Category Archives: Science and Medicine

A Measles Death, Vaccines, and the Media’s Failure to Inform

There is a discussion to be had about public vaccine policy. The media ought to start having it.

By Jeremy R. Hammond
Global Research, July 09, 2015
Foreign Policy Journal, July 5, 2015

 

Universal-Flu-Vaccine1Last week, it was widely reported in the mainstream media that the autopsy of a woman who died of pneumonia earlier this year in the state of Washington found that she had been infected with measles, making this the first confirmed case of measles-related death in the US since 2003. Playing its usual role, the mainstream media is up in arms, blaming the death on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and telling parents that to not vaccinate is irresponsible. Rather than journalists doing their job by asking hard questions about public policy and seeking out the answers, they choose to act as nothing more than a mouthpiece for government health departments and dutifully tow the official line on vaccine policy.

The woman who died was not among the unvaccinated. On the contrary, she not only had been vaccinated, but reportedly was tested and found to have a protective antibody titer. She nevertheless became infected with measles while seeking medical attention in a clinic. She died from pneumonia, which can be caused by any number of other bacterial or viral infections besides measles, including the common cold and flu. The reason her immune system couldn’t handle the infection was because doctors had her on immunosuppressive drugs. Hence, medical intervention was a contributing factor in her death.

The media, as ever, is pushing the theory of herd immunity to encourage vaccination. Everyone needs to be vaccinated to protect infants and the immunocompromised, we are being told. The argument implies that the individual from whom the deceased caught the measles was unvaccinated, but that is pure speculation; for all we know, the person she contracted the measles virus from had been vaccinated, too.

It is quite possible for fully vaccinated individuals to get measles. It is well understood that some people just don’t respond to the vaccine as intended; their immune systems do not produce a great enough amount of antibodies to be considered protective. This is true of about 5 percent of the population, and it’s the reason a second dose, or “booster” shot, is recommended. That second shot is likely unnecessary for most children who did respond to the first, yet it’s given routinely to everyone anyway, even though the purpose is to target the few non-responders. Even after a second dose, however, 3 percent or so of the population still won’t respond.

Moreover, the vaccine-induced immunity, unlike the more robust immunity gained from natural infection, wanes over time. In fact, the CDCconsiders birth before 1957 to be “evidence of immunity” to measles for the simple reason that pretty much everyone back then was infected with it as a child and gained lifelong immunity as a result.

Also, the measles vaccine is a live-virus vaccine, and individuals can potentially get the disease from the vaccine as well as shed the virus. Vaccine-strain attenuated live viruses can replicate and revert back into virulent form (which is why they don’t vaccinate immunocompromised individuals) or recombine with other viruses to create novel virulent strains. This means that individuals who have received a live-virus vaccine can potentially catch the disease, as well as transmit the virus to others. This is why the live oral poliovirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market in the US, for example; every single domestic case of polio since 1979 was caused by the vaccine.

The theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity also overlooks natural herd immunity. Measles is a particularly useful example to illustrate the concept. This is what the measles mortality rate looked like before the introduction of the vaccine:

The vaccine was introduced in 1963, after the latest year shown in the above graph from the US Department of Health. Note that the above graph shows deaths from measles, not incidence of measles, which remained high until the introduction of the vaccine:

In fact, as already noted, it used to be that nearly everyone was exposed to the virus, usually in childhood, and gained lifelong immunity as a result. The virus was still around, but it was becoming less deadly to the US population due to an improving standard of living, better sanitation and hygiene, better nutrition (e.g., vitamin A is important for reducing measles mortality and decreasing morbidity), advances in health care, and so on.

What the declining mortality rate indicates is that the US population was developing natural herd immunity. We were learning to live in symbiosis with the virus, natural exposure to which not only confers permanent immunity to measles itself, but may help prime the immune system of children to protect against other diseasesas well.

But then along came the vaccine and destroyed that natural herd immunity.

While parents today are trained to have a hysterical fear of measles, back in the 1960s, when the vaccine was introduced, it was recognized as a generally mild disease with infrequent complications. In fact, in the era before the vaccine was introduced, it was accepted doctrine that the population would adapt to live in symbiosis with the virus—a respect for the balance of nature that was quickly discarded with the development of the vaccine.

The concept of “herd immunity” today is universally associated with the use of vaccines, but this is an application of the concept in fact borrowed from the observance of natural herd immunity to disease. In the case of measles, researchers in the 1930s—long before the vaccine existed—observed that epidemics in Baltimore occurred in predictable cycles and only when the level of immunity in affected communities was less than 55 percent (far below the 95 percent or so level of vaccination hypothesized to provide herd immunity with vaccination).

Now since nearly everyone is vaccinated at an early age, they don’t become infected with the disease in childhood and hence don’t develop the more robust permanent immunity conferred by natural infection.

The kind of immunity conferred by vaccines is not the same as that conferred by natural infection. Vaccines favor an antibody response while actually suppressing what is known as cell-mediated immunity. For example, while the flu vaccine offers protection against specific strains of the influenza virus, it works by inducing an antibody response while preventing the cell-mediated immunity that would otherwise offer protection not only against those specific strains of the virus, but other strains as well. Hence, getting an annual flu shot can actually increase the risk of getting the flu. (There areover 200 strains of viruses that cause influenza or flu-like symptoms, the vaccine only targets a handful of them, and public health officials guess each year which ones they think will be in circulation in order to manufacture seasonal vaccines for those specific strains.

While vaccine theory is premised on the idea of inducing humoral immunity, which involves an antibody response, scientists have learned the production of antibodies is neither always sufficient nor even necessary for the development of immunity.

Since the vaccine-induced immunity from the measles wanes over time, in the event of an outbreak, individuals are at greater risk of developing the disease in their adulthood, when it poses a higher risk of serious complications.

The government and media, of course, blame every outbreak on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. This was true of the Disney outbreak earlier this year, even though the majority of cases were in adults.

Measles outbreaks can and do occur in highly vaccinated populations. Even if there was a 100 percent vaccination rate, outbreaks could still occur for the reasons already noted: some individuals do not respond to the vaccine, and the immunity of those who do wanes over time.

Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.

Without the vaccine, women would be infected as children and develop a permanent, robust cell-mediated immunity while continuing to be frequently exposed to the virus, thus also providing a harmless natural boost to their antibody levels. When they become mothers, they would then confer protection to their infants by passing on antibodies through their breastmilk.

But now, since women were vaccinated as children, they likely have a waning antibody titer by the time they start having children. Because the vaccine has quite successfully reduced transmission of the disease, they have not received the beneficial natural boosting of antibodies. Hence, they aren’t able to pass on that antibody protection to their infants.

Public vaccine policy has thus shifted the risk burden away from those in whom the disease is generally well-tolerated and onto those in whom it poses a higher risk of serious complications: adults and the most vulnerable members of society—infants.

Such long-term population-level negative consequences of vaccines simply don’t receive any consideration in the mainstream discussion.

In reports about the measles-related death in Washington, while amplifying public health officials’ recommendation that everyone make sure they and their children have been vaccinated for measles, the media has also failed to even approach the question of the more immediate individual risk associated with the vaccine. When the question of risks does come up, the media tends to treat it as though nonexistent. In the wake of the Disney measles outbreak earlier this year, for instance, theNew York Times insisted that there was “no evidence” that vaccines can cause harm and accused anyone who suggests otherwise of being “anti-science”.

This is a puzzling denial, indeed, in light of the fact that, back in the 1980s, the vaccine industry was granted legal immunity by the government because manufacturers were facing so many lawsuits for vaccine injuries that they were going out of business. This in turn threatened public health policy, which prompted the government to step in and bail out the vaccine manufactures by barring consumers from suing them for damages under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Under the law, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was also established to shift the financial burden of compensation for vaccine injuries from Big Pharma to the consumers. The program is funded by a $0.75 tax on every antigen dose of vaccines (so every time an MMR shot is given, being a combination vaccine, $2.25 is taxed for the purpose of contributing to the national vaccine injury fund).

The Supreme Court has upheld legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.” Justice Antonin Scalia described this special accommodation for Big Pharma as a “societal bargain”.

The line from the New York Times and other mainstream media that vaccines are harmless is hard to reconcile with the fact that corporations like Merck have been granted legal immunity by the government on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

As a further illustration of how utterly ignorant and irresponsible such dismissals of the risks associated with vaccines are, one need look no further than the vaccine manufacturers’ product inserts. Merck’s product insert for its measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine states that “Unnecessary doses of a vaccine are best avoided….” Surely, there must be a reason? It happens there are many.

For mothers, contraindications to vaccination include pregnancy, as “the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development are unknown” since there are “no adequate studies” into that question. “However,” Merck appropriately adds, “it would be prudent to assume that the vaccine strain of virus is also capable of inducing adverse fetal effects.” The vaccine-strain mumps virus “has been shown to infect the placenta and fetus”. Studies have shown that the vaccine-strain of rubella virus can be transmitted to infants through the breast milk. Whether this is also true of the measles and mumps viruses “is not known”. Merck advises that “pregnancy should be avoided for 3 months following vaccination” and that “Caution should be exercised when M-M-R II is administered to a nursing woman.” The vaccine also “has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.” Among those who should not receive it are children who are hypersensitive to any of the vaccine’s components, including gelatin and eggs, the latter because the live viruses are propagated in chick embryo cell cultures. The rubella portion of the vaccine is propagated in “human diploid lung fibroblasts”; specifically, WI-38 (ATCC® CCL-75TM), which contaminates the vaccine with human DNA from an aborted female fetus. (This has raised some concern over “ethical problems” at the Vatican; specifically about “cooperation in evil” and the “unjust” practice of forcing parents “to act against their conscience”.) Another ingredient is “fetal bovine serum”. Another is “recombinant human albumin”; specifically, Recombumin® Prime, a product of Novozyems Biopharma US Inc. This is a genetically engineered protein (“recombinant” means it was made by dicing and splicing genetic material). The product was developed because of concerns that using the blood protein albumin from humans or cattle carries the risk of blood-borne contaminants like mycoplasma, prions, or viruses. (This has happened. In March 2010, the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was found to have been contaminatedwith a pig virus after it was injected into a million children.) Possible adverse reactions to the vaccine include:

  • Fever
  • Snycope (fainting)
  • Headache
  • Dizziness
  • Vasculitis (a condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the blood vessels, causing inflammation that can lead to serious problems, including aneurysms)
  • Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas that occurs when the digestive enzymes it produces begin digesting the pancreas itself)
  • Diarrhea
  • Vomiting
  • Parotitis (inflammation of the parotid glands)
  • Nausea
  • Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
  • Thrombocytopenia (a disorder in which there is an abnormally low amount of platelets, which help blood to clot)
  • Anaphylaxis (a life-threatening allergic reaction that can cause cardiac and respiratory arrest)
  • Arthritis (joint inflammation)
  • Arthralgia (joint pain)
  • Myalgia (muscle pain)
  • Encephalitis (inflammation of the brain, which can cause permanent brain damage or death)
  • Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, which can result in paralysis or death)
  • Febrile seizures (convulsions brought on by fever)
  • Afebrile seizures (convulsions without fever, which may indicate epilepsy)
  • Pneumonia
  • Measles-like rash
  • Death
It is perhaps not too surprising that many of these adverse reactions are the same as the symptoms or complications of wild-type measles itself, including: fever; headache; diarrhea; vomiting; encephalitis; seizures; pneumonia; rash; and, of course, death.Of course, Merck and public health officials maintain that serious adverse events are rare, less than the risk of developing the same complications from the disease. But, then, the recent case in Washington is the first confirmed case of measles-related death since 2003, while there have been 65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.Furthermore, the possible adverse reactions listed in the product insert are just a list of known reactions from short-term studies—(and the vaccine manufacturers conduct their own studies to get FDA licensure)—and postmarketing surveillance. The long-term effects of vaccination and its interference in the natural development of an individual’s immune system haven’t been well studied, such as whether vaccination has contributed to the alarming increases in asthmaallergies, and autoimmune diseases.

The continued use of mercury as a preservative in flu vaccines and the use of aluminum as an adjuvant in numerous other childhood vaccines are particularly worrisome practices. Both are known neurotoxins that can pass the placental and blood-brain barriers.There has never been a study of long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. As much as the media likes to say that science has shown that there is no risk of developing autism from vaccines, there has never been a study comparing autism rates of individuals who’ve received the CDC’s recommended schedule and unvaccinated individuals.

Moreover, it is known that vaccinations can modify gene expression, and certain individuals may be genetically predisposed to having adverse reactions or long-term negative health consequence of being vaccinated; yet public policy treats vaccination as a one-size-fits-allsolution—thus playing Russian roulette with our children.

This is all just scratching the surface. The point is that the media treat the subject of vaccines as though there wasn’t even a discussion to be had—just fall in line and get your damn shots! This is dishonest and anti-intellectual. The popular accusation that anyone who questions public vaccine policy is “anti-science” is a particularly hypocritical creed reflective of the intellectual dishonesty and sheer laziness of mainstream journalists who bow to the altar of the state religion and preach official dogma rather than doing their jobs.

Notwithstanding the pretense to the contrary from public health officials and the mainstream media, there is a discussion to be had about public vaccine policy. We ought to start having it.

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the founding editor ofForeign Policy Journal and the author of Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis and The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict. His forthcoming book is Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. He blogs atJeremyRHammond.comClick here to sign up for his free newsletter

Mind Altering Drugs

By Peter Vlemmix
Global Research, June 29, 2015
Peter Vlemmix, June 20, 2015

 

We fight a continuous war to prevent people taking illegal mind altering drugs for pleasure or sorrow, it’s called the war on drugs. 

Yet we use society’s most respected professionals –namely medical doctors and pharmacists– to hand out legal mind altering drugs, which have devastating consequences on people’s health.

You are made to believe that Big Pharma is interested in your health, but in practice it is a lethal profit making machine.

 

 

Vaccines and Autism: Epidemic Accelerates as Cases in Young Vaccinated Children Explode Unabated

By Ethan A. Huff
June 26, 2015
Natural News

 

5The UK is facing an unprecedented number of new autism cases, according to new research. Figures in Scotland, which are among the most comprehensive available in the British isles, reveal that the autism rate among students at Scottish schools is up 1,360% percent since 1998, with no perceivable end in sight.

This amounts to a one-in-68 children rate of autism, which the London School of Economics projects is costing taxpayers around $54 billion annually. This is up from about $2 billion in 2001, demonstrating the immense toll this harrowing disease is costing the public.

But even these figures may be too low, warns Age of Autism, as they disguise the actual number of autism cases among older students, while focusing more on autism rates among younger students. The actual present rate of autism in the UK, reports John Stone, is probably much closer to one in 30 students, based on data supplied by the Scottish government.

The immense growth rate of autism in Scotland over the past 16 years is highlighted by the following:

Year | Total number of pupils | Number of pupils with an ASD

1998 | 758,414 | 820
1999 | 755,081 | 959
2000 | 751,243 | 1,245
2001 | 745,063 | 1,515
2002 | 738,597 | 2,204
2003 | 732,122 | 2,663
2004 | 723,554 | 3,090
2005 | 713,240 | 3,484
2006 | 702,737 | 2,443
2007 | 692,215 | 3,919
2008 | 681,573 | 4,900
2009 | 676,740 | 5,254
2010 | 673,133 | 6,506
2011 | 670,511 | 7,801
2012 | 671,218 | 8,650
2013 | 673,530 | 9,946

Aside from an anomalous reduction in ASD cases between 2005 and 2006, you can clearly see that the autism rate in Scotland has simply exploded, much like it has in the U.S. and other Western nations over the past several decades.

One would think that health authorities and lawmakers would take note of this and start addressing some of the elephants in the room, including the ever-expanding vaccination schedule. But instead, they remain silent as the financial burden of treating these damaged children escalates into financial territory so unsustainable that government health systems now face total collapse.

US to spend a total of $7 trillion just to treat every person who currently has autism

The same study that procured these figures for the UK found that the situation is far worse in the U.S. Between the costs associated with treating both children and adults with ASD — more than 3.5 million Americans, both young and old, have been diagnosed with ASD — taxpayers and insurance companies spend huge amounts to treat autistic individuals with or without intellectual disability.

“The cost of supporting an individual with an ASD and intellectual disability during his or her lifespan was $2.4 million in the United States and £1.5 million (US $2.2 million) in the United Kingdom,” reports the study. “The cost of supporting an individual with an ASD without intellectual disability was $1.4 million in the United States and £0.92 million (US $1.4 million) in the United Kingdom.”

“The largest cost components for children were special education services and parental productivity loss. During adulthood, residential care or supportive living accommodation and individual productivity loss contributed the highest costs. Medical costs were much higher for adults than for children.”

This translates into a total cost of $7 trillion to treat every person with autism in the U.S. over the course of his or her lifetime. And this is just at the current autism rate — over the next several decades, as many as one in two children are expected to have autism, which portends a complete collapse of the healthcare system.

Be sure to check out Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s groundbreaking research into glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. She found that this prolific chemical damages gut bacteria and blocks the uptake of vital nutrients, triggering autism and other serious health conditions:
ANH-USA.org.

Sources:

http://www.ageofautism.com

https://autismsciencefoundation.files.wordpress.com[PDF]

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca

http://www.anh-usa.org

Shocking Report from Medical Insiders

By F. William Engdahl
June 18, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

img535616A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.

The drug industry-sponsored studies Horton refers to develop commercial drugs or vaccines to supposedly help people, used to train medical staff, to educate medical students and more.

Horton wrote his shocking comments after attending a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research at the Wellcome Trust in London. He noted the confidentiality or “Chatham House” rules where attendees are forbidden to name names: “’A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides.”

Other voices

Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated,

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

Harvey Marcovitch, who has studied and written about the corruption of medical tests and publication in medical journals, writes, “studies showing positive outcomes for a drug or device under consideration are more likely to be published than ‘negative’ studies; editors are partly to blame for this but so are commercial sponsors, whose methodologically well-conducted studies with unfavorable results tended not to see the light of day…”

At the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic obtained documents that showed that, “vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day.”

Lancet’s Dr. Horton concludes, “Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counter-argument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

Corruption of the medical industry worldwide is a huge issue, perhaps more dangerous than the threat of all wars combined. Do we have such hypnosis and blind faith in our doctors simply because of their white coats that we believe they are infallible? And, in turn, do they have such blind faith in the medical journals recommending a given new wonder medicine or vaccine that they rush to give the drugs or vaccines without considering these deeper issues?

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

Why Didn’t my Doctor Tell Me Chemo Kills?

By F. William Engdahl
June 3, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

5950352_origIn my daily research I came across a report so alarming I put aside planned writing in order to bring this to the attention of those who care about life. It has to do with one of the main treatments for cancer used in modern medicine—chemotherapy. New research has documented that chemotherapy, far from ridding anyone of cancer actually feeds the growth and spread of cancer.

Sometimes it almost seems like the drugs industry works overtime to find new ways to hurt, cripple or even kill us. Scientist Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle in a write-up of a study of why cancer cells were so easy to kill in the lab but not inside our bodies, found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival. “The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” Nelson told AFP.

He added that,“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.” That would explain why in cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

The study was conducted by a team of scientists from different cancer research centers, universities as well as from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. It was published online in August 2012 in the journal Nature Medicine. Among their alarming conclusions was that, “The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression.”

Mustard Gas Toxin

While their study results were alarming enough, more alarming is the complete absence of aggressive action to reexamine the entire field of cancer treatment. Chemo’s origins go back to World War I research into the human effects of exposure to mustard gas. Scientists discovered that the gas was a potent suppressor of blood cell production. During World War II researchers at Yale University School of Medicine in further study of nitrogen mustards, reasoned that an agent that damaged the rapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect on cancer. Left out was how to target only cancer cells and not healthy cells. In December 1942, the scientists gave several patients with advanced lymphomas (cancers of the lymphatic system and lymph nodes), a chemotherapeutic drug intravenously. Their improvement was called remarkable. The media concentrated on the remarkable improvement and did not bother to note that soon after treatment all were dead.

The chemotherapy revolution in cancer treatment was off and running. In the 1950’s the first chemo drug used commercially was mustine or Chlormethine. Mustine under the code-name HN2 is a chemical warfare agent. Adverse effect include: “Hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis…Nausea, vomiting and depression of formed elements in the circulating blood…Jaundice, alopecia, vertigo, tinnitus and diminished hearing.”

The research and development of mustine as a possible anti-cancer chemotherapy was led by Cornelius P. Rhoads, director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, in wartime secrecy and published in 1946 after the war. Rhoads came to Memorial Sloan-Kettering from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

There during the 1930’s as part of the Rockefeller family’s obsession with eugenics, Rhoads spent six months in Puerto Rico, a stateless island often used covertly for human experimentation with new drugs.

In Puerto Rico in 1931Rhoads wrote a letter to a friend in Boston where he stated, “Porto (sic) Ricans are beyond doubt the dirtiest, laziest, most degenerate and thievish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere. What the island needs is not public health work but a tidal wave or something to totally exterminate the population. I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more.”

Rockefeller family spin doctor, Ivy Lee, launched a major damage control campaign over the scandal and managed to get Rhoads on the cover of Time as a “life-saving” hero.

Deadly consequences

The subsequent use of toxic chemotherapies on perhaps millions of cancer patients since then have hardly been encouraging. Published side effects of today’s chemo drugs, the largest share of which are made by Roche, are horrendous. They include “depression of the immune system, often by paralysing the bone marrow and leading to a decrease of white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets. Anemia and thrombocytopenia… sepsis, or as localized outbreaks, such as Herpes simplex, shingles, or other members of the Herpesviridea.”

It gets worse. Because of the chemo resulting in immune system suppression, patients often get typhlitis, a life-threatening gastrointestinal complication of chemotherapy. Typhlitis is an intestinal infection which may manifest itself through symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, a distended abdomen, fever, chills, or abdominal pain and tenderness. Typhlitis is a medical emergency. It has a very poor prognosis and is often fatal.  It can cause infertility failure in men and ovarian failure in women. All that in addition to the well-known hair-loss, dry skin, damaged fingernails, a dry mouth (xerostomia), water retention, and sexual impotence.

In 2004 the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, conducted a long-term investigation into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies. The results were shocking: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA. The study came to the following conclusion: “..it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.”

Chemo is massively toxic and kill any rapidly dividing cell, tumor or normal. The three best-selling cancer drugs worldwide in 2013 were all made by Roche—Rituxan, Herceptin and Avastin. For all three top chemo drugs sales totaled more than $21 billion.

And the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center now documents how chemotherapy drugs act as carcinogens—they cause cancer which is why, depending on the patient’s immune strength and dosage, within five years a staggering number die after the chemo that was to have saved them.

I was in Beijing several years ago on a speaking tour and had severe back pain after the long flight. My Chinese publisher organized a treatment from a doctor trained in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). She was also the grand-daughter of the chief TCM doctor of the Last Emperor who she said was still alive and chipper at 93 and passing his wisdom on to her and her brother. She told me at the Beijing medical university where she studied, the students were told, “One third of patients die of the psychological shock of being told by a doctor that they have cancer. Another third die from the negative effects of chemotherapy and radiation. The last third simply die.”

It would be useful for all doctors in active practice perhaps to rethink the principal ethical mandate of all physicians since the time of Hippocrates– “nil nocere” – do no harm. The evidence is overwhelming now that chemotherapy only does harm. Would the oncologists promoting chemo to their patients ever take the same were the roles reversed?

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Editors In Chief of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue” … “It Is Simply No Longer Possible To Believe Much of the Clinical Research That Is Published”

By WashingtonsBlog
June 2, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science

Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.

It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.

The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month:

Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

***

Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.

Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

In her must-read essay, Dr. Angell skewers drug companies, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment as being rotten with corruption and conflicts of interest.

And we’ve previously documented that the government sometimes uses raw power to cover up corruption in the medical and scientific fields.

Postscript: Corruption is not limited to the medical or scientific fields. Instead, corruption has become systemic throughout every profession … and is so pervasive that it is destroying the very fabric of America.

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

“Science has taken a turn towards Darkness”

By Arjun Walia
May 23, 2015
Collective Evolution

 

fraudIn the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.

He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”  (source)

I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement, and it comes from someone who also held a position similiar to Dr. Horton.

There is much more than anecdotal evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day. (source)

This is just one of many examples, and alludes to one point Dr. Horton is referring to, the ommision of data. For the sake of time, I encourage you to do your own research on this subject. I just wanted to provide some food for thought about something that is not often considered when it comes to medical research, and the resulting products and theories which are then sold to us based on that research.

It’s truly a remarkable time to be alive. Over the course of human history, our planet has experienced multiple paradigm shifting realizations, all of which were met with harsh resistence at the time of their revelation. One great example is when we realized the Earth was not flat. Today, we are seeing these kinds of revelatory shifts in thinking happen in multiple spheres, all at one time. It can seem overwhelming for those who are paying attention, especially given the fact that a lot of these ideas go against current belief systems. There will always be resistance to new information which does not fit into the current framework, regardless of how reasonable (or factual) that information might be.

Here are just a few of the CE articles related to this subject:

One of the Most Important Scientists in the World: “Most Cancer Research is Largely a Fraud”

Flawed Medical Research May Be Ruining Your Health & Your Life

Sources:

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

 

 

 

Aluminum and the Neurotoxicity of Vaccines

Information that the Vaccine Industry tries to keep hidden

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls
April 30, 2015
Global Research

 

Aluminium-vaccine“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die or are disabled from vaccine injuries.

“In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders.” – C. A. Shaw, MD, Vaccine safety researcher

“…no adequate studies have been conducted to assess the safety of simultaneous administration of different vaccines to young children.” Nor has there been “ any toxicological evaluation about concomitant administration of aluminum with other known toxic compounds which are routine constituents of commercial vaccine preparations, e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde.” – L. Tomljenovic and C.A. Shaw, Vaccine safety researchers

In the last few decades since the “mysterious” autism epidemic began in the late 1980s, the giant pharmaceutical companies, free from the constraints of medico-legal liability, began pumping out more and more highly profitable vaccines, and their lobbyists in D.C., their well-paid spokespersons and the industry-co-opted “regulatory agencies” (like WHO, the CDC, the FDA and NIH) rejoiced.

Then, in 1996, the Big Pharma corporate machine and lobbyists got the US Congress to do its bidding and legalize direct-to-consumer advertising for its products, which up to then was illegal. And Big Pharma has also been bribing most US Congresspersons with lavish campaign donations and totally dominated the mainstream media debates that come up from time to time concerning drug and vaccine injuries, intoxication, sickness and death.. Up until now they have also succeeded in silencing the thousands of anguished parents of vaccine-injured children who are just trying to tell their tragic stories.

At least partly because of the dire financial consequences that these industries may have to face if the stories were to be widely told, these parents and their advocates have been essentially black-balled by every media outlet that takes advertising dollars from Big Pharma. The black-listing is probably welcome to everybody associated with Big Pharma’s industries, like Wall Street executives, Big Media executives and others in the investor classes that may have pharmaceutical stocks in their portfolios (or are simply on friendly terms with medical or pharmaceutical establishment types that don’t want to destabilize the gravy train).

Tens of thousands of angry and increasingly vocal “Mama Bear” mothers, are no longer willing to accept the excuse from their clinics that “the neurological catastrophe that your child suffered after the shots was just a coincidence”. And they are demanding an audience, some compassion, some help and some compensation for their losses.

These usually disrespected parents are sometimes fired from their clinics when they try to protect their afflicted child from further vaccine injury. There is no doubt in their minds that, after their child got his standard “well-child” inoculations, that previously healthy baby or toddler died of SIDS or regressed into autism (or had other developmental delays) or started having seizures or developed autoimmune disorders such as allergies or asthma or arthritis or so-called ADHD.

(It must be mentioned that the various combinations of inoculations have never been proven to be safe or even effective in unbiased, independent, well-designed, long-term studies. With no legal liability since 1986, the vaccine industry has very little incentive to make that effort.)

But these parents are persistent and they are continuing to speak out despite being routinely shouted down by the ubiquitous pro-vaccine spokespersons that are invited to appear on radio and TV shows whenever vaccine issues are discussed in the media. Pro-vaccine spokespersons are everywhere (like the multimillionaire academic pediatrician Dr Paul Offit, who developed an anti-diarrhea rotavirus vaccine (Rotateq), and then sold – for tens of millions of dollars – the patents and marketing rights to the giant vaccine manufacturer Merck & Co.

Offit has a lot of prestige to lose if the raw truth about America’s over-vaccination program came out. (Dr Offit, by the way, is the “vaccine expert” who says that all vaccines are perfectly safe and once reportedly said that infants can theoretically tolerate 10,000 of them at once: (See “Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?” Pediatrics. 2002 Jan;109(1):124-9.)

Many of the parents whose children are victims of vaccine-injuries have enough common sense to see through the absurdity of Offit’s statement. They know how to find pertinent information on PubMed that their physicians may not be aware of concerning the toxicity of vaccines and vaccine adjuvants, and they are connecting the dots and de-mystifying the causes behind the epidemic of chronic, autoimmune disorders that are occurring in fully vaccinated American children. Those chronic illnesses do not happen in unvaccinated or minimally-vaccinated children like in Amish communities or in the patients of Home First Clinic in Chicago. (For more on that see ”Make an Informed Vaccine Decision”, page 12, where author Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH, who started the Home First Clinic [and did not force vaccinations on his 35,000 pediatric patients] discovered that, among his un-vaccinated or minimally-vaccinated patients, there were essentially zero patients with autism, asthma, allergies or diabetes.)

Knowledgeable parents of vaccine-age children correctly fear the rapidly increasing numbers of mandated vaccines all of which have many toxic ingredients in them that are being injected into the bodies of their immune-deficient infants. And the vaccine doses do not vary no matter what is the infant’s age, weight, developmental status, immune status, mitochondrial status, nutritional status, or whether or not the child is currently sick.

Because of the large amount of new basic science studies that have been done on the subject of the neurotoxic vaccine adjuvant aluminum and the recent studies about the mitochondrial toxicity of vaccine ingredients, I submit the abstracts and portions of articles below from a variety of peer-reviewed medical journals.

Aluminum, as is mercury, is a known potent mitochondrial toxin, and every cell in the body, especially the brain cells of infants, is highly susceptible to permanent damage from those two heavy metals, especially when they are used in combination and especially when they are injected – as was the case during the 1990s when the autism epidemic was escalating from rare (1/10,000 to “normal” (1/150).

The first article in annex (Excerpts) below is from the journal Lupus and the second is from Current Medicinal Chemistry. Neither journal takes pharmaceutical company advertising.


ANNEX

Mechanisms of Aluminum Adjuvant Toxicity and Autoimmunity in Pediatric Populations

Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):223-30. doi: 10.1177/0961203311430221.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057

Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA.

Abstract

Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.

In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.
Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key points ought to be considered:

(1) Infants and children should not be viewed as “small adults” with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults;
(2) In adult humans (and animals) aluminum vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., ASIA = Autoimmune [auto-inflammatory] Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults;
(3) It is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immune-regulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in “ASIA” and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and
(4) The same components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.
In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted.
Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed.


Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7

L. Tomljenovic, and C.A. Shaw (article accepted for publication May 12, 2011)

Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, the Departments of Ophthalmology, Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine, and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada

Full journal article available at: http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

Abstract

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted.

Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.

In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

INTRODUCTION

Aluminum is the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant and until recently the only one licensed for use in the U.S. In its absence, antigenic components of most vaccines (with the exception of live attenuated vaccines), fail to launch an adequate immune response. Paradoxically, despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants their precise mechanism of action remains poorly understood.

Furthermore, a growing number of studies have linked the use of aluminum adjuvants to serious autoimmune outcomes in humans. That concerns about aluminum adjuvant safety are indeed warranted is evident from the summary conclusions of the Aluminum in Vaccines workshop held in Puerto Rico in 2000 [Eickhoff, T.C.; Myers, M. Workshop summary. Aluminum in vaccines. Vaccine. 2002, 20 Suppl 3, S1-4.]. The written consensus amongst the participants of the workshop was listed under the rubric of “pervasive uncertainty”, a term used to denote what remained unknown regarding potential aluminum toxicity from adjuvants.

The specific areas of concern were: “1) toxicology and pharmacokinetics, specifically the processing of aluminum by infants and children, 2) mechanisms by which aluminum adjuvants interact with the immune system and 3) the necessity of adjuvants in booster doses.” In the concluding paragraphs of the summary, the report nevertheless claimed that “the use of salts of aluminum as adjuvants in vaccines has proven to be safe and effective” [2]. In light of the items of “pervasive uncertainty”, this statement remains questionable.

Given that multiple aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines are often given to very young children (i.e., 2 to 6 months of age), in a single day at individual vaccination sessions, concerns for potential impacts of total adjuvant-derived aluminum body burden may be significant. These issues warrant serious consideration since, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate studies have been conducted to assess the safety of simultaneous administration of different vaccines to young children.

Another issue of concern is the lack of any toxicological evaluation about concomitant administration of aluminum with other known toxic compounds which are routine constituents of commercial vaccine preparations, e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde.

In spite of all this, aluminum adjuvants are generally regarded as safe, and some researchers have even recommended that no further research efforts should be spent on this topic despite “a lack of good-quality evidence”.

In the following paper we aim to provide an overview of what is currently known about aluminum adjuvants, their modes of action and mechanisms of potential toxicity. We first present well-established evidence that implicates aluminum in a variety of neurological disorders. We then elaborate on the unresolved controversy about aluminum adjuvant safety.

Aluminum Toxicity in Animals and Humans

Aluminum is a well demonstrated toxin in biological systems whose more specific impacts on the nervous system have been widely documented. As early as 1911, Dr. William Gies had summarized data from 7 years-worth of experimental testing in humans and animals on the effects of oral consumption of aluminum salts, then used primarily in baking powders, food preservation, and dye manufacturing. The outcome of these studies led Gies to conclude that: “the use in food of aluminum or any other aluminum compound is a dangerous practice.”

Gies’ concerns have since been borne out by experimental studies showing that oral exposure to aluminum that is at levels “typically” consumed in an average “Western diet” over an extended period of time, produce strikingly similar outcomes in rodents to those induced by intracerebral injection of aluminum salts with the exception of seizures and fatalities.

Animals intoxicated with dietary aluminum routinely show impaired performance in learning and memory tasks, impaired concentration, and behavioural changes including confusion and repetitive behaviours. Consistent with these observations, according to the most recent and elaborate toxicological report for aluminum prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): “There is a rather extensive database on the oral toxicity of aluminum in animals. These studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity.”

In humans, aluminum toxicity has been solidly linked to dialysis-associated encephalopathy syndrome, also known as dialysis dementia. This syndrome occurs in patients with renal failure subjected to chronic dialysis treatment and is caused by accumulation of intravenously administered aluminum from the dialysis fluid (which is derived from aluminum-treated tap water). Dialysis dementia is associated with abnormally high levels of plasma and brain aluminum and is generally fatal within 3 to 7 months following the sudden overt manifestation of clinical symptoms in patients who had been on dialysis treatment for 3 to 7 years (unless treated with chelating agent such as desferrioxamine (DFO) or reverse osmosis to remove aluminum salts from the water used to prepare the dialysis fluid). Symptoms appear suddenly and worsen either during or immediately after a dialysis session. The first symptom to appear is a speech abnormality, then tremors, impaired psychomotor control, memory losses, impaired concentration, behavioural changes, epileptic seizures, coma and death.

Although frequent ingestion of aluminum-containing medicines was also thought to be a contributing factor in dialysis dementia it should be noted that there were no incidences of this syndrome prior to introduction of aluminum salts in water supplies [21, 27]. Furthermore, symptomatic patients rapidly improved when efforts were made to remove aluminum from the dialysis fluid, despite the fact they still ingested large amounts of aluminum-containing phosphate binding gels.

In addition to dialysis dementia, a host of neurodegenerative complications and diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [Perl, D.P.; Moalem, S. [Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease, a personal perspective after 25 years. J Alzheimers Dis. 2006, 9(3 Suppl), 291-300.], multiple sclerosis, Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), autism, and epilepsy may also be related to aluminum exposure. While it is likely that these diseases are of multifactorial etiologies, aluminum certainly has the potential to serve as a toxic co-factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Aluminum in various forms can be toxic to the nervous system. The widespread presence in the human environment may underlie a number of CNS disorders. The continued use of aluminum adjuvants in various vaccines for children as well as the general public may be of significant concern.

In particular, aluminum presented in this form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. The widely accepted notion of aluminum adjuvant safety does not appear to be firmly established in the scientific literature and, as such, this absence may have led to erroneous conclusions regarding the significance of these compounds in the etiologies of many common neurological disorders. Furthermore, the continued use of aluminum-containing placebos in vaccine clinical trials may have led to an underestimation of the true rate of adverse outcomes associated with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

In our opinion, a comprehensive evaluation of the overall impact of aluminum on human health is overdue. Such an evaluation should include studies designed to determine the short and long-term impacts of dietary aluminum as well as the potential impacts in different age groups of exposure to adjuvant aluminum alone and in combination with other potentially toxic vaccine constituents (e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde).

For the latter, until vaccine safety can be comprehensively demonstrated by controlled independent long-term studies that examine the impact on the nervous system in detail, many of those already vaccinated as well as those currently receiving injections may be at risk for health complications that exceed the potential benefits that vaccine prophylaxis may provide.

The issue of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine safety is especially pertinent in light of the legislation which might mandate vaccination regimes for civilian populations (e.g., the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005). Whether the risk of protection from a dreaded disease outweighs the risk of toxicity from its presumed prophylactic agent is a question that demands far more rigorous scrutiny than has been provided to date.

REFERENCES (and full article) available at:http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN. Prior to his retirement, he practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine (www.readerduluth.com). His columns often deal with issues of mental health, drug/vaccine toxicity and the epidemic of malnutrition.

Lobbyist Claims Monsanto’s Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass

By Global Research News
Global Research, April 27, 2015
The Antimedia.org

 

RoundUp-Herbicide(ANTIMEDIA) French television station Canal+ recently sat down with Dr. Patrick Moore for an upcoming documentary. Dr Moore, who claims to be an ecological expert and is currently the frontman for Ecosense Environmental, stated to the interviewer that Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup was not responsible for skyrocketing cancer rates in Argentina.

This is where the interview took a turn for the surreal.

Dr. Moore insisted that Roundup is safe to drink, at which point the interviewer did the only logical thing one could do in that situation.

He offered the doctor a glass of the weed killer to allow him an opportunity to back up his statement. The following is the text from that exchange.

 

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Patrick Moore: “You can drink a whole quart of (Roundup) and it won’t hurt you.”

Canal+: “You want to drink some? We have some here.”
Moore: “I’d be happy to, actually…. Uhh…Not.. Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me.”
Canal+: “If you say so, I have some glyphosate, have some.”
Moore: “No. I’m not stupid.”
Canal+: “So, it’s dangerous, right?
Moore: “No, People try to commit suicide with it and fail; fail regularly.”
Canal+: “Tell the truth, it’s dangerous.”
Moore: “It’s not dangerous to humans.”
Canal+: “So, are you ready to drink one glass?”
Moore: “No, I’m not an idiot. Interview me about golden rice, that’s what I’m talking about.”
Canal+: “We did.”
Moore then abruptly ends the interview by calling the host a “complete jerk” and storms off.

Greenpeace, an organization to which the doctor turned lobbyist belonged in the 1970’s, issued this statement in part in 2008 regarding Dr. Patrick Moore.

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

Watch the video from Canal+

Original Video:
http://theantimedia.org/lobbyist-clai…

This article (Lobbyist Claims Monsanto’s Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune in to the Anti-Media radio show Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.

“Mass Sterilization”: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine

By Brian Shilhavy
February 17, 2015
Health Impact News

 

UNICEF-tetanus-kenyaAccording to LifeSiteNews, a Catholic publication, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging UNICEF and WHO with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus vaccination program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

The Kenyan government denies there is anything wrong with the vaccine, and says it is perfectly safe.

The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, however, saw evidence to the contrary, and had six different samples of the tetanus vaccine from various locations around Kenya sent to an independent laboratory in South Africa for testing.

The results confirmed their worst fears: all six samples tested positive for the HCG antigen. The HCG antigen is used in anti-fertility vaccines, but was found present in tetanus vaccines targeted to young girls and women of childbearing age. Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4:

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.” (Source.)

Dr. Ngare brought up several points about the mass tetanus vaccination program in Kenya that caused the Catholic doctors to become suspicious:

Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.

Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of childbearing years, and why is it being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?

“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare.

But it is the five vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.” (Source.)

UNICEF: A History of Taking Advantage of Disasters to Mass Vaccinate

It should be noted that UNICEF and WHO distribute these vaccines for free, and that there are financial incentives for the Kenyan government to participate in these programs. When funds from the UN are not enough to purchase yearly allotments of vaccines, an organization started and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, provides extra funding for many of these vaccination programs in poor countries. (See: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Vaccine Empire on Trial in India.)

Also, there was no outbreak of tetanus in Kenya, only the perceived “threat” of tetanus due to local flood conditions.

These local disasters are a common reason UNICEF goes into poorer countries with free vaccines to begin mass vaccination programs.

Health Impact News reported last year that UNICEF began a similar mass vaccination program with 500,000 doses of live oral polio vaccine in the Philippines after a Super Typhoon devastated Tacolban and surrounding areas. This was in spite of the fact there were no reported cases of polio in the Philippines since 1993, and people who have had the live polio vaccine can “shed” the virus into sewage systems, thereby causing the actual disease it is supposed to be preventing. (See: No Polio in the Philippines Since 1993, But Mass Polio Vaccination Program Targeted for 500,000 Typhoon Victims Under Age 5.)

A very similar mass vaccination with the live oral polio vaccine occurred among Syrian refugees in 2013, when 1.7 million doses of polio vaccine were purchased by UNICEF, in spite of the fact that no cases of polio had been seen since 1999. After the mass vaccination program started, cases of polio began to reappear in Syria. (See: Are UNICEF Live Polio Vaccines Causing Polio Among Syrians? 1.7 Billion Polio Vaccines Purchased by UNICEF.)

It seems quite apparent that UNICEF and WHO use these local disasters to mass vaccinate people, mainly children and young women. Massive education and propaganda efforts are also necessary to convince the local populations that they need these vaccines. Here is a video UNICEF produced for the tetanus vaccine in Kenya. Notice how they use school teachers and local doctors to do the educating, even though the vaccines are produced by western countries.

At least in Kenya, Catholic doctors are acting and taking a stand against what they see as an involuntary mass sterilization campaign designed to control the population of Africans.