Myth Busted: Vaccinations Are Not Immunizations

The facts…

Craig Stellpflug  -  Natural News  -  May 16, 2012 – Cr0ss-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth

There is only one kind of immunity and that is natural immunity which is achieved by battling the infectious diseases itself.

Vaccination is merely the artificial triggering of temporary responses to manmade pathogens. Vaccines are both harmful and dangerous and are leading to generations of humans with no natural defenses to disease.

Vaccines do not provide long-term immunity; only temporary at best. In vaccines, an antigen is injected into the body to produce a reaction and the immune system responds in the form of antibodies, but antibody presence does not confer immunity. People still catch the diseases that they are vaccinated against. Vaccines actually skip the normal immune responses to activate killer cells which can trigger an overproduction of cytokines in response to the toxic vaccine adjuvants and can damage tissues and organs and even stop the heart and block air pathways.

Vaccines should never be called immunizations because that is a misnomer. Immunity and vaccinations are two different subjects altogether. In fact, breast milk is so potent with immune energizing effects in the infant that researchers at the CDC recommend women withhold breastfeeding their children in order to boost the “effectiveness” of childhood vaccines. The paper claims that women should stop breastfeeding long enough for the man-made poison to work on artificial/temporary “immunity.”

There is no such thing as a “side effect”

After-effects of vaccines are only followed for a very short time. Effects that are not seen for 30 years will not even be associated with the vaccine. Immunizations are contributing to the lowering of immunity along with the spread of auto-immune diseases such as arthritis and even AIDS throughout the world. Research clearly shows that aluminum mixed into vaccines carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation, and subsequent neurological complications and may have profound and widespread adverse health complications. Many vaccines contain both aluminum and trace amounts of mercury. When you mix these 2 metals together it causes Extreme Synergistic Toxicity.

The facts:

As vaccinated disease rates go down (but not necessarily as a result of toxic vaccinations), the rate of chronic disease goes up in lock-step. Vaccines, as they are commonly given, destroy the natural immunity process and accelerate the auto-immune disease process.

Deaths from measles in 1900 were 13 per 100,000 people. In 1948: less than one. Measles vaccines introduced in 1963 but took full credit for what they never did – eliminate measles. Japanese health authorities realized that early inoculations were causing crib deaths so they postponed them until the 24th month and SIDS virtually disappeared along with whooping cough (pertussis) during the first two years of babies’ lives. Instead of preventing whooping cough the DPT promotes it as well as SIDS. Reuters recently reports that according to the CDC, the number of pertussis cases is growing – in the fully vaccinated population!

The recent Bachmair vaccine study reveals that the allergy rate in vaccinated children is more than double the rate in unvaccinated ones. Vaccinated children are also nearly eight times more prone to develop asthma or chronic bronchitis than unvaccinated. Furthermore, vaccinated kiddos suffer from more neurodermatitis, herpes, otitis media, hay fever, hyperactivity, scoliosis, epilepsy and seizures, migraine headaches, thyroid disease, and SIDS than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated kids historically also have more measles than unvaccinated kids.

Doctor after doctor will tell you that vaccinations have reduced the incidence of many infectious diseases but they have no real proof. In fact, all the epidemical evidence shows that disease rates rise after vaccines – in the vaccinated population. Should we trust them just on their word? Make an informed decision about you and your child’s health.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687
Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: Are they Safe? Current Medicinal Chemistry. 2011; 18: 2630-2637.
http://www.flcv.com/hgsynerg.html

Similar/Related Articles

1. Study: Unvaccinated children less prone to allergies and disease than vaccinated children
2. Unvaccinated kids banned from Indiana school due to measles ‘outbreak’
3. What they won’t admit about measles outbreaks: Most children who catch measles were already vaccinated
4. Door to Door Vaccinations: Training the Public for Forced Innoculations
5. U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No exceptions…
6. Greece To Enforce Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccinations
7. U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No exceptions
8. Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps
9. Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys develop autism after routine CDC vaccinations
10. California Bans Unvaccinated Children from Class
11. Medical Mafia using financial leverage to enforce children’s vaccinations on poor families
12. Twins Die Minutes after Measles Vaccination
13. This Food Contains 100 TIMES More Probiotics than a Supplement
14. Italian Court Says  MMR Vaccine Causes Autism!

Technorati Tags: Autism,childhood vaccines,childhood autism,MMR,Italy,watch the other hand,vaccines,gut flora,probiotics,autoimmune disorders,immunizations,innoculation,shots

Media Blackout On Bill AB 2109 Threatening Vaccine Rights

On Feb. 23rd, 2012, an assembly bill (AB 2109) was submitted to the California Legislature by state assemblyman and pediatrician, Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), which will make it harder for parents to refuse to vaccinate their children.

The bill is sponsored by the California Medical Association (CMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the California Immunization Coalition.

Right now in California if a child is enrolled in school their parents are legally required to have them vaccinated.

However, exemptions may be obtained by parents who object for religious or philosophical reasons if they sign the portion of the immunization record that says immunizations are contrary to their beliefs and that they understand that in the case of an outbreak of a ‘vaccine-preventable’ disease the child may be temporarily excluded from attending school/child care institutions “for his/her protection.”

If Bill AB 2109 passes, by July 1st, 2013,  parents who wish to opt out will be required to bring with them on the day of enrollment a written statement from a medical doctor or conventional “health care practitioner” that states they have been informed of the benefits and risks of vaccines and the communicable disease they are said to prevent.

The parent would also be required to submit a written statement that indicates that he or she received the information from the health care practitioner.

As first reported by Dr. Tim O’ Shea in the Feb. 23rd  Doctor Within Newsletter:

This bill, if passed, would require parents to obtain the signature of a  ”health care practitioner”  for a personal beliefs/religious exemption.  MDs, nurse practitioners, and physician’s assistants can sign.  Naturopaths and chiropractors cannot.  The signature will need to be obtained on a separate form provided by the Department of Public Health which states that the health care practitioner has provided risk and benefit information to the parent.

Thus far, there has been virtually no mainstream media coverage of Bill AB2109.

This is a curious fact, considering that if it passes it will be illegal not to submit your children to a medical procedure without the explicit permission of the conventional medical system.

Is this not the very antithesis of the meaning of health freedom, in a country that prides itself on its freedom-loving, Constitutionally underwritten principles? As Dr. Tim O’ Shea explains:

Let's remove the word vaccination from the whole discussion for a minute here. Let's pretend this whole issue isn't about vaccines at all, but rather about any other medical procedure. Got that picture?

OK so then tell me, what kind of political system, or medical system anywhere on earth would presume to make it a law for you to obtain permission to opt out of any medical procedure, which decisions are completely your choice in the first place? Permission not to get medicine? See what I'm getting at here?

If Dr. Tim O’ Shea’s predictions are correct and California falls, like Washington state recently did with the loss of their philosophical exemptions, the rest of the domino states are likely to follow suit in the next 2 years.

In other words, this stealthily submitted and barely noticed bill is setting a dangerous precedent and may represent the beginning of the end for philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions in the United States -- with mandatory vaccinations likely following close behind. Now that children, according to the CDC immunization guidelines, are required to have an increasingly suspect 60 vaccines by age 6 (with dozens of additional vaccines in the developmental pipeline) how can we stand by idly while their health and health rights, and those of all future generations, are being serious jeopardized and legislated away into oblivion?

Please help to spread the word about Bill AB 2109 now, before it is too late.

SOURCES:

ASSEMBLY BILL 2109 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.pdf

Dr. Tim O’ Shea’s Feb. 23rd Newsletter
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/end-vaccine-exemptions-california

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Related:

Vaccination Rights Attorney Patricia Finn Threatened with Criminal Charges; New York State Demands She Surrender Names of All Clients

Popping the Vaccine Bubble  -  Many related links in this article

More Doctors ‘Fire’ Vaccine Refusers

How Prolonged Ingestion of Fluoridated Drinking Water Damages The Brain

"The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system," concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia, reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

The research team reports, "It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride."

"Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident," they write.

Fluoride was first added to water in the United States in the 1940s to help prevent tooth decay in children 8 years and under. These assumptions were later dismissed by hundreds of scientific publications which showed that internal consumption of fluoridated water had no effect on tooth decay.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says dental fluorosis is highest among adolescents between the ages of 12 an 15. One reason for the increase in fluorosis: Americans are now exposed to fluoride from a variety of sources, including toothpaste, mouth rinses and prescription supplements, the Department of Health and Human Services says.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water. Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast.

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

"Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF. "We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children's teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can't see the harm it's doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking," says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain's physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

"Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth," they write.

Animal studies show fluoride's toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer's disease, Valdez-Jimenez's team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that "A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ." (Biological Trace Element Research)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council's (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." And, "Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease."

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 and then was fired for doing so.

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years -- the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska. This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.

Anti-fluoride activist Christina Welsh says the government should end all fluoridation everywhere. "It is a complete fraud to suggest that fluoride reduces dental caries when this has never been proven. The opposite is true, fluoride has been found to cause cancer, osteoporosis and DNA damage among dozens of other illnesses," she said.

L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association Robotry said that "no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished ... And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that ... The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition."

Source: PreventDisease.com  Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth

Related:

How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

Video:  Fluoride Truth Hits the TV in Australia

Video: Caller Ask About Fluoride being Added to Food - Alex Jones Tv

Videos:  Food:  The Ultimate Secret Exposed

Rick Perry - Lies About Dying Woman and His HPV Decisions

In the latest GOP debate Rick Perry offered up yet ANOTHER lie to justify his Gardasil mandate. I had to shake my head when I heard this…

First, remember the LAST time he lied about this? At the CNN *debate*.

Last night, when asked about the Gardasil mandate, Perry said he was *lobbied* on HPV vaccine, by a woman with cancer.

from the Fox transcript:

Congresswoman Bachmann, in the last debate you criticized Governor Perry for his executive order mandating that 6th graders get the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Then afterward, you suggested that the vaccine was linked to mental retardation and you said that it could be, quote, "potentially be a very dangerous drug."

But the American Academy of Pediatrics has looked at it and says that the HPV vaccine has an excellent safety record. So my question to you is, do you stand by your statement that the HPV vaccine is potentially dangerous? And if not, should you be more careful when you're talking about public health issue?

BACHMANN: Well, first I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement. Immediately after the debate, a mother came up to me and she was visibly shaken and heart broken because of what her daughter had gone through. I so I only related what her story was.

But here's the real issue, Governor Perry mandated a health care decision on all 12-year-old little girls in the state of Texas. And by that mandate, those girls had to have a shot for a sexually transmitted disease. That is not appropriate to be a decision that a governor makes.

It is appropriate that parents make that decision in consultation with their doctor.

But here's the even more important point, because Governor Perry made a decision where he gave parental rights to a big drug company.

That big drug company gave him campaign contributions and hired his former chief of staff to lobby him to benefit the big drug company.

That's what was wrong with that picture.

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Governor Perry, obviously 30 seconds to respond.

PERRY: Thank you.

I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her.

She came by my office talked to me about in program.

I readily admitted we should have had an opt-in, in this program.

But, I don't know what part of opt-out most parents don't get. And the fact is, I erred on the side of life and I will always err on the side of life as a governor as the president of the United States.

No.  he befriended that dying woman AFTER his mandate.

Perry and Burcham, a teacher from Houston, Texas, struck up an unusual friendship in the months after he issued his executive order. While the Texas legislature was working to revoke the mandate, Burcham traveled to Austin to testify about her personal experience with cervical cancer and how the HPV vaccine might help spare other young women from suffering a fate similar to her own.

And have to say, trying to shift this to opt-in versus opt-out is simply NOT the issue. It is that Rick Perry, to suck up to Merck, issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER to force this shot on 12 year old girls, side-stepping the Texas legislature. He did not do it because of a 31 year old woman with cancer, whom he didn't meet until AFTER he had been STOPPED and was trying to do save face PR.

It's like Rick Perry is trying to float which excuse to use today that people may buy.

h/t to scsalon.org

ABC News Report

Photo Courtesy of the Wilson family 

Although Rick Perry said at a debate on Thursday that he was “lobbied” by a 31-year-old woman suffering from cervical cancer to require young girls to receive the HPV vaccine, he did not meet the cancer patient until after he had already issued his executive order mandating the vaccine.

It was a rhetorical high point for Perry at the debate in Florida, when he put a personal face on the story and pointed to his friendship with a woman who later died of cervical cancer.

“I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31 year old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer,” said Perry. “I spent a lot of time with her.  She came by my office  She talked to me about this program.   I readily admitted we should have had an opt-in but I don’t know what part of opt out most parents don’t get and the fact is I erred on the side of life and I will always err on the side of life as a governor as a president of the United States.”

The woman Rick Perry mentioned in the Republican debate Thursday was Heather Burcham, a thirty one year old woman dying from cervical cancer. But what Perry left out in his answer was that he met her after he issued his executive order.

Perry issued the executive order requiring sixth grade girls receive the HPV vaccine in early February of 2007, and he met Burcham while she was lobbying the Texas legislature to uphold the governor’s executive order. The legislature ultimately ruled against Burcham and Perry and did away with the vaccine mandate.

As first reported by KTRK’s Ted Oberg, the pair struck up a friendship despite the Texas legislature revoking the governor’s mandate.  Perry invited Burcham to a ranch, rode motorcycles with her and even sat at her bed during her final days.  Burcham died in July 2007.

Read more about Heather Burcham.

Perry has often referred to Burcham on the campaign trail, saying recently he sat at the bedside of a dying woman with cervical cancer.

The Texas governor spoke at her memorial service in July 2007, saying it was a missed opportunity for the Texas legislature to not uphold his executive order.

“Though some could not see the benefits of the HPV vaccine through the prism of politics, some day they will,” Perry said in July 2007. “Someday they will recognize that this could happen to anyone’s daughter, even their own. Someday they will respond with compassion when they once responded with ignorance. And, someday, they will come to a place where they recognize the paramount issue is whether we will choose life, and protect life, without regard to what mistakes, if any, have been made in the past.”

Perry has endured a lot of criticism from fellow Republicans on the issue, particularly Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who have argued the government should not force parents to inoculate their children against what is essentially a sexually transmitted disease, even if it cuts down on instances of cervical cancer.

Source:  True Health Is True Wealth  -  Cross Posted at Knowledge Creates Power

Related:

Gardasil – If A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words, Then A Video Report, Or Two, Or Three, or SEVEN…

On H.P.V Vaccine, Palin’s First Overt Attach on Perry

Merck Vaccine Scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman Admitted Presence of SV40, AIDS and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines

Manipulating morals: scientists target drugs that improve behavior

Researchers say morality treatments could be used instead of prison and might even help humanity tackle global issues  -  Progress, Big Brother or just creepy…?

Existing drugs such as Prozac are already known to affect moral behaviour, but scientists predict that advances may allow more sophisticated manipulations. Photograph: Scott Camazine/Alamy

A pill to enhance moral behaviour, a treatment for racist thoughts, a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries - these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but with medicine getting closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book that reviews scientific developments in the field.

Drugs such as Prozac that alter a patient's mental state already have an impact on moral behaviour, but scientists predict that future medical advances may allow much more sophisticated manipulations.

The field is in its infancy, but "it's very far from being science fiction", said Dr Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner.

"Science has ignored the question of moral improvement so far, but it is now becoming a big debate," he said. "There is already a growing body of research you can describe in these terms. Studies show that certain drugs affect the ways people respond to moral dilemmas by increasing their sense of empathy, group affiliation and by reducing aggression."

Researchers have become very interested in developing biomedical technologies capable of intervening in the biological processes that affect moral behaviour and moral thinking, according to Dr Tom Douglas, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at Oxford University's Uehiro Centre. "It is a very hot area of scientific study right now."

He is co-author of Enhancing Human Capacities, published on Monday, which includes a chapter on moral enhancement.

Drugs that affect our moral thinking and behaviour already exist, but we tend not to think of them in that way. [Prozac] lowers aggression and bitterness against environment and so could be said to make people more agreeable. Or Oxytocin, the so-called love hormone ... increases feelings of social bonding and empathy while reducing anxiety," he said.

"Scientists will develop more of these drugs and create new ways of taking drugs we already know about. We can already, for example, take prescribed doses of Oxytocin as a nasal spray," he said.

But would pharmacologically-induced altruism, for example, amount to genuine moral behaviour? Guy Kahane, deputy director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and a Wellcome Trust biomedical ethics award winner, said: "We can change people's emotional responses but quite whether that improves their moral behaviour is not something science can answer."

He also admitted that it was unlikely people would "rush to take a pill that would make them morally better.

"Becoming more trusting, nicer, less aggressive and less violent can make you more vulnerable to exploitation," he said. "On the other hand, it could improve your relationships or help your career."

Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply, but he suggests that if administered widely they might help humanity to tackle global issues.

"Relating to the plight of people on other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature," he said. "This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations."

Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs - and sometimes the same ones - can have the opposite effect.

"While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group," Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson's disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

"Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice," he said. "I'm not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there's no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people," he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. "These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison," he said.

By Amelia Hill - guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 April 2011 16.23 BST  Cross-posted at True Health Is True Wealth

Article history

Related:

White House Appoints New USGCRP Director To Chemically Poison the Populace?

Codex to Consider Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods  -  The US delegation to the committee says—surprise—that no labeling is needed!

More Significant Under the Radar News

Obama Attempting To Attach Obamacare To Budget Bill – Guess Everyone Owes Joe Wilson an Apology!!

Las Vegas Mayor Ignores Obama Invitation

Feinstein Trying To Ruin Insurance Companies

Media Bias Report

One EU Country Pulls Ahead...With Freedom

Authorities Admit Inflating Stimulus Job Numbers

Promises Broken- No Slowdown In Earmarks In 1st Year

14% Of Mortgages Are Delinquent – This after two years of major foreclosures, TARP and Stimulus I

Five Arrested In Ft Jackson Poisoning Plot

Veteran Saves Five At Kamikazee Crash Site

Obama Envoy Admits Ill Conceived Past Remarks Defending Terror Suspect

Authorities Pushing For Warrantless Cell Phone Search – Who says we are a free Country??

School Spying on Students? [HQ]

EDITORIAL: Obama the philosopher king - Washington Times - President Obama is readying to unleash a variety of executive powers to circumvent Congress and push his agenda. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that a review of mechanisms was under way to...

Alexander Haig: A Great Warrior for Freedom Passes

Obama Writing Health Bill to Skirt GOP Filibuster (and the will of the majority of the American People)

Beck Rips Progressivism at CPAC

Drug Companies Shift Emphasis to Vaccines – Just Wait Until They and the Fed Gov’t Control Your HC Completely – Bend Over Will Take on a Whole New Meaning!!

Doctors Challenging Government Health Care an the AMA

Eric Holder Admits Nine Obama Dept of Justice Officials Worked for Terrorist Detainees

Has Forbes Gone Psychotic or Taken the Blue Pill?

Posted by: Dr. Mercola – January 2010
Forbes has declared Monsanto “Company of the Year,” calling criticism of the notorious company “vicious” attacks against a company that “has been working to make humanity better fed.”

What’s more, Forbes claims that the attacks come because Monsanto has close to a monopoly in some seed markets, which Forbes argues is because they are making “seeds that are too good.”

You read that right. Apparently, Monsanto’s decades-long attempt to control the seed market -- which has led it lawsuits against small farmers and genetically modified plants that never regerminate, forcing farmers to buy seeds year after year -- is apparently just a result of their being “too good.”

I encourage you all to BOYCOTT Forbes and cancel any subscription you may have.

Sources: Forbes January 18, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

For anyone who knows anything about the business of Monsanto, the news that this ominous company has been named “Company of the Year” by renowned Forbes magazine is simply shocking.

This follows on the heels of other oxymoronic honors, such as

• President Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize while firmly entrenched in a seemingly never-ending war spread across two countries, and

• Time magazine naming Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke “Man of the Year,” supposedly for “saving” the US from “an even worse” financial collapse than what Bernanke himself helped create.

• Even more ironic are the media efforts to convince you that the unsustainable situation created by printing of billions of dollars to bail out failing banks and companies can be sustained indefinitely.

So, who is responsible for these strange decisions? And perhaps more importantly, why?

Through the lens of these examples, a rather bizarre picture is taking shape. I can’t say exactly what the message is, but I believe I can say this: Beware, because deception is taking place through coordinated media manipulation.

If you know anything about how conventional media is being used on a mass scale, you realize that typically someone is trying to sell you on something – an idea, an ideology, a certain mindset, in order to eventually produce a certain behavior.

The question is, what are they trying to convince you of now?

Are We Living in Some Alternative Reality?

When reading the news these days, I often feel like I’m getting information from some alternate Universe where up is down, and left is right. Because they surely aren’t reporting reality on this planet. It’s gotten so blatantly bizarre lately, it’s as though they don’t even bother to come up with a decent cover story to shroud their attempts at manipulating your mind.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that there are still many who have not figured this game out yet, who will swallow just about anything that magazines like Time and Forbes put in print – like the story that Monsanto is a world class do-gooder.

Unfortunately, there are still those who are unaware of the many improprieties and outright crimes committed by Monsanto, such as:

• Suing small farmers for patent infringement after Monsanto’s GM seeds spread wildly into surrounding farmers’ fields, contaminating their conventional crops

• Secretly discharging PCB-laden toxic waste into an Alabama creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills for decades after PCBs were banned in the US for being a possible carcinogen.

• Being found guilty of bribery to bypass Indonesian law requiring an environmental assessment review for its genetically engineered cotton.

• Last year, the supreme court of France found Monsanto guilty of falsely advertising its herbicide Roundup as "biodegradable" and “environmentally friendly.” Scientific evaluation discovered that glyphosate, the active ingredient inRoundUp, is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance. Additionally, the surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.

• In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that “no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported.”

• According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company’s behaviour constituted “a long pattern of fraud.”

• In 1999, the New York Times exposed that Monsanto’s PR firm, Burson Marsteller, had paid fake "pro-GMO" food demonstrators to counteract a group of anti-biotech protesters outside a Washington, DC FDA meeting.

This is but a short list of examples, but it should give you a clue as to why I question the rationale behind giving them this honor.

Monsanto – Company of the Year?

Anyone who has studied the devastating effects of the unrestrained release of genetically modified crops into the environment will see the insanity in declaring Monsanto “Company of the Year.”

What the world needs is a return to saner, more sustainable farming practices, not mass cultivation of crops infused with “suicide genes” that prevent regermination the year after, or food crops that have been contaminated with GM seeds used for pharmaceutical production.

I truly believe that letting Monsanto lead us down the garden path is nothing short of suicidal.

It’s time for people to realize that while the declared motive behind GM food is an altruistic one -- to alleviate hunger, poverty and malnutrition worldwide – in reality, the ruthless propagation of GM crops are intended to create previously unimaginable profits above anything else.

Despite their assurances, we’re already beginning to see the real price of all that tinkering with Mother Nature: unnatural crop combinations that can harm your health and potentially cause generational DNA changes, for example.

Not only that, but contrary to promises, GM crops are FAILING MISERABLY all across the world. The reality simply isn’t living up to the hype of increased yields of healthy crops.

After 30 years of GMO experimentation, we have the data to show:

• No increase in yields; on the contrary GM soya has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya. Up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India. And recent studies by scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia found that growing GM cotton in the U.S. can result in a drop in income by up to 40 percent.

• No reduction in pesticides use; on the contrary, USDA data shows that GM crops has increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S., and the use of glyphosate went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds.

• Roundup herbicide is lethal to frogs and toxic to human placental and embryonic cells. Roundup is used in more than 80 percent of all GM crops planted in the world.

• GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S. studies.

• Bt resistant pests and Roundup tolerant superweeds render the two major GM crop traits useless. The evolution of Bt resistant bollworms worldwide have now been confirmed and documented.

• Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados lost to GM soya in Latin America.

• Epidemic of suicides in the cotton belt of India. 100,000 farmers between 1993-2003, and an estimated 16,000 farmers a year since, have committed suicide since Bt cotton was introduced.

• Transgene contamination is completely unavoidable, as science has recently revealed that the genome (whether plant, animal or human) is NOT constant and static, which is the scientific base for genetic engineering of plants and animals. Instead, geneticists have discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and changeable, and constantly ‘conversing’ and adapting to the environment. This interaction determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by what and how much, and for how long. They’ve also found that the genetic material itself has the ability to be changed according to experience, passing it on to subsequent generations.

• GM food and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses both in the fields in India and in lab tests around the world. For example, in April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds reported that 25 percent of their herds died within 5-7 days of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants.

Forbes on a Roll – But Where?

But Forbes doesn’t just throw your intelligence for a loop by hailing the success of a destroyer like Monsanto. Oh, no. There’s more.

Tellingly, in the same issue, Forbes also lashes out against chelation therapy, and derides anyone who thinks there may be a connection between vaccines and autism.

So what is this all about, really?

I have to seriously wonder why we are being urged to imagine we live in a world where no bad deed goes unrewarded; a place where what’s bad for you is somehow beneficial, and where lack of integrity, reason and logic is applauded.

What is this type of media coverage saying to you? What is this saying to your children?

This is not what America used to stand for, if I remember correctly. And it’s not what America should stand for now, or in the future.

Quite frankly, it’s all wrong. It’s all upside-down and backwards.

The only good thing about these blatantly bizarre media displays is the fact that they are just that – blatantly bizarre. And hopefully that will shake more people from their slumber and cause them to ask some basic questions about what’s really going on in this world.

Important Questions Only You Have the Answer to

• Who taught you what you know?

• Who do you listen to? What messages are you receiving from conventional media? How do you determine what’s real and what’s not?

• When was the last time you turned OFF the television and really pondered some issue at length, on your own, looking at it from all sides, including the sides you’ve been told to ignore? Heck, when was the last time you asked WHY you are being told to ignore it in the first place!

Other questions may be even more important than the preceding ones, as they involve really tuning into yourself:

• Where do you fall within the scheme of nature?

• Do natural laws apply to you?

• Where does science fit in? How far can science take you? Are you willing to gamble the future of your children on the assurances of mega-companies like Monsanto, who have tremendous responsibility to their shareholders to turn a profit in a crumbling market?

• To what degree do you think man-made chemicals can improve your health? What IS health, really? What does your body really need in order for all those trillions of cells to thrive in harmony?

Folks, I encourage you to open your mind; think deeply and clearly, and avoid jumping to preconceived conclusions based on what you think you “know,” without first challenging yourself to discern who fed you that “knowledge” in the first place.

Personally, I’m fed up with the brainwashing that conventional media dishes out, and if you too have had enough, I suggest you boycott Forbes and cancel any subscription you may have to their magazine. Unless you simply don’t want to live in a right-side-up world, that is.

Congressman Ron Paul said the following in one of his speeches before Congress earlier this year, and it sums up my sentiments exactly:

"Is this a dream or a nightmare? Is it my imagination or have we lost our minds? It is surreal. It is just not believable. A grand absurdity. A great deception. A delusion of momentous proportions based on preposterous notions and ideas whose time should never have come.

Insanity passed off as logic. Evil described as virtue. Ignorance pawned off as wisdom. Slavery sold as liberty.The philosophy that destroys us is not even defined. We have broken from reality, a psychotic nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom."

Related Links:

The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything

Why You Are Being Deceived by the News Media

World's Largest Media Source Controlled by World's Largest Drug Company

(Sometimes I wonder if we (the American People have gone psychotic or taken the idiot pill??)

Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley - the “vote heard around the world!” that could stop ObamaCare

As you may or may not have heard, the sure-shot way of ending this government takeover of healthcare and our lives begins with the emergency election to replace the late Ted Kennedy’s seat for Massachusetts US Senate. Scott Brown is the candidate for the job. To read more about this, see our article HERE.

Got this from some people who attended the rally and final Brown Coakley debate yesterday:

We attended the debate rally for Scott Brown. If you haven’t heard by now, it was a slam-dunk for the Brown campaign! What you might not hear, however, is what went on behind the scenes amongst the supporters of both major camps (Brown vs. Coakley). We arrived at University of Massachusetts, Boston to the sight of teamster trucks and union workers unloading massive signage for Martha Coakley at the entrance to the campus. As we approached the event location, the parkway was lined with giant men (all wearing their union shirts) holding Coakley signs.

We got there early and found a single gentleman holding a Brown sign: Marty Lamb, candidate for Congress in the 3rd District. We stopped and talked with him for a bit and were approached by Brad Mardston, candidate for Massachusetts State Senate, who gave us signs and a warm smile. Before we knew it, there was a large group of us of all ages, including Bill Hudak, candidate for Congress in the 7th District, and Robert Fortes for Boston City Council at large. There were young and old alike cheering joyfully in the bitter cold despite the looming unspoken hostility that surrounded us by the union workers with the giant Coakley sign.

Martha Coakley is a machine Democrat that will give Massachusetts and America more of the same. Scott Brown is a veteran who believes in America and real change and representation for the American people. 6-weeks ago, nobody thought Brown had a chance. Today it looks like he could win!

Scott Brown is a class act. He marched up the road to the debate with a banner and a group of supporters, stopping to shake everyone’s hand along the way. There were chants of “Go Scott, go!” the entire time.

Brown is a class-act. We’d like to mention, too, that yesterday Scott Brown’s campaign had a money bomb fundraiser with a goal of $500k. We’re proud to report that, by midnight, he had nearly TRIPLED his goal with $1.3M!!!

Coakley, per elitist fashion, whisked up in a stealthy and anonymous car. As she approached, the giant professional protestor union types holding signs (as if on cue) rushed up in the middle of the road to block off Scott Brown supporters, nearly unapologetically knocking people over. The union thugs had pushed themselves directly in front of the Brown supporters, who proceeded heckling them. One of the union workers actually turned around and said “I’m paid to be here, but I’m voting for Scott Brown. I just need the money, but don’t tell anyone.”

The rally dispersed as the debate was in preparation to begin, so we headed over to watch the televised broadcast at a local restaurant. The energy was typical Bostonian. You would’ve sworn we were watching the World Series the way people were screaming at the TV and refraining from conversation.

Moderator Gurgen asked, “Would you really be number 41 to stop HC from Ted Kennedy’s seat?”. Brown said, “This is not Ted Kennedy’s seat or the Democrat’s seat! It is the people’s seat!!!”

Coakley began talking about Bush and Chaney and trying to make a connection to Brown. Brown stopped her and said, “If you want to run against Bush or Chaney go ahead, but I am Scott Brown, not Bush or Chaney!”

Coakely vowed to vote for ObamaCare. Brown vowed to be the vote that stops it and will then fight for real HC reform.

Like we said, the debate was a slam-dunk. Once it was over, Scott Brown stopped by to thank us for the support.

Guess Who Hosted Coakley's DC Fundraiser Tonight?

The healthcare lobby rides to the rescue of the Massachusetts liberal, whose defeat in next weeks special Senate race could deny Democrats the 60th vote for Obamacare:

We've argued that the leading health industry CEOs will one day be exposed as the most short-sighted business leaders in history, but how to explain the gala fundraiser that their top lobbyists hosted for Martha Coakley last night?

Amid a Beltway panic, the health lobby is riding to the rescue of the Massachusetts liberal, whose defeat in the special Senate race next Tuesday could deny Democrats the 60th vote for ObamaCare and thus maybe spare the U.S. health system from the coming damage.
As first reported by Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner, the host committee for the fundraiser at Pennsylvania Avenue's Sonoma Restaurant includes lobbyists for Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Novartis and sundry other drug companies that have been among the biggest of ObamaCare's corporate sponsors. Other hosts—who have raised at least $10,000 for Ms. Coakley—include representatives from UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana and other insurers. As far as we can tell, the insurance industry claims to oppose ObamaCare's current incarnation.

Naturally, lobbyists from America's Health Insurance Plans and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the major trade groups, were on hand too. Money follows power in Washington, obviously, though this example seems especially inexplicable given that Ms. Coakley's GOP opponent, state senator Scott Brown, may be the last chance to defuse the health-care doomsday machine. But maybe someone in the press corps will bother to mention this episode the next time President Obama takes aim at the "special interests" he claims are opposing his agenda.
Against overwhelming public opposition, the only things keeping ObamaCare alive at this point are power politics and the misguided corporate cease-fire that Democrats have either coerced or bought—or is homegrown at companies like Pfizer that are deeply invested in more government control of the economy. Ms. Coakley's election would make that outcome a certainty.

The people of Mass really need to think twice... because with their present Medical system, they will be paying twice for medical care... or that of others.

Then we have Kerry fighting to keep tea parties out of his state
And let us not forget the innocent guy Coakley made sure stayed in jail. - Dissident Voice: Martha Coakley's Chappaquiddick
Coakley is a machine Democrat... Brown is a breath of fresh air and an honest option. (Somebody needs to tell that Kennedy kid running as a Libertarian that since the race is so close... he needs to back out because his vote would got to Scott Brown. His small percentage could cost us the election, and if conservatives aren't careful, that is what will keep happening to us, if we run third party candidates.

If you know people in Mass, make sure they have this information~

The emergency election is January 19, 2010. We need to get as much support as possible...

This will, for sure, be the “vote heard around the world!”

Related:

Concerned About America’s Future???

U.S. Chanber Pledges to stop Obama Agenda’ Play Big Role in Nov Elections

Mass Brown-Coakley Race Within One Point… Election Threatened With…

Martha Coakley: The Voice for Fat Cats and Corruptcrats

How Painkillers can cause Cardiac Arrest

The death of pop icon Michael Jackson is raising questions over what might have caused it.

Photograph by: handout, morguefile.com

CHICAGO — The death of pop music icon Michael Jackson from cardiac arrest on Thursday has raised a host of questions about what might have caused it.

It may take weeks before an autopsy can reveal the true circumstances that led the singer’s heart to stop.

One possible cause reported by celebrity website TMZ.com is that he was injected with the potent painkiller Demerol before he went into cardiac arrest.

Others speculate it was a combination of Demerol and Oxycontin, another powerful painkiller that is among the most commonly abused prescription drugs.

Here are some facts about cardiac arrest and both these drugs.

HOW COULD DEMEROL CAUSE CARDIAC ARREST?

Cardiac arrest occurs when the heart stops circulating blood. In 80 percent of cases, the cause is heart disease, but narcotic painkillers like Demerol can cause cardiac arrest.

Dr. Daniel Simon, chief of cardiology at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, said if Jackson had been injected with too much Demerol, it might have caused him to stop breathing, a condition called respiratory arrest.

"The most likely scenario with Demerol would be that it caused a respiratory arrest because it takes away the drive to ventilate (breathe)," Simon said in a telephone interview.

He said low blood oxygen can trigger a deadly heart rhythm known as ventricular fibrillation in which the heart quivers but does not circulate blood. "Without CPR and a defibrillator, you have no chance," Simon said.

DEMEROL AND OXYCONTIN?

ABC News has reported that Jackson was addicted to prescription painkillers, and may have used Demerol in combination with Oxycontin.

Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Bruce Lindsay, past president of the Heart Rhythm Society, said the two drugs in combination could cause respiratory arrest.

"As with any of these painkillers, if you get too much on board, it really depresses the central nervous system so the patient could lapse into a deep sleep or even a coma. And if their respiratory capacity was too depressed, they would just stop breathing," Lindsay said.

"If they stop breathing, eventually of course the heart will go into cardiac arrest, but not because of some primary heart problem. It is simply because the final mode of death is that the heart stops beating."

COULD IT HAVE BEEN HEART DISEASE?

Simon said many media outlets are looking for exotic reasons to explain the singer’s death because it occurred in a relatively young man, but age 50 is not too young for sudden cardiac arrest.

"A lot of people are saying it’s a surprise a 50-year-old has cardiac arrest. Thirty percent of cardiac arrests are in people for whom it is their first symptom of heart disease," Simon said.

"When they do an autopsy, the first thing the medical examiner will look for is a scar in the heart muscle suggesting an old heart attack," Simon said.

He said 25 percent of patients who have cardiac arrest have had a prior heart attack without knowing it. "That is what the scar will tell them."

Big Pharma and doctors under the AMA push drugs, drugs, drugs and surgery rather than prevention, natural remedies and alternative treatments. Once nationalized healthcare takes over that trend away from natural and alternative cures will continue while their pattern of treatment will go unchanged except that it will be rationed.

BY JULIE STEENHUYSEN, REUTERSJUNE 26, 2009

(Editing by Mary Milliken; Editing by Will Dunham)

Source: The Vancouver Sun

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Articles:

• The Drug Story
• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing

Big Pharma and the FDA: Suppress the Science, Ban the Natural Substances, Sell the Drugs!

In 2005, an up-and-coming pharmaceutical company made a big mistake: they invested millions of dollars into developing a drug only to discover that the only active ingredient of the drug, pyridoxamine, was really a common, naturally occurring substance that has been sold for decades at low cost to consumers in the form of a dietary supplement, and has always been available in commonly consumed foods such as chicken and brewer’s yeast.

We’re taught as children that when you make a mistake, you should own up to it and face the consequences. Apparently the pharmaceutical company in question, Biostratum, Inc., has yet to learn that lesson. Instead of owning up to their mistake, Biostratum tried to game the system to their advantage by asking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to declare supplements containing pyridoxamine “adulterated” and effectively ban anyone but Biostratum from selling pyridoxamine.

Sadly, Biostratum’s desparate ploy to save their investment worked. Earlier this year the FDA agreed to ban companies from selling pyridoxamine as a dietary supplement. They denied the request to declare products containing pyridoxamine “adulterated,” but instead they declared that such products are not dietary supplements at all—claiming they are excluded from the definition of dietary supplements under the “prior market clause” [21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii)] and so may not be marketed as such.

Please note that nowhere in the FDA’s response letter is anything said about safety concerns. In fact, the FDA’s letter specifically says that “to allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.” Fair to the pharmaceutical companies? What about fairness to consumers, some of whom rely on affordable pyridozxamine supplements to provide the levels of vitamin B-6 required for their survival? Is it fair to force those consumers to pay for expensive prescription drugs and doctors’ visits to supply their B-6 needs when they could get the exact same thing for a fraction of the cost in the form of a supplement? Isn’t this why our health care system is so ineffective?

This is hardly the first time the FDA has attacked naturally occuring substances. On October 17, 2005, the FDA banned information about the health benefits of cherries from appearing on websites—scientifically proven benefits, such as tart cherries’ ability to reduce the risk of colon cancer because of the anthocyanins and cyanidin contained in the cherry. Cherries, according to the latest research, help ease the pain of arthritis and gout; reduce risk factors for heart disease and diabetes; help regulate the body’s natural sleep patterns, aid with jet lag, prevent memory loss, and delay the aging process; and helps lower body fat and cholesterol—risk factors associated with heart disease. Moreoever, Scientists at Johns Hopkins have found that tart cherry anthocyanins reduced painful inflammation as well as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indomethacin.

When the 2005 ban was instituted, the FDA sent warning letters to twenty-nine companies that market cherry products. In these letters, they ordered the companies to stop publicizing scientific data about cherries. According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.

But fresh fruit and vegetables are not the FDA’s only target: As we reported in this newsletter recently, General Mills was recently issued a warning letter by the FDA for illegally marketing Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal. The problem was the claim on the cereal box that Cheerios can lower cholesterol 4% in six weeks, and the statement on their website that “diets rich in whole grain foods can reduce the risk of heart disease.” The letter, dated May 5, 2009, called the above claims “serious violations” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and applicable regulations.

FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process.Note that the FDA isn't disputing the claim. It's disputing the company's right to make the claim.

As one newspaper columnist humorously put it, “One of these things is not like the others: morphine, penicillin, aspirin, Cheerios. Most drugs, if taken improperly, will kill the consumer or cause substantial bodily harm. An entire bottle of aspirin at one sitting will harm or kill. If Cheerios is a drug, therefore, one should be able to commit suicide by consuming the entire box.”

For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.

In the case of pyridoxamine, the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.

Source: American Association for Health Freedom

Related Articles:

• The Drug Story
• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures
• HPV Vaccine Dangers
• 32 Girls Have Died
• Creating a Generation of Drugged Kids
• Why Does the FDA Maintain a Conspiracy of Silence about the Health Benefits
• The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS
• Sanoviv Medical Center
• Big Red Juice
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights In "The Land of the Free", is Natural Medicine One of Your Freedoms?

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth