Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Huge Plunge in Kindergartener’s Vaccination Rates: Officials Stumped

© Natural Society
Natural Society | Sep 29, 2014 | Christina Sarich

The number of parents deciding not to vaccinate their children is growing at an alarming rate – at least according to officials who are now nonplussed at the waking of humanity.

Considering the quite ‘heavy’ vaccination schedules proposed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), parents should be refusing vaccinations. Since the 1950′s, the number of vaccines children under 6 are expected to obtain has grown by 414%. Apparently, at least Californian parents have had enough and are refusing to immunize their kindergarten-aged children.

Public health experts are saying that these refusals to have their children vaccinated (at a rate of half as often than just 7 years ago) is contributing to the re-emergence of measles across the state, and may lead to serious outbreaks of ‘other diseases.’ But this is nothing more than scare-mongering and the typical line of vaccination-pushers.

Actually, there are numerous studies which show that un-vaccinated children are far healthier than their vaccinated peers. Findings uncovered during one study looking at New Zealand’s children found that:
“. . . 92 percent of the children requiring a tonsillectomy operation had received the measles vaccination, indicating that the vaccination for measles may have made some of the children more susceptible to tonsillitis.”
The percentage of kindergartens in which at least 8% of students are not fully vaccinated because of personal beliefs has more than doubled as well, according to data on file with the state.

Health officials are not pleased with this trend since they believe in herd immunity, and since according to ‘experts,’ measles and whooping cough need at least 92% of kids immunized. The CDC is a big pusher of herd immunity, but as a direct result of vaccinations, mucosal immunity in children is very weak. This leads to more than one million children having to have tubes put in their ears every year due to Otitis Media or “glue ear.” It is a buildup of water in the ear, which requires this invasive medical procedure.

Despite herd immunity propaganda, there is no system of the human being, from mind to muscles to immune system, which gets stronger through avoiding challenges, but only through overcoming challenges.

Furthermore, it is a lie that disease will spread without vaccinations at a 95% rate. In truth, most states fail to meet the CDC’s goals of extending basic immunizations to 80% (not 95%) of children. Rates ran as low as 65% in Colorado in years past, and as low as 75% in Florida. This did not cause a sudden epidemic of measles, or flu, or whooping cough. Some experts suggest that herd immunity is a myth created by those who might profit from it,. It looks like many Californian parents agree, or at least are wary of vaccines in general.
“Five days a week, [children are] in their small classroom,” said Shannon Stokley, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “That’s the perfect conditions for spreading germs and spreading infections.”
What Stokley seems to disregard are the numerous other factors which can contribute to outbreaks.

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Centre, a consumer’s group based in Virginia, argues that vaccines are responsible for the increasing numbers of children and adults who suffer from immune system and neurologic disorders, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and seizure disorders. She believes more studies to monitor the long-term effects of mass vaccination should be conducted. She wants physicians to be absolutely sure these vaccines are safe and not harming people.

Neil Z. Miller, vaccine investigator, points to the polio vaccine as an example. It is now responsible for every new polio case in the U.S.

Holly Blumhardt and her husband, Shannon, are part of a growing minority in Orange County and other affluent areas across the county: They do not vaccinate their children. She says:
“It is part of a larger philosophy. I think that we are very aware, from the foods that we eat, like being more organic, non-GMO . . . We just want to have the healthiest family that we can.”
California immunization rates have been dropping since the 1980s, but the recent drop in the past 7 years is a convenient excuse for health officials to claim for a disease that could have been caused by super bugs, environmental conditions like drought, and any number of other mitigating factors.

The trend is especially pronounced in Orange County, where the proportion of kindergartners with their full shots fell from 92.9% in 2003 to 89.3% in 2012, predominantly in the county’s wealthy beachfront communities. The county is also battling the state’s largest measles outbreak in recent memory: 22 cases.

The CDC blames anti-vaxers for the recent outbreak. Assistant surgeon general Dr. Anne Schuchat says:
“The current increase in measles cases is being driven by unvaccinated people, primarily U.S. residents, who got measles in other countries, brought the virus back to the United States and spread to others in communities where many people are not vaccinated.”
Within the report, however, was an admittance that unvaccinated missionaries returning from the Philippines were included in their data, where a measles outbreak of 20,000 reported cases resulted in 50 deaths.
“90 percent of all measles cases in the United States were in people who were not vaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. Among the U.S. residents who were not vaccinated, 85 percent were religious, philosophical or personal reasons.”
Even high antibody titers in people only convey a 68% chance of protecting against or delaying clinically manifest measles. In Africa, vaccination with the MMR-vaccine has reduced the diseases vaccinated against, but has doubled mortality rates in infants after a single dose.

California state law requires kindergartners to be vaccinated against measles, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, chicken pox, diphtheria and tetanus.

Parents who claim immunization is against their personal beliefs can get exemptions. Some parents opt out of all the mandatory shots, while others allow students to get select vaccinations. There are also temporary and medical exemptions available.

Additional Sources:

Immunisation Advisory Centre

Chop.edu

Nvic.org

Want A Pretty Corpse? Drink Fluoridated Water

© Green Med Info
Green Med Info | Sep 28, 2014 | Sayer Ji

Fluoride is put in your drinking water 'for your teeth' without your consent, but did you know that it could also be calcifying your arteries, contributing to the #1 cause of death in the developed (and fluoridated world)?

A few years ago, we reported on a study evaluating a new diagnostic technology that inadvertently revealed a link between fluoride exposure and coronary artery disease. Our report stirred up quite a lot of controversy and criticism, even leading one of the most respected figures in alternative medicine (deservedly so) – Dr. Russell Blaylock -- to call us out on Infowars for our allegedly sophomoric interpretation of the following article: "Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease." As one can see, the study's results revealed a hitherto largely unknown connection between fluoride exposure, coronary artery disease and cardiovascular events (e.g. heart attack).
"There was significant correlation between history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events."
The argument, at the time, was the study was simply about a new diagnostic technique and shouldn't be 'read into,' and that, presumably, the increased fluoride uptake value observed in patients with a higher frequency of cardiovascular events was a an 'effect' of the heart disease itself and not in any way indicative of fluoride's causative role as a cardiotoxic agent -- despite the fact that fluoride's cardiotoxicity has already been consistently demonstrated in the biomedical literature.

Now, a provocative new study published in the journal Toxicology not only provides some vindication for our previous interpretations, but also raises serious concern over the cardiovascular complications associated with water fluoridation practices, showing for the first time that despite exhibiting an anti-calcification effect in vitro (cell model) fluoride exposure at levels found in people who drink fluoridated water exhibits artery-calcifying effects in the more important in vivo (animal) model.

Titled, "Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats," the study opens with a description of the common medical justification for public water fluoridation:
"In order to improve dental health in the population, fluoride is included in tooth pastes and mouthwash solutions or is added to public water supplies at 0.5–1.5 mg/L (WHO, 2008), which has been a common practice in some countries since 1945."

© Green Med Info
And yet, the study acknowledges that fluoride is a well-established toxicant that our body has to either incorporate into its tissues or excrete through the kidney's to sequester or eliminate:
 "More than 90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed through the intestine and quickly distributed between plasma/soft tissues and calcified structures, where it can be sequestered for years (Buzalaf and Whitford, 2011). When water is fluoridated at the WHO- recommended levels, the range of plasma fluoride concentration is usually 1–6 uM (Husdan et al., 1976; Singer and Ophaug, 1979). Fluoride is not under homeostatic control, and it is cleared from the plasma within few hours by the complementary action of calcified tissues and the kidneys."
Those with chronic kidney disease have a harder time clearing the fluoride, which results in increased blood plasma levels, especially as the length of exposure increases.

The study noted that in healthy people, almost without exception, fluoride accumulates in the aorta, and in the elderly can exceed 100 ug/g [microgram/gram] tissue. Since atherosclerosis involves the gradual hardening and final calcification of the arteries with a form of calcium known as hydroxylapatite, fluoride's role in replacing hydroxyls within hydroxylapatite crystals to form fluorapatite can be considered enhancing the cardiotoxicity of these calcium deposits due to the fact that fluorapatite is less soluble than hydroxylapatite and therefore more resistant to the body's demineralization mechanisms (or de-calcification with natural substances such as magnesium, hawthorn or vitamin K2). The authors address this point:
"From a therapeutic point of view, this incorporation [of fluoride into hydroxylapatite as fluorapatite] may involve an additional problem, because these calcifications will be more difficult to eliminate, if at all possible."
The report discussed how despite the observation that fluoride accumulates in the main arteries, "the effects on the vascular wall are not clear." A brief review of the literature shows highly contradictory results, with some studies implying fluoride exposure actually reduces aortic calcification and others showing (as would be expected) deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system.  This uncertainty was one of the main reasons they designed their study:
"The aforementioned divergent findings can be explained by the use of different procedures, including very high doses of fluoride, the duration of treatment, and the animal species, in addition to either an experimental or epidemiological setup. In this work, our objective was to clarify the effect of fluoride, if any, on the development and course of medial vascular calcification (MVC, Mönckeberg's sclerosis) in uremic rats, using low, recommended concentrations in drinking water. Our rationale was that de novo calcified tissue in aorta should incorporate fluoride when exposure to this halogen is concomitant with the course of calcification, and subsequently the rate of calcium phosphate crystallization and/or mineralization should be altered, similar to the effects in tooth enamel or bone. We used two established experimental models of calcification, rat aortic smooth muscle cells incubated with 2 mM Pi, and rats with 5/6-nephrectomy [5/6th of their kidneys removed to model chronic kidney disease] and fed a Pi-enriched diet [Pi = Inorganic phosphate], in combination with low concentrations of fluoride (similar to that of public water fluoridation). Our findings have shown that the results are inverse depending on the experimental model, which highlights the need to carry out in vivo approaches when studying complex multifactorial processes, such as Mönckeberg's sclerosis [a type of arterial calcification]."
The study found a striking contrast between the in vitro (cell model) and in vivo (animal model) results: within the former, fluoride prevented calcification, within the later, it enhanced medial [middle portion of the artery] vascular calcification in the arteries of animals whose kidneys were weakened. Keep in mind that they did not use 'mega doses' of fluoride in the animal study, opting for the administration of the World Health Organization's recommended concentration of fluoride in public drinking water to 'prevent cavities.'

The researchers determined that fluoride's adverse effects on vascular function in the animal model were mediated by the inherent kidney-damaging properties of fluoride (nephrotoxicity). Whereas healthy individuals are not prone to significant or at least acutely discernible damage from low level fluoride exposure (though some functional damage and proteomic changes are observed at 5-8 ppm), those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), have impaired fluoride clearance, subsequent elevated plasma fluoride levels, which creates a vicious self-perpetuating cycle of fluoride-induced aggravation of their decline in kidney function.
The researchers summarized their main finding as follows:
"The main conclusion of our study is that CKD is aggravated even by low concentrations of fluoride, which in turn accelerates medial vascular calcification (MVC), thereby confirming and extending previous reports on fluorosis in CKD patients exposed to WHO-recommended fluoride concentrations in drinking water (Greenberg et al., 1974; Lyaruu et al., 2008)."
Their final comments are to call for a reappraisal of the risks/benefits associated with fluoridation of municipal drinking water:
"In summary, the effects of fluoride on renal function and vascular health are more complicated than expected. Our findings could help to decide whether the use of fluoride to improve the dental health of the population through indiscriminate practices, such as adding it to municipal drinking water, should be reconsidered and should be replaced by a fluoridation policy based on the health status of individuals."
It should be noted that fluoride's association with soft tissue calcification also extends to brain structures, including the pineal gland, which we documented in a previous article: Fluoride: Calcifier of the Soul, and that its neurotoxicity -- especially as evidenced by lowered I.Q. -- is well documented.

For additional research use the following database sections and/or articles and videos:
Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), and an advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Monsanto GMO wheat contamination discovered in Montana

Reuters/Bogdan Cristel
RT | Sep 27, 2014

Monsanto’s experimental genetically modified wheat has been discovered growing in the second US field in Montana, about a year after the discovery of the company’s unapproved crop growing in Oregon disrupted US wheat exports.

The plants were discovered at a test site at Montana State University, where back in 2000-2003 Monsanto was conducting field trials of its wheat, genetically modified to tolerate Roundup herbicide.

Although the government believes the wheat never reached market, it has still opened an investigation into finding the rogue plants at a site that was not supposed to host any tests after 2003, USDA's Department of Agriculture’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service announced on Friday.

“We’ve now opened an investigation into this regulatory compliance issue,” said Bernadette Juarez, director of investigative and enforcement services for APHIS, adding however that “there are no safety issues with this wheat.”

The last such discovery in Oregon led to several international customers postponing US wheat deliveries, but this time exports should not be affected, US officials believe. “We remain confident that the wheat exports will continue without disruption,” Juarez said.

US industry leaders also hope that exports should not be hurt by the discovery of GMO wheat in Montana.

“We are in the process now of informing our international wheat buyers,” Alan Tracy, president of US Wheat Associates, said in a statement. “We do not expect any disruption in sales.”

AFP Photo/Philippe Huguen
The new incident site is smaller than the one found last year, USDA said, around 1-3 acres compared to over 100 acres of GMO crops found in Oregon. The wheat strains in the two incidents differ, but both are resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup.

Meanwhile the Oregon incident probe has been closed – despite USDA’s failure to track down the source of contamination even after conducting 291 interviews with farmers and researchers.

“My program undertook one of the most thorough and scientifically detailed investigations in the history of our organization,” Juarez said. “Ultimately we were not able to make a conclusion as to how it happened.”

The government still has no clue as to how the wheat got in the field, and direct links to Monsanto could not be traced, so the agricultural giant will not face any penalties or disciplinary action.

Critics accuse Monsanto of failing to protect the market from contamination with experimental plants, as the billion-dollar St. Louis, Missouri-based agriculture company has for years been determined to enter the market with the first GMO variety of the crop. Genetically-modified wheat isn’t legally approved anywhere in the world, and international buyers threatened to boycott US wheat if the product was introduced.

The GMO Labeling Conundrum


Local Org | Sep 28, 2014 | Ulson Gunnar

It would seem that large agricultural corporations touting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) they claim possess enhanced benefits for farmers and consumers would be proud to differentiate their products on the shelves from organic and traditionally produced food. However that is not the case. Not only is big-ag attempting to hide the true nature of their products, but the many big-business food processors that incorporate GMO ingredients into their final products are likewise attempting to mislead consumers.


The obvious fear is that consumers will avoid GMO products in favor of those not labeled as modified. While other arguments have been made in attempts to justify not properly labeling food as genetically modified or not, the underlying theme appears to be the belief of big-ag that consumers' ignorance over the alleged safety of GMO products threatens their business and with it, innovations they claim are a benefit not only to their bottom lines, but to all of humanity.

Of course, beneath the layers of this "belief," is the reality that their products do not offer any overwhelming benefit to humanity, and in fact, in many ways, have become a scourge to humanity. Additionally, peripheral arguments, such as GMO being in no way different to organic products, thus there is no need to label them, are so divergent from logic and commonsense that a general suspicion and distrust has formed in the collective mind of the public in regards to big-ag and those pushing their products.

To counter the growing ire of the general public, big-ag has raised an army of professional propagandists peddling pro-GMO talking points in the form of books, websites, mainstream media reportage and even while posing as ordinary citizens simply expressing their "opinions" in comment sections and upon what are supposed to appear as independent personal blogs. They, to no one's surprise, repeat verbatim the talking points proposed by big-ag itself, and while anti-GMO activists eagerly wade into the fray with this army of propagandists, the only relevant question that should be asked seems to escape them all.


If GMO is Better, Why Not Label it So You Can Find and Consume it Easier?

Everything from nutritionally superior "Golden Rice" to super-safe insect and herbicide resistant GMO corn and soy are endlessly touted by big-ag and its army of propagandists as vastly superior in every conceivable way to organically grown crops. In terms of nutrition, economics, and even environmental impact, GMO is portrayed as the next step in agricultural evolution. At the same time, paradoxically (simply to avoid labeling it) big-ag and its army of supporters claim it is no different than organic food and even claims that the process of, for example, injecting spinach genes into oranges, is no different than natural selection or selective breeding.

Of course, you would expect this army of GMO proponents to sustain themselves on a diet exclusively consisting of GMO food. And to make it easier for them to sort out "antiquated" organic food from enhanced, "super-GMO food," you would expect these proponents to want their products of choice proudly labeled as containing GMO. And yet they seem to prefer a labeling system that causes confusion and doubt about what products contain their preferred "super-GMO food," and which do not. It would almost seem as if they would prefer to be surprised, along with anti-GMO activists and more rational people who would rather not ingest genetically modified organisms peddled by insidious mega-corporations.

The question of why GMO proponents are so desperately trying to hide this "super-food" on the shelves next to ordinary, "subpar" products needs to be answered, and in the minds of many rational adults, the conspiracy to cover up an unsafe, unwanted product produced by unsafe, unwanted corporations is already as clear as day.

Big-Ag Abusing Biotechnology Hinders, Not Helps Progress 

Marketing gimmicks and manufactured "popularity" currently sustain big-ag's various rackets, be they factory farming or their abuse of biotechnology in every conceivable way. There monopolistic agenda hides behind every tagline and campaign. Whether it is corrupting Asia's ancient rice cultivation, deceiving Western consumers at the supermarket, or attempting to push genetically modified organisms as the answer to almost every conceivable problem, profit and power lurks closely behind.

It is clear that there is a backlash against big-ag GMO and that knowledge of what is and isn't tainted by big-ag's meddling will only cause that backlash to both focus more sharply while simultaneously growing. To push back, big-ag has assembled an army of shameless collaborators who insidiously mislead the public, while resisting attempts to label their products honestly.

Instead of blaming the "ignorance" of the population for rejecting their "super-GMO foods," perhaps big-ag should look within. It may not be the outlook of ordinary people that they should eat organic, natural food that is antiquated, but rather big-ag's irrational and unsustainable thirst for profits and power. Those working within the biotechnology industry should reevaluate their allegiance to their corporate employers and consider the damage they may be doing to biotechnology in general by perpetuating its wholesale abuse at the hands of big-ag giants like Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and others.

Big-ag monopolies are a threat to both national food security and subsequently, national sovereignty. The abuse of biotechnology takes an otherwise promising toolset and associates it almost exclusively with the villainy of unscrupulous corporate monopolies. The resistance to labeling products honestly is yet another indictment of the overall dishonesty of big-ag's self-serving agenda, an agenda that clearly prefers ignorance over knowledge, profits over people and power over progress.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Source: (Ulson Gunnar - NEO)

State Farm to Families of Vaccine-Damaged Children: We Don’t Need Your Business


Earlier this week, State Farm decided to drop an ad starring comedian Rob Schneider from its rotation due to his “anti-vaccine views” after a social media outcry. I wrote a commentary explaining that I was contacting my State Farm agents to let them know I was displeased with this action, and would be canceling my policies. I have been a customer of State Farm for over 10 years.

One of my two agents replied. His reply as to the “rationale” for stopping the ad with Rob Schneider was the same as what State Farm posted on their Facebook Page yesterday:


My agent stated in his email to me that this “seems like a reasonable business decision to me.”

Knowing that State Farm was losing customers over this, it didn’t seem too “reasonable” to me, so I asked him several questions during our email exchange:
Prior to pulling the ad, after the pro-vaccine lobby coordinated their attacks against Rob S., were agents like you getting complaints from customers and threatening to leave SF because of Rob S.’s views on vaccines?

I would be willing to bet they were not.

The pro-vaccine crowd is very well funded and organized, but they represent the pharmaceutical business, not the majority of consumers. How many pro-vaccine zealous consumers have you ever heard of or come across before?

The pro-vaccine safety crowd, however, is made up of a very significant segment of the society, particularly in the autism community. These parents of vaccine-damaged children (and yes, this is a non-debatable point because the U.S. government pays out millions of dollars in settlements to injuries and deaths due to vaccines – fact) are very active, angry, and passionate about the vaccine issues.

And SF just alienated all of them. Great “logic.”
In his reply to me, the agent did not address any of these questions. He simply complained that I was leaving after all these years, especially since State Farm paid out a claim on our home policy a few years back when burglars broke in and damaged the home.

So I again tried to use logic and reason, asking why State Farm would be willing to lose customers over this issue, and I asked him if he had read the article I posted here at Health Impact News and watched the short video Rob Schnieder had produced for the Canary Party. He replied: “Whether or not I watched your video or links are immaterial.  You might be surprised about how much I know about this issue before these exchanges.”

So I received no answers to my questions, and my agent was not even interested in learning more about my views or why he was losing my business, because he felt he already knew the subject matter.

Now, not wanting to read the alternative story on vaccines is something I can understand. I see it all the time. Many people have been convinced that the issue of vaccine safety is a settled issue, and that anyone still wanting to discuss it is a quack, or ignorant.

But what about the company position in this matter? What could persuade them to take this action, knowing that they would lose business because of it? It doesn’t add up, and I wrote to my agent: “I am sure there is more behind this story than what is known publicly.”

What business can survive in a free market by alienating their customers?

Oh, that’s right, the pharmaceutical and medical business does. They are able to sell their products with or without public support, because the U.S. government is the major purchaser of their products, using your tax dollars to purchase those products, whether you approve or not. They don’t operate in a free market system.

But State Farm is not in the health insurance business, are they?

Not much, but according to a press release yesterday, they are about to jump in a big way.

Dina Overland of FierceHealthPayer, a health insurance publication, announced yesterday:

Blue Cross, State Farm partner to sell individual heath insurance plans

Turns out, State Farm wants to get into the Obamacare action and get some of the revenue coming in through Health Insurance Exchanges:
Health Care Services Corp. is pairing up with insurance giant State Farm to sell individual health plans both on and off the health insurance exchanges during the next open enrollment period.

HCSC is “committed to expanding access and offering health insurance options in every corner of every state in which we operate,” Jeff Tikkanen, president of retail markets for HCSC, said in a statement. “State Farm’s presence is both broad and deep in these states and, as a result, we will have the single largest network of dedicated insurance professionals resident in their communities.” (Source.)
Could it be that industry insiders put pressure on State Farm to remove Rob Schneider as one of the spokespersons in order get in on the health insurance action?

I don’t know.

But it is clear that State Farm is willing to lose the business of the families who are suffering with vaccine-damaged children. The majority of these families cannot be compensated by the government for these injuires due to vaccines, because the government continues to take the position that vaccines are safe and not responsible for the majority of vaccine damaged claims filed in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. There is a trust fund which sets aside funds (from your tax dollars) to pay out damages due to vaccine injuries, but it pays out far less than it receives in revenues. So now that trust fund has grown to $3.5 BILLION. Where is that money being used??

These are facts that most Americans are not even aware of, and Rob Schneider is one of the few who has donated his own time to produce a video exposing it.




Ironically, now that State Farm will be participating in Health Exchanges, they could be receiving federal funding for healthcare services from federal funds that were supposed to be set aside to pay for injuries to vaccine-damaged families.

Is this how a “good neighbor” acts?