Tag Archives: vaccines

Vaccine-Autism Link Data

Posted on by

CDC whistleblower confesses to publishing fraudulent data to obfuscate link between vaccines and autism

Friday, August 22, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff write

(NaturalNews) A medical conspiracy of epic proportions stands to bring down the entire vaccine house of cards following the revelation that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) censored key data linking the MMR vaccine to autism. A top CDC researcher-turned-whistleblower has come forward with the truth about a study that the CDC has long claimed proves the safety of MMR, when in fact it actually shows the exact opposite.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the CDC whistleblower told Dr. Brian Hooker from the Focus Autism Foundation (FAF) that a 2004 CDC study published in the journal Pediatrics, entitled “Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta,” contains data that was deliberately manipulated to conceal the vaccine-autism connection.

Drs. Frank DeStefano, M.D., Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, M.D., and Coleen Boyle, Ph.D., all employees of the CDC, published the joint paper that looked at 624 children with autism living in the Atlanta-metro area of Georgia. These children were evaluated alongside 1,824 children without autism, all of whom were matched according to age, gender, school and time of vaccination.

Between the two groups, similar proportions of children were vaccinated both before 18 months and before 24 months, with the bulk having been vaccinated between 12 and 17 months of age. And based on this analysis, researchers say they found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, a claim that Dr. Boyle, who currently holds the position of Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the CDC, reiterated during a 2012 Congressional hearing.

CDC altered study sample size to obscure autism link, particularly in black boys

The implication, of course, is that these findings prove once and for all that MMR does not cause autism, a claim heralded by the mainstream media as undeniable fact. But according to the CDC whistleblower, everything is not as it seems when it comes to what the study actually found.

Early on in the research, it was apparently discovered that African American boys who received the MMR vaccine at three years of age or younger were 340 percent more likely to develop autism than other children. This is obviously not what the CDC wanted to find, as it betrays the loyalty that the agency has to the vaccine industry. So the CDC basically scrubbed it by paring down the sample size, excluding children who did not have a State of Georgia birth certificate.

“CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate — reducing the sample size being studied by 41%,” explains an FAF press release on this groundbreaking discovery. “[B]y introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys.”

Dr. Wakefield’s new film exposes MMR-autism coverup by CDC

What the CDC did, in essence, was recreate the original study design after it was discovered that the original one showed adverse effects associated with MMR. In other words, the CDC deliberately withheld the truth about MMR, manufacturing a false study after the fact in order to arrive at what appears to have been a predetermined outcome.

“The results of the original study first appeared in the journal Pediatrics which receives financial support from vaccine makers via advertising and direct donations,” adds the FAF announcement. “[This fraudulent study] is widely used by the CDC and other public health organizations to dismiss any link between vaccines and autism — a neurological disorder on the rise.”

For people like Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist who had his career stolen from him over similar findings, this revelation is timely. No longer will the mainstream media be able to claim that no link between vaccines and autism exists, as this grand deception by the CDC proves that MMR isn’t nearly as safe as we’ve all been led to believe.

“We’ve missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism,” admitted the CDC whistleblower, who says he deeply regrets his previous involvement in the MMR-autism coverup. “They’re not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated.”

A new short film directed by Dr. Wakefield provides a visual timeline of the CDC’s misgivings concerning MMR and autism, linking the original experiment to the heinous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, which was foisted on unsuspecting African Americans back in the 1930s.

You can watch Dr. Wakefield’s film for free on Vimeo:
Vimeo.com.

Conventional Medical Efficacy & Myths

Posted on by

The Top 15 Lies You’re Being Told About Health and Mainstream Medicine

 

Valued sources of information are hijacked by much bigger interests than you can imagine

The Top 15 Lies You're Being Told About Health and Mainstream Medicine

Do you ever question what doctors, nutritionists, institutions and even science tells you about your health, food, environment and lifestyle? You should, because we live in an era of deception and duplicity where the most trusted and valued sources of information are hijacked by much bigger interests than you can imagine. The internet is one of the last frontiers for truth, informing and educating billions on why our systems of health, agriculture, medicine and many other areas we depend on are failing us. The reason they’re failing us is because corrupt governments, corporations and the media are constantly feeding us lies on a daily basis, which through repetition, the public eventually accepts as truth.

LIE #1. GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs) CAN FEED THE WORLD
A lot of food that we eat today contains genetically modified ingredients and usually without our knowledge. Supporters of this technology maintain that it ensures and sustains food security around the world as the population increases. As well as scientific debates on the merits of genetically engineered food, there are equally, if not more important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way such science is marketed and used.

The dangers of GMO foods can no longer be denied. Researchers havelinked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

Biotechnology companies erroneously claim that their manipulations are similar to natural genetic changes or traditional breeding techniques. However, the cross-species transfers being made, such as between fish and tomatoes, or between other unrelated species, would not happen in nature and may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses. When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are “position effects” which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products. There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilise the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases.

Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, genetic pollution is self-perpetuating. It can never be reversed or cleaned up; genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species.

LIE #2. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WIRELESS RADIATION ARE NOT HARMFUL TO HUMANS

The danger of magnetic, electric, wireless, radio (microwave), ground current, and high frequency radiation is that it is mostly invisible until great damage is done – like the increased risk of some brain tumors in long term cell phone users.

Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is a very big health problem of our youngest generations. The media and medical community dismiss it, but it is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and our entire society learn more about the risks because the human health stakes are significant.

Studies suggest that women briefly exposed to very high-intensity EMFs have an increased risk of miscarriage, especially EMFs emitted by power lines and electrical appliances.

A growing percentage of people are now heeding the advice of holistic health experts and disposing of their microwaves due to the dangers of microwaved food.

The effect of EMFs on biological tissue remains controversial. Virtually all scientists agree that more research is necessary to determine safe or dangerous levels. It’s like one big human experiment which we won’t know the results of for several decades. Now, with the increasing proliferation of wireless handheld and portable devices, it is literally impossible to escape EMFs in any major city.

What they do know is that iron, which is necessary for healthy blood and is stored in the brain, is highly affected by EMFs. The permeability of the cell membranes of nerves, blood vessels, skin and other organs is also affected, as well as the intricate DNA of the chromosomes. Every bodily biochemical process involves precisely choreographed movement of EMF sensitive atoms, molecules, and ions.

Not only do EMFs impact your own health and that of your children and pets, but also the Earth as a whole, as our overuse of electricity contributes greatly to pollution from coal-fired electricity plants. Those who are wise will heed the warnings of the electrically sensitive and reduce the EMF radiation in their homes through good design and reduction of dependence on electric appliances.

LIE #3. MEDICAL SCREENING AND TREATMENTS PREVENT DEATH

Even though the medical community advocates for regular screenings for those with illnesses, they may bring little benefit and may actually pose harm to your health. This applies to almost every type of medical screening for cancer and several other diseases. Medical screening carries an immense risk in itself, not only due to the damage inflicted by screening techniques on the human body, but by the very nature of medical follow-up protocols. These protocols usually encourage patients to enter deeper into more invasive techniques, which further cripple health and lead to a very high percentage of fatalities.

Doctors are often criticized for prescribing unneeded tests and procedures that harm more than they help and add to medical costs that could otherwise be avoided. 12 medical tests and procedures now being questioned worldwide as unnecessary and potentially cause — sometimes harmful results to patients.

Radiation-induced cancers have tripled in the last two decades anddiagnostic imaging has been already been admitted as a cause by the U.S. government.


There is a secular trend between breast cancer mortality and screening programs specifically medial diagnostic techniques such asmammography. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

A prostate (PSA) blood test looks for prostate-specific antigen, a protein produced by the prostate gland. High levels are supposedly associated with prostate cancer. The problem is that the association isn’t always correct, and when it is, the prostate cancer isn’t necessarily deadly. Only about 3 percent of all men die from prostate cancer. The PSA test usually leads to overdiagnosis — biopsies and treatment in which the side effects are impotence and incontinence. Repeated biopsies may spread cancer cells into the track formed by the needle, or by spilling cancerous cells directly into the bloodstream or lympathic system.

News coverage of many diseases focus too much on treatments and not enough on prevention, a trend that could prove risky in the long run for most people who don’t understand how to take care of their health.

LIE #4. FLUORIDE PREVENTS TOOTH DECAY

A growing number of communities are choosing to stop adding fluoride to their water systems, even though the federal government and federal health officials maintain their full support for a measure they say provides a 25 percent reduction in tooth decay nationwide.

There are now serious facts and health risks regarding fluoridation which can no longer be ignored and the practice itself is being questioned by most of the world.

Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can’t repair damaged cells, we get old fast.

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage every system and function of the body.

Dr. Paul Connett, PhD stated “When historians come to write about this period, they will single out fluoridation as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we’ve ever had.”

David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology said that “water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet.”

LIE #5. FOCUS ON LOWERING BAD CHOLESTEROL TO PREVENT HEART DISEASE

Perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States, is the misuse of an invented term “bad cholesterol” by the media and medical community. Moreover, a scientifically-naive public has been conned into a fraudulent correlation between elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause CVD. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

We have become a culture so obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat that many health experts are now questioning the consequences. Could we really maintain a dietary lifestyle that was so foreign to many of our ancestral populations without any ill effects on our health? Many researchers are now concluding that the answer to that question is “NO.” Current data is now suggesting that lower cholesterol levels predate the development of cancer. Scientific papers prove that people with high so-called “Bad” LDL cholesterol live the longest.
The ‘noddy-science’ offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help ‘reduce cholesterol’. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a ‘typical ordinary’ product might cost. But is this apparent ‘blanket need’ to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the ‘transporters’ (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body’s delivery logistics to work effectively.

Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being ‘delivered’ around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

We need to reform education on what really causes heart disease and why cholesterol, whether high or low, is not an evil process in the body, but a natural part of our biology. When we stop listening to medical doctors, suddenly we start listening to what our bodies crave… to be the healthiest version of ourselves.

LIE #6. SUNLIGHT IS HARMFUL AND SUNSCREEN IS YOUR BEST DEFENSE

Sunscreen is full of some of the most toxic chemicals known. Yet both the cancer and sunscreen industries insist on their use to ironically prevent cancer from “bad” sunlight. People still fall for this nonsense, slather on the sunscreen in hopes to protect against a non-existent foe. If the sun was really that harmful, we’d all be dead long ago. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence shows that blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin dramatically influences our optimal vitamin D levels, leading to higher mortality, critical illness, mental health disorders and ironically, cancer itself. Here’s why you need to make your own sunscreen.

There are well over 800 references in the medical literature showing vitamin D’s effectiveness–both for the prevention and treatment of cancer.

Blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin dramatically influences our optimal vitamin D levels, leading to higher mortality, critical illness andmental health disorders. Ironically, sunscreen itself causes cancer.

Exposure to sunlight and ultraviolet light has been repeatedly shown to NOT be the cause of skin cancer. Scientists from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center reported UVA exposure is unlikely to have contributed to the rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past 30 years.

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is also a myth promoted by pharmaceutical companies, conventional medicine and the mainstream media for one purpose…profit. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like Cancer Societies which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to “prevent cancer.”

LIE #7. VACCINES PREVENT DISEASE AND INCREASE IMMUNITY

The term “immunization”, often substituted for vaccination, is false and should be legally challenged. Medical research has well established that the direct injection of foreign proteins and other toxic material (particularly known immune-sensitising poisons such as mercury) makes the recipient more, not less, easily affected by what he/she encounters in the future. This means they do the opposite of immunize, commonly even preventing immunity from developing after natural exposure. There are 5 phases of awakening to the dangers of vaccination and many lie in different phases.

The actual frequency of health problems has been estimated by authorities to be possibly up to 100 times, or more, greater than that reported by government agencies. That difference is due to the lack of enforcement or incentive for doctors to report adverse effects. With the anti-vaccination movements now exposing the truth on the internet, the medical community is now on high alert, defending their claims and being told by vaccine manufacturers that they must never let their patients (or parents) think that the risks could outweigh the benefits, when in reality, it is precisely the opposite that is true.

Convincing evidence is finally coming forward from peer reviewed studies which show that the rapid increase in the number of vaccines given to children is creating synergistic toxicity and a state of immune overload in the majority of vaccine recipients manifesting in related health issues including epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and autism.

The benefit risk ratio is an important decision in anyone deciding whether to vaccinate or not. Contrary to popular belief and marketing, childhood diseases in a developed country are not as dangerous as we are led to believe. Catching a particular disease does not mean you will die from it. Vaccines were actually introduced at a time when diseases had already declined to a low risk level. This fact is proven, scientifically.

The main advances in combating disease over the last 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water…not vaccines. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research which prove that vaccine did not save us. The is irrefutable evidence which shows that the historical application of vaccines had no health benefit or impact on prevention of infectious disease.

All vaccines contain sterility agents, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, and carcinogenic compounds. Some examples include formaldehyde, a carcinogen found in almost every vaccine, neurotoxins such asmonosodium glutamate, potassium chloride, thimerosal, sterility agents such as Triton X-100, octoxynol-10, polysorbate 80, and immuntoxins such as neomycin, monobasic potassium phosphate,sodium deoxycholate to name a few of many.

It is no coincidence that the more educated you are, the less chance you will vaccinate which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don’t vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed. Those who become fully informed of the dangers of vaccines never see them in the same light again, as their motives then become clear.

LIE #8. CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE AND THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM HELPS SICK PEOPLE

Perhaps the biggest health myth today is the public’s misconception that mainstream medicine and the healthcare system helps sick people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why do people follow medical authorities who prescribe toxic vaccinations, medications and treatments which only serve as a detriment to human health?

The freedom of people to choose natural healing, alternative medicine and methods of disease prevention could soon be threatened by corporate lobbyists who will do anything to protect their wealth at the expense of your health.

90 percent of all diseases (cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, etc.) are easily preventable through diet, nutrition, sunlight and exercise. None of these solutions are ever promoted by conventional medicine because they make no money.

No pharmaceuticals actually cure or resolve the underlying causes of disease. Even “successful” drugs only manage symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other physiological functions that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

There is no financial incentive for anyone in today’s system of medicine (drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc.) to actually make patients well. Profits are found in continued sickness, not wellness or prevention.

The main error of the biomedical approach is the confusion between disease processes and disease origins. Instead of asking why an illness occurs, and trying to remove the conditions that lead to it, medical researchers try to understand the biological mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they can interfere with them. These mechanisms, rather than the true origins, are seen as the causes of disease in current medical thinking and this confusion lies at the very centre of the conceptual problems of contemporary medicine.

Almost all the “prevention” programs you see today (such as free mammograms or other screening programs) are nothing more than patient recruitment schemes designed to increase revenue and sickness. They use free screenings to scare people into agreeing to unnecessary treatments that only lead to further disease.

Nobody has any interest in your health except you. No corporation, no doctor, and no government has any desire to actually make you well. This has served the short-term financial interests of higher powers in the west very well. The only healthy, aware, critically thinking individuals are all 100% free of pharmaceuticals and processed foods.

LIE #9. THERE ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF CHEMICALS

The levels are “acceptable” by industry and regulatory standards, but our exposure to other “acceptable levels” of toxic chemicals that then interact with each other and dance with our cells within our bodies is never taken into consideration.

We have over 200 synthetic chemicals in our bodies right now. Our exposure to toxins is that pervasive. Most of us do not detect their presence every moment of every day, but we have to wonder–how are they affecting us? What does this mean for future generations? This is all ignored by all industries.

Chemicals account for an annual $3.7 trillion in sales across the globe–the United States makes up almost 19 percent. Many jobs rely on this industry, yet 85 percent of the chemicals in commerce today have not been tested. How are the products containing those chemicals impacting our health? What’s the impact on those who work or live near the chemical plants?

Is it really that hard for most people to believe that we are being assaulted on a daily basis by chemical terrorism? Genetically modified foods, artificial flavours, colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners all made with toxic chemicals, all of which are proven toxic to human health.

Artificial sweeteners, preservatives, nitrates, artificial colors, MSG…if it’s processed, chances are it contains one or more of these ingredients. Sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate are preservatives that are sometimes added to sodas to prevent mold growth, but benzene is a known carcinogen. Butylated Hydroxynaisole (BHA) is another preservative that’s potentially cancer-causing. Reading labels is an easy solution–if you don’t recognize an ingredient, don’t buy the food product.

There are no acceptable levels of any chemicals that belong in our foods and it’s time we get the chemical industry out of our foods.

LIE #10. DISEASE CAN’T BE REVERSED WITHOUT DRUGS

Many combinations of natural products are as effective as man-made drugs, but without the side effects when acting against specific diseases. For empirical evidence, look no further than the indigenous tribes and cultures which still use many formulations pre-dating the historical record and with great success. A comprehensive study and first of its kind published in PLoS One assessed 124 natural product combinations and found that in the right combinations, they can match drug level potency.

Plants are better than drugs on many levels. Specific herbs, fruits and vegetables have been found on many instances to work better than medication for specific diseases. For example, Soursop Fruit has been found to kill cancer up to 10,000 times more effectively than strong chemotherapy. Consuming apples daily has been found in some studies to be more effective than statin medications at reducing heart disease.Cranberry juice, garlic and turmeric are just three of dozens of other foods which beat drugs in treating and preventing disease.

There are herbs that boost and heal the lungs, others which increaseenergy and vitality, many that stabilize the thyroid and even lower blood pressure.

** The 7 Most Prescribed Drugs In The World And Their Natural Counterparts **

Despite the medical model which relies on pharmaceutical intervention for every known illness, there are well over one hundred common diseases that can be reversed naturally. That’s the difference between treatment for profit and healing for wellness. Arthritis (both rheumatoid and osteo) diabetes (both Type I and Type II), hypertension and cancer are all reversible with proper herbal strategies, nutrition and exercise.

LIE #11. THE BEST WAY TO TREAT CANCER IS WITH CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIATION

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment. It destroys their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients basically live in a permanent state of disease until their death. The cancer industry marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies whose risks far exceed any benefit. This is what they do best, and they do it because it makes money, plain and simple.

The reason a 5-year relative survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most cancer patients going downhill after this period. It’s exceptionally bad for business and the cancer industry knows it. They could never show the public the true 97% statistical failure rate in treating long-term metastatic cancers. If they did publish the long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic chemotherapy, that is 10+ years and produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all. No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from industry funded institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.

LIE #12. SCIENCE IS REPUTABLE AND HONEST

The pursuit of truth in modern scientific query is marred by greed, profit and only a concept of truth built on the assumption of an unexamined good. While pharmaceutical drug approvals, genetically modified foods and various other controversial technologies may appear to be based on “science”, corporate interests and profits often interfere with the true meaning of what science represents to both academics and the public.

The primary methodology of science is to prise apart reality into its component parts in order to better understand how the whole functions. Cartesian logic began with the separation of mind and matter and the scientific method depends upon the separation of the observer from the observed. The absolute separation between mind and matter has now been shown to be entirely fictitious the importance of objectivity within the scientific method remains undiminished.

There is little real science to be found in the common practice of mainstream medicine. Rather, what passes for “science” today is a collection of myths, half-truths, dishonest data, fraudulent reporting and inappropriate correlations passed off as causation. Correlational studies can NOT prove causation, yet the end result of most scientific studies in mainstream medicine make a causal claim without any proof and then pass those suggestions to the public to sell the medical model to the public.

Advertisers and product manufacturers have certainly used this inherent cognitive bias towards trusting “scientific facts” in order to market products which they claim have a scientific basis in their effectiveness. The same is of course true within ideologies and politics. While many choose to focus on the large scandals such as the drug research fraud, countless fraudulent scientific claims are made every day in advertising, often with no repercussions.

LIE #13. THERE ARE SAFE DOSES OF CHEMICALS IN MEDICATIONS

Ask any scientist in the field of health and safety and they will tell you that toxicity is all about the dose. Not really. While you can die from anything taken in excess, even water, you can also run into serious fatal complications from any poison at any dose if you take it long enough. There is no safe dose of a poison because the body recognizes even the smallest dose and immediately creates inflammatory cascades and immune responses to combat these foreign entities. Toxic chemicals are now invading every facet of our lives from our schools to our workplaces. They are gradually deteriorating every single system in our bodies and causing so many diseases, that it’s now difficult to isolate exactly which chemicals are causing each disease.

The chemical testing we currently do to establish if a chemical is safe may not be sufficient. In particular, we may not be targeting nor understanding the effects of extremely low levels of chemical contaminants during critical phases when the organism is “listening” for chemical messengers. This occurs, for example, during fetal development and during changes that occur in puberty. The first question we need to be asking is: does this chemical mimic any of the messenger chemicals that organisms depend upon for survival?

What most of these chemical management companies, their regulatory agencies and scientists do not apprecite, is what a delicately balanced organism we are especially at the molecular level. At this level, chemicals act more like a handshake than like that third pint of beer.

LIE #14. PEOPLE ARE HEALTHIER TODAY THAN IN PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
Life expectancy at birth rose by a few years for both men and women in the last two decades of the 20th century. This has come at an enormous cost in the quality of life of our elders, for they are suffering with more pain and greater disability than ever before in last 15 years of life. People globally are living longer but chronic debilitating conditions are becoming more prevalent.

A recent Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 involved 486 authors in 50 countries who aimed to offer a comprehensive update on diseases and injuries since the last such report in 1990. It found the leading risk factor accounting for the disease burden in most developed nations is diet.

Perhaps most worrisome is the medicalization of childhood which is leading us to illness if adulthood. If children cough after exercising, they have asthma; if they have trouble reading, they are dyslexic; if they are unhappy, they are depressed; and if they alternate between unhappiness and liveliness, they have bipolar disorder. While these diagnoses may benefit the few with severe symptoms, one has to wonder about the effect on the many whose symptoms are mild, intermittent or transient.

Each successive generation is sicker and more diseased than its predecessor. Autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma, diabetes and many other diseases continue to skyrocket. No government agency has ever done, or will ever do anything about it except continue to compile statistics.
LIE #15. THERAPEUTIC PLANTS ARE DANGEROUS DRUGS

The reason cannabis is so effective medicinally is directly related to its ability to interact with receptors in the body which inhibit inflammation and prevent disease. Cannabis does this so well, that few drugs can compete with its level of potency which come essentially with no side effects. Consquently cannabis is labeled a threat to mainstream medicine.

The question is no longer which disease cannabis can cure, but which disease can’t it cure? A study published in Nature Reviews-Cancerprovides an historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.

It’s no surprise that the United States has decreed that marijuana has no accepted medical use use and should remain classified as a highly dangerous drug like heroin. Accepting and promoting the powerful health benefits of marijuana would instantly cut huge profits geared towards cancer treatment and the U.S. would have to admit it imprisons the population for no cause. Nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States are for marijuana.

According to MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition “…there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,” Cowan notes.

Many researchers have noted that there was “inadequate” data for decades to determine whether smoked marijuana was safe or effective in treating symptoms of pain and preventing disese. The primary reason for the s lack of data had to do with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or NIDA, which was the only source of cannabis for research and they were blocking the most meaningful studies due to close ties with pharmaceutical companies.

This view was supported by Dr. David Bearman, the executive vice president for the Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine/Society of Cannabis Clinicians. “Part of the problem in the United States is that the NIDA has blocked almost all meaningful studies on cannabis,” Bearman said. Bearman argues that while synthetic cannabis pills do offer pain relief, marijuana is cheaper, has fewer side effects and can be more effective.

Now decades of propaganda is being reversed as scientists and the public are being exposed to the true potential of cannabis and its ability to both heal and prevent disease.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy. 

from:    http://www.newrealities.com/index.php/articles-on-health/item/3379-the-top-15-lies-you-re-being-told-about-health-and-mainstream-medicine

Ebola Virus – Panic & Vaccine

Posted on by

CAVEAT:  As always, Do your Research, check things out, pay attention, and do not panic:

 

Doctor: ‘There’s Not Enough PANIC and Customers to Make an Ebola Vaccine’ — Oh Really?

Melissa Melton
Activist Post

A short two-minute video Bloomberg News uploaded to YouTube attempts to explain why the world doesn’t already have a widely available Ebola vaccine.

(Trusting the ingredients of such a thing and whether or not you would personally take it is another matter entirely, but hold on a second.)

What’s fascinating about this clip is what Dr. Ben Neuman, University of Reading, says towards the end.

Neuman explains that because viruses easily mutate, “It’s not just one drug we need for Ebola. We need a cocktail of drugs and perhaps a nice vaccine that could be used.”

Hm. Sounds like a Big Pharma hay day pay day, does it not?

But Dr. Ben also goes on to explain why the major pharmaceutical companies haven’t been all that eager to produce this cocktail of drugs and vaccines — which would surely translate to big bucks — just yet.

These all take a lot of money and right now in the history of what we know at least, there have been fewer than 5,000 people who have been infected with Ebola. It sounds scary, but I don’t know that there’s enough…uh…panic or enough people who are potential customers for these drugs to warrant a company — a private company anyway — putting the money it would take to develop this. [emphasis added]

Did you catch that? (Yeah, I know you did, that’s why I added the emphasis.)

Watch the video. The good doctor even struggles to find his words before he says he isn’t sure there is enough panic and customers to warrant developing a vaccine.

This is despite the fact that articles were coming out in scientific circles back in 2008 that Ebola vaccines had been successfully used in animal trials and even on one human patient, a lab worker who accidentally pricked her finger with an Ebola-laced syringe.

There’s not enough panic to go any further with it, though? Well, gee Ben, where can we get some panic from?

This video reveals two fundamental truths.

One: pharmaceuticals and vaccines really aren’t about saving lives…oh no, first and foremost, they’re about making money.

Two: there has to be enough panic to stir up potential customers to necessitate the creation of said pharmaceuticals and vaccines and there just simply was not enough Ebola panic to go around to make it worth it.

Well…there certainly is enough pricey panic now, isn’t there?

It’s a concerted effort. As I wrote earlier in an article questioning this sudden media zoo surrounding Ebola and why, in an unprecedented move, we’re suddenly shipping people infected with Ebola here for the first time ever, a lot of people in the military-medical-media industrial complex stand to make a lot of money off of this virus.

And, right on time, Reuters is reporting that they’re going to fast track a new Ebola vaccine and start testing on human patients as early as next month. Was that quick or what?

The Hegelian Dialectic is such a timeless strategy. Why? Because it works. So they just keep using it over and over and over.

Problem: not enough panic to make the big bucks off Ebola.

Reaction: create a panic to make the big bucks off Ebola.

Solution: problem solved.

It’s basically the same strategy they used to pawn off fast tracked, experimental H1N1 vaccines on people just a few years ago, only this time they’re playing with a much scarier virus to induce even more fear. In fact, next time you see a headline like, ‘Ebola fear going viral’ feel free to keep this in mind.

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/doctor-theres-not-enough-panic-and.html#!bxnJoD

Dr. King On Vaccines, Autism, Vitamin C

Posted on by

FDA Reveals Shocking Statements On Vaccines

Apr 9 •

Before reading the featured article take a minute to review this package insert, which can be found on the FDA’s official website, for “Diphtheria and Tetanus DTaP Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed” which has the brand name Tripedia®. This is a direct link to the insert and this is a video walk-through from the FDA.gov front page to find it yourself.

You will find a shocking admission on page six that looks like this:

It reads, “Tripedia vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.”

Additionally, on page 11, you will find the admission of a relationship between Tripedia and autism as well as SIDS (Sudden infant death syndrome.)

“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.“ [emphasis added]

It makes you wonder: How many doctors administering these vaccines have actually taken the time to read the insert?

An interesting fact to point out is the rise of autism. Here is a figure straight off the CDC’s official website:

autism rates cdc

Furthermore the occurrence of autism in males is much higher than females. The CDC reports, “ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder] is almost 5 times more common among boys (1 in 42) than among girls (1 in 189).” Something must be causing such a dramatic difference. What could it be?

This might completely blow your mind so make sure you’re sitting down.

Boyd E. Haley, PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky points out that, ”[T]he differential effects of estrogen versus testosterone on mercury toxicity to neurons may explain the increased susceptibility of males to autism.” [emphasis added]

Now where in the world is all this toxic mercury coming from? As you may be aware, Dr. Haley states, “The mercury sources we consider are from dentistry and from drugs, mainly vaccines, that, in today’s world are not only unnecessary sources, but also sources that are being increasingly recognized as being significantly deleterious to the health of many.”

Now that you are armed with this information consider the following article which takes a look at pertussis vaccinations in relation to pertussis outbreaks. Hopefully this knowledge will help you make the decision that’s right for you and your loved ones.

 

by ETHAN A. HUFF

Flu-Vaccine-Injection-Needle-Arm-SkinInfectious diseases that the system insists have been mostly eradicated due to the advent of vaccines are starting to reemerge, with much of the blame for this being levied on the unvaccinated, who are automatically assumed to be the culprits. But a deeper look into the history of vaccines, how they work and what level of long-term protection they truly provide reveals that these golden calves of modern medicine are actually the vehicles through which infectious disease is being spread, with vaccinated individuals as the primary disease carriers.

 

It is the opposite of what we have all been told for decades about the nature of vaccines — that they produce immunity to diseases that might otherwise kill you, is one common claim, as is the assumption that refusing vaccines leaves one prone to both catching and spreading otherwise uncommon infectious diseases. These and other modern medical myths about vaccines pervade mainstream thinking, and yet they have absolutely no basis in sound science.

In an extensive rebuttal to a 2012 article written by Forbes‘ Steven Salzberg that blamed a whooping cough outbreak in the Northwest on unvaccinated children, Dr. Paul G. King, Ph.D., of FAME Systems deconstructs the popular misconception that infectious disease reemergence is the result of people not getting vaccinated. On the contrary, it is the vaccination schedule itself, which the federal government has been coercing people into complying with for nearly the entire last century, that is ultimately leading to and driving these outbreaks.

“Salsberg is simply using a longstanding ‘straw man’ created long ago by his fellow vaccine apologists to divert the public’s attention from the reality that… the current pertussis vaccines are neither effective in providing those inoculated with them long-term protection from contracting whooping cough nor… cost effective,” explains Dr. King in his paper.

 

Vaccines as destroyers of natural immunity

One thing that few people, including many health professionals, fail to understand is that vaccines override the body’s innate, or mucosal, immune system. Also known as non-specific immunity, innate immunity is our bodies’ primary line of defense against all types of bacteria, toxins and other harmful invaders — the gatekeeper, if you will, that protects the body’s adaptive immune system from having to face these intruders directly.

Under ideal conditions, the innate immune system kicks into high gear at the first sign of a threat, blocking pathogens from getting past the nose, mouth, digestive tract or other bodily entry point. If for some reason the innate immune system fails at this task, the adaptive immune system picks up where it left off, adapting, as its name implies, to tackle the specific threat.

But this natural immune response is thwarted by vaccines, which intentionally bypass the innate immune system and go straight for the adaptive immune system. The resultant immune response is both unnatural and completely out of order, generating only temporary and often incomplete immunity as opposed to the lifelong immunity garnered from natural exposure.

“Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases usually stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require ‘booster’ doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity,” says Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center.

The same is true for vaccines against pertussis, or whooping cough, which Dr. King, through his extensive research, found only provide a few years of limited protection as opposed to a lifetime of full protection in unvaccinated individuals who contract the disease naturally. The former have to continually get booster shots to maintain their immunity, while the latter are essentially immune for life after contracting the disease once.

“[A]t best, the current views are that the ‘protection’ provided by ‘pertussis’ vaccination lasts no more than 3 years in some percentage of those who are ‘fully’ vaccinated and initially protected,” wrote Dr. King. “In the pre-vaccination era, having a case of whooping cough and recovering from it conservatively provided 10 to 50 years of protection from a re-infection that resulted in a clinical case of whooping cough caused by either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis.”

In other words, unvaccinated individuals who contract mild whooping cough at a young age end up developing lifelong immunity to the disease without the need for a vaccine, and they also never become carriers of the disease. Vaccinated individuals, on the other hand, will never develop lifelong immunity, and will continually have to receive “booster” shots as protection, which the data shows is not always reliable or foolproof and can even lead to vaccine-induced health problems.

“Unlike the natural disease which appears to confer lifelong immunity, present day pertussis vaccines confer only partial and relative transient protection,” wrote Drs. James W. Bass and Stephen R. Stephenson in a 1987 study entitled The return of pertussis. “A high degree of protection persists for 3 years, decreasing thereafter for 12 years after which little or no protection is evident.”

 

Vaccines as carriers of disease

If subpar, temporary immunity was the only downside of getting vaccinated, it would be one thing. But the fact of the matter is that vaccinated individuals often end up becoming carriers of the diseases against which they were vaccinated, which is evident from decades of scientific data showing that the current vaccination schedule is directly responsible for bringing back all of these diseases that the media insists were eradicated by vaccines.

“[T]he current DTaP/Tdap vaccination program in the USA is increasing the percentages of cases of whooping cough that are either caused by B. parapertussis or, as some are beginning to claim, caused by mutated strains of B. pertussis that evade the protective effects of multiple time-displaced inoculations with the current DTaP/Tdap vaccines,” explains Dr. King. “[V]accination with a ‘pertussis component’-containing vaccine produces some low level of ‘B. pertussis’ carriers [‘Pertussis Harrys’] who… can and do spread B. pertussis to others.”

The recent whooping cough outbreaks in California, Washington, New York and elsewhere also serve as proof of this, as the vast majority of infected individuals in each of these cases had already been “fully” vaccinated for the disease. Not surprisingly, health authorities have been quiet about this inconvenient truth, leading the public to erroneously assume that the unvaccinated are responsible.

“[T]he reality is that more than 75% of the cases of whooping cough in outbreaks in Washington State since 2002 reportedly have been occurring in ‘fully’ vaccinated individuals, and this reality continues to be true in the 2012 ‘epidemic,’” adds Dr. King. “Further, the percentage in the current outbreaks that have a confirmed case of B. pertussis has not been disclosed – nor is the percentage reported that have a confirmed case of B. parapertussis or another organism that can cause whooping cough.”

For those already infected, Dr. King suggests supplementing with high doses of vitamin C, which he says eliminates the “whoop” and reduces the duration of the disease, as well as taking high doses of natural vitamin D3, which enables the body’s immune system to produce site-specific antibiotics to target whooping cough organisms in the respiratory system while protecting gastrointestinal flora, which would otherwise be destroyed by synthetic antibiotics.

 

Be sure to check out Dr. King’s full study on vaccines here:
http://dr-king.com.

Sources for this article include:

http://dr-king.com

Read more at http://www.realfarmacy.com/fda-reveals-shocking-statements-on-vaccines/#mB1elDoFbADdrDpg.99

On Vaccines & Health

Posted on by

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health

Available for Immediate Download

This is the introduction to the new vaccine book by Tetyana Obukhanych (Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, New York, NY) Vaccine Illusion. The book is available in pdf e-book form for immediate download here.  

Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.

I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.

As we hear more and more about vaccine injuries, many individuals are starting to view vaccination as a necessary evil that has helped us initially to overcome raging epidemics but now causes more damage than benefit to our children.

As an immunologist, I have a different and perhaps a very unique perspective. I have realized that the invention of vaccination in the 18th century has precluded us from seeking to understand what naturally acquired immunity to diseases really is. Had we pursued a different route in the absence of that shortcut, we could have gained a thorough understanding of naturally acquired immunity and developed a truly effective and safe method of disease prevention compared to what vaccines can possibly offer.

The biological term immunity refers to a universally observed phenomenon of becoming unsusceptible to a number of infectious diseases through prior experience. Because of the phonetic similarity between the words immunology and immunity, it is tempting to assume that immunology is a science that studies the state of immunity, but this is not the case. Immunology is a science that studies an artificial process of immunization – i.e., the immune system’s response to injected foreign matter. Immunology does not attempt to study and therefore cannot provide understanding of natural diseases and immunity that follows them. Yet, the “knowledge” about the function of the immune system during the natural process of disease is recklessly inferred from contrived immunologic experiments, which typically consist of injecting laboratory-grown microorganisms (live or dead) or their isolated parts into research animals to represent the state of infection. Because immunologic experiments are unrealistic simulations of the natural process, immunologists’ understanding of nature is limited to understanding their own experimental models. Immunologists have confined the scope of their knowledge to the box of experimental modeling, and they do not wish to see beyond that box. Thinking within the box only reinforces the notion of vaccination and cannot provide any other solution to the problem of diseases.

Despite the fact that the biological basis of naturally acquired immunity is not understood, present day medical practices insist upon artificial manipulation of the immune response (a.k.a. immunization or vaccination) to secure “immunity” without going through the actual disease process. The vaccine-induced process, although not resembling a natural disease, is nevertheless still a disease process with its own risks. And it is not immunity that we gain via vaccination but a puny surrogate of immunity. For this reason, vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor an effective method of disease prevention. Yet, immunologists have nothing better to offer because they can only go as far as their deeply rooted immunologic dogma allows them.

Three important factors have contributed to my gradual disillusionment with immunologic paradigms and their applications – vaccines. First, several significant inconsistencies within immunologic theory made me quite unsatisfied with its attempted explanation of immunity. Second, I observed how some seasoned immunologists would omit mentioning the outcome of crucial experiments to make their publication on new vaccine development strategies look very promising. This made me suspicious about the vaccine development process in general and eager to take a look at the other side of the vaccination debate.

The third factor was the birth of my child. This event compelled me to take a break from laboratory research for a few years. I completely shed my identity of an immunologist and became a parent determined to raise a healthy child. I was amazed at how clueless I was about what really matters for health despite my proficiency in all those fancy immunologic theories amassed in the Ivory Tower. For the sake of my child, I had to reconsider everything I knew in immunology. I searched deeper and deeper for the root of vaccine problems we face today and it all came back to me in clear light.

This book is intended to give parents essential immunologic background for making vaccination decisions for their children. Making vaccination decisions is an important personal responsibility that should not be left to any medical or scientific authority. Parents should educate themselves about vaccines and diseases to the extent that they feel absolutely confident and well prepared for taking full responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

It is important to estimate risks of vaccine injuries versus risks of exposure to vaccine-targeted microorganisms. But the analysis should not stop there. I urge every parent to consider how vaccines achieve their effects, and if the desired vaccine effects truly benefit our children and our society. The implications of vaccination were not acceptable to me, neither as a parent nor as a scientist, and this book is my effort to tell other parents why.

Another goal of this book is to raise awareness in our society about the urgent necessity to change basic immunologic research in a way that will finally bring us understanding of naturally acquired immunity. It is up to future generations of immunologists to rescue this science and put it on the right track. The benefits for humankind will be enormous, as this would make both vaccine injuries and fear of diseases a matter of the past. But to make this happen, the field of immunology must first be cleared from the weeds of immunologic dogma.

And finally, this book is my attempt to heal the schism in our society between those who oppose vaccines due to vaccine safety concerns and those who oppose the anti-vaccine movement due to the fear of diseases. This schism has brought us enormous suffering by dividing families, friends, and health provider communities. But we all have the same goal: we all want the best for our children. Only by uniting our efforts will we be able to find a solution to the problem of diseases without compromising our health by means of vaccines.

Download the book now and learn the following: 

  • Why do vaccines fail to give us lasting immunity from viral diseases?
  • Why do vaccines provide no guarantee of protection from bacterial diseases?
  • Why is vaccine-based herd immunity not achievable

from:    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccine-illusion-how-vaccination-compromises-our-natural-immunity-and-what-we-can

Pandemic Check

Posted on by

Keep this in mind when they try to sell you a pandemic

image source

Jon Rappoport
Activist Post

Researchers are making noises about a possible new pandemic. One or more variations of bird flu. And of course, in all these ramp-ups, the bottom line is: get vaccinated.

The so-called pandemics train you to obey, so you’ll take all the shots they recommend for every disease, like a good little muffin.

“Seasonal flu? Pandemic flu? Meningitis? Hepatitis? Whooping cough? Measles? Polio? Martian Traveler’s Disease? Venusian Restless Leg? Gimme everything you’ve got. Inject me! Protect me!”

Here are few items to consider when the pandemic professionals start grinding out media warnings.

How many confirmed cases of the disease in question are there, at that moment? Ten? Fifty? A thousand? Out of a population of eight billion?

For example, as Peter Doshi pointed out in BMJ online, when the big push on Swine Flu started, in the spring of 2009, there were only 20 purported cases of Swine Flu. Twenty. (BMJ Online, v.339, b3471)

This is a pandemic?

The mere claim that “a novel virus,” never before seen, has emerged in humans is NOT a slam-dunk for a pandemic. Not by a long shot.

Swine Flu was supposed to be one of those, and it was a dud. The number of deaths reported was far lower than the numbers traditionally reported for seasonal flus.

Number 2, how are doctors or researchers testing patients to confirm they have “pandemic flu?” This is a big issue. If, for example it’s antibody testing, they’re conning you straight out. Why? Because the presence of antibodies (a scouting component of the immune system) is not a sure sign that the person has been ill, is ill now, or will become ill.

Antibodies only indicate a person has contacted the virus in question. That’s it. And until the mid-1980s, when the science was turned upside down for no good reason, a positive antibody test was normally taken to mean the person’s immune system was healthy and had kicked out the virus.

If doctors and researchers are testing people for some purported pandemic virus using the PCR method, there are other problems. The PCR is a procedure that takes tiny, tiny fragments of organic matter from a patient and amplifies them, blows them up, so they can be recognized and read.

However, there is no sure-fire guarantee these fragments are really pieces of viruses. And if the original extraction of such organic material yielded so little from the patient, how on earth would one assume it was causing illness?

Which brings us to the next point. In determining whether a patient has some pandemic illness, and especially early in the game when researchers are still trying to figure out what’s going on, they need to actually isolate that virus from the patient and show it is present in huge numbers in his body. Otherwise, there is no reason to infer the virus is causing disease.

The purported cases of flu in patients could be coming from a number of different factors. A person might be ill as a result of: toxic chemicals, environmental or pharmaceutical; nutritional deficits; stress; parasites, etc.

The biggest issue is: the strength or weakness of that person’s immune system.

In devastated areas, where poverty, contaminated water supplies, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, and overcrowding are chronic, many germs can sweep through the population and cause death, because these people’s immune systems are shot, compromised, on the way out, and can’t defend against the germs.

The same germs, in an affluent area, would cause little harm.

The bottom-line is, to know what is making a person ill, you have to examine that person for many different factors. You can’t just say, “Well, we found a virus in him and therefore that’s why he is sick.”

That’s not science, that’s hype. That’s not research, that’s PR.

As the hype expands and health agencies like the CDC and WHO announce there are thousands of cases of pandemic flu and deaths, they don’t tell you how they’re counting.

That’s a gross omission. For instance, in the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped testing patients who walked into clinics and hospitals with generalized “flu symptoms.” The CDC just assumed they were all suffering from Swine Flu. CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported this fact and it caused a firestorm, until the story was cut off at the knees by the CBS news division.

You want to know what really happens when so-called flu patients are tested?

Here’s a quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

Boom.

Doshi then states: “…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

In other words, even if you believe in vaccines, even if you think they’re wonderful and the world would collapse without them, when it comes to the flu, things are not what they seem. 84% of supposed or suspected or diagnosed flu patients are falsely labeled. Even by loose conventional standards, they don’t have the flu. It’s a mirage.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/keep-this-in-mind-when-they-try-to-sell.html

On Medical Research and Truth

Posted on by

Medical Research Gone Wrong, Part 2

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. — Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996)

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859 – 1930)

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. — Eric Arthur Blair aka George Orwell (1903 – 1950)

The above quotes are from influential men of rather recent times, not some apocalyptical soothsayers who were out to make names for themselves. Those quotes place witness to the ability of some to foresee the path humankind was traveling down. Very few, except the revered real charlatans of science, were permitted to perpetuate what’s been termed eugenics using whatever way you want to define the term. Remodeling human DNA or, currently, what’s termed “slow kill” eugenics, which employ technologies of varied disciplines found in medicine and pharmacology, are something hard to accept due to media control and proselytization techniques.

Below are relatively-recent-posted sites on the Internet that bear witness to the conundrum regarding vaccines and vaccinations, especially an apparent hidden agenda found in several “ingredients” to effectuate biological interventions specifically designed for eugenics, and no one in government or medicine is doing anything to stop. Catherine discusses those “ingredients” in her book, Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines.

Risks of neurological and immune-related diseases, including narcolepsy, after vaccination with Pandemrix®: a population- and registry-based cohort study with over 2 years of follow-up, discusses the problems affecting children regarding the flu vaccine Pandemrix®. Why is that information not being mainstreamed by the U.S. media?

Here’s the PubMed posting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24134219

That information appears on the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health website. However, what will CDC/FDA do to implement that information into vaccine production and also into physician/healthcare workers’ meme so consumers are informed and protected?

Even though, according to researcher Neil Z. Miller, there are 130 official categories for death sanctioned by the U.S. CDC and the World Health Organization that coroners must choose from when filling out death certificates for babies, one of the most obvious is missing: vaccines/vaccinations!

Many parents don’t realize that when they purchase vaccines for their babies, the cost is taxed and the money goes into a special fund to compensate them if and when those vaccines seriously injure or kill their babies. As of May 2013, $2.5 billion was granted for thousands of injuries and deaths caused by vaccines. Numerous cases are still pending. [p.2 in Miller report]

Readers may want to check out 131 Ways for an Infant to Die: Vaccines and Sudden Death by Neil Z. Miller.

For those who question whether there’s a sordid vaccine underbelly – a ‘science’ that is not revealed willingly to the trusting healthcare consumer of vaccines – please consider the work being done at The Rockefeller Foundation.

In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass- scale, per Jurriaan Maessan appearing in the exceptional exposé titled, “Eugenics Today: How Vaccines Are Used to Sterilize the Masses.”

Readers will recall that in Part 1 of “Medical Research Gone Wrong,” Catherine interviewed the authors of the book Against Their Will. Within the Introduction of that exceptional book, the authors say this about eugenics:

The eugenic fervor in the United States would gradually wane during the 1920s and dissipate further during the Great Depression while speeding up and taking a more malevolent form in Nazi Germany. At the same time, there were still orphanages and institutions for the disabled, and the treatment given to inmates there still showed the influence of eugenics. Although no longer a philosophical force, the eugenics movement had done its job: thousands of Americans had been dehumanized and thoroughly devalued. [p.5]

What Catherine wishes to point out is the undeniable fact that a surreptitious form of eugenics still is being carried out. Listen carefully to Mr. Bill Gates describing the mathematical equation to effectuate population control, something those who, should be exposing, quite frankly, are not.

Bill Gates seems to be admitting that vaccines are used for human depopulation, doesn’t he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

If the early research in eugenics, as exposed in Against Their Will, apparently is practiced in unassuming daily medical procedures like vaccinations, then nothing much has changed.

Perhaps, nothing speaks to the issue of controlling scientific medical information and shoddy research and ethics than the information a member of the U.S. Congress acquired in August 2013 and about which Catherine wrote the article “Vaccine Dangers: BOMBSHELL Admissions from CDC’s 1999 Epidemiologist” wherein validation is made – but CDC/FDA deny – regarding causation of autism by ethylmercury (Thimerosal) in vaccines:

Within this group we also found an elevated risk for the following disorders: autism (RR 7.6, 95% Cl = 1.8-31.5), non organic sleep disorders (RR 5.0, 95% Cl = 1.6-15.9}, and speech disorders (RR 2.1, 95% (1=1.1-4.0). For the neurologic degenerative and renal disorders group we found no significantly increased risk or a decreased risk. [2] [CJF emphasis added]

Nothing demonstrates the ignorance, or possible arrogance, of those who supposedly are supposed to know, e.g., medical doctors, the science, research, and facts about vaccines than the Fox News interview with a mother, whose son was afflicted with autism after receiving vaccinations at two years of age. It’s dramatically interesting to watch the mom having to correct the ‘vaccine medical expert’ doctor about what’s in the vaccines her son received. Ouch! Watch what Catherine labels the Fox News-Authority-MD Gets Schooled by Mother of Child with Autism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8wseIXsPmw .

There’s a euphemism that says, “Past is prologue,” meaning: What transpired in the past actually can be an introductory event, act, or even period in time relative to current or future happenings.

To emphasize apparent misinformation or even possible ‘pseudo-science’ that promoted advertising products, we need to look back to product advertisements and wonder what were they thinking when advertising and selling tape worms as weight reduction; cocaine toothache drops; cigarettes that ‘guarded against throat-scratch’; heroin in a bottle; and Catherine’s all-time favorite, “More Doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”

Tape Worms for Weight Reduction 
Cocaine Toothache Drops

 

Tobacco & Cigarette Use 
Even MDs Promoted Smoking 

 

Heroin Produced & Sold by Pharmaceutical Manufacturer

 

Cannabis / Marihuana / ‘Pot’

 

 Crystalline Form of Heroin Hydrochloride Salt

 

Pharmaceutical Company Maker of Crystalline Heroin Tablets

 

Trans Fat Margarine

Even heroin was sold in the past by a company that became a huge, monetarially-profitable, modern-day pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly & Company!

How can anyone forget the hubris of the medical professions foisting margarine, a non-healthful trans fat, as preventing or managing heart disease! Of course, there were Throat Pastilles made with cocaine, and various other corporate products in the past, like vaccines today, that were/are hyped to the point of total belief and acceptance regardless of the harm they cause.

The only problem now is that those agencies that brought reforms into being now promulgate pseudo-science, especially when it comes to Big Pharma’s vaccines and vaccination studies. We have to look no further than the fact that there is a total blackout within the U.S. media, news reporting, and as much as they can command on the Internet to keeping healthcare consumers totally ingnorant as to the valid science regarding neurotoxins and other toxic ingredients in vaccines and the harms vaccines cause. The CDC’s VAERS reports validate those harms! As of Sept. 3, 2013, 1117 deaths were attributed to vaccines; see this report.

Ironically, those very same government agencies are mandating that poisonous, well-advertised-pharmaceutical products be injected into newborn infants, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, and senior citizens. Oh, let’s not forget our pets, companion animals, and those animals that are raised as food.

Maybe something is totally amiss – maybe by design? – when there’s such zeal in mandating everyone/thing be polluted by one particular product, which independent scientific studies disprove much of its hyped effectiveness. In law, when entities collaborate to do nefarious things it’s considered a conspiracy. Catherine contends its medical research gone wrong.

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/medical-research-gone-wrong-part-2.html#more

Vaccines for PTSD?

Posted on by

Mental vaccines? Researchers now pushing vaccine for PTSD

Friday, December 20, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff

NaturalNews) Fox News is pimping the latest investigational drug that conventional scientists allege might be able to help prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals exposed to trauma. A recent report by the news giant explains that researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in conjunction with Massachusetts General Hospital, are working on a vaccine that supposedly blocks a natural stomach hormone linked to prolonged stress.

The new vaccine, says Ki Goosens, an assistant professor of neuroscience at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, was found in tests to block key receptors that uptake ghrelin, a hormone in the stomach that the body produces in response to stress. When given special drugs to block the excess production of ghrelin, rats induced with stress appeared to be less likely than other rats not given the drugs to develop protracted PTSD symptoms.

“We have a rat model of PTSD and what we show is that rats who’ve had a prolonged exposure to stress are more likely to have very strong fear memories when they encounter some sort of trauma and that’s the same kind of relationship between stress and trauma that we see in people,” Goosens stated to reporters.

“Our work actually suggests that if you knew somebody was going to be potentially exposed to a trauma, then putting them on a drug that could actually block ghrelin might actually lower the incidence of things like post-traumatic stress disorder, or depression.”

Blocking grehlin to maybe prevent PTSD will definitely disrupt healthy metabolism

But is another vaccine what we really need as a society, especially one that inhibits a key hormone in the body responsible for regulating hunger and appetite? Like every other drug, this new vaccine attempts to correct an underlying health condition by simply covering up its symptoms, in this case by artificially lowering levels of an important amino acid peptide that the body needs to convert food into energy.

“[G]hrelin … [has] been recognized to have a major influence on energy balance,” explains a 2007 study on both ghrelin and leptin, a similar stomach hormone, that was published in the journal Obesity Reviews. “Ghrelin … is a fast-acting hormone, seemingly playing a role in meal initiation.”

In other words, MIT researchers are in the process of wasting millions of dollars trying to prevent PTSD by creating other health problems. Blocking the production and uptake of ghrelin, according to data gathered as part of the Obesity Reviews study, will almost certainly have the side effect of inhibiting the body’s ability to regulate energy balance and food intake, thus leading to obesity.

“In obese subjects the circulating level of … the orexigenic hormone ghrelin is decreased,” explains the abstract of the study.

Western medicine has an obsession with vaccines

While PTSD is a very serious health condition, the idea of developing a so-called vaccine to prevent it is preposterous. The last thing people need is yet another injection loaded with toxic aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury (thimerosal), and the many other harmful adjuvant components that will most assuredly create even more disease, not to mention intentionally block an important physiological component responsible for metabolizing nutrients.

“Ghrelin is a hormone and also a neuromodulator that stimulates appetite and also enhances aspects of cognitive function,” wrote Bruce McEwen, director of the neuroendocrinology laboratory at Rockefeller University in New York, in an email to Discovery News. “A systemic vaccination might not even work and could … make people anorectic and impair other aspects of physiology by blocking good actions of ghrelin.”

UUNICEF Targeting Vaccine/GMO Critics?

Posted on by

Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating

September 18, 2013
By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • A new UNICEF report reveals that the organization is tracking the rise of online anti-vaccination sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe, and has identified the most important “anti-vaccine influencers” on the web
  • Instead of addressing the evidence of potential harm of vaccines, UNICEF is entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline
  • UNICEF devises public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raise safety questions
  • In the report, UNICEF infers that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored
  • In 2009, it was revealed that Merck had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that ended up killing more than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market
  • GSK spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales.

Truth becomes treason in an empire of lies. Attacks against health web sites like yours truly and others, and our readers—yes, that would be you—are rapidly escalating.

Thinly veiled threats are issued not just by industry spokespersons (many of whom hide their industry ties from their readers), but also international organizations like UNICEF. It’s become very evident, very quickly, that now more than ever, we need your support to counter the increasingly dirty tactics of these industry players.

Simply by reporting the scientific evidence—which is published in peer-reviewed journals, mind you—I’ve been labeled as a top “anti-vaccine influencer” for my pro-safety stance on vaccines, and a “media supporter of domestic eco-terrorists” for my reporting on the hazards of Roundup and genetically engineered foods.

Why Is UNICEF Accusing Health Journalists of Lying?

A recently published report1 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that the organization is tracking “the rise of online pro-vaccine safety sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe,” and has identified the most influential pro-vaccine safety influencers” on the web.

UNICEF included me on the list, along with other independent health websites like GreenMedInfo.com, Mothering.com and NaturalNews.com, just to name a few. In their opening reference, they use a quote by Mark Twain that reads:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Clearly, UNICEF is inferring that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Here we have an international organization supposedly dedicated to children’s health and wellbeing, and instead of addressing the ample scientific evidence showing the potential harm of vaccines, they’re entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck2 and GlaxoSmithKline3 (GSK).

They spend precious time and resources on public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raises questions about the wisdom of “carpet-bombing” infants’ and young children’s immune systems with potentially harmful vaccines.

UNICEF’s Bedfellows

This is especially disturbing because Merck has been involved in numerous criminal scandals and class-action lawsuits in recent years, including fraudulently marketing its deadly drug Vioxx; lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine.

Additionally, they engaged in scientific fraud (a charge brought by its own scientists); and hiding critical side effects associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax, just to name a few of the most publicized.

Even more shocking, in 2009, it was revealed that Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that indeed ended up killing more than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market.

Two years later, in 2011, the company ended up pleading guilty to a criminal charge over the fraudulent marketing and sales of this deadly drug.4 But sure, let’s listen to UNICEF and trust the guys who go so far as to threaten the lives of those who question the safety of a very factually dangerous drug. Then there’s GSK, whose leadership among corporate criminals is illustrious indeed.

Not only was GSK found guilty in the largest health fraud settlement in US history just last year, for which they were fined $3 billion. A couple of months ago, Chinese authorities accused the company of bribery and illegal marketing schemes. Chinese police claim to possess evidence showing that bribery has been a “core part” of GSK China’s business model since 2007.

Doctors and government officials are said to have received perks such as travel, cash, and sexual favors that when combined, amounted to nearly $5 billion, according to some reports. The company allegedly used travel agencies as middlemen to carry out these illegal acts. Four Chinese GSK executives have so far been detained on charges of cash and sexual bribery.

GSK also spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales. While carousing with the true liars and criminals, UNICEF deems it fitting to paint me and other health journalists as the liars; the ones leading you astray.

Little does UNICEF realize that by publicizing a list of monitored “vaccine influencers”—the health reporters who stick pegs in the wheels of their crafty PR schemes by publishing all those studies the vaccine industry would rather see buried—they’ve basically given you a Who’s Who of real vaccine information.

Maybe we should thank them rather than rail against their poor judgment? As stated by Sayer Ji5 of Greenmedinfo.com, who was also targeted in the report:

“[W]hile the document purports to be analytical and descriptive, it has proscriptive and defamatory undertones, and only thinly conceals an agenda to discredit opposing views and voices. UNICEF’s derogatory stance.

This is all the more surprising considering that websites such as GreenMedinfo.com aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine, much of which comes from high-impact journals.”

GMO-Labeling Supporters Now Accused of Supporting Eco-Terrorism. What’s Next?

Another recent article, published in Forbes Magazine,6 really ups the ante of the attack on health journalists and their readers with the headline: “ Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.” The article, written by Jay Byme and Henry I.Miller, reads in part:

“In recent years, [eco]terrorists have attempted to gain sympathy and “justification” for their actions by means of disinformation campaigns that relentlessly smear the safety and utility of genetic engineering applied to agriculture… “Frankenfood” headlines may sell newspapers and organic food, but this kind of “black marketing” — enhancing the perceived value of your products by disparaging those of your competitors – can also encourage serious criminal acts.

…There exists in this country a vast, well-established, highly professional, protest industry fueled by special interest groups seeking to line their own pockets… Anti-genetic engineering campaigns are openly funded and promoted by mainstream organic food marketers like Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield Organic, and alternative health and food-supplement hucksters Joe Mercola and Mike Adams — all cynical fear-profiteers who benefit from increased consumer mistrust in their competitors’ products… The ultimate objective, of course, is to sell more overpriced, overrated organic food…

One result of the widely disseminated disinformation effort is an environment that provides encouragement to extremists who commit criminal acts. It comes from the Facebook and Twitter followers of the genetic engineering conspiracy theorists, organic marketers and “right to know” labeling activists… Against the backdrop of this fear-mongering, hate-speech and support for acts of terror toward legal, highly regulated, safe and societally valuable R&D, we should condemn not only the perpetrators themselves but also their corporate and media enablers.”

to read more, go to:   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/18/unicef-attacks-health-advocates.aspx?e_cid=20130918Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130918Z1

 

Vaccines vs Hygiene

Posted on by

Irrefutable Evidence Shows Historical Application of Vaccines Had No Health Benefit or Impact on Prevention of Infectious Disease

vaccine lies myths

3rd October 2013

By Dave Mihalovic

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

A summary review of data on neurological adverse events and the historical role of vaccination in the natural course of infectious disease in Switzerland and Germany, supports data from other regions with evidence that vaccines had no positive impact on disease prevention efforts from the early-mid to late 20th century. The data contradicts widespread misinformation campaigns by the mainstream medical establishment which claim that vaccination led to immunization and a subsequent decline in infectious disease.

The review supports other data around the world and mounting evidence that vaccine effectiveness is unproven, unjustified and lacking evidence-based medicine. The report was authored by the Department of Paediatric Rehabilitation of the Medical University of Bialystok, Poland and published in Progress in Health Sciences, a division of The International Journal of Health Sciences.

There is now mass awareness on the dangers of vaccination, and only education into the statistical reality of historical immunization efforts and their failures over the last century can validate the growing controversy regarding vaccine effectiveness.

A brilliant report in 1977 by McKinlay JB and McKinlay SM questioned “the contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century” [Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer; 55(3): 405-28]

Now two centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics have shown conclusively and scientifically that modern medicine is not responsible for – and played little part in – substantially improved life expectancy and survival rates from disease in western economies.

Historically, vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic by their regulatory agencies. The resulting lack of evidence of causality between vaccinations and serious adverse outcomes has thus been filled with an assumption that vaccines are safe.

The Truth Behind the Data

Based on statistics from the Federal Statistics Office in Wiesbaden, Buchwald published a paper containing long-term observations of morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. The following charts present the collected data indicating the year of introduction of the vaccines.

chart 1 - mortality TB 56-88

Tuberculosis mortality in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in the years 1956-1988.

Shaded area = the number of BCG vaccinations performed. Note the decline from 1956 to 1970 without any vaccination schedule. (Source: Deggeller L.:Concerning Childhood Vaccinations Today. Journal of Anthrop Med, 1992, 9, 2,1-14)

chart 2 - mortality TB 49-87

Number of active tuberculosis cases in the years 1949-1987.

Shaded area = the number of BCG vaccinations performed. Note the decline from 1949 to 1970 without any vaccination schedule. (Source: Deggeller L. Concerning Childhood Vaccinations Today. Journal of Anthrop Med, 1992, 9, 2, 1-14)

chart 3 - mortality pertussis 46-90

Pertussis mortality. The arrows mark the year of introduction of the pertussis and DTP vaccines.

Shaded area = the number of vaccinations performed. Note the declines already in place before either the pertussis or DPT vaccine schedules were introduced. (Source: Deggeller L. Concerning Childhood Vaccinations Today. Journal of Anthrop Med, 1992, 9, 2,1-14; with permission: Phycicians’ Association for Anthroposophical Medicine)

chart 4 - mortality pertussis 10-80

Pertussis mortality in Switzerland in the years 1910-1980.

Shaded area = introduction of vaccination. The greatest decline occurred prior to the introduction of general vaccination of infants. (Source: Deggeller L. Concerning childhood vaccinations today. Journal of Anthrop Med, 1992, 9, 2,1-14)

chart 5 - DPT 20-90

Shaded area = the number of vaccinations performed. Note decline before widespread vaccination. (Source: Deggeller L.:Concerning Childhood Vaccinations Today. Journal of Anthrop Med, 1992, 9, 2,1-14.

It is interesting that in recent decades, a decrease in infectious disease rates was generally reported, each of which took place before the introduction of inoculations against these diseases.

What caused the decline in disease rates?

According to a 2002 report from Lancet Infectious Disease, the weight of evidence collectively suggests that personal and environmental hygiene reduces the spread of infection and thus, results from this review demonstrate that there is a continued, measurable, positive effect of personal and community hygiene on infectious. The same report showed that the crude death rate from infectious diseases decreased to nearly negligible levels long before introduction of universal vaccination practices.

Furthermore, the remarkable successes of cities in England in substantially reducing smallpox mortality rates compared to other countries was achieved by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908.

In the graphs below, notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself. By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself. The severity of the disease diminished with improved living standards, and was not vanquished by vaccination as the medical “consensus” view tells us. Any vaccine which takes 100 years to “work” is simply not. On any scientific analysis of the history and data, crediting smallpox vaccine for the decline in smallpox appears misplaced.

chart 6 - spvd_b

UK Deaths Caused by Smallpox Vaccination 1875 to 1922 — Published: Roman Bystrianyk

When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England reduced vaccination rates compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummetted [see table below]. Leicester’s approach also cost far less.

chart 7 - ewsmr

UK Smallpox Mortality Rates Compared to Scarlet Fever 1838 to 1890 — Published: Roman Bystrianyk

Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared

Vaccinal Condition Small-Pox Cases Small-Pox Deaths Fatality-rate Per Cent Cost of Epidemic
London 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 9,659 1,594 16.50 492,000
Glasgow 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 3,417 377 11.03 150,000
Sheffield 1887-88 Well Vaccinated 7,066 688 9.73 32,257
Leicester 1892-94 Practically Unvaccinated 393 21 5.34 2,888
Leicester 1902-04 Practically Unvaccinated 731 30 4.10 1,602

The Effect?

Currently, “developed” countries are introducing increasingly complex childhood vaccination schedules. According to NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) children in the United States are expected to receive 49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of six.

And the effect? Doctors and researchers point to the worsening state of health of the child population since the 1960s, which coincided with increasingly introduced childhood vaccinations. Allergic diseases, asthma, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and many neurological dysfunctions – difficulty in learning, ADD (attention deficit disorder), ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), seizures, and autism – are all chronic conditions to which attention has been brought.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/10/03/irrefutable-evidence-shows-vaccines-had-no-health-benefit-or-impact-on-prevention-of-infectious-disease/