average.6

According to CDC, the average adult in the US consumes about seven to nine mg of aluminum per day in food, and a lesser amount from air and water. Only about one percent of the aluminum you ingest orally gets absorbed into your body—the rest is moved out by your digestive tract, provided it’s functioning well.

When tested in a lab, aluminum contamination has been found in a vast number of products on the market, from foods and beverages to pharmaceuticals, which suggests the manufacturing process itself is a significant part of the problem. Aluminum is found in a shocking number of foods and consumer products, including:

  • Foods such as baking powder, self rising flour, salt, baby formula, coffee creamers, baked goods and processed foods, coloring and caking agents
  • Drugs, such as antacids, analgesics, anti-diarrheals, and others; additives such as magnesium stearate
  • Vaccines—Hepatitis A and B, Hib, DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), pneumococcal vaccine, Gardasil (HPV), and others
  • Cosmetics and personal care products such as antiperspirants, deodorants (including salt crystals, made of alum), lotions, sunscreens, and shampoos
  • Aluminum products, including foil, cans, juice pouches, tins, and water bottles

Does Your Frozen Dinner Come with a Side of Aluminum?

Aluminum contamination in our food supply is a more significant problem than you may think. In a study published in the journalEnvironmental Sciences Europe,7 researchers analyzed 1,431 non-animal foods and beverages for aluminum content. This is what they found:

  • 77.8 percent had an aluminum concentration of up to 10 mg/kg
  • 17.5 percent had aluminum concentrations between 10 and 100 mg\kg
  • 4.6 percent of the samples had aluminum concentrations in excess of 100 mg/kg

Aluminum compounds are often used as additives in foodstuffs. Additional contamination occurs when food comes into contact with aluminum equipment and other items because aluminum is unstable in the presence of acids and bases. Aluminum equipment has a protective oxide film, but this can be damaged as fine fissures develop from normal wear and tear.In the study,8Table 3 shows the aluminum content of everything from flour and baking mixes to soup, chocolate, beer and wine, and herbal teas. Some products show a wide range of contamination levels, and others are more homogenous. Baked goods are very high because of the common practice of baking and storing foods on aluminum trays.9 The report has numerous other tables that demonstrate how prevalent this toxin is in your food.

If you cook your food in aluminum foil, you are introducing your own contamination. One investigation found that cooking meats in aluminum foil increases their aluminum concentration. Researchers concluded, “eating meals prepared in aluminum foil may carry a health risk by adding to other aluminum sources.” As with many toxins, it isn’t one exposure here and there that is so concerning—it’s the cumulative effect of many smaller exposures over time that can lead to a toxic metal overload and erosion of your health. According to a 2006 study, cooking meat in aluminum foil increased aluminum levels as follows:10

  • Red meats cooked in aluminum foil showed an increase in aluminum by 89 to 378 percent
  • Poultry increased by 76 to 214 percent
  • Aluminum levels increased with higher cooking temperatures and longer cooking times

Aluminum Heads Straight to Your Brain

Aluminum is to your central nervous system as cigarette smoke is to your lungs. Scientists are clear that toxic metals damage brain tissue and lead to degenerative disease by producing oxidative stress—and aluminum is one of the worst offenders. WithAlzheimer’s rates skyrocketing, today’s multiple avenues of aluminum exposure are of great concern. Just as with particles in the environment, once aluminum is in your tissues, your body has a difficult time releasing it. This toxic metal serves absolutely no biological purpose, so the less of it you ingest, the better.

Once in your body, it travels around easily, unimpeded, piggybacking on your iron transport system. It crosses biological barriers that normally keep other types of toxins out, such as your blood-brain barrier. Over time, aluminum can accumulate in your brain and do serious damage your neurological health—regardless of your age. Aluminum toxicity may be doing as much damage to our children as to our seniors.

Brain Inflammation in Both Children and Adults

Download Interview Transcript

Vaccines present a particularly problematic source of toxic metal exposure. Aluminum is the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant and is considered “safe” even though research shows it may induce serious immunological disorders and neurological complications in humans.

In the video above, Dr. David Ayoub discusses how the aluminum in vaccines may be even more dangerous than mercury. The number of aluminum-containing vaccines children receive today11 has quadrupled over the past 30 years. In the 1970s, children got only four aluminum-containing vaccines in their first 18 months of life, but now they typically receive 17. And as children’s aluminum burden has increased, so has the prevalence of childhood neurological disorders. In one school, 90 percent of the children developed ADHD during the course of a single school year, and their toxicity profiles all revealed massive amounts of aluminum.

Aluminum has been increasingly replacing mercury as an adjuvant in vaccines since thimerosal fell out of public favor. If you go by the aluminum content on vaccine labels, the amount kids are getting is excessive, but if you add in the aluminum NOT listed on the labels—”accidental exposure” due to contamination—it’s a much more serious problem. Dr. Ayoub cites one study that found five to six times more aluminum in vaccines than what was actually listed on the labels.

When you review the signs and symptoms of aluminum toxicity, they are shockingly similar to the symptoms of autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other neurological diseases. Vaccine adjuvants can cause serious chronic brain inflammation. Aluminum targets your cerebellum and autonomic nervous system—the part responsible for biological processes over which you have no conscious control (breathing, blood pressure, balance, coordination, etc.). When you look at the MSDS sheet for aluminum, you will see symptoms strikingly similar to those in common neurological diseases, including memory problems, speech impairments and aphasia, dementia, depression, muscle weakness, motor disturbances, and other neurological difficulties. The list goes on and on.12

Researchers Claim New Blood Test May Predict Alzheimer’s

There has never been a way to accurately predict who will get Alzheimer’s, but that may be changing. Researchers at Georgetown University and University of Rochester claim they have found a blood test that predicts this with 90 percent accuracy—and incredibly, with NO false negatives. If further research confirms what researchers expect, this is a medical breakthrough of epic proportions.13

The test involves measuring the patterns of 10 specific lipids (fat-like compounds) associated with the plaques found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. These 10 lipids are highly predictive of whether or not you will become cognitively impaired. All of the people in the study were in their 70s, so the next step is to determine if the test is accurate earlier, say in your 40s and 50s. Researchers say they are still several years away from implementing the test, but they all feel very hopeful.14

Biomarkers such as lipids are tricky for Alzheimer’s because they change during the course of the illness. Some occur in high levels during the early phase of the disease and then actually decrease after symptoms appear—so they are stage dependent. There is clearly much more research that needs to be done before we have a grasp of this disease.15 Even with a test that can predict whether or not you are in the process of developing dementia, there are no good treatments once you have it—so you should be doing everything in your power to prevent it. One of the strategies is helping your body detoxify from metals, such as aluminum.

Aluminum Impairs Your Body’s Ability to Detoxify

Removing mercury from vaccines and replacing it with aluminum may be increasing the problems from BOTH toxins in your body. The reason for this is because aluminum impairs your body’s ability to excrete mercury by impeding your glutathione production. Glutathione is your most important intracellular detoxifier, required for reversing oxidative stress. So, if your aluminum load is high, your body will potentially become more toxic from the mercury from, say, flu shots and fish because you are now on “aluminum overload” and your detoxification system no longer functions well.

Your body requires sulfur to manufacture glutathione, making sulfur an extremely important dietary nutrient when it comes to metal detoxification, which can be optimized through dietary sources. Onions and garlic are good if they are grown in sulfur rich soils, but most soils are unfortunately sulfur deficient. Therefore, animal-based proteins seem to be one of your best bets. Whey protein concentrate is particularly high in cysteine, one of the two sulfur-bearing amino acids that are direct precursors to glutathione.

Please note that if you avoid consuming animal proteins, it is VERY easy to become sulfur deficient, and this may be one of the most significant risk factors for choosing an animal protein-free diet. That doesn’t mean you should go overboard on meat, however! Most people need only about one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body weight, or about half a gram of protein per pound of lean body mass. Also make sure to buy grass-fed and finished meats, as most factory farmed meat is of inferior quality and contaminated with a whole host of veterinary drugs, including antibiotics and growth hormones.

How to Detoxify Aluminum

There are a number of potent chelators you can use to detoxify aluminum. Clearly, your first step would be to avoid further exposure to aluminum. This means avoiding products such as:

  • Toothpaste containing aluminium oxyhydroxide16
  • Antiperspirants containing aluminum chloride, aluminum chlorohydrate, or aluminum-zirconium compounds
  • Aluminum laminated pouch drinks
  • Aluminum cookware
  • Aluminum espresso makers

For serious Alzheimer’s disease, the following chelating agents can be helpful:

  • Silica-rich water, such as Fiji water,17 which contains 83 Mg of silica per liter. Research18 published in 2013 showed that drinking up to one liter of a silicon-rich mineral water daily for 12 weeks effectively excreted aluminum via the urine, without detrimental effects on essential metals such as iron and copper. According to the authors: “We have provided preliminary evidence that over 12 weeks of silicon-rich mineral water therapy the body burden of aluminum fell in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and, concomitantly, cognitive performance showed clinically relevant improvements in at least 3 out of 15 individuals.”
  • Melatonin: Research192021 shows that melatonin has a metal binding role and is a useful supplement in the treatment of neurological disorders in which oxidative stress is involved, which includes Alzheimer’s. Melatonin can travel freely across all cellular barriers, facilitating the removal of toxic metals such as aluminum. It also appears to suppress the oxidative activity of aluminum in your brain.
  • Anything that raises your glutathione. Your body synthesizes glutathione from three amino acids: cysteine, glutamate, and glycine. Raw fruits and vegetables, particularly avocado, asparagus, grapefruit, strawberries, orange, tomato, cantaloupe, broccoli, okra, peach, zucchini, and spinach are rich in the precursors glutamate and glycine. Dietary sources of cysteine include eggs, meat, red peppers, garlic, onions, Brussels sprouts, whey protein, and wheat germ. Other helpful treatments for improved glutathione metabolism include:
    • Exercise: Exercise affects your adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels needed to help produce glutathione
    • Optimizing your vitamin D levels through sun exposure: There’s some evidence vitamin D increases intracellular glutathione levels
    • Epsom salt baths
    • MSM supplementation
    • The supplement N-acetyl L-cysteine (NAC) may also be useful. NAC is the rate-limiting nutrient for the formation of the intracellular antioxidant glutathione
  • Curcumin:22 Research2324 suggests that curcumin has a protective effect against aluminum-induced damage by modulating the extent of oxidative stress. It also decreases beta-amyloid plaques associated with Alzheimer’s, delays neuron degradation, chelates metals, decreases microglia formation, and has an overall anti-inflammatory, antioxidant effect. Studies have shown that curcumin can help improve memory in Alzheimer’s patients. There are some contraindications25 that curcumin is not recommended if you have biliary tract obstruction (as it stimulates bile secretion), gallstones, obstructive jaundice, or acute biliary colic.

In Summary

It can no longer be argued that aluminum does not have a role in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s—the evidence is very clear and growing. It really should not be surprising that people with aluminum toxicity display many of the same symptoms as those with dementia, Parkinson’s, ADHD, autism, and other neurological diseases, because aluminum targets exactly these areas of your brain and nervous system.

The best way to protect yourself is to be careful about your choices in food and personal products, and minimize your use of vaccines and other drugs that are often contaminated with aluminum.

Optimizing your dietary sulfur is also essential, as your body needs sulfur to manufacture its number one weapon against aluminum overload: glutathione. By taking a few steps to protect yourself, you’ll minimize your exposure while maximizing your body’s ability to rid itself of this toxic metal, which will move you toward a long and healthy life well into your senior years. For additional tips and strategies that can help prevent and/or treat Alzheimer’s, please see my previous article “Two Exciting Alzheimer’s Advances: A Novel Early Detection Test Using Peanut Butter, and a Study Evaluating Coconut Oil.”

***

From vaccines.procon.org

Doctor Says No Safe Vaccines

“Never Has There Been A Safe Vaccine. Never Will There Be A Safe Vaccine” – Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Dr-Suzanne-HUMPHRIES--International-Council-on-Vaccinations

The world is constantly bombarded with the idea that vaccines are completely safe and necessary, it’s mass marketing at its best. It’s always best to do some examination and research before blindly believing what you are told. It’s good to know that  more doctors who have spent years researching the topic are sharing their professional opinions.  Sure, there are doctors that support and trust vaccinations, but just as valid are the arguments of those that don’t support them. They should not be ignored. The point I’m trying to make is that there is no definite answer, that the debate has not been settled as so many governing health authorities claim it to be.

Suzanne Humphries, MD, is a conventionally educated medical doctor who was a participant in the conventional medicinal system from 1989 until 2011. During those years she “saw how often that approach fails patients and creates new diseases.” She left conventional medicine to research “the many problems with mainstream medical theory, to write, and conduct a holistic medical practice.”

She was a Nephrologist, a specialty of medicine and pediatrics that concerns itself with the study of the kidney. Here’s what she has to say on the subject:

Those who are interested in doing the research will find papers that completely put to rest the debate. One example is a paper published by the CDC, titled “Increasing exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides (antigenes) in Vaccines is Not Associated with Autism.”(1)

On the other hand, we have studies, also published in peer reviewed journals that do create a cause for concern. One example would be a study published a few months ago in the peer-reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration that provided epidemiological evidence supporting an association between increasing organic – Hg exposure from Thimerosal containing childhood vaccines and the risk of an ASD diagnoses. (2)

We also have multiple studies in peer-reviewed journals that suggest thimerosal should be removed from all vaccines. (3)

It’s a proven fact that vaccine manufacturers and health authorities have known about the dangers associated with vaccines for a very long time, but have chosen to withhold them from public knowledge in order to maintain “herd immunity.” This is scientific fraud and manipulation of scientific data that’s dished out to doctors worldwide. (4)

These are a few of MANY examples.

The bottom line is that we are bombarded and heavily marketed on the safety and necessity of vaccinations, when it is evidently clear that this isn’t the case. So ask yourself, why are you pushed to believe that they are completely safe, and necessary, when so many studies out there contradict those claims? At the same time, many confirm those claims. What exactly is going on here? It can be hard to know sometimes, that’s why at the end of the day you have to examine the information yourself and decide for yourself. Don’t put your trust into the corporation, into the commercials, or billionaires, put it in the research, which clearly shows that there are two sides to this debate. (I personally believe there is no debate, and that vaccines are not safe)

If the research isn’t enough for you, try researching the history of the vaccine manufacturers. Where they originate from, who started them. Research the shareholders, and see what other corporations they have control over. You will find some interesting correlations and connections, but that’s another topic.

Since we are constantly bombarded with corporate heads and billionaires testifying to the safety of vaccinations, I thought it would be good to present this information from a doctor who has been researching it herself for three years. You will never see something like this on your television screen.

Source(s):

(1) http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24354891

(3) http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/8/3771

(4) http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Related posts:
  1. CDC Forced to Release Documents Showing They Knew Vaccine Preservative Causes Autism               
  2. Should Children Get the Flu Vaccine? 
  3. BPA-free plastics may be less safe than those with chemical               
  4. CDC Not Legally Required to Tell the Truth About Anything, Including Vaccines               
  5. Scientific Evidence Suggests The Vaccine-Autism Link Can No Longer Be Ignored             

GMOs May Destroy Us

GMOs will unleash global killer ‘ecocide’ across the planet, warns prominent scientist

Thanks to NaturalNews.com  March 11, 2014
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044261_GMOs_ecocide_environmental_collapse.html#ixzz2vjuN6zle

(NaturalNews) A top scientist and “risk engineering” expert is now publicly warning that GMOs pose a dire, genuine threat to the continuation of life on Earth. Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, says that GMOs have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”

His full explanation is presented in this public paper which describes how even a small risk per crop species can still result in global ecocide if pursued with abandon. As Taleb explains, “The risk of ruin is not sustainable, like a resource that gets
depleted in the long term (even in the short term). By the ruin theorems, if you incur a tiny probability of ruin, as a “one-off” risk, survive it, then repeat the exposure, you will eventually
go bust with probability 1.” (Where “probability 1″ means a 100% chance.)

Rational thinking automatically leads to skepticism of GMO safety

This sober, scientific conclusion is of course entirely rational and founded in clear thinking. Self-deluded GMO zealots and paid Monsanto trolls predictably try to gloss over these risks in their quest for profits and power, but that does not mean such risks do not exist.

In fact, as Taleb convincingly argues, genetically engineered crops are specifically designed to have a survival advantage over conventional crops, allowing them to better resist droughts or infestations of pests or weeds. This survival advantage — if it’s as real as seed manipulators claim — means genetically engineered plants can out-compete non-GMO crops in open fields. The genetic pollution which is already underway across North America will only get worse, therefore, and there’s no reversing it because all living systems — even genetically engineered ones — have a natural drive to spread, multiply and survive.

The result is that GMO crops will out-compete and thereby displace non-GMO crops over time. Why does this matter? Because the rise of GMOs is nearly synonymous with the collapse of genetic diversity in seeds and food crops. You don’t have to go back very far in history to find examples of mono-cultured food crops failing due to lack of genetic diversity, either:

- The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1852 was caused by over-reliance on a genetically narrow food crop. Shockingly, one-third of the Irish population relied on a single crop, and when potato blight (a fungal microorganism) successfully attacked the crop, over one million people died from starvation.

- The current crisis in world banana production is caused because nearly all commercial banana trees are genetically identical clones.

- The near-collapse of Florida citrus due to disease is also caused by a striking lack of genetic diversity across citrus orchards.

A loss of genetic diversity is a pathway to global disease and starvation

Any legitimate scientist in the fields of anthropology, genetics or agriculture will warn you that low genetic diversity is the first step toward crisis and collapse of any given population. When genetic diversity is lost, the entire species becomes vulnerable to being wiped out by epidemic disease.

This principle is irrefutable and widely recognized as truth among nearly all scientifically-literate thinkers… except those pushing GMOs, of course. Those denialists selectively edit “scientific truth” to exclude any concerns that might question the wisdom of displacing the world’s treasure of seed diversity with corporate-patented seeds. The Precautionary Principle is gladly thrown out the window when corporate profits are to be realized from doing so.

Transgenic GMOs could cause catastrophic ecocide

Beyond the loss of genetic diversity, Taleb is also concerned about the possibility of catastrophic transgenic effects which could somehow weaken the world’s food crops in ways human scientists never intended or anticipated. Murphy’s Law — which states that if something can go wrong, it will — is widely recognized as a frustrating truth across physics, medicine, computer science and space exploration. Yet it is magically and irrationally declared null and void only for GMOs, where the roll of the dice quite literally threatens the sustainability of future life on our planet.

As Taleb explains, even if the chance of any single genetically engineered crop going wild and unleashing global crop failures is very small, the fact that companies like Monsanto and DuPont seek to dominate the global seed supply by perpetually releasing more and more genetically engineered crops means that sooner or later, a genetic catastrophe is all but inevitable.

If you play Russian Roulette every weekend, in other words, and there really is a live round in one of the gun’s chambers, sooner or later you are bound to blow your brains out. This is true even if the revolver has 1000 chambers (with 999 of them empty) so that the odds of losing seem incredibly small each time you play. (Interestingly, Taleb uses this exact same illustration in his paper…)

As Taleb also explains in his paper, the cost of losing is so great that even tiny odds of failure may not be acceptable. After all, we’re talking about the entire future of life on our planet.

GMOs may unleash mass global crop failures followed by starvation and disease

I warned about precisely this issue two years ago in my “Murdered by Science” series of articles which discussed how careless applications of science are putting the very existence of the human race at risk. (And for the record, I am not anti-science. I am 100% pro-science when the Precautionary Principle is honored.)

Those articles, widely derided by prostitute scientists paid by corporations to troll the web and attack reason, are in fact even more urgent to read today, in 2014. In those articles, I pointed out that GMOs are in the most extreme class of pollutants because they are self-replicating. While chemical spills can eventually be cleaned up, and even heavy metals can be remediated over time, genetically engineered DNA that escapes into the wild can never be put back into a box.

Self-replicating pollution is the worst class of pollution, far exceeding even the risk of nuclear accidents wiping out humankind. “As humans, we are ill equipped to understand the mathematics behind such risks,” writes Taleb. And he’s correct: human brains are not hard-wired to fully grasp the long-term implications of self-replicating pollution. In the same way, most people are utterly incapable of accurately imagining the long-term outcomes of compounded interest – a phenomenon which eerily reflects the spread of self-replicating pollution.

How dishonest science fools the uneducated masses

Because humans are not hard-wired to grasp the long-term risks of self-replicating pollution (as posed by genetically engineered crops), it is all too easy for paid prostitute-scientists to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and falsely claim GMOs present no risks whatsoever. This is why every single scientist who is currently promoting GMOs is, in fact, a threat to the continuation of human life on our planet. By deceiving the public and glossing over the very real threats to life posed by GMOs, they directly contribute to the spread of GMO genetic pollution which may end in genuine catastrophe and massive loss of life.

Imagine the global collapse of all GM corn crops. Or imagine the collapse of global soy production. Every crop which is GMO has some risk of being wiped out in a catastrophic manner caused by the un-natural manipulation of the crop’s genetic code.

The history of scientific advancement, of course, is rife with huge failures to foresee unintended consequences. Perhaps the most important example of that is found in the current rise of superbugs across modern hospitals. Utterly unforeseen by the world’s top scientists and pharmacological researchers, superbugs have now risen to such prominence in our health care system that even the CDC has warned that the age of antibiotics is over.

Superbugs, in fact, were a product of antibiotics. As drug companies churned out the drugs to “beat disease” — and doctors prescribed those drugs to hundreds of millions of patients worldwide — the perfect environment was created for the nurture and spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, many of which are fatal to patients.

I personally knew three people who were killed in U.S. hospitals by superbug infections. Superbugs are the new death pandemic in America, and they are currently killing 48,000 Americans each year. They were unleashed by scientists who had no intention of causing death and destruction. Rather, those scientists working on antibiotics genuinely believed they were saving lives with no downside. At first, it all seemed true — antibiotics inarguably saved many lives early on. But now, antibiotics are in fact the reason why deadly superbugs have escaped the reach of modern medicine and genuinely threaten the human race with incurable infections.

Scientists are not immune to making catastrophic mistakes that cause massive death

The superbugs lesson desperately needs to be understood by the self-deluded prostitute-scientists currently pushing GMOs. Importantly, they need to swallow their arrogance for just long enough to understand that your INTENTION does not control the long-term effects of your ACTIONS.

Just because you wish for GMOs to “feed the world” does not mean they will. In fact, positive intentions can and do frequently blind scientists to the downsides of their own innovations. In example after example, scientists who believed they were pursuing technology for the betterment of humankind ended up inadvertently contributing to mass death and destruction.

The Manhattan Project, anyone?

But at least the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan was a catastrophe that could be contained. The damage, although immense, was limited and could not mysteriously multiply itself over time. GMOs, on the other hand, are like seeds of mass destruction because they can replicate, spread and conquer.

So controlling them may not be possible once they are unleashed. And they have already been unleashed. Genetic pollution is now widespread across our agricultural landscape, and the vast majority of organic farms in the USA have experienced some level of contamination from genetically engineered crops.

Why so few people are capable of rationally discussing the ecological risks of GMOs

In a very real sense, most human beings are cognitively incapable of participating in any rational discussion of these issues. This includes most scientists, by the way, who are themselves just as vulnerable to peer influences and false mythologies as anyone else. In the name of “science,” far too many scientists today merely embarrass themselves by pushing obscenely silly arguments in defense of GMOs, claiming utterly stupid things like, “humans have tinkered with the genetic code of plants for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is no different.”

Although this is the most frequently-invoked argument by GMO denialists, it is blatantly idiotic and grossly deceptive from the start. Selective breeding of various phenotypes within the genetic pool of a given species in no way equates to cross-species DNA manipulation which combines insect or soil genes with plant genes. Any person who even attempts to equate these two concepts does nothing more than affix a giant “DUNCE” sticker to their own foreheads. (And yes, numerous scientists invoke this silly argument every single day, across the mainstream media.)

Taleb also addresses this same issue head-on in his public paper, explaining:

Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.) There is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another. Saying that such a product is natural misses the statistical process by which things become “natural.”

The abandonment of caution in the quest for profits

The next idiotic argument put forth by desperate prostitute-scientists is that GMOs aren’t dangerous because there’s no evidence they are dangerous. As stupid as this sounds, it is also the faith-based argument of the chemical industry which insists “all chemicals are safe until such time as they are proven dangerous.”

If this bass-awkwards logic sounds familiar, it’s because it is also invoked by the processed food industry in claiming that all food additives, preservatives and chemicals are inherently safe unless and until they are proven dangerous.

What all this non-logic has in common is an illogical presumption of safety. This has always been the argument of the mass poisoners of our world. Regardless of the poison being discussed — BPA, mercury fillings, pesticide chemicals, DDT, toxic heavy metals, triclosan, MSG and more — its corporate backers have consistently and predictably hired swaths of prostitute-scientists to declare the substance to be “safe until proven otherwise.”

The tragic lesson of lead arsenate pesticides

This presumption of safety sooner or later ends very badly. For over a hundred years, the heavy metals pesticide lead arsenate was “presumed safe.” Made primarily of lead and arsenic, it was indeed very effective at killing pests that threatened food crops. So farmers across North America and around the world sprayed it on their food crops, producing amazing quantities of food… at first, anyway.

Before long, the lead and arsenic bio-accumulated in agricultural soils, poisoning the trees that produced the food as well as the customers who ate it. To this day, soils across the world remain heavily poisoned by these deadly heavy metals, which is one of the reasons why so many superfood products sold today contain such high levels of heavy metals (see the Natural News Forensic Food Labresults for examples).

Lead arsenate — just like GMOs — was “presumed safe” because it didn’t cause immediate death to anyone. According to corporate-sponsored prostitute-scientists, anything that doesn’t kill you within seconds is automatically presumed to be safe. All long-term implications of the chemical or technology are willfully swept under the rug and ignored. Corporations lean on government regulators until the cover-up becomes policy. At that point, both government and industry become active collaborators in the mass poisoning of the human race.

And that’s the whole point of my breakthrough article, The Battle For Humanity is Nearly Lost which covers this collusion in more detail.

In conclusion: No self-replicating technology can be presumed safe if we hope to survive

I am of the opinion, by the way, that human civilization will not survive the next 100 years. Our species is too shortsighted, too driven by greed and too easily manipulated to survive its own corporate-led destruction. The quest for short-term profits blinds nearly everyone to long-term implications. The fact that the masses are already heavily poisoned by this very process makes it nearly impossible for the public consciousness to achieve sufficient lucidity to halt the quickening pace of self-destruction.

So in one sense, I only write this out of a fondness for galactic amusement, not out of any real hope that humanity can save itself from destruction via heavy metals, synthetic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and GMOs. But on the off chance that I am wrong in my prediction of humanity’s demise, if we are to survive as a species, such survival will necessitate the global embracing of the Precautionary Principle across all realms of science and technology.

Because even if we halt Monsanto and agree to have all the criminal biotechnology scientists halted from committing ecocide, we are all very likely going to be overrun by artificial intelligence before the year 2050, regardless of what else happens in agriculture or synthetic chemicals. Just as with GMOs, today’s most brilliant computer scientists are wholly incapable of understanding the long-term implications of the race for conscious machines and advanced AI tech. The result will almost certainly be that humans will invent the technologies that destroy humanity, and we will all go down in history as the race of sentient beings who were smart enough to invent amazing technologies but too stupid to restrain them.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044261_GMOs_ecocide_environmental_collapse.html#ixzz2vjtAJ1Gg

Why Vaccinate Newborns Against Hepatitis C?

The Effects of Hep C on a Fetus

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6457495_effects-hep-fetus.html#ixzz2uzR5cbqO

According to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Hepatitis C, also known as HCV, is the most common bloodborne chronic infection in the U.S. A person can be infected via intravenous drug use or an infected unscreened blood transfusion (although this is very rare). It can be transmitted sexually, but would require a blood exchange during sex to be passed from carrier to non-carrier. One in four infants born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis C will acquire the condition. Have a question? Get an answer from a doctor now!

  1. Infection and Liver Disease Transmission

    • Hepatitis C refers to an infection of the liver caused by the hepatitis C virus. Newly infected carriers will normally be without symptoms. Within one to three weeks of being infected, HCV RNA (ribonucleic acid) can be detected in the blood. A quantitative test will measure the amount of HCV RNA to determine how much of the virus is present, sometimes referred to as “viral load.” The CDC notes that, on average, it takes eight to nine weeks from exposure for the HCV antibody to be identified in more than 97 percent of patients. In 60 to 85 percent of these patients, chronic HCV infection will develop. Of these, 60 to 70 percent will show signs of active liver disease.

    Hepatitis C and Pregnancy

    • There is currently no way to prevent an unborn fetus from contracting HCV from her mother. Hepatitis C can be tested for via a blood screen, although doctors generally reserve testing for at-risk mothers (such as those who have used intravenous drugs recreationally). Antiviral drugs may be needed for pregnant mothers to decrease the chance of viral infection. The baby will need to be tested to see if she has the disease when she is born. A Caesarian section is not required for mothers who test positive for hepatitis C.

    Hepatitis Effect on Fetus and Infant

    • Hepatitis C infection has a lesser rate of transmission alone (zero to 18 percent according to Hepatitis Central) than when it is not comorbid with other infections diseases, such as HIV. Conditions such as HIV weaken the bodies defenses against the HCV virus, resulting in a higher viral load. The higher the viral load, the higher the risk of transmission to the infant. Antiviral therapy has not been determined to prevent transmission. Avoiding a long labor after the mother’s water has broken can reduce the chance of transmission to the infant.

      In utero, there is no data that can determine when transmission will occur if it does, or what the effects will be. Generally, the infant will receive HCV antibodies from the mother, and they can remain present for up to fifteen months. If the parents or pediatricians require it, HCV RNA testing can be done between two and six months of age. If the diagnosis can be delayed, an anti-HCV test can be done at fifteen months. The majority of HCV positive infants show no symptoms.

    Nursing and Hepatitis C

    • Mothers who test positive for hepatitis C do not need to avoid breastfeeding. If the child’s pediatrician feels the infant is not at risk due to other possible comorbid conditions, no current medical evidence suggests that nursing will spread HCV from mother to infant. A mother with hepatitis C should avoid nursing if her nipples are cracked and bleeding, as the virus is passed through blood.

    Treatment for Children Born with Hepatitis C

    • The Canadian Pediatric Society states that one in four children with hepatitis C will recover from it on their own without medicinal intervention. The others will be carriers of the disease, and it will stay in the child’s liver. The majority of these children will be healthy, although they will need to have regular blood work and checkups. Children that do develop symptoms will be given antiviral drugs to prevent liver damage, cirrhosis or liver cancer.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6457495_effects-hep-fetus.html#ixzz2uzQFBmud

Pertussis Vaccine Spreads Pertussis

Vaccine lies:
Whooping cough outbreaks being triggered
by vaccinated children

Thursday, December 26, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Thanks to NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043330_vaccines_whooping_cough_disease_outbreaks.html#ixzz2uz5hFoaP

(NaturalNews) It is a common myth perpetuated by both the entrenched system of monopolistic medicine and the mainstream media that unvaccinated children are the social scourge responsible for triggering outbreaks of rare diseases like pertussis (whooping cough), measles and shingles. But the scientific literature suggests otherwise, showing in many cases that vaccinated children are the ones largely responsible for triggering and spreading disease.

A recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences for instance, found that, despite more than 50 years of population-wide vaccination, cases of whooping cough are on the rise. The culprit? Antigens of Bordetella pertussis that not only are completely ineffective at preventing infection with Bordetella parapertussis, a whooping cough bacterium similar to B. pertussis, but actually promote it by interfering with the body’s natural infection clearance protocols.

“[W]e show that aP [whooping cough] vaccination impedes host immunity against B. parapertussis-measured as reduced lung inflammatory and neutrophil responses,” wrote the authors. “[W]e conclude that aP vaccination interferes with the optimal clearance of B. parapertussis and enhances the performance of this pathogen. Our data raise the possibility that widespread aP vaccination can create hosts more susceptible to B. parapertussis infection.”

In other words, children who are vaccinated for whooping cough actually suffer from decreased immunity and are more susceptible to B. parapertussis infection than their unvaccinated peers. Vaccinated children, in essence, are the carriers of disease when it comes to all these whooping cough outbreaks, infecting other mostly vaccinated children and putting massive strain on local healthcare resources.

Oddly enough, it is the unvaccinated children that remain largely healthy during these outbreaks, as their immune systems are not crippled by exposure to artificial vaccine antigens. This was definitely the case as far as http://www.naturalnews.com, where more than 600 confirmed cases of whooping cough, a 10-fold increase over previous years, was documented. As you may recall, most of those infected with the disease had already been vaccinated for it.

More recently, a study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) verified that the whooping cough vaccine, which is also contained in the combination DTaP injection, does not even prevent the spread of whooping cough as commonly claimed. On the contrary, the vaccine allowed the disease to fester inside the bodies of test baboons for up to five weeks, debunking a widely believed myth.

“[These findings] could explain the increase in pertussis that we’re seeing in the U.S.,” admitted FDA researcher Tod Merkel, affirming what many are now suggesting about the dangers of the whooping cough vaccine.

Should parents who vaccinate their children be held liable for spreading disease?

What all this suggests, of course, is that the ongoing demonization of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children is completely misdirected. If it is public health that we are all concerned about in the vaccine debate, then it appears as though parents who choose to vaccinate are the ones about who we all need to be concerned.

Perhaps the time is ripe to set the record straight and put blame where it is truly due. The tables have turned, and based on the latest available science, it is now abundantly clear that parents who vaccinate are the ones putting everyone else’s children at risk.

Will the pro-vaccine lobby, which is all too quick to demand that non-vaccinating parents be held liable for putting others at risk, now be held to the same standard?

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.nbcnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043330_vaccines_whooping_cough_disease_outbreaks.html#ixzz2uz44pKMp

***

FDA study shows pertussis vaccination
spreads pathogenic bacteria

Tuesday, March 04, 2014 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Thanks to NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044162_pertussis_vaccination_whooping_cough_FDA.html#ixzz2uz6Mxxnq

(NaturalNews) In a failed attempt to explain away why vaccinated individuals seem to be the
only ones contracting and spreading whooping cough
 during major outbreaks, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently launched an inquiry aimed at better understanding how the controversial vaccine works. But what the agency ended up discovering is that the vaccine for whooping cough, also known as pertussis, spreads the very same pathogenic bacteria that causes whopping cough in the first place, which in some people can lead to serious infections.

Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the new FDA study claims to demonstrate that vaccines for acellular pertussis are effective at preventing the disease in those who are vaccinated. But at the very same time, the agency admits that, based on its findings, the vaccine itself spreads Bordetella pertussis, the bacteria responsible for triggering the highly contagious respiratory disease.

“[A]cellular pertussis vaccines licensed by the FDA are effective in preventing the disease among those vaccinated,” claims the agency in a recent announcement, “but… they may not prevent infection from the bacteria that causes whooping cough in those vaccinated or its spread to other people, including those who may not be vaccinated.”

In other words, the whooping cough vaccine is definitely effective at preventing the whooping cough, except that it’s not. This is the essence of what the FDA is claiming here with this dichotomy — people who are vaccinated for whooping cough are somehow protected against the disease, but they might still develop it as a result of contracting the bacterium responsible for triggering whooping cough, which is contained in the vaccine.

This type of meaningless equivocation is nothing new for the FDA, of course, which two years ago tried to pull the same
say-something-while-not-actually-saying-it stunt with bisphenol A
(BPA)
, the plastics chemical that has repeatedly been shown in scientific literature to damage hormones.

FDA admits whooping cough vaccines diminish immunity, increasing likelihood of infection

Besides putting those who receive it at a higher risk of developing pertussis infection, the pertussis vaccine also admittedly lowers immunity. In a recent press release about its study, the FDA spills the beans about how decreased immunity is a common adverse effect of the childhood pertussis vaccine, and that health experts have never really understood why those who are vaccinated againstpertussis still contract the disease.

“While the reasons for the increase in cases of whooping cough are not fully understood, multiple factors are likely involved, including diminished immunity from childhood pertussis vaccines, improved diagnostic testing, and increased reporting,” says the FDA. “With its own funds plus support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the FDA conducted the study to explore the possibility that acellular pertussis vaccines… might not prevent infection.”

Based on this assessment, it is astounding that any parent would ever agree to having their baby injected with a chemical solution that just might cause the very same disease that it is supposed to prevent. We now know for a fact that children vaccinated for pertussis can still develop whooping cough and are, in fact, carriers that can spread the disease to others.

“This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may [emphasis added] be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

You can read the full FDA announcement here:
http://www.fda.gov.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.fda.gov

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.anh-usa.org

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044162_pertussis_vaccination_whooping_cough_FDA.html#ixzz2uz6k7KdP

Katie Couric and Guardasil

Gardasil and the Public Flogging of Katie Couric

February 18, 2014 | Thanks to Mercola.com

By Barbara Loe Fisher

The public flogging of veteran broadcast journalist Katie Couric began on December 4, 2013, immediately after a 17-minute report on HPV and Gardasil vaccine was broadcast on her TV talk show “Katie.”1 It was kick-started by a west coast business writer, who administered the first lash with a bizarre take-down of freedom of the press:

“The real punch of the show was its portrayal of HPV vaccination as “controversial,” he charged. “Merely to ask questions is to validate them.”

He ended with a sucker punch:

“Katie Couric established her credibility as a spokeswoman for preventive medicine more than a decade ago… now she’ll be known for promoting junk medicine instead.”2

‘Is Katie Couric the Next Jenny McCarthy?’

Then, like piranhas in a fish tank full of fresh chum, an online clique of mean girls and bully boys let Katie have it right between the eyes.

“Is Katie Couric the next Jenny McCarthy?” sneered a headline for an article in which a cub reporter sharpened her claws on Couric’s credibility by hissing “The damage a former Playboy Bunny has been able to do is bad enough. But Couric’s misdeeds are all the worse given that she’s taken much more seriously than Jenny McCarthy.”3

Continuing with that lame theme, an entertainment writer stuck it to Katie when she suggested that:

 “To some, Couric’s behavior is even more problematic than McCarthy’s, given her stature as a respected journalist and former network news anchor, as well as her previous efforts to educate the public about the fight against cancer.”4

One headline screamed “Katie Couric Hands Over Her Show to Anti-Vaccine Alarmists”5 and another one gasped “Why Is Katie Couric Promoting Vaccine Skeptics?” followed by an article written by a photojournalist sniping that “Couric needs to review her priorities.”6

Katie Couric: Presenting HPV Information and Perspective

Katie’s unforgiveable transgression? On her afternoon talk show, she gave two mothers, who had witnessed their daughters’ health suddenly deteriorate after Gardasil shots, an opportunity to speak about what happened.78

She gave an international HPV infection expert,9 who participated in Gardasil vaccine clinical trial research, an opportunity to comment about the effectiveness of Gardasil vaccine and the need for all girls – whether they get vaccinated or not – to get regular pap screening.10

She gave a pediatrician an opportunity to encourage parents to vaccinate their 11-year-old boys and girls because “HPV vaccine does not seem to be any risker than any of the other vaccines we routinely use;”1112 and Katie gave a mother and her daughter an opportunity to enthusiastically endorse the vaccine.13

Katie Couric presented information and a range of perspectives about a current topic being discussed by millions of parents and young women in homes and doctors’ offices across the country. She did it because she is an intellectually honest journalist, a compassionate mother, and a cancer prevention pioneer.

Fourteen years ago, Katie Couric almost singlehandedly put a human face on the importance of colonoscopy screening, especially for those at high risk when she publicly witnessed about the tragedy of losing her husband and the father of her children to colon cancer.14 After a long and successful career in broadcast journalism, in 2006 she became the first woman to anchor the evening news on a major US TV network.15

An Orchestrated Campaign of Intimidation

The shaming of Katie Couric for caring and daring to ask questions about Gardasil vaccine was a well-orchestrated campaign of intimidation. It was a warning delivered to all journalists that – no matter who you are – your characterwill be assassinated if you step out of line and question the safety or effectiveness of a government recommended vaccine.

The cyber lynch mob16-22 presenting opinion as unassailable fact delighted in quoting each other and did not reserve their vitriol for Katie. Two mothers on the show were ridiculed for describing their daughters’ Gardasil vaccine reaction symptoms, which are similar to those reported by many, many others in the US and around the world.23-43

The credentialed Gardasil vaccine researcher44 on the show was attacked for stating that regular pap tests are the most reliable way of detecting and preventing cervical cancer regardless of vaccination, a position held by cancer prevention experts.45-47

Katie Couric Encourages Informed Vaccine Decision Making

Two days after the public flogging began, Katie interviewed the Assistant Surgeon General48 before authoring an article for The Huffington Post responding to the firestorm with unapologetic professionalism.49 She acknowledged her report could have spent more time putting the statistical risk of suffering a vaccine reaction into greater perspective but she defended the inclusion of mothers reporting Gardasil reactions:

“Some people say their children have suffered from a variety of medical problems after the HPV vaccination, and there have even been a few reports of death,” she said. “As a journalist, I felt that we couldn’t simply ignore these reports.”

Katie reinforced a call for regular pap screening:

“There’s been troubling research out of Australia that indicates some women are skipping their Pap tests because they have been vaccinated. That’s a terrible idea.

While the vaccine protects against some of the HPV strains that cause cervical cancers, it doesn’t protect against all of them and regular Pap smears are essential for life-saving diagnoses,” she said.

Katie concluded her statement by encouraging critical thinking and informed vaccine decision-making:

“I had my own two daughters vaccinated against HPV. I hope that other parents will look at the research and the facts, and make a reasoned decision on the HPV vaccine and what is best for their children,” she said.

“Not Enough,” He Says

However, Katie’s clarification prompted one bully to bring out the whip one more time. Under a headline complaining that “Katie Couric Backs Off from Her Anti-Vaccine Show But Not Enough,” he snarled:

“The video depictions of mothers and daughters in tears will stay with thousands of Couric’s loyal viewers. Her written mea culpa, not so much.”50

Perhaps he wanted her to walk across cut glass on her knees and whimper a little on camera so he could be convinced that she would be a good girl from now on and never, ever step out of line again.

Mothers Will Not Stop Witnessing

One thing is as clear today as it was 32 years ago when mothers publicly witnessed how they watched their children suffer brain inflammation or die after being injected with the old, crude, and toxic DPT vaccine.51-64 Clearly, when mothers stand up in the public square today and describe how Gardasil vaccine risks for their daughters turned out to be 100 percent, deniers of vaccine risks get really, really emotional. They get angry and defensive. They gather together in a pack, take out the rope, and start cyber-lynching.

Mothers around the world, who give birth to babies they are responsible for nurturing through infancy and childhood, are not going to stop talking about what happened to their children after vaccination. Mothers are not going to shut up and sit down like good little girls after they witness the bodies and brains of the children they love be destroyed when Gardasil shots go wrong.

Mothers Will Not Stop Thinking Critically

They are not going to stop reading the medical literature and thinking critically about the science65-71 used to justify giving every child the most expensive federally recommended pediatric vaccine on the US market72 to prevent an infection that is cleared bymore than 90 percent of people without a problem:73,74

  • A vaccine developed by NIH researchers75 using GMO technology that was sold by NIH to Merck76 and fast-tracked to licensure using questionable surrogate markers for efficacy7778
  • A vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease that was tested in fewer than 1,200 children under the age of 1679 using a bioactive aluminum “placebo” as a bogus control in clinical trials80-84
  • A vaccine that was only tested in 1,000 adolescent girls and boys in combination with the federally recommended Tdap and meningococcal vaccines85
  • A vaccine given by pediatricians shielded from legal accountability for vaccine injuries and deaths, just like vaccine manufacturers are shielded from civil liability in US courts86
  • A vaccine that by December 13, 2013 had generated nearly 30,000 adverse reaction reports to the US government, including 140 deaths87 - which is only a fraction of the numbers of Gardasil reactions, injuries, and deaths that have actually occurred because most doctors either do not report to the government or make reports directly to Merck.88-90

Federal Awards, Lawsuits, Gardasil Recommendation Withdrawal

Yes, it is illogical to assume that every single one of the reported Gardasil reaction reports and deaths are caused by the vaccine, but it is just as illogical to assume that none of them are caused by the vaccine. But logic has nothing to do with one-size-fits-all vaccine policies that sacrifice individuals, who are biologically or environmentally at high risk for suffering vaccine harm,91 while no research is being done to identify who they are to spare their lives.

Informed mothers know that among the $3 billion in federal compensation that has been awarded to vaccine victims in the US are awards for Gardasil vaccine injuries.92 They know Gardasil vaccine injured girls are suing vaccine manufacturers in France, where citizens can still file product liability lawsuits.93 They know that public health officials in Japan no longer recommend Gardasil vaccine because Japan’s government is not writing off every death and case of brain inflammation and autoimmunity following Gardasil shots as just a “coincidence.”94

HPV Vaccination Made a Top Public Health Priority in US

In what may or may not be a coincidence, at the end of December, the Centers for Disease Control made HPV vaccination one of the top five “public health priorities” for 2014. In one media article,95 the HPV vaccination rate of 30 percent in the US was compared to the 85 percent vaccination rate in Rwanda, an impoverished, war-torn country where women have been dying in great numbers from cervical cancer because there has been no routine pap screening available to them. In 2011, Merck created a school-based vaccination program for all sixth graders in Rwanda to be injected with three doses of Gardasil vaccine.96

But the United States is not Rwanda. In America, cervical cancer has declined more than 70 percent after pap screening became a routine part of women’s health care in the 1960s and, by 2006, pap tests had driven down the numbers of new cases of cervical cancer to 9,700 per year with about 3,700 deaths97 in a US population of more than 300 million people. In the US, the 14,000 annual deaths from six cancers associated with HPV98-104 represent less than three percent of the more than 550,000 cancer deaths that occur every year.

Many Other Public Health Emergencies in US Deserve Priority Status

There are many public health emergencies in our country that cause far more deaths and disabilities but do not receive a fair share of the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to health agencies every year.105 For example:

  • Between 210,000 and 440,000 hospitalized patients each year suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death106
  • The US has the worst infant mortality107 and maternal mortality108,109 rates of all developed nations, with 28,000 babies dying before their first birthday110
  • Millions of children are becoming disabled or dying in the unexplained chronic illness epidemic111 that costs trillions of dollars to treat: one child in six in America is learning disabled;112 one in nine suffers from asthma;113 one in 10 has ADHD;114 1 in 50 develops autism115 and 1 in 450 becomes diabetic.116
  • Millions more are suffering from mental health problems. One adolescent in five in the US experiences significant symptoms of emotional distress, and one in 10 is emotionally impaired.117

Bigger Market for Merck and HPV Vaccine Mandates?

Perhaps the CDC is simply boosting the congressionally approved, lucrative public-private partnership with Big Pharma118-124 by securing a bigger market for Merck’s new 9-strain version of Gardasil scheduled to be licensed in the fall of 2014.125 Or perhaps the Merck-Government-Medical Trade lobby is planning another multi-state roll-out of HPV vaccine mandates for all sixth grade children in the US just like they did in 2007.126-128

Roll Up Your Sleeve – No Questions Asked

Whatever the reasons that government officials made HPV vaccination a top public health priority in the US, the cyber-lynching of Katie Couric and mothers reporting Gardasil vaccine reactions is a warning to parents everywhere. Do not forget that the cruel, dogmatic position of vaccine risk denialism is: roll up your sleeve – no questions asked – and “may the odds be ever in your favor.”129130

Roundup Worse Than DDT

Glyphosate May Be Worse Than DDT, Which Has Now Been Linked to Alzheimer’s Disease, Decades After Exposure

February 13, 2014 | Thanks to Mercola.com

By Dr. Mercola

Alzheimer’s disease, a severe form of dementia, now affects an estimated 5.4 million Americans,1 and is the sixth leading cause of death in the US. According to one shocking projection, Alzheimer’s is predicted to affect 25 percent of American adults in the next 20 years, rivaling the current prevalence of obesity and diabetes.

Such predictions are particularly distressing in light of the fact that Alzheimer’s is a disease predicated on lifestyle, especially your diet. Hidden factors such as toxic exposures can also play a distinct role.

According to the featured article in the Los Angeles Times,2 researchers have linked DDT exposure to the development of Alzheimer’s disease later on in life.

The study, published in the journal JAMA Neurology,3 found that patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s had dramatically higher levels of the DDT metabolite DDE in their blood—four times higher, in fact—compared to people of similar age who do not have the disease. Lead author Jason Richardson told the LA Times:

“DDE can last in the body for a number of years. When you are looking at DDE levels, it is basically a snapshot of a person’s lifetime exposure to DDT as well as DDE in the environment…

Over 80 percent of us have measurable levels of DDE in our blood; that is a reality. We get it from legacy contamination or food that comes from countries using DDT.”

The Long-Term Ramifications of Agricultural Chemicals on Human Health

The use of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) began during the second half of World War II, when it was liberally sprayed to control diseases such as malaria and typhus. Once the war was over, it began being used as an agricultural pesticide. Monsanto was one of more than a dozen companies that manufactured the chemical.

In 1962, American biologist wrote the groundbreaking book Silent Spring, in which she warned of the devastating environmental impacts of DDT, suggesting the chemical may also have harmful effects on human health.

She rightfully questioned the logic and sanity of using such vast amounts of a chemical without knowing much about its ecological and human health impact. The public outcry that resulted from her book eventually led to DDT being banned for agricultural use in the US in 1972.

Fast-forward just over 40 years, and we’re now seeing the effects of that DDT exposure. Interestingly, several studies456789 have linked increased DDT and/or DDE levels to diabetes as well.

The suggestion that DDT exposure may contribute to diabetes and/or such a devastating disease as Alzheimer’s—decades after exposure—should be a worldwide wake-up call for what the ramifications of glyphosate might be.

Glyphosate (Roundup) was approved in 1974 in the US,10 and has been widely and aggressively used since then. (It didn’t gain EU-wide approval until 2002.) As with DDT, we’re now seeing research linking glyphosate exposure to dramatic jumps in disease rates, such as autism for example, as well as food allergies and digestive problems.

The difference is that the effects are showing far sooner, and appear more evidently linked than in the case of DDT. Personally, I believe we’re in for a world of hurt in coming decades, as the full effects of glyphosate toxicity become evident. In my view, there’s simply no time to waste when it comes to ending the reckless use of glyphosate.

Glyphosate—A Thoroughly Underestimated Poison That May Be WORSE Than DDT

According to Dr. Don Huber, an expert in an area of science that relates to the toxicity of genetically engineered (GE) foods, glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide—is actually FAR worse than DDT!

It’s worth noting that genetically engineered (GE) crops are far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they’re engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed. Glyphosate contamination is a major part of the overall hazards of GE foods, as the chemical cannot be washed off—it is incorporated into every cell of the plant.

Strange as it may sound, when asked which toxin he would prefer to use if he had to make a choice between two evils, Dr. Huber says he’d actually take DDT over glyphosate!

“A lot of these materials can have a very beneficial use. I’m certainly not anti-chemical. But we have to use some common sense. What we have with glyphosate is the most abused chemical we have ever had in the history of man,” he said in a previous interview.

“…When future historians write about our time, they’re not going to write about the tons of chemicals that we did or didn’t apply. When it comes to glyphosate, they’re going to write about our willingness to sacrifice our children and jeopardize our existence, while threatening and jeopardizing the very basis of our existence; the sustainability of our agriculture…

It doesn’t mean that it’s not reversible… But it means that we need to recognize what the concerns are, what’s happening, and then we need to change.”

The Many Health Hazards of Glyphosate

As stated by Dr. Huber, we jumped in without the basic understanding of what products like DDT and glyphosate do—beyond their obvious benefits of killing pests—and this was done to support the bottom line of a few large companies, such as Monsanto.

The public’s appreciation of the toxicity of glyphosate is still rather limited, and the fact that Monsanto marketed Roundup as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable” has undoubtedly had quite a bit to do with this general lack of insight. (In 2009, a French court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto for false advertising of Roundup.) Glyphosate is actually, in many ways, similar to DDT, which is also known to cause reproductive problems and birth defects11among other things. Like DDT, glyphosate has also been identified as a likely causative factor in fertility problems and birth defects. Furthermore, research shows that glyphosate:

Decimates beneficial microorganisms in the soil essential for proper plant function and high-quality nutrition Causes extreme disruption of your gut microbes’ function and lifecycle;preferentially affecting beneficialbacteria, while promoting the growth of pathogens in your intestines
Chelates critical microminerals, preventing them from being utilized by the plant (leading to nutrient-deficient food) Inhibits enzymes that catalyze the oxidation of organic substances, which appears to be an overlooked component of glyphosate’s toxicity to mammals. By limiting the ability of these enzymes to detoxify foreign chemical compounds, glyphosateenhances the damaging effects of those chemicals and environmental toxins you may be exposed to
Promotes the proliferation of disease-causing pathogens in soil Is toxic to water fleas at extraordinarily low levels, well within the levels expected to be found in the environment. These findings throw serious doubt on glyphosate’s safety
Predisposes cattle to lethal botulism Is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications

The Rise in Autism Perfectly Matches Use of Glyphosate

Former US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson, Ph.D. has meticulously collected statistics on glyphosate usage and various diseases and conditions, including autism, the results of which are shown in the graphic below. It’s hard to imagine a more perfect match-up between the rise in glyphosate usage and incidence of autism.

You can access her published articles and reports on Sustainable Pulse,12 a European website dedicated to exposing the hazards of genetically engineered foods. According to Dr. Swanson:

“Prevalence and incidence data show correlations between diseases of the organs and the increase in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food supply, along with the increase in glyphosate-based herbicide applications. More and more studies have revealed carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects of Roundup at lower doses than those authorized for residues found in Genetically Modified Organisms.”

“The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to reproductive problems: infertility, miscarriage, birth defects, and sexual development. Fetuses, infants and children are especially susceptible because they are continually experiencing growth and hormonal changes. For optimal growth and development, it is crucial that their hormonal system is functioning properly.

The endocrine disrupting properties also lead to neurological disorders (learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly.”

15-Minute At-Home Alzheimer’s Test Goes Viral

There’s no doubt that Alzheimer’s disease is fast becoming a concern on many people’s minds. A 15-minute at-home test to assess your risk of Alzheimer’s and dementia, published in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences,13immediately went viral on the web. As reported by Forbes:14

“Titled the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination test, or SAGE, and developed by Douglas Scharre, M.D., of the Division of Cognitive Neurology at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, it’s a surprisingly simple 12-question pen-and-paper questionnaire. While participants in the study took a supervised test, it can be taken at home.

Scharre and colleagues validated the test by giving it to 1,047 people over 50 in community settings. Results showed 28 percent had signs of cognitive decline they were unaware of… The test can be used both as a routine screening tool and by those already diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or cognitive decline to monitor their condition.”

If you want to try it out for yourself, you can download the SAGE test from the Ohio State University’s website.15 Test questions include:

  • Naming certain items shown in picture form
  • Explaining how two items are alike
  • Simple financial or math questions
  • Memorization assignments
  • Copying simple geometric drawings
  • Matching numbers to letters

According to Dr. Scharre, this simple test correlates very well to more comprehensive cognitive tests, and is an excellent way to get an early assessment of your cognitive function. If taken at intervals over time, it can also serve as an early warning, if your scores begin to decline.

Prevention Is FAR Easier and More Effective Than Treatment After Onset

It’s important to realize that Alzheimer’s is a disease driven by poor lifestyle choices and the toxic buildup that so often go along with such choices. I firmly believe that your diet is the most important factor of all. Not only from a nutritional standpoint, but also from the standpoint of chemical exposure. This warning applies not just for the prevention of Alzheimer’s—I believe we are headed toward a widespread health calamity of absolutely enormous proportions, courtesy of the overuse of glyphosate, which researchers now believe may be a primary driver of virtually all chronic disease!

In terms of recommended dietary changes, avoiding processed foods is a foundational underpinning of good health, made even more important now that most processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients (primarily corn, soy, sugar beet, and all the derivatives thereof). Replacing non-vegetable carbohydrates with higher amounts of healthful fats and moderate amounts of high-quality protein is also at the very top of my list for chronic disease prevention.

I recently discussed a wide array of prevention strategies for Alzheimer’s in my article “Vitamin E May Offer Benefits for Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease,” so for more details about how you can protect yourself against this deadly disease, please refer to that article.

It’s really astounding to consider the health tragedies we may be facing in the coming decades, all in the name of efficiency and scientific progress. My strong recommendation is to do everything in your power to avoid such a fate, and to protect your children from it to the best of your ability. While difficult, it’s not impossible. But you do need to make food a priority in your life, and take proactive measures to promote the growing of organic foods. Besides buying organic, you can also go a step further and grow your own food. I also encourage you to take a firm stance for the labeling of genetically engineered foods, which tend to carry the highest health risks, whether known or presently unknown.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I-522 poster
As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the chemical technology industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

Roundup Toxicity

New Research Fuels Roundup Weedkiller Toxicity Concerns

February 04, 2014 Thanks to Mercola.com

By Dr. Mercola

Last year, groundbreaking research was published suggesting that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, might be “a crucially important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions.”

If you missed it, please take the time to listen to Jeff Smith’s interview with the lead author of that research, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, reposted above.

They spray nearly one BILLION pounds of Roundup  every year for conventional crop production, but genetically engineered (GE) crops see some of the heaviest use, as so-called Roundup Ready crops are designed to withstand otherwise lethal doses of this chemical.

Tests published last year also showed that people in 18 countries across Europe have glyphosate in their bodies,1 while yet a third study revealed the chemical has estrogenic properties and drive breast cancer proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.2

Now, research published in the International Journal of Toxicology3 in January adds even more fuel to the fire, as it reveals that glyphosate-based formulations like Roundup pose a threat to human health through cytotoxicity and oxidative effects. Such formulations were also found to be lethal to human liver cells.

You may think you are safe if you only eat organic produce but nothing could be further from the truth as most of the glyphosate contaminated crops are fed to animals. This means you also need to get organic meat and eggs. Also, beware you CANNOT wash glyphosate off your produce as it is actively integrated into every cell in the plant and impossible to wash off.

Commercial Formulations of Glyphosate Threaten Human Health

The researchers found that while glyphosate and its amino acid metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in isolation appears to be non-toxic to human cells, toxicity does become a concern when glyphosate is added to other ingredients found in commercial formulations.

It’s also well worth noting that the featured study assessed the effects of glyphosate-based formulations on human cells at dilutions that are far belownormal agricultural applications. As reported by the featured article by GreenMedInfo.com:4

“The researchers discovered that while glyphosate and its amino acid metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), showed little to no observable toxic effects in isolation, a glyphosate-based formulation containing adjuvants produced a variety of adverse effects on cellular oxidative balance, including the following signs of oxidative stress:

  • Increases in reactive oxygen species
  • Increases in nitrotyrosine formation
  • Increases in superoxide dismutase activity
  • Increases in glutathione levels

The glyphosate formulation studied also triggered two ‘death proteins’ in human cells known as caspase 3/7, inducing pathways that activate programmed cell death (apoptosis), a clear sign of significant toxicity.”

According to the authors:

“These results confirm that G [glyphosate] formulations have adjuvants working together with the active ingredient and causing toxic effects that are not seen with acid glyphosate…

Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone.

Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species.”

Glyphosate in Isolation Preferentially Targets Beneficial Bacteria

Please note that in my earlier interviews with Dr. Don Huber, who is one of the most prominent scientific experts in plant toxicology, he firmly believe glyphosate is FAR more toxic and dangerous than DDT.

Previous research also shows that glyphosate alone wreaks havoc on soil and gut bacteria, so while glyphosate in isolation may not be able to kill your liver cells, ithas been shown to wreak havoc on the beneficial bacteria that are absolutely critical to your overall health. Your gut bacteria (opposed to other human cells) are a key component of glyphosate’s primary mechanism of harm, as microbes have the same pathway used by glyphosate to kill weeds.

The issue of glyphosate toxicity—whether in isolation or in formulation—implicates genetically engineered foods as being potentially far more hazardous to your health than less contaminated crops, and is indeed a significant reason for opting for organically-grown foods.

Labeling GMOs could help you select products that are less likely to have heavy contamination, although you’d also avoid many other hazardous chemicals used in conventional farming by opting for products labeled 100% organic.

There’s also the environmental angle, as glyphosate also effectively kills beneficial soil microbes and damages the fertility of the soil. Glyphosate is in fact patented as an antibiotic, and killing bacteria is the main function of such drugs. It’s also a potent chelator, which prevents valuable minerals like iron, calcium, manganese, and zinc from being utilized by the plant.

As previously explained by plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber, genetically engineered (GE) foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate, have lower nutrient density than organic foods for this very reason. GE crops also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins.

Glyphosate’s chelating and antibacterial activities also promote soil and plant disease, including but not limited to fungal root disease, highlighted by USDA scientist Robert Kremer in a previous Mother Jones article.5 The chemical’s damaging effect on soil has a detrimental effect on yields too, of course, which appears to be part of the explanation for why the chemical technology industry’s promises of improving yields have largely fallen flat. The only “yield” that’s really gone up is that of glyphosate-resistant superweeds which, as of 2012, affected nearly half (49 percent) of American farmers!6 That was up from a reported 34 percent of farmers in 2011, so clearly, the spread of resistance is swift, and the entire agricultural system is at stake.

Global Land Crisis and the Threat of Worldwide Famine

In related news,7 a recently published paper in the journal Science8 by a Colorado research team found that modern chemical-based agriculture has “drastically altered” the biology of American farmland across the prairies, concluding that: “The soils currently found throughout the region bear little resemblance to their pre-agricultural state.”

The paper calls for dramatic and swift changes to our agricultural system, stating that it’s the “only viable route to feeding the world and keeping it habitable.” A key factor causing the rapid degradation of soil, topsoil erosion, and declining soil fertility, is the adverse effect that agricultural chemicals have on the soil.

Academic analysts from South Africa’s Witwatersrand University also weighed in on the issue, warning that unless we change course in how food is grown, we will repeat the same mistakes committed by civilizations in the past, where overexploitation of the land resulted in a vicious circle of famine and social disintegration… To learn more, you can review the PDF booklet, Food Plague Primer: Glyphosate and Genetically Engineered Crops,9 which is a free preview to the book: Food Plague: Could our daily bread be our most deadly exposure,10 written by Arden Andersen PhD, DO, who is both a medical doctor and horticulturist.

Food Industry Pulls Out All the Stops to Prevent GMO Labeling

There’s also important news from the GMO labeling front. I recently told you about the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America‘s (GMA) multi-pronged game plan for preventing US states from implementing any kind of GMO labeling. A major part of the GMA’s plan is to prevent states from creating their own labeling laws by pushing for an industry-friendly, voluntary labeling law at the federal level. But that’s not all.

A GMA document11 created for use by industry lobbyists also lays out a clear-cut strategy for addressing any state that successfully implements a GMO labeling law, stating that, “The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy.”Costly litigation is clearly part of the GMA’s master plan to protect industry profits in the face of growing consumer awareness about the many problems inherent with potentially toxic, genetically engineered, and grossly adulterated, processed foods.

Maine and Connecticut both passed GMO labeling laws last year, but they contain “trigger” clauses that prevent them from taking effect until or unless at least four neighboring states, with a combined population of at least 20 million inhabitants, pass similar bills.

Vermont also produced a GMO labeling bill in 2012, which was quickly put on ice when Monsanto threatened to sue the state. Still, Vermonters pushed through and, last year, the Vermont House of Representatives passed H.112, which would require GE foods to be labeled as such, and would prohibit GE foods from being labeled “natural.” While the bill didn’t make it into the Senate before the end of the legislative session in 2013, now that the state legislature has reconvened, the bill has been taken up by the Senate’s Agriculture Committee.

The problem Vermont now faces for the second time is the threat of being sued by the industry. The GMA document referred to above falsely insinuates that GMO labeling is in violation of the First Amendment, which protects commercial speech, and therefore unconstitutional.

Breaking News: Highest Rated Law Firm Confirms GMO Labeling IS Constitutional

Alas, one of the highest rated law firms in the US, Emord & Associates, has analyzed the Vermont Genetically Engineered Labeling Bill, H.112, concluding that the bill is, in fact, constitutional.1213 Emord & Associates is an AV-rated constitutional and administrative law firm located in Washington, D.C., Clifton, Virginia, and Chandler, Arizona.

An AV rating is the highest rating a law firm can achieve, based on legal ability and ethics, from the Martindale-Hubbell organization. Since 1999, the firm has successfully represented clients in eight First Amendment challenges against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic has also concluded that Vermont’s GMO labeling bill would withstand a legal challenge from industry, stating that:14

“We have researched and analyzed challenges that may be made in opposition to such legislation and have concluded that Vermont can pass GE labeling legislation that will meet all constitutional requirements.”

That said, the threat of costly legal battles may still have a cooling effect on legislators that would otherwise support GMO labeling, which is surely the GMA’s intent. As reported by the Organic Consumers Association:15

“…GMO labeling activists are also concerned that some lawmakers will use the GMA’s threats as a convenient excuse to reject the majority opinion of their voters, in favor of siding with industry instead. Or as a means to convince their colleagues to add trigger clauses, similar to those in the Maine and Connecticut bills, in an attempt to stall or permanently sabotage GMO laws.

Food manufacturers insist that GMO ingredients are perfectly safe. Still, they’ve spent more than $70 million–some of itillegally laundered—to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington State. And the GMA, representing more than 300 food makers and trade associations, has drafted a bill (which so far has no sponsors) that would preempt state mandatory GMO labeling laws and allow the use of the word ‘natural’ on GMO-contaminated products.

…What’s next? Vermont lawmakers could pass a clean bill. Or, they could pass a meaningless bill with a trigger clause. Or, they could cave into industry’s threats entirely, and vote against the 90 percent of Vermonters who support H.112—knowing that the bill is bullet-proof, and their failure to pass it a failure of courage.”

Take a Stand Against Industry Bullying

Vermont isn’t the only state having to muster up a backbone to face a potential legal challenge by the GMA. Rhode Island and Florida have also introduced GMO labeling laws this year. Massachusetts and New York are expected to follow suit. But no matter where GMO labeling laws are considered, you can be sure GMA lobbyists will be present, spewing falsehoods and intimidating lawmakers. The Organic Consumers Association has created an Action Page where you can voice your opinions with the lawmakers in your state. Please tell them to stand firm; ignore the threats from the food industry, and do what’s right for the people they were elected to represent.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter. Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the chemical technology industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

Andrew Wakefield – Slandered

 

BMJ admits that fraud claim against Dr. Andrew Wakefield has no basis in fact

Thursday, August 25, 2011 by: PF Louis
Thanks to NaturalNews.com

(Natural News) Big Pharma, the FDA, AMA and other medical associations falsely accuse conscientious healers of crimes that they themselves routinely commit or cover up. Unfortunately, they get away with it since they are the “authority”, and the mainstream media (MSM) usually favors authority’s version of events. Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a victim of the BMJ’s (British Medical Journal) injustice, which also helped hide vaccine injury science from public awareness.

What Wakefield Actually Did

Dr. Wakefield was organizing clinical research on Crohn’s disease, colitis and gastrointestinal disorders in young children. The research intended to determine if there was a link between those disorders and measles at the Royal Free Hospital in England. Dr. Wakefield published the results of this clinical study in the U.K. medical journal Lancet in 1998.

Children were brought to him because of his interest, but contrary to all accusations, he never treated them. He described himself as “the thinker” when Health Ranger Mike Adams recently interviewed him. In this particular study, he was the thinker for the team of doctors directly involved with the treatment.

Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield’s Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.

That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield’s team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents’ reports in the case study findings. Including parents’ observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.

Dr. Wakefield’s only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study.

Other Discoveries that Corroborate Wakefield’s Findings

According to a Mike Adams article, fourteen months before Dr. Wakefield’s paper was published, two other researchers discovered the same problems of gut disorders and autistic behavior in seven children. Their 1996 presentation was called “Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR – A Review of the First Seven Cases.” Those seven cases became part of the final twelve cases in Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper. This and other facts disprove accusations that Wakefield fabricated the twelve reports.

A more recent Wake Forest University study determined that 70 of 82 autistic children they studied had measles virus in their guts. Interestingly, the measles virus strain they discovered was not a wild virus — it was the same strain used in MMR vaccines.

A Russian born U.K. pediatrician, Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, has not only established the connection of gastrointestinal tract disorders among the very young to autistic and other behavioral problems, she cures them with proper diet and supplementation. She learned how the hard way, by curing her own autistic son.

Dr. McBride coined the acronym GAPS for her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome. She describes the dietary solutions to her explanations of how the gut and the brain are connected. This relationship has been known by traditional Chinese medicine for centuries.

In a recent U.S. lecture, she mentioned that her colleagues were afraid to mention Dr. Wakefield due of the witch-hunt conspired against him earlier. But she acknowledges his research efforts as accurate contributions to her practice.

The U.K. government refuses to compensate cases of encephalitis (brain disease) due to vaccineinjury. Here we may have one motive for a conspiracy against Dr. Wakefield.

There Really Was a Conspiracy

There are other motives from the usual suspects. The allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire’s Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch’s son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.

James hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ). She propagated Deer’s lies officially.

This pincer move encircled the U.K. Government’s medical establishment and forced a five member GMC (General Medical Council) hearing on Dr. Wakefield. Perhaps the hearing intended to defend the U.K.’s stance on not awarding vaccine injury victim?

The Sly Admission: Too Late; Damage Done

Private admission of wrong doing by the BMJ to newsletter Age of Autism, spoken evasively out of both sides of Dr. Fiona Godlee’s mouth, is insufficient for the public damage done to Dr. Wakefield’s integrity. But it has served to inspire a stronger alliance among medical professionals and aware parents of vaccine injured children on both sides of the Atlantic.(7)

Sources for this article include:

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A4461232…
http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_…
http://www.naturalnews.com/031056_autism_vac…
http://www.gutandpsychologysyndrome.com/
http://childhealthsafety.com/
http://www.naturalnews.com/033347_vaccines_D…
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/why-age-o…

 

 

Polio in India

Confirmed: India’s Polio Eradication Campaign in 2011 Caused 47,500 Cases of Vaccine-Induced Polio Paralysis

August 28, 2012 Thanks to Mercola.com.
By Dr. Mercola

If you listen to mainstream media news, you’ll be told that polio has now been eradicated in India – an accomplishment the Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are attributing to the intense polio vaccination campaign.

The Indian government reportedly had 2.3 million vaccine administrators visit over 200 million households, with oral polio vaccinations given to nearly 170 million children 5 years of age and younger;1 health officials are now doubling their efforts to conquer polio in Pakistan as well.

What you’re NOT learning from the mainstream media, however, is that there’s a growing public movement fighting the profound misinformation about these OPV campaigns being conducted repeatedly among children in India and other nations. One recent published paper has suggested that increased administration of OPV doses among children in India is associated with increases in Accute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP), which is as crippling and deadly as wild type polio paralysis.. ..

Polio Vaccine Campaigns and Increases In Deadly Polio-Like Disease in Children

A paper published earlier this year in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics should have made headlines around the globe, as it estimated there were 47,500 cases of a polio-like condition linked to children in India receiving repeated doses of  oral polio vaccine in 2011 alone. The incidence of non-polio Accute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) in India is now 12 times higher than expected and coincides with huge increases in OPV doses being given to children in the quest to “eradicate” wild type polio infection and paralysis.

Researchers reported:2

“…while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere [First, do no harm] was violated.”

Another way the public is being misled about India’s claims to be polio-free is that live virus polio vaccine is causing vaccine strain polio in an unknown number of children and adults.. The problem is that, while the oral vaccine has reined in wild polio, persons recently vaccinated with the live attenuated oral polio vaccine can shed vaccine strain virus in their body fluids for weeks and, in some cases, both the recently vaccinated and close contacts of the recently vaccinated can come down with vaccine strain polio. Poor sanitation, including open sewage in underdeveloped countries, where drinking water is too often also used for bathing and disposal of human waste, can make it easy for vaccine strain polio virus to be transmitted.

Environmental surveillance for VDPV is now being conducted in a number of countries, including Australia, Egypt, Haiti, and Indonesia.

Third World Countries Using Reactive and Dated Vaccines

While most affluent nations now rely on inactivated, injectable poliovirus vaccine (IPV), many third-world countries still use an oral polio vaccine because it’s much simpler to administer drops in the mouth rather than injecting a vaccine into a child . However, because the oral polio vaccine is made from a live attenuated polio viruses, it carries a risk of causing vaccine strain polio in populations, especially among those, who are immune compromised, malnourished or suffering from serious health problems.

Genetic analysis of polioviruses associated with outbreaks of paralytic disease has linked polio vaccine strain viruses to at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria. Polio outbreaks in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 were also traced to an “attenuated” strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that was reportedly more virulent than wild polio.

According to a 2010 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, outbreaks of vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) have been occurring at a rate of once or twice per year, since the year 2000.3  It is estimated that up to 180 Indian children develop vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year.4

The live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks, and in your feces for up to two months.5 So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces – which, incidentally, turns on its head the age-old dogma that it is only the unvaccinated, who pose an infection risk to the vaccinated.

Pakistan: Over 3,000 Children Given Expired Polio Drops

Over 3,000 children under 5 years old, and some only a few months old, were given expired polio drops in Pakistan earlier this year, resulting in serious illnesses that sent the children to the hospital.

While the original story quoting the sick children’s parents was pulled from the Internet, a “cache” of the story was still available and follow-up stories reported that some Pakistani health officials had been suspended for providing the expired drops, which were distributed during a spring 2012 vaccination campaign.

Side effects reported due to the expired vaccines ranged from high fever to chest infections, and it’s said that government officials originally tried to cover up the mishap…

Media is Not Giving the Whole Picture on the Oral Polio Vaccine Controversy

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), spoke with Voice of America (VOA) about the intensive polio vaccine campaigns in the developing world. Unfortunately, much of Barbara’s interview and insights were edited out of the video, as she explains below:

“I taped an interview with Voice of America on the subject of intensive polio vaccine campaigns in the developing world. I gave the reporter this Indian journal article6 and raised the issue of the reported increases in Acute Flaccid Paralysis among Indian children given monthly doses of OPV [oral polio vaccine]. l told him that developed countries like the US had replaced live virus polio vaccine (OPV) with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) more than a decade ago to prevent cases of vaccine-strain polio because OPV, being a live virus vaccine, causes recently vaccinated children to shed vaccine-strain polio virus in their body fluids for a period of time following vaccination. In underdeveloped countries with poverty and poor sanitation (like open sewage), vaccine-strain viruses can contaminate water and facilitate transmission of vaccine-strain paralytic polio.

I brought up the issue of poverty, including poor sanitation, malnutrition, and limited access to health care facilities (for example, to undergo re-hydradation from diarrhea) as being an important cause of disease and poor health separate from vaccination.

I did question whether repeated mass vaccination campaigns in underdeveloped countries were more a function of pharmaceutical companies seeking to sell product rather than making investments in infrastructure that address the basic causes of poor health. And I also questioned the lack of safety science to demonstrate that it is safe to give children MONTHLY polio vaccinations when children in the developed world only receive 5 doses.

As you know, NVIC does not oppose the use of polio vaccine but we do not support excessive, repeated OPV vaccination campaigns in impoverished populations when that approach is not backed up with good safety science.

We do oppose use of government enforcement mechanisms to aggressively implement mass vaccination campaigns that fail to obtain the voluntary, informed consent of the parents of children being vaccinated. We do this because NVIC defends the ethical principal of informed consent to medical risk taking, which is a human right, and we defend that right without compromise.

It is too bad that the VOA report did not address poverty,  malnutrition and the root causes of disease versus simply giving these children OPV vaccine over and over again, when the vaccine can cause vaccine-strain polio, there are no safety studies showing that it is safe to give children monthly doses of OPV and the report out of India indicates that increases in Acute Flaccid Paralysis may be associated with repeated OPV vaccination in children.”

Has the Chemical Synthesis of Polio Virus Made Global Eradication Impossible?

In 2002, it was reported that fully infectious polio virus had been recreated in a lab. While this was heralded as a milestone in biology, it was met with great unease by the general public who worried that polio could now be used as a weapon of bioterrorism. And, the very fact that it can be synthetically created technically means that global eradication is now impossible. Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo.com stated:

“One thing, which should not be overlooked is that the researchers who broke this story also revealed another highly disturbing fact: infectious polio virus has been known to be capable of de novo synthesis for over 10 years – essentially implying global polio eradication is now by principle impossible.”

In fact, in the journal Science in 2002 it was reported:7

“The charade about polio eradication and the great savings it will bring has persisted to date. It is a paradox, that while the director general of WHO, Margret Chan, and Bill Gates are trying to muster support for polio eradication it has been known to the scientific community, for over 10 years, that eradication of polio is impossible. This is because in 2002 scientists had synthesized a chemical called poliovirus a chemical called poliovirus in a test-tube with the empirical formula c332,652H492,388N98,245O131,196P7,501S2,340.

It has been demonstrated that by positioning the atoms in sequence, a particle can emerge with all the properties required for its proliferation and survival in nature… the test-tube synthesis of poliovirus has wiped out any possibility of eradicating poliovirus in the future. Poliovirus cannot be declared extinct because the sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in vitro.

Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus. indeed the 18-year-old global eradication campaign for polioviruses will have to be continued in some format forever. The long promised ‘infinite’ monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved. The attraction that ‘eradication’ has for policy makers will vanish once this truth is widely known.”

The sentiment was repeated again in 2006:8

“…does the test-tube synthesis negate efforts to eradicate poliovirus? The conceptual answer to this is yes. Poliovirus cannot be declared extinct because the sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in vitro. This is true for all viruses, including smallpox.”

Polio Vaccine Has Been Linked to Cancer

You might be like me and be an American who received polio shots in the 1950′s and 60′s. I have not been, but many have ended up being informed – 40 years later – that many of those experimental polio shots were contaminated with a monkey virus, simian virus 40 (SV40), that causes cancer in lab animals and has been linked to brain, bone, lung, and lymphatic cancers in children and adults.9 -10

They weren’t told the whole truth about polio vaccine risks, and vaccine makers and health officials are still frugal with the facts when it comes to vaccine risks. Many make blanket statements saying that “vaccines are safe,” when in fact such a statement simply cannot be made without misrepresenting the facts.

The truth is, there are risks associated with any vaccine, and they clearly do not work for everyone. And even when they do work, you oftentimes end up with more virulent and hardy viruses… Not to mention, policy makers seem to be overlooking the poignant fact that people in third-world countries are in desperate need of clean water, healthy food and sanitation, which would work wonders for preventing many of the infectious diseases they are spending billions on vaccines for…

The Underlying Causes of Polio are Being Ignored

Vaccines alone don’t eradicate disease. Polio spreads, after all, largely through feces-contaminated water, so ignoring that major risk factor while trying to eradicate the disease is not sound public health policy.  What if, just what if, the same amount of money that has been spent on repeated polio vaccine campaigns  over the past decade had been spent on sanitation facilities, toilets, healthy food and clean water instead?

Sayer Ji expands:11

“Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.

Instead, a large portion of the world’s vaccines are given to the third world as ‘charity,’ when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed. You simply can’t vaccinate people out of these conditions, and as India’s new epidemic of vaccine-induced polio cases clearly demonstrates, the ‘cure’ may be far worse than the disease itself.”

As an aside, did you know that evidence from the polio outbreaks in the 1950’s suggested that the risks of getting polio can be reduced by cutting back on sugar? The evidence suggesting that a diet high in refined sugar (as well as other forms of fructose) increases your risk of contracting polio is discussed in the book Diet Prevents Polio, written by Benjamin P. Sandler, M.D. The book was published in 1951, at the height of the polio epidemic.

In general, it makes perfect sense that high sugar/fructose consumption could raise your risk of polio, as it, just like other infections, only tends to cause complications when your immune system is weakened, which can easily happen through poor nutrition (high fructose consumption), stress, and lack of sleep.

So, the polio vaccine is not the only, nor the ultimate, solution to staying well.  Maintaining a strong and well-functioning immune system will always be your first line of defense, as this will reduce your risk of any number of diseases, including polio – and this is, unfortunately, what most people in third-world countries are missing.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference Right NOW

I urge you to do your homework before giving your children to any vaccine. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a top-notch source that provides well-referenced information on vaccines and infectious diseases. For a full list of precautions for children, teenagers and adults, read the manufacturer product inserts, and get more information about how to recognize a vaccine reaction at www.NVIC.org.

Protecting your right to informed consent is essential. NVIC has been the leading advocate for informed consent to vaccination since its inception. Signing up to be a user of NVIC’s free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. NVIC is 100 percent funded by donations, so please, take a moment right now to make a donation to the NVIC.

Your tax-deductible donation allows NVIC to furnish the public with life-saving information on informed vaccine decision-making, vaccine injury reduction and research. They support the availability of all preventive health care options, including vaccination, and the right of consumers to make educated, voluntary health care choices.

Roundup Showing up in UK

 

UK bread and cereal bars found to be contaminated with glyphosate

Monday, January 13, 2014 by: PF Louis

(NaturalNews) The UK and EU populace doesn’t embrace Monsanto’s propaganda, and their governments are somewhat less dominated by Monsanto minions than the US government is. So traces of glyphosate in major British non-GMO food brands should be a huge red flag for us here in America.

UK news site The Ecologist featured a study performed by a British anti-GMO group called GM Freeze. Two major food brands contained traces of glyphosate. The research disclosed that all four cereal bars produced by Jordans and 34 out of 40 bread products sampled from Walburtons contained traces of glyhosate. These are both big name brands in the UK.

Those traces were below the EU maximum allowable glyphosate residue amounts for cereal products. But many disagree with the maximum allowable amounts, pointing out that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and thus shouldn’t be tolerated at any level. [1] [4]

Parsing the glyphosate RoundUp issue

So how does glyphosate show up in those biscuits and breads where GMOs aren’t grown? Well, RoundUp is such a popular herbicide that it’s used on non-GMO grain fields. Normally, RoundUp destroys all plant life that’s not grown from RoundUp Ready GMO seeds that are designed to keep the pesticide from killing those GMO corn or soy crops.

But farmers can use it on non-GMO fields before planting to get rid of or prevent weeds from choking the new crops, and they can be used just before harvesting to make combining easier. That’s how glyphosate can show up in foods from non-GMO grain sources. Only organic crops will be free of any pesticide residues.

In Europe, GMO soy and corn is allowed in most countries for livestock feed only. And that guarantees that the Monsanto herbicide RoundUp gets sold abundantly to those farmers who sign extremely binding and limiting contracts with the evil corporation.

This affects non-organic farm animals adversely. A Dutch pig farmer raised a stink beyond even his large factory farm when he compared the differences in animal health and reproduction between GMOfeeds and non-GMO feeds.

With non-GMO feeds, he experienced far less still births or spontaneous abortions and deformities among newly born piglets and less need for antibiotics among the pigs, who clearly showed better health even within the confines of a factory farm. [2]

This situation had occurred among Midwest American livestock farmers also. Several of them had reported issues of an even greater extent using GMO feed with their pigs, cows and cattle to retired Purdue professor emeritus of plant pathology Dr. Don Huber.

Huber investigated and discovered that the RoundUp pesticide was creating soil and plant issues that at least robbed the plants of nutrition and protection from disease. Huber also hypothesized that a unique and novel pathogen was developed in the process. [3]

Here’s where the glyphosate issue gets dicey

Glyphosate alone is not the most toxic pesticide ingredient, although it’s commonly considered as such.But it’s the only substance used for testing by the EPA and government agencies worldwide. So the EPA has allowed larger amounts of glyphosate usage even as it has been showing up in human blood.

RoundUp’s extreme toxicity comes from combining glyphosate with chemical adjuvants to ensure rapid plant absorption of glyphosate. Glyphosate is considered the “active ingredient,” while the adjuvants are considered “inert,” pretty much like vaccines and their toxic adjuvants.

The RoundUp adjuvants aren’t considered, while Monsanto claims proprietary rights to avoid revealing what those “inert” ingredients are. But the two-year Seralini rat study that produced premature deaths and horrific tumors after nine months did decipher what those adjuvants are. [5]

Using scientific instrumentation, the Seralini group isolated inert ingredients and noted their toxicity. RoundUp’s glyphosate combination with certain chemical adjuvants create a toxic and carcinogenic cocktail that makes it’s way up the food chain. [5a]

If the recent Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology retraction of Seralini’s work has you confused, consider these two facts: Almost 800 scientists and thousands of other professionals have petitioned objections to the journal’s condemnation of Seralini’s work, and just prior to that journal’s retraction, a former Monsanto scientist slithered into the journal’s editorial staff.

David Schubert, Ph.D. biology professor with the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, offers an excellent write-up defending Seralini’s work here (http://www.utsandiego.com).

Sources for this article include:

[1] http://www.theecologist.org

[2] Danish farmer’s pigs:
http://www.theecologist.org

[3] Video interview of Dr. Don Huber:
http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

[4] Low-dose study, within EPA range:
http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

[5] Adjuvants with glyphosate create a stew more harmful than glyphosate alone:
http://gmoseralini.org

[5a] The details of that study:
http://gmoseralini.org

Here are more sources for your perusal if you’re interested:

http://healthfreedoms.org

http://www.foodrenegade.com

http://www.responsibletechnology.org

http://www.mindfully.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Hepatitis B and Infants

17 Children Die After Receiving Hepatitis B Vaccine

January 07, 2014 | 35,384 views
 

By Dr. Mercola

If you’re a parent-to-be or are planning to have children in the future, one of the first decisions you’ll need to make is whether or not to give your child the hepatitis B vaccine.

Even if you consider yourself to be in favor of vaccinations and the current US vaccine schedule, this is one vaccine that deserves special consideration. In fact, the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns and young children is the least justifiable of any vaccine I can think of…

Hepatitis B is only transmitted via contaminated needles, blood transfusion, or contact with contaminated blood and/or body fluids. If the mother is negative, there’s very little risk of a baby contracting this disease, and the vaccine’s effectiveness is highly questionable, anyway.

Further, serious side effects and even deaths have also been reported following receipt of this vaccine, including eight recent newborn deaths in China. Over a period of two months, eight infants in China died within hours, and in some cases minutes, of receiving hepatitis B vaccines. In all, 17 deaths among Chinese children aged 5 and younger have been reported following hepatitis B vaccines administered in late 2013.

China Investigates Makers of Hepatitis B Vaccine After Baby Deaths

Six of the deaths occurred in infants who had received the vaccine made by Shenzhen Kangtai Biological Products, while two occurred after hepatitis B vaccine produced by drug maker Beijing Tiantan Biological Products (shares of this company plunged by up to 10 percent following media reports of the deaths).

Health authorities in China have since launched an investigation and have suspended the use of millions of doses of hepatitis B vaccine made by Shenzhen Kangtai. So far the drug companies have denied that their products played a role in the deaths, and Chinese health authorities have also said that nine of the 17 deaths were unrelated to the vaccine.

According to China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission, those deaths were due to acute pneumonia, suffocation, kidney failure, severe diarrhea, death of intestinal tissue, sudden infant death, congenital heart disease and other causes.1

As for the remaining eight deaths, Chinese authorities have also said that a preliminary investigation has found no link between the deaths and the vaccines. However, firm conclusions have yet to be reached, pending the results of autopsies to confirm the causes of death.

Victim’s Father Speaks Out, Calls Official Report “Absolute Rubbish”

In a report by Radio Free Asia,2 the father of one of the 17 children who died after receiving a hepatitis B vaccine called Chinese health officials’ claims that the deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine “absolute rubbish.”

Many others commenting on social media also expressed doubts about the government’s analysis and conclusions, especially in light of a series of product safety and health scandals in recent years. Often, those who dare to speak out are persecuted or punished for questioning the status quo.

Radio Free Asia reported:3

China’s pharmaceutical industry is highly lucrative but poorly regulated, resulting in a string of fatalities blamed on counterfeit or shoddy medications in recent years.

An investigative report in the China Economic Observer newspaper in 2010 said that improperly stored vaccines administered by Shanxi health officials for encephalitis, hepatitis B, and rabies between 2006 and 2008 had killed four children and sickened more than 70 others, with tainted vaccines being used as late as March 2009.

Top investigative reporter Wang Keqin, who exposed the vaccine scandal among others, was forced out of his job at the newspaper in February 2013.

Parents who complain about mishaps linked to health and safety issues say they are frequently themselves targeted for official harassment and punishment.

In 2011, authorities in Beijing sentenced parent activist Yang Yukui to five months’ “re-education through labor” on charges of “provoking disputes and causing trouble” after he complained that his son had been in and out of the hospital since being given a bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) tuberculosis vaccination shortly after birth.”

Vaccine-Related Deaths a Coincidence?

Unfortunately, it’s not at all unusual for a vaccine maker to rule a child’s death shortly after vaccination as a “coincidence.” In the US, when babies die after hepatitis B vaccinations, most of the time their deaths are automatically attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) — without investigation into whether the vaccine caused the baby’s sudden death.

One of the most famous cases of hepatitis B vaccine was Michael Belkin’s daughter who died in his arms 15 hours after receiving the absolutely unnecessary hepatitis B vaccine. Below is his testimony to Congress in 1999.

When a baby’s death is listed as “SIDS,” rarely does anyone ask about the deceased infant’s vaccination history to find out whether there were symptoms of vaccine reactions before death, even though the biomedical literature has repeatedly signaled this connection.4

In China, the deaths occurred so close to vaccination, and in so many infants, that a potential connection could not be ignored. But even in the US, deaths following hepatitis B vaccine are far from unheard of. According to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC):5

“…hepatitis B vaccine-related adverse events reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) [include] reports of headache, irritability, extreme fatigue, brain inflammation, convulsions, rheumatoid arthritis, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and neuropathy.

There have been more than 1,500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported, including deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”

Shenzhen Kangtai has posted a statement suggesting that the deaths may be related to an underlying disease, noting that “coincidental diseases… are the easiest to misinterpret.”6 But Dr. Zeng Guang, chief epidemiologist with the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention, warned against taking the drug maker’s conclusion as fact, stating:7

“We should not treat the company’s statement like a conclusion… They may be trying to protect their self-interest. Or they may have a lot of confidence in their product.”

Merck’s Role in Building China’s Largest Hepatitis B Vaccine Maker

It’s interesting to note that US pharmaceutical giant Merck actually helped the Chinese build Shenzhen Kangtai in the 1990s. Merck also granted the company the biological technology to produce a hepatitis B vaccine royalty free in what the New York Times described as an “unusual joint venture aimed at improving health standards in China.”8

The company has since become China’s biggest producer of hepatitis B vaccines, where it holds 60 percent market share. A new $140-million research and development and drug manufacturing facility is also in the works…The infant deaths come on the heels of Chinese vows to tighten up food and drug safety and crack down on violators. The country has faced a slew of scandals in recent years, yet this hasn’t stopped to US from eyeing it as a key contender for future business. As Fierce Pharma reported:9

China is a key emerging market for Big Pharma, which sees great opportunity there. One example is French drugmaker Sanofi, whose vaccine unit Sanofi Pasteur got approval in October to begin manufacturing influenza vaccines at a new plant in Shenzhen. But China has struggled to keep up with oversight on health and food issues.

Five years ago, tainted Chinese heparin killed dozens of dialysis patients in the U.S., which made the FDA realize it needed to keep a closer look on production there. The FDA is currently investigating Chinese-made pet treats that have killed hundreds of dogs in the U.S. To get in a better position to deal with China’s growing place in the U.S. drug supply chain, the FDA is significantly adding to its own presence in China, planning to station another 10 drug inspectors and 9 food inspectors there over the next year.”

The ‘Worst Case of Research Fraud’ in Decades

In related vaccine news, Dong-Pyou Han, assistant professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University, recently resigned after faking AIDS vaccine test results. The researcher apparently added human blood that contained HIV antibodies to rabbit blood to skew the results. The human HIV antibodies in the rabbit blood made it appear as though the experimental AIDS vaccine was working and prompting the animals to build defenses against HIV.

Not only were the results presented at scientific meetings over a period of several years, but the findings were instrumental in helping the research team gain $19 million in federal grants ($10 million of which was awarded after the fraudulent results were reported). James Bradac, who is involved with AIDS vaccine grants for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), called the case “the worst case of research fraud” in his 24 years at NIH.10 It just goes to show you, again, that even scientific “truths” can be falsified, and even work from widely respected university researchers must be closely examined and supported before being accepted as fact…

Serious Questions Remain About Hepatitis B Vaccine Effectiveness

Another issue to consider if you are weighing the benefits and risks of giving your newborn infant or young child hepatitis B vaccine is that vaccine acquired immunity often does not persist until a child reaches his or her teenage years – the time when acquiring a hepatitis B infection may be more likely. Research shows that by that time, the protection from the childhood vaccine may have long since waned.11

Further, a recent study found that hepatitis B vaccine was not effective in preventing asymptomatic occult (hidden) HBV (hepatitis B virus) infection in babies, which may occur in up to 40 percent of babies born to hepatitis-B-positive mothers.12 Except in the case of a hepatitis-B-positive mother, the medical justification for vaccinating infants against hepatitis B simply doesn’t exist. In addition, the result of this above-mentioned study even refutes the commonly held assumption that hepatitis B vaccine is effective in preventing mother-to-infant transmission of all forms of hepatitis B.

The serious questions regarding effectiveness, coupled with the low transmission rates among babies and the steep risk of side effects, makes this vaccine’s use very hard to justify for healthy newborns.

Is Hepatitis B Vaccine Even Effective in Newborns?

Vaccine-derived immunity is thought to be short lived. Between 30-50% of vaccinated individuals lose their antibodies within 7 years. Up to 60% of persons who initially respond will lose detectable antibodies within 12 years. So that means that these vaccines will provide little to no protection to the real risks of acquiring hepatitis B, promiscuous sexual behavior, and IV drug abuse.

How Many Children Are Reportedly Hurt by Hepatitis B Vaccine?

Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996, only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported.

Let us put this in simpler terms. For every child with hepatitis B, there were 20 that were reported to have severe complications. Let us also remember that only 10% of the reactions are ever reported to VAERS, so this means: traditional medicine is potentially harming 200 children to protect one from hepatitis B.

How Serious Is a Hepatitis B Infection?

The numbers speak for themselves. Approximately 50% of patients who contract hepatitis B develop no symptoms after exposure. However, the exposure ensures that they will have lifetime immunity. An additional 30% develop only flu-like symptoms, and again, this group will acquire lifetime immunity. The remaining 20% exposed to hepatitis B will develop the symptoms of the disease. 95% of this 20% will fully recover, with lifetime immunity.

Therefore, less than 5% of people who contract hepatitis B will become chronic carriers of the infection. The numbers get even smaller: of that 5%, nearly 75% (or 3.75% of the total exposed) will live with an asymptomatic infection and only 25% (or only 1.25% of the total number of people exposed) will develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer, 10-30 years after the acute infection. (Hyams, K.C. (1995) Risks of chronicity following acute hepatitis B virus infection: A review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 20, 992-1000.)

Think of that in terms of probability: the possibility of contracting the disease is exceedingly difficult for children, and only 1.25% of those that are exposed will actually develop the most serious complication! This type of a “protecting the needle in the haystack” medicine is absurd at best, deadly at worst.

How Many Safety Studies Have Been Done On Hepatitis B Vaccine?

None. A manufacturer’s representative was asked in a 1997 Illinois Board of Health hearing to show evidence that the hepatitis B vaccine is safe for a 1-day old infant. The representative stated: “We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds.” – The Congressional Quarterly, August 25, 2000, pg. 647

One would think that these would be mandatory, but they are not. All that is required is to show efficacy, (i.e. that the vaccine stimulates an antibody response after it is give), not safety. In most other industries, the fraud represented here would lead to criminal charges.

Hepatitis B Vaccine: It’s Your Choice

Since 1991, a series of three hepatitis B shots has been part of the standard federally recommended US childhood vaccination schedule, with the first dose given within the first 12 hours after birth, the second dose given between one and two months of age, and the third dose given between six and 18 months of age. But while it’s part of the federal vaccine schedule, it’s your choicewhether or not to allow your baby to be vaccinated.

If you’re expecting, the time to research the risks versus the benefits of this vaccination is now, before you deliver, so if you conclude, like many concerned health care professionals and educated parents have, that subjecting all healthy newborns to hepatitis B vaccination within hours of birth is both risky and unnecessary, you can do something to stop it…

If you decide the hepatitis B vaccine is not appropriate for your baby, you can amend the “consent for medical treatment” forms you sign upon entering the hospital before giving birth by writing on the form that you do not give consent for your baby’s hepatitis B vaccination in the newborn nursery. You should let any nurses or other medical staff taking care of you and your baby know this directly as well.

However, there are reports that some newborns are being vaccinated in the newborn nursery against the parent’s wishes. So it is a good idea to keep your newborn with you at all times or have a family member stay with the baby while in the hospital.

That said, it is important to be tested for hepatitis B if you’re pregnant, as it’s possible to have a chronic infection with no symptoms and not know it. If you are pregnant and are a carrier for the hepatitis B virus, your baby could be at risk for being infected during childbirth.

And although hepatitis B vaccines may be “mandated” for your child to attend school or daycare, most states offer different legal vaccine exemptions (medical, religious, and philosophical). On NVIC.org, you can research your state’s specific vaccine laws and requirements and find out what kind of exemption to hepatitis B vaccination you are allowed to exercise in your state for your child to attend daycare or school. You can also sign up to be a user of NVIC’s free online communications network, the NVIC Advocacy Portal, and take action to protect the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in your state.

Fertile Soil Absorbs CO2

Note: Grazing animals are part of a natural system and can help soil fertility by tilling it from the top without turning it over. Overgrazing, on the other hand, is destructive. It is hard to see how grazing cattle on desertified land is going to help it rebound. Sheep are the worst grazing animals because they rip out grass roots and all.

How Grazing Cows Can Save the Planet, and Other Surprising Ways of Healing the Earth

January 12, 2014 Thanks to Mercola.com

By Dr. Mercola

Judith Schwartz is a freelance writer and author of the book Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth. I recently met Judy at a conference held by Allan Savory of the Savory Institute in Boulder, Colorado.

The Savory Institute helps farmers to holistically manage their livestock in order to improve soil quality and heal the environment. In fact, according to Savory, an African ecologist, dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock is the only thing that can reverse desertification (when land turns to desert).

This was Savory’s first conference, and turned out to be quite a memorable event. Judy has summarized a big portion of what was presented in that conference in her book. But what made her hone in on the issue of soil health to begin with?

Surprisingly, it all began with an investigation into the economy. Around 2008, just before the economic downturn, she’d started writing about the transition movement:

“One of the things that transition initiatives were dealing with was local currencies,” she says“Looking into local currencies kind of helped me understand how local economies work and primed me to ask questions when the economic downturn hit, like ‘What is money? What is wealth?’

I was on that trajectory, writing about environmental economics and new economics… Basically, it’s the notion that our economy can and should serve the people the planet as opposed to the other way around.

This I fear is the scenario that we’ve kind of gotten stuck in – that people and the planet, meaning all of our natural systems, exist to serve the economy.

From that framework, I started looking at ecology and observed the disconnect between our financial system and the natural world, which just cannot be separate. That disconnect doesn’t work.”

The Environmental Impact of Conventional Farming

This led her to learn more about soil health, economical land use, and how modern agricultural practices affect our environment.

For example, did you know that our modern agricultural system is responsible for putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the actual burning of fossil fuels? Understanding this reveals an obvious answer to pressing global problems.

There are only three places for carbon to go: land, air and water. Our agricultural practices have removed massive amounts of valuable carbon from land, transferring it into air and water. By paying greater attention to carbon management, we have the opportunity to make a dramatic difference in this area, which is having major negative consequences to our agriculture, and the pollution of our water and air.

As explained by Judy, early this past summer, concentrations of atmospheric CO2 crossed the 400 parts per million-threshold—the highest it’s been in thousands of years. According to an organization called 350.org, scientists believe our CO2 levels need to be around 350 parts per million in order to maintain favorable living conditions on earth.

Carbon management is a critical aspect of environmental health and the growing of food.

That said, CO2 levels are not constantly or continuously rising in a straight line. The level rises and falls, and this is a clue to what’s going on.

“Depending on the season, depending on how much photosynthesis is happening, it dips down, and then goes up again,” Judy explains. “When we’ve got a lot of plants, as we get towards the warmer part of the year, more photosynthesis is happening, and the CO2 levels drop slightly.

That’s so important to know, because photosynthesis is key to what we’re talking about.

When I talk about bringing carbon back into the soil, I’m talking about supporting and stimulating the process of photosynthesis – in other words, growing more plants. Those plants then take in the CO2. They make carbon compounds. Those carbon compounds are drawn down, and they go into the soil.”

Sequestering carbon in the Earth’s soils is a good thing. There’s actually more carbon in our world soils than in all plants, including trees, and the atmosphere together. However, due to modern agricultural methods, we’ve lost between 50 and 80 percent of the carbon that used to be in the soil… This means there’s plenty of “room” to put it back in.

“It’s useful to understand that the notion of bringing carbon back into the soil, one thing that it does is withdraw carbon down from the atmosphere. That’s hugely important,” Judy says.

“Carbon is the main component of soil organic matter. That’s the good stuff that you want in soil anyway for fertility. It also absorbs water. When you have carbon-rich soil, you also have soil that is resilient to floods and drought. When you start looking at soil carbon, the news keeps getting better and better.”

The Importance of Holistic Herd Management

Another major factor that needs to be considered is the management of livestock. Herds raised according to modern, conventional practices contribute to desertification—turning land into desert—which, of course, doesn’t support plant life and photosynthesis, thereby shifting the equation in the wrong direction. When land turns to desert, it no longer holds water, and it loses the ability to sustain microbial life and nourish plant growth…

One of the reasons Allan Savory has become so popular is his promotion of holistic herd management, which causes desert areas to convert back to grasslands that support plant life. As explained by Judy:

“It occurred to him that the land needed the animals in the same way that the animals needed the land. He began to really observe how animals functioned on land, and came to understand the really intricate dynamics, the system, that had been naturally in operation.

Basically, when grazing animals graze, they’re nibbling on the grasses in a way that exposes their growth points to sunlight and stimulates growth… Their trampling [of the land also] did several things: it breaks any capped earth so that the soil is aerated. It presses in seeds [giving them] a chance to germinate, so you have a greater diversity of plants. [Grazing herds] also press down dying and decaying grasses, so that they can be better acted upon by microorganisms in the soil. It keeps the decaying process going. Their waste also fertilizes the soil.”

This natural symbiotic relationship between animals, soils and plants—where each benefits the other mutually—is a powerful insight. And it’s one that can be replicated with great benefit. Besides the environmental benefits, grass-fed, pastured livestock is also an excellent source of high quality meat. In fact, it’s the only type of meat I recommend eating, as raising cattle in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) alters the nutritional composition of the meat—not to mention such animals are fed antibiotics, growth promoters and other veterinary drugs.

You Can Make a Difference in More Ways Than One

As for recommendations for what we can do to get us going in the right direction with regards to improving not only animal and human health but the health of the planet, Judy says:

“Most recommendations are very simple. The simplest thing is to avoid having bare soil. Because when you have bare uncovered soil, the land degradation process begins. When you have bare soil, that means that the carbon is binding with oxygen and becoming carbon dioxide.”

We also need to shift our focus to emphasize the biological system as a whole. Soil is not a static “thing.” It’s a living symbiotic system, and soil microorganisms also play a very important role in this system. When I visited Elaine Ingham at the Rodale Institute, I learned the value of compost tea for promoting beneficial soil microbes, and I now use a vortex compost tea brewing system to revitalize my own garden. Interestingly, the better you farm or garden, the less land you need. According to Judy, a biological farmer using appropriate methods can grow on 1,000 acres the same amount of food another farmer might need 5,000 acres to produce…

Another factor is the importance of integrating animals on the land. Most biological farmers understand this, and will tell you that in order for soil to get to its highest potential of productivity and health, there needs to be animals on the land. (According to Savory, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world’s barren or semi-barren grasslands could also take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels!) But what if you’re not a gardener yet, or a farmer? How can you help achieve this much needed shift?

“I think people can make a difference in all sorts of ways that people make decisions every day, such as asking yourself how the food you’re buying was grown,” Judy says. “Because once you start asking where the food comes from, even posing that question, will lead you to make different choices.

Apart from food, what decisions are being made in your community about the use of land? Can your community save money by working with soil rather than, say, putting in an expensive waste or water treatment plant? That’s another thing, getting involved on a local level. There are all kinds of organizations that are working on different environmental and different food aspects locally and nationally, etc.”

Biological Farming Solves Many Pressing Problems

My first passion and career was being a physician, then an Internet educator, and now I’m moving into high-performance biological agriculture because I really believe it’s the next step in our evolution. We must shift the way we produce food because the current system is unsustainable. And while this information really is ancient, it’s not widely discussed. There’s only a small segment of the population that even understands this natural system, and the potential it has for radically transforming the way we feed the masses AND protect the environment at the same time.

I thoroughly agree with the recommendation to get involved personally, because it’s so exciting. For me, it’s become a rather addictive hobby. Once you integrate biological farming principles, you can get plant performances that are 200-400 percent greater than what you would typically get from a plant! What’s more, not only does it improve the quantity, it also improves the quality of the food you’re growing. These facts should really be at the forefront of everybody’s mind when they think about farming, as it’s the solution to so many pressing problems. Judy agrees, noting:

“The challenge is that we’ve been led to believe that our agricultural model, which is an extractive model, is the way it needs to be. But we can shift to a regenerative model. That’s where we need to go.”

Final Thoughts

As Judy says, there’s a lot to be optimistic about, because whether we’re talking about the degradation of the environment or our food supply, there are answers!

“Many people just sort of give up and say, ‘I can’t do anything about this.’ I was speaking to someone the other day who said that her son, who just finished college, said, ‘You know, it’s over. We’re doomed.’ To me, that is just so sad. How can we let the next generation feel that way? I think that betrays a huge lack of imagination. Because when we talk about our environmental challenges, one thing we don’t talk about is nature’s desire to heal itself. Once we ally with that natural process, it’s amazing what we can do.”

Ending the burning of fossil fuels is not the one and only way for us to turn the tide on rising carbon dioxide levels. Granted, solar energy and wind power would certainly be preferable to burning fossil fuels. But even if we didn’t stop burning fossil fuels, we can still reverse rising CO2 levels by addressing the way we farm, using sound, time-honored agricultural principles.

And—something else to consider—even if we completely stop burning fossil fuels but do not change agriculture, we’ll still be left with problems like lands turning to desert, flooding, and drought for example. In short, we really must address how we manage our lands and soils… You can learn more about biological farming by reviewing the related articles listed in the right-hand side bar on this page. I also highly recommend Judy’s book, Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth. It’s a great read for anyone wanting to learn more about this topic.

Where Food Comes From

FOOD” Documentary – A Revealing Look at the Sourcing of Our Modern Food Supply

 Thanks to Mercola.com
January 11, 2014

By Dr. Mercola

“Food” is a 30-minute documentary that investigates how demand for more and cheaper food has dramatically altered the entire food chain. Today, food production revolves around efficiency—the ability to produce more for less. The ramifications of this mindset are wide-ranging and far-reaching…

As KPBS’ Joanne Faryon reports, “the food chain no longer looks like it used to.” Fish no longer eat other fish, and cattle eat very little grass, which is their natural food source. Instead, cattle eat corn, chickens eat corn and fish, and fish eat cows and poultry… Similarly, fresh produce like fruits and vegetables are primarily sold to foreign markets.

California oranges, for example, are exported to far flung places like Japan, while Americans eat oranges from Australia—presumably because Americans prefer the deeper orange color of Australian oranges, and the fact that they’re easier to peel. As a result, the carbon footprint of most foods sold in your local grocery store is massive, having made its way thousands of miles from where it was grown.

The Beef About American Cattle Farming

While food prices appear to be on the rise, we actually spend less on our food today than we did a generation ago, thanks to modern food production practices. The ultimate price, however, may be greater than anyone ever expected.

For starters, modern agricultural practices are taking a heavy toll on soil and environmental health, and the way we raise animal foods, especially in the US, results in animal products that are far inferior compared to their ancestral past.

The practice of raising animals in confined feeding operations (CAFOs) is also having a major detrimental impact on our environment and is a primary source of environmental pollution and rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Last year, 63 million tons of beef was produced worldwide.1 As stated in the film, while making up only five percent of the world’s population, Americans consume nearly 20 percent of all the beef produced globally.

But just how is all this beef produced? The film summarizes how the typical cow makes its way from birth to slaughter in the US. A generation or so ago, cattle would be mostly pasture-raised and sold for slaughter around the age of two or three. The meat would then be taken to the local market.

Today, California cows start out being raised on pasture for about six months before being sold, typically changing hands twice, before ending up in a CAFO feedlot. Feedlots, which were introduced after World War II, are large pens that house tens of thousands of cattle—some can hold herds up to 100,000 animals.

Here, they’re fattened up on a corn-based diet before being slaughtered about four or five months later. All in all, today’s beef is grown in about half the time compared to a generation ago.

Besides corn, virtually all beef sold in American grocery stores comes from cattle injected with hormones. Corn fattens the cattle, but consumers don’t like all that grizzly fat, so hormones are used to make the animal produce more lean muscle tissue. This improves profits, as it increases the animals’ growth by about 10 percent.

Ironically, as Faryon points out, it’s the corn that makes the cattle fat, so if we didn’t feed them corn, we wouldn’t have to give them hormones to minimize fat production.  Another question well worth pondering is this: with all this hormone-laced beef, along with the American corn-based processed food diet (think high fructose corn syrup), is it any surprise Americans are growing fatter, faster, as well?

Farmed Fish—Feedlots of the Sea…

Industrial fish farming, or aquaculture, is the fastest growing form of food production in the world.2 About half of the world’s seafood now comes from fish farms, including in the US, and this is expected to increase. At first glance, farmed fish may seem like a good idea to help protect wild seafood populations from overfishing while meeting the nutritional needs of an ever-expanding global population.

In reality, however, the industry is plagued with many of the same problems surrounding land-based CAFOs, including pollution, disease and inferior nutritional quality. It’s getting so bad that fish farms can easily be described as “CAFOs of the sea.” Here we see an even greater distortion of the food chain. Wild fish eat other fish, but farmed fish can be fed a concoction of ingredients they’d NEVER encounter otherwise, such as soy protein and beef or chicken byproducts, including cattle blood, bone, and chicken feathers.

The reason for this is because, as explained by Jeffrey Graham in the film, it takes about five pounds of fish to produce one pound of growth in salmon. This clearly negates the original rationale for fish farming, which is to prevent the depletion of natural fish stocks. The solution is to replace the fish meal in the diet with soy protein and other protein products…The question is, is this really a healthy solution?

Europe has banned processing byproducts from cattle due to the potential risk of spreading mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE), a neurodegenerative disease that can affect humans eating contaminated beef. While there have been no reports of humans contracting mad cow from eating farmed fish, the theoretical possibility is there. Besides that, it seems clear that a fish that eats meat byproducts opposed to its natural diet of other fish is not going to have the same nutritional makeup as wild fish.

Then there’s the increased risk of fish diseases spreading to wild fish. The close quarters where farmed fish are raised (combined with their unnatural diets) means disease can spread quickly, and because farmed fish are often raised in pens in the ocean, pathogens can spread like wildfire and contaminate any wild fish swimming past. I wrote about this last summer in the article “Salmon Confidential.”

The Unsavory Truth About Factory Farmed Chicken

Large commercial chicken facilities typically house tens of thousands of hens and can even go up to hundreds of thousands of hens who, yet again, are fed a diet consisting primarily of corn. Processing byproducts such as chicken feathers can also be added to the feed. Antibiotics are routinely used in most facilities, but hormones are not permitted in American-raised chickens. When it comes to labels such as “free-range” and “natural,” it’s buyer beware…

The definitions of “free-range” are such that the commercial egg industry can run industrial farm egg laying facilities and still call them “free-range” eggs, despite the fact that the birds’ foraging conditions are far from what you’d call natural. True free-range eggs are from hens that roam freely outdoors on a pasture where they can forage for their natural diet, which includes seeds, green plants, insects, and worms.

When you’re housing tens of thousands of chickens, you clearly cannot allow them all to freely roam and scavenge for food outdoors. At best, CAFO hens may be let out into a barren outdoor lot for mere minutes a day. Your best source for pastured chicken (and fresh eggs) is a local farmer that allows his hens to forage freely outdoors. If you live in an urban area, visiting a local farmer’s market is typically the quickest route to finding high-quality chicken and eggs.

Can We Grow a Fair and Sustainable Food System?

Many believe the answer to world hunger is further expansion of large-scale agriculture; others place their bets on genetically engineered (GE) crops. But are factory farms and large-scale GE farming really going to solve the problem? Evidence suggests the answer is a resounding NO. In fact, our modern agricultural system is the very heart of the problem…

Modern monoculture has severely depleted soils of essential nutrients and microorganisms, and poor soil quality is a core problem facing farmers across the globe. Monoculture (or monocropping) is defined as the high-yield agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land, in the absence of rotation through other crops. (Corn, soybeans, wheat, and to some degree rice, are the most common crops grown with monocropping techniques. As discussed above, corn and soy are two of the primary ingredients in feed given to livestock, be they chickens, cattle or fish.)

The Earth’s soil is now depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced due to our chemical-based agriculture system. Massive monoculture has also led to the extinction of 75 percent of the world’s crop varieties over the last century. Additionally, modern agriculture is extremely energy dependent. It is estimated that every consumer in the Western world eats the equivalent of 66 barrels of oil per year. That’s how much oil is needed to produce the food on your plate.

Do You Really Want to Eat Factory Farmed Animals?

If you were to grow food for you own family, my guess is that you would do so with extreme care, using the best seeds, the healthiest animals, and the least amount of chemical additives. Yet, when most people buy their food, they have no idea where it actually comes from, and conversely the people who grow this food have no idea who ends up eating it. When people are able to grow food for the faceless masses, I think it somehow justifies these terrible practices that have become commonplace: pumping animals full of hormones and drugs, dousing vegetables with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and introducing genetically modified seeds into the environment.

If you had to see the animal you were about to eat before it makes its way to the supermarket or your dinner table, would you choose one that had lived out its days in a filthy, crowded cage? One that had been mutilated and tormented, then pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, while being fed pesticide-laden grains it was not designed to eat?

Or would you choose one that had lived a nurtured and well cared for life, free to roam on pasture, see the sunlight and breathe in fresh air? One that was fed its natural diet and nothing more? The choice is obvious, which is exactly why agri-business has done such a masterful job of concealing what really goes on from the vast majority of Americans. All you see is a cellophane-wrapped package, maybe a picture of a barn with happy cows and chickens standing near. In many cases, if you could really see how that animal was raised, you would likely shield your children’s eyes, then turn away in disgust.

Factory farms allow us to be removed from taking personal responsibility for raising our own food. There is no one to be held accountable for raising garbage food or treating animals inhumanely because the system has taken on a life of its own. By far, the vast majority of food at your local supermarket comes from these polluting, inhumane farm conglomerations. So if you want to stop supporting them, you first need to find a new place to shop.

Become Part of a Growing Movement

Fortunately, it’s relatively easy to find a humane and reliable source for your food — sources that are growing food with the health of the environment and the animals as the driving forces. At LocalHarvest.org, for instance, you can enter your zip code and find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area, all with the click of a button. For an excellent list of sustainable agricultural groups in your area, please also see Promoting Sustainable Agriculture – this page is filled with resources for high-quality produce and meats in your area.

The more we all make it a point to only buy food from a source we know and trust, the faster factory farming will become a shameful practice of the past. Farmers and lovers of real food show us that change IS possible. But your involvement is required. Here are a few suggestions for how you can take affirmative action:

  1. Buy local products whenever possible. Otherwise, buy organic and fair-trade products.
  2. Shop at your local farmers market, join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), or buy from local grocers and co-ops committed to selling local foods.
  3. Support restaurants and food vendors that buy locally produced food.
  4. Avoid genetically engineered (GMO) foods. Buying certified organic ensures your food is non-GM.
  5. Cook, can, ferment, dry, and freeze. Return to the basics of cooking, and pass these skills on to your children.
  6. Grow your own garden, or volunteer at a community garden. Teach your children how to garden and where their food comes from.
  7. Volunteer and/or financially support an organization committed to promoting a sustainable food system.
  8. Get involved in your community. Influence what your child eats by engaging the school board. Effect city policies by learning about zoning and attending city council meetings. Learn about the federal policies that affect your food choice, and let your congressperson know what you think.
  9. Spread the word! Share this article with your friends, family, and everyone else you know.

Bill Gates Funds New Vaccines

Coming Soon: “On-Demand” Nano-Vaccines Funded by Bill Gates

Brandon Turbeville
Activist PostAccording to a press release recently posted by the University of Washington, a new type of vaccine may soon be created that will allow for its immediate creation and application. This new vaccine, however, will be formed by using nanoparticles created from genetically engineered proteins.

The researchers, who have already tested the vaccine in mice, are hopeful that the vaccines will soon make “on-demand” vaccines that can be administered within minutes for a low price a common reality in the medical community.

The vaccine would mostly be aimed at “developing countries” and would cut the costs of vaccination programs “by not having to rely on refrigeration, and vaccines could be produced with rudimentary equipment in more precise, targeted numbers. The vaccines could be manufactured and delivered using a disposable patch, like a bandage, which could one day lessen the use of trained personnel and hypodermic needles.”

Francois Baneyx, the lead author of a recent published paper in Nanomedicine and UW professor of chemical engineering stated, “We’re really excited about this technology because it makes it possible to produce a vaccine on the spot. For instance, a field doctor could see the beginnings of an epidemic, make vaccine doses right away, and blanket vaccinate the entire population in the affected area to prevent the spread of an epidemic.”

The University of Washington press release explains the nature of the vaccines and how they work as follows:

In typical vaccines, weakened pathogens or proteins found on the surface of microbes and viruses are injected into the body along with compounds called adjuvants to prepare a person’s immune system to fight a particular disease. But standard formulations don’t always work, and the field is seeking ways to manufacture vaccines quicker, cheaper and tailored to specific infectious agents, Baneyx said.

The UW team injected mice with nanoparticles synthesized using an engineered protein that both mimics the effect of an infection and binds to calcium phosphate, the inorganic compound found in teeth and bones. After eight months, mice that contracted the disease made threefold the number of protective “killer” T-cells – a sign of a long-lasting immune response – compared with mice that had received the protein but no calcium phosphate nanoparticles.

The nanoparticles appear to work by ferrying the protein to the lymph nodes where they have a higher chance of meeting dendritic cells, a type of immune cell that is scarce in the skin and muscles, but plays a key role in activating strong immune responses.

In a real-life scenario, genetically engineered proteins based on those displayed at the surface of pathogens would be freeze-dried or dehydrated and mixed with water, calcium and phosphate to make the nanoparticles. This should work with many different diseases and be especially useful for viral infections that are hard to vaccinate against, Baneyx said.

Baneyx did point out, however, that the ability of this vaccine to achieve its goal of the researchers and those who funded the experiment has only been allegedly established in mice, not in humans.

As one may suspect, the development of these new nano-vaccines are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by virtue of the organization’s Grand Challenges Explorations grant as well as money from the National Institutes of Health.

The very fact that this research was funded by Bill Gates is enough to raise the eyebrows of many. After all, it was Bill Gates that once tellingly stated “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Adding to Gates’ statement is the fact that, time and again, international vaccination programs have ended disastrously for third-world nations. Case in point: the Meningitis vaccine program that resulted in the paralysis of at least 50 African children and a subsequent cover-up operation by the government of Chad. This large number of adverse events occurred in one small village alone, leaving many to wonder what the rates of side effects might be on an international scale.

Even more concerning is the fact that paralysis rates have flourished in countries where Gates’ polio vaccine, the one he is dedicating his life to, have been administered the most. Indeed, nowhere is this any more apparent than in India. As Aaron Dykes writes,

But the real story is that while polio has statistically disappeared from India, there has been a huge spike in cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)– the very types of crippling problems it was hoped would disappear with polio but which have instead flourished from a new cause.

There were 47,500 cases of non-polio paralysis reported in 2011, the same year India was declared “polio-free,” according to Dr. Vashisht and Dr. Puliyel. Further, the available data shows that the incidents tracked back to areas were doses of the polio vaccine were frequently administered. The national rate of NPAFP in India is 25-35 times the international average.

In addition to this data, it appears that the polio vaccines are themselves the leading cause of polio paralysis in India. In relation to the flawed data reported by the Polio Global Eradication Initiative which attempts to minimize the numbers of both vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis and polio in general, Sayer Ji remarks,

According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative’s own statistics there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI’s measurement of success? For the dozens of Indian children who develop vaccine-induced paralysis every year, the PGEI’s recent declaration of India as nearing “polio free” status, is not only disingenuous, but could be considered an attempt to minimize their obvious liability in having transformed polio from a natural disease vector into a man-made (iatrogenic) one.

Gates’ polio vaccines have likewise been blamed for deaths and disabilities in neighboring Pakistan, with offices of the government in that country even recommending that the vaccines be suspended.

In India, doctors heavily criticized the program not only for the heavy cost to human health and quality of life but also the massive financial burden hoisted upon the state. This is because the program was only partially funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, which is itself partnered with the World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, and United Nations.

The doctors criticized the GAVI-alliance by stating,

The Indian government finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant,” their report stated.

From India’s perspective the exercise has been an extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio, were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.

. . . . . the polio eradication programme epitomizes nearly everything that is wrong with donor funded ‘disease specific’ vertical projects at the cost of investments in community-oriented primary health care (horizontal programmes) . . . . .

. . . . .This is a startling reminder of how initial funding and grants from abroad distort local priorities.

Indeed, as the doctors assert, one cannot vaccinate away diseases like polio. Apart from the fact that there has never been a study conducted which proves a vaccine either safe or effective that was not connected to a drug company or a vaccine maker,[1] the so-called cure, if it comes under the guise of a vaccine, may well be as bad if not worse than the disease itself.

Again, Sayer Ji writes,

Polio underscores the need for a change in the way we look at so-called “vaccine preventable” diseases as a whole. In most people with a healthy immune system, a poliovirus infection does not even generate symptoms. Only rarely does the infection produce minor symptoms, e.g. sore throat, fever, gastrointestinal disturbances, and influenza-like illness. In only 3% of infections does virus gain entry to the central nervous system, and then, in only 1-5 in 1000 cases does the infection progress to paralytic disease.

Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.

Instead, a large portion of the world’s vaccines are given to the Third World as “charity,” when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed.

The fact is that the root cause of diseases like polio are not a lack of vaccination but poor sanitation standards, poverty, lower living standards, chemical pollution, and lack of proper nutrition. If money were spent correcting these ills, as opposed to providing ineffective (in their stated purposes) and dangerous vaccinations, then polio and many other such diseases could indeed be eradicated.

In the end, the answer is about raising living standards, reducing pollution, increasing knowledge and access to proper nutrition and clean drinking water – not chemical and virus-laden needles. Even more so, not vaccines involving nano-particles and even more genetically engineered ingredients.

Notes:
[1] Flu and Flu Vaccines: What’s Coming Through That Needle. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.

Contraception in the Old Testament

Biblical Birth Control: The Surprisingly Contraception-Friendly Old Testament

Think conservative objections to birth control are enshrined in the Bible? Think again.
 

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/buttet

January 5, 2014  |

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases about the conflict between new healthcare mandates and religion, it sparked a heated conversation on the religious rights of for-profit corporations.

In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the Court will decide whether these corporations can refuse to cover as part of their employee health care plans certain types of contraception, which they allege prevent fertilized eggs from implanting and therefore object to on religious grounds.

As many have already argued, we should not have to live our lives according to certain groups’ interpretations of religious laws. But as a student of ancient religious texts – I run a secular Jewish house of study for culture-makers in New York – I take real issue with these groups’ reading of the Bible, too.

The Old Testament, despite some believers’ insistence to the contrary, does not take a hard line against contraception or abortion. The Bible and the 24 other books that make up the Jewish canon make both direct references and thinly veiled allusions to women using contraception.

These books include references to women using contraception to have, and enjoy, premarital sex, to use their sexuality as a political weapon without risking pregnancy and prove their fidelity to their husbands. More on that later. (There are far more references to contraception in rabbinical commentaries on the Bible, but I won’t get into them here since they are not considered authoritative texts by those from other religious traditions.)

Let’s start with the hot sex! The Song of Songs is a long, sexy, romantic poem that many are surprised to find in the Bible. It is an unusual text in that it makes no mention of God or law, just a young, unmarried couple chasing, and lusting, after one another and eventually, as I and others believe, consummating their relationship. Over the centuries, religious scholars have argued that the poem is a metaphor for divine love. Still, it is pretty hard to ignore the poem’s graphic descriptions of the longings of the flesh.

For example, in chapter 7 the young man says to young woman: “Thy stature is like to a palm-tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. … ‘I will climb up into the palm-tree, I will take hold of the branches thereof; and let thy breasts be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy countenance like apples;  And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine, that glideth down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those that are asleep.”

As Athalya Brenner points out in her book “The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible,” a number of the plants mentioned in the Song of Songs were used by women in the ancient Mediterranean world as contraception and abortifacients. These include pomegranates, wine, myrrh, spikenard and cinnamon. Brenner goes on to argue that since the book makes no mention of procreation as the purpose of sex, the many metaphors comparing sex to “gardens” and “orchards” may also be read as a reference to the forms of birth control that those gardens provided. Indeed, the man in the poem seduces the woman by offering her many of the plants that would have allowed them to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.

Another place in the Bible where contraception may have played a role is in the Book of Esther. This one’s about a beautiful woman named Esther who disguises her Jewish identity to become the queen of the Persian King Ahasuerus. When her cousin discovers an inside plot to kill all Jewish people, Esther intervenes through seduction and eventually saves the Jews.

In an article in the scholarly journal Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Joseph Prouser points out that the King’s potential wives were all required to anoint themselves with myrrh oil and aromatic herbs for one full year – which is a pretty long time for what some read as just a beauty treatment. Myrrh was a known contraceptive at the time, cited in the writings of Soranus of Ephesus, a Greek physician who was an expert on gynecology and midwifery. He explained that when used in a pessary, myrrh oil would work as an abortifacient, preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs. The aromatic herbs may have also had contraceptive properties.

Prouser writes:

The recurrent contraceptive imagery in Esther bespeaks the strength and control she exercises over affairs of state and Jewish national survival. Although confronted with powerful men who would exploit her sexually, and from whom the threat of bodily harm is readily apparent, Esther manages to protect herself and her people. The Scroll of Esther is thus allegory as national autobiography: the story of a Diaspora Jewry regularly threatened with rapacious assaults by hostile neighbors and historic foes.

As Prouser sees it, contraception allowed Esther, who wielded power through her beauty and ability to seduce, to take control of her reproductive system.

There is a darker example of birth control in the Bible, and it appears in Numbers 5. This describes a ritual when a husband, who suspects that his wife has cheated on him, can force her to swallow a special concoction prepared by a priest. If she has been unfaithful, the Lord will “make [her] belly to swell, and [her] thigh to fall away.” In other words, she will abort her fetus. If not, this means she is empty of womb and ready to conceive her husband’s child.

The one Bible story that some read as anti-contraception is that of Onan, who withdraws before ejaculating and is then killed by God as a punishment him for “spilling his seed on the ground.” The backstory here is that Onan doesn’t want to impregnate his wife Tamar, the widow of his brother Er, because he doesn’t want to share his inheritance with a child they might produce.

This is the text that the Catholic Church takes as proof that contraception is unholy, along with the many mandates to “be fruitful and multiply.” However, many biblical commentators have noted that God’s anger is because Onan failed to live up to his legal obligation to impregnate his brother’s widow, and not because he wasted his sperm.

Everything I’ve written here is my understanding of these texts. I don’t see myself, or anyone else for that matter, as an absolute authority, and hardly expect everyone to agree with me. The wonder of the Bible lies in the way in which it can be read in so many different ways and mean so many things to so many different people.

But it’s worth pointing out that until 1968, a good number of Evangelical Christians may very well have agreed with my reading. As Jonathan Dudley notes in his book “Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics,” magazine articles in Christianity Today and Christian Life in the late ’60s made the case for life beginning at birth. These articles cited Exodus 21:22–24, which says that the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense — killing a person, as stated elsewhere, most definitely is.

Dudley says these were mainstream opinions at the time, until televangelist Jerry Falwell started turning against abortion and contraception, aligning himself with Catholics – who, incidentally, were not always opposed to abortion either. So, according to Dudley, instead of following biblical law, Evangelical Christians have been swept up in a 30-year-old reactionary political movement.

The Bible is shared cultural history for many Americans, whether we read it as the word of God or not. (I don’t, for whatever that’s worth.) It is at times beautiful and at times troubling, and there is no question that it was written within the context of a patriarchal society. Nevertheless, it can be more observant about human nature than many of its most loyal adherents and uninformed critics give it credit for.

Elissa Strauss is a freelance writer in Brooklyn, New York. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications including Salon, the Village Voice and the Forward, where she is also a contributing editor to the Sisterhood blog.

Jesus the Vegetarian – New Book

Friend and scholar Keith Akers has published his new book about the importance of vegetarian diet to Jesus and his earliest followers.

Read more here: http://www.compassionatespirit.com/wpblog/2013/12/14/disciples-is-published

Place your order through Amazon.

“Disciples: How Jewish Christianity Shaped Jesus and Shattered the Church” is published

My new book, Disciples: How Jewish Christianity Shaped Jesus and Shattered the Church (Apocryphile Press, 2013) has now been published. You can order it on Amazon here. (I will not be selling it through my website.)

Disciples-cover-frontA book about the disciples of Jesus would typically start with Jesus himself: first there was Jesus, then he had disciples.Disciples suggests a fundamentally different story: first there was a movement, then Jesus emerged as its leader. This movement was markedly different from both rabbinic Judaism and gentile Christianity. It became known to history as “Jewish Christianity”— Jews who followed both Jesus (as they understood him) and the Jewish law (as they understood it).

These first disciples affirmed simple living, nonviolence, and vegetarianism, and rejected wealth, war, and animal sacrifices. Some two decades after Jesus was crucified, they split with their most famous missionary, Paul, over the issues of vegetarianism and eating meat from animal sacrifices. These events become clear through examination of the letters of Paul and the Jewish Christian literature: the Recognitions, the Homilies, and testimony about Jewish Christianity in the early church fathers. The history of Jewish Christianity takes our understanding of Christian origins into a completely new realm.

My interest in early Christianity was prompted in an unusual way — through my becoming vegetarian. I was raised Christian, but then adopted vegetarianism (and shortly thereafter, veganism) for straightforward ethical reasons; I didn’t want to cause suffering to innocent animals.

I did not become vegetarian because of Christianity, but in spite of Christianity, which seemed to be indifferent or even hostile to vegetarianism. Most Christians ate meat and could invoke the example of their savior in support. Within Judaism, there was actually considerable support for vegetarianism (Genesis 1:29, Isaiah 11:6-9, etc.), but it seemed that Jesus and the Christians had betrayed this wise tradition. “Does God care for oxen?” Paul asks rhetorically (I Corinthians 9:9). Of course not!

But then I discovered the book Jewish Christianity by Hans-Joachim Schoeps, the foremost twentieth-century historian of Jewish Christianity. Schoeps concludes that the heretical Jewish Christians were not only vegetarian, but represented the oldest tradition of the apostles themselves. Schoeps’ book implies that vegetarianism was not only present in early Christianity, but was part of the original gospel of Jesus.

Understanding “Jewish Christianity” has been a special project of mine for over 30 years. It became clear to me that the history of these early Christians was not just a vegetarian fantasy. Schoeps himself was neither a Christian nor a vegetarian, but an objective historian of religion with no axe to grind.  Other nonvegetarian scholars, such as Walter Wink, also saw the truth of the vegetarianism in early Jewish Christianity (The Lost Religion of Jesus, p. xi).

I have been continually astounded that — with a few exceptions — modern Christians and modern scholars know virtually nothing of Jewish Christianity. Those who are at least aware that it exists typically dismiss Jewish Christianity with statements like “some of Jesus’ followers didn’t understand that Jesus was to liberate us from the confines of Jewish rituals.” This blindness of Christians to their own history is the deeper lesson which the history of Jewish Christianity holds for us today.

Why should people so casually dismiss the idea that the Prince of Peace might make compassion for animals a key part of his program? This idea of compassion is hardly foreign to the history of religion. Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism take the idea of vegetarianism seriously. No orthodox Hindu will eat beef, and Buddhists honor as their very first precept “not to take the life of any sentient creature.” In the modern era, even atheists and humanists like Peter Singer understand the vital importance of compassion to animals. Do these people understand something that Jesus didn’t?

Even in the West this philosophy of compassion had a strong presence at the time of Jesus. Pythagoras, who coined the term “philosophy,” was a vegetarian, as well as his follower Plato and at least some sects of the neo-Pythagorean Essenes. The Jewish tradition held that God created the world vegetarian (Genesis 1:29) and would one day return the world to that state from which it had fallen (Hosea 2:18, Isaiah 11:6-9). A vegetarian Jesus would hardly be introducing a completely new idea out of the clear blue sky, and there are even hints of these ideas in the gospels, where Jesus declares sympathy for the “least of these,” and says that God will not forget even a single sparrow.

Any consideration for sparrows goes right over the heads of modern scholars and Christians generally. Christianity has rejected the very idea of compassion for which Jesus gave his life, when nearly two millennia ago he went into the temple and disrupted the animal sacrifice business there, an act which led to his arrest and crucifixion.

Considering all the problems the world faces, such as climate change, massive extinctions, environmental destruction, peak oil, resource depletion, nuclear proliferation, and financial collapse, some may question whether there are not more important topics on the planet than the history of early Christianity. But for those with an appreciation of how religion both shapes and is shaped by human existence, the story of the early disciples of Jesus has lessons for all of us.

It is those lessons which I hope that Disciples will impart. The message of Jesus and the first Christians was about simple living, nonviolence, and vegetarianism, three practices which the modern world desperately needs.

Uranium Mining – Australia

Click image for video.

Hepatitis Vaccination for Newborns

Study Calls Into Question Effectiveness of Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns

December 17, 2013 | Thanks to Mercola.com
By Dr. Mercola

If you are pregnant and will deliver your baby in a hospital in America, it’s important to know that the hepatitis B vaccine is given to virtually every newborn in U.S.hospitals — many times without parents’ consent — shortly after the baby is born.

Since 1991, a series of three hepatitis B shots has been part of the standard federally-recommended childhood vaccination schedule, with the first dose given within the first 12 hours after birth; the second dose given between one and two months of age and the third dose given between six and 18 months of age.

The time to research the risks versus the benefits of this vaccination is now, before you deliver, so if you conclude, like many concerned health care professionals and educated parents have, that subjecting all healthy newborns  to hepatitis B vaccination within hours of birth is both risky and unnecessary, you can do something to stop it…

New Study: Hepatitis B Vaccination at Birth May Not Prevent Hidden Infections

A new study is raising another red flag that the practice of universally vaccinating all newborn babies for hepatitis B is seriously flawed. The researchers followed 259 babies born to hepatitis-B-positive mothers for two years in order to determine whether vaccinating such babies prevents asymptomatic occult HBV (hepatitis B virus) infection.

Occult HBV infection is diagnosed when a person tests negative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) while testing positive for HBV DNA. It’s thought that the HBsAg mutates in occult HBV such that it can’t be detected by conventional lab tests, making it often difficult to diagnose in addition to the fact that rarely are there clinical symptoms associated with occult infection.

The researchers found that while the vaccine may help prevent overt HBV transmission, it was not effective in preventing occult HBV infection in babies, which may occur in up to 40 percent of babies born to hepatitis B-positive mothers.

This was true whether or not the babies also received hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG), which is used to prevent the development of hepatitis B… According to Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC):

“ …the finding calls into question the assumption by vaccinologists (absent prelicensure biological mechanism testing to prove the assumption is a correct one) that artificial hep B vaccine-acquired immunity will generate cell-mediated immunity in newborns that is identical to naturally acquired immunity and be protective against infection.”

Why Do Babies Born to Healthy Mothers Need a Hepatitis B Vaccine?

Hepatitis B is a primarily blood-transmitted adult disease associated with risky lifestyle choices such as unprotected sex with multiple partners and intravenous drug use involving sharing needles.

In the U.S., hepatitis B has never been endemic and it is NOT primarily a “children’s disease” or one that is a common threat to newborn babies unlike in Asia, Africa and the Middle East where hepatitis B is more prevalent.

If a baby is born to a hepatitis-B-positive mother, the disease can be transmitted during birth. For this reason, it’s recommended that women be screened for hepatitis B during their first prenatal visit so steps can be taken to reduce the risk of transmission to the baby, should she test positive. This is an important step, as it’s possible to have a chronic hepatitis B infection with no symptoms and not know it.

Still, even if a woman tests negative, her baby will still be given a hepatitis B shot at birth in the hospital newborn nursery (unless you firmly request otherwise) as a ‘catch all’ of sorts. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):1

“Newborns of HBsAg negative mothers should begin the hepatitis B vaccine series before hospital discharge. This practice reduces missed opportunities to prevent transmission in cases of communication errors regarding maternal HBsAg status.”

In other words, just in case a pregnant woman’s tests were wrong, or she didn’t get tested, all babies are vaccinated to help catch the rare ‘missed’ case of maternal hepatitis B infection.

The federal vaccine policy to give all newborn babies hepatitis B vaccine starting in 1991 was, in part, based on the fact that health officials had failed to persuade adults at high-risk for being infected with hepatitis B (namely, mostly those who are IV drug users or are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners or prostitutes) to get vaccinated. Infants and children are a much easier population to control, and easier to access.

Still, the number of hepatitis-B-positive mothers giving birth without knowing is far from an epidemic, considering the overall U.S. prevalence of HBV infection in the U.S. population has always been very low – only 4.9 percent.2 Plus, now the new research shows vaccination may not help prevent occult hepatitis B cases in babies anyway… Barbara Loe Fisher stated:

“It calls into question the justification of a universal use policy for all babies born to healthy mothers at birth in order to make sure the babies born to unidentified hep B positive mothers get the vaccine.”

Hepatitis B Shot May Be Ineffective by the Time Your Child Is a Teenager

Another issue to consider if you are weighing the benefits and risks of giving your newborn infant or young child hepatitis B vaccine is that vaccine acquired immunity often does not persist until a child reaches his or her teenage years – the time when acquiring a hepatitis B infection may be more likely. Research shows that by that time, the protection from the childhood vaccine may have long since waned.

One study found that about 15 percent of teens who received the full series of hepatitis B shots as infants tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), which is an early indicator of infection or a sign that the person is a chronic carrier of the virus.3

This percentage was even higher among teens who had received the hepatitis B vaccine off schedule, or whose mothers were high risk, meaning they tested positive for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg). In other words, it appears that in many children hepatitis B vaccine acquired immunity does NOT provide lasting protection. It’s for this reason that the policy of giving hepatitis B vaccine to all newborns and young children in the U.S. is the least justifiable of any vaccine policy I can think of and certainly the vaccine should not be mandated for daycare or school attendance.

Except in the case of a hepatitis-B-positive mother, the medical justification for vaccinating infants against hepatitis B simply doesn’t exist. In addition, the result of this latest study refutes the commonly held assumption that hepatitis B vaccine is effective in preventing mother-to-infant transmission of all forms of hepatitis B.

More Than 1,500 Hepatitis B Vaccine-Related Deaths Have Been Reported

The effectiveness of the hepatitis B vaccine is highly questionable, but this is just one reason to carefully consider its use. Serious side effects and deaths have also been reported following receipt of this vaccine.

For instance, when babies die after hepatitis B vaccinations, most of the time their deaths are automatically attributed to SIDS — without investigation into whether the vaccine caused the baby’s sudden death. When a baby’s death is listed as “SIDS,” rarely does anyone ask about the deceased infant’s vaccination history to find out whether there were symptoms of vaccine reactions before death, even though the biomedical literature has repeatedly signaled this connection.4 According to NVIC:5

“…hepatitis B vaccine-related adverse events reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) [include] reports of headache, irritability, extreme fatigue, brain inflammation, convulsions, rheumatoid arthritis, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and neuropathy. There have been more than 1500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported, including deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”

Further, a study published in Annals of Epidemiology6 found that giving hepatitis B vaccine to infant boys more than tripled their risk for an autism spectrum disorder. In all, at least 60 serious health problems or adverse unintended consequences have been reported in the medical literature in association with the hepatitis B vaccination.7 Common reactions to the vaccine include fatigue, muscle weakness, fever, headache, irritability, and joint pain, although there have been reports of disabling neurological and immunological disorders that have developed following hepatitis B vaccinations as well, including:

Multiple sclerosis (MS) Guillain-Barre syndrome Bell’s Palsy
Diabetes Rheumatoid arthritis Lupus
Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia purpura Convulsions and brain disorders such as encephalitis (brain swelling) and brain demyelination Immune dysfunction
Visual and hearing impairments, including optic neuritis Pancreatitis Autism spectrum disorders

A Healthy Immune System Can Resolve Hepatitis B Infection

You may be wondering what, exactly, hepatitis B is, and what a diagnosis means for your health. Hepatitis B is often called “the silent killer” because as many as 95 percent of those with the disease exhibit no symptoms at all, until it’s too late. The disease can progress unnoticed for years in some cases, and patients oftentimes learn they have chronic hepatitis B once they develop severe liver damage. Symptoms of hepatitis A and B are very similar and include:

  • Abdominal pain
  • Fever
  • Fatigue
  • Joint pain
  • Jaundice (yellowing of the skin and whites of the eyes)

Fortunately, in most cases the hepatitis B infection will resolve on its own provided you have a well-functioning immune system. Symptoms can be relieved by:

If you recover completely from hepatitis B infection, you’ll acquire life-long immunity. A diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B, on the other hand, will typically include some form of antiviral medication, and depending on how far along your disease has progressed, you may even require a liver transplant. Even if you have been vaccinated as a child, it’s important to remember that you may not be protected from these risks, and could still be infected via IV drug abuse, sexual activity with an infected partner, a blood transfusion with contaminated blood, or even getting a manicure or pedicure

Do You Want to Opt Out of a Hepatitis B Vaccine for Your Newborn?

If you decide the hepatitis B vaccine is not appropriate for your baby, you can amend the “consent for medical treatment” forms you sign upon entering the hospital before giving birth by writing on the form that you do not give consent for your baby’s hepatitis B vaccination in the newborn nursery. You should let any nurses or other medical staff taking care of you and your baby know this directly as well.

However, there are reports that some newborns are being vaccinated in the newborn nursery against the parent’s wishes. So it is a good idea to keep your newborn with you at all times or have a family member stay with the baby while in the hospital.

That said, as mentioned it is important to be tested for hepatitis B if you’re pregnant, as it’s possible to have a chronic infection with no symptoms and not know it. If you are pregnant and are a carrier for the hepatitis B virus, your baby could be at risk for being infected during childbirth.

And although hepatitis B vaccines may be “mandated” for your child to attend school or daycare, most states offer different legal vaccine exemptions (medical, religious, and philosophical). On NVIC.org, you can research your state’s specific vaccine laws and requirements and find out what kind of exemption to hepatitis B vaccination you are allowed to exercise in your state for your child to attend daycare or school. You can also sign up to be a user of NVIC’s free online communications network, the NVIC Advocacy Portal, and take action to protect the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in your state.

Do Chemtrails Exist?

Watch This! Then Try to Deny Chemtrails

Denial ain’t a river in Egypt, and these things aren’t jet contrails or clouds.

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton
Activist Post

The chemtrails hardly get any more blatant than this. Just what is up with what we’ve all been seeing up in the sky lately?

Lingering, persistent aerosols that some dismiss as jet contrails or aberrant cloud formations are actually just the most visible and mysterious part of an ongoing geoengineering effort admittedly being tested (and enacted) on a wide scale. On the surface, it is an effort to curb global warming by dimming the sun’s rays; behind that veneer are corporate motives, population control agendas and bids to control & predict the weather and reap handsome profits on everything it effects.

Just how far it goes or how well it works may be up for debate, but the denial that a geoengineering program is actually happening need go on no longer. We are being subjected to this without being informed or giving our consent:

Here are just a few resources highlighted in the video:

See also:

What in the World Are They Spraying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

Why in the World Are they Spraying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9VcWkFrXWY

Aaron Dykes on Chemtrail/Geoengineering Agenda + DOCS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbszeB2O77M

Planetary Emergency

The Coming ‘Instant Planetary Emergency’

How will climate change affect the future of the planet? Scientists predict it will be nothing short of a nightmare.

December 17, 2013

Waves wash over a roller coaster from a Seaside Heights, New Jersey, amusement park that fell in the Atlantic Ocean during Superstorm Sandy. (AP Photo)

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.

I haven’t returned to Mount Rainier to see just how much further that glacier has receded in the last few years, but recently I went on a search to find out just how bad it might turn out to be. I discovered a set of perfectly serious scientists—not the majority of all climate scientists by any means, but thoughtful outliers—who suggest that it isn’t just really, really bad; it’s catastrophic. Some of them even think that, if the record ongoing releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thanks to the burning of fossil fuels, are aided and abetted by massive releases of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, life as we humans have known it might be at an end on this planet. They fear that we may be at—and over—a climate change precipice hair-raisingly quickly.

Mind you, the more conservative climate science types, represented by the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), paint scenarios that are only modestly less hair-raising, but let’s spend a little time, as I’ve done, with what might be called scientists at the edge and hear just what they have to say.

“We’ve Never Been Here as a Species”

“We as a species have never experienced 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of evolutionary biology, natural resources, and ecology at the University of Arizona and a climate change expert of twenty-five years, told me. “We’ve never been on a planet with no Arctic ice, and we will hit the average of 400 ppm…within the next couple of years. At that time, we’ll also see the loss of Arctic ice in the summers.… This planet has not experienced an ice-free Arctic for at least the last three million years.”

For the uninitiated, in the simplest terms, here’s what an ice-free Arctic would mean when it comes to heating the planet: minus the reflective ice cover on Arctic waters, solar radiation would be absorbed, not reflected, by the Arctic Ocean. That would heat those waters, and hence the planet, further. This effect has the potential to change global weather patterns, vary the flow of winds, and even someday possibly alter the position of the jet stream. Polar jet streams are fast flowing rivers of wind positioned high in the earth’s atmosphere that push cold and warm air masses around, playing a critical role in determining the weather of our planet.

McPherson, who maintains the blog Nature Bats Last, added, “We’ve never been here as a species and the implications are truly dire and profound for our species and the rest of the living planet.”

While his perspective is more extreme than that of the mainstream scientific community, which sees true disaster many decades into our future, he’s far from the only scientist expressing such concerns. Professor Peter Wadhams, a leading Arctic expert at Cambridge University, has been measuring Arctic ice for forty years, and his findings underscore McPherson’s fears. “The fall-off in ice volume is so fast it is going to bring us to zero very quickly,” Wadhams told a reporter. According to current data, he estimates “with 95% confidence” that the Arctic will have completely ice-free summers by 2018. (US Navy researchers have predicted an ice-free Arctic even earlier—by 2016.)

British scientist John Nissen, chairman of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (of which Wadhams is a member), suggests that if the summer sea ice loss passes “the point of no return,” and “catastrophic Arctic methane feedbacks” kick in, we’ll be in an “instant planetary emergency.”

McPherson, Wadham and Nissen represent just the tip of a melting iceberg of scientists who are now warning us about looming disaster, especially involving Arctic methane releases. In the atmosphere, methane is a greenhouse gas that, on a relatively short-term time scale, is far more destructive than carbon dioxide (CO2). It is twenty-three times as powerful as CO2 per molecule on a 100-year timescale, 105 times more potent when it comes to heating the planet on a twenty-year timescale—and the Arctic permafrost, onshore and off, is packed with the stuff. “The seabed,” says Wadham, “is offshore permafrost, but is now warming and melting. We are now seeing great plumes of methane bubbling up in the Siberian Sea…millions of square miles where methane cover is being released.”

According to a study just published in Nature Geoscience, twice as much methane as previously thought is being released from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a two million square kilometer area off the coast of Northern Siberia. Its researchers found that at least 17 teragrams (one million tons) of methane are being released into the atmosphere each year, whereas a 2010 study had found only seven teragrams heading into the atmosphere.

The day after Nature Geoscience released its study, a group of scientists from Harvard and other leading academic institutions published a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing that the amount of methane being emitted in the United States both from oil and agricultural operations could be 50 percent greater than previous estimates and 1.5 times higher than estimates of the Environmental Protection Agency.

How serious is the potential global methane build-up? Not all scientists think it’s an immediate threat or even the major threat we face, but Ira Leifer, an atmospheric and marine scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the authors of the recent Arctic Methane study, pointed out to me that “the Permian mass extinction that occurred 250 million years ago is related to methane and thought to be the key to what caused the extinction of most species on the planet.” In that extinction episode, it is estimated that 95 percent of all species were wiped out.

Also known as “the Great Dying,” it was triggered by a massive lava flow in an area of Siberia that led to an increase in global temperatures of six degrees Celsius. That, in turn, caused the melting of frozen methane deposits under the seas. Released into the atmosphere, it caused temperatures to skyrocket further. All of this occurred over a period of approximately 80,000 years.

We are currently in the midst of what scientists consider the sixth mass extinction in planetary history, with between 150 and 200 species going extinct daily, a pace 1,000 times greater than the “natural” or “background” extinction rate. This event may already be comparable to, or even exceed, both the speed and intensity of the Permian mass extinction. The difference being that ours is human-caused, isn’t going to take 80,000 years, has so far lasted just a few centuries and is now gaining speed in a non-linear fashion.

It is possible that, on top of the vast quantities of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels that continue to enter the atmosphere in record amounts yearly, an increased release of methane could signal the beginning of the sort of process that led to the Great Dying. Some scientists fear that the situation is already so serious and so many self-reinforcing feedback loops are already in play that we are in the process of causing our own extinction. Worse yet, some are convinced that it could happen far more quickly than generally believed possible—even in the course of just the next few decades.

The Sleeping Giant Stirs

According to a NASA research report, “Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?”: “Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon—an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That’s about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth’s soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable top soils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface.”

NASA scientists, along with others, are learning that the Arctic permafrost—and its stored carbon—may not be as permanently frosted as its name implies. Research scientist Charles Miller of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the principal investigator of the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), a five-year NASA-led field campaign to study how climate change is affecting the Arctic’s carbon cycle. He told NASA, “Permafrost soils are warming even faster than Arctic air temperatures—as much as 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius) in just the past 30 years. As heat from Earth’s surface penetrates into permafrost, it threatens to mobilize these organic carbon reservoirs and release them into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, upsetting the Arctic’s carbon balance and greatly exacerbating global warming.”

He fears the potential results should a full-scale permafrost melt take place. As he points out, “Changes in climate may trigger transformations that are simply not reversible within our lifetimes, potentially causing rapid changes in the Earth system that will require adaptations by people and ecosystems.”

The recent NASA study highlights the discovery of active and growing methane vents up to 150 kilometers across. A scientist on a research ship in the area described this as a bubbling as far as the eye can see in which the seawater looks like a vast pool of seltzer. Between the summers of 2010 and 2011, in fact, scientists found that in the course of a year methane vents only thirty centimeters across had grown a kilometer wide, a 3,333 percent increase and an example of the non-linear rapidity with which parts of the planet are responding to climate disruption.

Miller revealed another alarming finding: “Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we’ve measured have been large, and we’re seeing very different patterns from what models suggest,” he said of some of CARVE’s earlier findings. “We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher than normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That’s similar to what you might find in a large city.”

Moving beneath the Arctic Ocean where methane hydrates—often described as methane gas surrounded by ice—exist, a March 2010 report in Science indicated that these cumulatively contain the equivalent of 1,000–10,000 gigatons of carbon. Compare this total to the 240 gigatons of carbon humanity has emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began.

A study published in the prestigious journal Nature this July suggested that a fifty-gigaton “burp” of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea is “highly possible at anytime.” That would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide.

Even the relatively staid IPCC has warned of such a scenario: “The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out. Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans.”

In the last two centuries, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has increased from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7 parts per million. The introduction of methane in such quantities into the atmosphere may, some climate scientists fear, make increases in the global temperature of four to six degrees Celsius inevitable.

The ability of the human psyche to take in and grasp such information is being tested. And while that is happening, yet more data continues to pour in—and the news is not good.

Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire

Consider this timeline:

* Late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100.

* Late 2008: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research predicts a 2C increase by 2100.

* Mid-2009: The UN Environment Programme predicts a 3.5C increase by 2100. Such an increase would remove habitat for human beings on this planet, as nearly all the plankton in the oceans would be destroyed, and associated temperature swings would kill off many land plants. Humans have never lived on a planet at 3.5C above baseline.

* October 2009: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060.

* November 2009: The Global Carbon Project, which monitors the global carbon cycle, and theCopenhagen Diagnosis, a climate science report, predict 6C and 7C temperature increases, respectively, by 2100.

* December 2010: The UN Environment Programme predicts up to a 5C increase by 2050.

* 2012: The conservative International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for that year states that we are on track to reach a 2C increase by 2017.

* November 2013: The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

A briefing provided to the failed UN Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in 2009 provided this summary: “The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long-term climate records, not on models.”

On December 3, a study by eighteen eminent scientists, including the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, showed that the long-held, internationally agreed-upon target to limit rises in global average temperatures to two degrees Celsius was in error and far above the 1C threshold that would need to be maintained in order to avoid the effects of catastrophic climate change.

And keep in mind that the various major assessments of future global temperatures seldom assume the worst about possible self-reinforcing climate feedback loops like the methane one.

“Things Are Looking Really Dire”

Climate-change-related deaths are already estimated at 5 million annually, and the process seems to be accelerating more rapidly than most climate models have suggested. Even without taking into account the release of frozen methane in the Arctic, some scientists are already painting a truly bleak picture of the human future. Take Canadian Wildlife Service biologist Neil Dawe, who in August told a reporter that he wouldn’t be surprised if the generation after him witnessed the extinction of humanity. All around the estuary near his office on Vancouver Island, he has been witnessing the unraveling of “the web of life,” and “it’s happening very quickly.”

“Economic growth is the biggest destroyer of the ecology,” Dawe says. “Those people who think you can have a growing economy and a healthy environment are wrong. If we don’t reduce our numbers, nature will do it for us.” And he isn’t hopeful humans will be able to save themselves. “Everything is worse and we’re still doing the same things. Because ecosystems are so resilient, they don’t exact immediate punishment on the stupid.”

The University of Arizona’s Guy McPherson has similar fears. “We will have very few humans on the planet because of lack of habitat,” he says. Of recent studies showing the toll temperature increases will take on that habitat, he adds, “They are only looking at CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Here’s the question: Could some version of extinction or near-extinction overcome humanity, thanks to climate change—and possibly incredibly fast? Similar things have happened in the past. Fifty-five million years ago, a five-degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures seems to have occurred in just thirteen years, according to a study published in the October 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A report in the August 2013 issue of Science revealed that in the near-term Earth’s climate will change ten times faster than at any other moment in the last 65 million years.

“The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet,” climate scientist James Hansen has said. “There are potential irreversible effects of melting the Arctic sea ice. If it begins to allow the Arctic Ocean to warm up, and warm the ocean floor, then we’ll begin to release methane hydrates. And if we let that happen, that is a potential tipping point that we don’t want to happen. If we burn all the fossil fuels then we certainly will cause the methane hydrates, eventually, to come out and cause several degrees more warming, and it’s not clear that civilization could survive that extreme climate change.”

Yet, long before humanity has burned all fossil fuel reserves on the planet, massive amounts of methane will be released. While the human body is potentially capable of handling a six-to-nine-degree Celsius rise in the planetary temperature, the crops and habitat we use for food production are not. As McPherson put it, “If we see a 3.5 to 4C baseline increase, I see no way to have habitat. We are at .85C above baseline and we’ve already triggered all these self-reinforcing feedback loops.”

He adds: “All the evidence points to a locked-in 3.5 to 5 degree C global temperature rise above the 1850 ‘norm’ by mid-century, possibly much sooner. This guarantees a positive feedback, already underway, leading to 4.5 to 6 or more degrees above ‘norm’ and that is a level lethal to life. This is partly due to the fact that humans have to eat and plants can’t adapt fast enough to make that possible for the 7-to-9 billion of us—so we’ll die.”

If you think McPherson’s comment about lack of adaptability goes over the edge, consider that the rate of evolution trails the rate of climate change by a factor of 10,000, according to a paper in the August 2013 issue of Ecology Letters. Furthermore, David Wasdel, director of the Apollo-Gaia Project and an expert on multiple feedback dynamics, says, “We are experiencing change 200 to 300 times faster than any of the previous major extinction events.”

Wasdel cites with particular alarm scientific reports showing that the oceans have already lost 40 percent of their phytoplankton, the base of the global oceanic food chain, because of climate-change-induced acidification and atmospheric temperature variations. (According to the Center for Ocean Solutions: “The oceans have absorbed almost one-half of human-released CO2emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Although this has moderated the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, it is chemically altering marine ecosystems 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in at least the last 650,000 years.”)

“This is already a mass extinction event,” Wasdel adds. “The question is, how far is it going to go? How serious does it become? If we are not able to stop the rate of increase of temperature itself, and get that back under control, then a high temperature event, perhaps another five to six degrees [C], would obliterate at least 60 percent to 80 percent of the populations and species of life on Earth.”

What Comes Next?

In November 2012, even Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank Group (an international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries), warned that “a 4C warmer world can, and must be, avoided. Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today.”

A World Bank–commissioned report warned that we are indeed on track to a “4C world” marked by extreme heat waves and life-threatening sea-level rise.

The three living diplomats who have led UN climate change talks claim there is little chance the next climate treaty, if it is ever approved, will prevent the world from overheating. “There is nothing that can be agreed in 2015 that would be consistent with the two degrees,” says Yvo de Boer, who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2009, when attempts to reach a deal at a summit in Copenhagen crumbled. “The only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a two-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.”

Atmospheric and marine scientist Ira Leifer is particularly concerned about the changing rainfall patterns a recently leaked IPCC draft report suggested for our future: “When I look at what the models predicted for a 4C world, I see very little rain over vast swaths of populations. If Spain becomes like Algeria, where do all the Spaniards get the water to survive? We have parts of the world which have high populations which have high rainfall and crops that exist there, and when that rainfall and those crops go away and the country starts looking more like some of North Africa, what keeps the people alive?”

The IPCC report suggests that we can expect a generalized shifting of global rain patterns further north, robbing areas that now get plentiful rain of future water supplies. History shows us that when food supplies collapse, wars begin, while famine and disease spread. All of these things, scientists now fear, could happen on an unprecedented scale, especially given the interconnected nature of the global economy.

“Some scientists are indicating we should make plans to adapt to a 4C world,” Leifer comments. “While prudent, one wonders what portion of the living population now could adapt to such a world, and my view is that it’s just a few thousand people [seeking refuge] in the Arctic or Antarctica.”

Not surprisingly, scientists with such views are often not the most popular guys in the global room. McPherson, for instance, has often been labeled “Guy McStinction”—to which he responds, “I’m just reporting the results from other scientists. Nearly all of these results are published in established, esteemed literature. I don’t think anybody is taking issue with NASA, orNature, or Science, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Those] and the others I report are reasonably well known and come from legitimate sources, like NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], for example. I’m not making this information up, I’m just connecting a couple of dots, and it’s something many people have difficulty with.”

McPherson does not hold out much hope for the future, nor for a governmental willingness to make anything close to the radical changes that would be necessary to quickly ease the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; nor does he expect the mainstream media to put much effort into reporting on all of this because, as he says, “There’s not much money in the end of civilization, and even less to be made in human extinction.” The destruction of the planet, on the other hand, is a good bet, he believes, “because there is money in this, and as long as that’s the case, it is going to continue.”

Leifer, however, is convinced that there is a moral obligation never to give up and that the path to global destruction could be altered. “In the short term, if you can make it in the economic interests of people to do the right thing, it’ll happen very fast.” He offers an analogy when it comes to whether humanity will be willing to act to mitigate the effects of climate change: “People do all sorts of things to lower their risk of cancer, not because you are guaranteed not to get it, but because you do what you can and take out the health protections and insurance you need in order to try to lower your risk of getting it.”

The signs of a worsening climate crisis are all around us, whether we allow ourselves to see them or not. Certainly, the scientific community gets it. As do countless communities across the globe where the effects of climate change are already being experienced in striking ways and local preparations for climatic disasters, including increasingly powerful floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves and storms are underway. Evacuations from low-lying South Pacific islands have already begun. People in such areas, out of necessity, are starting to try to teach their children how to adapt to, and live in, what we are causing our world to become.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

My niece and nephews are doing something similar. They are growing vegetables in a backyard garden and their eight chickens provide more than enough eggs for the family. Their parents are intent on teaching them how to be ever more self-sustaining. But none of these heartfelt actions can mitigate what is already underway when it comes to the global climate.

I am 45 years old, and I often wonder how my generation will survive the impending climate crisis. What will happen to our world if the summer Arctic waters are indeed ice-free only a few years from now? What will my life look like if I live to experience a 3.5 Celsius global temperature increase?

Above all, I wonder how coming generations will survive.

Dahr Jamail has written extensively about climate change as well as the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. He is a recipient of numerous awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism and the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. He is the author of two books: Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraqand The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar.

Read next: Typhoon Haiyan’s message to the world.

Things the Poor Do

20 Things the Poor Do Everyday
That the Rich Never Have to Worry About

By Benjamin Irwin [2]

 

This post first appeared on Ben Irwin’s blog.  [3]

 

Financial advisor and evangelical Christian Dave Ramsey probably wasn’t expecting this much pushback when he shared a piece contrasting the habits of the rich [4] with those of the poor. In her response on CNN [5], Rachel Held Evans [6] noted that Ramsey and Corley mistake correlation for causality when they suggest (without actually proving) that these habits are the cause of a person’s financial situation. (Did it never occur to them that it might be the other way around?)

 

Ramsey fired back, calling the pushback “immature and ignorant.” This from a guy who just made 20 sweeping assertions about 47 million poor people in the US — all based on a survey of 361 individuals.

 

That’s right. To come up with his 20 habits, Corley talked to just 233 wealthy people and 128 poor people. Ramsey can talk all he wants about Corley’s research passing the “common-sense smell test,” but it doesn’t pass the “research methodology 101” test.

 

To balance the picture a bit, I wanted to take a fact-based look at 20 things the poor do on a daily basis…

 

1. Search for affordable housing.

Especially in urban areas, the waiting list [7] for affordable housing can be a year or more. During that time, poor families either have to make do with substandard or dangerous housing, depend on the hospitality of relatives, or go homeless.

(Source: New York Times [7])

 

2. Try to make $133 worth of food last a whole month.

That’s how much the average food stamp recipient [8] gets each month. Imagine trying to eat well on $4.38 per day. It’s not easy, which is why many impoverished families resort to #3…

(Source: Kaiser Family Foundation [9])

 

3. Subsist on poor quality food.

Not because they want to, but because they can’t afford [10] high-quality, nutritious food. They’re trapped in a food system that subsidizes processed foods, making them artificially cheaper than natural food sources. So the poor are forced to eat bad food — if they’re lucky, that is…

(Sources: Washington Post [10]; Journal of Nutrition, March 2008)

 

4. Skip a meal.

One in six Americans are food insecure. Which means (among other things) that they’re sometimes forced to go without eating.

(Sources: World Vision [11], US Department of Agriculture)

 

5. Work longer and harder than most of us.

While it’s popular to think people are poor because they’re lazy (which seems to be the whole point of Ramsey’s post [4]), the poor actually work longer and harder than the rest of us. More than 80 percent of impoverished children have at least one parent who works; 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time. Overall, the poor work longer hours [12] than the so-called “job creators.”

(Source: Poverty and Learning [12], April 2008)

 

6. Go to bed 3 hours before their first job starts.

Number 15 on Ramsey and Corley’s list [4] was, “44% of [the] wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of [the] poor.” It may be true that most poor people don’t wake up three hours before work starts. But that could be because they’re more likely to work multiple jobs [12], in which case job #1 means they’re probably just getting to bed three hours before job #2 starts.

(Source: Poverty and Learning [12], April 2008)

 

7. Try to avoid getting beat up by someone they love.

According to some estimates [13], half of all homeless women in America ran away to escape domestic violence.

(Source: National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009)

 

8. Put themselves in harm’s way, only to be kicked to the streets afterward.

How else do you explain 67,000 63,000 homeless veterans [14]?

(Source: US Department of Veterans Affairs [14], updated to reflect the most recent data)

 

9. Pay more than their fair share of taxes.

Some conservative pundits and politicians like to think the poor don’t pay their fair share, that they are merely “takers.” While it’s true the poor don’t pay as much in federal income tax — usually because they don’t earn enough to qualify — they do pay sales tax, payroll tax, etc. In fact [15], the bottom 20% of earners pay TWICE as much in taxes (as a share of their income) as do the top 1%.

(Source: Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy [16], January 2013)

 

10. Fall further behind.

Even when poverty is the result of poor decision-making, often it’s someone else’s choices that make the difference. If you experience poverty as a child [11], you are 3-4 times less likely to graduate high school. If you spend your entire childhood in poverty, you are 5 times less likely to graduate. Which means your future has been all but decided for you.

(Sources: World Vision [11], Children’s Defense Fund, Annie E. Casey Foundation)

 

11. Raise kids who will be poor.

A child’s future earnings are closely correlated to their parents’ earnings. In other words, economic mobility — the idea that you can claw your way out of poverty if you just try hard enough is, more often than not, a myth [17].

(Sources: OECD, Economic Policy Institute)

 

12. Vote less.

And who can blame them? I would be less inclined to vote [18] if I didn’t have easy access to the polls and if I were subjected to draconian voter ID laws that are sold to the public as necessary to suppress nonexistent voter fraud.

(Source: The Center for Voting and Democracy [19])

 

13. When they do vote… vote pretty much the same as the rest of us.

Following their defeat in 2012, conservatives took solace by reasoning that they’d lost to a bunch of “takers,” including the poor, who voted for Democrats because they want free handouts from big government. The reality is a bit more complex. Only a third of low-income voters identify as Democrats [20], about the same for all Americans, including wealthy voters.

(Sources: NPR [20], Pew Research Center [21])

 

14. Live with chronic pain.

Those earning less than $12,000 a year are twice as likely to report feeling physical pain [22] on any given day.

(Source: Kaiser Health News [22])

 

15. Live shorter lives.

There is a 10-14 year gap [23] in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. In recent years, poor people’s life expectancy has actually declined — in America, the wealthiest nation on the planet.

(Source: Health Affairs, 2012)

 

16. Use drugs and alcohol pretty much the same as (or less than) everyone else.

Despite the common picture of inner city crack houses, drug use is pretty evenly spread [12] across income groups. And rich people actually abuse alcohol more than the poor.

(Source: Poverty and Learning [12], April 2008)

 

17. Receive less in subsidized benefits than corporations.

The US government spends around $60 billion on public housing and rental subsidies for low-income families, compared to more than $90 billion on corporate subsidies [24]. Oil companies alone get around $70 billion. And that’s not counting the nearly $60 billion a year in tax breaks corporations enjoy by sheltering profits offshore. Or the $700 billion bailout banks got in 2008.

(Source: Think By Numbers [24])

 

18. Get themselves off welfare as soon as possible.

Despite the odds, the vast majority of beneficiaries leave the welfare rolls [25] within five years. Even in the absence of official welfare-to-work programming, most welfare recipients enroll in some form of vocational training [26]. Why? Because they’re desperate to get off welfare.

(Source: US Department of Health and Human Services)

 

19. Have about the same number of children as everyone else.

No, poor people do not have loads of children [26] just so they can stay on welfare.

(Source: US Department of Health and Human Services)

 

20. Accomplish one single goal: stay alive.

Poverty in America may not be as dire as poverty in other parts of the world, but many working poor families are nonetheless preoccupied with day-to-day survival. For them, life is not something to be enjoyed so much as endured.

 

These are the real habits of the poor, those with whom Jesus identifies most closely.

 

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/benjamin-irwin

[3] http://benirwin.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/20-things-the-poor-do-every-day/

[4] http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day

[5] http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/30/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty/

[6] http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/nyregion/for-many-seeking-public-housing-the-wait-can-be-endless.html?_r=0

[8] http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits

[9] http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits/

[10] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-21/news/36871700_1_food-insecurity-food-insecure-teen-diets

[11] http://www.worldvisionusprograms.org/us_poverty_myths.php

[12] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

[13] http://jasminecb.hubpages.com/hub/Misconceptions-of-The-Poor

[14] http://www.va.gov/homeless/about_the_initiative.asp

[15] http://www.itep.org/whopays

[16] http://www.itep.org/whopays/

[17] http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17636-five-misconceptions-about-our-tattered-safety-net

[18] http://www.fairvote.org/voter-turnout#.UpsmKpHw5N0

[19] http://www.fairvote.org/voter-turnout#.Up57gJHw5N1

[20] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-income-divides-democrats-republicans-and-independents

[21] http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/

[22] http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/june/29/ft-more-income-better-health.aspx

[23] http://www.globalresearch.ca/life-expectancy-falling-for-the-poorest-americans

[24] http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/

[25] http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics

[26] http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/newws/synthesis02/chapt2.htm

California 2014 Vaccine Law

California’s New Vaccine Exemption Law – Above the Law?

Vaccine Enthusiasts Want To Do The Same Thing In Washington (December article in Everett Herald. Send the link if you can find it.)

See: http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

Tuesday, December 17, 2013 by: Alan Phillips, J.D.

Thanks to http://www.naturalnews.com/043266_California_vaccine_exemptions_Constitutional_rights.html.

(NaturalNews) California’s AB 2109 was passed into law in 2012 and takes effect January 1, 2014. The new CA law (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) will require parents exercising an exemption to immunizations to provide a letter or affidavit to document which required immunizations have been given and which have not been given on the basis that they are contrary to the parent’s beliefs; and beginning on January 1, 2014, the letter or affidavit has to be accompanied by a State Department of Public Health form signed by a health care practitioner saying that he or she provided the parent “information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases,” and a written statement by the parent indicating that he or she received the information from the health care practitioner. (Seriously? the doctor’s signature alone is not convincing?) California’s Governor Brown, when signing AB 2109 into law, directed the Department of Public Health to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form, so that people whose religious beliefs are opposed vaccinations won’t be required to seek a health care practitioner’s signature. The Department complied, and included a religious exemption in its form.

This article addresses the Constitutionality of: 1) the new law, 2) the Governor’s authority to direct the Health Department to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form, 3) the Constitutionality of the current version of the Health Department’s proposed form, and 4) what can be done about these Constitutional problems.

I.Is the new law Constitutional?

While state legislators each take an oath to uphold the state and federal Constitutions, that oath really means little to nothing, as laws are not officially unconstitutional unless and until a court says so. That is, in practice, legislators are free to ignore their oaths and any Constitutional problems in bills; they need only be concerned with getting enough votes and the governor’s signature. If they get that, the bill becomes law.

The problem with California’s new law concerns those with religious objections to immunizations. While what specific beliefs qualify for a religious exemption is beyond the scope of an article, the starting place is that the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by federal courts provides protection for any belief that is religious in nature and sincerely held. If you meet those two criteria as the law defines them, you qualify for any exemption that includes religious objections. And since the Constitution is a higher legal authority than state law, states cannot add additional requirements.

California’s new law refers only to “beliefs” – it says nothing about religion or religious objections. Does California’s new exemption law include those with religious objections to vaccines? Technically, that depends on California’s statutory construction rules, which explain how to interpret California’s statutes. In California, like most if not all other states, statutes must be interpreted to give the intent of the legislature, and unambiguous laws are deemed to state the intent of the legislature. So, California’s exemption law does, implicitly and per applicable statutory construction rules, include a religious exemption. The state Department of Public Health has acknowledged this with respect to California’s current exemption law; see, e.g., http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/imm488e.pdf.

The Constitutional problem with the new statute comes from the fact that it requires *all* persons claiming an exemption, including those with religious beliefs, to jump through additional hoops, which places an unconstitutional burden on those with religious objections, who need only have a sincerely held religious belief under the Constitution. Therefore, the new law is unconstitutional as to those parents with qualifying religious objections to immunizations.

Governor Brown seemed to be acknowledging this when he directed the Department of Public Health to provide for a separate religious exemption on the health department form, so kudos for Governor Brown. But did he have authority to do this?

II.The Governor’s Authority to Direct the Health Department…

Under general principals of separation of powers, the three branches of government – executive (which at the state level is the governor’s office), legislative and judiciary – provide checks and balances for one another. No branch has direct control over any other branch. So, the governor probably could not legally require the health department, which was created by the legislature and is therefore a part of the legislative branch, to do anything. However, the health department may, as a function of its discretionary authority, choose to cooperate with the governor and attempt to implement his directive, so long as the department does so within the boundaries of its statutory authority. So while the governor may have exceeded his authority to direct the health department to include a religious exemption, the health department may have authority to cooperate with the governor by adding a religious exemption to its proposed form, which it has in fact done. However, did the health department follow the law in its attempt to appease the governor?

III. The Department of Public Health’s New Vaccine Exemption Form (http://eziz.org/assets/docs/CDPH-8262.pdf)

The good news is that the health department’s new exemption form provides a separate religious exemption – parents with religious objections don’t have to get a lecture about vaccines or a doctor’s signature. The bad news is that the wording on the new form appears to require membership in an organized religion with tenets opposed to immunizations, which is unconstitutional. As stated above, the First Amendment, a higher legal authority than state law, requires only a sincerely held religious belief.

In summary, the California State Legislature passed an unconstitutional exemption law; Governor Brown probably exceeded his authority when issuing a directive to the California Department of Public Health telling it to include a religious exemption in the exemption form, and the California Department of Public Health has created an unconstitutional exemption form. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here? I’ll let you decide whether this is incompetence or politics, but these errors have resulted in a bad law that will probably unlawfully discriminate against some California parents.

What Can California Parents Do?

The simplest short-term solution would be for the Department of Public Health to modify their form to bring it into compliance with the Constitution – to remove the “member” requirement and require only a sincerely held religious belief or practice opposed to immunizations. The long-term solution would be for the legislature to correct this by amending the state statute. Citizens in California should contact their representatives and the state health department to demand this. Go in numbers if possible, with a petition or group; and see your state representative in person if at all possible; letters and emails tend to get little or no real attention.

Parents adversely affected by the new law could also file a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the law. However, there’s a risk there. When others states’ unconstitutional religious exemption laws were ruled to be unconstitutional by a court, the result, most of the time, was that the entire exemption was stricken, leaving the state with no religious exemption option at all until the state legislature enacted a new exemption law. So, this needs to be analyzed carefully by attorneys contemplating such a suit. Meanwhile, with respect to the health department form as currently drafted, parents who qualify for a religious exemption but who don’t meet the Department of Public Health’s form requirement of “membership” in a religion could theoretically refuse to provide a doctor’s signature anyway, since that requirement is arguably unconstitutional. You may need an attorney backing you up to pull that off, but the legal argument is there. If enough parents around the state objected in this manner, perhaps the legislature would be forced to pay attention to proper legal boundaries for a change, and would amend the statute to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.

————–

Alan Phillips, J.D. is a nationally recognized vaccine rights attorney. He advises clients, activists and other attorneys throughout the U.S. in over a dozen different vaccine exemption and waiver contexts, and supports activists nationally with vaccine legislative initiatives. Learn more at www.vaccinerights.com

About the author:
Alan Phillips, Vaccine Rights Attorney
attorney@vaccinerights.com, 1-828-575-2622
Vaccine Rights (www.vaccinerights.com)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043266_California_vaccine_exemptions_Constitutional_rights.html#ixzz2ninMpaz0

 

Fukushima – World Changing

Scholars Allege Problems With Wifi

34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects + Damage From Wi-Fi

Home → Health Effects → 34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects + Damage From Wi-Fi

Here is a collection of scientific papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz), complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools.  The papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here.

If you feel like sending a copy of this collection to the local schools in your area, you can search for them here http://schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/schoolsfinder and either print out this article to post or email the link.

Wi-Fi papers

1. Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

2. Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647

3. Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)

4. Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

5. Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

6. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL  part 2.

7. Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

8. Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

9. Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

10. Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

11. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

12. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

13. Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

14. Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138

(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)

15. Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

16. Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

 

And here are a few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below)  (this is not comprehensive):

17. Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

18. Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821

19. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828

20. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

21. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

22. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389

23. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649

24. Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

25. Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806

26. Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737

27. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.

28. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446

29. Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

30. Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

31. Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.

32. Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

33. Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

34. Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

With thanks to WifiInSchools.

“A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.  When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” 
~ Dresden James

Big Meat and Obama

Obama’s 5 Biggest Sellouts to the Meat Industry

—By   Thanks to Mother Jones.

Nov. 5, 2013
Obama meatTalbot Troy/Flickr and Volodymyr Krasyuk/Shutterstock

When Barack Obama won the presidency in November 2008, taking on the meat industry surely ranked somewhere behind managing the financial crisis and wrangling two wars on his list of priorities.

Still, he had explicitly promised to crack down on some of Big Meat’s excesses. In his campaign literature targeted at rural voters, he deplored “anticompetitive behavior” and “market consolidation” by big meatpackers, and vowed to “strengthen anti-monopoly laws” and “make sure that farm programs are helping family farmers, as opposed to large, vertically integrated corporate agribusiness.” He also insisted his administration would  “strictly monitor and regulate pollution” from factory-scale animal farms, backed by “fines for those who violate tough air and water quality standards.”

Five years and another election later, “how’s that hopey-changy thing working” (to quote Sarah Palin) when it comes to challenging the meat industry’s power? The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production’s landmark report, released months before the presidential election in 2008, provides a good framework for examining Obama’s record. Led by adistinguished set of public-health, agriculture, and animal-welfare experts, the Pew Report delivered a blunt assessment of the health and environmental effects of factory meat production—and a set of policy recommendations for cleaning it up. And just last week, the Center for a Liveable Future at Johns Hopkins University (which worked with Pew on the original report) came out with an updated assessment of how things have gone over the past five years—a period that roughly coincides with Obama’s presidency.

Unfortunately, Big Meat continues to enjoy a rather friendly regulatory environment nearly a half-decade into Obama’s presidency, the report shows. Drawn (mostly) from CLF”s update, here are five ways the Obama Administration has kowtowed to the meat industry.

The GAO concluded that on factory farms, the EPA “does not have the information that it needs to effectively regulate these operations.”

1. Factory farms don’t have to register with the EPA.Remember the tough talk about how the administration would “strictly monitor and regulate pollution” from concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs)? Turns out, if you run one of these gargantuan operations—which accumulate vast cesspools of manure that regularly pollute water and air—you’re under no obligation to inform the Environmental Protection Agency of your existence, which makes it hard to monitor and regulate your pollution. In a 2008 report, the Government Accountability Office concluded that, because of this information void, the EPA “does not have the information that it needs to effectively regulate these operations.”

Under pressure from a lawsuit by environmental groups back in 2010, Obama’s EPA proposednew rules that would have remedied the situation by requiring CAFOs to file basic information on their operations with the agency.  Then, in 2012, the EPA unceremoniously withdrew the proposed rules, CLF reports. So now we’re back to where we were in 2008. Meanwhile, new peer-reviewed research has found that that the closer you live to a large hog operation, the likelier you are to be infected with a dangerous antibacterial-resistant pathogen called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or (MRSA).
2) Factory farms are exempt from the most important pollution laws. MRSA isn’t the only threat faced by people who live near factory animal farms. As this 2011 paper by North Carolina researchers shows, the foul odors emitted by these operations likely cause a host of problems ranging from eye irritation to difficulty breathing. CAFOs concentrate animal waste and emit ammonia, particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds into the air.

In a craven move just before leaving office in early 2009, President George Bush exempted CAFOs from having to report hazardous air emissions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund—an exemption that remains in place.

The Obama EPA has not taken back that gift to Big Meat. The holdup, as Tarah Heinzen, an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project, explained to me, is that the EPA says it doesn’t have a reliable way to gauge CAFOs’ air emissions (not surprising, given the dearth of data the agency has on CAFOs). The EPA’s attempts to get the data necessary to regulate air emissions has been vexed—and the dysfunction dates to the Bush II administration. In an industry-funded collaboration beginning in 2005, the EPA conducted air-quality monitoring at 15 livestock confinements and 9 manure lagoons across the country. When the EPA finally released data from the study in 2011, 11 of those 15 operations exceeded exceeded federal reporting thresholds for ammonia emissions, according to an analysis of it by Environmental Integrity Project. But when the EPA finally released its own analysis of the data, its own Science Advisory Board (SAB) found the EPA’s methodologies to be woefully inadequate—and essentially sent the agency back to the drawing board.

And so, under Obama, the EPA’s effort to create a system for measuring exactly what enters the air from CAFOs—much less protecting communities from it—has stalled indefinitely, the report finds.
3) Big Meat has only gotten bigger, unchecked by antitrust action. Not long after taking office in 2009, President Obama announced a series of public hearings, bringing together farmers with antitrust officials from the Justice Department, to talk through anticompetitive practices in the meat industry. After years of nearly unchecked consolidation—big meat packers combining with and/or buying up smaller meat packers, concentrating market power—this seemed like a radical move. Meanwhile, the 2008 farm bill required USDA to come up with a set of policies, known collectively as the GIPSA rule, designed to level the playing field between livestock farmers and the big meatpackers, which dominate the industry with their contracts. The effort that began promisingly; “Small Farmers See Promise In Obama’s Plans,” a 2009 NPR report declared.

What has Obama’s challenge to the industry’s market power amounted five years into his presidency? “[N]ear-total collapse,” CLF laments. The DOJ hearings resulted in a 24-page report and little else. The Obama USDA ended up watering down its initially strong GIPSA rule proposal—only to see it essentially gutted by Congress, CLF reports. Meanwhile, “consolidation in the meat industry has continued unabated worldwide,” Pew finds.

CLF found evidence linking routine farm antibiotic use to human disease—everything from potentially deadly MRSA to urinary-tract infections.

4) CAFOs continue to generate antibiotic-resistant pathogens. There’s no more depressing section of the CLF update than the one on the meat industry’s reliance on routine antibiotic use. Back in 2008, the commission recommended that the federal government “phase out and then ban the nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials” in livestock production. The rational was simple: when you feed tightly confined animals daily doses for antibiotics, microbes quickly evolve resistance to those antibiotics. And some of those microbes—like salmonella and certain forms of E. coli—can cause severe damage to people.

Antibiotics should be reserved for cases when animals are actually sick, not used to stimulate their growth or to try to prevent them from getting sick, Pew concluded.

Five years later, CLF reports, evidence has accumulated linking routine farm antibiotic use to human disease—everything from potentially deadly MRSA to urinary-tract infections. This year, the Centers for Disease Control bluntly acknowledged the problem. The Obama Administration’s response to the threat? Amid much fanfare in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration rolled out a voluntary approach—one that, even if the industry chooses to follow it, will likely be inadequate, because it contains a massive loophole, CLF reports (more details here). As a result, “meaningful change” to Big Meat’s antibiotics fixation is “unlikely in the near future.”
5) Obama’s USDA is pushing to speed up poultry slaughterhouses, workers be damned.Working conditions in slaughterhouses are beyond the scope of the Pew Commission’s original report, but no list of Obama’s sellouts to Big Meat is complete without a mention of the US Department of Agriculture’s proposed new plans for inspecting poultry line. They’re essentially a privatizer’s dream: Slash the number of USDA inspectors on the kill line, saving the government some money; hand much of the responsibility for inspection to the poultry packers themselves; allow them to substitute random testing and plenty of antimicrobial spray for the onerous task of inspecting every bird, which means the kill line can speed up, thus saving the industry loads of money.

All of which sounds great, unless you’re a worker about to find that your already-hazardous job just got more dangerous; or you’re a chicken eater, because, according to a Food and Water Watch analysis of USDA data on its pilot program for the new system, the new system lets some pretty foul stuff through.

Worker and food-safety advocates have pushed back hard against the new rules, but the USDA appears to be sticking to its guns. The department is in the process of finalizing the new plan, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

FDA Pertussis Vaccine Study

FDA Pertussis Vaccine Study Shatters Illusion of Vaccine-Induced Immunity

December 10, 2013 | 53,804 views  Thanks to www.Mercola.com.

By Dr. Mercola

Recent vaccine research again reveals the gulf between what you’re told about vaccines—how they work and how effective they are at preventing infectious disease—versus what is truly known about naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity.

Nearly a century after the release of the whooping cough (B. pertussis) vaccine, mounting evidence suggests that widespread mandated use of the vaccine could potentially be doing more harm than good in the long term—in addition to having been found lacking in the effectiveness department. As reported by The Washington Post:1

“The research suggests that while the vaccine may keep people from getting sick, it doesn’t prevent them from spreading whooping cough — also known as pertussis — to others.

‘It could explain the increase in pertussis that we’re seeing in the US,’ said one of the researchers, Tod Merkel of the Food and Drug Administration…

Last year was the nation’s worst year for whooping cough in six decades— US health officials received reports of more than 48,000 cases, including 18 deaths… Some studies have concluded the newer vaccine doesn’t last as long as the old one. But the study by Merkel and his colleagues offers a new wrinkle.

New ‘Wrinkle’ Busts Major Hole in Pro-Mandatory Vaccination Argument

The “new wrinkle” revealed in the featured FDA baboon study is that while the vaccine can cut down on serious clinical disease symptoms, it doesn’t eliminatetransmission of the disease.2 This busts a major hole in the entire argument that vaccines achieve herd immunity, which is used as justification for mandatory vaccination campaigns.

According to the Washington Post:3

“’[I]t was thought that people only spread the disease when they had coughs and other symptoms,’ said Dr. Erik Hewlett, a University of Virginia whooping cough researcher who was not involved in the FDA study but has collaborated with Merkel.

Health officials have sought to protect small children by vaccinating the people who are in contact with them such as grandparents and baby sitters— a strategy called ‘cocooning.’ But that may not work as well as hoped if infected people who don’t show any symptoms can still spread it, the research suggests. ‘This is a whole new way of thinking of the problem,’ Hewlett said.”

Whooping Cough Vaccination Makes You an ‘Asymptomatic Carrier’

The study, titled“Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model,”4 used infant baboons to test the hypothesis that “current acellular pertussis vaccines fail to prevent colonization and transmission” of B. pertussis.

The acellular pertussis vaccines that were licensed in 1996 for infants to replace reactive whole-cell pertussis vaccines contain lower levels of certain toxins (such as endotoxin) as well as purified antigens instead of all the components of whole killed B. pertussis bacteria.

The study concluded that infant baboons given Sanofi DTaP (Daptacel) vaccine at two, four, and six months of age were protected against developing outward clinical symptoms of pertussis after being exposed to B. pertussis at seven months of age, but they were still able colonize and transmit B. pertussis to other baboons.

The baboons that were vaccinated with whole cell pertussis (GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix) also colonized B. pertussis upon exposure to B. pertussis, but they cleared the infection much faster than the acellular pertussis vaccinated baboons—in 18 days compared to 35 days.

Now, the researchers did not say that DTaP vaccine causes vaccine strain pertussis infection. B. pertussis vaccines (both whole cell DPT and acellular DTaP/Tdap) are inactivated vaccines and do not cause vaccine strain infection the way some attenuated live virus vaccines can—such as live oral polio (OPV) and varicella zoster (chickenpox) vaccines.

However, the lead author Tod Merkel did comment to the New York Times5 that when exposed to B. pertussis after recently getting vaccinated, you could be an asymptomatic carrier and infect others, saying:

“When you’re newly vaccinated, you are an asymptomatic carrier, which is good for you, but not for the population.”

Pertussis Vaccine May Not Curb Transmission of Illness

According to the researchers, acellular pertussis vaccine (Daptacel) induces high antibody titers, which is used to measure efficacy. Whole cell DPT (Infanrix) and natural B. pertussis infection also induce high antibody titers.

But, while acellular pertussis vaccinated baboons did not develop serious clinical disease symptoms—such as loss of appetite and cough—when they were directly challenged with B. pertussis (meaning exposed to the B. pertussis bacteria), they still colonized B. pertussis in their throats and were capable of transmitting the infection to other baboons.

Since acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines are the only type of pertussis vaccines now given to American children at the ages of two, four, six and 15-18 months, as well as between the ages of four and six years and at 11-12 years, the researchers said:

“These data suggest that cocooning is unlikely to be an effective strategy to reduce the burden of pertussis in infants. However, it is important to note that our data in combination with human data show that vaccination with acellular pertussis provides excellent protection from severe pertussis.

Therefore, any short-term plan for addressing the resurgence of pertussis should include continued efforts to enhance acellular pertussis immunization. However, to protect the most vulnerable members of the population and achieve optimal herd immunity, it will be necessary to develop a vaccination strategy that effectively blocks pertussis infection and transmission.”

What You Need to Know About ‘Herd Immunity’

The issue of “herd immunity” as it pertains to vaccinations is a widely misunderstood subject. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes vaccine-induced herd immunity (also labeled “community immunity” by public health doctors) as follows:6

“When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as ‘community immunity.’”

What many people don’t realize is that there is such a thing as natural herd immunity. The problem is that public health officialsassume that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing and recovering from the natural disease.

The science clearly shows that there’s a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-acquired herd immunity, even as scientific knowledge about the biological mechanisms involved in naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity is incomplete. These facts are usually ignored because to openly acknowledge them opens the door to some very unwelcome questions about the overall effectiveness of mandatory vaccination programs.

Vaccines are designed to trick your body’s immune system into producing an immune response that includes making protective antibodies that are needed to resist future exposure to the infectious viral or bacterial microorganism. However, your body is smarter than that. The artificial manipulation of your immune system by vaccines containing lab altered bacteria and viruses, as well as chemicals and other ingredients, simply does not exactly replicate the response that your immune system mounts when naturally encountering the infectious microorganism. This is one reason why vaccine policymakers say you need to get “booster” shots because vaccine acquired immunity is only temporary and wears off, sometimes rather quickly.

The featured study also provides evidence of this fact, showing that a vaccine-induced immune response differs from the immune response when naturally encountering the B. pertussis organism. The FDA researchers further suggested that there are also differences in immune responses to whole cell DPT vaccine, which contains the whole B. pertussis bacteria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, which contains lower levels of toxins and uses purified antigens. They said “Vaccination with wP [whole cell pertussis vaccine] and previous infection induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP[acelullar pertussis[-vaccinated animals.”

As reported by Medical Daily:7

“The researchers also found something revealing when they looked at the specific immune response of each group of monkeys. 'Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity,' the authors wrote in PNAS.

Specifically, previously infected animals and whole-cell-vaccinated animals both exhibited the same kind of boost in immune response while the acellular pertussis vaccination elicited a response that was slightly different. 'The observation that acellular pertussis, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission, provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis...'"

Although the FDA researchers say they found differences between immune responses to the whole cell DPT vaccine acellular DTaP vaccine, they also admit that “neither vaccine was able to prevent colonization as well as immunity from a previous infection” and that “relative protection afforded by Th17 or Th1 responses in vaccinated or convalescent baboons or humans is not known.”

Bottom line: there are huge gaps in scientific knowledge about both B. pertussis vaccination and B. pertussis infections.

Which Is More Ideal—Permanent or Temporary Immunity?

To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity. In it, she brings up some very important questions that need to be seriously considered and answered through rigorous scientific investigation—investigation that has so far been largely ignored:

" In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting more robust qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity... The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.

The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.

... [I]s it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine, or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? These questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man.”

Download Interview Transcript

What We Don’t Understand Can Hurt Us

My main point of contention with those who insist that vaccines are the best answer for disease prevention, without regard for constitutional differences between people, is that the science is still grossly lacking when it comes to safety. We simply do not know if vaccination is an ideal choice for all people, all the time—even though that’s what public health officials and others promoting one-size-fits all mandatory vaccination policies would like you to believe. The evidence weighs rather heavily againstsuch a blanket position, in my opinion.

Take the recent news of healthy teenagers dying following flu vaccination for example. In January of this year, a 14-year old Carly Christenson passed away from complications from influenza type-A, despite being vaccinated against the flu.8

Most recently, healthy 19-year old Chandler Webb became violently ill the day after receiving a flu shot—the first flu shot he had ever received.910 His symptoms included violent shaking, headache and vomiting. He was hospitalized with encephalitis (brain inflammation). As the swelling of his brain progressed, Chandler’s doctors frantically tested him for various infectious diseases and treated him with broad spectrum antibiotics. Apparently, they did not think to consider whether he’d been recently vaccinated. His brain became so inflamed that doctors told his mother the massive swelling crushed his brain stem. He died 28 days after his first and last dose of influenza vaccine.

Chandler’s mother wants to raise awareness about the potential of vaccines to cause serious complications like brain inflammation and is urging medical personnel to consider vaccine reactions when searching for potential causes and treating encephalitis and other possible vaccine-related health problems. In this case, the doctors are now claiming they were not able to confirm the cause of Chandler’s death, and are declining to comment because they say they are legally prohibited from making any statements about the case.11 

Main Take-Home Points and Limitations of the Latest Pertussis Vaccine Study

To recap, FDA researchers conducting the featured baboon study found that the whole cell pertussis vaccine (GSK’s Infanrix DPT), the acellular pertussis vaccine (Sanofi’s Daptacel DTaP), and natural pertussis infection all induced high antibody titers in infant baboons. High antibody titer after vaccination is currently the gold standard for proving that a vaccine confers “immunity” and inability to colonize or transmit infection.

However in this study, high B. pertussis antibody titers after vaccination did NOT correlate with immunity and inability to colonize or transmit B. pertussis infection to other baboons—effectively challenging the idea that high antibody titer following vaccination is evidence that vaccination will prevent infection in the vaccine recipient and the recipient will not be able to infect others. Furthermore, the study authors found that:

  • Baboons vaccinated with a whole cell pertussis vaccine (DPT) colonized B. pertussis upon direct challenge but cleared infection almost twice as fast as animals vaccinated with an acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP)—which is the type used by American children since 1996. This suggests that children recently given DTaP vaccine, who are exposed to B. pertussis may be astymptomatic carriers and transmitters of the infection for a longer period of time compared to children who get the older, more reactive whole cell DPT vaccine and clear infection more quickly.
  • Previous B. pertussis infection prevented colonization with B. pertussis in baboons better than having received either whole cell pertussis (Infanrix) or acelullar pertussis vaccine (Daptacel). In short, natural immunity offered greater protection against the ability to become infected and transmit infection after exposure to B. pertussis than either of the two vaccines.

That said, the researchers acknowledged the baboon study had limitations and among them were the fact that:

  • Baboons are not humans and the study authors admitted that “relative protection afforded by Th17 and Th1 responses in vaccinated or convalescent baboons or humans is not known.”
  • Only one type of whole cell DPT and one type of acellular DTaP vaccine was used in this study but there are many different kinds of DPT and DTaP containing different components. Considering the known variability of measured efficacy and effectiveness of DPT and DTaP vaccines in clinical studies, the FDA study conclusions can only be limited to those two specific DPT and DTaP vaccines.

The Illusion of Vaccine-Acquired Immunity

The concept of vaccine induced herd immunity is built on the assumption that vaccination does protect the vast majority of vaccinated persons in a population from becoming infected with- and transmitting infection to others in the same way that naturally acquired immunity in a population protects acquisition and transmission of infection. The featured FDA research suggests this is not the case and offers a clue as to why whooping cough outbreaks have been occurring and spreading primarilywithin the vaccinated population. To quote NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher:

“In my opinion, this study in infant baboons suggests that pertussis vaccine-acquired immunity has been an illusion. Although the vaccines may protect against severe B. pertussis clinical symptoms of the disease—such as paroxysmal coughing—they do not prevent colonization of B. pertussis bacteria and transmission of the infection to others.

In this study at least, recovery from previous B. pertussis infection was more effective in preventing colonization with B.pertussis upon direct challenge than either whole cell DPT (Infanrix) or acellular DTaP (Daptacel) and that suggests transmission of the infection to others after exposure to B pertussis would also be less likely when there is a history of naturally acquired immunity.”

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Organic Milk – Slightly More Omega 3

New WSU study suggests organic milk may be more heart-healthy

Organically raised cows eat more grass and produce milk that is richer in “good” fatty acids than milk from cows fed corn and other grain-based feed, says a Washington State University analysis.

Thanks to the Seattle Times.

By Sandi Doughton, Seattle Times science reporter

There’s no doubt eating organic food can reduce your exposure to pesticides, but the jury remains out on whether organically grown food is inherently more nutritious than food produced using the full chemical armory of conventional agriculture.

Now, new research from Washington State University (WSU) concludes that when it comes to milk, the organic variety really does have at least one nutritional advantage.

In the first large-scale study to compare milk from organic and conventional dairies across the United States, the researchers found significantly higher levels of heart-healthy fatty acids in organic milk.

The reason is that organically raised cows eat more grass and less corn and other grain-based feed than their conventional counterparts, said lead author Charles Benbrook, of WSU’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources.

“In my judgment, the benefits from this healthy balance of fatty acids in organic milk is the most significant nutritional benefit demonstrated so far for organic food,” he said.

Previous studies have suggested that some organic fruits and vegetables contain higher levels of antioxidant chemicals compared with conventional produce. But most major reviews of all the evidence have found little nutritional distinction between organic and conventional foods.

Milk has been the exception, with a few previous studies — particularly in Europe — noting differences in fat composition. The WSU study, which was partly funded by the organic farm cooperative Organic Valley, is the biggest so far, analyzing nearly 400 samples of whole milk collected over an 18-month period. The results were published Monday in the journal PLoS ONE.

On average, organic milk contained 25 percent fewer of the omega-6 fatty acids common in fried foods, which have been implicated in inflammation, heart disease and diabetes. Organic milk was also 62 percent richer in the omega-3 fatty acids believed to be at least partly responsible for the healthful effects of eating fish, beans and many vegetables.

Both types of fatty acids are essential for health, but many nutrition experts believe the balance in the typical American diet has become skewed because of the heavy use of omega-6-rich corn and soy oils in processed and fast foods.

Most American consume 10 to 15 times more omega-6 fatty acids than the healthier omega-3s, Benbrook said.

Drinking whole milk — whether conventional or organic — is one way people can help bring those levels back into balance, Benbrook said, with the new results suggesting organic milk as the better choice.

The benefits could be most pronounced among people predisposed to heart disease, young children and women of childbearing age, he added.

But other experts caution that there’s no evidence yet that shelling out for more costly organic milk will actually translate into health benefits.

“I’m sure the study is well-done in terms of the analysis,” said University of Wisconsin food scientist Scott Rankin, president of the American Dairy Science Association. “But I would want to see a greater ability to connect the dots between this (fatty acid) ratio and some great claims about cardiovascular disease.”

Though organic milk may be higher in beneficial fatty acids, the levels are still low, Rankin pointed out. “If you have 60 percent more of a tiny amount, does that have a nutritional implication?” he asked.

An official at the National Dairy Council, an industry association that has until now insisted that there are no significant nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk, said the new data are “very interesting,” and worthy of follow-up study.

But Jeff Zachwieja, senior vice president for research, said that instead of switching from conventional to organic milk, a more effective way to improve the fatty-acid balance in your diet would probably be to reduce consumption of foods and oils high in omega-6s.

The WSU study, done in collaboration with researchers from the European Union, analyzed only whole milk. Fatty-acid levels are lower in reduced-fat milk, and any related benefits would be correspondingly smaller, Benbrook said.

But dietary recommendations discourage the consumption of whole milk, to reduce calories and fat and lower levels of “bad” cholesterol associated with heart disease.

Some scientists say people shouldn’t be drinking cows’ milk at all. A recent viewpoint column in the journal JAMA Pediatrics by researchers from Harvard Medical School pointed out that humans evolved without it, and that there are many other ways to get the calcium needed for bone health.

Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com

Bill Gates’ Vaccines

Bill Gates’ Vaccines

www.currenthealthscenario.blogspot.com

June 18, 2011

Dear Friends,

Bill Gates and his ally the WHO have declared 2011-20 to be a “decade of vaccines”. Very recently he has persuaded a few world leaders to donate $ 2 billion to his charity towards vaccination of Asian and African children. More countries are expected to follow suit. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has earmarked $ 2.3 billion for this activity. This brouhaha over vaccines does not bore well for the malnourished children of Asia and Africa who will be harmed in large numbers unable to bear this antigen overload.

These funds come out of taxpayers money and in each of the countries activists are up in arms because they have huge health expenses which the governments are not able to foot. They allege that it is the strong pharmaceutical lobby that is behind such charity. People who know the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) also know that the Foundation has invested handsomely in shares of pharmaceutical companies. It is also hiring people from the industry to head its vaccine charity. Bill Gates, as we know, is a very shrewd businessman and he knows how to eat his cake and keep it too.

How will it affect the beneficiary countries economically? While these countries will be given free or heavily subsidized vaccines initially, they will be expected to foot the bill when the Foundation withdraws its charity. Economies will break under this strain. Development funds earmarked for genuine health care like improved nutrition, sanitation and clean water will instead have to be diverted to the activity of vaccination. Who gains from such a transaction? Obviously the pharmaceutical industry and its shareholders like the BMGF which will multiply its assets in the name of charity.

Some will point out that the industry has reduced the prices of vaccines to be given to the developing world. But this will not affect the industry at all. In their own country, the USA, the vaccine manufacturers have to pay a tax of 60% of the price of each vaccine that goes to a national vaccine injury compensation fund. They don’t have to pay such a tax on their exports. So the price of the vaccine being reduced does not hurt them in any way!

Moreover they are reducing prices expecting their vaccines to find a place in the various government led universal vaccination schemes.Once this goal is achieved the huge turnover will benefit them immensely. The initial reduction in prices does not mean that they cannot raise the prices once their objective is achieved leading to entire governments being at the mercy of these profiteers.

So buyers beware! The new Rotavirus Vaccine and the Pentavalent vaccine that Bill Gates is now busy marketing comes with known adverse effects. While the Rotavirus is associated with intestinal blockage, the Pentavalent has caused deaths in whichever country it has been introduced. Including these vaccines in government vaccination programs is fraught with grave dangers particularly as adverse affects and also deaths due to vaccines are routinely termed as “coincidental” in these countries and the victims are denied any benefits.

Had Bill Gates invested his money to pay damages to and rehabilitate the vaccine injured children in developing countries that would have been real charity. He could have also supported scientific research as to why 1 in 6 children today suffer from various development disorders, 54% suffer serious chronic disorders and 45% of children and youth aged 10 to 24 suffer neuro-psychiatric disorders, as revealed in the recent issue of Lancet. All is certainly not hunky-dory with the highly controversial intervention called vaccination.

The emperor has no clothes. But sadly there is no one to point it out.

Regards,

 

Jagannath Chatterjee

www.currenthealthscenario.blogspot.com

Comments:

  1. Earl Lamudio July 2, 2013 at 8:30 am
    Rotavirus infection most commonly strikes during the winter months (December through May), but it occurs year round in developing countries. In the United States every year, rotavirus first appears in the Southwest and spreads to the Northeast. Almost every child 5 years and younger at some point will be infected with rotavirus in both developed countries and developing countries. -…’

    Please do view our favorite internet site
    <http://www.picturesofherpes.co

  2. Jim June 20, 2011 at 7:32 am
    The 70′s were the decade of water for the UN health. They drilled over 2 million wells in third world countries never checking water quality for contaminates. They also paid by the meter to drillers so they often drilled far deeper then required. Often three times deeper with very old water long leaching fluoride and arsenic from the granite rock. This toxic cocktail destroyed whole villages in countries where tens of millions were already toxic from arsenic and fluoride.

    Some wells were closed years later but this is still a major issue especially in India where it is epidemic with government doing very little to fix the toxic water. Often a gift of the UN in their short sited desire to do good.

    Fluoridation was a fraud by industry from the beginning and ingested benefit never existed except in faked data by industry then government. The CDC has 15,000 employees, the oral health division has 28 fluoride promoting dentists but not one toxicologist. This is a fraud protected by those paid to serve.

    Florida has Michael Easley DDS in their Oral health division. He was quoted in California in 2009 commenting on those citizens not wanting fluoridation. “nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country.” Total contempt for those he is paid to serve. Total contempt for informed consent for citizens he is paid to serve.

    I asked for his dismissal if he was quoted correctly. They never denied the quote but said it was taken out of context. I then asked what context it would be proper in for a public servant. They defended him. I had gotten to debate Easley in 2007 outside the commission chambers in Daytona Beach with a reporter present. At least he reads the data but is more dishonest and just attacks every statement. I actually read the data and am used to this bush league government and dentist behavior.

    The Atlanta civil rights group with Andrew Young is a step in the right direction to have Fluoridaegate investigations on harm.

Reactions from Gelatin in Vaccines

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Flu Vaccine Reactions From the Same Gelatin in Gummy Bears

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

What’s the difference between an allergic reaction, an adverse event, or a contraindication with regard to vaccines? Apparently there are very little or no differences because all those events mean that a vaccinee is in trouble with his or her health due to having received a vaccine.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) reported at its Baltimore, Maryland, meeting early in November 2013, a case report

notes that individuals with a gelatin allergy can have a mild to severe reaction from the [flu] shot. [1]

Severe reactions can include anaphylaxis, which can result in death!

Apparently the ACAAI considered the case report – supposedly about a four-year-old toddler who received a flu vaccine according to radio news reports this writer heard – serious enough that it advised its membership to take some fairly drastic precautionary measures about giving flu vaccines to children with known allergic reactions to marshmallows and gummy bear candies, which contain gelatin made from animal trimmings not used in food processing, or even from discarded animal parts.

Gelatin [2] is an animal protein that is used as a gelling agent in pharmaceuticals, candy making, yogurt [3], ice cream [4], and as a clarifying agent in beer [5]. As with any food, especially protein, people may or may not know they are allergic to it or may not have recognized an allergic reaction to a food, since there can be many allergic reactions in addition to hives, itching, rashes, or even asthma. When I studied nutrition, I learned there can be as many as a thousand different types of reactions in the human body, depending upon an individual’s immune system, constitution, and the offending allergen. In today’s chemical world, more and more individuals are allergic to man-made chemicals, something the medical profession deals with almost exclusively, i.e., pharmaceuticals to which there can be numerous adverse reactions. Vaccines are not exempt!

Some claim there is a difference between food intolerances and allergies. Try telling that to parents who see their little ones experiencing reactions no matter what label is put on them, especially after receiving a vaccine. It’s frightening stuff, and as ACAAI member Stephanie Albin, MD, points out,

Because it is found in the vaccine, those with a known allergy to gelatin can experience allergic reactions, such as hives, sneezing and difficulty breathing. [1]

Furthermore, Dr. Albin elaborates with,

Gelatin reactions can cause hives, swelling, itchiness, shortness of breath and a severe life-threatening reaction known as anaphylaxis. Because of this, precautions should be taken, such as having a board-certified allergist administer the vaccine in a person with known gelatin allergy in case a reaction occurs.

That’s all well and good advice for those who want to take that chance, but there are numerous other proteins in vaccines, along with neurotoxins and other toxic chemicals that can and apparently do cause allergic reactions and adverse events, as verified by the CDC/FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System where physicians and parents can and should file reports.

Furthermore, “While the vaccine is recommended for those six months of age and older” [1], can anyone tell what an infant that young is allergic to? Isn’t that a reasonable question to ask? Maybe the ACAAI ought to consider recommending testing be done on all infants before any vaccines are administered to determine whether there will be adverse mitochondrial involvement that can precipitate the Autism Spectrum Disorder, the MTHFR mutation [6], or allergic reactions. Right now it’s a ‘crap shoot’ and you take your chances of having a damaged child after vaccination.

There also is a nasal flu vaccine, i.e., nasal spray, which contains gelatin that the ACAAI is concerned about. However, it contains MSG (monosodium glutamate), an excitotoxin that doesn’t seem to arouse their interest. MSG affects the brain to produce what’s been called the “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” or the MSG Symptom Complex. See this YouTube “FluMist Contains MSG” that talks about MSG in the nasal flu vaccine.

According to Dr. Michael Roussell, PhD, [7]

Concerns regarding a link between MSG and obesity have been raised, especially following the publication of a 2011 study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Furthermore, in 1978 two possible psychiatric reactions to MSG were reported to The New England Journal of Medicine. [8]

According to the CDC’s “Ingredients of Vaccines – Fact Sheet” [9]

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.

For children with a prior history of allergic reactions to any of these substances in vaccines, parents should consult their child’s healthcare provider before vaccination.

That last statement presents a real problem for everyone, as far as this writer is concerned. The reason lies in the fact that no one knows who will have a reaction to a vaccine ingredient. Furthermore, everyone is told by the medical profession, the media, governments, and school systems that vaccines are safe and necessary. No, they are not on both counts!

Vaccines contain numerous ingredients [10] that pose hidden adverse reactions or events for numerous children of all ages, including adults. VAERS confirms that! Any previous vaccine reaction should preclude a child – or anyone for that matter – from receiving other vaccines in the future in order to prevent an anamnestic response [11], which really doesn’t seem to be taken very seriously by those promoting vaccines, as is exemplified in the recommendation that a board certified allergist should administer vaccines to children with known allergies to vaccine ingredients. No vaccine warrants the possibility of an anamnestic response, in my opinion.

As we have seen with gelatin and MSG, there are real problems that can and do occur from vaccine ingredients from supposedly ‘mundane’, edible, or GRAS ingredients. I have not addressed in this article the more serious ingredients in vaccines, e.g., neurotoxins, which I talk about in my recent book, Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines. That being said, I would like to congratulate the ACAAI for warning about the possible vaccine gelatin reaction. Please don’t stop there! You have an entire roster of ingredients, which can cause adverse reactions, intolerances, or allergies – whatever you want to call them – that are causing serious health problems for innocent children. It’s time to take responsibility; it is time to “bell the cat”. [11]

Notes:

[1] http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/609629/?sc=dwhn
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelatin
[3] http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Suppliers2/Ingredion-rolls-out-cost-saving-gelatin-replacer-for-yogurt
[4] http://ask.metafilter.com/59218/Gelatinfree-ice-cream-brands
[5] http://www.bertusbrewery.com/2012/06/how-to-clear-your-beer-with-gelatin.html
[6] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR
[7] http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/diet-tips/ask-diet-doctor-truth-about-msg
[8] Colman, A.D. Possible psychiatric reactions to monosodium glutamate. New England Journal of Medicine 299: 902, 1978.
[9] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm
[10] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
[11] http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bell-the-cat.html

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

Is Christianity Animal-Friendly?

Is Christianity Animal-Friendly?

Kimberley C. Patton  

Read complete article at Harvard Divinity School.

In Review | Books The Friends We Keep: Unleashing Christianity’s Compassion for Animals, by Laura Hobgood-Oster. Baylor University Press, 230 pages, $19.95.

BUILDING ON HER RECENT Holy Dogs and Asses: Animals in the Christian Tradition (2008), which aimed to recover the lost history of animals in Christianity, Laura Hobgood-Oster in her new book, The Friends We Keep: Unleashing Christianity’s Compassion for Animals, offers a passionate call to Christians to attend to animal suffering. A religion and environmental studies scholar, Hobgood-Oster reminds the Christian world of the long-standing mutual relationship between people and animals, and seeks to broaden narrow views of traditional Christian theology that would limit God’s incarnation to Jesus alone—and his salvific regard only to human beings. “At its core,” she asks, “is Christianity only about human beings?” (168).

In extending the range of the Incarnation, Hobgood-Oster takes a different tack than others before her. For example, the British trinitarian theologian Andrew Linzey focuses on the imperative of imitatio Dei in Christ’s kenotic self-emptying for creatures lesser than himself; so we, following his example, need to serve animals. Animals, Hobgood-Oster says, have not only been chronic victims throughout Christian history, but have been a persistent presence in religiously meaningful ways, sanctified by divine regard. They are God’s creatures, and our friends. They are therefore worthy not only of pity or compassion, but of the religious attention that comes with theological standing. Christian political energies are therefore rightly directed in liberating them from present-day systemic forms of abuse, such as factory farming, meat-eating, hunting, product research, thoroughbred horse racing, puppy mills, and dog fighting. The rubrics of friendship and hospitality, informed by her own relationships with particular beloved animals and by her extensive work as a rescue volunteer for abandoned and injured animals are her main platforms, and they are compellingly presented.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

 

Are WiFi and Smart Meters Dangerous?

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Health Effects From Wi-Fi

Thanks to Adverse Post

Dees Illustration

Activist Post

Here is an excellent collection of scientific papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz), complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools.

The papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here.

If you feel like sending a copy of this collection to the local schools in your area, you can search for them here and either print out this article to post or email the link.

Wi-Fi papers

1. Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

2. Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647

3. Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)

4. Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

5. Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

6. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL  part 2.

7. Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

8. Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

Protect Yourself From Cell Phone Radiation - SafeSpace Cell Phone Protector9. Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources.
Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

10. Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

11. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

12. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

13. Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

14. Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138 (Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)

15. Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

Breathe Easy with Multi-Tech II XJ-3000C Advanced Air Purifiers16. Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

And here are a few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below)  (this is not comprehensive):

17. Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

18. Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821

19. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828

20. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

21. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of OncologyLibrary Vol. 5: 273-300 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

22. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389

23. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649

24. Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

25. Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806

26. Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737

27. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.

28. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446

29. Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

30. Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

31. Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.

32. Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

33. Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

34. Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

With thanks to WifiInSchools.

This first appeared at Stop Smart Meters!

Dr. Huber on GMOs

Vaccine Injuries

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Vaccine Injuries:
What Everyone Needs to Know Before and After Vaccinations

Thanks to Activist Post

Dees Illustration

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

Vaccinations are becoming more problematic than anyone probably ever would have thought, especially since they are touted as ‘preventive healthcare measures’ and studies indicate that flu vaccines are not effective, including the U.S. CDC admitting, “During years when the flu vaccine is not well matched to circulating viruses, it’s possible that no benefit from flu vaccination may be observed.” (Source)

The reasons for public concern are numerous, but two are the most vexing. They are:

  1. Adverse Reactions to vaccines, plus lack of compensation for hundreds of thousands of cases of adverse reactions reported to VAERS due to vaccines (See VAERS reports).
  2. Vaccine Mandates for daycare, elementary school thru college, and employment in the healthcare field.

Lack of information is to blame.

Most parents probably do not know about the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Table that lists factual information regarding vaccine damages, e.g.,

A. Vaccine

B. Illness, Disability, Injury or Condition Covered

C. Time Period for First Symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration

Seventeen (17) vaccine categories list various infant and childhood vaccines, plus other vaccines: HPV, pneumococcal, trivalent influenza, etc. The Vaccine Injury Table is essential information for every expectant mom and dad to have filed away—just in case—and especially if you believe in vaccinations.

 

On the HRSA website under the explanation of Encephalopathy, some seemingly questionable information appears, in this writer’s opinion, that ought to be deleted, since it is confusing, if not misleading, insofar as it represents reactions and/or symptoms a healthy child did not experience before vaccination but suffered afterward, specifically:

(C) The following clinical features in themselves do not demonstrate an acute encephalopathy or a significant change in either mental status or level of consciousness: Sleepiness, irritability (fussiness), high-pitched and unusual screaming, poor feeding, persistent inconsolable crying, bulging fontanelle, or symptoms of dementia.

There are several ‘wiggle room words’ to note: acute encephalopathy and significant change in either mental status or level of consciousness. Also, one has to consider fontanelles on a baby’s head. The illustration below shows their location.

Source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex [1]

For those soft spots (fontanelles) to bulge indicates some abnormal activity has occurred within the brain and skull, i.e., swelling, inflammation, bleeding? Something causes that type of ‘activity’, if not ‘mechanical’ like physical trauma, then something physiological like body chemistry going haywire. Vaccine package inserts invariably list encephalopathy under Contraindications. The dictionary definition of encephalopathy is:

Degeneration of brain function, caused by any of various acquired disorders, including metabolic disease, organ failure, inflammation, and chronic infection. [2]

A child acting up with high-pitched and unusual screaming – is that normal?

Persistent inconsolable crying! Is that normal? What are the feds trying to pull off on parents who know their children and how they acted prior to and after receiving a vaccination? Children don’t act that way unless something is physically wrong and was precipitated by an action causing a reaction. The common denominator action most parents claim is/was receiving vaccinations. Check out VAERS reports.

(D) Seizures in themselves are not sufficient to constitute a diagnosis of encephalopathy and in the absence of other evidence of an acute encephalopathy seizures shall not be viewed as the first symptom or manifestation of an acute encephalopathy.

Furthermore, we ought to take note of the language that appears in section (ii)(B):

an acute event shown to be unrelated to the vaccine such as a head trauma… [3]

which, apparently, are more ‘wiggle room words’ that can allow for a diagnosis that is known as Shaken Baby Syndrome that places blame on parents. Innocent parents legally can be prosecuted for abusing their child when there is brain swelling or encephalopathy occurring, even if there is no head trauma or physical abuse to the child—just the mere fact of brain swelling or encephalopathy or brain bleeding, which can result from vaccine chemical reactions.

Perhaps it needs to be emphasized that the routine, stock answer from vaccine apologists to any adverse event attributed to a vaccine is “coincidental” and that vaccines can’t cause harm. There is proof they are dead wrong! Why, then, is HRSA listing conditions in a Vaccine Injury Table if they aren’t aware of adverse events—even death? Legally, they can’t have it both ways! When will federal health agencies and the Vaccine Court learn that, and when will parents enforce their parental rights about that?

If the medics can diagnose and the law can prosecute parents with child abuse (as in Shaken Baby Syndrome or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) when children are hurt and damaged by vaccines, where are parents’ legal rights to counter false charges and hold those responsible for damaging their children by injecting neurotoxic materials into them?

It would seem that the Vaccine Court has totally misinterpreted the original intention of the law that the U.S. Congress passed that would provide relief for those damaged by vaccines rather than exonerating vaccine makers with “get out of jail free” cards for adverse events, and to which the VAERS reports attest by the hundreds of thousands.

Furthermore, the Vaccine Injury Table time periods for symptoms first appearing are too short and tight, and ought to be revised to reflect more realistic intervals rather than the Vaccine Court masters “having the best of both worlds” in the consideration of compensable claims for harmed vaccinees, in this writer’s opinion.

Furthermore, it is most important that parents understand the regulations about filing claims for vaccine damage. This is what appears on HRSA’s website:

You must file your claim within 3 years after the first symptom of the vaccine injury or within 2 years of a death and 4 years after the start of the first symptom of the vaccine injury that resulted in the death. More information about Filing Deadlines. [4]

Folks, there’s your proof that vaccines cause untold damage, even death! The feds admit it. Parents cannot be faulted for not wanting to play Russian roulette with their children’s health; have their children vaccinated; and risk having them damaged for life – and without receiving compensation. That should not amount to neglect on the parents’ part for protecting their children from probable harm. Any mandates making parents vaccinate children, who would experience anamnestic responses, basically are immoral and should be illegal, in this writer’s opinion. That’s why various legal exemptions rightfully were granted by states, especially for children who had previous adverse events to vaccines; have impaired immune systems; or religious/philosophical beliefs that do not support placing poisons, neurotoxins, and foreign DNA and unknown viruses into their infants and toddlers.

So now you can see how important it is that everyone knows the down-sides of what happens when vaccines cause damage.

But here’s the saddest part that parents, in particular, don’t know and aren’t told about vaccines – the risks – either by their physicians or the media. Part of the risks includes the information contained in the 24-page Report from the Department of Justice dated September 5, 2013 [5] citing Statistics for the Reporting Period May 16, 2013 to August 15, 2013. Pages 16 thru 24 list Adjudicated Settlements, which I encourage readers to access and study. Below I summarize just a few.

Healthcare consumers aren’t told the down-sides of vaccines because if everyone really knew, vaccinations would be refused—become passé. For those informed parents and healthcare consumers who know what can happen, it’s becoming harder to keep the poison darts off their children. What happened to informed consent?

For parents who don’t know, or who are badgered into getting vaccinations, their children, more often than not, wind up experiencing adverse events, which are listed in “C” above. Adverse events occur because vaccines contain numerous neurotoxins and other elements that, if a parent would give them to their child to eat or drink, that parent would be prosecuted for poisoning the kid.

Because medicine is steeped in man-made toxic chemicals – pharmaceuticals, and vaccines are pharmaceuticals – everyone thinks it’s the right thing to do: pump toxins into a healthy person to prevent disease. Well, consider this: What’s happening now with national and states “push” to take back old or non-used prescription drugs? We’re told not to dispose of them by throwing them down the toilet, as they poison the water supply downstream. Don’t leave them in the medicine cabinet, as they will be used to harm others. So pharmaceuticals really are dangerous chemicals. Everyone has to recognize that, and that consumers do have the human right to choose what they want put into their bodies and their children’s bodies, regardless of Big Pharma’s bottom line incentives apparently being promoted as vaccine science.

Notes:

 

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

Soy – Bad According To This

10 Reasons to Avoid Soy At All Costs – According to this Author

Submitted by  on October 17, 2013 – 6:30 pmNo Comment

Q

In the twentieth century the soybean was one of the two major new crops introduced into the U.S. (the other crop being canola). It has now become the number one export crop and one of the second largest crops for cash sales.

Most soybean products are processed into oil (shortening, margarine, cooking oil & salad dressings) and meal. For example, you may have noticed (or may start noticing) the popular ingredient “Soy Lecithin” in many of your foods and household items. There was a time when soy was praised a superfood, from combating cancer and high cholesterol. However, new evidence has emerged with soy’s negative impact on health (and the environment). Read on to discover the deceptions and dangers of soy.

Health Dangers of Soy

1. Impaired immune system – Soy contains endocrine disrupting chemicals called phytoestrogens (specifically Genistein and daidzein) (1, 2, 3). They influence the reproductive organs as well as the immune system. In one study they found that mice treated with genistein (soy isoflavone) had less interferon (IFN)-gamma in culture supernatants (4) compared to mice treated with oil. Interferon-gamma is a cytokine that is crucial in innate and adaptive immunity against viral and bacterial infections and tumour control. Decreased levels of this molecule mean decreased immunity and decreased tumour control.

2. Impaired Fertility – Soy isoflavones as seen in point 1 (above), are structurally similar to endogenous estrogens and display both estrogenic and weak anti-estrogenic activities (5). Impaired fertility and reproductive tract disorders can be a result of said activities. In female rats exposed to high doses of isoflavones their fertility decreased (6, 7) and had altered estrous cycling (8) – it also led to increased uterine weight and epithelial cell height which may contribute to ovarian cysts. Studies done with male rats had no found effects on sexual maturity, preputial separation, fertility, sperm count or testosterone levels (8).

Another study found that compounds in acidic methanol extracts of soybeans inhibit thyroid peroxidase- (TPO) catalyzed reactions required for normal thyroid hormone synthesis (10). Inhibition of thyroid hormone synthesis can lead to goiter and thyroid neoplasia.

4. Brain Damage – In major study including 3,734 elderly Japanese-American men, those who consumed most soy during their midlife had a 2.4 times higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease later in their life (11, 12). These men consumed tofu at least twice a week and had more cognitive impairment than those who never ate or only sporadically consumed tofu.

These researchers also found that high consumption of tofu during midlife was associated with lower brain weight. 574 of the men were assessed for brain atrophy using an MRI machine, and although brain shrinkage naturally occurs with age, those men who ate more tofu had “an exaggeration of the usual patterns we see in aging” (11, 12).

5. Infant Abnormalities – Problems regarding infants and soy is an important topic, especially for mothers who choose to use soy-infant formulas instead of breast feeding. According to Mary G. Enig, Ph.D., “the amount of phytoestrogens that are in a day’s worth of soy infant formula equals 5 birth control pills.”

Soy-infant formulas contain high levels of isoflavones, and exposing infants to this daily intake equivocates to a 6-11 fold higher isoflavone exposure (based on bodyweight) than the dose that creates hormonal changes in adults consuming soy foods. When infants were tested for isoflavone concentrations circulating in the blood, the levels were 13,000-22,000 times higher than natural estrogen concentrations in the early years (13, 14).

Biggest Problems Surrounding Soy

1. Genetic Modification (GMOs) – Did you know that up to 91% of soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified (GM)? The soybeans are specially selected so that they will resist the toxic herbicide Roundup.

This means that the soybeans themselves are loaded with this toxic pesticide. In addition, genes from bacteria that produce a protein foreign to the human food supply are also inserted into the genes of the soybean plant, making this food item an un-natural food supply.

2. Contains Toxins: “anti-nutrients”; hemagglutinin; goitrogens; phytates – Anti-nutritional factors like saponins, soyatoxin, phytates, protease inhibitors, oxalates, goitrogens and estrogens all interfere with our protein-digesting enzymes and result in poor digestion and thus poor health.

Soybeans also contain hemagglutinins which act as clot-inducing substances (causes red blood cells to stick together). This makes our red blood cells unable to absorb oxygen and distribute it throughout the body. Goitrogens are a category of foods that promote formation of goiter (enlarged thyroid) – and soy foods fall in that category. They block thyroid hormone synthesis and obstruct iodine metabolism.

The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume. Phytates prevent the absorption of minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc by binding to the metal ions and preventing them from entering the cells of your body. As many vegans consume soybean products, and depend on them for absorption of these exact minerals, they may be doing just the opposite.

3. Contains Isoflavones – Soy contains the isoflavones genistein (as seen previously) and daidzein. Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen which resemble the human compound called estrogen. Phytoestrogens have been found to block the hormone estrogen and can have serious effects on human tissues such as disrupting endocrine function, causing infertility, and promoting breast cancer in women.

4. Toxic Levels of Aluminum & Manganese – Aluminum tanks are used to process and acid-wash soybeans before consumption. Aluminum particles from the tanks are directly absorbed into the soybean, and result in high aluminum concentrations in the bean. Soy infant formula also contains manganese levels 80 times higher than that found in human breast milk (15, 16).

5. Soy Infant Formula Concerns – The isoflavones in soy infant formula is of great concern to new and expecting parents who choose to bottle-feed instead of breast-feed. Nearly 20% of U.S. infants are bottle-fed soy formula. As seen throughout this article, it is clear that the isoflavones in soy formula can negatively impact your child’s health (impairing sexual development and reproductive health).

Soy Products That Are Good For You Choose fermented soy products such as:

1. Tempeh – fermented soybean cake that is firm and has a nutty, mushroom-like flavor

2. Miso – fermented soybean paste that is quite salty and commonly used in miso soup

3. Natto – sticky fermented soybeans with a strong, cheesy flavor

4. Soy Sauce – fermented soybeans, salt & enzymes

 

Soy Products To Avoid:

- Tofu – TVP (texturized vegetable protein) or soy protein isolate

- Soybean oil

- Soymilk

- Soy cheese, soy ice cream, soy yogurt

- Soy “meat”

- Soy protein

- Edamame

- Soy infant formula

- Avoid ALL processed foods, and purchase only whole foods prepared by yourself! Many packaged food products contain soy.

What Should You Eat Instead Of Soy?

Many vegans consume “mock meat” typically made out of soybeans that are not fermented.
As an alternative to the above list you can eat:

- Tofu

– Instead, eat tempeh (it is similar, just more dense)

- Soybean oil

– Instead, use olive oil, hemp seed oil, coconut oil, etc.

- Soymilk

– Instead, drink hemp, rice, almond, coconut or oat milk

- Soy cheese, soy ice cream, soy yogurt

– Instead eat Daiya cheese (much better than soy cheese), and coconut or banana ice cream (you can use bananas as a yogurt too if you wanted – just mash them up!)

- Soy “meat”

– Instead, eat tempeh

- Soy protein

– Instead, eat heart-healthy, amino-acid packed hemp protein

- Soy infant formula

– Instead, use infant formulas that are soy-free

Source: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/09/10-reasons-to-avoid-soy-at-all-costs.html

Related posts:

  1. Five so-called ‘healthy’ snacks to avoid           As the nation’s collective…
  2. 5 reasons to re-think using your microwave         Microwave defines functionality at its…
  3. Metals risk in baby milk: Popular formulas can contain 100 times more aluminium than breast milk         Formula baby milk can contain…
  4. 5 Poison ‘Medicines’ Women Should Avoid and Replace with Natural Remedies While science is always developing, the western world is…
  5. 3 Companies Using GMOs in Baby Formula       It seems with the many reports of birth…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Thanks to: http://healthfreedoms.org/2013/10/17/10-reasons-to-avoid-soy-at-all-costs/

Vaccine Studies and Autism

Note: I do not oppose all vaccination. I do oppose vaccination with vaccines which have not been thoroughly tested for safety, vaccines which are cranked out industrial style, and whose producers are completely exempted from any liability for negligent manufacture.

***

Sunday, October 20, 2013

The Study That Proved Vaccines Caused Autism-like Symptoms

Cartoon Courtesy of René Bickel
and his book, Vaccination: The Great Illusion

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

The study that showed vaccines were responsible for causing autism-associated or autism-like symptoms from mercury in vaccines was done by CDC epidemiologist Tom Verstraeten using the CDC’s massive Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and presented at the Simpsonwood Conference Center (Atlanta, GA area) in June 2000 with only 52 vaccine manufacturers invited to discuss the problem and how to change the science.

Here is what Dr. Verstraeten found:

We have found statistically significant relationships between exposure [to mercury in vaccines] and outcomes. At two months of age, developmental delay; exposure at three months, tics; at six months, attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months, language and speech delays–the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays.

Dr. Verstraeten also discussed previous studies showing a link between mercury and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Instead of doing the right thing about what was going on, they powwowed over two days to change the science, sending Verstraeten back to redo his work. However, here are some of the statements made by some of the Simpsonwood conference members:

“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say.

“My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” — Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization (WHO), Simpsonwood Meeting, June 2000

“I have to say the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate not seen before. So there is some kind of increase. We can argue about what it is due to.”

“I have taken a lot of histories of kids who are in trouble in school. The history is that developmental milestones were normal or advanced and they can’t read at second grade, they can’t write at third grade, they can’t do math in the fourth grade and it has no relationship as far as I can tell to the history we get of the developmental milestones. So I think this is a very crude measure of neurodevelopment.”

“To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.” – Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Simpsonwood Meeting, June 2000

“I wonder is there a particular health outcome that is related to aluminum salts that may have anything that we are looking at today.” – Dr. Tom Sinks, Associate Director for Science at the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC and the Acting Division Director for Division of Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities and Health, Simpsonwood Meeting, June 2000

As a result of the Simpsonwood Meeting, Dr. Verstraeten effectively reworked the data; found no implication / causation for autism; and that’s what the CDC/FDA say is factual science. Dr. Verstraeten then went on to work for GlaxoSmithKline (vaccine manufacturer) in its European Union facility.

And, finally this, which may be the apparent ‘defense’ at the Simpsonwood meeting: “We just don’t know the effects of ethylmercury.” [as Thimerosal in vaccines]

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

Prevent Breast Cancer Naturally

How to Cut Your Breast Cancer Risk Naturally

October 20, 2013 | 25,113 views

By Dr. Mercola

According to estimates by the American Cancer Society, about 232,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013, and about 39,600 will die from the disease.

Dr. Christine Horner is quite familiar with breast cancer. She began her career as a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, performing breast reconstructive surgeries on women who’d had full mastectomies due to breast cancer.

While Dr. Horner was still in college, her mother developed breast cancer. Despite having a mastectomy, and successfully addressing a second breast tumor that appeared 13 years after the first one, she later died from cancer that metastasized in her femur.

“That’s the thing that really rocked my world,” Dr. Horner says. “In the interim, I had started my plastic surgery practice.

Because my mom had had breast cancer, I thought, well, I’d get active with the American Cancer Society. I was the spokesperson for the American Cancer Society on breast cancer issues.

I was trained to say, “We don’t know what causes it. We don’t have any known cures. The best things that women can do are mammograms and breast exams in the hope of catching it early to save lives.”

[Then] it was like, “Well, that didn’t work for my mom.” And then, I noticed at my practice that my patients started getting younger and younger and younger. Finally, I was doing women in their 20s. I just thought, something is way wrong with this picture.”

Thousands of Studies Show Why We’re Not Winning the War on Cancer…

Dr. Horner began reviewing the medical literature in search of clues that might reveal an answer to the dramatic increase in breast cancer, now appearing in women at an increasingly younger age.

What she discovered was thousands of studies that show exactly why we have a cancer epidemic—factors that contribute to it, and factors that are highly protective.

“And they were all natural,” she says. “It’s food, supplements, herbs, diet, and lifestyle. … I’m board certified in general surgery and plastic surgery… there’s 11 years of training in there.

I didn’t have a single course in nutrition. I learned nothing about health – nothing. All I learned was how to suppress symptoms with pharmaceutical medications or cut it out.

It wasn’t until I discovered that there was such an association with diet, herbs, lifestyle, and emotions too, that I thought, okay, these are the real secrets to health.”

As a result of her research, she got trained in Ayurveda, a traditional system of medicine from India. “Ayur” means life and “veda” means knowledge, so it literally means “the knowledge of life”; wisdom that, if followed, can bring you into balance and enhance your body’s innate self-healing intelligence.

The truth is, there are many simple strategies that can drastically reduce your chances of developing cancer, or any other chronic disease for that matter; strategies that do not involve harmful side effects.

“I decided to quit my practice and dedicate myself to teaching people about what they can do – the simple things that they can do – that can have a dramatic impact on their life,” she says.

“With all my research in the area of breast cancer, I thought the first thing I’m going to do is write a book on all the natural approaches to protecting against and fighting breast cancer because, definitely, we have the information to end the breast cancer epidemic. No question about it.”

It’s worth mentioning that the same strategies apply for other types of cancer as well. Prostate and colon cancer tumors, for example, are similar to breast cancer tumors, as certain hormones cause them all to grow. Hence, protective strategies that are effective against breast cancer also work on these other types of cancer. Cancer prevention strategies will also virtually eliminate most other chronic disorders.

Her dedication, research, and ultimate findings led to her writing the book, Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains research-proven all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer.

Conventional Cancer Screening is NOT a Preventive Strategy

When it comes to breast cancer, it’s important to understand that getting regular mammogram screenings is NOT going to prevent anything. In fact, mammography, which employs radiation, can increase your risk since ionizing radiation itself causes cancer… As Dr. Horner writes in her book:

“A European study published in 2012 found that when those who have the genetic predisposition for breast cancer (BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation) are exposed to any diagnostic radiation before age thirty, their risk of breast cancer increases by 90 percent.

The study also found that a history of mammography before age thirty raised the risk by 43 percent. In fact, even one mammogram before the age of thirty for those with the BRCA1 gene mutation was associated with an increased risk.

A newer type of mammogram touted to be much better at detecting breast cancers, called tomosynthesis, takes a 3-D image of the breast. You definitely want to avoid this type of mammogram because it uses three times more radiation than the standard type!”

Furthermore, mammograms:

  • Are incorrect 80 percent of the time (providing a false negative or false positive)
  • Use compression, which can damage breast tissue or potentially spread cancer
  • Are not effective for up to 50 percent of women (women with dense breasts or implants)
  • Can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment of non-invasive cancers
  • Can lead to the disturbing practice of “preventative” double mastectomies

MRI’s, which do not use ionizing radiation, are not a practical tool as they are very expensive, and, like mammograms, they’re not very specific. Ultrasound is another technique used in Western medicine. The traditional ultrasound can see whether a mass is cystic or solid.

But while a solid mass is generally considered to be something that might be of concern, this is not 100 percent certain either, as cancer tumors can sometimes have cysts in them.

In her book, Dr. Horner also mentions another type of ultrasound called “elastography,” which shows the elasticity of tissues.

Cancerous tissue is typically stiffer than healthy tissue, so this ultrasound can identify cancer based on the firmness of the tissues. Several studies published since 2007 have concluded that elastography ultrasound is a useful tool for detecting cancers without using harmful radiation. It also helps reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies from false-positive mammography readings.

Most Natural Prevention Strategies Cut Your Risk in Half

What’s most important, however, is Dr. Horner’s discovery that most of the lifestyle strategies that have been scientifically tested have the ability to cut your risk of cancer by about 50 percent; sometimes more. And yet virtually no one in conventional medicine talks about and shares such findings with their patients. Why? For example, turmeric can slash your risk by about half, while optimizing your vitamin D levels has been shown to cut breast cancer incidence by 77 percent1 in four years!

Of course, other lifestyle factors are also important in preventing cancer, such as nutrition, exercise, sleep, and managing stress. However, vitamin D’s critical importance seems to grow with every emerging study. Carole Baggerly, founder director ofGrassrootsHealth—an organization dedicated to increasing awareness about vitamin D and the crucial role it plays in health—believes that as much as 90 percent of ordinary breast cancer is related to vitamin D deficiency, which is 100 percent preventable!

Despite its name, vitamin D is actually a powerful neuro-regulatory steroid with epigenetic influence over more than 2,000 genesin your body. That’s about 10 percent of all your genes. There are more than 830 peer reviewed scientific studies showing vitamin D’s effectiveness in the treatment of cancer, and personally, I believe it is virtually malpractice to not optimize vitamin D levels when treating someone with cancer. In this case, your vitamin D levels should be around 70-100 ng/ml. For more information about optimizing your vitamin D levels, please see my previous article Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.

Now, if making just ONE beneficial change can halve your risk, or more… imagine what can happen if you address several lifestyle factors known to have an effect.

“It becomes incredibly simple to dramatically lower your risk of developing this disease,” Dr. Horner says. “And then it takes the fear away. We don’t have to be so afraid of this horrible disease… we do have tremendous power in dramatically lowering our risk.”

Most importantly, Dr. Horner discovered that there are a number of healthy habits we’ve stopped doing in our modern culture that are highly protective against cancer. We’ve dramatically altered our diets—shunning our native, whole-foods cuisine for highly processed fare—and engage in very little physical activity, for example. We’ve also been told to fear the sun and slather our children in toxic sunscreens instead of reaping the tremendously protective benefits of vitamin D production that appropriate sun exposure brings. Fortunately, these factors are entirely within your personal control.

When it Comes to Breast Screening Options, You Do Have a Choice

Dr. Horner is a strong proponent of using thermography to track physiological changes that could indicate the beginning stages of cancer formation. Contrary to mammography, thermography does not provide you with an anatomic image. Rather it measures the infrared heat emitted by your body and translates this information into thermal images.

Thermography does not require mechanical compression or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation and/or increased tumor related blood flow approximately 8-10 years before mammography or a physical exam can detect a mass.

To me, it’s an incredibly useful tool,” Dr. Horner says. In her book, she writes: Research shows that, unlike mammograms, when thermography suspects something is wrong, it usually is. A study published in the American Journal of Radiology in January 2003 concluded that this technology could help prevent most unnecessary breast biopsies: “Infrared imaging (thermography) offers a safe noninvasive procedure that would be valuable as an adjunct to mammography in determining whether a lesion is benign or malignant.”

Download Interview Transcript

Thermography Can Empower Your to Take Control of Your Health

Since it can give you close to a decade’s worth of “lead time” it can be very empowering tool. Should the image indicate an area of inflammation, you can immediately start applying strategies to reverse such symptoms, and within a couple of months be able to confirm that it’s working by taking another picture. Since it’s as harmless as taking a photograph of yourself, you need not worry about making more frequent follow-ups.

“One of the most exciting and important uses for thermography, I believe, is being able to use it on young women,” Dr. Horner says. “The earlier we can get them, the earlier we can get them involved in their own health…

Mammograms don’t usually work on women 40 and under because their breast tissue is too dense. Plus, the other really scary thing about it is that when our breast tissue is younger, it’s more sensitive to radiation. If you’re getting mammograms when you’re younger, it’s far more damaging. We know that radiation is a contributor to the cause of breast cancer. It’s like why do you do a test that uses something that actually causes that disease? Hello? Early on, it’s worthless.”

Again, the reason why thermography is so effective as a preventive tool is because it can detect the potential for cancer, and can detect already formed cancers at a far earlier stage than a mammogram. Essentially, it detects areas of high inflammation, which can be viewed as a “hot-spot” with cancerous potential.

But it’s important to understand that thermography does not diagnose cancer. Again, higher temperature readings indicate higher levels of inflammation, which can lead to cancer. But if your thermogram shows areas of high inflammation, it doesn’t mean you have cancer. Rather it lets you know you need to address that inflammation to avoid deterioration, and in some cases that the area needs further evaluation.

What Does the Science Say About Unfermented Soy and Breast Cancer?

I’ve typically recommended avoiding unfermented soy due to their being high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. Dr. Horner, however, disagrees with the notion that soy can work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, thereby increasing your risk of mutations and cancerous cells.

After all this research, I am very aware of the plant estrogen controversies,” she says. “These are the following facts that I can tell you. Most of the concern over “plant estrogens” come from one study that isolated and concentrated one chemical from soy, genistein, andgave it to women for one year as a supplement. At the end of the year, the breast cells in these women showed signs of stimulation. This study certainly raises the concern that taking isolated, concentrated genistein supplements does not protect the breast tissue and in fact may increase the risk of cancer.

Therefore, taking this type of supplement is not advisable. But many people leaped to the conclusion that all soy foods or anything with phytoestrogens in it must have the same effects in our bodies and should be avoided. But, thousands of studies show eating foods high in “plant estrogens,” like whole soy foods, lower the risk of breast cancer. Whole soy foods have many different “phytoestrogens” in them as well as hundreds of other constituents and are clearly processed in your body differently from the isolated chemical genistein.”

Flax seeds, for example, also contain phytoestrogens and, according to Dr. Horner, there are hundreds of studies showing that flax not only protects against breast cancer more effectively than any other food we know of, but may also shrink breast tumors. She also cites research by Lilian Thompson at the University of Toronto, who has done many studies on flaxseeds and estrogen-positive tumors. In one of Dr. Thompson’s studies, she found that estrogen-positive breast tumors shrank in every woman given flax seeds for three weeks.

I had personal experience with this,” Dr. Horner says. “My business manager’s mother developed breast cancer. I started her on three tablespoons of flax seed per day, plus a potent herbal antioxidant. Her tumor was 1.5 cm on mammogram. At the time of surgery three weeks later her tumor had shrunk to 0.5 cm.

With all these cancer fighting effects, not surprisingly, research shows that women who have the highest level of lignansin their body have the lowest risk of breast cancer. Flax seeds contain 100 times more lignans than any other known plant source and are one of the most power foods you can eat to lower your risk of breast cancer.

Here’s the key to understanding this controversy: Plant estrogens are not the same as the estrogens your body makes,or synthetic estrogens found in hormone replacement therapy. They are very different. Many actually act more like selective estrogen modulators or SERMS (Tamoxifen is a SERM) and as aromatase inhibitors like Arimidex. These plant chemicals act in so many complex ways that we may never fully understand them all.

Dr. Thompson’s and other research shows that flax lignans fight breast cancer: in a number of ways by:

Lowering your overall production of estrogen Blocking environmental estrogens from attaching to breast tissue
Creating more of a “good” protective type of estrogen Protecting your breast tissue from the damaging effects of environmental toxins
Decreasing three different growth factors associated with the growth of breast cancer Blocking the aromatase enzyme in a way similar to the drug Arimidex
Lengthening your menstrual cycle Blocking the estrogen receptor in a way similar to the drug Tamoxifen

 

Dr. Horner has a chapter dedicated to the latest research on soy in her book, which will give you far more details on this complex topic. But according to Dr. Horner, the bottom line is that:

  1. You should avoid taking a genistein supplement
  2. Plant estrogens, although referred to as estrogens, actually are very different from estrogen
  3. Thousands of studies show eating foods high in “plant estrogens” has a significant protective effect against many diseases including breast cancer
  4. Effectively protecting yourself from breast cancer or improving your chances of successfully fighting it does not come from “one” thing — it comes from the sum total of all of your diet and lifestyle choices.

Are You Ready to Switch to a Health-Based Paradigm?

It’s unfortunate that today’s “health care” system is so financially wrapped up in maintaining the illusion that there’s not much you can do about your health. Diseases are seen as something that sooner or later will “happen” to you, and when you become ill, the remedy is usually a toxic pill or invasive and costly procedure. It doesn’t have to be this way. As Dr. Horner says:

“My message to women, particularly when we talk about breast cancer, is that you have an extraordinary power in lowering your risk of this disease, which is all too prevalent in our culture, and that there are so many simple things that you can do. So you do one thing – again, one thing – and you can cut your risk in half. If you do more than one thing, those things will multiply up together. It becomes incredibly simple to dramatically lower your risk. The side benefit is that you feel better and better and better. It’s simple. It’s not complex.”

To learn more, I highly recommend picking up Dr. Horner’s book, Waking the Warrior Goddesswinner of the Independent Publisher Book Award (IPPY) “Best book of 2006 for health / nutrition / medicine.” You can also find more information on her website, DrChristineHorner.com.2 Last but not least, below you’ll find 10 of my own strategies that I believe will go a long way toward warding off breast cancer.

10 Simple Lifestyle Strategies to Reduce Your Risk of Breast Cancer

  • Radically reduce your intake of sugar/fructose and processed foods. Normalizing your insulin and leptin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. Refined f ructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
  • Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 70-100 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your vitamin D levels, followed by using a tanning bed that has an electronic ballast instead of a magnetic one. Either of these methods are far better than taking a high-dose supplement, which would necessitate increasing your intake of vitamin K2 as well, either from food or a supplement.
  • Make intermittent fasting part of your lifestyle. Intermittent fasting will help your body shift to burning fat instead of sugar as its primary fuel. There are only two types of fuel; your body can burn carbs/sugar or fat. Nearly everyone who has cancer is burning carbs as their primary fuel. Since cancer cells thrive on sugar this is something you want to avoid.

Intermittent fasting involves timing your meals to allow for regular periods of fasting. To be effective, the length of your fast must be at least 16 hours. This means eating only between the hours of 11am until 7pm, as an example. Essentially, this equates to simply skipping breakfast, and making lunch your first meal of the day instead.

  • Maintain a healthy body weight. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen is produced in fat tissue. Fortunately, this will come naturally when you begin eating right and exercising. Intermittent fasting is also extremely effective for weight loss and weight management. As for exercise, I strongly recommend incorporating high-intensity burst-type activities, which are part of my Peak Fitness program.
  • Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
  • Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
  • Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
  • Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
  • Get proper sleep, both in terms of enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you’re ‘riding the wave’ so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations. If you have children breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.

Vaccine Court Payouts

Friday, October 18, 2013

The Costs of Vaccine Damage: The Payout Figures

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

Vaccines are supposed to be safe according to the U.S. CDC/FDA, so how come the HRSA division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishedStatistics Reports [1] for the period ending September 3, 2013 providing data verifying that vaccines cause damage and even kill?

The period covers fiscal years (FY) 1989 to FY 2013. There were 3,387 compensable claims—meaning those claims that received compensation or money, and 9,651 claims that were dismissed, an awful miscarriage of the original intent of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program created by Congress and Public Law 99-660, in this writer’s opinion.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (aka the vaccine court) paid out $2,569,336,538.59 for compensable claims and $104,202,681.85 for attorneys’ fees representing those claims. The court paid another round of attorneys’ fees for dismissed claims totaling $56,375,431.34, plus $15,190,454.29 for interim attorneys’ fees. Judging by attorneys’ fees paid out, it looks like attorneys do pretty well, instead of injured claimants, i.e., those the court decides to dismiss.

Here is the nitty-gritty of the reports filed: Injuries, Deaths, Compensated, and Dismissed claims.

Please study the data carefully. You will notice the vaccines causing the most damage were:

DPT 3,284; Influenza (Trivalent) 1,108; MMR 860; Hepatitis B 591; DtaP 353;
OPV (Oral Polio) 280
The vaccine attributed to causing the most deaths was DTP with 696 deaths.
Coincidentally, of the 32 vaccines listed, very few—only 5—had no deaths attributed.

The chart below is copied and pasted from the HRSA website.

Claims Filed and Compensated or Dismissed by Vaccine 1 September 3, 2013
Vaccines Listed in Claims as Reported by Petitioners

1 The number of claims filed by vaccine as reported by petitioners in claims since the VICP began on October 1, 1988, and how many of those have been compensated or dismissed by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Court). Claims can be compensated by a settlement between parties or a decision by the Court.
2 Claims filed for vaccines which are not covered under the VICP.
3 Insufficient information to make a determination.

However, in the last report at the bottom of the HRSA Statistics Reports website, data list how many doses of various vaccines were administered during calendar years 2006 to 2012. The vaccines that seem to pose the most problems are: Influenza, DTaP, MMR, Tdap, HPV, and Hepatitis B.

The total doses of vaccines given during that time frame were 1,968,399,297 – almost two billion vaccines. However, those vaccine administered figures are not juxtaposed against the VAERS reporting system for adverse events, which needs to be taken into consideration for the “full force and effect” of vaccination campaigns and public relations.To get the full force and effect of vaccines, one has to access the VAERS; ‘mandatorily’ read some statements of understanding, which include:

  • More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.
  • These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

Readers will notice how adverse events surrounding vaccines always seem to be a “coincidence.” Furthermore, if “infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events” between 2 and 6 months, why not wait until later. Japan has an interesting vaccination program; it’s two tiers:Immunization Law and Voluntary Vaccinations(Source)

In the VAERS reports, after agreeing to understand what is listed, one clicks on the box to access data that appear athttps://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data. Four types of files can be accessed for the years 1990 to August 12, 2013. The information is voluminous and would take a computer statistical analysis program to cross reference all the information. However, scrolling through the files one gets the idea that many more vaccine adverse events occur that are not given credibility as ‘valid’ nor juxtaposed against vaccines administered, which would be an accurate risk analysis assessment ratio for informed healthcare consumers to have access to.

HRSA states that VAERS is a passive reporting system, and “‘Underreporting’ is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.”

That last sentence is a factual statement. Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in 1993 that less than one percent of doctors reported prescription drug adverse events. [2] Vaccines and vaccinations are pharmaceutical drugs!

And lastly, the current rate of autism (ASD) in the USA is one in 50, or 2 percent of children aged 6 to 17; whereas in the late 1970s it was one in 10,000.

What are the causative factors? Some are claiming now that it is pollution. Well, chemicals are pollutants. Pharmaceuticals and vaccines are made with toxic chemicals. Nine vaccine actives with their neurotoxins given during one well-baby visit certainly pumps a lot of chemicals into infants.

 
Reports of autism cases per 1,000 children grew dramatically in 
the U.S. from 1996 to 2007.
 
Source: Wikipedia

From 1996 to 2007—twelve years—reports of autism cases per 1,000 children increased from less than one to over five! It is now 2013. Can anyone guess? Well, in 2012 the rate was 11.3 per 1,000per the U.S. CDC. From 2007 to 2012—just six years—it went from slightly over five [5.25?] to 11.3 per 1,000 children.

Now here’s something to consider: In 1940 there were only two vaccinations, DTP and Smallpox. By 1980, it went to nine vaccines/vaccinations. Then by 2012, there were 49mandated doses of 14 vaccines for children up to age six. [3]

What’s going on? For an in-depth discussion of vaccines, their toxic ingredients, and politics, readers may want to know about my recently published book, Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccinesavailable on Amazon.com.

Notes: 

[1] http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html

[2] [Kessler, DA. “Introducing MEDWatch,” JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768

[3] Proud Parents of Unvaccinated Children on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Proud-Parents-of-Unvaccinated-Children/113991452086710

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

Vaccine Court Awards Millions

I do not oppose all vaccines. I oppose vaccines which are not thoroughly tested. I oppose vaccines produce where the producer is protected from liability, as is the case with the “Vaccine Court“. I oppose a factory fast production and marketing system that churns out new vaccines and sets up a regimen where a child receives scores of vaccinations before age 12. We should think critically about vaccines because the published warnings admit that serious complications occur, and the Vaccine Court has paid out some $4 billion in damages to children the Court admits were harmed by the vaccines.

‘Vaccine court’ awards millions to two autistic children damaged by vaccines

Monday, January 28, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Quietly and without much fanfare, the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program(VICP), or more accurately the congressionally-sanctioned kangaroo court whose sole purpose is to shield the vaccine industry from liability for vaccine injuries, has essentially admitted that vaccines cause autism. As reported by the Huffington Post, two more children who developed autism following routine vaccinations have been awarded millions of dollars to help pay for the lifetime of specialized care they will need to address their injuries.

The first case involves a 10-year-old boy named Ryan from California who quickly regressed into an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) following routine vaccinations he received between 2003 and 2005, and specifically the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Prior to getting vaccinated, Ryan was a perfectly healthy young boy who was actually quite advanced for his age, according to reports. But after getting the MMR vaccine on December 19, 2003, he rather quickly developed an encephalopathy, or serious inflammation, in his brain.

Ryan’s family and friends testified before the kangaroo court that the cumulative effect of the boy’s receiving multiple vaccines from 2003-2005 caused him to suffer “neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD,” a claim that the federal government eventually admitted to be true several years later. Ryan’s family eventually received compensation for his “Vaccine Table Injury,” but pertinent details about the case have been sealed, including particulars about whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the court’s decision.

You can read further details about Ryan’s case here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Similarly, a young girl named Emily developed a seizure disorder and a form of ASD known as pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specific (PDD-NOS) following vaccination with DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), as well as MMR, HiB (haemophilus influenzae type B), and Prevnar (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), at 15 months old. According to Emily’s court filing, the young girl developed a fever of 105.7 degrees Fahrenheit following the vaccines, which developed into seizures, shaking episodes, and a measles-type rash.

Initially, the government attempted to deny that Emily’s injuries were caused by vaccines. The defendants even tried to deny that Emily was even sick in the first place. But it was eventually determined that young Emily had indeed developed an ASD, and the government agreed to settle the case by awarding Emily’s family for her vaccine-induced injuries. In Emily’s case, the government never came right out and admitted that vaccines were the cause of her injuries, but its actions in dropping its defense prove that there is no other logical explanation.

Emily’s case is spelled out further here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Courts have quietly admitted in the past that vaccines cause autism, brain damage

Back in 2008, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines, and particularly those that contain the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal, can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family’s protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey’s family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy’s injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf

Christian Vegetarianism

Guest: Christianity calls for vegetarianism

By Charles C. Camosy Thanks to the Seattle Times

If we are to avoid cruelty to animals, Christian ethics call for vegetarianism in the era of factory farming, writes guest columnist Charles C. Camosy.

WILLIAM BROWN / OP ART

MOST of us are totally disconnected from the process of food production. When taking a bite of pepperoni pizza, we don’t think about the fact that we are eating pig. When grabbing a burger, it seldom crosses our minds that we are about to bite into a piece of cow.

As Christians, if someone confronts us with these uncomfortable facts, we justify our behavior by noting that God gave human beings “dominion” over animals in the Genesis creation stories.

But those same stories also insist that God gives us plants to eat, not animals. God creates animals “because it is not good man should be alone.” Look it up. Furthermore, both Isaiah and Paul insist that all of creation will be redeemed such that both human and nonhuman animals will live together in a peaceable kingdom of nonviolent companionship.

Sadly, that time seems a long ways off. Most of the meat we eat comes from huge corporations via monstrous factory farms, in which more than 100 million chickens are slaughtered each week in the U.S. alone.

The lives of these chickens — like those of most animals in factory farms — are miserable, short and often terribly painful. They spend their pitiful lives in almost complete darkness and in only about one-half of a square foot of living space.

To ensure that they reach full size and move to slaughter quickly, chickens are now genetically altered so that they feel constant hunger and eat as much as they can as quickly as possible. The all-consuming goal of factory farms is to maximize protein-unit output per square foot of space.

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church teaches that: 1. It is seriously wrong to cause animals to suffer and die without great need; 2. We owe animals kindness. Those who buy chickens and other animals from factory farms cooperate with a cruel evil and make a mockery of our duty to show animals kindness.

Furthermore, virtually no one needs to eat factory-farmed meat — especially given that we can get more than enough protein from eating relatively cheap lentils, peas, beans and nuts. Eating meat is also one of the major causes of cancer and heart disease; it is hardly surprising that cultures that rarely eat meat have higher life expectancy than those that eat meat regularly.

We also know that the methane produced by the excrement and other bodily emissions of the 50 billion factory-farmed animals killed each year does more to affect climate change than all the emissions of cars and planes combined.

The easiest and most productive thing one could do to lower one’s carbon footprint — a solemn duty for Christians committed to protect God’s creation — is simply to stop eating meat from factory farms.

Interestingly, from the very first Council at Jerusalem, concern about ethical meat-eating has been central for Christianity. The Middle Ages produced St. Francis, perhaps the greatest animal-lover of all time.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, just before he became Pope Benedict XVI, described the issue of factory farming as “very serious” and claimed that “degrading of living creatures to a commodity” directly contradicts the Bible’s understanding of animals. Given that his predecessor spoke out about factory farming, might Pope Francis also speak out about it? Given both his namesake and his willingness to try new things, we shouldn’t be surprised if he does.

But we need not wait to make good on our obligations to treat animals with kindness and resist the horrifically cruel practice of factory farming. Christians already have a long tradition of refusing to eat meat on holy days.

If full-blown vegetarianism is too intimidating, perhaps we should return to the ancient practice of refusing to eat meat on Fridays and during the holy season of Lent. It would be an important first step toward meeting our serious moral obligations to nonhuman animals.

Professor Charles C. Camosy of Fordham University published “For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action” on the feast of St. Francis, Oct. 4. He can be reached@nohiddenmagenta and camosy@fordham.edu

Magical Religious Thinking

How Christian Delusions Are Driving the GOP Insane
Why aren’t Republicans more frightened of the consequences of a shutdown and default? Part of the reason is magical religious thinking.
October 9, 2013  |
Why aren’t Republicans more afraid? The entire premise of both the government shutdown and the threats to force the government into debt default is that Democrats care more about the consequences of these actions than the Republicans do. Republicans may go on TV and shed crocodile tears about national monuments being shut down, but the act isn’t really fooling the voters: The only way to understand these fights is to understand that the GOP is threatening to destroy the government and the world economy in order to get rid of Obamacare (as well as a panoply of other right wing demands). Just as terrorists use the fact that you care more about the lives of the hostages than they do to get leverage, Republican threats rely on believing they don’t care about the consequences, while Democrats do.

So why aren’t they more afraid? Businessweek, hardly a liberal news organization, said the price of default would be “a financial apocalypse” that would cause a worldwide economic depression.  This is the sort of thing that affects everyone. Having a right wing ideology doesn’t magically protect your investments from crashing alongside the rest of the stock market.

The willingness of Republicans to take the debt ceiling and the federal budget hostage in order to try to extract concessions from Democrats is probably the most lasting gift that the Tea Party has granted the country. More reasonable Republican politicians fear being primaried by Tea Party candidates. A handful of wide-eyed fanatics in Congress have hijacked the party. The Tea Party base and the hard right politicians driving this entire thing seem oblivious to the consequences. It’s no wonder, since so many of them—particularly those in leadership—are fundamentalist Christians whose religions have distorted their worldview until they cannot actually see what they’re doing and what kind of damage it would cause.

The press often talks about the Tea Party like they’re secularist movement that is interested mainly in promoting “fiscal conservatism”, a vague notion that never actually seems to make good on the promise to save taxpayer money. The reality is much different: The Tea Party is actually driven primarily by fundamentalist Christians whose penchant for magical thinking and belief that they’re being guided by divine forces makes it tough for them to see the real world as it is.

It’s not just that the rogue’s gallery of congress people who are pushing the hardest for hostage-taking as a negotiation tactic also happens to be a bench full of Bible thumpers. Pew Research shows that people who align with the Tea Party are more likely to not only agree with the views of religious conservatives, but are likely to cite religious belief as their prime motivation for their political views.  White evangelicals are the religious group most likely to approve of the Tea Party. Looking over the data, it becomes evident that the “Tea Party” is just a new name for the same old white fundamentalists who would rather burn this country to the ground than share it with everyone else, and this latest power play from the Republicans is, in essence, a move from that demographic to assert their “right” to control the country, even if their politicians aren’t in power.

It’s no surprise, under the circumstances, that a movement controlled by fundamentalist Christians would be oblivious to the very real dangers that their actions present. Fundamentalist religion is extremely good at convincing its followers to be more afraid of imaginary threats than real ones, and to engage in downright magical thinking about the possibility that their own choices could work out very badly. When you believe that forcing the government into default in an attempt to derail Obamacare is the Lord’s work, it’s very difficult for you to see that it could have very real, negative effects.

It’s hard for the Christian fundamentalists who run the Republican Party now to worry about the serious economic danger they’re putting the world in, because they are swept up in worrying that President Obama is an agent of the devil and that the world is on the verge of mayhem and apocalypse if they don’t “stop” him somehow, presumably be derailing the Affordable Care Act. Christian conservatives such as Ellis Washington are running around telling each other that the ACA  will lead to “the systematic genocide of the weak, minorities, enfeebled, the elderly and political enemies of the God-state.” Twenty percent of Republicans believe Obama is the Antichrist.Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner argued that Obama is using his signature health care legislation to promote “the destruction of the family, Christian culture”, and demanded that Christians “need to engage in peaceful civil disobedience against President Obama’s signature health care law”.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops joined in, demanding that the Republicans shut down the government rather than let Obamacare go into effect. The excuse was their objection to the requirement that insurance make contraception available without a copayment, saying ending this requirement matters more than “serving their own employees or the neediest Americans.”

The Christian right media has been hammering home the message that Christians should oppose the Affordable Care Act. Pat Necerato of the Christian News Network accused the supporters of the law of committing idolatry and accused people who want health care of being covetous. The Christian Post approvingly reported various Christian leaders, including Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, saying things like the health care law is “a profound attack on our liberties” and lamented “Today is the day I will tell my grandchildren about when they ask me what happened to freedom in America.”

Some in the Christian right straight up believe Obamacare portends the end times. Rick Phillips, writing for Christianity.com, hinted that Obamacare might be predicted in Revelations, though he held back from saying that was certain. Others are less cautious. On the right wing fundamentalist email underground, a conspiracy theory has arisen claiming that Obamacare will require all citizens to have a microchip implanted. While it’s completely untrue, many Christians believe that this means the “mark of the beast” predicted in Revelations that portends the return of Christ and the end of the world.

In other words, the Christian right has worked itself into a frenzy of believing that if this health care law is implemented fully, then we are, in fact, facing down either the end of American Christianity itself or quite possibly the end times themselves. In comparison, it’s hard to be too scared by the worldwide financial collapse that they’re promising to unleash if the Democrats don’t just give up their power and let Republicans do what they want. Sure, crashing stock markets, soaring unemployment, and worldwide economic depression sounds bad, but for the Christian right, the alternative is fire and brimstone and God unleashing all sorts of hell on the world.

This is a problem that extends beyond just the immediate manufactured crisis. The Christian right has become the primary vehicle in American politics for minimizing the problems of the real world while inventing imaginary problems as distractions. Witness, for instance, the way that fundamentalist Christianity has been harnessed to promote the notion that climate change isn’t a real problem. Average global temperatures are creeping up, but the majority of Christian conservatives are too worried about the supposed existential threats of abortion and gay rights to care.

Under the circumstances, it’s no surprise that it’s easy for Christian conservatives to worry more about imaginary threats from Obamacare than it is for them to worry about the very real threat to worldwide economic stability if the go along with their harebrained scheme of forcing the government into default. To make it worse, many have convinced themselves that it’s their opponents who are deluded. Take right wing Christian Senator Tom Coburn, who celebrated the possibility of default back in January by saying it would be a “wonderful experiment”. Being able to blow past all the advice of experts just to make stuff up you want to believe isn’t a quality that is unique to fundamentalists, but as these budget negotiations are making clear, they do have a uniquely strong ability to lie to themselves about what is and isn’t a real danger to themselves and to the world.

Studies Link Vaccines to Autism Spectrum Disorder

vaccine-baby

Nearly two dozen studies
prove that vaccines
can cause autism

Tuesday, October 01, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Thanks to Natural News

NaturalNews) Mainstream doctors and media pundits are notorious for claiming that the vaccine-autism debate is over and that no legitimate scientific evidence exists to suggest even a possible link between vaccinations and autism spectrum disorders (ASD): case closed. But a thoroughly-researched report recently published by Arjun Walia over atActivist Post reveals that there are at least 22 published scientific studies that show a link between vaccines and autism and that there are many moreout there with similar findings.Much of the original controversy stems from Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study back in the late 1990s, which exposed gastrointestinal inflammation as an obvious side effect of vaccination with the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Dr. Wakefield obviously struck a major nerve with his research, which was quickly torn apart by the establishment and maliciously paraded around as being fraudulent, even though his groundbreaking findings have repeatedly been validated and replicated by many other studies.A 2002 study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences, for instance, observed a causal effect between the MMR vaccine and autism, particularly with regards to the measles portion of the vaccine. The researchers from Utah State University concluded that MMR is capable of inducing an abnormal measles infection in some children, which in turn can lead to neurological problems that fall under the umbrella of ASD.Another study published in the journal Entropy in 2012 observed a strong correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism, except in this case aluminum was the culprit. According to an abstract of this study,vaccines that contain aluminum are particularly toxic to children, who end up later being diagnosed with ASD, as they have insufficient serum levels of both sulfate and glutathione. The aluminum found in some vaccines, in other words, appears to be a primary aggravator of ASD symptoms.”Regardless of the MMR vaccine and autism debate, there are still a number of studies that link vaccines to a possible autism connection,” writes Walia. “[M]ultiple courts worldwide have ruled in favor of vaccines causing autism, brain damage and other complications that include the MMR vaccine,” he adds, noting that many other side effects besides autism have been observed in relation to vaccines.

Heavy metals, adjuvants, preservatives and other vaccine additives all linked to causing autism

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Walia’s extensive research on the subject is the fact that there appear to be multiple ingredients in vaccines responsible for triggering autism. Besides toxic metals like aluminum and mercury, vaccines also contain adjuvant materials, preservatives and other additives that have all been identified as culprits in the studies listed in his article. Realistically, each of these additives is most likely toxic both in isolation and in combination with the other additives, eliciting compounded toxicity depending on the mixture.

“Oxidative stress, brain inflammation and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals,” admits one study out of Massachusetts General Hospital, which verified that autistic individuals possess a unique type of neuroinflammation in their brain tissue that points to vaccine damage.

Several of the studies listed in Walia’s report also pin thimerosal, a toxic mercury derivative that is still being added to multidose vials of flu vaccine, as a trigger in causing the types of brain damage linked to autism. One particular study out of the University of Texas Health Science Center found that for every 1,000 pounds of mercury released into the environment, there is a consequential 61 percent increase in autism rates.

With thimerosal-containing flu shots now being administered to children as young as six months old, it is highly plausible that ASD-associated brain damage is still occurring as a result of mercury being injected directly into muscle tissue.

Be sure to read Walia’s full report, which contains 22 cited scientific studies, here:
http://www.activistpost.com

Sources for this article include:

http://www.activistpost.com

http://www.mdpi.com

http://vran.org

Vegetarians – Heart Disease

Vegetarians less likely to die from heart disease, study finds

September 26, 2013 by: Michael Ravensthorpe, from Natural News
Tags: vegetariansheart diseasedecreased risk

(NaturalNews) It isn’t difficult to find peer-reviewed studies affirming the benefits of a vegetarian diet. Long-term vegetarianism has been linked to increased longevity, a decreased risk of cancer and diabetes, weight loss and improved digestion. However, according to a new study published in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vegetarianism can also guard us from heart disease by lowering our cholesterol and blood pressure.

Researchers at the University of Oxford monitored the blood pressure and cholesterol levels of 45,000 English and Scottish volunteers – 34 percent of whom were identified as vegetarian – between the early 1990s and 2009. During that period, 1,235 volunteers developed heart disease. 169 of them died from it, while the remaining 1,066 either recovered from the disease or continued to suffer with it.

After adjusting for external factors such as social background, age, education, alcohol consumption, and smoking status, the researchers found that the vegetarians had a 32 percent lower risk of heart disease than the meat eaters. The vegetarians also tended to have a lower body mass index and a lower risk of developing diabetes.

“The results clearly show that the risk of heart disease in vegetarians is about a third lower than in comparable non-vegetarians,” said study author and deputy director of the university’s Cancer Epidemiology Unit Dr. Tim Key.

“Most of the difference in risk is probably caused by effects on cholesterol and blood pressure, and shows the important role of diet in the prevention of heart disease,” added study author Dr. Francesca Crowe.

Our bodies are not adapted to eating meat

The results of this new study shouldn’t surprise anyone who understands the anatomy of the human body. Indeed, most of humanity has subsisted on a vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet throughout recorded history, and this diet suits our physiology well: our teeth (including our incisor teeth) are blunt; our intestinal tract is extended rather than short; our stomach’s hydrochloric acid is often too weak to adequately digest meat and its parasites; our saliva is alkaline rather than acidic; and our hands are designed to pick fruit and till the earth, not capture prey.

While there is a time and place when eating animals is justified and even desirable (for instance, during survival situations or times when plant-based food sources are inadequate), most of us living in relative comfort and with access to a wide variety of foods have little need for semi-indigestible, acidic and pus-forming meats. Ultimately, this study by the University of Oxford is but the latest in a long line of studies that remind us why it is wise to listen to our body’s needs rather than the advice of the contemporary food industry.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.nzherald.co.nz

http://www.celestialhealing.net

http://science.naturalnews.com

About the author:
Michael Ravensthorpe is an independent writer whose research interests include nutrition, alternative medicine, and bushcraft. He is the creator of the website Spiritfoods, through which he promotes the world’s healthiest foods. from Natural News

Cow Milk – Not Good For Bones

GUEST COMMENTARY / RETHINKING NUTRITIONAL TRUISM

Milk, unfortunately, builds weak bones

GODDESS Book_CD_img_20
By Beverly Hoback
It’s September, and all across the country children and teachers are filling classrooms, playgrounds, and school cafeterias. Some are in new buildings, some old. Some have new textbooks, some old. Some are studying subjects I never heard of in elementary school, like computers, and some are studying materials pretty much like what I studied back in the ’60s and ’70s. One subject that could be changing, and in my opinion, should be changing, much more rapidly is the subject of nutrition. I say this because of my horror in seeing that one of the greatest myths ever foisted on the American public is still being disseminated in our classrooms despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. This is the myth that milk builds strong bones.


I grew up with the four food groups: meat, fruits and vegetables, grains, and milk. I accepted these food groups as nearly gospel and ate accordingly. Then in the ’90s I read an article in a magazine called Science News that rocked my world. This article not only stated that milk consumption is associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in elderly people, but it showed a chart of countries all over the world, correlating milk consumption with hip fracture rates. To my amazement, without exception the countries with the highest milk consumption had the highest rates of hip fractures, and the countries with the lowest rates of milk consumption had the lowest rates of hip fractures. More recently, Amy Lanou PhD, nutritional director for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, D.C. stated, “The countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are the ones where people drink the most milk and have the most calcium in their diets.”


Studies by scientists all over the world support these statements. The famous Harvard Nurses’ Health Study followed 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 for 12 years. This study found that the women who drank three glasses of milk daily had double the number of fractures compared to women who rarely drank milk. The authors of the study, Feskanich, Willet, Stampfer, and Colditz wrote, “These data do not support the hypothesis that higher consumption of milk or other food sources of calcium by adult women protect against hip or forearm fractures.” Back in 1994 the American Journal of Epidemiology published a report by Cumming and Klineberg containing this summation: “Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, was associated with an increased rate of hip fracture in old age.”


While it is true that high milk consumption initially results in increased bone mineral density, that is a short-term gain offset by long-term increases in osteoporosis risk. Author Russell Eaton states, “Dairy milk does increase bone density, but this comes at a terrible price. The latest research is showing that far from protecting bones, milk actually increases the risk of osteoporosis by eroding bone-making cells.” The scientific explanation is too lengthy to go into here, but it involves acidification of the blood and the effect of excess calcium from milk on the activity of osteoblasts and osteoclasts.


Even aside from scientific evidence, simple logic speaks clearly. Is there any other animal on Earth that drinks milk after infancy? No. Yet we still tell out school children every day that unless human beings drink cow’s milk every day of their lives, their bones will fall apart. It makes me shudder with frustration.


It is clearly time to replace propaganda from the food industry with solid science in our classrooms. Our most recent food pyramid, the one saying we should all be consuming 6 to 11 servings of grain per day, as well as showing cow’s milk as a healthy part of the human diet, was based on intensive lobbying by the food industry rather than on solid science. Most of us are aware that anyone eating 11 pieces of bread a day, plus all of the other foods shown on the food pyramid, is going to be obese, but the food industry has plenty of political clout and clearly uses this influence to its advantage.


Now, before the Dairy Farmers of Washington get all upset with me, I will add one bit of good news for dairy lovers. There are studies showing that fermented milk products, such as sour cream, yogurt, and kefir, do not cause the blood acidification that is associated with the leaching of calcium from our bones. TCBY, here I come.


Nutritional science is complicated. I’m not a scientist, I’m just a health fanatic who reads a lot. But I’m hoping that many reading this will be spurred to do their own research and educate their families on the truth when it comes to dairy milk. Maybe eventually, as was the case with the lung cancer/cigarette connection, this knowledge will become main stream. Our children’s health depends on it.


Beverly Hoback lives in Arlington and teaches music, health, and science in the Lakewood School District.

http://heraldnet.com/article/20130921/OPINION03/709219981

9-25-13

To the Editor:

Regarding your September 21 opinion letter on milk, there is more to be said. Although cow’s milk contains calcium, it is lacking in iron, magnesium, potassium, and essential fatty acids. Why then is cow’s milk good for calves? Because calves also eat grass, which is rich in these nutrients. Drinking cow’s milk uses up our caloric allotment without delivering the nutrition we need. Most vegetables are rich in calcium and other minerals.

Milk is very high in protein, and most people consume far too much protein, which acidifies the blood and weakens bones. Cow’s milk, even if it is organic, contains IGF-1, a growth hormone identical to human growth hormone. Too much growth hormone encorages growth of cancer cells.

People love the taste of milk and cheese because it contains casomorphin, an addictive analog of morphine. It is in cow’s milk and mother’s milk to induce calves and babies to crave milk.

Finally, commercial milk is a very cruel food because calves are taken from their mothers shortly after birth to spent a hundred hellish days in veal crates. In order to keep their flesh pale in color, they are denied water and hay and are fed an iron free diet of surplus milk and butter, which makes them wretchedly ill.

James Robert Deal

 

 

Vaccines Allegedly Contain Monkey Viruses

Merck vaccine developer admits vaccines routinely contain hidden cancer viruses derived from diseased monkeys

Reposted from the NaturalNews.com

Sunday, September 08, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)
Tags: vaccinescancer virusesDr. Maurice Hilleman

(NaturalNews) If you haven’t yet realized the truth about how vaccines contain hidden cancer viruses, prepare yourself to be shocked by the admission you’re about to hear. Decades ago, one of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry — a Merck scientist — made a recording where he openly admitted that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses.

In hearing this admission, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break into laughter and seem to think it’s hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, their side effects will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be “loaded down with tumors.”

For the record, this is the same vaccine that was given to tens of millions of Americans and promoted by the government. To this day, people still carry these hidden cancer viruses which have proven to bea boon to the cancer industry.

Listen to this astonishing admission at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAAF22CDA367…

Why vaccine scientists lie to the public

The presence of SV40 cancer viruses in vaccines isn’t some conspiracy theory, by the way: these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely heard across the internet one day. He probably thought this conversation would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn’t get out to the press, he replied “Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community.”

In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don’t reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.

Listen to this shocking interview at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAAF22CDA367…

Transcript of audio interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman

Dr. Horowitz: Listen now to the voice of the worlds leading vaccine expert Dr Maurice Hilleman, Chief of the Merck Pharmaceutical Company’s vaccine division relay this problem he was having with imported monkeys. He best explains the origin of AIDS, but what you are about to hear was cut from any public disclosures.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: and I think that vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20th century.

Narrator: 50 years ago when Maurice Hilleman was a high school student in Miles City Montana, he hoped he might qualify as a management trainee for the local JC Penney’s store. Instead he went on to pioneer more breakthroughs in vaccine research and development than anyone in the history of American medicine. Among the discoveries he made at Merck, are vaccines for mumps, rubella and measles…

Dr Edward Shorter: Tell me how you found SV40 and the polio vaccine.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys, we’re finished and if I can’t do something I’m going to quit, I’m not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said “look, I got a problem and I don’t know what the hell to do.” Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.

Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won’t do to develop a vaccine! (laughter)

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So what he did, he brought in, I mean we brought in those monkeys, I only had those and this was the solution because those monkeys didn’t have the wild viruses but we…

Dr Edward Shorter: Wait, why didn’t the greens have the wild viruses since they came from Africa?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …because they weren’t, they weren’t, they weren’t being infected in these group holding things with all the other 40 different viruses…

Dr Edward Shorter: but they had the ones that they brought from the jungle though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, they had those, but those were relatively few what you do you have a gang housing you’re going to have an epidemic transmission of infection in a confined space. So anyway, the greens came in and now we have these and were taking our stocks to clean them up and god now I’m discovering new viruses. So, I said Judas Priest. Well I got an invitation from the Sister Kinney Foundation which was the opposing foundation when it was the live virus…

Dr Edward Shorter: Ah, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Yeah, they had jumped on the Sabin’s band wagon and they had asked me to come down and give a talk at the Sister Kinney Foundation meeting and I saw it was an international meeting and god, what am I going to talk about? I know what I’m going to do, I’m going to talk about the detection of non detectable viruses as a topic.

Dr Albert Sabin …there were those who didn’t want a live virus vaccine… (unintelligible) …concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine, while they were supporting me for research on the live viruses.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I’m just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it’s got to be in the Sabin’s vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

Dr Edward Shorter: I’ll be damned

Dr Maurice Hilleman: … And so now…

Dr Edward Shorter: …so you just took stocks of Sabin’s vaccines off the shelf here at Merck…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, well it had been made, it was made at Merck…

Dr Edward Shorter: You were making it for Sabin at this point?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Yeah, it was made before I came…

Dr Edward Shorter: yeah, but at this point Sabin is still just doing massive field trials…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …uh huh

Dr Edward Shorter: okay,

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …in Russia and so forth. So I go down and I talked about the detection of non detectable viruses and told Albert, I said listen Albert you know you and I are good friends but I’m going to go down there and you’re going to get upset. I’m going to talk about the virus that it’s in your vaccine. You’re going to get rid of the virus, don’t worry about it, you’re going to get rid of it… but umm, so of course Albert was very upset…

Dr Edward Shorter: What did he say?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well he said basically, that this is just another obfuscation that’s going to upset vaccines. I said well you know, you’re absolutely right, but we have a new era here we have a new era of the detection and the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus that was contaminating the vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well there are 40 different viruses in these vaccines anyway that we were inactivating and uh,

Dr Edward Shorter: but you weren’t inactivating his though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …no that’s right, but yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it and you know this was in the days of very crude science. So anyway I went down and talked to him and said well, why are you concerned about it? Well I said “I’ll tell you what, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different, I don’t know why to tell you this but I …(unintelligible) …I just think this virus will have some long term effects.” And he said what? And I said “cancer”. (laughter) I said Albert, you probably think I’m nuts, but I just have that feeling. Well in the mean time we had taken this virus and put it into monkeys and into hamsters. So we had this meeting and that was sort of the topic of the day and the jokes that were going around was that “gee, we would win the Olympics because the Russians would all be loaded down with tumors.” (laughter) This was where the vaccine was being tested, this was where… so, uhh, and it really destroyed the meeting and it was sort of the topic. Well anyway…

Dr Edward Shorter: Was this the physicians… (unintelligible) …meeting in New York?

Dr Maurice Hilleman …well no, this was at Sister Kinney…

Dr Edward Shorter: Sister Kinney, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …and Del Becco (sp) got up and he foresaw problems with these kinds of agents.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why didn’t this get out into the press?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well, I guess it did I don’t remember. We had no press release on it. Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community…

Voice of news reporter: …an historic victory over a dread disease is dramatically unfolded at the U of Michigan. Here scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove that the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It’s a day of triumph for 40 year old Dr. Jonas E Salk developer of the vaccine. He arrives here with Basil O’Connor the head of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that financed the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists gathered from all over the nation gathered for the momentous announcement….

Dr Albert Sabin: …it was too much of a show, it was too much Hollywood. There was too much exaggeration and the impression in 1957 that was, no in 1954 that was given was that the problem had been solved , polio had been conquered.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …but, anyway we knew it was in our seed stock from making vaccines. That virus you see, is one in 10,000 particles is not an activated… (unintelligible) …it was good science at the time because that was what you did. You didn’t worry about these wild viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: So you discovered, it wasn’t being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.

Dr. Horowitz: Despite AIDS and Leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from “wild viruses” Hilleman said, this was “good science” at that time.

Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease

There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population.

The rise of many diseases — such as cancer — correlates very strongly with the rise of mandatory vaccinations around the world.

There is a critically important book that shatters the vaccine myths we are still being told by the medical establishment. That book is called Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten Historyby Dr. Suzanne Humphries.

Get this book and be blown away by what you find inside. The data presented in the multitude of charts destroy the false narrative of modern-day vaccine pushers.

Also check out the related website, which includes many of the charts and graphs from the book:
www.dissolvingillusions.com

Vaccination – The People’s Chemist

Herd Immunity: Three Reasons Why I Don’t Vaccinate My Children… And Why Vaccine Supporters Shouldn’t Care That I Use Vaccine Exemption Forms

Reposted from The People’s Chemist

Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and protect them with vaccine exemption forms are often chastised and stereotyped for putting their own kids at risk. But what is even stranger than this assault on individual freedom and informed choice, is that these concerned parents are attacked for putting vaccinated children at risk.

These attacks are based on the theory of “herd immunity.” This hypothesis was plucked out of an old college textbook. It states that the more people are immune to an infectious agent, the less likely an immune-compromised individual is to come in contact with it. In other words herd immunity serves as a human shield – a type of immunity – for “at-risk” individuals. But remember, it’s only a hypothesis.

When outbreaks arise among children, health officials are quick to state that it’s due to a breakdown in ‘herd immunity.‘ Doctors parrot it too, without even looking at the research. They say it’s happening more often nationwide as states make it easier for parents to opt out of vaccinations.

Like argumentative apes, pro-vaccine parents and their physicians start pounding their chest in favor of such statements. They use them to attack anti-vaccine parents, accusing them of “putting vaccinated kids at risk due to a breakdown in herd immunity.”

This is fuzzy logic. And it’s borderline stupid.

After all, if vaccines truly worked, then why would vaccinated kids be at risk?

…Plus, the spread of infection isn’t limited to coming into contact with another person! You can get sick without ever seeing another individual. Therefore, herd immunity is nothing more than a silly catch-phrase used to scare and bully parents into vaccinating their kids. Don’t fall for it parents, keep using the vaccine exemption forms to legally avoid them.

 


Free Vaccine Exemption Forms
 

Parents Should Question Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness by Using Vaccine Exemption

Instead of using an unproven hypothesis to question parents who have opted out, pro-vaccine parents should be questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. With dozens of vaccines being forced on the public, some healthy skepticism could go a long way toward raising a vibrantly healthy child.

My background as a medicinal chemist taught me to rely on proven research. I learned to be less sensitive to emotional arguments and more sensitive to facts supported by reproducibility. This is one of the main principles of the scientific method. It refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced. As a parent, I have a responsibility to use my training to make decisions for my family. Especially when it comes to potentially dangerous vaccinations.

In my own research, I have uncovered facts that every parent should be aware of. Here are three primary reasons why I have not and will not vaccinate my own children and why I’ve used vaccine exemption forms
for public school and more:

Reason #1: Vaccination Does Not Always Mean “Immunization”

Vaccines are purported to work by triggering the body’s natural immunity. By injecting weak or dead infectious agents through our skin, it’s believed that the body will create the appropriate immune defense. They are even called “immunizations.”

And while this idea is over two hundred years old, it’s not nearly as effective as the pharmaceutical companies, doctors and government agencies want you to believe.

At best, vaccines boost our defenses only temporarily. That’s because your immune system is programmed to recognize and attack invaders that come through the biological “front door.” That would be your nose, mouth and eyes. It doesn’t work properly when we shove infection into our body with a needle.

The World Health Organization (WHO) underscored this fact in their report titled, Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals. They wrote that, “Children under two years of age do not consistently develop immunity following vaccination.” Therefore, vaccines can fly “below the radar” of our immune system.

Not only does this weaken the immune system, it renders many vaccines ineffective.

And history proves this to be the case…

[RELATED: Nature's Immune Booster is Potent Antibiotic. See the facts here.]

The Polio Vaccine

Polio is the most feared childhood illness. It has caused paralysis and death for much of human history. The world experienced a dramatic increase in polio around 1910. Epidemics became regular events. They were the driving force behind a great race toward the development of a polio vaccine. The vaccine was developed in 1953 and an oral version came soon after.

But the vaccines came too late. Thanks to better hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, the rates of polio infection had already plummeted as documented in my book, Over-The-Counter Natural Cures. And it’s a good thing, because both forms were a total failure. In fact, instead of preventing polio… they actually caused it!

Medical journals around the world have exposed this outcome. The Medical Journal of Australia discovered “the relation of prophylactic inoculations [polio vaccines] to the onset of poliomyelitis [polio]” as far back as 1951.

And the trend has continued…

In a 2007 article, entitled “Nigeria Fights Rare Vaccine-Derived Polio Outbreak,” Reutersshowed how the vaccine itself ignited outbreaks of polio in Nigeria, Chad and Angola.

And according to The Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, the polio vaccine program launched by Bill Gates paralyzed 47,500 children in 2011 alone. And those injured by the vaccine died at twice the rate of those infected by “wild” polio!

Whooping Cough

The same scenario was repeated in the case of the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine. Between 1900 and 1935, mortality rates due to whooping cough dropped by 79 percent in the United States. Yet, the vaccine (DTP and DTaP) wasn’t introduced until 1940.

Today, those who have been “immunized” are the most susceptible to whooping cough.

Researchers with the CDC publicly stated in 2002 that, “the number of infants dying from whooping cough is rising, despite record high vaccination levels.” In 2009, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recognized the trend too. In the article titled, “Whooping Cough Vaccine not as Powerful as Thought,” the publication highlighted a recent cluster of 18 whooping cough-infected students. Seventeen of those students – 95% of those infected – had been immunized with five doses of DTaP vaccine.

Measles, Mumps, Rubella

The measles vaccine is no different. In 1957, the MMR shot became widely used in an effort to eradicate measles, mumps, and rubella. The The CDC insisted that it would eliminate mumps in the United States by the year 2010.

But rather than preventing mumps and measles, the vaccine has actually caused widespread epidemics. Outbreaks have become the norm. And those who have suffered the most were “vaccinated.”

Between 1983 and 1990, there was a 423% increase in measles cases among vaccinated individuals. Then in 2006, the largest mumps outbreak in twenty years occurred. Among those infected, 63% were “immunized,” as shown by Neil Miller in Vaccines: Are They Safe and Effective? Others found similar results.

In The Journal of Infectious Diseases, scientists from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine wrote, “Vaccine failure accounted for a sustained mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population.”

In his book, How to Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor, the late Dr. Robert Mendlesohn, MD showed that vaccinated individuals are 14 times more likely to contract mumps than unvaccinated.

These stunning vaccine failures led the Iowa Department of Public Health to conclude that, “…Our most important public health tool against this disease—2 doses of MMR vaccine—is not providing the necessary levels of protection to control mumps in the U.S. population.”

Even the Mayo Clinic – a bastion of mainstream medicine – states that, “vaccine failure has become increasingly apparent.”

Flu Vaccine Failure

The flu vaccine has proven just as worthless…

In 2007, the CDC reported that it had “no or low effectiveness” against influenza or influenza-like illnesses. The data showed that the flu vaccine protected no more than 14% of those who received it. And this wasn’t some fluke. The vaccine is rarely any more effective than that.

Even The New York Times reports that, “The influenza vaccine, which has been strongly recommended for people over 65 for more than four decades, is losing its reputation as an effective way to ward off the virus.”

Doctors who do their homework understand that vaccines are ineffective. Dr. Ira Goodman MD, FACS, ABHIM, a surgeon from Loyola Medical School is one of them. Through email correspondence, he told me he is against vaccines simply because “they don’t work!”

The failure of vaccines has finally gone mainstream. But instead of admitting that they don’t offer protection, health officials and the pharmaceutical companies are pushing for MORE vaccines as the solution. When you consider the number of outright toxins contained in these experimental concoctions, the implications are chilling.

Reason #2 Vaccines Expose Kids to Toxins

According to fact sheets put out by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines are brimming with toxins. These include dozens of chemicals, heavy metals and allergens. They also include numerous objectionable ingredients, such as monkey kidney cells and aborted fetal tissue.

Formaldehyde is just one of many chemicals found in vaccines. And according to the FDA, “Excessive exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer.” Another ingredient in the cocktail is a chemical known as 2-phenoxyethanol. This comes with an FDA warning which states that, “It can depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration in infants.”

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…

In addition to mercury and aluminum, many vaccines are also spiked with antibiotics like neomycin, polymyxin B, streptomycin and gentamicin. These drugs aren’t even approved for uninfected children!

Despite this emerging toxic threat, Parenting Magazine and Dr. Paul Offit stated that, “In theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.” Are you kidding me? He won’t be testing that theory on my children. I wonder if he’s willing to stab himself that many times to prove it?

I queried numerous physicians via email and phone to find out if they shared Dr. Offit’s ideas. They didn’t. Dr. Suzanne Humphries, MD was adamant that, “Vaccines put children at risk for a form of kidney disease called nephrotic syndrome. This can be caused by a common ingredient – Bovine Serum Albumin. Doctors just give children steroids to suppress the symptoms, never knowing what the cause was.”


Autism
 

If parents need further proof of toxicity, they can read vaccine package inserts. The insert for the DPT vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur warns that, “A review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found evidence for a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and both brachial neuritis and Guillain-Barré syndrome [pain and loss of nerve and motor function].” Makers of the Tripedia vaccine for DTaP state that certain outcomes are so frequent that they had to list them. These reactions include:

• Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
• Anaphylactic reaction
• Cellulitis (a bacterial skin infection)
• Autism
• Convulsion/Seizures
• Brain dysfunction
• Low muscle tone and strength
• Nerve damage
• Hyperventilation/apnea

These are some damn good reasons to use vaccine exemption forms.

Vaccine supporters will insist that the benefits outweigh these toxicity risks. But that would only be true if vaccination was the only road to immunization.

Reason #3 Kids Can Build Immunity Naturally

We are all at risk from various “biological nasties.” Invisible threats are everywhere…A single gram of feces can contain more than 10 million viruses, 1 million bacteria, 1,000 parasite cysts and 100 parasite eggs.

The goal is to minimize risk by increasing our immunity, naturally. In Over-The-Counter Natural Cures, I showed how innate and adaptive immunity act as our God-given protection from biological nasties.

But, you have to support these Gatekeepers of health with proper nutrition, hygiene, sanitation and natural medicine like andrographis. Just as hand washing saved millions from infant mortality in a hospital setting, healthy habits minimize exposure and boost our natural defenses. The science supporting this won the Nobel Prize in 2011!

Bruce Beutler and Jules Hoffmann discovered that we are hard-wired with special receptors that recognize foreign invaders and activate our immune response. Ralph Steinman then found that special cells of the immune system possess the unique capacity to activate the immune response, which clears biological nasties from the body. And all of this occurs without vaccination!

[RELATED: Nature's Immune Booster is Potent Antibiotic. See the facts here.]

Decline in Disease Not Caused by Vaccination

Further research has shown that the historical decline in infectious diseases – that parents are now vaccinating against – were not the result of inoculation, like doctors blindly and wrongly assert. Instead, the decline began years before the vaccines were introduced thanks to improved habits of hygiene, sanitation and nutrition that raised our natural immunity.

Differences among immunity reflect the importance of healthy habits…Ever wonder why two people (even in the same household) can be exposed to the same virus while one of them is laid up in bed for a week and the other doesn’t feel the slightest effect?

And why is it that while nearly 50 million people died from the Spanish flu in 1918… the case fatality rate was from two to five percent? That means that 95 to 98 percent of those who contracted the flu recovered fully. And that says nothing of the hundreds of millions of people who came into contact with the virus, but never became ill at all.

The difference is our individual immune system.

And the bottom line is that your habits have a great deal of control over it, as shown in Nobel winning science. Work with it to acquire protection.

There are no Silver Bullets Against Infection, but You Have Options

There is no silver bullet, though.

Despite our best efforts at nutrition, hygiene and sanitation, the immune system can still fail. Fortunately, in many cases, emergency medicine can help.

With all this science and technology at our fingertips, I’m not willing to risk my children’s health on the antiquated vaccine theory… nor the toxic brew they contain.

That doesn’t make me a religious “nut job” or conspiracy theorist. It simply means that I am an informed and caring parent with healthy kids who don’t need to rely on risky medicines or “herd immunity.” And since herd immunity is nothing more than an antiquated theory – and not something that is actually protecting kids form infections – pro-vaccine parents shouldn’t give a shit about my non-vaccinated kids or my use of vaccine exemption forms.

Educate before you vaccinate.

MMR Vaccine and Autism

vaccine

Breaking: Courts discreetly confirm MMR vaccine causes autism

Tuesday, September 03, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Tags: MMR vaccinesautismcourt ruling

12K 37

(NaturalNews) You won’t hear anything about it from the mainstream media, but the federal government’s kangaroo “vaccine court” has once again conceded, albeit quietly, that the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine does, indeed, cause autism. In a recently published ruling, part of which was censored from public view, a young boy was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars after it was determined that the MMR vaccine led to a confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Ten-year-old Ryan Mojabi’s parents say he first suffered an encephalopathy after being vaccinated for MMR on December 19, 2003. Known as a “table injury,” encephalopathy is a recognized, compensable adverse reaction to vaccines, and one that the kangaroo vaccine court has previously linked to vaccines. According to Ryan’s parents, the MMR vaccine caused their son’s encephalopathy, which manifested as “neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD.”

After being bumped around from court to court, Ryan’s case was eventually heard by the vaccine court’s Autism Omnibus Proceedings, according to The Huffington Post. And in the end, the federal government agreed that Ryan’s encephalopathy had been caused by the MMR vaccine, a landmark ruling that confirms what Dr. Andrew Wakefield found more than 15 years ago when studying gut disorders in children given the MMR vaccine.

“Ryan suffered a Table injury under the Vaccine Act — namely, an encephalitis within five to fifteen days following receipt (of MMR),” admitted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the case. “This case is appropriate for compensation,” it added, in full agreement with the court’s decision.

Of particular note in the case is the fact that concession documents by the government remain under seal. While the court and the government at large openly admitted that the MMR vaccine caused Ryan’s encephalitis, it did not make public its opinion on whether or not that encephalitis led to Ryan’s other injuries, including those that fall into the category of ASD. But the fact that these documents remain censored shows that the government is hiding something of importance from the public, which most definitely has to do with the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Concerned parents everywhere were right all along: MMR vaccine can cause autism

In a similar case heard during the same month, young Emily Moller from Houston, Texas, was also awarded massive compensation for injuries resulting from the MMR vaccine. According to reports, Emily experienced a severe reaction after receiving not only the MMR vaccine but also the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), HiB, and Prevnar vaccines. Like with Ryan’s case, the government conceded that these vaccines led to Emily’s autism and other developmental problems.

These two cases, combined with numerous published studies out of the U.S., South America, and Europe, prove that the MMR vaccine is not the harmless vaccine that the conventional medical industry claims it is. In fact, everything that Dr. Wakefield found back in the late 1990s concerning the MMR vaccine — findings that cost him his career and reputation, by the way — are proving to be undeniably true.

“There can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism,” Dr. Wakefield recently stated from his home in Austin, Texas. “In these children, the evidence for an adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged. My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long, long overdue.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.whiteoutpress.com

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.coml

http://www.examiner.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Alleged Vaccination Hoax

The Vaccine Hoax is Over
Documents from UK reveal 30 Years of Coverup

Andrew Baker ( FFN),Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have

1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US.

800px-Smallpox_vaccineEducated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

Freedom of Information Act filed in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.

On October 26, 2011, a Denver Post editorial expressed shock that the Obama administration, after promising to be especially transparent, was proposing changes to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow it to go beyond declaring some documents secret and to actually allow government agencies (such as the CDC) to declare some document “non-existent.”

Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary “health” not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared.  Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.”

The CDC is obviously acting against the health of the American people. But the threat to the lives of the American people posed by the CDC’s behavior does not stop there. It participated in designed pandemic laws that are on the books in every state in the US, which arrange for the government to use military to force unknown, untested vaccines, drugs, chemicals, and “medical” treatments on the entire country if it declares a pandemic emergency.

The CDC’s credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 “pandemic,” the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation.  What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a “pandemic” in the US.

The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC,  “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].

The exposure of the vaccine hoax is running neck and neck with the much older hoax of a deadly 1918-19 flu. It was aspirin  that killed people in 1918-19, not a pandemic flu. It was the greatest industrial catastrophe in human history with 20-50 million people dying but it was blamed on a flu. The beginning of the drug industry began with that success (and Monsanto was part of it). The flu myth was used by George Bush to threaten the world with “another pandemic flu that could kill millions” – a terror tactic to get pandemic laws on the books in every state and worldwide. Then the CDC used hoax of the pandemic hoax to create terror over H1N1 and to push deadly vaccines on the public, killing thousands of unborn children and others.  (CDC will not release the data and continues to push the same vaccine.)

The hoax of the vaccine schedule is over, exposed by FOIAs in the UK. 

The hoax of the CDC’s interest in children’s lives has been exposed by its refusal to respond to a doctor’s FOIAs around its knowledge of vaccine dangers.

The 1918-19 pandemic hoax has been exposed by Dr. Karen Starko’s work on aspirin’s role in killing people.

And despite refusing to respond to FOIAS, the CDC’s scandalous hoax of a 2009 flu pandemic and its part in creating it, was exposed by CBS NEWS. 

And the Obama administration, in attempting to salvage the last vestige of secrecy around what is really happening with vaccines, by declaring agency documents non-existent, has made its claim of transparency, non-existent.

But pandemic laws arranging for unknown vaccines to be forced on the entire country are still in place with HHS creating a vaccine mixture that should never be used on anyone and all liability for vaccines having been removed. Meanwhile, a Canadian study has just proven that the flu vaccine containing the H1N1 vaccine which kills babies in utero, actually increases the risk of serious pandemic flu.

Americans who have been duped into submitting their children to the CDC’s deadly vaccines, have a means to respond now. People from every walk of life and every organization, must

1. take the information from the UK FOIAs exposing 30 years of vaccine lies, the refusal of the CDC to provide any information on what it knows about those lies, and the Obama Administration’s efforts to hide the CDC’s awareness of those lies, and go to their state legislatures, demand the immediate nullification of the CDC vaccine schedule and the pandemic laws.

2. inform every vet. active duty military person, law enforcement people, DHS agents and medical personnel they know, of the vaccine hoax, for their families are deeply threatened, too, but they may not be aware of it or that they have been folded into agency structures by the pharmaceutical industry (indistinguishable from the bankers and oil companies) that would make them agents of death for their country with the declaration of a “pandemic” emergency or “bio-terrorist” attack. It is completely clear now that the terrorism/bioterrorism structures are scams so that any actions taken to “protect” this country using those laws would in fact be what threatens the existence of Americans.

It was aspirin that killed millions in 1918-19.  Now it is mandated and unknown, untested vaccines with banned adjuvants in them that threaten the country with millions of deaths.  At the same time, the CDC is holding 500,000 mega-coffins, built to be incinerated, on its property outside Atlanta.  Not to put to fine a point on this, but it’s clear now that the CDC should not be involved in any way with public health.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know that vaccines are not a miracle of modern medicine.  Any medical or government authority which insists vaccines prevent diseases is either ignorant of government documents (and endless studies) revealing the exact opposite or of the CDC’s attempts to hide the truth about vaccines from the public, or means harm to the public.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know the vaccine schedule is a hoax.

The health danger to American children and adults are vaccines.

Andrew Baker via Food Freedom News

Related article:

Bill Gates’ Polio Vaccine Program Caused 47,500 Cases of Paralysis Death

New Far East Killer Vaccine. More than 100.000 Deaths By Diverting Funds From Clean Water Programs For Ineffective and Dangerous Vaccine.

BBC News Removes False News Claims About Measles Epidemic “after being busted”

Documentation

The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation ( JCVI): are they at odds?

***

Bill Gates’ Polio Vaccine Program Caused 47,500 Cases of Paralysis Death

Bill Gates and 47,500 Cases of Paralysis

Joe Samuel (4M),- In India, Monsanto hired Bollywood actors to promote genetically engineered cotton seed to illiterate farmers. Nana Petakar became a brand ambassador for Monsanto. The advertising has been called “aggressive, unscrupulous and false.

Bill Gates, heavily invested in Monsanto’s GMOs as well as in vaccines, hired the most beloved of Indian actors, Amitabh Bachchan, to promote the oral polio vaccine.

Here is one example of the ads Bachchan created. Here is Bachchan and use of Bollywood itself to promote the vaccines, and here isanother ad, in which Bachchan employes his acting skills.

BG1

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation says:

“Worldwide efforts in the last two decades have reduced the number of polio cases by 99 percent. Until we reach eradication, however, we are working with governments and all partners in the polio effort to ensure no child is at risk of either contracting or transmitting this crippling disease.”

Monsanto used Bollywood actors and succeeded in selling India’s farmers Bt cotton seeds. Profits for Monsanto rose. When yields were less than promised, farmers incurred massive debt, leading many to suicide, in what is considered “the worst-ever recorded wave of suicides of this kind in human history.” To date, the number of suicides has surpassed 250,000.

P. Sainath details this neoliberal terrorism:

“With giant seed companies displacing cheap hybrids and far cheaper and hardier traditional varieties with their own products, a cotton farmer in Monsanto’s net would be paying far more for seed than he or she ever dreamed they would. Local varieties and hybrids were squeezed out with enthusiastic state support. In 1991, you could buy a kilogram of local seed for as little as Rs.7 or Rs.9 in today’s worst affected region of Vidarbha. By 2003, you would pay Rs.350 — ($7) — for a bag with 450 grams of hybrid seed. By 2004, Monsanto’s partners in India were marketing a bag of 450 grams of Bt cotton seed for between Rs.1,650 and Rs.1,800 ($33 to $36).”

Long after it was apparent that Monsanto was having a lethal impact on India, Bill Gates who says he wants to help the poor in India, made a huge investment in Monsanto. Does Gates care that he invested in a company that has left poor children of India without their fathers and lost them their land they had lived on?

BG2How is Gates’ other investment – vaccines – faring?  Mimicking Monsanto’s PR, Gates used Bollywood actors to strongly promote his vaccine campaign to ‘eradicate polio’ across India. Vaccines ware given to Indian children. Have they brought health?

From “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on” by Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel at Medical Ethics http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html:

“In 2011 there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis]. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Through this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”

The Oral Polio Vaccines were given to Indian children. The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio.

“In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exclusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the ‘principal if not sole cause’ of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961 [44]. (The virus remains in the throat for one to two weeks and in the feces for up to two months. Thus, vaccine recipients are at risk, and can potentially spread the disease, as long as fecal excretion of the virus continues [45].) In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States [36]. In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine [36]. Authorities claim the vaccine was responsible for about eight cases of polio every year [46]. However, an independent study that analyzed the government’s own vaccine database during a recent period of less than five years uncovered 13,641 reports of adverse events following use of the oral polio vaccine. These reports included 6,364 emergency room visits and 540 deaths (Figure 3) [47,48]. Public outrage at these tragedies became the impetus for removing the oral polio vaccine from immunization schedules [36:568;37;38].”

Did Gates not know the OPV had been dropped in the US as he suggested he wanted to bring the same good health to third world countries as Western countries enjoyed? If he did not know, is he pushing vaccines on the world’s children without such basic and truly critical information?

Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi address the question oferadication:

“The charade about polio eradication and the great savings it will bring has persisted to date. It is a paradox that while the director general of WHO, Margret Chan, and Bill Gates are trying to muster support for polio eradication (22) it has been known to the scientific community, for over 10 years, that eradication of polio is impossible. This is because in 2002 scientists had synthesised a chemical called poliovirus in a test-tube with the empirical formula C332,652H492,388N98,245O131,196P7, 501S2,340. It has been demonstrated that by positioning the atoms in sequence, a particle can emerge with all the properties required for its proliferation and survival in nature (23, 24).” [Emphasis added.]

“Wimmer writes that the test-tube synthesis of poliovirus has wiped out any possibility of eradicating poliovirus in the future. Poliovirus cannot be declared extinct because the sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in vitro. Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus. Indeed the 18-year-old global eradication campaign for polioviruses will have to be continued in some format forever. The long promised ‘infinite’ monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved (24). The attraction that ‘eradication’ has for policy makers will vanish once this truth is widely known.”

forced-oral-polio-vaccine

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is apparently out of touch with what the scientific community has known for 10 years, as its website’s page on polio indicates”

2011 Annual Letter from Bill Gates: Ending Polio

Aid for the poorest has already achieved a lot. For example, because of donors’ generosity, we are on the threshold of ending polio once and for all.

And then the Foundation continues about how terrible polio is and how many children it paralyzed and killed.

Polio is a terrible disease that kills many and paralyzes others. Fifty years ago it was widespread around the world. When you talk to people who remember polio in the United States, they’ll tell you about the fear and panic during an outbreak and describe grim hospital wards full of children in iron lungs that maintained their breathing. At its peak in the United States in 1952, polio paralyzed or killed more than 24,000 people.

But in 2011 alone, the Bill and Melinda Gates’ polio vaccine campaign in India caused 47,500 cases of paralysis and death.

From Vashisht and Puliyel:

“It has been reported in the Lancet that the incidence of AFP, especially non-polio AFP has increased exponentially in India after a high potency polio vaccine was introduced (25). Grassly and colleagues suggested, at that time, that the increase in AFP was the result of a deliberate effort to intensify surveillance and reporting in India (26). The National Polio Surveillance Programme maintained that the increased numbers were due to reporting of mild weakness, presumably weakness of little consequence (27).

“However in 2005, a fifth of the cases of non-polio AFP in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) were followed up after 60 days. 35.2% were found to have residual paralysis and 8.5% had died (making the total of residual paralysis or death – 43.7%) (28). Sathyamala examined data from the following year and showed that children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection (27).

“Data from India on polio control over 10 years, available from the National Polio Surveillance Project, has now been compiled and made available online for it to be scrutinised by epidemiologists and statisticians (29). This shows that the non-polio AFP rate increases in proportion to the number of polio vaccines doses received in each area.

“Nationally, the non-polio AFP rate is now 12 times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month, the non-polio AFP rate is 25- and 35-fold higher than the international norms. The relationship of the non-polio AFP rate is curvilinear with a more steep increase beyond six doses of OPV in one year. The non-polio AFP rate during the year best correlates to the cumulative doses received in the previous three years. Association (R2) of the non-polio AFP rate with OPV doses received in 2009 was 41.9%.

BG eugenics“Adding up doses received from 2007 increased the association (R2 = 55.6% p < 0.001) (30). Population density did not show any association with the non-polio AFP rate, although others have suggested that it is related to polio AFP (31). The international incidence of non-polio AFP is said to be 1 to 2/100,000 in the populations under 15 (32, 33). The benchmark of good surveillance is the ability to detect one case of AFP per 100,000 children even in the absence of polio (34).

“In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralysed in the year, over and above the standard 2/100,000 non-polio AFP that is generally accepted as the norm. (32-33). [Emphasis added.]

“It is sad that, even after meticulous surveillance, this large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP. [Emphasis added.]

“These findings point to the need for a critical appraisal to find the factors contributing to the increase in non-polio AFP with increase in OPV doses – perhaps looking at the influence of strain shifts of entero-pathogens induced by the vaccine given practically once every month.

“From India’s perspective the exercise has been extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is apparently out of touch with what is known about the impossibility of eradicating polio, but it is not out of touch with the money involved.

“…. the last 1 percent remains a true danger. Eradication is not guaranteed. It requires campaigns to give polio vaccine to all children under 5 in poor countries, at a cost of almost $1 billion per year. We have to be aggressive about continuing these campaigns until we succeed in eradicating that last 1 percent.

“Therefore, funding is critical to success. Organizations such as Rotary Internationalhttp://www.rotary.org and the governments of India, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan are all major contributors to the polio campaign. Our foundation gives about $200 million each year. But the campaign still faces a 2011-12 funding gap of $720 million. If eradication fails because of a lack of generosity on the part of donor countries it would be tragic. We are so close, but we have to finish the last leg of the journey. We need to bring the cases down to zero, maintain careful surveillance to ensure the virus is truly gone, and keep defenses up with polio vaccines until we’ve confirmed success.”

The Foundation’s page on polio begins with urging eradication which is known to not be possible, but it ends with wanting money. Like Monsanto’s Bt seeds which were an agricultural and financial disaster for India’s farmers, Gate’s polio vaccine campaign has been the same – a public health and financial disaster for India.

We have seen how polio, that was not a priority for public health in India, was made the target for attempted eradication with a token donation of $ 0.02 billion. The Government of India finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.

Did Monsanto stop their sale of Bt cotton seeds after it became apparent that farmers were being destroyed by overwhelming debt, the poor yields of the seeds and their inability to save seeds?

Has anyone from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation rushed to India to suspend their polio vaccines until crucial questions can be answered about their causingNPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis] and deaths?

Is the Foundation addressing the lack of vaccine safety? Vaccine safety may be a sensitive subject as Mr. Gates is on record in saying that “people who engage in anti-vaccine efforts [those questioning the safety of vaccines] kill children.”

And yet Mr. Gates’ polio campaign has been documented to have paralyzed 47,5000 children.  Puliyel says that “children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection (27).”

Bill Gates gives no figures or any details to back up his claim that people skeptical of vaccines are killing children, but he referred to parents didn’t give their children the pertussis vaccine and measles vaccines and children dying. However, Mr. Gates may not be aware that teens in Canada vaccinated for measles have come down with measles in greater numbers than the unvaccinated and vaccinated children who are developing pertussis (whooping cough).

From Investigative News Source:

· For pertussis cases in which vaccination histories are known, between 44 and 83 percent were of people who had been immunized, according to data from nine California counties with high infection rates. In San Diego County, more than two thirds of the people in this group were up to date on their immunizations.

· Health officials in Ohio and Texas, two states experiencing whooping cough outbreaks, report that of all cases, 75 and 67.5 percent respectively, reported having received a pertussis vaccination.
· Today, the rate of disease in some California counties is as high as 139 per 100,000, rivaling rates before vaccines were developed.

· Public officials around the world rely heavily on two groups of pertussis experts when setting vaccine policy relating to the disease. Both groups, and many of their members,receive money from the two leading manufacturers of pertussis vaccine.

· Dr. Fritz Mooi, a well-known Dutch scientist who has been studying mutations of the pertussis bacteria for 15 years, said a more virulent strain of bacteria is contributing to outbreaks.

The polio vaccine uses a synthetic virus which has created a more virulent strain. Does the pertussis vaccine also use a synthetic virus?

The WHO, which is working with Mr. Gates through GAVI, classifies the paralysis occurring in India as non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). Perhaps Bill Gates might consider that while Monsanto’s Bollywood PR worked to sell Bt seeds and Gates’ Bollywood PR worked to push his polio vaccines, no Monsanto PR changes the reality of the farmers’ suicides. And ‘relabeling’ paralysis after the vaccines were given does not change the facts. Paralysis is paralysis to the child who can no longer walk. Death is death to the parents who have lost a child.

Mr. Gates intends to vaccinate every child in the world. He has not been slowed in that commitment despite the mass numbers of death and paralysis of children in India. Not pausing from and not even investigating the disaster he has already caused, how many more children will Mr. Gates “help”?

Joe Samuel via The 4th Media first published at Food Freedom News

Related article:

The Vaccine Hoax is Over. Documents from UK reveal 30 Years of Coverup

Why GMOs Can Never Be Safe

By Dr. Mercola  www.Mercola.comgmo-tomato

Monsanto and other biotech companies claim genetically modified (GM) crops have no impact on the environment and are perfectly safe to eat.

Federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have notconducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety,” but rather have taken the industry-conducted research at face value, allowing millions of acres of GM crops to overtake farmland.

These foods, largely in the form of GM corn and soy (although there are other GM crops, too, like sugar beets, papaya and crookneck squash), can now be found in the majority of processed foods in the US.

In other words, if you eat processed foods, you’re already eating them… and these crops are already being freely planted in the environment. But what if it turns out that Monsanto was wrong, and the GM crops aren’t actually safe…

This is precisely what a number of scientists have been warning of for years, and the latest to sound the alarm is Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute for Science in Society, who has concluded that, by their very nature, there is no way GMOs (genetically modified organisms) can be safe.

The Greatest Danger of Genetic Modification

According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, genetic modification interferes fundamentally with the natural genetic modifications that organisms undergo in order to survive. Under natural circumstances, this is done in real time as “an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life.”

Genetic engineering, which assumes that one protein determines one particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, and can easily be swapped out with another, with no other effects, is dangerously simplistic or, as Dr. Mae-Wan Ho says, “an illusion.”

An organism’s genome is not static but fluid, and its biological functions are interconnected with its environment and vice versa, such that trying to control genetic changes via artificial modification is a dangerous game. Dr. Ho explained:

“The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification is the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumes DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) carries all the instructions for making an organism.

Individual ‘genetic messages’ in DNA faithfully copied into RNA (ribosenucleic acid), is then translated into a protein via a genetic code; the protein determining a particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance, or insect resistance; one gene, one character. If it were really as simple as that, genetic modification would work perfectly. Unfortunately this simplistic picture is an illusion.

Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles interconnect organism and environment at all levels to mark and change RNA and DNA down the generations … Organisms work by intercommunication at every level, and not by control.

… In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life in which RNA and DNA respond to, and participate fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions.

That is why organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial GM RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers. It is also why genetic modification can probably never be safe. More importantly, the human organism shapes its own development and evolutionary future; that is why we must take responsible action to ban all environmental releases of GMOs now.”

Natural Genetic Modification is Different From Artificial Genetic Modification

Similar to the way artificial immunity acquired by vaccination is assumed to be the same thing as natural immunity acquired by contracting and recovering from an illness, genetic modification is often thought to be the same, whether it’s done in a lab or by nature. But as we’ve seen with immunity, there are actually very important differences, and these, too, are highlighted by Dr. Ho. Compared with natural genetic modification, artificial genetic modification is inherently hazardous because it lacks the precision of the natural process, while enabling genes to be transferred between species that would never have been exchanged otherwise.

“There is, therefore, nothing natural about artificial genetic modification done in the lab,” Dr. Ho stated.

Contrasting natural and artificial genetic modification:1

Natural Genetic Modification Artificial Genetic Modification
Precisely negotiated by the organism as a whole Crude, imprecise, unpredictable uncontrollable
Takes place at the right place & time without damaging the genome Forced into cells with no control over where & in what forms the artificial constructs land with much collateral damage to the genome
Appropriate to the organism as a whole in relation to its environment Aggressive promoters force foreign genes to be expressed out of context

GM DNA Is Transferring to Humans and the Environment

Another problem with genetic modification has to do with the fact that GM plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but this assumption, too, is flawed, and now it’s been confirmed that GM genes can transfer to humans and the environment. Dr. Ho stated:

“It is now clear that horizontal transfer of GM DNA does happen, and very often. Evidence dating from the early 1990s indicates that ingested DNA in food and feed can indeed survive the digestive tract, and pass through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream. The digestive tract is a hotspot for horizontal gene transfer to and between bacteria and other microorganisms.

… Higher organisms including human beings are even more susceptible to horizontal gene transfer than bacteria, because unlike bacteria, which require sequence homology (similarity) for incorporation into the genome, higher organisms do not.

… What are the dangers of GM DNA from horizontal gene transfer? Horizontal transfer of DNA into the genome of cells per se is harmful, but there are extra dangers from the genes or genetic signals in the GM DNA, and also from the vector used in delivering the transgene(s). GM DNA jumping into genomes cause ‘insertion mutagenesis’ that can lead to cancer, or activate dormant viruses that cause diseases. GM DNA often contains antibiotic resistance genes that can spread to pathogenic bacteria and make infections untreatable · Horizontal transfer and recombination of GM DNA is a main route for creating new viruses & bacteria that cause diseases”

Another Potentially Devastating GM Impact… Loss of Bees?

For several years now, scientists have been struggling to determine why bee colonies across the world are disappearing, and one theory is that it’s being caused by genetically modified crops—either as a result of the crops themselves or the pesticides and herbicides applied on them, such as the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. In one German study,2 when bees were released in a genetically modified rapeseed crop, then fed the pollen to younger bees, scientists discovered the bacteria in the guts of the young ones mirrored the same genetic traits as ones found in the GE crop, indicating that horizontal gene transfer had occurred.

If it is proven that GM crops are causing bee die-offs, it could turn out to be one of the worst GM effects yet. New research from Emory University researchers found that wildflowers produce one-third fewer seeds when even one bumblebee species is removed from the area.3 As bee die-offs continue, it’s clear that this could easily be one of the greatest threats to humans in the decades to come. The researchers concluded:

Our results suggest that ongoing pollinator declines may have more serious negative implications for plant communities than is currently assumed.”

10 GM Myths That Monsanto Wants You to Believe

Monsanto is the world leader in GM crops, and their Web site would have you believe that they are the answer to world hunger. Thanks to their heavy PR campaign, if you’ve been primarily a reader of the mainstream press, you’ve probably been misled into thinking GM crops are, in fact, the greatest thing since sliced bread, that they provide better yields of equal or better quality food, pest and weed resistance, reduced reliance on pesticides, and more… But thankfully, the truth is unfolding and the tide is finally beginning to turn.

The Organic Prepper4 recently highlighted 10 GM myths that Monsanto wants you to believe … but which are actually far from the truth.

Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people

The truth is that studies of GM food have shown tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, allergic reactions, and more.

Myth #2: GM crops are the only way to solve world hunger

The reality is that GM farming practices are not sustainable, which virtually guarantees future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Nor are farmers able to save their seeds due to patent infringement and poor fertility in the seeds. Sustainable agricultural practices are the answer to world hunger.

Myth #3: GM crops need less pesticide spraying

The truth is that after the first couple of years, the use of pesticides and herbicides on GM crops has increased dramatically.

Myth #4: GM technology is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops

Cross pollination of different varieties of the same plant (what our ancestors did) is low-tech and can occur naturally. Genetic modification of seeds is done in a lab and often crosses different biological kingdoms, such as crossing a bacteria with a plant the unintended adverse effects of which may be incalculably large and impossible to ascertain before they are released into the biosphere.

Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow them, they must be safe

Monsanto has close ties with the US government, such that, despite the obvious conflict of interest, Monsanto executives have been given policy-making positions in Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.

Myth #6: There is no nutritional difference between GM food and non-GM food

A 2012 nutritional analysis of GM versus non-GM corn showed shocking differences in nutritional content. Non-GM corn contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium, and 7 times more manganese than GM corn. GM corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, a pesticide so toxic that it may be carcinogenic in the parts-per-trillion range, compared to zero in non-GM corn.

Myth #7: GMOs are impossible to avoid

GM ingredients are found in more than 70 percent of processed foods, but you can largely avoid them by avoiding these processed foods. By switching to whole foods like vegetables, fruits, grass-fed meats and other basic staples, you can control the GM foods in your diet.

Myth #8: Monsanto has our best interests in mind

Monsanto has spent over half a million dollars on hiring a firm to help ‘protect the Monsanto brand name’ from activists. There is speculation that they have placed trolls on anti-GM Web sites, hidden posts from social media, and even possibly hacked researchers computers days before they were set to release a damaging study. There’s even speculation that the US government is spying on anti-Monsanto activists.

Myth #9: GMOs are not harmful to the environment

On the Hawaiian island of Molokai, where a nearly 2,000-acre test facility for Monsanto sits, air and water quality are horrendous and there are reports of deaths, infertility, uncontrolled cross-pollination, bloody skin rashes, asthma and pesticide contamination in the groundwater.

Myth #10: GMOs are here to stay

Biotech wants you to believe that GM crops are here to stay, but a war is being waged against GMOs, and the resistance is gaining significant ground. By sharing information like this, we can fight back against biotech and the poisons they’re releasing into our environment.

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

 

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Donate Today!

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  • No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

 

 

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields

Submitted by Angeliina on May 21st, 2013 – Flag this news as inappropriate  Thanks to www.Bubblews.com
Category: News

Resourced from www.realfarmacy.com/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/

The article explains that the country of Hungary has destroyed 1000 acres of Monsanto GMO corn fields. The GMO seeds have already been banned in the country for some time now but recent testing revealed that the farmers were unknowingly farming GMO seeds. The Hungarian government are investigating the source of the contaminated seeds.

These are the current countries that have completely banned the use of GMO seeds and products: Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria and Poland. The United States, Canada, China, UK, Australia, Mexico, and most of South America, Asia and Africa have no formal GMO-free platforms and their use is typically unrestricted and widespread.

Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Resourced fromwww.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html
This article discussed that this research has been the first to study the long term effects of rats eating the smallest traces of GMO corn. This corn is widely grown through out the US. “The most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” The rats developed massive tumors, organ damage and premature death.

The discussion on bees is growing vastly and the documentary Vanishing Beeswww.vanishingbees.com/ discusses how France has linked the GMO pollen to the death of bees because the bees become so disoriented that they can’t find home. So sad! If the bees go, so does our food and so do we.

Failed promises www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/research-library/gmos/the-false-promise-of-gmos/page-1/

1) Monsanto presented GMO as a cure for world hunger—FALSE actually only used to feed animals not to grow food crops. Other countries consume very little meat.

2) Monsanto promised that it would create crops that would need less pesticides—FALSE the crops actually need more and certain farms have been completely abandoned due to the overwhelming growth of weeds that are now intolerant to the strongest amount of pesticides. Just think of the soil and the water left behind.

3) Monsanto promised to produce more yields–FALSE. They produced terminator seeds that are sterile–meaning the farmer has to buy their seeds every year instead of being able to save the previous crop’s seeds.

So what is the real reason Monsanto has patent seeds?

Insurance Industry Opposes Right Wing Ideologies

Conservative Ideology No Longer Privately InsuredGuns_1000

Two insurance industry reports expose the right’s broken logic on gun control and environmentalism

Thanks to Salon.com.

By David Sirota

Creators Syndicate, 8/9/13

 

Stripped down to its fundamentals, the insurance business is the business of assessing risk. Regardless of what is being insured, a successful insurer is one that analyzes the risk of having to pay out benefits, and then adjusts coverage rates to make sure more money is coming in than is going out. The more accurate the assessment of risk, the more financially successful an insurance company tends to be.

 

Because of this model, private insurance is the conservative ideologue’s favored method of assessing danger and managing risk, for it is a purely free-market instrument. Indeed, as a right-wing activist would readily admit, private insurance focuses exclusively on the dollars and cents of actuarial analyses, and it bases prices on data and empiricism, not on fact-free political ideology and poll-tested platitudes.

 

So, then, what happens when the insurance industry so touted by the conservative movement starts saying things that wholly contradict that movement’s talking points?

 

This is the unanswered question posed by two new insurance-related reports that expose the bankruptcy of the right’s environmental extremism and its opposition to gun control.

 

The first comes from the insurance industry’s official think tank, the Geneva Association. Rejecting conservatives’ opposition to the fight against climate change, the organization issued a study documenting “a significant upward trend in the insured losses caused by extreme weather events.” It concluded that the insurance industry should fight back against the conservative movement’s attempts to downplay climate change fears and “play an active role in raising awareness of risk and climate change.” It also called for a “transition to a low-carbon economy” and “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” because that “will ultimately create a more resilient society.”

 

Then came a dispatch from the Des Moines Register, which reported that the company insuring most Kansas schools “has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses.” The announcement was a rebuke to a new Kansas law that responded to the Newtown, Conn. school massacre by permitting gun owners to carry firearms in schools.

 

In both cases, the insurance industry’s free-market analysis of risk – not a fact-free declaration of political ideology – ended up rebuking the conservative talking points of the day. In the climate-change case, for instance, an organization comprised of buttoned-down insurance CEOs rejected the right’s campaign of do-nothingism and denialism. Likewise, in the gun case, insurance actuaries’ evaluation of risk ended up discrediting the arms-race ideology of the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, who infamously called for more guns in schools on the assumption that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

 

The conservative response to this kind of news is usually a temper tantrum. You know how it goes – Stephen Colbert-like declarations that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” and then claims that it is all a left-wing conspiracy (no doubt, some will cite the insurance industry’s reports as proof that the insurance companies are in on the conspiracy!).

 

But maybe that’s not how it will all play out this time around. With the broadsides against the conservative movement now coming from the very private insurance industry that the movement so adores, maybe this can be a moment of change on the right. Maybe, just maybe conservatives can see that what’s really at work here is their own sacred free-market principle of “creative destruction” – only this time around, it is the right’s misguided ideology that is being destroyed.

 

David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com

No Pity For The Poor`

A Town Without Pitypercentage-of-people-in-poverty

By   Thanks too the New York Times.

Published: August 9, 2013
America was once the land of Lady Liberty, beckoning the world: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Damon Winter/The New York Times

Charles M. Blow

No more.

Today’s America — at least as measured by the actions and inactions of the pariahs who roam its halls of power and the people who put them there — is insular, cruel and uncaring.

In this America, people blame welfare for creating poverty rather than for mitigating the impact of it. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in June found that the No. 1 reason people gave for our continuing poverty crisis was: “Too much welfare that prevents initiative.”

In this America, the House can — as it did in July — pass a farm bill that left out the food stamp program at a time when a record number of Americans, nearly 48 million, are depending on the benefits.

In this America, a land of immigrants, comprehensive immigration reform can be stalled in The People’s Branch of government, and anti-reform mouthpieces like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan can warn that immigration reform will be the end of the country.

And in today’s America, poverty and homelessness can easily seep beneath the wall we erect in our minds to define it.

A December report by the United States Conference of Mayors that surveyed 25 cities found that all but 4 of them reported an increase in requests for emergency food aid since 2011, and three-fourths of them expected those requests to increase in 2013.

The report also found that 60 percent of the cities surveyed had seen an increase in homelessness, and the same percentage of cities expected homelessness to increase in 2013.

But poverty isn’t easily written off as an inner-city ailment. It has now become a suburban problem. A report this week by the Brookings Institution found that “during the 2000s, major metropolitan suburbs became home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in America.”

Nor can economic insecurity be written off as a minorities-only issue. According to survey results published last month by The Associated Press:

“Nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.”

How did we come to such a pass? Why aren’t more politicians —  and people in general — expressing outrage and showing empathy?

Part of our current condition is obviously partisan. Republicans have become the party of “blame the victim.” Whatever your lesser lot in life, it’s completely within your means to correct, according to their logic. Poverty, hunger, homelessness and desperation aren’t violence to the spirit but motivation to the will. If you want more and you work harder, all your problems will disappear. Sink or swim. Pull yourself up. Get over it. Of course, that narrow conservative doctrine denies a broader reality: that there are working poor and chronically unemployed — people who do want and who do work and who do want to work, but who remain stuck on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

In this regard, Republicans have all but abandoned the idea of compassionate conservatism and are diving headlong into callous conservatism.

But another problem may be more broad-based: the way that many Americans look at the poor with disgust.

As Susan Fiske, a Princeton professor who has studied people’s attitudes toward the poor for more than a decade, told me on Friday:

“The stereotypes of poor people in the United States are among the most negative prejudices that we have. And people basically view particularly homeless people as having no redeeming qualities — there’s not the competence for anything, not having good intentions and not being trustworthy.”

Fiske’s research shows that people respond not only to the poor and homeless with revulsion, but they also react negatively to people they perceive as undocumented immigrants — essentially anyone without an address.

If some people’s impulse is to turn up a nose rather than extend a hand, no wonder we send so many lawmakers empty of empathy to Congress. No wonder more people don’t demand that Congress stand up for the least among us rather than on them.

As Fiske so aptly put it: “It seems like Washington is a place without pity right now. A town without pity.”

***

I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com.

Fungi

Scientists Discover That Plants Communicate via Symbiotic Root Fungi

August 10, 2013 | Thanks to www.Mercola.com.

By Dr. Mercola

Human arrogance has always assumed we are evolutionarily superior to plants, but it appears that modern science may be the antidote to this egocentric view.

Researchers in the UK have discovered an extensive underground network connecting plants by their roots, serving as a complex interplant communication system… a “plant Internet,” if you will.

One organism is responsible for this amazing biochemical highway: a type of fungus called mycorrhizae. Researchers from the University of Aberdeen devised a clever experiment to isolate the effects of these extensive underground networks. They grew sets of broad bean plants, allowing some to develop mycorrhizal nets, but preventing them in others.

They also eliminated the plants’ normal through-the-air communication by covering the plants with bags. Then they infested some of the plants with aphids. The results were remarkable.1

Most people have no idea how important mycorrhizal fungi are for plant growth. They really are one of the keys to successful growth of plants. In my own garden, I just purchased a 15 gallon vortex compost brewer in which I grow these fungi in large quantities for my ornamental and edible landscape.

Underground Communications Network Thwarts Infestation

The aphid-infested plants were able to signal the other plants, connected through mycorrhizae, of an imminent attack—giving them a “heads up” and affording them time to mount their own chemical defenses in order to prevent infestation.

In this case, the alerted bean plants deployed aphid-repelling chemicals and other chemicals that attract wasps, which are aphids’ natural predators. The bean plants that were not connected received no such warning and became easy prey for the pesky insects.

This study is not the first to discover plant communication along mycorrhizal networks. A 2012 article in the Journal of Chemical Ecology describes mycorrhizae-induced resistance as part of plants’ systemic “immune response,” protecting them from pathogens, herbivores, and parasitic plants.2

And in 2010, Song et al published a report about the interplant communication of tomato plants, in which they wrote:3

“CMNs [common mycorrhizal networks] may function as a plant-plant underground communication conduit whereby disease resistance and induced defense signals can be transferred between the healthy and pathogen-infected neighboring plants, suggesting that plants can ‘eavesdrop’ on defense signals from the pathogen-challenged neighbors through CMNs to activate defenses before being attacked themselves.”

Miles of Mycorrhizae in One Thimbleful of Soil

The name mycorrhiza literally means fungus-root.4 These fungi form a symbiotic relationship with the plant, colonizing the roots and sending extremely fine filaments far out into the soil that act as root extensions. Not only do these networks sound the alarm about invaders, but the filaments are more effective in nutrient and water absorption than the plant roots themselves—mycorrhizae increase the nutrient absorption of the plant 100 to 1,000 times.5

In one thimbleful of healthy soil, you can find several MILES of fungal filaments, all releasing powerful enzymes that help dissolve tightly bound soil nutrients, such as organic nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron. The networks can be enormous—one was found weaving its way through an entire Canadian forest, with each tree connected to dozens of others over distances of 30 meters.

These fungi have been fundamental to plant growth for 460 million years. Even more interesting, mycorrhizae can even connect plants of different species, perhaps allowing interspecies communication.6

More than 90 percent of plant species have these naturally-occurring symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizae, but in order for these CMNs to exist, the soil must be undisturbed. Erosion, tillage, cultivation, compaction, and other human activities destroy these beneficial fungi, and they are slow to colonize once disrupted. Therefore, intensively farmed plants don’t develop mycorrhizae and are typically less healthy, as a result.

Making Farming More Eco-friendly

The discovery that fungi may be providing plants with an early warning system has profound implications for how we grow our food. We may be able to arrange for “sacrificial plants” specifically designed for pest infestation so that the network can warn, and thereby arm, the rest of the crop.7 In order to feed the world’s increasing population, farmers must return to working WITH nature, instead of against it.

Raising food is really about building soil, and modern agricultural practices are degrading million year-old topsoils, without any attention to rebuilding them. Spreading toxic chemicals, monoculture, using genetically engineered seed, generating toxic runoff and destroying biodiversity are all examples of working against nature. Mycorrhizae not only assist the plants in staying vital and healthy, but they enrich the soil and improve its productivity, add organic matter, protect crops from drought, and increase the overall balance and resilience of the ecosystem.

Mycorrhizae’s Excellent Cousin: The Mushroom

Total Video Length: 1:10:42
Download Interview Transcript

Many fungi are as beneficial to people as they are to plants. Mushrooms are powerhouses when it comes to nutrition, with high-quality protein, enzymes, antioxidants, and B vitamins.

About 100 species of mushrooms are being studied for their health-promoting benefits, and about a half dozen really stand out for their ability to deliver a tremendous boost to your immune system. Studies have shown that mushrooms can combat infectious disease (including smallpox), inflammation, cancer and even help regenerate nerves. A compound from the Coriolus versicolormushroom was recently found to significantly slow hemangiosarcoma in dogs, a deadly cancer.

Mushrooms are also nature’s recycling system, according to mycologist Paul Stamets. Various mushrooms can break down the toxins in nerve gas and clean up petroleum waste.

Mushrooms and their parent mycelium break down rocks and organic matter, turning them into soil. The mycelia, just like the mycorrhizal network, occupy landscapes in a web-like mat that, in some cases, stretches across thousands of acres. Stamets describes this intricate, branching network as “the Earth’s Internet” because it functions as a complex communication highway. There is also evidence mycelia are “sentient” beings that demonstrate the ability to learn. Speaking of cool and calculating…

Tips for Adding Mycorrhizae to Your Own Garden

Now that the secret’s out, companies are beginning to offer mycorrhizae to home gardeners and commercial farmers alike. If you have an organic garden, adding a sprinkle of mycorrhizae, along with good organic fertilizer, is a great way to ensure your garden will be the envy of your neighborhood.

For tips on how to use this in your garden at home, I recommend watching the “smiling gardener” video above. It’s important to remember that mycorrhizae must be applied to the roots of your plants. If you just sprinkle the granules onto the soil and they don’t make contact with the roots within about 48 hours, they’ll die and your efforts will be wasted. So, you can make a “tea” out of it and apply it as a spray, or you can rub a small amount directly onto the roots of your transplant. But it has to come into direct contact with some part of the root.

The only vegetable garden occupants that will not benefit from mycorrhizae are your brassicas (members of the mustard family, such as cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, turnips, radishes, etc.), because they don’t allow this colonization.8 But all your other veggies will love you for it. The benefits will be even greater in a year or two, after the mycorrhizae really have a chance to grow and spread.

Also, remember to refrain from tilling and manipulating the soil. This isn’t necessary and is actually counterproductive, as it disrupts helpful organisms and crushes their tunnels.9 Just topdress your garden with a blend of good compost and topsoil each year, and leave the bed alone, which will allow those beneficial organisms to grow and flourish, undisturbed.

When you practice ecofriendly gardening, you greatly lessen your need for fertilizers and herbicides, reduce your need for watering, and reduce runoff and erosion, while giving your garden plants the best nutrition and resistance to disease. And best of all, a healthy veggie garden means more nutrients passed along to you!

Ag-Gag

Stunning Ag-gag Bill News

Posted: 08/05/2013 12:34 pm

 

Photographer
435
62
20
94
GET GREEN NEWSLETTERS:

Amy Meyer wanted to see for herself where her food was coming from. But in the state of Utah, she discovered, that was against the law.

On February 8, Meyer drove to Dale Smith Meatpacking Company in Draper City, Utah, and took a look from the side of the road. She gasped as she peered through the barbed wire fence and saw what appeared to be a sick cow being treated like rubble as it was carried in a tractor. So she did what many people would do in this day and age. She got out her smartphone to begin recording.

For this, Meyer was arrested and prosecuted under Utah’s new “ag-gag” law.

It turns out that similar laws are now in place not just in Utah, but also in Kansas, Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri. And many other states are considering similar legislation.

The goal of these laws, it would appear, is to keep consumers from seeing where modern meat really comes from. Considering that 94 percent of the American public believes that animals raised for food should be free from abuse and cruelty, the modern meat industry has some good reasons to fear the public finding out that Old MacDonald’s farm isn’t so happy these days.

Charges against Meyer were subsequently dropped, but Utah’s law is still on the books. And now Amy Meyer is joining with award-winning author Will Potter and a team of organizations in filing a lawsuit challenging her state’s controversial law in the courts.

Soon thereafter, in Kansas on June 28th, a photographer working for a publication not generally seen as promoting a radical agenda, National Geographic, was arrested and briefly jailed after taking aerial pictures of a feedlot for a series on food issues to be published some time next year.

George Steinmetz has taken award-winning photos in many dangerous situations, including a series depicting post-Gaddafi Libya. But it was his photographs of U.S. feedlots, taken from a paraglider in an area with hundreds of thousands of cattle, that got him put behind bars.

Kansas has its own “ag-gag bill,” called the “Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act.” This law makes it illegal to “enter an animal facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera or by any other means.”

Apparently, the feedlot executives may have considered paragliding to be a form of illegal entry, and they wanted Steinmetz to feel the force of the law. Industry officials said they believe his actions represent a “food security issue.” Steinmetz had also parked and taken off from private property, so “trespassing” is central to the charge he now faces. But do you really think he’d have been arrested for parking there had he merely stopped to read a book?

The spread of ag-gag bills is alarming for many reasons. Aside from exposing specific incidents of animal abuse, undercover videos have also drawn attention to industry practices such as housing chickens in cramped battery cages that hasten the sickening of birds and the spread of salmonella.

Elizabeth Holmes, an attorney with the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, comments: “The reason these are public health issues, and not just animal rights issues, is that those unsanitary conditions provide breeding grounds (for disease).”

Holmes has a point. Keeping animals alive in wretched conditions requires the use of massive amounts of pharmaceutical drugs. Nearly 80 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to animals, not people. The antibiotic overuse that allows meat producers to keep animals in filth and misery is spawning drug-resistant superbugs.

Earlier this year, an Environmental Working Group study found antibiotic resistant “super bugs” on 81 percent of the ground turkey and 55 percent of the ground beef in America’s supermarkets.

With antibiotic resistant bacteria costing us more than $55 billion and killing tens of thousands of people each year, you could even argue that today’s factory farms have become a form of biological weapons factory.

But don’t we have meat inspectors who monitor animal treatment? Isn’t it their job to insure that the laws against excessive animal cruelty to animals, however weak they may be, are enforced? Aren’t they being paid to look out for the public interest?

Unfortunately, thanks to the weight of agribusiness interests, even USDA meat inspectors don’t always feel free to protect animals or public health.

After 29 years as a USDA meat inspector, Jim Schrier was recently stationed at a Tyson Foods slaughter facility in Iowa where he reported clear humane handling violations to his supervisor. That’s what he was supposed to do — report the violations to his superior in the chain of command. But when Schrier presented his concerns, the supervisor reportedlybecame very angry, and a week later required Jim to work at another facility 120 miles away. Then the USDA reassigned Jim permanently to a plant in another state.

In what looks an awful lot like a form of whistleblower retaliation, after 29 years of service, Schrier must now choose between his job, and his family.

When Jim’s wife, Tammy, launched a petition on change.org exposing this story and calling for Jim Schrier to get his old job back, some of the first signers were other employees who had worked at the same plant and who corroborated Schrier’s findings. Instead of being punished, they said, he should be rewarded and the whole plant should be inspected.

The significance of all this is huge. The first amendment to the United States constitution states: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”There are serious questions about whether ag-gag bills, and retaliation against whistleblowers like Jim Schrier, are even constitutional. But whatever the courts decide, we are already paying a terrible price for the climate of repression they institutionalize.

Shutting up people like Amy Meyer, George Steinmetz, and Jim Schrier makes it hard for any of us to know where our food comes from. Shutting them up also allows the meat industry to get away with treating animals terribly, and with jeopardizing public health by breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria. But there’s more.

Tyrants of all stripes thrive in the darkness. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate.”

If journalists and whistleblowers aren’t allowed to speak the truth, we’re going to have an awfully hard time retaining any semblance of a functioning democracy.
Ocean Robbins is co-author of Voices of the Food Revolution, and serves as CEO and co-host (with best-selling author John Robbins) of the 100,000+ member Food Revolution Network. Find out more and sign up for free here.

Fundamentalist Hangups

BELIEF
AlterNet / By Sean McElwee comments_image COMMENTS
5 Biblical Concepts Fundamentalists Just Don’t Understand
Here are some verses liberal Christians wish they would get “fundamentalist” about.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Vlue

July 30, 2013 |

Right-wing Evangelical Fundamentalism claims to “go back to roots of Christianity.” In fact, the “literal” (i.e. the earth was created in seven literal days) reading of the Bible was invented in the 19th century. Few fundamentalists care about the early church, the Gospels, the Catholic traditions, Augustine, Arian heresies, encyclicals and councils. Rather, they blend Southern Conservatism, bastardized Protestantism, some Pauline doctrine, gross nationalism and a heavy dose of naive anti-intellectualism for a peculiar American strain of bullshit. As Reverend Cornel West has noted, “the fundamentalist Christians want to be fundamental about everything, except ‘love thy neighbor.’”

Here are some verses we liberal Christians wish they would get “fundamentalist” about:

1. Immigration:

The verse:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. – Leviticus 19:33-34.

Why Fundamentalists Hate This Verse:

Because fundamentalists are xenophobic: religious fundamentalism is a reaction to the multiculturalism of liberal democracy. Rather than seek a “brotherhood of man,” religious fundamentalism longs for a tribal community, without the necessary friction from those with foreign beliefs, cultures and customs. Here’s an open letter from the President of an organization called Christians for A Sustainable Economy (Or as I call it: Christians for an unsustainable environment):

We are called to discern among, “sojourners” (like Ruth and Rahab who intend to assimilate and bless) and “foreigners” (who do not intend to assimilate and bless) and to welcome the former with hospitality.

This is an odd spin, given that in Leviticus, the command is unambiguous, there is no aside about a distinction between those who intend to assimilate. The letter then addresses the immigration bill:

Its passage would allow 11 million illegal immigrants to become citizens in the short-term, with likely an additional 20 million family members as new citizens within about a decade. … The net price tag of S. 744 will be in the trillions of dollars. … Such escalation of debt is one way to destroy a nation. It is immoral. It is theft from American seniors and children. It is unbiblical. It is unkind.

I could write a bunch of stuff about those numbers being crazily inaccurate, but let me allow the Lord to respond:

I will be a swift witness against… those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against … those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. Malachi 3:5.

2. Poverty

The Verses:

One of the most humorous aspects of modern-day, far-right Christianity is its reverence of capitalism. That’s because Christ could be considered almost “anti-capitalist.” Consider this verse:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. – Matthew 19:24.

There is some version of the story of the rich man approaching Jesus that appears in every synoptic Gospel. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells the rich man, “go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”

The story of Lazarus should similarly terrify modern day fundamentalists:

Lazarus is a beggar who waits outside of a rich man’s house and begs for scraps. When both Lazarus and the rich man die, Lazarus ends up in heaven, while the rich man ends up in hell. When the rich man begs for water, Abraham says, “Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.” Luke 19:25.

Why Fundamentalists Hate These Verses:

Because the only thing fundamentalists dislike more than immigrants is poor people. Seriously. Just this year, Tea Party congressman Stephen Fincher explained why he thought the government should cut food stamps entirely, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.” Michelle Bachmann has also made a similar statement. The entire Tea Party movement is based on the idea that a huge portion of Americans are “takers” who suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

The Catholic Church actually has a long history of decrying the exploitation of the poor and supporting union movements(See Rerum Novarm). G.K. Chesterton’s writing on the rich often hits Occupy Wall Street levels (“The rich man is bribed… that is why he is rich.”) But fundamentalists insist that poverty be explained in terms of a personal moral failure. They therefore hold that success should be described in terms of morality; this is the so-called Protestant ethic that Weber praised. But it is also, as Nietzsche noted, the “ethic of the hangman.” The poor are considered culpable so that they can be punished – like today’s cuts to food stamps or the public shaming of those on welfare.

3. The Environment

The Verse:

In Genesis, man is given stewardship of the Earth, God’s creation. [Stewardship, in the Christian tradition implies protection. Man should exist in harmony with the earth, not work against it.] As is noted in Colossians 1:16-17:

By him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Why Fundamentalists Hate The Verse:

Jesus Christ once told his followers:

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. – Luke 16:13.

Increasingly, the religious right is trying to do exactly that, intertwining Evangelical fundamentalism with unfettered capitalism — with disastrous results for the environment. Thus, American political life is increasingly dominated by Christians who reject the religious ethos, in favor of capitalist ethos.

One Conservative Evangelical publication, World Magazine, hypes the “We Get It” campaign, which seeks to discredit the threat of global warming. It also claims the threat of climate change is “alarmism” and fears that efforts to clamp down on emissions will hurt the poor (read: corporations). In reality, climate change will have its greatest effect on people living on less than a dollar a day who can not adapt to higher temperatures. Conservative Evangelicals are not concerned with dwindling biodiversity, the destruction of ecosystem, rampant pollution, global warming and the numerous other environmental challenges we face. Rather they, with the business community, are concerned with the bottom line. The future is irrelevant (unless we’re talking about government debt). Thus, the Biblical command to protect the environment is widely eschewed.

4. War

The Verse:

In two Gospels, Jesus tells his followers:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. – Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 27-30.

In another passage he says:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. – Matthew 5:43 – 45.

Why Fundamentalists Hate This Verse:

As a religious and political movement, fundamentalists have defined themselves as a party of opposition, rather than of love, grace and mercy.

In her fantastic essay, Onward Christian Liberals, Marilynne Robinson argues:

The excitement we are seeing now is called by some scholars a thirdgreat awakening, yet it is different from the other two… it is full of pious aversion toward the so-called culture… and toward those whose understanding of religion fails to meet its standards.

While past “Great Awakenings” have looked inward, seeing sin within the conflicted self, this new awakening looks outward, seeing sin in the wider culture. The culture, that which is secular is evil, while the church is sacred. This is why modern religious fundamentalism gravitates towards xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. Fear and disgust are its motivating factors.

This fundamentalism inclines some religious people toward a pre-emptive “war of religion” and a strong disgust (that sometimes culminates in violence) toward Muslims. Oddly enough, the Christian tradition has developed a theory of “Just War” (developed by Aquinas) which condemns war except when all other options have been exhausted and there is just treatment of prisoners (with a specific condemnation of torture). If only one of the past two “Christian” presidents had listened.

5. Women

The Verse:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28

Why Fundamentalists Hate it:

Although the right often claims the Bible supports their absurd ideas about gender roles (just like the Bible supported anti-miscegenation) such claims have been thoroughly debunkedby theologians. Generally, when you’ll hear an explanation of why women belong in the home, it’ll rely on a misreading of one of Paul’s doctrines.

In contrast to Paul, Christ rarely concerned himself with sexual mores, he was far more concerned with fighting oppression. Fundamentalists want to keep women submissive and subservient, but Jesus won’t let them. In Luke, for instance, Jesus is blessed by a priestess named Anna. He praises a woman who stands up to a judge and demands justice. It’s worth noting that in a time when women could not testify in a court of law, all four resurrection stories have women arriving first to Jesus’ tomb (although it’s unclear which women). Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman at a well and praises Mary Magdalene for listening to his words (Luke 10:38-42).

Fundamentalism Obscures True Religion

These verses are powerful and I believe that they should be carefully considered.

I worry that Christianity and religion in general is represented by its most conservative, fundamentalists elements. Remember that Marx drew his the inspiration for his famous quote “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” from the example of the early church (Acts 4:32-35).

I understand the fun that Sam Harris and Reddit have destroying fundamentalism, and I went to a Christian college and had jolly good time of it as well. “Haven’t you read your own book?” I would ask smugly. But once the gleeful potshots are finished, we all have to face the fundamental and aching deprivation of having been born. We can continue to have a fun time berating those who believe the Bible explains science and that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden, but it’s really a waste.

The Christian message doesn’t contradict science, and nor is it concerned with bourgeois politics. Ultimately Christianity (and many other religions) are about transcending politics and fighting for social justice. Think of Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Thich Quang Duc – all of whom were influenced by their religion to change the world. Jesus saw how oppression and oppressors consumed the world. He, as all great reformers have, sided with the oppressed. This kind of skewed fundamentalism is radically new and far removed from true Christianity. True Christianity offers us a far superior doctrine — one of social justice, love and equality.

Sean McElwee is a writer for The Moderate Voice and blogs at seanamcelwee.com. He has previously written for The Day and The Norwich Bulletin and on WashingtonMonthly.com and Reason.com. He blogs at seanamcelwee.com. Follow him on Twitter @seanmcelwee.

Home Farming in Pasadena

Roundup is Toxic

Roundup and Glyphosate Toxicity Have Been Grossly Underestimated

July 30, 2013 | Thanks to Mercola.com.
By Dr. Mercola

The true toxicity of glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup—is becoming increasingly clear as study after study is published demonstrating its devastating effects. In June, groundbreaking research was published detailing a newfound mechanism of harm for Roundup.

This was immediately followed by tests showing that people in 18 countries across Europe have glyphosate in their bodies,1 while yet another study revealed that the chemical has estrogenic properties and drives breast cancer proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.2

This finding might help explain why rats fed Monsanto’s maize developed massive breast tumors in the first-ever lifetime feeding study published last year. Other recently published studies demonstrate glyphosate’s toxicity to cell lines, aquatic life, food animals, and humans.

Glyphosate Toxicity Underestimated, Study Concludes

One such study, published in the journal Ecotoxicology,3 found that glyphosate is toxic to water fleas (Daphnia magna) at minuscule levels that are well within the levels expected to be found in the environment.

According to regulators, glyphosate is thought to be practically nontoxic to aquatic invertebrates. The water flea is a widely accepted model for environmental toxicity, so this study throws serious doubt on glyphosate’s classification as environmentally safe. According to the study:

“To test the acute effects of both glyphosate and a commercial formulation of Roundup (hereafter Roundup), we conducted a series of exposure experiments with different clones and age-classes of D. magna…. Roundup showed slightly lower acute toxicity than glyphosate IPA alone… However, in chronic toxicity tests spanning the whole life-cycle, Roundup was more toxic.

…Significant reduction of juvenile size was observed even in the lowest test concentrations of 0.05 mg a.i./l, for both glyphosate and Roundup. At 0.45 mg a.i./l, growth, fecundity and abortion rate was affected, but only in animals exposed to Roundup.

At 1.35 and 4.05 mg a.i./l of both glyphosate and Roundup, significant negative effects were seen on most tested parameters, including mortality. D. magna was adversely affected by a near 100% abortion rate of eggs and embryonic stages at 1.35 mg a.i./l of Roundup.

The results indicate that aquatic invertebrate ecology can be adversely affected by relevant ambient concentrations of this major herbicide. We conclude that glyphosate and Roundup toxicity to aquatic invertebrates have been underestimated and that current European Commission and US EPA toxicity classification of these chemicals need to be revised.”

Herbicide Formulations Far More Toxic Than Glyphosate Alone

An article published on Greenmedinfo.com4 last year reviewed several interesting studies relating to the profound toxicity of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup:

“Back in Feb. of 2012, the journal Archives of Toxicology5 published a shocking study showing that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.

This effect could not have been anticipated from the known toxicological effects of glyphosate alone. The likely explanation is that the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine within Roundup dramatically enhances the absorption of glyphosate into exposed human cells and tissue,” Sayer Ji writes.

“If this is true, it speaks to a fundamental problem associated with toxicological risk assessments of agrichemicals (and novel manmade chemicals in general), namely, these assessments do not take into account the reality of synergistic toxicologies, i.e. the amplification of harm associated with multiple chemical exposures occurring simultaneously.”

‘Inert’ Ingredients Does NOT Mean They Are Inactive…

Similarly, another study published that year in the journal Toxicology67 revealed that inert ingredients such as solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other added substances are anything but “inactive.” They in fact contribute to toxicity in a synergistic manner, and ethoxylated adjuvants in glyphosate-based herbicides were found to be “active principles of human cell toxicity.”

(On a side note, an “ethoxylated” compound is a chemical that has been produced using the carcinogen ethylene oxide.8 The ethoxylation process also produces the carcinogenic byproduct 1,4-dioxane. It’s also worth noting here that the term “inert ingredient” does NOT actually mean that it is biologically or toxicologically harmless! When you see “inert” or “inactive ingredients” listed on the label of a pesticide or herbicide, it only means that those ingredients will not harm pests or weeds. This is how federal law classifies “inert” pesticide ingredients.)9

The study found that liver, embryonic and placental cell lines exposed to various herbicide formulations for 24 hours at doses as low as 1 part per million (ppm), had adverse effects.10 According to the authors:11

“Here we demonstrate that all formulations are more toxic than glyphosate, and we separated experimentally three groups of formulations differentially toxic according to their concentrations in ethoxylated adjuvants. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, even if others are not excluded. It begins to be active with negative dose-dependent effects on cellular respiration and membrane integrity between 1 and 3ppm, at environmental/occupational doses. We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells.

Altogether, these results challenge the establishment of guidance values such as the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate, when these are mostly based on a long term in vivo test of glyphosate alone. Since pesticides are always used with adjuvants that could change their toxicity, the necessity to assess their whole formulations as mixtures becomes obvious. This challenges the concept of active principle of pesticides for non-target species.” [Emphasis mine]

Perhaps most disturbing of all, the researchers claim that cell damage and even cell death can occur at the residual levels found on Roundup-treated crops, as well as lawns and gardens where Roundup is applied for weed control. They also suspect that:12

“Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.”

Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of Argentina

Indeed, miscarriages, fertility problems and abnormal fetal development are all problems that are skyrocketing in Argentina, where many are exposed to massive spraying of herbicides. More than 18 million hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineered soy, on which more than 300 million liters of pesticides are sprayed. In the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which is surrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate.

According to Dr. Medardo Vasquez, a neonatal specialist at the Children’s Hospital in Cordoba, featured in the documentary filmPeople and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds:

“I see new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have to tell parents that their children are dying because of these agricultural methods. In some areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children less than one year old is malformations.”

But even if you don’t live in an agricultural area where you might be exposed to Roundup directly, you’re still getting it through your diet if you’re eating non-organic foods. A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica13 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GM corn seed company) shows that GM corn contains as much as 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GM corn.

The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm, and in the study on cell lines discussed above, liver, embryonic and placental cell lines were adversely affected at doses as low as 1 ppm. The fact that genetically modified corn can contain as much as 13 ppm of glyphosate has staggering implications for Americans who eat an average of 193 pounds of genetically engineered foods each year!14

Glyphosate Predisposes Cattle to Botulism

A German study15 published earlier this year looked at glyphosate’s role in the rise of toxic botulism in cattle. This used to be extremely rare, but the incidence has become increasingly common over the past 10-15 years. Normal intestinal microflora is essential for keeping Clostridium botulinum and other pathogens in check, and researchers are now finding that the beneficial gut bacteria in both animals and humans is very sensitive to residual glyphosate levels. This has been discussed previously by bothDr. Don Huber and Dr. Stephanie Seneff.

In this study, the researchers explain that certain intestinal bacteria produce bacteriocines that are specifically directed against C. botulinum, as well as other dangerous pathogens. According to the authors, lactic acid producing bacteria that help defend against Clostridium pathogens are destroyed by glyphosate, suggesting that the rise in C. botulinum associated diseases may be due to glyphosate-tainted animal feed.

The Overlooked Component of Toxicity in Humans

As for its effects on humans, the Samsel – Seneff study published in June suggests that glyphosate may actually be the most important factor in the development of a wide variety of chronic diseases, specifically because your gut bacteria are a key component of glyphosate’s mechanism of harm. Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds), called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate pathway IS present in bacteria, and that’s the key to understanding how it causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals.

The bacteria in your body outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. For every cell in your body, you have 10 microbes of various kinds, and all of them have the shikimate pathway, so they will all respond to the presence of glyphosate!

Glyphosate causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s function and lifecycle. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentially affectsbeneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. At that point, your body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens. Once the chronic inflammation sets in, you’re well on your way toward chronic and potentially debilitating disease…

The answer, of course, is to avoid processed foods of all kinds, as they’re virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, and center your diet around whole, organic foods as toxic pesticides are not permitted in organic farming. Supporting GMO labeling is also important if you value your health, and that of your family and friends, in order to be able to make informed shopping decisions.

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

 

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Donate Today!

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  • No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

We take 14,000 pills in a lifetime

Documentary: Pill Poppers

July 27, 2013 | Thanks to Mercola.

By Dr. Mercola

Despite what the media preaches to you, your body has no intrinsic need fordrugs. Over the course of a lifetime, the average person may be prescribed 14,000 pills (this doesn’t even include over-the-counter meds), and by the time you reach your 70s you could be taking five or more pills every day, according to Pill Poppers, a documentary.

The featured film asks a poignant question that anyone taking medications should also, which is, are these pills really beneficial, or are they doing more harm than good?

Drug Discovery ‘Owes as Much to Serendipity as to Science’

Pill Poppers takes you on a journey through some of the most popular drugs in the world, from the ADHD drug Ritalin to drugs for erectile dysfunction, depression, pain and contraception.

It starts out by taking you into a lab at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), where 2 million chemical compounds are kept in a vault. Scientists know little about their effects; each could be lethal or lifesaving.

Through a process that could be described as finding a needle in a haystack, scientists methodically introduce a known disease molecule to each of the 2 million substances, one at a time, and assess whether anything happens.

If ‘something’ happens, further tests are then conducted to find out what and why. Literally hundreds of millions of such tests are conducted, and it takes about $1 billion and an estimated 15 years of work to reach the ultimate goal: a licensed drug.

Despite what most are led to believe, just because the drug makes it through the regulatory process it’s no guarantee of safety. Typically, more information is learned about a drug after it’s been released to the market than before, because only then does it get the widespread exposure that clinical trials cannot simulate.

It’s usually after millions of people have already started taking a drug that severe, sometimes deadly, side effects are observed, but unfortunately for some, it will be realized too late. As stated in the documentary:

“Drugs are not designed but discovered, and we only find out what they really do to us when we take them.”

Patrick Vallance, the head of drug discovery at GSK, even said:1 “In many ways you learn as much about your medicine after it’s launched as you knew before.”(Of course, GSK has also pleaded guilty to felony charges for knowingly manufacturing and selling adulterated drugs, a practice that adds even more of a ‘learning curve’ when drugs are released… )

The Effects of Many Medications Are Discovered by Mistake

Many people assume that the medications they’re taking are exerting carefully designed effects on specific biological pathways in their bodies. In reality, these effects were not designed but rather observed – often simply as a matter of sheer dumb luck – and the medication was then “discovered.” The erectile dysfunction drug Viagra, for instance, was originally developed to treat angina. That it led to increased erections was simply a surprise.

The ADHD drug Ritalin was also discovered by accident, as it was originally designed to treat adults with depression. We’re only now beginning to understand how this drug works, and what its long-term side effects entail, yet now it’s already morphing into a drug with another purpose: as a ‘study drug’ for people without ADHD. And this is only a short list.

It turns out that Ventolin inhalers, a treatment for asthma, can also prevent premature labor; and arsenic, a notorious poison, is making a come back as a treatment for leukemia.”2

While these may sound like beneficial ‘mistakes,’ the surprises can work both ways. Often, drugmakers and scientists are ‘surprised’ to learn that their new blockbuster drug leads to unknown (or undisclosed) side effects, altering and disrupting far more functions in your body than was first realized. Viagra, for instance, can cause blue-green color blindness. And a commonly used class of diabetes drugs is now being investigated for causing pre-cancerous changes, while the antibiotic Zithromax (Z-Pak), may trigger lethal heart arrhythmias.

The truth is, no drug is side effect-free – a fact that many loyal pill takers are not aware of. These side effects are then often treated with… even more drugs, perpetuating a vicious cycle. Even GSK’s Vallance stated in the film:

“When you make a medicine you’re trying to disrupt a fundamental biological process. That’s a pretty profound change, you can’t do that without producing some unwanted effects — so then the question is, what risks are you prepared to take for what benefit?”

Creating Diseases to Fit the Treatments

Drug companies are masters at disease mongering – inventing non-existent diseases and exaggerating minor ones, with the end result making you rush to your doctor to request their drug solutions. It also misleads people into thinking drugs are the onlyoption for every ill. Viagra is a perfect example, as it was originally intended only for men with actual erectile dysfunction. Many men have an occasional problem in this area, and that is normal, but Viagra is marketed in a way that makes it appear as though it’s not.

Another blatant example of creating a market for a disease where none existed before is low female sex drive, or female sexual dysfunction, for which drug makers are actively seeking a ‘cure.’ One more example? In order to market its antidepressant Paxil, GSK hired a PR firm to create a public awareness campaign about an “under-diagnosed” disease.

The disease? Social anxiety disorder… previously known as shyness. You may have seen this campaign firsthand a couple of years back; ads stating “Imagine being allergic to people” were distributed widely, celebrities gave interviews to the press and psychiatrists gave lectures on this new disease in the top 25 media markets. As a result, mentions of social anxiety in the pressrose from about 50 to over 1 billion in just two years… social anxiety disorder became the “third most common mental illness” in the US… and Paxil skyrocketed to the top of the charts as one of the most profitable and most prescribed drugs in the US.

The Drug Industry Is Now Trying to Treat Not Just Diseases but Risk Factors

The drug market is saturated with drugs to treat existing diseases and many drug firms are now trying to create markets for new drugs via disease-mongering. But another way to drum up business, which the industry is fully embracing, is using drugs to treat diseases you don’t even have…

If you have a ‘risk’ of heart disease, for instance, which could apply to anyone aged 50 or over, you should be taking a statin, according to some ‘experts.’ Typically, statins are reserved for people considered to be at high risk of heart attack or stroke, usually (incorrectly) defined as someone with “high” cholesterol. The current value of the cholesterol-lowering drug industry is estimated at around $30 billion a year – but the pharmaceutical industry is still salivating at the thought of how big that number could get if statins could be prescribed to even more people. Alas, researchers came out with a study stating that even people atlow risk of heart problems should take statins!3

So even if you’re healthy, you still need to be popping pills to preserve your health, according to the drug industry. Millions of others take drugs for reasons outside of health, such as contraception, or rely on them for functions for which there are far better solutions, such as weight loss, sleep or, in the case of using ADHD drugs for studying, increased focus or energy. Yet, disease is not the result of a drug deficiency, nor will good health ever be the sole result of taking prescription drugs.

How to Avoid Becoming a ‘Pill Popper’

You don’t have to fall victim to the drug industry’s hype and find yourself taking a handful of pills every morning. Most chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, are largely preventable with simple lifestyle changes. Even infectious diseases like the flu can often be warded off by a healthy way of life. As stated in Pill Poppers:

“The difference between a drug and a poison is basically the dose.”

On the other hand, staying well naturally, without the use of drugs or even frequent conventional medical care, is not only possible, it may be the most successful strategy you can employ to increase your longevity.

Consider Healthier Food Choices as a Better Option

For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, unprocessed foods (vegetables, meats, raw dairy, nuts, and so forth) that come from healthy, sustainable, local sources, such as a small organic farm not far from your home. This is one of the most powerful physical interventions you can take to either prevent and/or treat disease.

For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to eat a good portion of your food raw. Personally, I aim to eat about 80-85 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs that have not been raised on a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation). Nearly as important as knowing which foods to eat more of is knowing which foods to avoid, and topping the list is fructose. Sugar, andfructose in particular, acts as a toxin in and of itself, and as such drive multiple disease processes in your body, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of accelerated aging.

Comprehensive Exercise Program, Including High-Intensity Exercise like Peak Fitness

Even if you’re eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including not only core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching but also high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval-type training boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor. I’ve discussed the importance of Peak Fitness for your health on numerous occasions, so for more information, please review this previous article.

Stress Reduction and Positive Thinking

You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease — from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer. Effective coping mechanisms are a major longevity-promoting factor in part because stress has a direct impact on inflammation, which in turn underlies many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day. The Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), meditation, prayer, social support and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium.

Proper Sun Exposure to Optimize Vitamin D

We have long known that it is best to get your vitamin D from sun exposure, and if at all possible, I strongly urge you to make sure you’re getting out in the sun on a daily basis. Vitamin D plays an important role in preventing numerous illnesses ranging fromcancer to the flu.

The important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level, which should ideally be between 50-70 ng/ml year-round. Sun exposure or a safe tanning bed is the preferred method for optimizing vitamin D levels, but a quality vitamin D3 supplement can be used (if you opt for this route, be sure you’re also optimizing your vitamin K). Most adults need about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D a day to achieve serum levels above 40 ng/ml, which is still just below the minimum recommended serum level of 50 ng/ml.

High-Quality Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats

Animal-based omega-3 fat like krill oil is a crucial factor in helping people live longer, and omega-3 deficiency has even been called the sixth biggest killer of Americans.

Avoid as Many Chemicals, Toxins, and Pollutants as Possible

This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.

Farm Subsidies Subsidize Obesity