Did Gates Know Polio Vaccine Would Paralyze Children?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation created the GAVI alliance to push vaccinations on the poorest parts of the developing world in the name of “saving lives” and stopping disease.

In particular, Bill Gates expects to take credit for wiping out polio worldwide by making it one of his primary issues. But at what cost?

 In April 2012, I reported on a disturbing claim in the Indian medical press that some 47,500 children had been paralyzed as a direct result of the polio vaccination campaign that had swept through their populous country. India’s National Polio Surveillance Project found that a sharp rise in the cases of non-polio paralysis correlated with areas where doses of oral polio vaccine were also increased.

Worse, children afflicted with polio vaccine-derived non-polio paralysis “were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection,” according to Indian officials.

Bill Gates has publicly denied that his vaccination campaign harmed anyone after being confronted by Truthstream Media’s Melissa Melton.


n June 2013, a ten-month old baby in India made headlines after it was paralyzed from receiving a polio vaccine, all while Bollywood celebrities, reportedly hired by the Gates Foundation, were used to urge the public to accept the vaccinations.

Perhaps the worst part of this tragic backlash in what is meant to be a campaign to improve public health is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UN’s World Health Organization knew that oral polio vaccines caused paralysis – but they thought the trade-off was worth it. The claim rings as hollow as when former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed that some half a million Iraqis killed by sanctions was also “worth it.”

After years of controversy in the United States, the use of oral polio vaccine (OPV) was discontinued in 2000 due to its proven link with vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV), and in the UK circa 2004.

The use of an injected and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) replaced its usage in the Western world, while oral polio vaccine continues to be used in the developing world.

Wikipedia notes that the WHO “considers the benefits of vaccination to far outweigh the risk of vaccine derived polio.” A statement on the World Health Organization addressing the issue of vaccine-derived polio updated in April 2013 claims, “The small risk of cVDPVs pales in significance to the tremendous public health benefits associated with OPV.”

While that risk may be statistically negligible from the bureaucratic point of view of the United Nations and agenda-driven philanthropy, the vaccine-derived paralysis has ruined at least 47,500 real human lives in India, in children who would have likely never contracted paralyzing polio but instead were paralyzed and permanently harmed by the so-called “cure” – all while an alternate vaccine not linked with paralysis has long been available.

Who carries the burden for those wrecked lives, and why does no one in the mainstream corporate media address this issue or attempt to hold anyone accountable? I guess there are no political points to be scored, so it won’t be appearing on your TV screen.

Belgium To Approve Euthanasia of Alzheimer Patients and Autistic Children

A proposed law on the verge of approval by the Belgium parliament would allow children to decide for themselves whether they should be euthanized ("killed") by medical personnel. Currently, Belgian law limits euthanasia to persons 18 and older, but with the rise of autistic children thanks to biopesticides, GMOs and vaccines, nations are increasingly trying to figure out what to do with all these children who have been permanently damaged by the medical and biotech industries.

The answer, of course, is to simply kill them. It's difficult to kill children off under current law without being charged with murder, however. So this proposed new law would allow doctors to decide whether children of any age (yes, even a five-year-old) can, themselves, "consent" to being euthanized without parental consent.

The mercy killing of autistic children has already begun in the UK, by the way. As the Daily Mail reports: "Desperate mother and godmother 'killed severely autistic boy, 14, by stabbing him multiple times in the chest' when they became overwhelmed caring for him 24/7 after demanding he be removed from the hospital and in put in their care."

Not surprisingly, this "mercy killing" bill was introduced by the socialist party, since socialists tend to hate humanity no matter what country they live in. The proposed legislation calls for, "the law to be extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate," reports AFP.

That story goes on to report, "Socialist Senator Philippe Mahoux, who helped draft the proposed changes, said there had been cases of adolescents who 'had the capacity to decide' their future."

Because, of course, a six-year-old isn't old enough to drive a car or buy a beer, but they can certainly consent to being killed by the state... especially if they're already a burden on health care costs.

As the law proponents claim, it "marks a turning point in the nation's approach to the rights of young people, some of whom would be able to choose to die if the law were to pass, even while still being legally barred from driving, marrying, voting or drinking liquor until they turned 18," reports IBtimes.com

(Story continues below...)

Alzheimer's patients to also face euthanization under proposed law

But wait, there's more! It's not just children who will be euthanized under this new law, it's also scores of Alzheimer's patients.

"Parliamentarians would also consider extended mercy-killing to people suffering from Alzheimer's-type illnesses," said the socialist senator.

Euthanasia is, of course, the most convenient way for any government to get rid of people it doesn't want to care for. Instead of teaching the public how to prevent and reverse Alzheimer's disease, the government simply passes a new law to murder them all while calling it "compassionate medicine."

The age of mass murder by government is upon us. It won't be long before such laws spread to other nations and are expanded to people with "mental health problems" or even cancer. While in theory the idea of euthanasia may have merit in a strictly limited scope, the truth is that governments are now jumping on the euthanasia bandwagon to provide attempted legal justification for the mass murder of children and senior citizens whom they no longer wish to support with health care expenditures. Save the government from bankruptcy! Have grandma euthanized! (Right alongside little autistic Johnny, too...)

Governments, after all, are ultimately political machines of death and destruction, which explains why all the wars fought in the 20th century were started by governments, not the People. War is simply another way to accomplish the mass killing that the twisted, demented people at the top of every government truly enjoy.

And there's nothing more delicious to these power freaks than killing little children. If you can take a five-year-old into a doctor's office and pump his veins full of deadly chemicals while calling it a "mercy killing," it's almost erotic to these power-hungry control freaks. Too bad the BBC's Jimmy Savile isn't still around, or he might even find something else to do with the children's corpses afterward.

Sick? You bet it is. We're talking about the state-sponsored murder of children here. There's nothing polite about it. You can also bet this will become the new way that governments dispose of autistic children and then claim rates of autism are "going down" because not as many children have it anymore. (Yeah, after they've all been euthanized.)

Governments, you see, will even resort to the mass murder of children to protect the vaccine industry. And what is the vaccine industry other than a child-killing monstrosity to begin with? That's why the industry loves to run dangerous vaccine experiments on little children, too. There's nothing quite as rewarding to these vaccine pushers as seeing a high-IQ child turned into a drooling, screaming, zombified autism case in the hours after receiving a vaccine injection.

God help us all. We are all being mass murdered by the fascist global state, and most of the population is too dumbed-down to realize what's happening.

WARNING H1N1 Contents

Say NO To Thimerosal & The Flu Shot

Dr. Mark Sircus, Green Med Info
Waking Times
Saying no to vaccines in the face of the gale wind of propaganda and governmentally supported vaccine campaigns is high treason punishable to the point of having your kids taken away if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

True medicine cries out against vaccines and all the harm they are doing to children and people around the globe but we have medical authorities claiming them to offer deliverance when in reality they offer little of anything but further toxic attacks on the body and immune system.

Medical truth is obviously against deliberately poisoning people, but don’t tell that to anyone at the FDA whose staff falls all over itself to promote the most dangerous drugs ever known to mankind. Vaccines are loaded with crude materials that will never make anyone well. Poisons usually have the habit of poisoning people and the amount of mercury in the influenza vaccine is dangerous no matter what these un-trustable medical officials say.

Mercury is much more toxic then lead but there is not a doctor in the world stupid or crazy enough to inject lead into children’s veins, yet there are plenty who will gladly with a smile inject mercury.
In this crazy world of ours, medicine has turned against the people’s wellbeing, meaning they have committed high treason against the sacred medical oath to do no harm to their patients.

 A flu vaccine with mercury-based thimerosal used as a preservative is an insult to the public’s intelligence but unfortunately that intelligence has been buried under a thick wall of medical lies and propaganda meant to sell vaccines.

“Chronic mercury exposure is also a threat to our health and makes us especially vulnerable to flu infections. It has been shown that “prolonged exposure of mammals (white mice) to low mercury concentrations (0.008-0.02mg/m3) leads to a significant increase in the susceptibility of mice to pathological influenza virus strains. This is shown by a more severe course of infection.

 In the experimental group more mice died (86-90.3%) than in the unexposed animals (60.2-68%), additionally the experimental group died more quickly. The significant difference was in the appearance and degree of pneumonia in the effected animals,” wrote Dr. I. M. Trakhtenberg in “Chronic Effects of Mercury on Organisms.”

The CDC recommends that everyone over six months of age get a flu shot, especially people in high-risk groups, such as those under five or over 65 and people with chronic medical conditions, such as asthma or heart disease.


Any competent biochemist would look at the structure of thimerosal and identify it as a potent enzyme inhibitor. What is surprising is that the appropriate animal and laboratory testing was not done on the vaccines containing thimerosal (and aluminum) before the government embarked on a mandated vaccine program that exposed infants to the levels of thimerosal that occurred. - Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published in the Huffington Post a few years ago devastating evidence that implicated the CDC in a terrible scandal in regards to the unnecessary injection of millions of children with thimerosal a few years back, and this is important because again the CDC is going to allow mercury-containing thimerosal to be used in the swine flu shots as well as the regular flu shots in the fall of 2009.

Doctors like to educate parents about what influenza is and to emphasize that influenza is different from having a cold. They think that it is really important for parents to understand when we are in flu season that, if their child is exhibiting signs of an influenza-like illness, they need to seek care from their pediatric provider and begin antiviral drug treatment if indicated.

There are many ways to approach and treat the complications of influenza in Natural Allopathic Medicine, whose basic protocol is made from rock-solid emergency room medicinals of non-pharmaceutical origin. Special Note: Monday I will publish a comprehensive emergency protocol for influenza.

Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) (acupuncturist, doctor of oriental and pastoral medicine) is a prolific writer and author of some astounding medical and health-related books. His books are heavily referenced, and for many years Dr. Sircus has been researching into the human condition and into the causes of disease; he has distilled many of the divergent medical systems into a new form of medicine that he has coined Natural Allopathic Medicine.

Natural fruit 10,000 Times More Effective Than Chemo

Check out this amazing natural food:
 

https://www.amazonthunder.com/happytails

Murder In The Medical Matrix

I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:

http://ssristories.com/index.php

It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I've written much about the the FDA. I thought I'd assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.

HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW

by Jon Rappoport

May 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

  

The day of the Smoking Gun has arrived.

The discovery of a page, on the FDA's own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:

the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.

  

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm

 The FDA website page is currently available under the heading, "Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions."

The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.

As an investigative reporter, I have been tracking and writing about pharmaceutically-caused deaths for 10 years. I have, on numerous occasions, cited Dr. Barbara Starfield's report in the July 26th, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, in which she presents the figure of 106,000 deaths per year, in America, as a direct result of these drugs. I have claimed that the federal government and, in particular, the FDA, are aware of these numbers.

And now the page on the FDA's own website confirms the death toll. Yet, nowhere do we see the FDA taking one shred of responsibility for this ongoing holocaust.

Holocaust? Add up the figures. Medical drugs cause 100,000 deaths in America every year: that means a million Americans are killed every decade.

Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.

Yes, the FDA has a "special relationship" with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.

In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.

That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.

On this FDA website page that has just come to light, the FDA also readily admits that deaths from medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.

The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. When the FDA says "serious," they aren't talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. "Serious" means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude. Therefore, per decade, that adds up to 20 million ADRs. 20 million.

Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable crime in the American landscape? And yet the major media have been silent. This is the kind of story that could make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic. If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn't just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It's collusion to protect "a revered institution"-the medical system.

Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.

Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?

The revelations of ongoing knowledge to be found at the FDA website page stagger the mind. Here is yet another implication: what about all the studies on drugs that are published in prestigious medical journals, month after month? These studies unequivocally claim the drugs are safe. What level of fraud must exist for such peer-reviewed studies to attain the false status of medical fact?

Perhaps this quote from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, will clarify that aspect of the scandal:

"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."

(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

  

Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as "potentially dangerous"-despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.

  

It is time for these murderous government crimes to end. It is time for all responsible parties to be brought to justice, to real justice. It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.

  

It is only necessary for Department of Justice officials to climb into cars and drive down the road to the headquarters of the FDA and start making arrests, on a charge of negligent homicide. At minimum.

ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: THE FDA VS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

By Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn't you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let's shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn't you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I'm talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let's get to the latest smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: "It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing 'serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'"

The report called this "one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity."

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA's own database of "serious adverse [medical-drug] events."

Therefore, to say the FDA isn't aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn't saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; the FDA has a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Google "FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions")

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death last year, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, "Is US health really the best in the world?", was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn't I go along with Janet Napolitano's advice: SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.

This is what I see and this is what I'm saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who've all died, in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I'll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.

But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn't a recognized political issue. It doesn't play in a debate between Romney and Obama. It isn't perceived as a left-versus-right, liberal-versus-conservative topic.

Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.

It's quite something to behold. But here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That's the rule. Therefore, if the FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and if the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade, and if the FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what's going on, then you have a holocaust. Murder. Not accidental death. Murder.

WHEN MASS MURDER BECOMES ACCEPTABLE

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Five days ago, I broke a story about the FDA. On one of its own web pages, the agency admits that medical drugs kill 100,000 Americans a year.

Of course, none of those drugs would have reached the public, if the FDA had ruled them out as dangerous. The FDA is the single entity responsible for certifying medical drugs as safe and effective. On its web page, the FDA neglected to mention that fact.

Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: "Murders committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of homicides in America every year."

Wouldn't that set off alarm bells? Wouldn't there be a public outcry? Wouldn't the the press go crazy with the story?

Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.

It's a miracle.

As I've been saying and writing for a decade now, the power of the medical cartel is gigantic.

When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.

I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.

Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no "going after the FDA." It was suddenly a dead issue.

I remember the people who said, "Don't attack the FDA." I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren't your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling "let's be nice" New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.

Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.

I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what's going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They're living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system. These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.

Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the "problem." Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don't want to touch this genocidal crime. They don't have the character or the courage.

Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.

And now, a growing segment of the Internet knows. Will this story, finally, build into an irresistible roar? Or will it again sink back into the shadows?

A Matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.

People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.

People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.

People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

To shatter all these firmly held conviction in one fell swoop is too much for many people to absorb.

FDA DRUG REVIEWER: "ONE FDA MANAGER THREATENED MY CHILDREN"

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In a stunning interview with Truthout's Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety

Cavanagh: "...widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation."

"I was threatened with prison."

"One [FDA] manager threatened my children...I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators."

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn't part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his covert task at the FDA? "Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs." In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh's revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, "actually increased the lethality" of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug---and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Read the entire landmark interview for yourself and see what the FDA really is. We are not dealing with isolated incidents of cheating and lying. We are not dealing with a few isolated bought-off FDA employees. The situation at the FDA isn't correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Twelve years ago, the cat was let out of the bag. Dr. Barbara Starfield, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 26, 2000, in a review titled, "Is US health really the best in the world," exposed the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

In interviewing her, I discovered that she had never been approached by any federal agency to help remedy this tragedy. Nor had the federal government taken any steps on its own to stop the dying.

Should we tread daintily when we know the federal agency responsible for drug safety is allowing 100,000 people to die every year? This is murder. It's not really negligent homicide, not when it keeps happening. It's murder. It's on the order of a Nazi war crime.

  

Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.

  

That's what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation "Vaccines Reduce Population Growth"

Right from the horses mouth, Bill Gates states that “vaccines reduce population growth.” Few can now deny what anti-vaccine advocates have been saying for years, specifically that vaccines directly and negatively impact fertility. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will only be too willing to oblige future generations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing 10 billion dollars over the next ten years to make it the most aggressive decade ever to roll out new vaccines to poor nations around the world. The commitment will also effectively create widespread fertility problems across vaccinated populations. Home > Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Vaccines Reduce Population Growth” Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Vaccines Reduce Population Growth” October 26, 2012 | By admin | 1 Reply Dave Mihalovic, Prevent Disease Waking Times Right from the horses mouth, Bill Gates states that “vaccines reduce population growth.” Few can now deny what anti-vaccine advocates have been saying for years, specifically that vaccines directly and negatively impact fertility. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will only be too willing to oblige future generations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing 10 billion dollars over the next ten years to make it the most aggressive decade ever to roll out new vaccines to poor nations around the world. The commitment will also effectively create widespread fertility problems across vaccinated populations. In the video below, Bill Gates states at 0:11: “Over this decade, we believe unbelievable products can be made both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get to all the children that need them.” At 0:20 he continues: “We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that if we have success on it.” Now here is the statement straight from the source which should not leave any doubts on the intention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Listen carefully at 0:28: “The benefits are in terms of reducing sickness, reducing the population growth. It really allows a society to take care of itself once you’ve made that intervention.” Now why would Bill Gates state that vaccines could cut the number of children who die every year in half and then also state literally a few breaths later in the same segment, that vaccines could reduce population growth. Are those two not contradictory? If vaccines were to cut the number of child deaths in half, then this would only increase population growth since these children would presumably then grow to become fertile adults. Ahhhh…do you see the problem? The only way they could not become fertile adults is if the vaccines were to make them infertile. Then it wouldn’t matter how many children were saved since they could not reproduce, hence the assertion of reducing population growth. See how it all works? Vaccine ingredients have been known to cause infertility for some time. Two common vaccine ingredients Polysorbate 80 and Octoxynol 10 both have the ability to damage fertility. Fertility has been declining rapidly since the 1950s in all countries of the world and the start of the change coincided with the introduction of the first mass vaccination programs. For instance, in the UK in 1947, a mass DPT vaccine campaign was initiated and in 1958, the first polio and diphtheria vaccines were brought in on a mass scale for all people under 15 years old. Vaccines contain many ingredients that are potentially damaging to fertility including detergents like triton X-100, also known as octoxynol 10 which is a known spermicide and has been used in experiments to “strip” sperm so that they are no longer capable of fertilizing an egg. In a 1977 study in the Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, triton X-100 was listed in a table of “most potent spermicides” that would produce 100% stripping of human sperm and the dosages needed for such an effect. Another ingredient that is problematic is polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80) that is in numerous vaccines including the Pediacel five-in-one vaccine given to infants and the gardasil HPV vaccine. Polysorbate 80 is a known sterility causing agent in rats. It caused changes to the vagina and womb, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles and this impaired the rats’ ability to reproduce. Interestingly enough it is also an emulsifier used in popular brands of ice cream. Some medical professionals argue that it has only been found to cause infertility in rats, not humans, but the Depo-Provera contraceptive shot also contains polysorbate 80 and it has been added to experimental animal contraceptive injections as one of the ideal sterilizing ingredients. Baby female rats who were injected with polysorbate 80 at days 4-7 after birth had caused changes to the vagina and womb lining, hormonal changes, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is Polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80). As it is a preferred ingredient, scientists are obviously aware of its ability to cause infertility. Far from being mere anecdotal reports, scientists are aware that an ideal sterilizing recipe is polysorbate 80 and squalene oil together, as they demonstrated in this patent for an animal contraceptive vaccine: “In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80.” This is exactly what some vaccines contain. In fact, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System lists 25 pages of teenage girls and women who had miscarriages after being injected with Gardasil when pregnant, and that is just for one type of vaccine. So if you’re considering having a vaccine or giving your child one, don’t have any if you intend to get pregnant within three months of the vaccine and avoid any vaccines that contain polysorbate 80, octoxynol 10 (Triton X-100) or squalene (known as adjuvant AS04). According to Professor Iles, of Middlesex University, a new cancer vaccine being developed in conjunction with U.S. firm Celldex Therapeutics will rev up the immune system, directing it to destroy Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) which is made by around half of bladder and pancreatic-cancers. Perhaps an ulterior motive was the driving force behind such irresponsible research since scientists have known for decades that any attempts to depress or destroy hCG may lead to permanent infertility in women. Ironically, the hCG hormone the researchers are trying to destroy is actually used during female infertility treatments in order to stimulate the release of eggs from the ovaries. Temporary depression and disruption of hCG causes a range of hormonal imbalances and is considered a leading cause of miscarriages. Consequently, many once infertile women may suddenly conceive with repeated injections of hCG. One of the primary reasons that women who abuse cocaine can no longer conceive is because of hCG disruption. Cocaine inhibits hCG concentrations in maternal circulation which affects secretion by the placenta required to maintain pregnancy. Almost three years ago Bill Gates told a TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions. Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.” Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization. Can any of us doubt any longer the intentions of vaccines and specifically the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. When it’s coming from the horse’s mouth, what more evidence do we need?

Vaccinations & Autism Will Your Pediatrician Tell You The Truth?

The controversy surrounding the link between soaring autism rates and vaccinations continues to escalate. Pediatricians assure parents that most vaccines are safe, but is their word good enough to ease your fears? The research community says there are no conclusive scientific studies which prove that vaccinations cause autism. Opponents of vaccinations also make a valid point, which is that there have never been any long term, double blind studies for any vaccine ever to prove that they are not responsible for the development of autism in children. The vaccine testing, therefore, is on the general population.

Are you willing to play Russian roulette with your child’s brain? An analytical thinker will realize that something is causing autism and it is not the drinking water. Decades ago, the autism rate was about 1 in 10,000. These days, the autism rate is more than 1 in 100. The interesting thing is that since the number of recommended vaccinations has increased, so has the rate of autism.

As more women return to work shortly after giving birth, the number of infants getting vaccinated increases because mothers are often forced to place their newborns into daycare centers, which require infants to get vaccinated for enrollment. Most public schools also exert extreme (sometimes illegal) pressure upon parents to vaccinate their children, and never mention that there are specific exemption clauses in every state, which allow families to legally opt-out of all vaccinations for religious and/or philosophical reasons. Therefore, contrary to all the disinformation, vaccines are technically not required by law.

Does the medical profession have any idea what kind of havoc these vaccinations are causing in the bodies of young babies whose immune systems have not had a chance to develop? What if the babies are allergic to the ingredients? What are the ingredients? Could they be toxic? Do you know what is being injected into your child, or are you blindly following the crowd being too afraid to question so-called authorities?

There are pediatricians who have reservations about giving vaccinations, and refuse to inoculate their own children and grandchildren, but they will inoculate yours. Medical school was expensive, they have loans to repay, and they need to make a living. In his book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, pediatric medical doctor, stated that “vaccinations are the bread and butter of pediatric practice.”

Dr. Mendelsohn further explained that there are “significant risks associated with every vaccination and contraindications that may make it dangerous for the shots to be given to your child.” However, most doctors routinely give vaccines to children while remaining unsure of their long term consequences.

Parents have a right to know the truth about vaccinations. Do the benefits really outweigh the risks? Is it better to delay the vaccinations until children are older? Should some of the vaccines on the schedule be eliminated all together? Is there a safer method to help protect children from common childhood diseases? What about pediatricians who practice natural and holistic health care as an option? Is it worse to catch the measles or develop vaccine-induced autism? These are the questions concerned parents need answered.

Is there a link between autism and vaccines? This question will continue to be the topic of debate and controversy and not offer any hope to parents whose children are afflicted with the disease. A better question to ask is “what is the American Pediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics doing to find out what is causing the increase of autism rates in children?” In the meantime, if you are a parent, do your homework and then make the decision you believe is best. Remember, the pediatrician is not going to raise your child.

Are Cancer Patients Hopes To High With Chemo?

(Reuters Health) - At least two thirds of people with advanced cancer in a new survey believed the chemotherapy they're receiving might cure them, even though the treatment is only being given to buy some time or make them comfortable.

"Their expectations are way out of line with reality," Dr. Deborah Schrag of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston told Reuters Health.

Her team reports in the New England Journal of Medicine that 69 percent who were terminally ill with lung cancer, and 81 percent with fatal colorectal cancer, did not understand that their chemotherapy was not at all likely to eliminate their tumors.

When lung cancer or colorectal cancer has spread, chemotherapy may extend survival for weeks or months at a cost of some substantial side effects.

Perhaps ironically, the patients who had the nicest things to say about their doctors' ability to communicate with them were less likely to understand the purpose of their chemotherapy than patients who had a less-favorable opinion of their communication with their physician.

"This is not about bad doctors and it's not about unintelligent patients," said Schrag. "This is a complex communication dynamic. It's hard to talk to people and tell them we can't cure your cancer" because doctors find it uncomfortable to hammer home grim news and patients don't want to believe it.

"If patients actually have unrealistic expectations of a cure from a therapy that is administered with palliative intent, we have a serious problem of miscommunication that we need to address," write Drs. Thomas Smith and Dan Longo of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in a commentary accompanying the study.
"This may explain why two months before death, half of all patients with lung cancer have not heard any of their doctors use the word 'hospice,'" they write.
TONING DOWN OPTIMISM ‘HARD'

The study "suggests we need to spend a little more time" explaining the hard facts to patients, said Dr. Hossein Borghaei, an oncologist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the research. "Medical oncologists are going to need to tone down their optimism and enthusiasm, but it's hard."

The findings are based on interviews with 1,193 patients, or their surrogates, who had been diagnosed with cancer that had spread. All were receiving chemotherapy.
"The fact that 20 to 30 percent of respondents recognized that chemotherapy was not at all likely to cure them shows that at least some patients were able to accept this reality and to acknowledge it to an interviewer," the researchers wrote.

"These are not trivial issues. Chemotherapy near the end of life is still common, does not improve survival, and is one preventable reason why 25 percent of all Medicare funds are spent in the last year of life," write Smith and Longo.

"There is a lot of harm in not having patients understand the finality of the disease," said Borghaei. Chemo drugs "are very powerful, they have a lot of side effects, the chemotherapy is going to harm you more than it helps you, and it can actually shorten your life. All of this should be taken into account."

Smith and Longo said the results are probably due, in varying degrees, to patients not being told their disease is incurable, patients not being told in a way that let them understand, patients choosing to not believe the message, or patients being too optimistic. "It is probably a combination of all four possibilities," they said.

Borghaei said the study "doesn't take into account what patients bring to the table when they are diagnosed with incurable cancer."

Many patients insist that they are going to beat the odds once they hear the news.
"What are you supposed to do, stand in front of someone with advanced disease and argue with them?" said Borghaei. "It's not productive. But I hear that all the time, especially from the younger patients."

"I think it serves as a stark reminder to physicians: just slow down, maybe take a few minutes to realize how hard this is," said Schrag. "Recognize that this is not one conversation, but typically a series of conversations to see if they've understood it, and how they're acting on it."
When a cure is extremely unlikely, "We have to make sure people have the opportunity to plan and prepare for what is much more likely to happen," she said.

Do Antibiotics Permanently Kill Off Beneficial Bacteria?

It’s an accepted concept by now that taking antibiotics in order to quell an infection disrupts the personal microbiome, the population of microorganisms that we all carry around in our guts, and which vastly outnumbers the cells that make up our bodies.

That recognition supports our understanding of Clostridium difficile disease — killing the beneficial bacteria allows C. diff room to surge and produce an overload of toxins — as well as the intense interest in establishing a research program that could demonstrate experimentally whether the vast industry producing probiotic products is doing what it purports to do.

But implicit in that concept is the expectation that, after a while — after a course of antibiotics ends — the gut flora repopulate and their natural balance returns.

What if that expectation were wrong?

In a provocative editorial published this week in Nature, Martin Blaser of New York University’s Langone Medical Center argues that antibiotics’ impact on gut bacteria is permanent — and so serious in its long-term consequences that medicine should consider whether to restrict antibiotic prescribing to pregnant women and young children.

Early evidence from my lab and others hints that, sometimes, our friendly flora never fully recover. These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people’s bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease. Overuse of antibiotics could be fuelling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations.

Among the findings he cites in support: The population-level observation that the incidence of infection with H. pylori, the bacterial cause of gastric ulcers, has declined over decades just as the incidence of esophageal cancer has risen. In addition, he offers his own research group’s observation that children who don’t acquire H. pylori are at greater risk of developing allergy and asthma, and their findings that eradicating H. pylori affects the production of the two hormones, ghrelin and leptin, that play a role in weight gain.

Are antibiotics to blame for the decline in H.pylori? Blaser points out that the organism is vulnerable to the same antibiotics that are prescribed to children for ear infections and colds — and that children routinely receive up to 20 courses of antibiotics before they reach adulthood. In addition, he says, one-third to one-half of women in the industrialized world receive antibiotics during pregnancy.

 Couple that with the increasingly large percentage of children born by Caesarean section — who by skipping their trip through the birth canal miss their first exposure to friendly bacteria — and the result, he says, is that “each generation… could be beginning life with a smaller endowment of ancient microbes than the last.”

Finally, he points to evidence that antibiotic use permanently changes the composition of the gut microbiome, altering the balance of bacterial species and maintaining resistant bacteria in the gut.

The function and influence of the microbiome — in the gut, on the skin and everywhere in the body — is a huge research issue right now, with the founding by the National Institutes of Health of the Human Microbiome Project, not to mention continuing debates over the accuracy of the “hygiene hypothesis” and speculation that altering gut flora could influence everything from obesity to depression.

 This proposal dovetails with those inquiries — and also (you knew I had to get there eventually) with ongoing concern about antibiotic over-use encouraging the emergence of resistant organisms.

It’s understood that antibiotics are already over-prescribed in adults and children; reining in over-prescribing is one of the most difficult tasks in controlling the spread of superbugs. This new hypothesis, Blaser says, ought to put more force behind the push to reduce antibiotic overuse, especially in early life:

We urgently need to investigate this possibility. And, even before we understand the full scope, there is action we should take.

Cite: Blaser MJ. Stop the killing of beneficial bacteria. Nature 476, 393–394 (25 August 2011). doi:10.1038/476393a


NOTE:

Pathogenic Bacteria and Antibiotics:

In an attempt to destroy all bacterial infections antibiotics were created, however they can not selectively kill only the bad bacteria.  Antibiotics are indiscriminate, they kill off the weaker bacteria too, often this is the beneficial bacterial that your body needs to keep the more harmful bacteria in check.

When the beneficial bacteria is destroyed this enables the antibiotic resistant bacteria to replicate without competition from the beneficial bacterial.

Whatever was making you sick before is still bothering you, but now you are also faced with antibiotic risks and the risks of long term antibiotic use.   The antibiotics have caused an imbalance to your body because the antibiotics have also killed the friendly bacteria, creating a bacterial imbalance.

Eventually the more pathogenic bacteria end up resistant to antibiotics.  When normal antibiotic use doesn't completely destroy the bacterial infection, then your body is really out of balance.

Bacteria are a highly intelligent and adaptable life form, like all life forms their goal is to survive.

Some bacteria are naturally immune to antibiotics and others quickly adapt a resistance in order to survive.

Through pharmaceutical use we have created highly adaptable, antibiotic resistant bacteria, they do this through evolutionary trial and error.

Bacteria create new generations 500,000 faster than humans
replicating every 20 minutes.

The pathogenic bacteria become stronger and more resistance to an increasing number of antibiotics, more potent, more dangerous and creating body imbalances that are more difficult to restore.

Learn more:  http://www.natural-health-home-remedies.com/bacteria.html

Prescription Drugs Now Leading Cause Of Accidental Death

Becca Wolford, Contributing Writer Waking Times

I read a very disturbing news article today: Prescription drug deaths now outnumber other deaths in the U.S., this includes accidental traffic deaths.

Prescription medications have become the leading cause of illness, disability, and death.

Have you looked at the information sheets that come with the prescriptions? There are often pages upon pages of warnings and adverse effects to be aware of. Some medications’ side effects are worse than the illnesses that they are prescribed for.

These deaths are not only from accidental overdoses, but from the side effects and also from mixing with other prescription drugs.

“Most drugs approved by the FDA are under-tested for adverse drug reactions, yet offer few new benefits. Drugs cause more than 2.2 million hospitalizations and 110,000 hospital-based deaths a year. Serious drug reactions at home or in nursing homes would significantly raise the total.” (www.ssrc.org)

This does NOT mean that all prescription drugs are dangerous and should never be used. There are, of course, circumstances where the aid of prescription medication is needed. The point I am making is, often health care providers are too quick to have you pop a pill, or 10, instead of treating the CAUSE.

It’s very easy to treat symptoms, but treating symptoms will not heal the cause.

Let’s look at holistic medicine, for example.

Holistic medicine treats the whole person – mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. How is this done? By retaining proper balance in all aspects of one’s health.

If one aspect is not working properly, it will affect the other parts. For example: Let’s say you’ve got a headache. There could be many possible reasons why your head is hurting – are you eating foods poor in nutritional value?

Do you you have a back-ache? Are you stressed? Do you have trouble sleeping? Any of these could be the reason for the headache. Instead of just treating the headache, you need to get down to the main reason FOR the headache, and treat the reason, the main CAUSE – then the rest of your systems will balance back out.

What if you just treated the headaches by taking pain medications a couple times a day over the course of week, month, year? You’d be ingesting medications that are helping the headache, but the cause is still there (let’s say it is from stress), so the headache will continue. And by then you’ve filled your body with pain-relieving chemicals, some of which could be addictive.

What if, instead, you looked at the perceived cause of your stress (the root of the headache) and took measures to reduce stress in your life? You could do this in many ways: proper nutrition, removing toxins, exercise, yoga, meditation, lifestyle changes, removing things from your life that no longer serve you, counseling…and so on?

I could write pages and pages on this topic, but will save some for another day.

Please be aware when using prescription drugs. Are you treating the cause, or just the symptom?

NOTE:

Socrates, in the 4th century BC, cautioned against treating only one part of the body "or the part can never be well unless the whole is well." These phrases define holism, but do they truly give the whole picture?

To understand what something is we must also know what something isn't.

Reductionism is the opposite of Holism, and is a process that breaks down complex systems and analyzes the smallest parts in isolation, it is the way western medicine sees things. Even simple systems work in whole concepts rather than isolated segments. Think about something as simple as a cake.

What is the most important component in a cake? Is there any one ingredient of prime importance, or does a cake requires many ingredients, each one equally important and vital to the essence of a whole cake?

Can a cake be a cake if any of it's individual ingredients are viewed in isolation? Is flour a cake? Are eggs a cake?

Read more What Is Holism?

Run From The Cure ~True Medical Marijuana Video

In what most likely has to be one of the most convoluted, twisted up, insane things to have come along in quite some time, the Centers for Disease Control (Contamination) have come up with what has to be one of the all-time idiotic rationales concerning vaccines. This collection of mad scientists, government hacks, and NWO puppets has just published one of the most idiotic, screwed up explanations for why their “one size fits all vaccine even if it kills ya” is backfiring in a major way. The polio vaccine that Bill Gates, an admitted population reduction advocate, has been funding in the forced vaccination of every one in third world countries, is killing some and paralyzing many, many more as the polio virus mutates in response to the vaccine. This has created a far more virulent and aggressive strain of polio. India is a prime target. Currently, an estimated 50,000 have succumbed to vaccine induced polio paralysis which as it turns out is far more virulent than the strain they claimed the vaccine would prevent. Not to be deterred by anything that might resemble a precautionary truth, the CDC has decided that the reason the vaccine induced, virulent, mutated, strain of polio is sweeping India is NOT so much from the new strain being easily transmitted by those infected, or that the new strain is appearing only in those who got that magic polio vaccine, its because there are still unvaccinated children who are causing the disease to spread. Yeah…that’s it. Only they don’t have it. In the magical, mystical world of the CDC, anything can be explained away simply by choosing to refuse to acknowledge the reality of a situation and instead, creating an implausible excuse for why this mutation is spreading. According to the CDC, it is the fault of the UNvaccinated. People who never received the vaccine are causing a viral mutation from the vaccine that they never got, and they are still to be blamed for spreading a disease they never had. Those who were vaccinated for polio can also contract the new mutated polio virus if they don’t in fact, incubate the mutation.

The Vaccine Empire Collapsed

You may not have heard the explosion, but it happened.

A review from The Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected research-analysis team, went over all the evidence, and entered its conclusion:

In healthy adults, no flu vaccine delivers protection from the flu.

Boom!

It doesn’t protect against transmission of flu viruses from person to person, either.

Boom!

So all the promotion and all the pandering and all the scare tactics and all the “expert medical opinion” and all the media coverage…useless, worthless, and irrelevant.

Billions of dollars of financed lies about flu vaccines were just that: lies.

It gets worse, because the entire theory about how and why vaccines work is sitting on a razor’s edge, ready to fall into the abyss of discarded fairy tales.

We’ve been told that vaccines stimulate the immune system with a “rehearsal” of what will happen when an actual disease comes down the pipeline. When the disease does show up, the immune system will be locked and loaded, ready to destroy the attacking germ.

But since flu vaccines don’t protect against flu or even stop the transmission of flu viruses from person to person, the so-called “rehearsing” of the immune system is merely somebody’s fancy story. A legend. A myth.

Also, you can forget about the widely sold herd-immunity tale. How can the group be immune when vaccines are doing nothing to prevent the free movement of germs from person to person?

As always, The Cochrane Collaboration did an exhaustive review of all previous studies on flu vaccines they could discover. They rejected the studies that were badly constructed. In some cases, to expand available data, they contacted individual researchers who had conducted studies.

Therefore, Cochrane’s findings represent the best of the published literature on flu vaccines. However, because the Cochrane team owes nothing to pharmaceutical companies, they analyzed the literature with sober eyes and minds.

Here is an interesting comment from the analysis: “The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”

Now who in the world would benefit from such manipulating?

Oh yes. One other thing.

The Cochrane review, published by John Wiley and Sons, appeared online on July 7, 2010.

Over two years ago.

We must have missed the massive mainstream media coverage. Perhaps we were fishing that day, or buying tires for the car, or vacationing on our yachts in the Mediterranean.

What? There was no massive media coverage? Impossible. I mean, surely…

Does Cannabis Stop Cancer From Spreading

The data is very strong and there’s no toxicity associated with A compound found in cannabis could halt the spread of many forms of aggressive cancer, scientists say. The first research to show marijuana’s anti-tumor properties was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles in 2007 demonstrating that THC may activate biological pathways that halt cancer cell division or block development of blood vessels that feed tumors. It then became a target of synthetic research into THC for drugs such as ImClone System Inc.’s Erbitux and Amgen Inc.’s Vectibix. Researchers have now found that the compound, called cannabidiol, had the ability to ‘switch off’ the gene responsible for metastasis in an aggressive form of breast cancer. Importantly, this substance does not produce the psychoactive properties of the cannabis plant. The team from the California Pacific Medical Center, in San Francisco, first spotted its potential five years ago, after it stopped the proliferation of human breast cancer cells in the lab. Last year they published a study that found a similar effect in mice. Now they say they are on the verge of publishing further animal study results that expand these results further. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. CBD (Cannabidiol), one of the main constituents of the cannabis plant has been proven medically to relieve many diseases including the inhibition of cancer cell growth. Recent studies have shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia. CBD also interferes with the amount of THC your brain processes, balancing the psychotropic effect of marijuana. That is precisely why the power of raw cannabis is turning heads. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, study co-leader Dr Sean McAllister, said: ‘The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there’s no toxicity. There’s really a lot or research to move ahead with and to get people excited.’ While he, along with colleague Dr Pierre Desprez acknowledge that they are some way off from turning their finding into a pill, they are already developing human trial models. They hope to eventually test the drug in combination with current chemotherapies. Professor Desprez had previously found that a protein called ID-1 seemed to play a role in causing breast cancer to spread. Meanwhile Dr McAllister had discovered the cannabidiol had anti-cancer potential. The pair teamed up to see if they could treat a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer called ‘triple negative.’ This form, which affects 15 per cent of patients, doesn’t have three hormone receptors that the most successful therapies target. Cells from this cancer have high levels of ID-1. When they exposed cells from this cancer to cannabidiol they were shocked to find the cells not only stopped acting ‘crazy’ but also returned to a healthy normal state. They discovered that the compound had turned off the overexpression of ID-1, stopping them from travelling to distant tissues. Other potentially treatable cancers are forms of leukaemia, lung, ovarian and brain cancers, which also have high levels of ID-1. Dr Desprez has a particular reason for wanting to create a treatment as quickly as possible – his sister was recently diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at the age of 41. Her condition is currently receptive to hormone therapies but Professor Desprez fears it could recur in a form that lacks hormone receptors. He said: ‘I want to be ready for that. There is a deadline.’ Cannabis is a Class B drug that is illegal to have, give away or sell. “If cannabis were discovered in an Amazon rainforests today, people would be clambering to make as much use as they could out of the potential benefits of the plant,” said Donald L. Abrams, MD, Chief of Hematology and Oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at the University California. Dr. Abrams is widely known for his research on medical cannabis applications. “Unfortunately, it carries with it a long and not so long history of being a persecuted plant,” he added.

Incurable Cancer Cured With Natural Remedies/Food

A grandfather, who was told by doctors that his cancer was 'incurable', has been given the all-clear less than four months later - after trying a different diet.

Allan Taylor could have been forgiven for fearing the worst when doctors told him they could do nothing to treat his condition.

But the 78-year-old would not give up, and instead searched the internet for an alternative method to fight his cancer.

His diet included powdered grass, curry spices, apricot seeds and selenium tablets.

Mr Taylor made the changes after he received a letter on April 30, telling them were was no point having any more chemotherapy as it would not cure him and neither would an operation. 

'They said if they cut out the cancer it would just pop up somewhere else,' he told the Sunday Mirror.
'But I was determined to stay positive and decided to find my own cure.

'I was determined to stay positive and decided to find my own cure'

'On August 6 I got a letter from North Tees hospital to say a scan had shown my cancer had gone and "the abnormality is no longer visible". I’m all clear.'
Mr Taylor's ordeal began in February last year when he noticed a two-inch lump in his abdomen. He was sent for a scan and told he had colon cancer.
Last September he underwent an operation, during which a surgeon removed a nine-inch section of his colon, and he began a three-month course of chemotherapy.

But in April this year he was told the cancer had spread to small intestine.

Mr Taylor responded by tapping the words 'colon cancer cures' into an internet search engine.

He used the information, together with advice from his local health food store, to devise his new diet.

He believes that having a teaspoon of powdered barley grass in hot water every morning and night was particularly crucial.  'There is no question in my mind that my diet saved my life,' he said. 'And all it cost was £30 a week.'