Source: No Frakking Consensus

Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010

Some people think early editions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report were scrupulously science-based, but that the process became more politicized in recent years. A look at the first appearance of the health chapter – in the 1995 edition – challenges this view. [29-page PDF of the chapter (also archived on USWGO)]

The person who headed that effort was an Australian epidemiology professor named Anthony McMichael. According to a 2001 bio, his early research interests included mental health, occupational diseases, the link between diet and cancer, and environmental epidemiology (diseases). In the late 1980s he co-authored a “bestselling guide to a healthier lifestyle” that discussed nutrition and physical fitness.

The bio tells us it was only “during the 1990s” that McMichael developed “a strong interest” in the risks associated with global environmental change. So in the early 1990s, out of all the experts in the entire world the IPCC might have chosen to oversee the writing of a section dealing with climate change and human health, why was McMichael selected?

Stacking the Deck
I suspect it had a great deal to do with another book he wrote – the one that appeared in 1993 titled Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Change and the Health of the Human Species. This book’s central theme is that human activity is undermining the planet’s ecosystem. Its tone, language, and analysis are similar to hundreds of other environmental treatises published in recent decades.

McMichael declares that “humans cannot live apart from nature, remote from the great web of life.” He frets that we are too distant “from the rhythms of natural systems.” He speaks of environmental degradation as “an unprecedented moral problem” and says people in rich countries live a wasteful, “ecologically distorted lifestyle.”

His language is not the tentative sort used by dispassionate scientists. Back in 1993 he didn’t say there was concern that carbon dioxide might eventually “disrupt various of the biosphere’s natural cycles,” he confidently proclaimed that it would. Like a long line of other eco thinkers, he  believes environmental challenges require a wholesale “reordering of social values.”

McMichael’s Planetary Overload arguments rely on a Greenpeace report about global warming. His book frequently cites articles in non-peer-reviewed publications such as New Scientist and Scientific American. McMichael is, in other words, an environmentalist whose day job happens to involve the study of  public health. He has no expertise in most of the topics his book discusses.

He is, of course, entitled to his personal opinions. But was he the best choice to lead an IPCC chapter? Let’s rephrase that: if one wished to deliberately stack the deck, to ensure that a certain perspective would dominate the climate bible’s first health chapter, would someone who had expressed views similar to McMichael’s not have seemed like the perfect candidate?

There is a straight line between what the UN’s 1995 climate bible told the world about health issues and what McMichael had already written in his 1993 book. Although Planetary Overload isn’t included among the 182 references listed at the end of the health chapter, entire passages of the climate bible were lifted directly from it. A selection appears below:

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 150:
Sandstorms in Kansas (USA) and in the Sudan have been accompanied by increased illness and death from bronchitis and asthma.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 578:
Sandstorms in Kansas (USA) and the Sudan have been accompanied by increases in bronchitis and asthma.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 155:
In Egypt, for example, the water snails tend to lose their schistosome infections during the winter months (January-March). However, if temperatures increase, snails may spread schistosomiasis throughout the year, thus increasing the already heavy parasite burden in rural Egypt.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 574:
In Egypt, for example, water snails tend to lose their schistosome infections during winter, but if temperatures increase, snails may mediate  schistosomiasis transmission throughout the year.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 155:
Arboviral infections span a wide clinical spectrum, from those that cause mild feverish illness or subclinical infections to those causing severe and often fatal encephalitis (brain inflammation) or hemorrhagic fever. Under favourable environmental conditions, an arboviral disease can become epidemic (population-wide), from a local endemic base – in much the same way that cholera has recently broken out…

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 575:
Arboviral infections span a wide clinical spectrum, from those that cause mild feverish illness or subclinical inflections to those causing severe and often fatal encephalitis (brain inflammation) or hemorrhagic fever. Under favorable environmental conditions, an arboviral disease can become epidemic (population-wide), from a local endemic base or by its introduction to a previously unaffected area.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 154:
In eastern Africa, a relatively small increase in winter temperature would enable the malarial zone to extend ‘upwards’ to engulf the large urban highland populations that are currently off-limits to the mosquito because of the cooler temperatures at higher altitudes – e.g. Nairobi (Kenya) and Harare (Zimbabwe). Indeed, such populations around the world, currently just outside the margins of endemic malaria, would provide early evidence of climate-related shifts in the distribution of this disease.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 574:
Hence, it is a reasonable prediction that, in eastern Africa, a relatively small increase in winter temperature could extend the mosquito habitat and thus enable faciparum malaria to reach beyond the usual altitude limit of around 2,500 m to the large, malaria-free, urban highland populations, e.g. Nairobi in Kenya and Harare in Zimbabwe. Indeed, the monitoring of such populations around the world, currently just beyond the boundaries of stable endemic malaria, could provide early evidence of climate-related shifts in malaria distribution.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 165:
Already in Africa, there are over 100 million people who are ‘food insecure’, many of them in the arid Sahel region, home to approximately 35 million people.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 577:
Already in Africa, more than 100 million people are “food insecure,” many of them in the arid Sahel region.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 166:
A rise in temperature could also have significant effects on the growth and health of farm animals. Young animals are less tolerant of a wide range of temperature than are adult animals.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 577
An increase in temperature and temperature extremes could also affect the growth and health of farm animals; young animals are much less tolerant of temperature variation than are adult animals.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 166:
With respect to adverse effects on livestock, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified several infectious diseases – such as the horn fly in beef and dairy cattle and insect-borne anaplasmosis infection in sheep and cattle – which might well increase in response to climate changes.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 577:
For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified several infectious diseases – such as the horn fly in beef and dairy cattle and insect-borne anaplasmosis infection in sheep and cattle – that could increase in prevalence in response to climate changes.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 187:
UNEP predicts that an average 10% loss of ozone (such has become established at middle-to-high latitudes in recent years), if sustained globally over three-four decades, would cause at least 300,000 additional cases of non-melanocytic skin cancer worldwide each year and 4,500 extra cases of malignant melanoma – and possibly double that figure.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 578:
The UN environment Programme predicts that an average 10% loss of ozone (such as occurred at middle-to-high latitudes over the past decade), if sustained globally over several decades, would cause approximately 250,000 additional cases of [nonmelanocytic skin cancers] worldwide each year.

It appears unlikely that a good faith, bona fide review of the scientific literature took place prior to the writing of significant sections of the IPCC’s first health chapter. Instead, the climate bible surreptitiously incorporated numerous opinions expressed a few years earlier by the activist-oriented person in charge of writing this chapter.

Then the media told the world that the IPCC’s proclamations regarding global warming and diseases such as malaria were the considered, consensus view of thousands of experts.

Buzz this!

Source: Natural News

Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010

(NaturalNews) As someone with a good deal of education in scientific thinking and the scientific method, I have put considerable effort into attempting to find any real scientific evidence backing the widespread use of influenza vaccines (flu season shots). Before learning about nutrition and holistic health, I was a computer software entrepreneur, and I have a considerable scientific background in areas such as astronomy, physics, human physiology, microbiology, genetics, anthropology and human psychology. One of my most-admired thought leaders is, in fact, the late physicist Richard Feynman.

I don’t speak from a “scientific” point of view on NaturalNews very often because it’s often a dry, boring presentation style. But I do know the difference between real science and junk science, and I find examples of junk science in both the “scientific” side of things as well as the “alternative” side of things.

For example, so-called “psychic surgery,” as least in the way it has been popularized, is nothing more than clever sleight-of-hand where the surgeon palms some chicken gizzards and then pretends to pull diseased organs out of the abdominal cavity of some patient. The demonstrations I’ve seen on film are obvious quackery.

Similarly, flu season vaccines are mainstream medicine’s version of psychic surgery: It’s all just “medical sleight of hand” based on nothing more than clever distractions and the obfuscation of scientific facts. Flu season shots, you see, simply don’t work on 99 out of 100 people (and that’s being generous to the vaccine industry, as you’ll see below).

A year ago, I offered a $10,000 reward to any person who could find scientific proof that H1N1 vaccines were safe and effective (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H…). No one even made a claim to collect that reward because no such evidence exists.

Conventional medicine, they say, is really “Evidence-Based Medicine” (EBM). That is, everything promoted by conventional medicine is supposed to be based on “rigorous scientific scrutiny.” It’s all supposed to be statistically validated and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it works as advertised. And in the case of flu vaccines, they are advertised as providing some sort of absolute protection against influenza. “Don’t miss work this flu season. Get a flu shot!” The idea, of course, is that getting a flu shot offers 100% protection from the flu. If you get a shot, they say, you won’t miss work from sickness.

This implication is wildly inaccurate. In fact, it’s just flat-out false. As you’ll see below, it’s false advertising wrapped around junk science.

You see, there was never an independent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study proving either the safety or effectiveness of the H1N1 swine flu vaccines that were heavily pushed last year (and are in fact in this year’s flu shot cocktail). No such study has ever been done. As a result, there is no rigorous scientific basis from which to sell such vaccines in the first place.

To try to excuse this, vaccine hucksters claim that it would be “unethical” to conduct a placebo-controlled study of such vaccines because they work so well that to deny the placebo group the actual vaccine would be harmful to them. Everybody benefits from the influenza vaccine, they insist, so the mere act of conducting a scientifically-controlled test is unethical.

Do you smell some quackery at work yet? This is precisely the kind of pseudoscientific gobbledygook you might hear from some mad Russian scientist who claims to have “magic water” but you can’t test the magic water because the mere presence of measurement instruments nullifies the magical properties of the water.

Similarly, vaccine pushers often insist it’s unethical to test whether their vaccines really work. You just have to “take it on faith” that vaccines are universally good for everybody.

Yep, I used the word “faith.” That is essentially what the so-called scientific community is invoking here with the vaccine issue: Just BELIEVE they work, everybody! Who needs scientific evidence when we’ve got FAITH in vaccines?

Forget about evidence-based medicine. Forget about any rational cost-benefit analysis. Forget about the risk-to-benefit ratio calculations that should be part of any rational decision making about vaccines. No, the vaccine industry (and its apologist bloggers) already know that vaccines are universally good for you, therefore no such rigorous scientific assessment is even required!

The Scientific Method, in other words, doesn’t really apply to the things they already believe in. Faith can override reason in the “scientific” community, if you can believe that! What’s next, are they going to claim vaccines work because some sort of “vaccine God” makes them work?

Here, take your vaccine shot. And don’t forget to pray to the Vaccine God because that’s how these things really work. Vaccine voodoo, in other words. (Hey, that would have been a great title for the vaccine song, come to think of it…)

Unethical to find out if they work?

I got to wondering about the whole explanation of how it would be “unethical” to test whether the H1N1 vaccines actually work. This deflection strikes me as particularly odd, because it comes with an implied follow-up statement. Here’s what they’re actually saying when they invoke this excuse:

#1) It is “unethical” to conduct placebo-controlled studies on seasonal flu vaccines to find out if they actually work.

#2) But at the same time, it is entirely ethical to give these shots to hundreds of millions of people, even while lacking any real evidence that they are safe or effective.

In other words, it’s unethical to conduct any real science, but entirely ethical to just keep injecting people with a substance that might be entirely useless (or even harmful). That’s just a hint of the kind of warped logic and failed ethics that typify our modern vaccine industry.

Vaccine advocates claim that H1N1 vaccines are so effective that NOT giving vaccines to a placebo group would “put their lives at risk.” That alone is apparently enough reason to avoid conducting any real science on these vaccines.

But I’m not buying this. I think it’s just a cover story — an excuse to avoid subjecting such vaccines to rigorous scientific inquiry because, deep down inside, they know vaccines would be revealed as an elaborate medical fraud.

So I poked around to see if there were other randomized studies being conducted that might actually put people’s lives at risk. It didn’t take long to find some. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently published two studies regarding post heart-attack patient cooling which seeks to minimize brain damage by physically lowering the temperature of the brain of the heart attack patient until they can reach the acute care technicians at a nearby hospital.

In two studies, researchers who already knew that “cooling” would save lives nevertheless subjected 350 heart attack patient to a randomized study protocol that assigned comatose (but resuscitated) patients to either “cooling” temperatures or normal temperatures.

In one study, while half the cooled patients recovered with normal brain function, only a quarter of those exposed to normal temperatures did. In other words, patient cooling saved their brains. And yet the importance of knowing whether or not this procedure really worked was apparently enough to justify withholding the treatment from over a hundred other patients, most of whom suffered permanent brain damage as a result.

You see, when scientists really want to know the answers to questions like, “Does this brain cooling work?” they have no qualms about subjecting people to things like permanent brain damage in a randomized clinical trial. The knowledge gained from such an experiment is arguably worth the loss of a few patient brains because, armed with scientific evidence, such procedures can be rolled out to help save the brains of potentially hundreds of thousands of patients in subsequent years.

But when it comes to testing vaccines like the recent H1N1 variety, the official explanation is that it’s too dangerous to withhold vaccines from a treatment group. They say it’s not really important to determine if vaccines are statistically validated, and it’s not worth the “risk” of withholding vaccines from anyone in a randomized clinical trial.

Now, sure, there have been some clinical trials done on many different vaccines over the years, but most of those are industry funded, and there are almost never rigorous trials conducted on each year’s seasonal flu vaccines before they are released for public consumption. As a result, each year’s vaccine is a brand new experiment, carried out across the guinea pig masses of patients who just do whatever they’re told without questioning whether it’s backed by real science.

Because, of course, it isn’t. And I’m not the only one who recognizes this inconvenient fact.

The Cochrane Collaboration

The Cochrane Collaboration, as described on its own website, is, “…an international, independent, not-for-profit organization of over 28,000 contributors from more than 100 countries, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of health care readily available worldwide.”

“We are world leaders in evidence-based health care,” the site goes on to say, followed by a quote from The Lancet which states, “The Cochrane Collaboration is an enterprise that rivals the Human Genome Project in its potential implications for modern medicine.”

Working for the Cochrane Collaboration, an epidemiologist named Dr. Tom Jefferson decided to take a close look at the scientific evidence behind influenza vaccines (seasonal flu vaccines).

The objectives of the study were to: “Identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults.”

The Search Criteria: “We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010).”

Selection Criteria (for inclusion in the study): “Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally-occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms.”

The Total Scope of the study encompassed over 70,000 people. And just so you know, these the results may strongly favor the vaccine industry. The author even went out of his way to warn that “15 out of 36 trials [were] funded by industry (four had no funding declaration).”

In other words, close to half of the studies included in this analysis were funded by the vaccine industry itself, which as we know consistently manipulates data, bribes researchers or otherwise engages in scientific fraud in order to get the results they want.

The author even goes on to warn how industry-funded studies always get more press, saying, “…industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.”

See the study detail page at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/co…

Study results show influenza vaccines are nearly worthless

Now here comes the interesting part: Even though nearly half the studies were funded by the vaccine industry itself, the study results show that in most circumstances, influenza vaccines are virtually worthless:

“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” say the study authors. And by “poor vaccine matching,” they mean that the strain of influenza viruses in the vaccine are a poor match for the strains circulating in the wild. This is usually the case in the real world because the vaccine only incorporates last year’s viral strains and cannot predict which strains will be circulating this year.

In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people showing influenza symptoms by just one. For ninety-nine percent of the people vaccinated, the vaccine makes no difference at all!

In a “best case” scenario when the viral strain in the influenza vaccine just happens to match the strain circulating in the wild — a situation that even the study authors call “uncommon” — the results were as follows: “4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%).”

In other words, the matching vaccine (which is uncommon in the real world) reduced influenza infections in 3 out of 100 people. Or, put another way, 97% of those injected with the vaccine received no benefit (and no different outcome).

Furthermore, the study’s conclusions go on to state:

• “Vaccination had… no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”

• “Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”

• “The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”

• “There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” (Got that? Vaccines do not affect transmission of the disease, yet that’s the whole reason vaccines are pushed so heavily during pandemics — to block disease transmission.)

• “In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”

And finally, the study author’s summary concludes with this whopper of a statement: “Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.”

In other words, taking into account the industry bias, the actual results may be that vaccines prevent influenza symptoms in only 1 out of 1,000 people.

Putting it in perspective

So let’s put all this in perspective in a rational, intelligent way. This far-reaching analysis of influenza vaccine trials shows that under common conditions, seasonal influenza vaccines have no benefit for 99 out of 100 people.

Furthermore, even this result is describe as being “an optimistic estimate” because nearly half of the vaccine trials were funded by the vaccine industry which tends to “produce results favorable to their products.”

Furthermore, some of the studies were carried out in “ideal” viral matching scenarios that rarely happen in the real world.

And finally, some evidence of harm from vaccines was simply thrown out of this analysis, resulting in a “harms evidence base” that was quite limited and likely doesn’t reveal the full picture.

Are you getting all this? Even with industry-funded studies likely distorting the results in their favor, if you take a good hard look at the scientific evidence surrounding the effectiveness of vaccines, you quickly come to realize that influenza vaccines don’t work on 99 out of 100 people. (And the real answer may be even worse.)

Now that’s a far cry from the false advertising of the vaccine industry, which implies that if you get a shot you’re “protected” from influenza. They claim you won’t miss work, you’ll stay well, and so on. Through these messages, they are cleverly implying that vaccines work on 100% of the people.

But based on the available scientific evidence, these are blatantly false statements. And the wild exaggeration of the supposed benefits from vaccines crosses the threshold of “misleading advertising” and enters the realm of “criminal marketing fraud.” Where is the FTC or FDA on speaking out against this quackery?

Vaccine marketing is, essentially, scientific fraud. To claim that vaccines protect everyone when, in reality, they may reduce symptoms in only one out of 100 people is intellectually dishonest and downright fraudulent.

It is, simply put, just pure B.S. quackery.

Now, imagine if an herbal product were advertised on television as offering some health benefit, but it turned out that the product only worked on 1 out of 100 people who took it. That herbal product would be widely branded as “quackery” and the company selling it would be accused of false advertising. The company owners might even be charged with criminal fraud.

But vaccines get a free pass on this issue. While an herbal product might be heavily investigated or even confiscated by the FDA, vaccines that only work on 1% of the people receive the full backing of the FDA, CDC, WHO, FTC and local hospitals and clinics to boot. The fact that the vaccine is pure quackery apparently doesn’t matter to any of these organizations: It’s full speed ahead, regardless of what the science actually says.

Once you understand all this, you now understand why it is an accurate statement to say “The FDA promotes medical fraud.”

Similarly, “The CDC promotes medical fraud.” As does the WHO.

These are scientifically accurate statements, assuming you agree that a product that only works on 1 out of 100 people fits the definition of “fraud” when it is marketed as if it helped everyone. And most people would agree with that reasonable definition of fraud.

It’s a totally different story if the efficacy ratio is higher. If influenza vaccines actually produced some benefit in 25 out of 100 people, that might be worth considering. But it’s nowhere near that.

The FDA, by the way, will often approve pharmaceuticals that only produce results in 5 percent of the clinical trial subjects. The world of modern medicine, in fact, is full of pharmaceuticals that simply don’t work on 95% of the patients who take them.

Read the Cochrane summary yourself at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/co…

It’s entitled, “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults”

Authors: “Tom Jefferson, Carlo Di Pietrantonj, Alessandro Rivetti, Ghada A Bawazeer, Lubna A Al-Ansary, Eliana Ferroni”

Enter the vaccine zombies!

With these study results in mind, take a look at some of the lyrics in my recent hip hop song, “Vaccine Zombie” (http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccine_…)

I forgot how to think for myself
I don’t understand a thing about health
I do the same as everyone else
I’m a vaccine zombie, zombie

Now you can see where these lyrics come from. If influenza vaccines are worthless for 99 percent of those who receive them, then why are people lining up to get injected?

The answer is because they fail to think critically about vaccines and their health. They don’t understand health, so they just go along with everybody else and do what they’re told. Hence their earning of the “Vaccine Zombie” designation.

The song goes on to say:

I’m a sucker for the ads, a sucker for the labs
A sucker for the swine flu jabs
and I don’t mind followin’ a medical fad
Cause livin’ without a brain ain’t half bad

Yes, people who line up for influenza vaccines are “suckers” who have been bamboozled by fraudulent vaccine propaganda. But they’re following a “medical fad” and it’s easier to just do what you’re told rather than engage your brain and think critically about what you’re doing.

“Livin’ without a brain ain’t half bad” because it takes the burden of decision making out of the loop and allows you to just rely on whatever the doctors and health officials tell you to do.

How the scientific community lost touch with real science

But what if they were all lying to you? Or what if they, themselves, were ignorant about the fact that influenza vaccines are worthless on 99% of those who receive them? (Very few doctors and scientists, it turns out, are aware of this simple truth.)

Or what if the vaccine pushers had all convinced themselves of a falsehood? What if they truly believed that vaccines were really, really good for everyone but that belief was based on wishful thinking rather than rigorous scientific review?

Because that, my friends, is exactly what has happened. We have an entire segment of the scientific community that has been suckered into vaccine propaganda. They’ve convinced themselves that seasonal flu shots really work and that virtually everyone should be injected with such shots. And they believe this based on irrational faith, not on scientific thinking or rigorous statistical evidence.

They are, in other words, pursuing a vaccine religion (or cult). The is especially curious, given that most vaccine pushers don’t believe in God or any organized religion — except for their own vaccine religion, where real scientific evidence isn’t required. All you gotta do is believe in vaccines and you can join their religion, too.

And so all across the ‘net, so-called “science bloggers” embarrass themselves by promoting near-useless influenza vaccines as “evidence-based medicine,” apparently unaware that the evidence shows such vaccines to be all but worthless.

They might as well say they support vaccines “Just ‘cuz.”

And “just ‘cuz” is no reason to inject yourself with a chemical cocktail that even the industry admits causes extremely dangerous neurological side effects in a small number of vaccine recipients.

Vitamin D would actually make vaccines work better

To top this all off, here’s the real kicker of this story: You can beat the minimal protective benefits of vaccines with a simple, low-cost vitamin D supplement. Vitamin D, you see, is the nutrient that activates your immune system to fight off infectious disease. Without it, vaccines hardly work at all.

In fact, the very low rate of vaccine efficacy (1%) is almost certainly due to the fact that most people receiving the vaccines are vitamin D deficient. (Anywhere from 75% – 95% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D, depending on whom you ask.)

Hilariously, the way to make vaccines work better would be to hand out vitamin D supplements to go along with the shots! Even more hilariously, if people were taking vitamin D supplements, they wouldn’t need the vaccine shots in the first place!

Influenza vaccines, in other words, have no important role whatsoever in preventing influenza infections. This goal can be accomplished more safely, reliably and at far lower cost by promoting vitamin D supplements for the population at large.

What we really need to see from the scientific world is a study comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines (and using realistic vitamin D doses, not just 200 or 400 IUs per day). I have absolutely no doubt that healthy-dose vitamin D supplementation (4000 IUs a day) would prove to be significantly more effective than influenza vaccines at preventing flu infections.

But such a study will almost certainly never be done (at least not anytime soon) because it would expose the false propaganda of the vaccine industry while giving consumers a far better way of protecting themselves from influenza that doesn’t involve paying money to vaccine manufacturers.

In medicine, as in war, truth is often the first casualty. And when the lies are repeated with enough frequency, they begin to be believed. The flu shot lie has been repeated with such ferocity and apparent authority that it has snookered in virtually the entire “scientific” community.

That even rational-minded scientists can be so easily hoodwinked by the vaccine industry is causing more and more people to question the credibility of not just modern medicine, but the entire scientific community as well.

Because if so-called “rational” scientists and thought leaders can be so easily suckered into an obvious falsehood, what other fictions might they be promoting as fact?

Medicine, you see, makes all the other sciences look bad. The obvious scientific fraud going on in the name of “science” in the pharmaceutical industry makes a mockery of real scientific thought. The ease of which medical scientists have been hoodwinked by the drug industry calls into question the rationality of all sciences.

And in doing so, it brings up an even bigger question: Is science the best path to gaining knowledge in the first place? This is obviously a philosophical question, not a scientific question, and it’s beyond the scope of this article, but it’s one I will likely visit here on NaturalNews very soon in an upcoming article.

There are many paths to truth, you see. Science — good science — is one of them, but it is not the only one. Any scientist who believes that science has a monopoly on all knowledge is himself a fool. Just read a little Feynman and you’ll quickly come to discover that the very brightest minds in the history of science consistently recognized there were other pathways leading to truth.

I believe if Feynman were alive today and saw the vaccine propaganda taking place in the name of “science,” he would respond with something like, “Surely you’re joking.”

Buzz this!

Source: Natural News

Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010

RELATED: India Rejects H1N1 Shots After Vaccines Kill Children

(NaturalNews) The horrors caused by Merck & Co.’s Gardasil vaccine and GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Cervarix vaccine continue as six young girls recently died from the shots during an experimental Indian trial. The two human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been implicated in at least 67 deaths in the U.S., prompting no response from U.S. officials other than to keep pushing it on the public, but the six deaths in India have prompted the government there to immediately stop all trials of the vaccines.

“Two imported brands of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, namely Gardasil and Cervarix, were allowed to undergo clinical trial (Phase III) in India, before being granted permission for import and market authorization,” explained S. Gandhiselvan, minister of state for healthy and family welfare, in a statement to India’s parliament. However, because of the deaths, he advised all states to stop vaccinating immediately.

According to reports, the trials were wholly unethical and illegitimate to begin with, and were nothing more than blatant exploitation by drug companies of disadvantaged people from a developing nation. Since many women in the industrialized world are now learning about the dangers of HPV vaccinations and rejecting them, Big Pharma has moved on to other populations in its quest to jab the entire world with the dangerous shots.

TruthAboutGardasil.org, a website devoted to exposing the true dangers associated with HPV vaccinations, also explains that drug companies are falsely advertising the vaccines in other counties, even going so far as to falsely claim that they are mandatory in the U.S., France and Australia.

“We consider this a human rights violation, and request the U.S. to take the lead in protecting fundamental human rights by calling for a congressional hearing,” said Rosemary Mathis from TruthAboutGardasil.org.

However, there have been 67 U.S. deaths from HPV vaccinations reported thus far in the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System (VAERS), and countless reports of serious, life-damaging side effects, and officials have done nothing about it. So it is unlikely that the U.S. will do anything to stop the poison from being marketed around the world as a cure.

Sources for this story include:

http://truthaboutgardasil.org/break…

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal…

Buzz this!

Source: Prevent Disease

Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010

The aluminum content of a range of the most popular brands of infant formulas remains high, and particularly so for a product designed for preterm infants and a soya-based product designed for infants with cow’s milk intolerances and allergies, researchers have found.

Aluminum is the third most abundant element (8%) in the Earth’s crust, exceeded by oxygen (47%) and silicon (28%). The United States is the world’s largest aluminum producer, followed by Canada, Australia, Norway, Brazil, and Germany. The United States is also the world’s largest aluminum consumer.

One wonders, after examining all the different areas covered our various analyses (vaccinations and encephalopathy, electromagnetics, etc) if orthodox science is really ignorant of the sensitivity of infants and children to environmental contamination, or know about it and they don’t care because there is another agenda afoot.

The permeability of the gastrointestinal tract of the infant is quite great, as protective mechanisms have not yet fully developed. It is this very fact that allows many of the substances in human mother’s milk to systemically permeate the body of the infant.

Unfortunately, the same lack of protection seriously impairs an infant who consumes infant formula, especially soy formulas, and bovine (cow) milk. Whether the pasteurization process (aluminum vats and piping) contributes to the amount of aluminum in milk, or it involves the feed the animal is eating, is unknown.

Research indicates that aluminum concentrations in most cow milk is 20 times greater than human breast milk (5-20 mcg/l) and 100 times greater in soy-based formulas.

A study by a team at Keele University in Staffordshire, led by Dr Chris Exley with Shelle-Ann M Burrell, demonstrating the vulnerability of infants to early exposure to aluminum serves to highlight an urgent need to reduce the aluminum content of infant formulas to as-low-a-level as is practically possible. The research has been published in the journal BMC Pediatrics.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense (AD)

Infant formulas are integral to the nutritional requirements of preterm and term infants. While it has been known for decades that infant formulas are contaminated with significant amounts of aluminum there is little evidence that manufacturers consider this to be a health issue. Aluminum is non-essential and is linked to human disease. There is evidence of both immediate and delayed toxicity in infants, and especially preterm infants, exposed to aluminum and the team contends that there is still too much aluminum in infant formulas.

There has been a long and significant history documenting the contamination of infant formulas by aluminum and consequent health effects in children. Through these and other publications manufacturers of infant formulas have been made fully aware of the potentially compounded issue of both the contamination by aluminum and the heightened vulnerability, from the point of view of a newborn’s developing physiology, of infants fed such formulas.

There have been similar warnings over several decades in relation to aluminum toxicity and parenteral nutrition of preterm and term infants. To these ends the expectation would be that the aluminum content of current infant formulas would at the very least be historically low and at best would be as low as might be achieved for a processed product. The team tested this premise and found that the aluminum content of a range of branded infant formulas remains too high.

The researchers chose 15 different branded infant formula products. These included powdered and ready-made liquid formulas based on cow’s milk and a soya-based product. The categories of formulas included those for preterm babies, stage one (0-6 months) and stage two (6 months plus) infants. All products were stored according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Products were sampled directly from their packaging to avoid extraneous contamination. Ready-made liquid products were shaken between each sampling.

In general, the aluminum content of formulas prepared from powdered milks were significantly higher than ready-made milks.

Commercially available branded infant formulas used by literally millions of parents to feed children of up to 12 months-plus of age are still significantly contaminated with aluminum. The concentrations of aluminum in the milk formulas varied from ca 200 — 700 μg/L and would result in the ingestion of up to 600 μg of aluminum per day.

The concentrations of aluminum in infant formulas are up to 40 times higher than are present in breast milk. These concentrations are all several times higher than are allowed in drinking water. They are clearly too high for human consumption and certainly too high for consumption by such a vulnerable group as pre-term and term infants.

The suggestion is that these products are ‘contaminated’ with aluminum as each of the manufacturers insist that aluminum is not knowingly added to their products.

The sources of such contamination are myriad though would probably include equipment used in both processing and storing of bulk products. In addition many of the formulas were packaged for sale using aluminum-based materials. The high content of aluminum in the soya-based formula probably reflects its prior accumulation in the soybean plant and the known aluminum tolerance of some soybean cultivars that are grown on acid soils.

While it is the case that the present levels of aluminum in infant formulas have not been shown to cause adverse effects in healthy infants, it is also the case that there have not been any clinical studies which refute such as a possibility. Previous research has highlighted the potential toxicity of aluminum in infants with confounding disorders (including, prematurity, poor renal function and gastrointestinal disease) and fed infant formulas and these studies when viewed alongside aluminum’s known connections with medicine and human disease should at least deter complacency concerning this issue. It is widely accepted that the not fully developed physiologies of infant’s gastrointestinal tract, kidneys and blood-brain barrier may predispose them to aluminum toxicity and while there are no definitive links between aluminum exposure through infant formulas and immediate or delayed toxicity in healthy infants this neither should not nor does not preclude such as a possibility.

Buzz this!

Source: Natural News

Date: Monday, August 30, 2010

(NaturalNews) A product survey conducted by The Independent found that the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) is used in 18 on the 20 top-selling canned food products in the United Kingdom.

BPA is one of the most widely produced chemicals in the world. It is used to harden plastic in everything from infant and water bottles to mobile phone and computer casings, and also to make linings for cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Yet a growing body of research has implicated the chemical as an endocrine (hormone) disruptor that can lead to cancer, birth defects, behavioral problems and other diseases.

The FDA recently reversed its position on the safety of BPA, acknowledging concern over the chemical’s effects on the development and brains of infants and young children. This move sparked a new, still-ongoing review of the chemical’s safety by the European Food Safety Authority. The British Food Standards Agency still maintains that BPA poses no health risks.

The Independent surveyed manufacturers General Mills, Heinz, Spam, Asda, Baxters, John West, Princes, Premier Foods, Sainsburys and Tesco about the use of BPA in the liners of several of their canned food products. Together, the 20 products represented account for £921 million ($1.4 billion) in sales, or 43 percent of the total for all canned food sold in the United Kingdom.

Every manufacturer sold at least one product lined with BPA. The only cans not lined with the chemical were those containing Tesco canned fruit and Tesco Value tomato products. Yet Tesco and Tesco Value canned fish both came in cans lined with BPA.

Other top-selling products in BPA-lined cans included soups, baked beans, corned beef, canned pies, chopped ham, long spaghetti and Green Giant Niblets.

Claire Dimmer of Breast Cancer UK called for manufacturers to clearly label all cans that are lined with BPA.

“Otherwise it’s impossible for us to make a decision on ways of limiting our and our families’ exposure to this chemical,” she said.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s….

Buzz this!

Source: NaturalNews

Date: August 27, 2010

FDA administrators sought to brush aside evidence that CT scans may be killing thousands of patients a year, say agency scientists.

“I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated,” said gastroenterologist and former FDA consultant Julian Nicholas.

The controversy stems from a still-pending application by General Electric (GE) for the approval of CT (computed tomography) scans as tests for colon cancer. GE made the request because although the practice of screening healthy patients with CT scans has become increasingly common, many insurers remains reluctant to pay for it.

When the FDA moved to approve the request with minimum fuss, agency scientists objected that the increased cancer risk from the radiation involved in CT scans would outweigh any potential benefit.

Approval would “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer,” Nicholas wrote in an email to the agency.

“The increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue,” agreed FDA medical officer Robert Smith of Yale and Cornell Universities.

Yet these and other scientists say their concerns were dismissed by their supervisors. For example, minutes of one meeting record agency manager Joshua Nipper responding, “We don’t need to be reinventing a big bugaboo about radiation.”

The average U.S. resident is exposed to seven times more non-therapeutic radiation than in 1980. This has been driven in large part by the exploding popularity of CT scans, which expose patients to as much radiation as 400 chest X-rays.

The number of CT scans performed in the United States has increased from three million per year in 1980 to 70 million today. Scientists estimate that this extra radiation exposure kills 14,000 people a year.

Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/h….

Buzz this!

Source: Blitz

Date: Sunday, August 29, 2010

Vaccine programmes grind to a halt in India once more, when four children died after they received the measles vaccination in Lucknow. The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children’s eyes roll back as they began to have seizures. All of the children were under the age of two years of age, with the youngest being just six months. Sadly the children died before medical aid workers could reach them.

As news of the deaths spread, immunization drives in 41 villages have been halted until further investigations have taken place.

The Indian Express stated in their article 4 children die within minutes of vaccination – www.indianexpress.com that-

“The immunisation programme was being conducted as part of the government’s Jachha Bachha Suraksha Abhiyan launched on August 15. Minutes after vaccination, the children started gasping for breath.”

NDTV reported that the Health Ministry has ordered an inquiry after the four infants, all believed to be below nine months, died after the vaccine. The inquiry team has yet to reach Uttar Pradesh, however, the Uttar Pradesh government has announced compensation for the families of the victims.

This is not the first report of adverse reactions after the measles vaccination. The measles vaccine has had a dubious and rather tainted history. In the UK, a government report dating back to 1968 , exposed on the website VacTruth.com in May of this year stated:-

Section 6 – Reactions

“Mild febrile reactions and transient rashes may be expected to follow the administration of the vaccine in a substantial proportion of cases. The rise of body temperature which may occur from 5 to 10 days after vaccination – usually about the 8th day – is due to the multiplication of the attenuated virus. This febrile reaction, when it occurs, seldom lasts more than 24 to 48 hours. The Committee on Safety of Drugs has agreed that severe and unusual reactions to measles vaccine should be reported on the yellow card used for reporting adverse reactions to drugs. The Committee does not however, wish to receive reports of mild febrile reactions and rashes associated with the use of this vaccine.”

Buzz this!

Source: ANI

Date: Friday, August 27, 2010

Astronomers are predicting that a massive solar storm, much bigger in potential than the one that caused spectacular light shows on Earth earlier this month, is to strike our planet in 2012 with a force of 100 million hydrogen bombs.

Several US media outlets have reported that NASA was warning the massive flare this month was just a precursor to a massive solar storm building that had the potential to wipe out the entire planet’s power grid.

Despite its rebuttal, NASA’s been watching out for this storm since 2006 and reports from the US this week claim the storms could hit on that most Hollywood of disaster dates – 2012.

Similar storms back in 1859 and 1921 caused worldwide chaos, wiping out telegraph wires on a massive scale. The 2012 storm has the potential to be even more disruptive.

“The general consensus among general astronomers (and certainly solar astronomers) is that this coming Solar maximum (2012 but possibly later into 2013) will be the most violent in 100 years,” News.com.au quoted astronomy lecturer and columnist Dave Reneke as saying.

“A bold statement and one taken seriously by those it will affect most, namely airline companies, communications companies and anyone working with modern GPS systems.

Buzz this!

Several activists have started a campaign event on facebook called Paint The Town – National Anti-Fluoridation Poster Campaign. The very reason for this campaign event is to print out and put out posters in your town, city, or metropolitan area to wake up the masses regarding the Fluoridation process of our Nations water supply. The posters are coming from Infowars so this means that InfoWars must have started the Paint The Town Anti-Fluoridation Campaign.

He written:

Download & print the following document or take to your local Staples:
http://www.infowars.com/media/poisonwater.pdf (Archived by USWGO)

Mail request to Travis.C@elcs.net to receive alternate versions of the poster including black & white & low-color revisions. Back-side information also included…

…The importance of this operation cannot be understated. Have you often wondered why it’s so difficult to convey all the important issues to others in your communities, why so few seem to listen, why so few even seem capable of getting upset over anything that truly matters to the human species? Why so many have lost the fire in their eyes & just cannot accept the basic yet horrible crimes against their person, taking place right under their noses, hidden in plain sight?

Sodium Fluoride & other poisons are being added to the water supply in order to remove the ‘teeth’ from the truth movement & make the populations more docile; less willing to challenge what’s happening to them. This is its true purpose!

Joseph Stalin & Adolf Hitler did the same thing to their people… It was used in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany to make their prisoners more docile & less combative, more willing to accept their fates without a challenge. This is the reason people are not more upset about the country’s situation than they already are & why so relatively few will step outside their comfortable, drug-induced bubbles.

This is the beginning of new charge on the powers that be to stop the forced-medication of all citizens via the water supply & by extension – the toxins deliberately added to other products that are meant to suppress us. I encourage everyone to take the PDF below to Kinko’s/Staples to get their printouts made. This is to be a continuous operation! Don’t stop until we reach the finish line!

We’ll all scatter & begin posting anti-fluoride posters throughout our cites & over the weekends or just whenever possible (because we have families!). But get these out there & please don’t stop! This will be long & ongoing but a righteous fight in which YOU can make a big difference. This is an excellent poster that will ‘plant the seed’ but you can certainly design your own from images on the web.

Send cell phone pics to Travis.C @ elcs.net (@ separated to prevent spam bots) & I will make a tribute compilation to share with everyone who took part!

We will continue these activities throughout the state of Kansas, as we reveal to the public that our water supply is being deliberately poisoned – in advance of a mass-petition to the Wichita City Council & other municipalities. The supposed benefits of sodium fluoride is decades-long fraud! And as the people become more aware – they are increasing the dosage. This is FORCED MEDICATION. And what are they pushing to add to our water, now? LITHIUM!

The goal *is* to garner media attention – positive or negative & to get more people to investigate for themselves. If we get enough of these out there – they’ll be unable to avoid news coverage. Ridicule will only help our case.

Please help by printing as many color copies of the following document that you can & join us in this quest to be free of it. We will be going out in teams of 2 or 3 people to get the posters out in strategic spots throughout the city.

We’re not going to stand for it anymore.

So they hope to spread the word regarding Fluoridation being poison that was used by Stalin, and Hitler in the concentration camps to make their victims more docile and non combatant.

On August 11, 2010 only 283 plan on attending while 1013 is not attending, 180 maybe attending, and 3206  are awaiting reply regarding whether they will attend or not.

This is a image conversion of the poster.

So we will see if this campaign holds any water and gets somewhere or if it ends up falling flat on it’s face like other movements. The 9/11 truth movement still hasn’t got anywhere even though pilots, architects, and many more have demanded 9/11 truth the whole movement still hasn’t been recognized by our Federal Government, and our Federal Government may have committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks so that’s why they don’t want 9/11 truth.

Lets see if the Anti Fluoridation Movement will succeed, if fluoride is scientifically declared as poison, then it should be removed from all of the Nations clean water immediately.

Buzz this!

Source: PreventDisease.com

Date: Augest 4, 2010

Academics say they are close to developing the first vaccine to pacify people in a single jab, while in other circles the military plans to inject troops with gas-propelled, electro-charged DNA.

Dr Robert Sapolsky, professor of neuroscience at Stanford University in California, believes it is possible to alter brain chemistry to create a state of ‘focused calm’.

Professor Sapolsky claims he is on the path to a genetically engineered formula that would remove the need for human beings to feel threatened.

But Professor Sapolsky has observed that, while a zebra will turn off the stress chemicals after escaping from a lion, modern man not only produces too many glucocorticoids in response to everyday alarms but cannot turn them off afterwards.

It would leave you fresher and ready to deal with another threat, so you can maintain your drive, but with more focused calm rather than bad temper and digestion.

‘This could change society.’ Professor Sapolsky’s preparatory work was published last October by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Meanwhile, the Army’s got a one-two punch to quickly develop inoculations that stave off new dangers. First, they’ll shoot troops up using a “gene gun,” that’s filled with DNA-based vaccines. Then they’ll follow it up with “short electrical pulses to the delivery site.”

In a small business solicitation released last week, the Army put out a call for “Multiagent Synthetic DNA Vaccines Delivered by Noninvasive Electroporation.” The program would start by transforming conventional development methods, like standard egg-based vaccines.

The old-school methods are slow, don’t allow for readily combined vaccines, and can pose sterility risks. DNA-based vaccines, on the other hand, would be quick to engineer and offer reliable immunity — provided the DNA can enter host cells to trigger the production of immunity proteins.

Right now, DNA-based vaccines are injected into muscles, meaning a genetically engineered plasmid is delivered to “intracellular spaces,” and “is not efficiently taken up by the host cells.” So the Army would instead like to shoot people. Seriously.

In its solicitation, the Army says it wants DNA vaccines that are painted onto microscopic beads, then “deposited into skin cells by gas propulsion.” And since that method can only inject a small dose of DNA, they want researchers to combine the approach with intramuscular electroporation, which “involves injecting the DNA then quickly applying short electrical pulses.” The electric charge creates pores in cell membranes, making it easier for DNA to enter targeted cells.

Current approaches to intramuscular electroporation are invasive, and, obviously, they hurt. One study in rats also noted the “possibility of low and transient tissue damage induced by electroporation.” The Army wants a gadget that doesn’t rely on jamming needles and electrical pulses into muscle, and instead are after “injection and noninvasive electroporation [that] can be performed using a single integrated device.”

Buzz this!