Monday, September 23, 2013

How the Mental Health Industry Creates Disease, Works with Big Pharma

© Natural Society
How the Mental Health Industry Creates Disease, Works with Big Pharma
Sept 21, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

We spend a lot of time at NaturalSociety talking about Big Pharma and their role in the health care industry. These huge pharmaceutical companies make billions every single year by perpetuating a culture of dis-ease and illness. They exaggerate conditions, offer their solutions as the only viable treatments, and essentially market disease to the American people. But they aren’t acting alone. Some of their biggest sellers are drugs created to treat mental health issues, diseases, and symptoms. Doctors and professionals within the mental health industry, therefore, act as their top salespeople.
 
Mike Bundrant is the host of Mental Health Exposed, a radio program from our friends at Natural News. He is a former mental health counselor and had an inside look at how the system works. as Bundrant points out, the system has some “dirty secrets”.

“The conventional mental health system is a cruel joke,” he writes for Natural news. “It’s ugly.”

Bundrant and others like him say the mental health industry is just as dirty as Big Pharma itself, creating conditions and “curing” with prescriptions. This means many counselors and psychiatrists are interested in treating mental illness with one solution—drugs.

The Mental Health Industry’s Dirty Secrets 

We’ve seen this issue arise more so in the last 2 decades than ever before. Through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (essentially the bible of mental health for psychiatrists), hundreds of disease have essentially been ‘created’ and reclassified. Because of this, mental health ‘issues’ are skyrocketing and more individuals are on antipsychotic drugs than ever. Not surprisingly, as much as 70% of psychiatrists involved in the DSM have financial ties to drug companies.

“The bottom line is that it’s about the bottom line. So many clients, so much money. Keep the practices full, the insurance companies appeased and the revolving door turning.”

Case notes are taken with the idea that they may one day be viewed in a lawsuit. Counselors are told to, essentially, cover their butts and protect themselves, their companies, and the insurance companies from liability. In many cases this is seen as a priority over helping the patients.

As with medical doctors, mental health professionals may even be guilty of diagnosing the most serious conditions possible, all to authorize more treatment and therefore more money. What may be a situational condition, treatable with one or two sessions of therapy, could turn into a diagnosis for major depressive disorder, treatable with prescription drugs and ongoing, no-end-in-sight counseling appointments.

Millions of Americans have been diagnosed with depression and likely millions more feel depressed but lack a diagnosis. These people would often benefit from talking to someone (and eating better, but that’s another article entirely) rather than popping a pill. But when they are seen as a number or a dollar sign, they are shortchanged on true treatment and real help.

Though many mental health professionals are in their field for noble reasons and act with some sense of moral accountability, many more are caught up as cogs in a crooked system, the same system that sees selling pills as more important than being truly healthy. In a world where creativity is deemed a mental illness, dangerous drugs are being dispensed with impunity.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Vaccines and Flu Shots Good For Big Pharma, Not Us!

Dees Illustration
Vaccines and Flu Shots Good For Big Pharma, Not Us!
Sept 22, 2013 | Activist Post | Jon David Miller

The brain-washing promotion of vaccinations and "flu shots" by the "BIG PHARMA" medical establishment, the government and the media, is propaganda generated by themselves and the "powers that be" behind them.

The interests of the giant pharmaceutical companies and their profit partners do not center around our good health.

In my opinion, vaccines are not solutions to infectious disease. I consider injecting a contaminant into the body to be a toxic stress. I do not believe it has ever been proven to be effective, but I am sure it is often quite harmful.

False Assumption

The common assumption is that it is beneficial for a manufactured "immunization" to challenge the immune system for the presumed purpose of producing antibodies to viruses we have not yet encountered. This should be exposed and understood to be a faulty premise.

However, Big Pharma and the powers behind them have collaborated to financially control, regulate and brainwash the medical and scientific community, university research and curriculum planners, politicians, regulators, the media and the public, all to accept the false belief that injecting foreign proteins, toxic metals and other additives into the body could protect people from getting ill.

The stress of a vaccination on immune health is a short term shock, with a long term weakening effect. Many who get such injections are soon ill from the vaccine itself.

Further, vaccination preoccupies the immune system, which may leave it more vulnerable to real invaders, and contribute to chronic degenerative diseases.

When I was a kid, the doctor and his assistant had to chase me all over his office and catch me to give me a shot. Now I'm thinking I had the right idea!

Germ Theory Mistake

On his deathbed in 1895, researcher Louis Pasteur, famous for advocating the germ theory of disease, recanted his theory saying,

My whole life's work has been in vain; it's not the germ it's the terrain.
(Of course he said this in French, and it may or may not have rhymed so nicely as this translation!)

The enzyme-destroying “pasteurization“ process of cooking many foods to kill bacteria unnecessarily, was named after Pasteur.

For much of his life, he hated rival scientist Antoine Bechamp for exposing Pasteur's own shoddy work. Bechamp and his supporters presented a very different understanding of germs.

Bechamp noted the pleomorphic nature of microorganisms. He found that bacteria and fungi change from one form to another, and from benign to active, depending on circumstances.

Another contemporary of Pasteur and Bechamp, Claude Bernard, followed Bechamp's realization with discovering that the change of the body's terrain from alkaline (healthy) to acid (unhealthy) encouraged the changes in microorganisms to more destructive forms.

Infectious disease may not actually be prevented by killing or avoiding germs in the environment, nor by vaccinating people with weak or dead forms of viruses.

Unnatural

The direct injection into the bloodstream of a chemical cocktail of tampered viruses and toxic chemicals prepared by the drug companies is not natural. This is not the way these germs might normally enter the body, bypassing the body's protective mechanisms found in the digestive or respiratory systems.

Further, the chemicals in vaccines are additional toxins that should not be in the body.

This bizarre, ill-conceived vaccination process creates challenges that may have long-term terrible consequences for some victims.

Symptomatic Medicine

The medical industry has created the diagnosis process of naming illnesses based on the array of symptoms determined in each case, then the pharmaceutical companies make drug products to reduce, block or eliminate thesymptoms of various illnesses.

Symptoms are signals by the body that a disturbance is in progress. Overriding the symptoms with foreign agents does not deal with the cause of the disturbance. Uncorrected, the disturbance may worsen, and this and the contaminants may cause additional problems and symptoms.

Beginning more than a century ago, commercial chemical drug interests have manipulated both physicians and governing officials to pursue the pharmaceutical emphasis on treating symptoms of illness as the only legitimate method.

Vaccines Ineffective

 Immunizations may seem to work as people's weakened immune systems do not react as acutely after they have been suppressed by the vaccination. If the normally expected acute symptoms of an identified illness are lessened, it looks like that "disease" is being controlled.

The reduction in polio cases in the 1960s is one of the most ballyhooed of vaccine successes. This was accomplished mainly by changing the definition of polio, which was rarely a serious illness. In most cases polio is mild, like having a cold. Even those who had paralysis would have it subside in a few weeks.

The polio vaccine did not get rid of polio, it just reduced the number of acute reactions. What they used to call polio is now called Bell's palsy or Guillian Barré syndrome, and the condition is more persistent.

Vaccines Contaminated

Vaccines contain adjuvants, such as aluminum hydroxide, polysorbate and/or squalene, to increase the delivery of other ingredients and to boost the immune system response to the vaccination, so they can use less of the more expensive viral antigens.

Studies have clearly shown that the reaction to a vaccination may be an exaggeration of the known potential side effects that most victims are not even told about. These are often serious, including arthritis, nervous system disorders, autoimmune ailments and even paralysis.

Various people react differently to a vaccination, but it is not good for anyone. The "studies" that suggest that vaccines and their additives are safe, are typically flawed, unreliable or misinterpreted, possibly on purpose.

Virtually every vaccine is contaminated with heavy metals, usually including a derivative of mercury called thimerosal used as a preservative antiseptic and antifungal agent, as well as a salt of aluminum or fluoride as an adjuvant.

Many parents and support groups consider these highly toxic heavy metals to be possible contributors to autism, allergies, and other childhood ailments as well as serious adult health problems.

Additionally, today's vaccines contain squalene used as a "co-adjuvant". Squalene is an oil found in some plants and in humans and animals, especially in the liver, nerves and brain. Consuming squalene is not a problem, but inserting it directly into the body's tissues evokes an autoimmune response in which the immune system attacks squalene throughout the body. The reaction may continue indefinitely as lifelong chronic illnesses and pain.

Contaminating Viruses

Vaccines are also often contaminated with unspecified extra microorganisms, including other viruses, as well as DNA fragments. In other words, the vaccines themselves are spreading additional germs AND serving as a breeding ground for new strains.

For example, the polio vaccines beginning in the 1950s were prepared using Simian monkey cells that were later found to contain another virus that can contribute to brain cancer. This combined with cell phone usage may increase the chances of brain cancer in aging adults.

Virology experts have stated that the mix of swine, human and avian viruses in what is called the "swine flu" is so unusual that this strain itself it must have been created in a lab on purpose. This relatively weak flu has not really become much of a problem for humans to date.

However, the combination of swine, avian and human viruses could lead to the development of a new strain of virus that could become deadly in greater numbers of people.

Who developed this combo virus, and who brought it out of the lab?

Toxic Shock

The most heavily vaccinated people in the population are children, armed forces recruits, and seniors, especially those trapped in monitored medical care. There could be widespread serious health consequences of these excessive vaccinations.

Recently it was revealed that there are genetically modified DNA fragments bound in the aluminum adjuvant of the vaccine for HPV that is being pushed for preteen girls to receive. This may actually cause cancer, as well as genetic changes in the victim.

The shock of the toxic ingredients of a vaccination on the human system has resulted in mini strokes. You can actually see a temporary partial paralysis in the faces of many victims.

High fever, seizure, brain inflammation (encephalitis), even death (including "Sudden Infant Death"), sometimes results from a vaccination. Autism and chronic degenerative diseases are not uncommon.

Other vaccine recipients just feel ill or irritable for a few days. Some have notable long-term problems that they may or may not connect with their vaccination.

This toxic shock seriously harms children. People are often affected to some degree for life. They may be set up for cancers or other serious diseases later in life, generating more business for the medical industry, while shortening the victims' life on the planet.

In most cases the manufacturers of the vaccines have been protected under advance agreements with each government from liability for damages done by these rapidly prepared vaccines.

The interests of the pharmaceutical companies and those in control of governments, apparently trump the safety and well-being of the people.

Rather than the immune system being shocked artificially as with vaccinations, a natural virus that a human bio-system encounters in the real world would be addressed by the immune system in the way nature intended, with much less chance of long term health impairment.

The more vaccinations a person receives, the more disturbed their immunity will be. How can the immune system be an effective protector when damaged by these unnatural artificial attacks? Further, those who receive a full recommended profile of vaccines are more likely to have brain impairment.

Are Vaccinations Optional?

Parents have been led to believe that they must have a complete set of vaccinations for their child to be enrolled in school. However, more and more want to avoid having their children chemically abused with vaccines.

In fact, many states have an exemption policy for religious or other reasons. There may be an exemption form and certain wording that will allow a child to attend school without their health being compromised with the damage of vaccinations. Check on the law in your state.

 Big Pharma has brainwashed nearly everyone with the false germ theory of disease, and the idea that it is very important to be immunized against a host of germs. The have manipulated information by presenting primarily favorable results from studies that may have been doctored, perhaps due to financial incentive.

They also have governments on board to encourage and even provide vaccinations when a "pandemic" is announced. The Sabin oral polio vaccine was administered to kids right in the public schools when introduced in the 1960s.

These days the personnel in many clinics and doctors' offices assume you will get a flu shot while you are there for any other reason! Unless you say "no", they may have a syringe ready to shoot!

However, a growing number of medical professionals do not take these flu vaccines themselves.

Some governments are considering making even the annual flu vaccinations mandatory. Some major health care corporations are already compelling employees to get them.

The definition of a pandemic was changed in April, 2009, by the World Health Organization (WHO) to include a widespread outbreak that is not really very deadly, such as the H1N1 situation, which was declared a high level pandemic. This means that WHO can mandate vaccinations in all United Nations member nations, which are under the WHO regulations by treaty.

This flu was also made a "national emergency" in the U.S., whereby the President asserts he can issue a mandate by Executive Order that would be imposed on the population without congressional approval.

"Big Pharma", the wealthy medical / pharmaceutical interest, has had growing economic and political control of the legal authorities. Together they could attempt to force us to do what they decide should be done to our bodies unless we can curtail this medical tyranny.

These vaccines could not really prepare anyone for a future stronger variant of a virus. Instead, they could provide the opportunity for a more deadly strain to arise, as various viruses are introduced together into humans. Under the dominance of Big Pharma, the human body has become a living test tube, in addition to the tampering with viruses in labs for profit or other more sinister purposes, such as population reduction.

Are you willing to be a guinea pig in ongoing vaccine experiments on the population?

Why would one want a questionable vaccine or any such mix of toxic materials to be inserted into one's precious bio-system?

I prefer to say, "No thanks!"

Two programs in the archive of my Internet radio program:

Other valuable sources of information at: http://reallywell.com/no_vaccination.htm

Jon David Miller is a social analyst, wellness educator, philosopher and singer / songwriter. His education includes a Bachelor of Arts with honors in economics from Ohio University, a Master of Arts in religion and a Master of Divinity from Hartford Seminary, and 40 years of experience in wellness education, business, community organizations, social studies, research and writing. Jon is the author of several books, including The New World Order Empire, and developer of several websites, such as www.ReallyWell.com.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Statins Are the Greatest Medical Fraud of All Time: Study Reports

Statins Are the Greatest Medical Fraud of All Time: Study Reports
Sept 21, 2013 | Gaia Health Blog | Heidi Stevenson

A new study clarifies that statins are the greatest medical fraud of all time. The claims made for them are false. The amount of harm they do is staggering, resulting in millions of lives devastated and ended. The worst part of all, though, is that it was entirely predictable—but studies were designed to hide the truth. The media, the health agencies, and the doctors all provided cover for Big Pharma. After all, there was money to be made.


Statins are one of the most dangerous drugs prescribed by doctors. The risks from them were obvious before they were ever  marketed. Nonetheless, they are among the best selling drugs of all time. Finally, genuine science has been looking at their adverse effects and lack of benefit to document the truth that was obvious from the beginning:

Statins are the greatest medical fraud ever perpetrated.

A new review of the science reports:
The statin industry, with all of its spin-off(s), is a 20-billion-a-year industry. We are observing the revealing of the utmost medical tragedy of all times. It is unprecedented that the healthcare industry has inadvertently induced life-threatening nutrient deficiency in millions of otherwise healthy people.[1]
The only point on which I can disagree is the statement that the travesty of statins was somehow “inadvertent”. There is, in fact, absolutely no excuse for it.

The authors of the study, Sherif Sultan and Niamh Hynes, have produced a paper that is utterly condemnatory of the use of statins. Not only do they condemn the drugs, they also condemn the pseudo science behind it. Though they don’t state it, and obviously could not take such a risk, there is simply no way around the fact that the science behind statins has been largely fraudulent, and that fraud has been perpetrated by Big Pharma.

So what did the study actually say? 

Sultan and Hynes reviewed a large number of studies, using Pubmed, EM-BASE, and Cochrane review databases to find them. They focused primarily on clinical reviews, meta-analyses, and large-scale randomised controlled trials. The entire list of studies they selected is included in their paper, which you can read because it isn’t hidden behind a pay wall.

They stated:
We seem to have fallen into the marketing trap and ignored the niggling side effects with regard to the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors
The “we” the authors referred to was the medical industry. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are statins. Their function is to interfere with HMG-CoA, which is a molecule that’s a precursor to cholesterol. Of course, the purpose of a statin is to reduce cholesterol, which they do accomplish.

So what’s the problem? As the authors state:
Cholesterol is crucial for energy, immunity, fat metabolism, leptin, thyroid hormone activity, liver related synthesis, stress intolerance, adrenal function, sex hormone
syntheses and brain function.
Cholesterol is a primary requirement for an enormous array of absolutely critical functions in the body. Obviously, if cholesterol is reduced, then health must be harmed:
  • Energy levels must be reduced.
  • There must be interference with fat metabolism.
  • The thyroid must not be able to function properly.
  • Our ability to deal with stress is stressed.
  • The adrenal glands’ functions must be damaged.
  • Sexual function and reproductive ability must suffer.
  • Our brain must be damaged, which can mean any part of our existence may be harmed, including mental functioning, autonomic processes, coordination, and every other function, including the heart.
There is simply no excuse for not recognizing that not only is there an obvious risk inherent in statins, but that it would be stunning if they didn’t produce harm.

The Benefit of Statins 

In terms of benefit, the authors noted that the only people who are helped at all are middle aged men who have already suffered heart attacks. (Readers of Gaia Health will be familiar with this fact, as it’s been stated here many times.) And that benefit is minimal. In fact, the authors point out that statins produce less benefit for these men than aspirin. Please note that Gaia Health does not support aspirin as a treatment for heart disease, either.

In effect, statins produce not one whit of benefit to anyone in any manner.

The Adverse Effects of Statins 

The authors found that, for every 10,000 individuals in good health who take statins:
  • 307 extra patients suffer from cataracts.
  • 23 additional patients develop acute kidney failure.
  • 74 extra patients develop liver dysfunction.
  • Statins increase muscle fatigue by 30% and cause an 11.3% incidence of rhabdomyolysis at high doses.
  • They also state, “What’s more, it induces inflammatory myopathy, including necrotizing autoimmune myopathy with immunosuppression and the statin-related myopathy can last for 12 months.”
They also point out that statins cause erectile dysfunction, and that young men suffer 10 times as much erectile dysfunction on low doses of statins. Beyond all these adverse effects:
  • According to the FDA’s adverse event reporting system, about 40 out of every 10,000 statin reports are for interstitial lung disease, which causes scarring in the lungs that is almost never reversible.
  • Statins cause hyperglycemia after eating in both diabetics and nondiabetics.
  • Statins “induce full blown type 2 diabetes in women.”
  • Statins increase the risk of developing HbA1c in people with and without diabetes. HbA1c is a condition that causes glucose to stick to hemoglobin, which is an indicator of greater harm from diabetes.
  • Statins prescribed to the elderly cause a 9% increase in diabetes.
  • Statins can cause insulin resistance.
  • A correlation between Parkinson’s disease and low cholesterol exists, which clearly implicates statins.
  • A correlation between statins and early-onset cataracts has been found. Statin users may be 50% more likely to develop cataracts early.
Here’s the most shocking health risk of statins:
[S]tatin use is associated with an increased prevalence and extent of coronary plaques calcification. Ironically for a drug which was marketed to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, the confirm registry identified a strong association of statin use to the progression of coronary artery plaque features.
This isn’t simply irony. Statins increase the harm that they are supposedly meant to decrease!
In relation to this particular heart risk, the authors also found that:
Statin use was correlated with a greater incidence of severe coronary artery stenosis as well as increase in the numbers of coronary vessels developing obstructive coronary artery disease. Furthermore, statin use was linked to an increase in the prevalence and extent of mixed calcific plaque. Five prospective studies have borne witness to the fact that statin therapy does not induce any coronary calcium regression and evolution of
coronary calcium continues regardless of statin treatment
That is, statins increase the narrowing of coronary arteries, which can only increase the chance of heart attacks. They increase the development of obstructive coronary artery disease. Statins may increase calcium-related arterial plaques.

Statins also produce a significant increase in the risk of cancer and neurodegenerative dysfunction in the elderly.

The authors point out even more than this—but just how much more do you need to know? Statins are health destroyers.

Intentionally Hiding the Facts 

The study points out that statins may increase the risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers by 1.6 times. The authors then state:
For unknown reasons, since these publications the squamous cell carcinoma has been excluded in all reports from subsequent statin trials.
Is there any way to interpret that other than that the statin industry does not want there to be more evidence that statins cause skin cancer?

The authors referenced studies that had claimed to demonstrate benefits from statins. However, when they were reanalyzed by independent scientists—that is, scientists who genuinely didn’t have ties to Big Pharma—they found that the claimed results were false. The studies actually showed that statins produced no benefit and a great deal of harm.

Cohorts in Crime

It’s bad enough that Big Pharma produces studies that can only be called junk science to give an impression that statins are effective and safe. It’s obviously fraudulent, and all those who have willingly taken part in such  studies—whether by paying for them or doing them—should be prosecuted criminally. There is simply no way to get around the fact that, at the very least, many of these people are guilty of negligent homicide by providing false evidence of both efficacy and safety.

News Media

The news industry has also been guilty, as this study was published over two months ago, yet there’s been virtually no coverage by the mainstream media. This is news that could save the lives of millions of people, yet the mainstream media hasn’t bothered with it. Clearly, their interests are not in real news, but are in their owners’ financial interests. Every mainstream media corporation in the United States is owned by another corporation that also owns at least one major pharmaceutical corporation or is controlled by someone with heavy interests in them. For example:
  • News Corporation owns Viacom.
  • Ropert Murdoch founded News Corporation.
  • Murdoch sits on the board of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
If that weren’t enough, consider also that the pharmaceutical industry is, by far, the biggest advertiser on mainstream media. To suggest that the news media hasn’t also been complicit is either naive or intentionally misleading. The mainstream news media has clearly determined that their duty, to provide information that the public needs, is not their concern.

Health Agencies 

The agencies that are supposed to protect us from harmful health products, such as the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH, have all been complicit in the promotion of statins. Even now, the CDC strongly recommends the use of statins. The FDA does nothing more than add warnings to the package inserts of statins, an utterly meaningless endeavor that has never been shown to have any significant effect on sales of drugs. The NIH states, “Statins are relatively safe for most people.”

It’s obvious that our health agencies are acting almost exclusively as marketing agents for Big Pharma.

Doctors 

Last, but certainly not least, are the doctors who prescribe statins. They tend to argue that it’s not their fault, that they can only go by the studies. But the reality is that it’s their job to stand between their patients and dangerous drugs. If they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs—which is clearly the case for any of them who prescribe statins without informing their patients of the risks and almost complete lack of benefit—then they are no different than those who produce pseudo science, junk science, or outright fraudulent science to support these poisons. At a minimum, they are guilty of failing in their duty to their patients. They may also be guilty of negligent homicide for any patient who dies as a result of their lack of diligence.

The Greatest Medical Fraud of All Time  

Statins are the greatest medical fraud of all time. It had to be known from the very beginning that they would likely produce a great deal of harm. As the authors point out, statins interfere with the production of cholesterol, thus producing deficits in metabolic functions that are necessary for life.

There is, therefore, no excuse for doctors not to know.

There is no excuse for the news media not to do the research that would have shown them the fraud being perpetrated.

There is no excuse for the health agencies that approved statins or the ones that promote them. They had to have the relevant information.

And finally, there is no excuse for the doctors, because they should have known. If they didn’t, then they were derelict in their duty.

Everyone involved in the development, marketing, approval, promotion, and prescription of statins is guilty of perpetrating the greatest medical fraud of all time. Tallying up the death toll is most likely impossible, but there can be little doubt that the numbers run into multiple millions.

Please forward this article to anyone you know who is taking statins or considering it. They have a right to know the truth—and that truth is not being told by any doctor who prescribes them. 

Source:

  1. The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns;  Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Sherif Sultan and Niamh Hynes; doi:10.4236/ojemd.2013.33025.

19 Foods to Naturally Help You Detox Radiation

image
19 Foods to Naturally Help You Detox Radiation
Sept 21, 2013 | Food Freedom News

Alicia Bayer over at Examiner has developed a quick list of 19 foods to detox radiation, including brown rice, kelp and miso. But, she notes, “there are plenty of foods that naturally protect our bodies from radiation.”  Read the full list over at Examiner.

Food Freedom News has been collecting radiation detox foods, supplements and practices since the Fukushima disaster. So, drawing on past articles, we’ve come up with the following summaries:

Dori Midnight adds mushrooms, onions and love to the list. She specifically recommends a delicious looking soup consisting of mushrooms, miso and seaweed, providing a recipe.

In addition to “organic apples with the skin on (and the wax rubbed off), or applesauce,” Dr. Ilya Sandra

Perlingieri suggests we also “drink unfiltered, organic apple juice with Bragg’s Aminos (1 teaspoon per 8 oz for adults). Apple pectin is a known aid (and helped the children at Chernobyl); and it actually binds with various radioactive particles.”

Elderberry Syrup, avocados and lemons, and the following supplements in your radiation detox program are recommended:

Vitamin C daily with bioflavinoids [this helps with C absorption] and rutin: Adults: 2-3 grams daily.

Vitamin B-Complex: For adults, 50 mg (max) of each of the major B vitamins (B-1, B-2, B-5 [called the “anti-stress” vitamin], B-6, and B-12).

Vitamin A with mixed carotenoids, Vitamin E and Coenzyme Q-10. (no dosages given).

Vitamin D-3: 1,000 mg of Vitamin D-3 daily.

 Dr Perlingieri also recommends lemon-honey-fresh ginger-root tea, organic bee pollen and buckwheat flour.

Melissa Patterson, ND, has posted a more extensive list of radiation resistance foods which includes the above, and provides dosages (for adults).

Mark Sircus of International Medical Veritas Assn. strongly recommends adding DMSO to your protocol:

“Dr. Segura recently posted an important page on the Net that introduces DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide).

We need extra sulfur in our systems to help protect and treat radiation contamination. Segura published that,

Sulfur has a long history of use as an antidote for acute exposure to radioactive material. DMSO is the classical sulfur compound. Remember that boosting your body’s detox capabilities and overall antioxidant levels is a key to survive in these stressful times.’

“DMSO is also an effective painkiller. It blocks nerve conduction fibers that produce pain. It reduces inflammation and swelling by reducing inflammatory chemicals.  It improves blood supply to an area of injury by dilating blood vessels and increasing delivery of oxygen and by reducing blood platelet stickiness.  It stimulates healing, which is a key to its usefulness in any condition. It is among the most potent free radical scavengers known to man, if not the most potent one.

“DMSO is useful as a pain reliever, in burns, acne, arthritis, mental retardation, strokes, amyloidosis, head injury, scleroderma; it soothes toothaches, eases headaches, hemorrhoids, muscle strains; it prevents paralysis from spinal chord injuries; it softens scar tissues. In fact, it is useful in well over 300 ailments and is safe to use.

“There are four ways to get sulfur into our systems that I know of. There is DMSO, then sodium Thiosulfate, which I have recommended to people for years to put in their therapeutic baths and can be taken orally as well; there is also Miracle Mineral Supplement (MSM) and of course Epsom salts.”

Then, consider your gardens and dairy. Hawaiian farmers Britton and Shekinah remind us that:

“[M]ilk represents the overall condition of the entire food chain, since cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as crops. So, when milk tests positive for radiation, it indicates the entire food chain is contaminated since cows eat grass. When grass is contaminated, everything grown in the same soil is contaminated.”

Their solution? Boron.

“Boron can be safely ingested at a dosage of 4-10 mg per day. Borax, 11% boron, can be used as a tea and sprayed on your gardens, or land surrounding your home, at a rate of 10# of Borax per acre, 1#, if using elemental boron. Borax can also be ingested at 1/8 tsp to 1 litre water for women, ¼ tsp to 1 litre water for men.

“Fortunately, red wine and coffee are significant sources of boron, as well as non-citrus fruits, red grapes, plums, pears, apples, avocados, legumes and nuts! Boron is known to be non-carcinogenic, non-mutagenic and has been used internally to protect the astronauts in space as they leave the earth’s protective magnetic field.”

Comment: The author mentions Miracle Mineral Supplement. I don't know if this is the same as Miracle Mineral Solution, but if that can be verified, be sure and do enough research before use.

Hands Off "Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)" Says Brunei Health Ministry
Magical Mineral Supplement (MMS) by Dr. Mark Sircus

Friday, September 20, 2013

Humankind’s Most Dangerous Moment: Fukushima Fuel Pool at Unit 4. “This is an Issue of Human Survival.”

© RT
Humankind’s Most Dangerous Moment: Fukushima Fuel Pool at Unit 4. “This is an Issue of Human Survival.”
Sept 20, 2013 | Global Research | Harvey Wasserman

We are now within two months of what may be humankind’s most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

There is no excuse for not acting. All the resources our species can muster must be focussed on the fuel pool at Fukushima Unit 4.

Fukushima’s owner, Tokyo Electric (Tepco), says that within as few as 60 days it may begin trying to remove more than 1300 spent fuel rods from a badly damaged pool perched 100 feet in the air. The pool rests on a badly damaged building that is tilting, sinking and could easily come down in the next earthquake, if not on its own.

Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000 times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima.

The one thing certain about this crisis is that Tepco does not have the scientific, engineering or financial resources to handle it. Nor does the Japanese government. The situation demands a coordinated worldwide effort of the best scientists and engineers our species can muster.

Why is this so serious?

We already know that thousands of tons of heavily contaminated water are pouring through the Fukushima site, carrying a devil’s brew of long-lived poisonous isotopes into the Pacific. Tuna irradiated with fallout traceable to Fukushima have already been caught off the coast of California. We can expect far worse.

Tepco continues to pour more water onto the proximate site of three melted reactor cores it must somehow keep cool.Steam plumes indicate fission may still be going on somewhere underground. But nobody knows exactly where those cores actually are.

Much of that irradiated water now sits in roughly a thousand huge but fragile tanks that have been quickly assembled and strewn around the site. Many are already leaking. All could shatter in the next earthquake, releasing thousands of tons of permanent poisons into the Pacific.

The water flowing through the site is also undermining the remnant structures at Fukushima, including the one supporting the fuel pool at Unit Four.

More than 6,000 fuel assemblies now sit in a common pool just 50 meters from Unit Four. Some contain plutonium. The pool has no containment over it. It’s vulnerable to loss of coolant, the collapse of a nearby building, another earthquake, another tsunami and more.

Overall, more than 11,000 fuel assemblies are scattered around the Fukushima site. According to long-time expert and former Department of Energy official Robert Alvarez, there is more than 85 times as much lethal cesium on site as was released at Chernobyl.

Radioactive hot spots continue to be found around Japan. There are indications of heightened rates of thyroid damage among local children.

The immediate bottom line is that those fuel rods must somehow come safely out of the Unit Four fuel pool as soon as possible.

Just prior to the 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami that shattered the Fukushima site, the core of Unit Four was removed for routine maintenance and refueling. Like some two dozen reactors in the US and too many more around the world, the General Electric-designed pool into which that core now sits is 100 feet in the air.

Spent fuel must somehow be kept under water. It’s clad in zirconium alloy which will spontaneously ignite when exposed to air. Long used in flash bulbs for cameras, zirconium burns with an extremely bright hot flame.

 Each uncovered rod emits enough radiation to kill someone standing nearby in a matter of minutes. A conflagration could force all personnel to flee the site and render electronic machinery unworkable.
According to Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with forty years in an industry for which he once manufactured fuel rods, the ones in the Unit 4 core are bent, damaged and embrittled to the point of crumbling. Cameras have shown troubling quantities of debris in the fuel pool, which itself is damaged.
The engineering and scientific barriers to emptying the Unit Four fuel pool are unique and daunting, says Gundersen. But it must be done to 100% perfection.

Should the attempt fail, the rods could be exposed to air and catch fire, releasing horrific quantities of radiation into the atmosphere. The pool could come crashing to the ground, dumping the rods together into a pile that could fission and possibly explode. The resulting radioactive cloud would threaten the health and safety of all us.

Chernobyl’s first 1986 fallout reached California within ten days. Fukushima’s in 2011 arrived in less than a week. A new fuel fire at Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal radioactive poisons for centuries.

 Former Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata says full-scale releases from Fukushima “would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.”

Neither Tokyo Electric nor the government of Japan can go this alone. There is no excuse for deploying anything less than a coordinated team of the planet’s best scientists and engineers.

We have two months or less to act.

For now, we are petitioning the United Nations and President Obama to mobilize the global scientific and engineering community to take charge at Fukushima and the job of moving these fuel rods to safety.

You can sign the petition at: http://www.nukefree.org/crisis-fukushima-4-petition-un-us-global-response
If you have a better idea, please follow it. But do something and do it now.

The clock is ticking. The hand of global nuclear disaster is painfully close to midnight.Harvey Wasserman is Senior Editor of the Columbus Free Press and Free Press. He edits Nuke Free.

For now, we are petitioning the United Nations and President Obama to mobilize the global scientific and engineering community to take charge at Fukushima and the job of moving these fuel rods to safety.

The American Cancer Society is in Bed with Major Cancer Drug Makers

The American Cancer Society is in Bed with Major Cancer Drug Makers
Sept 19, 2013 | Natural Society | Christina Sarich

Have you ever wondered why pharmaceutical cancer treatments cost so much when cancer-fighting foods like cannabis oil, sour sop fruit, turmeric, and dandelion greens have been shown to be inexpensive and effective solutions for all kinds of cancers? The Big Pharma companies will seemingly stop at nothing to keep your money while keeping you sick, only to undergo rounds of expensive chemo or radiation along with single doses of cancer drugs that cost upwards of $30,000. It’s unfortunate.
 
Many people have figured out that pharmaceutical companies are not looking out after people’s health at all, but rather their own inflated wallets. But what about organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS)? A nation can rely on long-standing institutions like this one for good advice concerning one of the top three killers in the US, right?

Think again.

Big Pharma 

Corruption AstraZeneca, a Big Pharma giant, has made multimillion dollar contributions to ACS, influencing just about everything that the ACS does – every poster, leaflet or commercial product about Breast Cancer Awareness you can think of. These publications focus almost exclusively on mammography and don’t mention a word about carcinogenic foods, chemtrails, aluminum in deodorants, antiperspirants, as well as vaccines. There is no spoken word of breast cancer prevention via natural, inexpensive means, while touting the ‘cure’ of mammography and cancer drugs.

Furthermore, AstraZeneca (formerly known as Zeneca before it merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra) was owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, a leading international manufacturer of industrial chemicals and carcinogenic pesticides. The multi-million dollar supporter of a leading breast cancer awareness institution is causing cancer! Why is no one teaching us that beating cancer with nutrition is not only possible, but often safer?

Mammography is touted as a ‘chemo-prevention’ tool, but studies show that the practice is causing cancer through the use of radiation. Additionally, AstraZeneca has launched a new drug which is also supposed to be chemo-prevantative – Tamoxifen, but the drug is incredibly toxic and caused uterine cancer and blood clots.

The ACS is a sham. Individuals can look to age-old, natural remedies that cost pennies and don’t harm their health. Women don’t need to lose their breasts or undergo expensive, debilitating treatments. These institutions, including AstraZeneca, and other Big Pharma companies have paid big bucks to make billions off of breast cancer.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

How the International Food Information Council trains junk food companies to hide the truth about GMOs

SOTT: How the International Food Information Council trains junk food companies to hide the truth about GMOs
Sept 11, 2013 | Organic Consumers Association | Alexis Baden-Mayer

Editor's note: This is an edited version of a presentation made on Sept. 10, 2013, by OCA political director Alexis Baden-Mayer, at the American Frozen Food Institute's (AFFI) Government Action Summit. Presenting opposite Baden-Mayer was David Schmidt, president and CEO of the International Food Information Council (IFIC). AFFI is a trade group that opposes mandatory GMO labels. AFFI's largest and most influential member is ConAgra, which contributed $1,176,700 to defeat Prop 37, California's 2012 ballot initiative to label GMOs. ConAgra hasn't yet donated to oppose I-522, the 2013 Washington ballot initiative to label GMOs. But the company is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has so far donated $2.2 million to the NO on 522 campaign. ConAgra's CEO, Gary Rodki, is the GMA's chairman.

Soylent Green, the 1973 science fiction film starring Charlton Heston, depicts a dystopian future where a population suffering from pollution, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans, and climate change survives largely on processed food rations produced by the Soylent Corporation. Soylent Green is a green wafer advertised to contain "high-energy plankton."

The climax of the film occurs when one of the characters reveals the truth: The world's polluted oceans no longer produce the plankton from which Soylent Green is reputedly made. Soylent Green is made from human remains.

Like all great science fiction, the story of Soylent Green sticks with us because it provides a glimpse into the future. Today, only 40 years after Soylent Green debuted in movie theaters, we have a population suffering from pollution, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and climate change. And we're surviving largely on processed foods derived from plants that have been genetically modified by the Monsanto Corporation. Very few of us, only 26 percent, know that there are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food. Yet when polled, 93 percent of Americans say that they want the right to know. Yet the International Food Information Council (IFIC), which is supported by companies like Monsanto, Dow, Coca-Cola, Dannon, Kraft, McCormick and Mars, works on behalf of those companies to block the will of the nine out of 10 people who want the right to know what we're eating.

Could it be that the truth about GMOs, just like the truth behind the protein source in Soylent Green, is a science-fiction horror story? One that the food and biotech industries will go to any lengths to hide from consumers?

The IFIC has produced a handy, nicely Orwellian guide for food manufacturers on what to say, and what not to say, when talking about GMOs. Its very own GMO Newspeak. IFIC's "Food Biotechnology: A Communicator's Guide to Improving Understanding" contains a list of "Words to Use, Words to Lose." The guide instructs readers to "lose" phrases like "not a direct danger to human health" or "most research has not found an adverse effect" and replace them "safe, healthful, sustainable."

Is lack of safety testing evidence of safety?

The genetically engineered food we're eating today has never been safety tested for human consumption, using reliable, independent long-term testing methods. Yet the IFIC, which opposes the pre-market safety testing of GMOs, insists that the lack of safety testing is evidence of safety.

According to the American Medical Association (AMA), GMOs have been "consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." So, no scientist has proven that GMOs are causing disease in humans. Does that mean that GMOs don't cause disease? Is it proof that GMOs are safe?

Here's how two different doctors' associations answer that question:
The AMA has a glass half-full approach, but they acknowledge that the reason we think everything's fine is that we haven't adequately addressed the potential harms of bioengineered food. The AMA wants U.S. regulators to do something they've never done before: require companies to submit to mandatory pre-market safety assessments instead of relying on the current voluntary notification process.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has a glass half-empty approach. While the AMA talks about "potential harm," the AAEM talks about "probable harm." Just like the AMA, the AAEM supports a change in U.S. law to require mandatory pre-market safety testing. But in the meantime, rather than wait another decade or two for federal agencies to require pre-market testing, the AAEM encourages doctors to recommend non-GMO diets.
Despite the difference in policy positions between the two groups of doctors, there's one thing they can both agree on: GMOs haven't been safety-tested yet. And they need to be.
IFIC says: "Consuming foods produced through biotechnology is safe for children and women who are pregnant or nursing." Wow, that's reassuring. Wouldn't we all love for that to be true? But now that we know that to IFIC "safe" just means "hasn't been safety tested," let's look into this.

IFIC's reference for that statement is: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Genetically engineered plants for food and feed, 2012. I wasn't aware the FDA had issued a statement on GMOs in 2012, so I clicked the link.

I found the old FDA statement of policy that hasn't been updated since 1997. I had read it before. But I read it again, and found that it says absolutely nothing about the safety of biotechnology for children or women who are pregnant or nursing. But I did notice something I hadn't before. A little asterisk at the bottom of the page that says, "Effective June 18, 2001, the Office of Premarket Approval is now the Office of Food Additive Safety."

Once the FDA had decided against putting GMOs through premarket safety tests, the agency could no longer claim to have an office of premarket approval. I suggest an additional entry to the IFIC's GMO Newspeak Dictionary, on behalf of the FDA: "Lack of premarket safety testing is food additive safety."

So what do we know about the safety of GMOs for children and pregnant or nursing women?

According to a study published in 2011 genetically engineered DNA survives in our bodies and is passed on to our children before birth. The study found that 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their babies have genetically engineered DNA in their blood.

Is this causing disease? We don't know yet. The researchers in this study said that babies developing in the womb are highly susceptible to the adverse effects of xenobiotics, chemicals found in an organism which are not normally produced or expected to be present in it. In this case, they're talking about crops that are genetically engineered to produce their own insecticides inside the plant. The researchers warn that GMOs could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development. They say we need a new field of multi-disciplinary research, combining human reproduction, toxicology and nutrition.

In the meantime, we need to label GMOs and let people make their own choices about what they want to eat.

Many people are finding that their health and their children's health improves when they go non-GMO. The type of person I most frequently meet through my activism these days is a mother who had to address a health problem of her own, or a health problem in her children, and who found that going non-GMO improved that condition. This is case for Robyn O'Brien, who started Allergy Kids; Kathleen Hallal, who co-founded Moms Across America (her son had an autoimmune problem that was relieved with a non-GMO diet); Tara Cook-Littman, who is responsible for passing the country's first GMO labeling law with GMO Free CT (she got rid of a variety of her own health problems, including headaches, gastrointestinal issues, tingling fingers and anxiety by going non-GMO); and Diana Reeves, who started GMO Free USA (she treated health problems in her two daughters by going non-GMO after her son died from cancer at age 4).

Better nutrition from foods with no nutritional value?

Now, one question you might have is, if we label GMOs, and more people start eating non-GMO diets, could we be steering people away from healthy food? Is there nutrition that only GMO plants provide? IFIC says: "Food biotechnology is being used to improve nutrition."

Not really. Unless you think high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and refined sugar provide nutrition.

Genetically engineered crops are used to make the worst junk-food ingredients. GMOs are primarily used to produce high-fructose corn syrup made from genetically engineered corn, refined sugar made from genetically engineered sugar beets, and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils made from genetically engineered corn, soy, canola and cotton. If you don't think you're eating cotton, look at the ingredients on a box of Ritz crackers.

Beyond talking about what genetic engineering might produce someday in the future, there's really no way for IFIC to spin the fact that genetic engineering hasn't produced any uniquely nutritious foods. IFIC's list of "Foods from Crops & Animals Raised Using Biotechnology" is "sweet corn, papaya, dairy products [from cows given genetically engineered growth hormone], sweeteners (e.g. corn syrup, sugar), vegetable oils, corn starch, soy protein, and more." By "more" they mean more processed food ingredients made from corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets. Where's the "improved nutrition" on that list?

More pesticides equals fewer pesticides?

IFIC says that GMOs have reduced the amount of insecticide used on crops. But where's the proof?

Independent scientists have reviewed industry's claims of insecticide reduction and found that overall, when you balance a supposed reduction in insecticide use against how GMOs have increased herbicide use, GMOs have actually increased the use of pesticides on average by 404 million pounds per year.

Herbicides used to be sprayed around your food. Now, thanks to genetic engineering, they can be sprayed directly on your food. Insecticides used to be sprayed on your food. Now, thanks to genetic engineering, they're produced by your food. And, as we've learned from the Journal of Reproductive Toxicology study, the genetically engineered insecticide gene stays in your body and can be passed on to your children before birth.

Contrary to Monsanto's marketing, RoundUp, the herbicide used on genetically engineered crops, is not benign. Ask the people who live in Argentina in what have come to be known as the "crop-sprayed towns." They live so close to the genetically engineered "RoundUp Ready" soy plantations that they are regularly sprayed with the herbicide. They have extremely high rates of birth defects, cancers and other serious health problems.

If consumers knew about genetically engineered food, would they still eat it? The New York Times poll that showed nearly unanimous support for GMO labels also revealed that about half us would not eat genetically engineered food if we knew how to avoid it. This is why IFIC has to hide the truth about GMOs.

Consumers' growing distrust of GMO foods is also why IFIC's "Words to Use, Words to Lose" guide advises proponents of GMOs not to say "genetically altered" and instead use the word "enhanced." Why it suggests GMO proponents drop the word "pesticides" and talk about "crop protection" or even "organic" it explains why the IFIC recommends replacing "transgenic" with "high-quality." And substituting "chemical" for "natural." And dropping the words "insect- or drought-resistant" in favor of "plentiful."

It also explains why the IFIC wants the purveyors of GMOs to talk about "ancestors" not "DNA," and why they substitute "biology," "genetically modified."

Obviously, I think the way IFIC talks about GMOs is ridiculous and deceiving, but I'll give them this: Talk about GMO food any way you like, just label it.

It's possible that I'm in a room filled entirely with people who are outside the 93 percent who want GMOs labeled. But just in case anyone here agrees with me, you can help make history this year by supporting the Yes on 522 campaign for GMO labels in Washington State.

2 years after Occupy Wall Street: Poverty persists, economic inequality grows

Occupy Wall Street protesters march from the United
Nations building to Bryant Park on September 17, 2013
in New York City. (AFP Photo / Andrew Burton)
2 years after Occupy Wall Street: Poverty persists, economic inequality grows
Sept 18, 2013 | RT

Thousands of Occupy protesters demonstrated in New York City to mark the second anniversary of the movement on Tuesday, just as new figures show that poverty remains steady and the so-called “1 percent” have only grown wealthier.

Small groups of protesters marched near Zuccotti Park, the birthplace of the movement in 2011, while others marched through Washington Square Park and other areas of Manhattan.  

At least 1,000 protesters were seen moving from the United Nations building to the headquarters of JP Morgan Chase bank, one of the Occupy movement’s prime targets.

Occupy Wall Street protesters wearing masks made out of enlarged dollar bills
act in a short skit in Times Square on September 17, 2013
in New York City. (AFP Photo / Andrew Burton)
We’re still out here fighting for economic justice. The bankers still have all the power,” protester Linnea Paton told AP. “They’ve brought our government and we need a people’s movement to do that, and the movement is still here.”

The initial movement that pitted the top one percent of wealthiest Americans against the other 99 percent quickly spread from New York across the US, and was emulated around the world.  

Occupy Wall Street participants take part in a protest to mark the
movement's second anniversary in New York,
September 17, 2013. (AFP Photo / Emmanuel Dunand)
New York’s Occupy movement evaporated after Mayor Michael Bloomberg dispatched the New York Police Department to destroy the Zuccotti Park encampment in November 2011. But the demonstrators returned in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, helping with rebuilding efforts and volunteering at makeshift food distribution centers.

Occupy has most recently supported the ongoing Fast Food protests, helping workers from major corporations like McDonalds and Wendy’s rally for fair wages and safer work conditions.

Lifting wages will help bring more economic justice to workers and improve their quality of life and living standards,” Occupy wrote in a recent statement. “This will be the beginning of an independent and grass roots campaign to bring awareness to the plight of fast food and low wage workers in a city where half of its residents live near or below poverty.”

A man is arrested for allegedly blocking traffic during an Occupy Wall Street
march from the United Nations building to Bryant Park on September 17, 2013
in New York City. (AFP Photo / Andrew Burton)
On the same day as Occupy Wall Street’s second birthday, the US Census Bureau published its report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the US. The results indicate that while the Occupy movement was correct in its claims of inequality, the cause still has a difficult path ahead.

Median household incomes in the United States in 2012 was $51,017, not statistically different in real terms from the 2011 median of $51,100. This followed two consecutive annual declines,” the report stated.

The nation’s official poverty rate in 2012 was 15 percent, which represents 46.5 million people living at or below the poverty line. This marked the second consecutive year that neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the previous year’s estimates. The 2012 poverty rate was 2.5 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the economic downturn.”

An Occupy Wall Street participant draws a sidewalk chalk drawing
during a protest to mark the movement's second anniversary in New York,
September 17, 2013. (AFP Photo / Emmanuel Dunand)
Meanwhile, research produced by economists at the University of California-Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University has revealed that the richest one percent of the US population received almost one-fifth of household income in 2012, breaking the previous record set all the way back in 1928.

Similar figures were recently issued by the Pew Research Center in April, analyzing the period between 2009 and 2011. That study suggested that only the top seven percent of American households experienced an increase in their net worth during those years. 

Still, skeptics wonder who is in control of the movement - the same problem that plagued the group in 2011. 
A number of subgroups have sprouted, each with different – if related – causes, including Alternative Banking Working Group of Occupy Wall Street, Families of Police Violence, Money Wars Performers, Occupy Staten Island, and Occupy Wall Street Zapatistas.  

We’re here to celebrate two years: We’re still here, still fighting, still strong,” demonstrator Sumumba Sobukwe told a number of protesters gathered in New York City Tuesday. “And we’re still Occupy.”

A protester affiliated with Occupy Wall Street demonstrates at Zuccotti Park
near the New York Stock Exchange on the second anniversary of the movement
on September 17, 2013 in New York City. (AFP Photo / Spencer Platt)

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Genetically Modified Babies

© unknown
Genetically Modified Babies
Sept 18, 2013 | Global Research | Rady Ananda

In October 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration will hold a two-day public meeting to discuss genetic modification within the human egg, which changes will be passed on generationally.  The United Kingdom is also moving to allow GM babies.
 
Human gene therapy has been ongoing since 1990, but most of that involved non-heritable genes, called somatic (non-sex cell) gene therapy.  Somatic modifications only affect the individual and are not passed on, and so do not affect the human genome.

The game changed with the successful birth of at least 30 genetically modified babies by 2001. Half of the babies engineered from one clinic developed defects, so the FDA stepped in and asserted jurisdiction over “the use of human cells that receive genetic material by means other than the union of gamete nuclei” (sperm and egg nuclei).

Now the FDA is considering going forward with “oocyte modification” which involves genetic material from a second woman, whereby offspring will carry the DNA from three parents.  These kinds of genetic changes (“germline modification”) alter the human genome.

With ooplasmic transfer, the technique injects healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor into the egg of an infertile woman.  Mitochondrial DNA floats outside a cell’s nucleus which contains the regular DNA, and is only inherited from the mother.

This is the first such meeting ever to be held in public by the FDA, reports Biopolitical Times (BPT), speculating that the meeting will likely include discussing a mitochondrial replacement technique developed by Shoukhrat Mitalipov at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU).

Notes the BPT, “mitochondrial replacement is a form of inheritable genetic modification.”  This type of gene therapy is the source of much controversy, because it permanently changes the human genome and risks unforeseeable changes in growth and development, and aging.

As late as 2008, all germline modification therapies and enhancements were banned in 83% of the 30 nations making up the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), including the US and UK, reports the Center for Genetics and Society (CGS).

In June of this year, the United Kingdom reversed its long-standing policy against germline modification, and decided to go ahead with three-parent babies. Regulations on the procedure are now being drafted and Members of Parliament are expected to vote on the issue in 2014.

Testifying before the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade in 2008, CGS Executive Director Richard Hayes advised:

“Most people strongly support therapeutic applications of genetic science, but they also realize that the manipulation of inheritable genetic traits crosses a consequential barrier. In the great majority of instances, couples at risk of passing on a serious genetic disease can ensure that their child is disease-free by means of medically-related trait selection, thus obviating the need for the far more complex and risk-prone intervention that germline modification would entail.”

 Making humans better, smarter, stronger has long been the goal of eugenicists.  Hayes warns:

“Germline enhancement has also been seriously proposed as a means of creating people with such novel cognitive, psychological, and behavioral traits that they would constitute a new, ‘post-human’ species, incapable of interbreeding with ‘normal’ humans.”

 Paul Knoepfler, Associate Professor of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, commented that:

“Moving one oocyte nucleus into the enucleated oocyte of another person could trigger all kinds of devastating problems (most likely through epigenetic changes) that might not manifest until you try to make a human being out of it. Then it’s too late.”

 BPT shares in this opposition:

 “If the FDA gives the OHSU researchers a green light to move towards human clinical trials, it will be the first instance of regulatory approval for human germline modification ever, anywhere in the world.

 ”Given the current regulatory void in the United States and the paucity of safety data, allowing scientists to experiment with creating permanent changes to the human genome is a genie that must be kept in the bottle.”

As with genetically modified crops, a host of unforeseen and deleterious consequences may develop when we begin modifying humans with genes their children will inherit. GM feed is linked with infertility and spontaneous abortions in livestock, and crops modified to be insecticidal are linked to declining pollinator populations, especially bees, moths and bats.

But another argument against germline modification is that it will lead to designer babies and a new class of underdogs – those who cannot afford genetic enhancement.

Eugenicists and futurists like Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity Is Near, 2006) foresee and welcome the convergence of the NBIC fields that can improve human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science.

In 2001, over 50 policy makers and scientists from a range of fields contributed to a National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop on converging NBIC technologies. Within the individual, group and societal level discussions, they addressed key areas of human activity: working, learning, aging, group interaction and human evolution. The consensus reached was to focus a national R&D priority on human enhancement.

In re-opening the allowance for GM babies, whose genetic changes will be passed on to future generations, the FDA is taking the next steps toward toeing the line on genetic human enhancement.

In addition to accepting written comments, the FDA, in collaboration with the Office of Cellular Tissue and Gene Therapies Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, will also provide a free webcast of the two-day discussion.  The meeting may be rescheduled without notice, the FDA warns.

An earlier version of this article first appeared at Activist Post.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Committees on Vaccination Found To Withhold Critical Data On Adverse Reactions From Both Parents and Health Practitioners

Committees on Vaccination Found To Withhold Critical Data On Adverse Reactions From Both Parents and Health Practitioners
Sept 16, 2013 | Prevent Disease | Dave Mihalovic

Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an "official" vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. That's exactly the behavior exhibited by health authorities for the last 30 years. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.

 Vancouver scientist Chris Shaw who is on faculty at the University of British Columbia the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, and his colleague Lucija Tomljenovic have recently published a carefully parsed and thoroughly peer reviewed paper on vaccine safety.

Despite the cautious and professional tone of the paper, and despite the authors' clear statement that their findings are not in themselves decisive, only pointing to the need for more extensive research into vaccine safety, the paper, published in November 2011 in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry which describes correlations and possible causal links between increased exposure to aluminum salts used as adjuvants in vaccines and increased levels of neurological trouble in exposed populations, seems to inflame angry and punitive responses in some quarters.
 
Tomljenovic provided evidence to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for "herd immunity", a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence.

As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) but also, their own Code of Practice.

The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as "commercial in confidence", and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992.

The documents reveal that vaccinations don't work, and that they cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They also indicate scientific fraud, that government ‘experts' are working to conceal information. The 45 page paper was published in 2011 and presented at the BSEM scientific conference organised by Dr David Freed.

They resolved to publish the proceedings online, and Dr. Freed worked with the speakers to put papers into an agreed and acceptable format. The next day he suddenly died. What follows are the last words that he wrote. He speaks from the heart about science, about corruption in high places, about the ethics of patient care, and above all about truth.

Assertions

In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI's official advices on immunisations;

4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

8) Deliberately took advantage of parents' trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;

We dedicate these proceedings to David Freed. We have lost a wise man and a friend.
The issue of vaccination and its risks arouse strong emotions, not least of fear - fear of public attack for speaking out, for one. These are the conference presentations that we are permitted to publish. Several booked speakers withdrew, for various reasons, so are not posted. Some speakers were unable to attend, but were keen for their papers to be included in the proceedings; they are posted here.

EDITORIAL


1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention-html


1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention-pdf

Dr David Freed

It seems to me that the ethical background to vaccination - giving potentially harmful medications to healthy individuals in the hope of keeping them that way - has never been clearly addressed... Who gave us the right (a) to invade the bodies of healthy people who never asked us to, and (b) to do it not only without explanation of the possible risks, but in some countries even applying coercive pressures, denying the existence of the risks, and suppressing relevant information?


PRESENTATIONS


2. Vaccines, Atopy & allergy: Problems & Solutions


Dr Richard Halvorsen

Time and time again I have heard from parents how they have been patronised, bullied and accused of not doing the best for their children, when they have simply questioned the necessity of the large number of vaccines that are being given to their children at such an early age.... The risk of severe eczema (atopic dermatitis) in a child who has caught chickenpox under eight years of age is 4% of that of a child who has not contracted the illness.

3. The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?

Lucija Tomljenovic

Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an "official" vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.

4. Labels of Convenience: Are Labels of Child Abuse being used to cover up Vaccine Damage?

Christina England

Just over ten years ago my family became one of the families in the child abuse statistics. In 1999, I was accused of suffering from Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy. In my case many of the reports and evidence ascertaining to my children were not read and many mistakes were made. I adopted both of my children and was accused of making up and causing the disabilities that they both had before I ever met them. This would not have happened if reports had been read in full.

5. Global Concerns about HPV Vaccines

Leslie Carol Botha and Freda Birrell

We believe in science-based medicine. Our primary goal is to provide the information necessary for you to make informed decisions regarding your health and well-being. We also provide referrals to helpful resources for those unfortunate enough to have experienced vaccine-related injuries.

6. The Autism Epidemic & The Pill

Dr Ellen CG Grant

The use of hormonal contraceptives rose steeply in the 1970s, becoming nearly universal; the incidence of autism and ASD rose steeply in the 1980s. Exogenous hormones have been shown to be genotoxic in their own right, but they are also associated with accumulation of DNA-damaging toxins, and ASD subjects have decreased detoxifying ability.


POSTER PRESENTATIONS


The pathogenesis of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in the development of cervical cancer: are HPV vaccines a safe and effective management strategy? 


Judy Wilyman

The decision to use an HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer was based upon circumstantial evidence: assumptions. HPV vaccines have been promoted to women on selective information. This vaccine is an HPV vaccine not a cervical cancer vaccine. There is inconclusive evidence it will reduce any cervical cancer and the long -term risks of using this vaccine have not been determined. 

Animal Vaccination Concerns: Vaccine-Associated Auto-Immune And Other Diseases

Download: fox-revised

Michael W. Fox

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, transferrin, cardiolipin and collagen. Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in genetically susceptible patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The widespread use of multiple modified live and new generation genetically engineered vaccines in food animals raised under cruel, stressful and disease-promoting intensive 'factory' farm conditions that have become epicenters for global zoonoses and food-born illness, are also examined.

The UK Health Select Committee Report ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry' published April 2005

Doris M Jones MSc

For almost a century patients have taken prescribed drugs on medical advice and on trust, believing them to be based on sound and reliable science and playing a vital part in healing processes. Now huge question marks hang over many if not all these assumptions...

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL


Summary of vaccine ingredients according to the current US and UK vaccination schedules


Download: vax-ingredients-us-uk

Lucija Tomljenovic

‘ASIA' - Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

Download: shoenfeld-link

Yehuda Shoenfeld

Sources:
ecomed.org.uk
vancourier.com

Dave Mihalovic
is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.