Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Homeschool dad sues federal government for kidnapping his 7 children… medical tyranny run amok

ORIGINAL LINK

police-search.png

If ever there was a more pertinent threat to individual liberty and the God-given freedom of parents to care for their children how they best see fit, it is the entity known as “Child Protective Services” (CPS), which all across the country has ripped apart the lives of thousands of families. But an Arkansas family that was victimized by the shady and thoroughly corrupt CPS agency in their home state could soon see justice if a landmark lawsuit they recently filed is successful.

A little over two years ago, Hal Stanley and his wife Michelle learned the hard way about how CPS views parents who defy the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) pharmaceutical mandate for treating sick children. When the couple was found to be harboring a dietary supplement known as miracle mineral solution, or MMS, in their home — MMS is not FDA-approved — armed law enforcement and CPS officials raided the home and kidnapped seven of the family’s home-schooled children.

For no other reason than simply to punish the family for possessing a substance that is known to cure serious conditions like AIDS and cancer — because the FDA hates natural cures, after all — state officials abducted the Stanley children at gunpoint and illegally held them for months on frivolous charges, this being the subject of the new lawsuit.

“At issue are allegations that the government agents violated several Constitutional rights, such as due process, familial association, and unlawful seizure, based on the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that those involved with taking the children lied to the court, fabricated evidence, and suppressed exculpatory evidence,” reports Health Impact News.

A full report by Health Impact News on what happened to the Stanleys are where they are today is accessible HealthImpactNews.com.

Arkansas wasting millions in taxpayer dollars trying to defend its tyranny against the Stanleys

It is almost unfathomable to believe that such a scenario can even occur in the “land of the free,” but it happens all the time. In this case, the Stanleys did absolutely nothing other than raise their children mostly off the grid and mind their own business — which often makes one a target in a country like the U.S. that demands total compliance with pharmaceutical, vaccine, and other mandates. (RELATED: Visit Resist.news for daily updates on resisting government tyranny.)

While the Stanleys’ lawsuit stands a real chance at success, it is an uphill battle because the state of Arkansas refuses to relent or admit that it violated the law and committed egregious acts against this innocent family. The state has endless millions to apparently waste on trying to defend itself in court, but the Stanleys’ funds are limited.

This Christian family has been through so much trying to escape the clutches of an out-of-control government apparatus that is shamelessly eager to persecute anyone who veers too far from the fold of politically-correct living and beliefs. They need our help to fight the state and win this victory, which is why they have set up a fundraising page called “But We See Jesus” to see justice served.

“We are seeking redress because we are entitled under the law,” the family’s attorney, Joe Churchwell, wrote in a recent letter. “We will be seeking injunctive relief to force the government to recognize the Bill of Rights.”

“We’re not doing this because we want to or because we think we’re going to get rich,” the letter adds. “This isn’t simply a lawsuit, this is one part of the campaign for accountability and one step in the journey to take back our families’ right to be families.”

Stay informed about the rising police state at Police State News.

Sources for this article include:

HealthImpactNews.com

MedicalKidnap.com

Drive.Google.com

ButWeSeeJesus.com



via IFTTT

The Left Is Self-Destructing: Paul Craig Roberts Rages "The Mindlessness Is Unbearable"

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The mindlessness is unbearable.

Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives.

 

Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution.

This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.

One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?

Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?

Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.

The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.

Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?

It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?

The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.

The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.



via IFTTT

Is There an Anti-Vaccine Shadow Network?

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

In the wake of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. telling reporters that President Trump asked him to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the media is angling to shame and ridicule vaccine safety and informed consent proponents, be they physicians, scientists or parents with the ability to read and think for themselves.  

Although Kennedy's appointment has not been confirmed yet by the Trump administration, The Atlantic has gone so far as to suggest that a "shadow network of anti-vax doctors" is being emboldened by questions and concerns the new president has voiced about vaccine safety.1

Like Kennedy and many other critics of vaccine science and policy, President Trump has been outspoken about his suspicions that vaccines and vaccine policies may not be nearly as safe as they're portrayed, and that the science is far from settled.

Meanwhile, Kennedy recently co-wrote an article in which he released documents revealing that officials at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999."2

Recent reports also reveal that medical treatment guidelines are frequently influenced by drug industry ties,3 and scientific "citation cartels" are gaming the system by repeatedly citing each other's work,4 thereby making their studies appear more noteworthy and establishing what amounts to a false base of research that becomes difficult to overturn by independent researchers.

In all, there can be little doubt that the drug industry is getting anxious and this is why the heat is being turned up against anyone daring to question the status quo on vaccines.

Clearly, having an open discussion about vaccine safety means opening the door to doubt, and this is something the drug industry simply cannot afford. Meanwhile, avoiding the discussion is something parents, and the health care system as a whole, can no longer afford.

Emboldening 'Anti-Vaccine Shadow Network?'

Not surprisingly, The Atlantic and other media outlets have published diatribes attacking President Trump and his staff for meeting with not only Kennedy, but also Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist.

In 1998 Wakefield and 12 colleagues published a case series paper in The Lancet, reporting that parents of 9 of 12 children they'd seen for chronic gastrointestinal symptoms told them that their children's symptoms had begun soon after getting the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

A case series paper is different from a control study in that it simply describes experiences of a single patient or group of patients with a similar diagnosis. As Wakefield points out in his book, "Callous Disregard," the purpose of a case series paper is to "generate new hypotheses."

It is not supposed to suggest or investigate possible causality — and Wakefield's paper did not make any causal claims. Rather, he and his colleagues concluded:5

"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immun[iz]ation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

The world didn't read it that way, however, and the paper was retracted after generating massive international controversy and denials by public health officials and doctors giving vaccines to children.

According to Science Magazine, Trump met with Wakefield and three other vaccine safety activists in August, 2016:6

"Trump chatted with a group of donors that included four antivaccine activists for 45 minutes, according to accounts of the meeting, and promised to watch "Vaxxed," an antivaccine documentary produced by Wakefield …

Trump also expressed an interest in holding future meetings with the activists, according to participants."

Such meetings and discussions are being widely criticized as completely unnecessary and evidence of ignorance and anti-science heresy by anyone involved, on par with believing that the Earth is flat. As noted by The Atlantic:7

"… [M]ost mainstream doctors say the vaccine question is beyond settled: Vaccines are some of the safest and most important preventive-health measures around. There is no evidence they cause autism or any other health problem …

What's more, unvaccinated people don't just threaten their own health. Outbreaks are more likely to occur during dips in the percentage of a population that's immune … A high vaccine uptake rate protects the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike."

There's No Such Thing as Vaccine-Induced Herd Immunity

The Atlantic goes on to discuss the importance of herd immunity, noting that "not one child under the age of 1 died from the chicken pox between 2004 and 2007, even though the chicken pox vaccine is not given to children that young. They simply benefited from the so-called "herd immunity" of older kids who were vaccinated."

What the writer, Olga Khazan, fails to address is the fact that herd immunity doesn't work the same way for immunizations as it does for naturally-acquired immunity resulting from exposure to, and recovery from, illness.

To understand the difference between natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, please see the video below.

Khazan also makes no effort to explain how the majority of outbreaks occur in areas that are thought to HAVE herd immunity status already, i.e., where the majority of people are fully vaccinated and "should" therefore protect the entire community from infection and transmission of infection.

Documents Reveal Government Betrayal

In his article, Kennedy claims that documentation8 obtained via FOIA proves the FDA and CDC knew childhood vaccines were overexposing children to mercury, which is a well-known potent neurotoxin.

Part of the FDA Modernization Act, passed by Congress in 1997, required the FDA to compile a list of pharmaceutical products that contain mercury.

More than 30 FDA licensed inactivated vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, ended up on this list and included DPT/DTaP, HIB and hepatitis vaccines routinely given to babies between day of birth and 18 months old.

The FDA was also charged with conducting a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list. This responsibility fell on the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

Prior to this, no one had ever added up the cumulative mercury exposure resulting from thimerosal-containing infant vaccines. According to Kennedy:9

"When the agency finally performed that basic calculation, the regulators realized that a [6]-month-old infant who received thimerosal-preserved vaccines following the recommended CDC vaccine schedule would have received a jaw dropping 187.5 micrograms of mercury.

Instead of immediately ordering the removal of thimerosal, FDA officials circled the wagons treating the public health emergency as a public relations problem. Peter Patriarca, then director of the FDA Division of Viral Products, warned his fellow bureaucrats that hasty removal of thimerosal from vaccines would:

'… raise questions about FDA being 'asleep at the switch' for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products.

It will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use. We must keep in mind that the dose of ethylmercury was not generated by "rocket science."

Conversion of the percentage thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?'

Toxicology Models Confirm Mercury Overexposure

Dr. Barry Rumack was one of the consultants hired by the FDA to delve deeper into the cumulative mercury exposure problem from vaccines given to babies in the first few years of life. In 1999, Rumack presented a model of the mercury blood-and-body burden associated with childhood vaccines, showing that:

"… [T]himerosal-containing vaccines was dosing American children with mercury levels far exceeding all three federal safety guidelines established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FDA and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)," Kennedy writes.

"There was no point in time from birth to approximately 16-18 months of age that infants were below the EPA guidelines for allowable mercury exposure. In fact, according to the models, blood-and-body burden levels of mercury peaked at [6] months of age at a shockingly high level of 120ng/liter. To put this in perspective, the CDC classifies mercury poisoning as blood levels of mercury greater than 10 ng/L."

With the certain knowledge that infants were being exposed to unacceptably high mercury burdens through vaccines, what the FDA did next is unforgivable.

The agency that is supposed to protect the public from unsafe pharmaceutical products concealed these alarming findings about "bolus" (large amount) mercury exposures to infants receiving multiple thimerosal-containing vaccines simultaneously by using a statistical trick in which they simply averaged the mercury exposure over a period of six months.

In reality, the bolus mercury exposures via multiple vaccines given on a single day occurred at four specific times during the first year of a child's life: at birth, and at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. By averaging the exposures over the full six months, the spikes in mercury on the four days of vaccination disappeared. According to Kennedy:

"An analogy would be to compare taking two Tylenol tablets a day for a month to taking 60 Tylenol tablets in one day; the first exposure is acceptable, while the other is lethal."

Even With Deception, Mercury Burden Exceeded EPA Guidelines

Using this statistical trickery, mercury levels from childhood vaccinations ended up being lower than FDA and ATSDR guidelines, leading the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics to report that:

"There is a significant safety margin incorporated into all the acceptable mercury exposure limits. Furthermore, there are no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule. Infants and children who have received thimerosal-containing vaccines do not need to be tested for mercury exposure."

It would seem the last sentence was added as a protective buffer to prevent people from actually conducting further testing of actual mercury levels in children following repeated injections with mercury-containing vaccines in the first few years of life.

Remarkably, even with this statistical trick, "The levels were still above EPA guidelines which were the most stringent of the three," Kennedy writes,10 adding that "Numerous toxicologists have reported that the FDA's calculation, averaging these high bolus dose exposures, was not appropriate." Moreover, it appears the FDA may have misguided the pediatrician, Dr. Leslie Ball, assigned to oversee the public reporting of the ATSDR results.

According to Kennedy, Ball was unfamiliar with toxicology and, when confronted about the statistical manipulation, she replied that she was basically just following orders, saying, "That is what I was told to do." Email correspondence from 1999 shows that even Ball herself questioned the rationale behind averaging the exposures. In a July, 1999 email to Norman Baylor, Ph.D., director of the Office of Vaccines Research Review, marked "confidential," Ball asked:11

"Has the application of these calculations as exposure guidelines received the sign off by toxicologists? In prior discussions, the toxicologists seemed reluctant to state any Hg (mercury) level was 'safe.'"

CDC Vaccine Patents Create Serious Conflicts of Interest

Kennedy has also reported that the CDC owns more than 20 different vaccine patents and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines each year, noting that those patents create a significant undisclosed conflict of interest when it comes to the agency's involvement in vaccine safety.12

Mark Blaxill, who specializes in intellectual property law, in 2010 wrote about the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), holds patent rights to the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix, and receives a percentage of the profits from the administration of these vaccines on a global scale.13

In a recently released report, Ginger Taylor, M.S., director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, lists the human vaccine-related patents held by the CDC, which currently total 27, plus another five patents for veterinary vaccines.14 (For links to the actual patents, please see the reference hyperlink to the original report.)

"Does this seem like a public health agency making "independent" vaccine recommendations, or a private company with an impressive portfolio to which one might look for investment opportunities?" she writes.15 Yet, "Nowhere on the CDC's website can I find the disclosure that the agency is a profit partner with the vaccine makers for whom it is supposed to be providing safety oversight.

Kennedy is in very safe territory by reporting that the CDC has over 20 patents that create vast, undisclosed conflicts of interests in vaccine safety. He is understating the problem by more than half … The vaccine business is currently a $30 billion per year industry … the World Health Organization … project[s] that it will become a $100 billion per year industry by 2025.

Thus, it is evident that the CDC and their business partners need the public to not only be [OK] with the 69 doses of recommended childhood vaccines, but to begin to adhere to the additional 100-plus doses of vaccines recommended by the new adult schedule, and to be ready to inject their families with the additional 271 vaccines in the development pipeline.

That profit boom can't happen if the corruption in the industry, and the vast, unassessed damage that it has done to the health of children (and now adults) is laid open for all to finally see.

The $30 billion per year industry will become a sub $10 billion per year industry, with a cap on how much it can make. Because there is a cap on how much the human body can process. We must continue to press the Trump administration for comprehensive vaccine safety review and reform, including the universal right to forgo any and all vaccines without coercion."

Pharma and CDC Fund Medical Trade and Front Groups to Undermine Vaccine Exemptions

Back in 2008, veteran CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson asked the question in her investigative report, "How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?"  She found extensive financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Every Child by Two (ECBT) and Merck vaccine developer Paul Offit.16 The AAP, ECBT and Offit all lobby for elimination of vaccine exemptions for religious, conscientious or philosophical beliefs.  

The CDC is also a primary funding source for the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO),17 an organization whose mission "is to be a leader, partner, catalyst and voice for local health departments." While its name and mission statement would make you think it's a member-funded organization, it actually operates primarily on government grants, and the CDC is a primary source. Seven of 11 funding priorities for NACCHO programs also come from the CDC.

In July, 2011, NACCHO issued a policy statement urging state legislators to remove vaccine exemptions for religious, conscientious and philosophical beliefs.18 During the 2013 fight in the Oregon state legislature to eliminate the religious belief vaccine exemption (S.B. 132), NACCHO heavily lobbied for the bill and did it again in 2015 with another bill to eliminate all but medical vaccine exemptions granted by a doctor (SB442).

In fact, NACCHO was portrayed as a primary supporter of the bill,19 and also has put its weight behind eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions in other states.

Moreover, NACCHO policies not only favor mandatory use of vaccines from cradle to grave, but also support the creation of national electronic registries of the vaccination status of all citizens, including adults. It's worth noting that in addition to the 69 doses of vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, the CDC recommends no less than 72 vaccinations between the ages of 19 and 65 for adults.

It would appear as though NACHHO is little more than a front group for the CDC, and through use of federal tax dollars, the CDC is actively undermining vaccine exemptions and civil liberties, including freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief. Could one reason be because the CDC is an agency that is financially profiting from promoting mandatory vaccination policies and laws?

Again, in reality, the CDC is hardly an impartial agency, and it does not appear to have safety at the core of its operation when it comes to vaccines. Rather it seems to be an integral part of the vaccine industry machine.

Another front group for the vaccine industry — and the CDC — is Voices for Vaccines, which "advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease." Its administrators are portrayed as two concerned mothers, who founded the blog Moms Who Vax. However, Voices for Vaccines is actually an "administrative project" of the Task Force for Global Health, the third largest charity in the U.S., which has deep ties to CDC and pharmaceutical industry funding.

A 2013 article by News from Underground explained that the Scientific Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines includes Merck vaccine developers and mandatory vaccination proponents Paul Offit and Stanley Plotkin; former CDC immunization director Alan Hinman, who is an Emory University professor and heads the Center for Vaccine Equity at the Task Force for Global Health; Vanderbilt professor William Schaffner; and director of the Immunization Action Coalition, Deborah Wexler. The Immunization Action Coalition is funded by pharmaceutical companies through the CDC Foundation.20

In 2014, the online blog VacTruth also detailed the many connections between Voices for Vaccines, the Task Force for Global Health, Emory University, the CDC, vaccine makers and other pro-vaccine organizations and promoters, including Dr. Paul Offit.21

The Atlantic may want you to think there's a shadow network of anti-vaccine doctors out there, determined to undermine the health of the world. But it's ironic, considering that, in reality, there is a vast, undisclosed, yet well-documented pharma-driven network using every propaganda tactic in the book to squash freedom of thought and speech about vaccination — all in the name of protecting profits.

Media Conveniently Ignores Conflicts of Interest When It Serves

Not surprisingly, corporate media pundits are all too willing to point out how many minutes President Trump might have spent face-to-face with Andrew Wakefield, a physician they did everything in their power to discredit, and the influence he might have on the president. However, they rarely, if ever, talk about the extraordinary conflicts of interest of another physician, Paul Offit, who is one of the most prominent vaccine propagandists typically cited by the media whenever vaccine safety questions arise.

As noted by Taylor, Offit has asserted that "holding vaccine patents, being funded by Merck and having Merck buy and distribute, to physicians, his book extolling the virtues of vaccines, does not compromise his objectivity as a member of the committee that determines what is and is not sound vaccine practice."22 In one instance, Offit said:

"I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that. When I review safety data, am I biased? That answer is really easy: absolutely not."

Ironically, the corporate media are now alleging that Kennedy — who has been outspoken about the toxicity of mercury in vaccines and conflicts of interest within the vaccination system for the last decade — is so tremendously biased that he could not possibly contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion, while Offit, who has made a small fortune off his promotion of mandatory vaccine use, is presented as the non-conflicted, objective and most respected authority in the vaccine field.

How does that work? Offit's proclamations of impartiality are ludicrous in the extreme and so are media reports claiming anyone but doctors like Offit is too biased to lead an investigation on vaccine safety.  

Funding Colors Patient Recommendations

I've written about how industry money can taint recommendations by individuals and health organizations alike on many occasions, and now yet another study has confirmed the power and influence of funding. According to Susannah Rose, a social worker and scientific director of research for the Cleveland Clinic's office of patient experience in Ohio, who led the study:

"Relationships with industry might bias advice, and I don't think anyone is immune to that. If they're getting funding and advocating for certain medications, there's a potential for undue risk of influence."23

Her study found that more than 67 percent of 245 patient advocacy groups received industry funding in the past year, and evidence suggests the source of funding played a role in recommendations made by such organizations. 

Adverse Events Vastly Underreported

In a best-case scenario, we would have accurate information about vaccine side effects. Unfortunately, we do not, and this has seriously undermined efforts to push for greater vaccine safety. In a recent paper published in PLOS Medicine, Dr. Gordon Schiff discusses the need for better prescription drug adverse event reporting. While he does not single out vaccine reactions, there's cause to believe vaccine reactions are even more underreported than other drug reactions.

"While not a pediatrician, as a primary care physician and patient safety researcher I have spent considerable time both submitting and reviewing safety reports. At one point, I had filed more error and adverse drug reactions reports than all the other physicians at my public hospital in Chicago combined, making me either the institution's most dangerous prescriber or its most diligent reporter," he writes.

What he describes about underreporting of drug adverse events by physicians cuts to a core problem of vaccine safety. On the one hand, the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is specifically set up to record adverse events related to vaccines in the U.S. On the other hand, it's criticized as being unreliable due to severe underreporting.

The answer is obvious: insist on mandatory reporting. But that's not happening. On the contrary, there appears to be a concerted effort to control and manipulate statistics by discouraging and minimizing reports, effectively sweeping problems — no matter how severe or widespread — under the proverbial rug.

Parents of vaccine injured children were the ones who secured vaccine safety informing, recording and reporting provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law's vaccine reaction reporting requirement directed doctors and all vaccine providers to report adverse events following vaccination to VAERS, which is jointly operated by the CDC and the FDA.

This is NOT a prerequisite for the person making a vaccine reaction report to VAERS to personally make a judgment about whether or not he or she believes the adverse event was caused by the vaccination. Rather, a report is supposed to be filed for any and all hospitalizations, injuries, deaths and serious health problems following vaccination. Period. It's not up to the vaccine provider to decide whether a reaction is related to the vaccine or not.  

Despite this legal requirement, most vaccine providers are unfamiliar with the reporting process, are confused about who should be doing the reporting, and/or are unwilling to file a report. Each year, VAERS receives about 30,000 reports, and studies into reporting habits suggest adverse reactions are only filed in 1 to 10 percent of all cases.24

In a 2015 article, an ER nurse and former police officer described his experiences with vaccine reactions. He said he's seen first-hand how many doctors not only refuse to report vaccine reactions, but actually go through extra trouble to cover them up by altering the medical records and removing mention of recent vaccinations.25,26

Doctors Frequently Overestimate Benefits and Underestimate Harms of Medical Interventions

Meanwhile, recent research27 reveals that clinicians frequently overestimate benefits and underestimate harms of medical treatments, tests and screenings. When it comes to vaccines, there's little doubt the same pattern is to be found. According to the authors:

"In this systematic review of 48 studies (13, 011 clinicians), most participants correctly estimated 13 percent of the 69 harm expectation outcomes and 11 percent of the 28 benefit expectations. The majority of participants overestimated benefit for 32 percent of outcomes, underestimated benefit for 9 percent, underestimated harm for 34 percent, and overestimated harm for 5 percent of outcomes.

Meaning: Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions, but more often underestimated harms and overestimated benefits … Inaccurate perceptions about the benefits and harms of interventions are likely to result in suboptimal clinical management choices."

To finish where I started, I believe it's imperative we start having an open public discussion about vaccine safety and conflicts of interest in the mandatory vaccination system. The industry does not have the right to shame doctors and patients for wanting to be safe rather than sorry.

The vaccine industry and the federal agencies charged with vaccine safety oversight are rife with conflicts of interest, as the National Vaccine Information Center and other individuals and organizations have pointed out over the past three decades.28,29 It's time to get to the bottom of it. Profit cannot be allowed to continue being the sole driving force of government health recommendations. Our society simply cannot afford to pay that price any longer.





Related Articles:

 Comments (25)


via IFTTT

Big Sugar and Coke Conspiracy

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

The rise of chronic metabolic disease in the U.S. follows the growth of the U.S. sugar industry and increases in per capita sugar consumption.

Today, we consume about 20 times more sugar than our ancestors did, and we have very little control over the amount since what was once a condiment has now become a dietary staple added to countless processed and fast foods.1

Yet, if you were to visit with a conventional nutritionist, you'd likely still hear rhetoric that's been parroted since the 1950s — incorrect and misleading rhetoric at that — that "a calorie is a calorie" and obesity is the result of consuming more calories than you expend.

Gary Taubes, co-founder of the Nutrition Science Initiative and the author of "The Case Against Sugar," wrote in The New York Times:2

"When it comes to weight gain, the sugar industry and purveyors of sugary beverages still insist, a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, so guidelines that single out sugar as a dietary evil are not evidence-based.

Surprisingly, the scientific consensus is technically in agreement. It holds that obesity is caused 'by a lack of energy balance … '"

Yet, as Taubes pointed out, researchers have known since the 1960s that your body metabolizes different types of carbohydrates, like glucose and fructose, in different ways, causing very different hormonal and physiological responses that absolutely may influence fat accumulation and metabolism.3

"In light of this research, arguing today that your body fat responds to everything you eat the exact same way is almost inconceivably naïve," Taubes said, "But don't blame the sugar industry for perpetuating this view. Blame the researchers and the nutrition authorities."4

'Energy Balance' Theory Perpetuated by Nutritionists, Soda Industry

Many conventional nutritionists are among the top supporters of the energy balance theory, which still suggests that weight gain is simply a matter of consuming more calories than you burn off.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute is among those prominent government organizations still perpetuating this myth5 — alongside soda giants who obviously have a vested interest in keeping sugar's "OK-in-moderation" reputation.

In 2015, for instance, Coca-Cola Co. was outed for secretly funding and supporting the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit front group that promoted exercise as the solution to obesity while significantly downplaying the role of diet and sugary beverages in the weight loss equation.6

Public health authorities accused the group of using tobacco-industry tactics to raise doubts about the health hazards of soda, and a letter signed by more than three dozen scientists said the group was spreading "scientific nonsense."7

By December 2015, the Global Energy Balance Network announced it would be shutting down, with Coca-Cola claiming it was working on increased transparency.

However, as reported by CrossFit bloggers Russell Berger and Russ Greene, the soda industry maintains many close ties with organizations that continue to promote the energy balance myth (and directly funds such organizations).8 Among them:

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), which was funded by Coca-Cola until 2015.

They also founded a program called "Energy Balance 4 Kids With Play" in partnership with the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF), "an industry organization representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, General Mills and other distributers of sugar-sweetened products."9

"The program promotes the concept of energy balance among children and parents through registered dietitians," Berger noted.10

The International Food Information Council Foundation, which is funded by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, promotes the idea that "when it comes to weight management or weight loss, it's the total calories that matters most."

The National Institutes of Health "We Can!" Campaign. Coca-Cola has channeled millions of dollars to the NIH Foundation. The campaign advises drinking soda only "once in a while" and suggests balancing out days when kids eat lots of high-sugar foods/drinks with more physical activity.

The American College of Sports Medicine, which is also funded by Coca-Cola, suggests that while water should be your first choice of beverage, "there is no harm in drinking juice or even soda in moderation."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also receives funding from Coca-Cola via the CDC Foundation, also promotes "energy balance," assuring that: "Healthy eating is all about balance.

You can enjoy your favorite foods even if they are high in calories, fat or added sugars. The key is eating them only once in a while … "

How the Soda Industry Downplays the Health Risks of Excess Sugar

While leveraging the energy balance theory via public health organizations, the soda industry also uses a variety of other smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distract the public from the true health risks of consuming sugary beverages.

One of their favorites is blaming obesity on lack of exercise and suggesting that you can somehow out-exercise the effects of a poor diet, which you cannot. Berger noted:11

"Perhaps the biggest trick of Big Soda nutrition science is to promote physical activity instead of fitness and weight loss. Weight loss and fitness require limiting the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages.

Generic references to physical activity, however, may actually encourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, especially when the same organizations promote the idea of "earning" sugar by burning off additional calories through daily activity."

There are other stealthy tricks too, like industry-funded health organizations suggesting metabolic syndrome is the result of obesity and can be remedied with physical activity.

But independent studies have suggested insulin resistance, caused by overconsumption of sugars, especially fructose, may, in fact, be a primary cause behind metabolic syndrome.

For instance, a meta-review published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that once you reach 18 percent of your daily calories from added sugar, there's a two-fold increase in metabolic harm that promotes pre-diabetes and diabetes.12

Moreover, research suggests sugary beverages are to blame for about 183,000 deaths worldwide each year, including 133,000 diabetes deaths, 44,000 heart disease deaths, and 6,000 cancer deaths.

By focusing on obesity and physical activity, the soda industry very carefully avoids bringing attention to the role sugar and insulin resistance play in this increasingly common chronic condition.

Another common tactic, as Berger pointed out, is describing chronic disease and obesity as "complex" issues. While it's true that disease can be complex, the soda industry uses this term as a form of false nutritional propaganda. Berger wrote:13

"Big Soda speaks of the complexity of addressing and identifying the causes of chronic disease. The label of complexity rules out simple treatments like 'stop drinking sugar' and makes models of chronic disease based on overconsumption of sugar seem oversimplified and rash."

Food Industry Attacks Respected Exercise Scientist for Dissing Sugar

Dr. Timothy Noakes, is a professor of exercise science and sports medicine at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and a long-time low-carb advocate.

He is perhaps best known for the book, "Waterlogged: The Serious Problem of Overhydration in Endurance Sports," which suggests that overhydrating will actually worsen athletic performance, not improve it.

He also widely promotes a low-carb, high-fat diet, including for children. In 2014, he tweeted the recommendation that babies should be weaned onto low-carbohydrate diets — a far cry from the processed cereals most dieticians and pediatricians recommend.

The advice resulted in backlash from Claire Julsing Strydom, the president of South Africa's dietetics association, ADSA, (and also a consultant for Kellogg's) and others who reported him for "unprofessional conduct."

ADSA itself also has additional ties to cereal giant Kellogg's and reportedly gets more than one-third of its revenue from corporate sponsors such as Nestle, Unilver and Huletts Sugar.

South Africa's Health Professions Council (HPCSA) is reviewing whether to strip Noakes of his medical license, but there's much more to this story than meets the eye.

Greene uncovered an elaborate backstory that reveals the case against Noakes to be nothing more than a witch hunt aimed at protecting the interests of the junk food industry, which exerts major influence over South Africa's dietary guidelines. I will also be interviewing Noakes in April, so watch for what I'm sure will be a revealing interview in the months to come. In short, Greene reported:14

"To summarize: [A] former ILSI [International Life Sciences Institute, a Coca-Cola proxy organization] South Africa president convinced the HPCSA to charge Noakes, another former ILSI South Africa president testified as an expert witness against him, and an ILSI-funded researcher consulted for the legal team prosecuting him. And yet, not a single news story has connected ILSI to the Noakes trial.

… The HPCSA will release its final decision on Noakes on April 21, 2017. Noakes is cautiously optimistic. It seems unlikely that HPCSA will rule that his 2014 tweet constituted a doctor-patient relationship. Strydom herself has admitted that Noakes' tweet did not qualify as such a relationship.

The case against Noakes falls apart without that crucial element. Noakes even thinks it's possible that his 900 slides and 30-[plus] hours of testimony will convince South Africa to discard its industry-corrupted dietary guidelines. Perhaps."

'The Case Against Sugar' — Is Sugar Actually a Drug?

Taubes' excellent book, "The Case Against Sugar," expertly documents sugar's link to chronic disease and much more, including whether sugar should more aptly be described as a drug instead of a food.

It doesn't cause the immediate symptoms of intoxication, like dizziness, staggering, slurring of speech or euphoria, associated with other "drugs," yet perhaps this only allowed its long-term medical consequences to go "unasked and unanswered." "Most of us today will never know if we suffer even subtle withdrawal symptoms from sugar, because we'll never go long enough without it to find out," Taubes wrote, continuing:15

"Sugar historians consider the drug comparison to be fitting in part because sugar is one of a handful of 'drug foods' … that came out of the tropics, and on which European empires were built from the 16th century onward — the others being tea, coffee, chocolate, rum and tobacco."

Interestingly, Taubes claims that sugar has likely killed more people than tobacco, and that tobacco wouldn't have killed as many people as it did without sugar. This is a fascinating story in and of itself, which Taubes details in greater depth in his book.

" … [S]ugar was, and still is, a critical ingredient in the American blended-tobacco cigarette, the first of which was Camel. It's this 'marriage of tobacco and sugar,' as a sugar-industry report described it in 1950, that makes for the 'mild' experience of smoking cigarettes as compared with cigars and, perhaps more important, makes it possible for most of us to inhale cigarette smoke and draw it deep into our lungs."16

It's also known that sugar induces similar responses in the "reward centers" of the human brain as other additive substances, like nicotine, cocaine, heroin and alcohol. The 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program even recommends consuming sweets in lieu of alcohol to ward off a craving for a drink.

Today, "Sugar has become an ingredient in prepared and packaged foods so ubiquitous it can only be avoided by concerted and determined effort," Taubes wrote, which is, of course, precisely the problem, especially as realization grows that simply "moderating" sugar may not be enough. Taubes continued:17

"The traditional response to the how-little-is-too-much question is that we should eat sugar in moderation — not eat too much of it. But we only know we're consuming too much when we're getting fatter or manifesting other symptoms of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome … Any discussion of how little sugar is too much also has to account for the possibility that sugar is a drug and perhaps addictive.

Trying to consume sugar in moderation, however it's defined, in a world in which substantial sugar consumption is the norm and virtually unavoidable, is likely to be no more successful for some of us than trying to smoke cigarettes in moderation — just a few a day, rather than a whole pack … If sugar consumption is a slippery slope, then advocating moderation is not a meaningful concept."

Breaking Free From Sugar's Hold

Once you understand the close ties between the soda and junk-food industries and public health organizations' dietary recommendations, it becomes clear that relying solely on them for nutritional advice puts your health at risk. And once you understand the health risks of sugar, including the fact that it's not an issue of extra calories but the kind of calories, it may motivate you to want to cut back, or eliminate, this substance from your diet and that of your children.

The bright side is that once you cut down on added sugars and other net carbs (total carbs minus fiber), which will allow your body to start burning fat as its primary fuel again, the sugar cravings will disappear and avoiding it won't feel like such a struggle. In the meantime, if a sugar craving strikes, fit in a quick workout, drink a cup of organic black coffee, or eat something sour (like fermented vegetables or lemon water). All can help you kick your sugar cravings to the curb.

"To the sugar industry, the nutritionists' dogmatic belief that obesity is a calorie overconsumption problem and a calorie is a calorie has been the gift that keeps on giving. So long as nutrition and obesity authorities insist that this is true, then the sugar industry can rightfully defend its product on the basis that the calories from sugar are no better nor worse than those from steak or grapefruit or ice cream — perhaps even kale or quinoa. We can't have it both ways," Taubes concluded.18



Sources:


Related Articles:

 Comments (2)


via IFTTT

Smoking Gun on EPA's Secret Collaboration With Monsanto

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is once again facing scrutiny over its dealings with Monsanto, the maker of Roundup herbicide.

In 2015, glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, was determined to be a "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The EPA, rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.1

In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online, briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final, and had been posted by mistake.

The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA's deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).

This is notable because Monsanto is currently embroiled in a number of lawsuits, including litigation from more than 50 people who claim exposure to Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

Monsanto has used the EPA's supposedly-not-final report in court hearings to suggest glyphosate is safe, and now the plaintiffs' attorneys are asking for documents detailing Monsanto's interactions with Rowland to be released.

EPA, Monsanto Refuse to Lift Seal on Controversial Documents

In a review published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, a team of scientists thoroughly reviewed the research behind the IARC's glyphosate/cancer ruling, noting an association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was found based on available human evidence.2

Associations between the chemical and rare kidney tumors, genotoxicity and oxidative stress and even DNA damage in the blood of exposed humans were also revealed.

But industry is working hard to ensure that any science and other evidence not on their side is overlooked, including allegations that Monsanto has long known glyphosate causes cancer and spent decades covering it up.

Toward that end, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the NHL lawsuit asked to depose Rowland and unseal documents detailing Monsanto's relationship with the former EPA official (curiously, he left the EPA shortly after the CARC paper was taken down from the EPA's website).

While Monsanto released 6 million pages of documents, 85 percent of them were marked as "confidential," which means important data is blacked out during court filings and not viewable to the public. According to The Huffington Post:3

"The lawyers say that the documents obtained through discovery show that 'Monsanto has been confident all along that EPA would continue to support glyphosate, whatever happened and no matter who held otherwise.'

 According to the court filings by plaintiffs' attorneys, the documents show 'it is clear that Monsanto enjoyed considerable influence within the EPA's OPP [Office of Pesticide Programs], and was close with Mr. Rowland ...

The documentary evidence strongly suggests that Mr. Rowland's primary goal was to serve the interests of Monsanto.'

 … [A]long with Monsanto's objection to releasing the documents that relate to its conversations with Rowland, the EPA has specifically refused the deposition request, saying it would 'not clearly be in the interests of EPA' to allow attorneys to question Rowland about the cancer review and interactions with Monsanto."

Monsanto Sues the State of California

While the EPA seems to be treading water (and even backpedaling) rather than moving forward to stop the unchecked use of glyphosate-based products in the U.S., California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulate their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and most did this on a national scale, not just in California.

Monsanto, however, is trying a different strategy. They filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. Their reasoning was that California's actions could be considered illegal because, Monsanto claimed, they were not considering valid scientific evidence.4

The comment was slipped in on the final day the state accepted public comments, perhaps because Monsanto was trying not to attract too much fanfare to their attempts to keep people in the dark about their carcinogenic product.

In January 2016, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification, calling it unconstitutional because OEHHA "delegated law-making authority 'to an unelected and non-transparent foreign body [IARC] that is not under the oversight or control of any federal or state government entity,'" EcoWatch reported.5

OEHHA has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, EcoWatch continued, stating "IARC's scientific determinations are 'the gold standard in carcinogen identification,' and are trusted and relied upon by state governments, the federal government and foreign governments alike."6

Whether the case is dismissed or allowed to proceed could have major implications not only for Monsanto but also for the classification of cancer-causing chemicals moving forward.

Washington State Sues Monsanto Over PCB Pollution

In December, 2016, Washington became the first U.S. state to sue Monsanto over PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) pollution. The state is seeking damages on several grounds, including Monsanto's failure to warn about PCBs, negligence and trespass for harming the state's natural resources.

Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson said they expect to win hundreds of millions or billions of dollars from Monsanto, noting that despite millions of dollars spent by the state for cleanup, the chemicals are still causing harm to protected salmon and orcas.

The suit alleges that Monsanto knew PCBs were toxic for a decade before they were eventually banned in 1979. Ferguson's office compared the state's approach in pursuing legal action against Monsanto to the approach taken against tobacco companies in the 1990s.

The settlement reached with Big Tobacco was more than $200 billion (nationally), which was split among the states in yearly payments intended to help offset health care costs related to smoking.7

In addition, an increasing number of U.S. cities in Washington and California, including Seattle, Spokane, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, have filed lawsuits against Monsanto for causing disastrous environmental pollution.

In October 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss Spokane's lawsuit, which alleges PCBs have contaminated the city's storm water, but a judge ruled it could proceed.8

Berkeley, San Jose and Oakland, meanwhile, had to refile their complaints after a judge threw theirs out because they did not have ownership of storm water.

The amended complaints now point out that city governments can capture and reuse storm runoff, which gives them a property interest in the water and therefore grounds for filing suit against Monsanto's PCB pollution.9

EPA Puts Off Taking Action Against Bee-Toxic Pesticides

EPA's song-and-dance routine surrounding glyphosate is disturbingly similar to the one going on for neonicotinoid pesticides (aka neonics), which are implicated in killing bees. In January 2017, the EPA published preliminary risk assessments for the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran.

They also updated their preliminary risk assessment for imidacloprid, which was published in January, 2016. While acknowledging risks from certain applications, the EPA's assessment also suggested the chemicals could be safely used.

"[M]ost approved uses do not pose significant risks to bee colonies," according to the EPA. "However, spray applications to a few crops, such as cucumbers, berries and cotton, may pose risks to bees that come in direct contact with residue."10

The risk assessments are now open for public comment, and the EPA plans to coast for another 1.5 years, minimum, before releasing a final neonicotinoid risk assessment in mid-2018. Larissa Walker, Center for Food Safety pollinator program director, said in a news release:11

"Even in their limited scope these risk assessments clearly show harm to bees and other pollinators from uses of neonics. But rather than suspend uses of these harmful chemicals while the agency continues to gather more data, EPA is refusing to take strong regulatory action until late 2018 or 2019 …

Bees and beekeepers have already waited too long for much-needed government protections for pollinators. The time for the EPA to take action is now."

Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) 'Grass Gone Wild'

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is another government agency keen on protecting Monsanto's interests. In 2003, with the permission of the USDA, Monsanto and Scotts performed a field trial of experimental GE grass which, like Roundup Ready crops, is impervious to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

The trial was conducted in Central Oregon on a 400-acre plot near the Crooked River National Grassland. The grass, a type of GE creeping bentgrass that was being designed specifically for use on golf courses, turned out to be extremely hardy — so hardy that Oregon Live described it as "nearly impossible to eradicate."12

The experimental test plot was shut down and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that the grass could negatively affect endangered species in Oregon. But by then it was too late. The grass had already spread beyond the test plot, including into the national grassland preserve.

More than a decade later, the invasive GE grass is still a problem in Oregon. Monsanto and Scotts are growing tired of the battle and, as is the case with Monsanto and PCBs, are looking to be let off the hook.

USDA Finalizes Deregulation of GE Grass

Monsanto and Scotts petitioned the USDA to deregulate (i.e., remove restrictions from) the GE bentgrass seeds, which is typically done when a company wants to bring the product to market. The companies claim they will not sell the seeds in the future, which means they're seeking deregulation for another purpose.

Namely, if the GE grass is deregulated, Monsanto and Scotts will not be liable for any damage related to their "grass gone wild."13,14 As explained by Oregon Live:15

"The reason they are willing to go through the long, expensive deregulation process is simple: If the USDA grants their petition, the ongoing invasion suddenly becomes Oregon's problem, not Scotts' and Monsanto's. Equally troubling is that, once the bentgrass is deregulated, the USDA would no longer have the authority to monitor whether Scotts and Monsanto keep their word about not selling these seeds.

With the recent approval of Roundup-resistant Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue turfgrass, these companies are moving aggressively to dominate the grass seed market. And, without any legal hurdles in their way, there could be extreme pressure to eventually sell these seeds."

In a strikingly blatant show of solidarity to industry in lieu of the public, in January, 2017, the USDA issued their final deregulation for the GE bentgrass. Jerry Erstrom, chairman of the Malheur County (Oregon) Weed Board, which declared GE creeping bentgrass a noxious weed in 2016, called the move "a slap in the face to family farmers," EcoWatch reported.16 Lori Ann Burd, director of the environmental health program at the Center for Biological Diversity, continued:17

"The USDA's decision ignores a groundswell of united opposition from state departments of agriculture, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, university professors, scientists, farmers and conservationists …

Because this blatant bow to industry will continue to harm farmers, endangered species and the precious landscape, the USDA has left us with no choice but to explore our legal options to return the burden of controlling this weedy grass back to the shoulders of the corporate profiteers who brought it into the world."

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you'd like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides. In the case of glyphosate, it's also wise to avoid crops like wheat and oats, which may be sprayed with glyphosate for drying purposes prior to harvest.



Sources:


Related Articles:

 Comments (2)


via IFTTT

‘Devastating, Alarming, Dire’ Situation Continues To ‘Mystify And Stump’ Scientists – Conditions Along West Coast Continue To Deteriorate With No Answers In Sight

ORIGINAL LINK

by Stefan Stanford, All News Pipeline:

Even though it’s been quite some time since we’ve published a story about the devastation that the radiation from Fukushima power plant has caused the Pacific Ocean and parts of the West Coast, we felt it time to revisit what’s happening there. Especially considering the recent news stories outlined below about Fukushima and the fact that nearly 6 years later, the radiation from the destroyed power plant continues to endlessly flow into our atmosphere and into our oceans.

Back on January 18th, outgoing US Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker declared a ‘fisheries disaster’ for nine West Coast species, claiming ‘commercial fisheries failures’ in Alaska, California and the state of Washington.

While the NOAA statement made DID NOT put the blame for the failures upon radiation from Fukushima, they did claim ‘unusual ocean and climate conditions’ for the huge losses. And as we learn more below from several new stories, what’s happening there is really only the ‘tip of the iceberg’. As Zero Hedge reported back in October of 2016, “Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It’s Going To Get Worse)”. As we learn below from NOAA, it has.:

In recent years, each of these fisheries experienced sudden and unexpected large decreases in fish stock biomass or loss of access due to unusual ocean and climate conditions. This decision enables fishing communities to seek disaster relief assistance from Congress.

In Alaska:

Gulf of Alaska pink salmon fisheries (2016)

In California:

California Dungeness and rock crab fishery (2015-2016)
Yurok Tribe Klamath River Chinook salmon fishery (2016)

In Washington:

Fraser River Makah Tribe and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe sockeye salmon fisheries (2014)
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay non-treaty coho salmon fishery (2015)
Nisqually Indian Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, and Squaxin Island Tribe South Puget Sound salmon fisheries (2015) Quinault Indian Nation Grays Harbor and Queets River coho salmon fishery (2015)
Quileute Tribe Dungeness crab fishery (2015-2016)
Ocean salmon troll fishery (2016)

The new story from ENENews reports on the government’s ‘declaration of disaster’ over diseased and dying fish on the US West Coast as well as why most scientists remain ‘mystified’ and ‘stumped’ over this ‘devastating…alarming…dire’ situation that only seems to be continuing to deteriorate with no answers in sight.

However, we can see by looking at the conversation recently held between Washington governor Gov. Jay Inslee and the US Department of Commerce that they are both very well aware of very poor conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Why won’t they mention radiation as the cause?

Gov Jay Inslee Request: I respectfully request that you declare a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster in Washington State. This request is based upon the failure of coho salmon runs returning to Washington State in 2016… Coho salmon returns to Washington watersheds in 2015 were unexpectedly low due to poor survival during the time these fish spent in marine waters of coastal Washington and the Pacific Ocean… Expectations for coho returns in 2016 are very poor due to persisting poor conditions in the Pacific…

US Dept. of Commerce, Jan 18, 2017: Dear Governor Inslee… Your request relates to the impacts to the 2016 ocean salmon troll fishery as a result of the failure of coho salmon runs returning to Washington State due to unusual environmental conditions in the Pacific Ocean that have led to the poor survival and growth of coho salmon…

Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com



via IFTTT

Monday, January 30, 2017

Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right

ORIGINAL LINK

A few months ago, the Indian government withdrew 86% of banknotes in circulation. Ostensibly, it was to cut down on the black market economy and tax cheats, but it also wiped out a large percentage of the wealth of the poorest people, who hold their wealth in cash. A few weeks later, Venezuela followed with a similar measure.People waiting in line to deposit bank notes before the deadline. The 500 and 1,000 rupee notes were scrapped.This got me thinking, to what degree do people control their own wealth ...

via IFTTT

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Seymour Hersh Blasts Media for Uncritically Promoting Russian Hacking Story

ORIGINAL LINK
Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh said in an interview that he does not believe the U.S. intelligence community proved its case that President Vladimir Putin directed a hacking campaign aimed at securing the election of Donald Trump. He blasted news…

via IFTTT

Trump Warns Against Flu Shot & For Good Reason: “I Don’t Like Injecting Bad Stuff Into Your Body”

ORIGINAL LINK

The flu shot has often be said to be one of the greatest scams in medical history. While this can be up for debate, let’s shed some light on why people feel that way based on the research available – there’s no shortage of it.

Before we get to that, in an interview with Opie and Anthony on Sirius XM, Trump shared his opinion about flu shots and stated he feels they are “totally ineffective.”

“I’ve never had one. And thus far I’ve never had the flu. I don’t like the idea of injecting bad stuff into your body. And that’s basically what they do. And this one (latest flu vaccine) has not been very effective to start off with…. I have friends that religiously get the flu shot and then they get the flu. You know, that helps my thinking. I’ve seen a lot of reports that the last flu shot is virtually totally ineffective.“

Trump is right in this case – flu shots are the greatest medical fraud in history. They are full of “bad stuff” including formaldehyde and mercury – two powerful neurotoxins – and the vaccine industry even admits that laboratory tests prove the popular jab does not work.

Related: This One Thing Is Crucial To Preventing The Flu

Multiple studies found that flu vaccinations can cause harm to your heart, infant and fetus. The CDC recommends that all infants six months or older should receive flu vaccinations on top of a highly questionable vaccination schedule. You can check out the entire vaccination schedule here.

A study published in the journal Vaccine found that flu vaccines can cause a measurable increase in inflammation in pregnant women. This can increase the risk of preeclampsia which can result in high blood pressure and an increased amount of protein in the urine. Preeclampsia can lead to eclampsia, which are life threatening seizers pregnant women can have during birth.

Another study published in the Journal of Paediatrics, found that 85 percent of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70 percent in those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood, a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16 percent of infants were reported to experience vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours of immunization.

Last but not least, a study published in the International Journal of Medicine revealed something that you don’t hear to often. That flu vaccines results in inflammatory cardiovascular changes indicative of increased risk for serious heart-related events, like a heart attack.

Together with an inflammatory reaction, influenza A vaccine induced platelet activation and sympathovagal imbalance towards adrenergic predominance. Significant correlations were found between CRP levels and HRV (heart rate variability) parameters, suggesting a pathophysiological link between inflammation and cardiac autonomic regulation. The vaccine-related platelet activation and cardiac autonomic dysfunction may transiently increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

More people are choosing to opt our of their yearly flu vaccination due to new information surfacing that shows they can be harmful to your health. Instances like children in Europe developing Narcolepsy after the H1N1 pandemrix vaccine adds to the new decisions as well.doesn’t help either. Periodic infectious challenges are natures way of strengthening the immune system, but with such a rigid vaccine schedule from the onset of birth, our immune system becomes reliant and weak instead of strong and more developed. In fact, during the global pandemic that was declared by the World Health Organization in 2009, Canadians actually increased the rate of medically attended pandemic H1N1 infection. Vaccines, therefore, may actually decrease the resistance to viral infection via their immunosuppressive actions. The study was published in the US National Library of Medicine.

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses (source)

Hopefully this information inspires you to further investigate before receiving your flu shots. We are often pushed and encouraged by health organizations and mass media to take the flu shot without taking a look at the evidence that supports it, and the evidence that works against it. Having a broad range of information is always better than having no information at all. I personally choose not to be vaccinated, I am a strong believer that our immune systems are capable of overcoming any type of illness especially when we take care of our health and have the right mentally in place. I also recommend taking a look at the ingredients within the vaccine you are considering, and researching the potential effects those can have on your body.

It is said that the seasonal flu kills between 250,000 to 500,000 people worldwide, a number that to some reading might sound incredibly high.[1] Perhaps this is why the flu vaccine is so heavily offered? The key question that is creating a great amount of controversy is whether or not the numbers we read about the amount of flu deaths are actually accurate?

When winter time rolls around we start hearing the term “flu season.” As a result, we are offered the flu vaccine as a means to protect ourselves from the flu. I was just reading a public health flyer the other day that stated the best way to protect yourself from the flu is to take the vaccine. It seemed odd that the whole public health flyer seemed focused on making sure people knew the flu vaccine was a must have. I could understand that, if the death stats were actually accurate.

What Are The Stats Based On?

The World Health Organization is the source of the death count annually that is seen above. The CDC states that about 36,000 people in the US die each year from the flu. Although to some these sources seem credible, where they are getting their information from could be much more of a PR move than a legitimate stat.[2]

According to the National Vital Statistics System in the U.S., annual flu deaths in 2010 were only 500 for the year. Ulcers, pregnancy, childbirth and hernias were all around double or more compared to the flu. This of course didn’t even compare to things like heart disease or cancer which ranged somewhere in the 500,000 range. The story is the same in Canada.

Interestingly, the CDC released a data paper in 2010 that shows how they categorize flu deaths. The stat is grouped with Pneumonia deaths. If one were to look, it states that 50,097 deaths were attributed to flu and pneumonia, but when that number is broken down, pneumonia is responsible for 49,597 and the flu only 500. [3] The CDC itself acknowledges and admits that there is only a slim relationship, stating “only a small proportion of deaths… only 8.5 per cent of all pneumonia and influenza deaths [are] influenza-related.”

In Canada the numbers are approximately the same, reported deaths of the flu have never surpassed 350 during a flu season. Some years were as little as 150 or so. Furthermore, hospitalizations from the flu never surpassed  7000 for the entire country in some of the worst recorded years. [4]

The interesting thing about the WHO is that in their estimations they show no measure of how they arrived at their numbers. This is why controversy is so heavy when it comes to actual flu numbers. This is perhaps also why many point to the numbers as a PR stunt to sell more vaccinations.

Multiple Sources Agree

To take it even further, the American Journal of Public Health and the British Medical Journal feel the number of 500 deaths in the US could even be too high. They state that only about 15-20 per cent of people who come down with flu-like symptoms actually have the influenza virus. It is believed that the other 80-85 per cent actually caught rhinovirus or other germs that are indistinguishable from the true flu without laboratory tests, which are rarely done.

“U.S. data on influenza deaths are a mess,” states a 2005 article in the British Medical Journal entitled “Are U.S. flu death figures more PR than science?” The article points to the fact that the claimed 36,000 yearly flu-death figure commonly claimed is overstated and incorrect. This makes calling pneumonia/influenza as the 7th leading cause of death incorrect as well.

 Is The Vaccine Even Effective?

The former Chief Vaccine Office at the FDA, Dr. Anthony Morris states: “there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza.”

Of course this statement has been attacked by many “science” blogs stating he isn’t an expert on the flu and that his opinion shouldn’t be trusted. A classic move by opposers where an attack is set out on statements made using emotional arguments attempting to make others feel unintelligent for questioning something.  Yet the opposers often provide no evidence to state the research or opinion is incorrect. This is perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of parts of the scientific community. To think of how many things are ignored or shot down out of arrogance and fear of overturning old ideas is astonishing.

The prestigious Cochrane Library released a review in 2009 stating “There is not enough evidence to decide whether routine vaccination to prevent influenza in healthy adults effective.” [5]

Given the ineffectiveness of the vaccine and the potential side effects that go along with the vaccine, why put yourself at risk? The influenza does not appear to show any moderate risk of hospitalization or death and avoiding the flu can be done very easily with natural means.

Perhaps it’s finally time to end the hype and stop supporting the vaccine all together?

Sadly the CDC has created a mass market for the flu vaccine and enlisted doctors and the media to fear many into taking it. Since very few have questioned the efficacy of such a vaccine, the hysteria continues blindly.

Here’s an interesting look at the financial side of the flu vaccination.

Sources:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/studies-find-flu-shots-can-harm-your-heart-infant-and-fetus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20964738

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21945263

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17643770

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20386731

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults

1. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/

2. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=195750

3. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

4. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/influenza/flu-stat-eng.php

5. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/CD001269.pdf



via IFTTT