Mike Adams — Natural News May 12, 2013

In a new low for even the mainstream media, the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers in Australia are pushing a campaign of outright medical child abuse they call “NO JAB NO PLAY.” The campaign demands that unvaccinated children be barred from all social contact with other children and condemned to the life of a social outcast where parents are presumably supposed to raise them in cages in dark basements. The paper has launched its horrific, anti-human-rights campaign, “NO JAB NO PLAY” that demands children who are not vaccinated with state-mandated chemicals (which include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and other toxins) be denied interaction with other children.

I’m not making this up. The paper, which seems to be run by a band of human rights haters and child abuse proponents, all but admits wanting to turn children into anti-social monsters and psychological criminals — just one of the side effects of forcing children to be raised without healthy social interaction with other children. This is the first time in history that an Australian newspaper has directly called for the medical abuse of children — and seem to be happy about doing so! Is their editor the ghost of Jimmy Saville from the UK?

It’s a new low for even the Telegraph. Click here to see the campaign push by the newspaper.

See the image of the paper’s “No Jab No Play” campaign on the right. This is the actual image taken from the paper’s editorial page where they are pushing this idea of socially condemning all children whose parents do not submit to state-sponsored medical terrorism.

Andrew Baker — via Rebel News May 13, 2013

Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have:

1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US.

Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

Freedom of Information Act filed in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.

Continues …

There has been an increasing awareness of chemtrails in recent years. Protests have been organized, movies have been released and whistle blowers have come forward. Most significantly, former Los Angeles FBI chief Ted Gunderson made a video denouncing chemtrails shortly before his death in 2011.

The heavy spraying began in NATO countries in the late 90s, but today chemtrails are being recorded pretty much everywhere, from Russia to Brazil, South Korea to Cuba. This is a program of extraordinary scope and importance. However, while we know a chemtrail program exists, there is very little hard information on how it functions and what its goals are.

I have been researching chemtrails and, while I don’t yet have the full picture, I present this information will plug a few holes.

•    Most politicians are as oblivious as we are. AC Griffin, a former CIA and NSA operative, says: ‘The monies that go into CIA projects don’t necessarily come from congressional appropriations. The congress as a whole is completely oblivious to the aerosol program.  They are afraid to ask.’

People on the inside who oppose the program are punished. ‘One of the key people who designed the aerosol is now sitting in federal penitentiary. They still go to him to ask him questions.

Griffin also revealed that former Clinton era Navy Chief  of Naval Operations, Jeremy Boorda, left, was murdered because he opposed the program. Boorda was found dead in 1996 with three shotgun wounds in his chest. The authorities were quick to claim he committed suicide, and the autopsy results were never released to the public.

•    Commercial airliners are involved in spraying. In the very beginning, the aerosols were sprayed solely by military planes, but now the program has been expanded and commercial airliners have been outfitted with aerosol units controlled by computers and satellites. Photos provide evidence of this, like this Lufthansa jet flying over the US (below,left).

In the airline industry, the operation is known as Project Cloverfield. In 2000, a high level executive at an American airline revealed his office was visited by two men from an unnamed government agency:

‘They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft. When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them, they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we weren’t cleared for it…We were made to sign non-disclosure forms that basically stated that we would go to prison if we told anyone what we knew.’

Delivery by commercial aircraft raises the possibility that many countries have not given consent to being sprayed, and may be unaware it’s even happening.

•    Weather manipulation is a daily occurrence – Chemtrails are used in conjunction with HAARP for geo-engineering (the technical term for weather control). Much is written about the ability to create disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis against an enemy, but we don’t realize that weather patterns are manipulated all the time. Scott Stevens was a TV weatherman in the US but quit his job upon realizing that this was happening on a nigh daily basis.

GAMBLING ON FOOD: ‘WEATHER DERIVATIVES”

Continues …

A new documentary entitled Fluoridegate an American Tragedy was recently released about the horrific dangers of sodium fluoride (by product of aluminum waste). It has been standard protocol to inject this neurotoxin into the public drinking water system of the United States of America since the post word war II era. The Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler fluoridated the water for many of the inmates in its network of concentration camps to help keep them passive and compliant. After the 1945 allied victory, this program was targeted (not on prisoners as was the case in Germany) at the entire American people as a whole. The information contained in this new documentary is not new at all. Fluoridation is just one piece of the poison. 

In 1988, the late and great Eustace Mullins published Murder by Injection The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America based on forty years of investigative research. In addition to fluoride, Mr. Mullins covers vaccinations, cancer, aids, the food supply and more. Most importantly he identifies the names, titles, and institutions of those responsible including an entire chapter on the Rockefeller syndicate. Included is a 30-minute interview with the author about this amazing book.

If you have children, you are more than likely already aware of the official U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “Immunization Schedules,” which today recommend an astounding 29 vaccines be given between birth and six years of age, including yearly flu shots, as well as another five to 16 vaccines between ages seven and 18 (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). But a recent investigative report compiled by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., uncovers more than 30 years of hidden government documents exposing these vaccine schedules as a complete hoax, not to mention the fraud of the vaccines themselves to provide any real protection against disease.

Though her paper focuses primarily on the British health system’s elaborate cover-up of the dirty truth about its own national vaccination program, the tenets of the study’s findings still apply to vaccination schedules in general, which are typically designed for the purpose of serving corporate interests rather than public health. Government authorities, it turns out, in an ongoing bid to satisfy the private goals of the vaccine industry, have deliberately covered up pertinent information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines from parents in order to maintain a high rate of vaccination compliance. And in the process, they have put countless millions of children at risk of serious side effects and death.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic’s full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Hiding the truth and covering up data to encourage vaccine compliance

Through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Dr. Tomljenovic was able to obtain transcripts of private meetings that were held between the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), a so-called “independent expert advisory committee” that makes recommendations to the government about vaccine policy, and various British health ministers over the years. And after poring through this plethora of information, which had previously been veiled from public view, Dr. Tomljenovic made some disturbing discoveries.

“[T]he JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization) made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity,’ a concept which … does not rest on solid scientific evidence,” explains Dr. Tomljenovic in the introduction to her paper.

“Official documents obtained from the U.K. Department of Health (DH) and the JCVI reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.”

These are some strong accusations, but the information Dr. Tomljenovic gathered speaks for itself. Not only did the JCVI routinely ignore questions of safety as they came up with regards to the ever-expanding vaccination schedule, but the group actively censored unfavorable data that shed a “negative” light on vaccines in order to maintain the illusion that vaccines are safe and effective. Beyond this, the JCVI regularly lied to both the public and government authorities about vaccine safety in order to ensure that people continued to vaccinate their kids.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic’s full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

JCVI was fully aware of MMR vaccine dangers as early as 1989, but covered them up

Beginning on page three of her report, Dr. Tomljenovic begins outlining the sordid details of meetings held as early as 1981 where the JCVI clearly engaged in fraud, cover-up, and lies about vaccines to protect the vaccine industry, not children, from harm. Minutes from these meetings reveal that the JCVI actively tried to cover up severe side effects associated with common vaccines like measles and whooping cough (pertussis), both of which were clearly linked at the time to causing severe brain damage in a substantial percentage of the children that received them.

Of particular concern was how the JCVI handled unfavorable data on the controversial MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. 10 years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his study on MMR in The Lancet, JCVI was already fully aware that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had identified a clear link between MMR and vaccine-induced meningitis and encephalitis. But rather than come forward with this information and call for further safety assessments on the vaccine, the JCVI instead censored this critical information from the public, and blatantly lied about the safety of MMR for years.

“The extent of the JCVI’s concerns with the implications of scientific assessment of vaccine safety on vaccine policy explains why they were opposed to any long-term surveillance for severe neurological disorders following vaccination,” writes Dr. Tomljenovic. “[I]nstead of re-evaluating the vaccination policy, at least until safety concerns were fully evaluated, the JCVI chose to support the existing policy based on incomplete evidence that was available at that time.”

In other words, the JCVI was more concerned with protecting the reputation of the dangerous MMR vaccine, as well as many other questionable vaccines, than with protecting children from sustaining serious injuries as a result of getting the jabs. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, this critical piece of information not only reinforces the legitimacy of Dr. Wakefield’s findings from 10 years later, which were illegitimately declared to be fraudulent by the establishment, but also illustrates just how painfully long this scam has been taking place.

Vaccine companies urged to manipulate data sheets, skew safety studies to promote vaccines

If this is not bad enough, Dr. Tomljenovic also drudged up copious amounts of information on the JCVI’s longtime habit of encouraging vaccine companies to deliberately alter their data sheets in order to make dangerous and ineffective vaccines appear safe and effective, in accordance with their recommendations. When the JCVI’s guidance contraindications for MMR, for instance, did not match those of the vaccine’s manufacturer, JCVI apparently instructed the manufacturer to alter its data sheets to avoid “legal problems.”

Similarly, the JCVI’s official policy was to cherry-pick unreliable studies to support its own opinions on vaccines rather than rely on independent, scientifically-sound studies to make vaccine policy recommendations. Once again, the JCVI’s position on the safety and effectiveness of MMR is an excellent example of this, as the group flat out ignored legitimate MMR studies in favor of industry-backed junk studies like the infamous 2005 Cochrane Review, which technically proves nothing about the alleged safety of MMR because the 31 studies it evaluated did not even meet the group’s basic methodological criteria.

“Over the years, the JCVI has consistently promoted the MMR vaccine as safe, based on studies that have been proven to be either irrelevant, inconclusive, or methodologically questionable,” explains Dr. Tomljenovic, adding that the JCVI routinely chose to rely on flawed epidemiological studies that only identified “association” rather than “causation,” a rather ironic inaccuracy in light of how scrutinizing the establishment typically is of studies that contradict its own positions.

The eye-opening, 45-page paper goes on to explain how vaccine schedules were established through the calculated downplaying of vaccine safety concerns and the over-inflating of vaccine benefits; the promotion of dangerous new vaccines into the pediatric schedule through deception; the discouraging of vaccine safety follow-up studies; and the widespread brainwashing of the public through manipulation and scientific sleight-of-hand tricks.

Be sure to check out the complete study for yourself:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Sources for this article include:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com

http://foodfreedomgroup.com

Source

Obama, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, stated that mental-health services must be made more available, presumably to stave off future killers.

Of course, this is monstrously wrong, since so many killers have acted under the compelling influence of SSRI antidepressants and other brain meds. The drugs are known to induce violence.

More mental health means more murders.

Now we hear that Joe Biden’s presidential task force on gun control is meeting with psychiatrists. Here is what they’re discussing:

Databases. They want to tighten background checks on people who buy guns, and the checks could include discovering whether applicants have ever been under psychiatric care, and if so, what diagnosis(es) was made.

In order to do that, there will have to be a comprehensive database and a tracking system that extends into, and from, every psychiatrist’s front desk. Law-enforcement will have access to that database.

What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality? It’s possible this issue can be skirted merely by affirming that a gun-applicant has seen a psychiatrist at some point in time—which fact could exclude him from purchasing a weapon.

Organized psychiatry would, of course welcome a comprehensive database of Americans who have obtained psychiatric care. It makes their profession seem even more official than it already is. And it imparts a tinge of USSR-like power.

The implication: “We know who you are. We know you’ve been under the care of a psychiatrist. Wherever you live and work, we can call you crazy if we want to.”

This always was part of the psychiatric agenda, behind the smooth facade of “offering help to those in need.”

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is also sensitive to the fact that many Americans would never walk into a shrink’s office if they thought that would hinder their chance of owning a gun.

But weighing the pros and cons, the advantage is on the side of linking gun-ownership-refusal with psychiatric-treatment history. That makes the APA more powerful. It brings them closer in concert with law-enforcement.

It essentially makes the APA and all its doctors into cops right along side local police forces, state police, the FBI, the ATF, DHS, and the US Marshals Service.

Who could resist that promotion?

Of course, in any case involving a murderer, where it’s suspected that a psychiatric drug induced the violence, unearthing that possibility would be cut off at the pass. The sordid facts would be protected/buried by the full force of the federal government. Another perk.

Local mental-health clinics (drug dispensaries) would bloom like weeds. After all, how are you going to prevent violence unless you corral millions more Americans and put them in front of a shrink or a suitable surrogate for “pre-screening?” It’s The Minority Report come to life.

This system eventually burgeons into a full national program to cut violent crime through prevention. And who will be in charge of making delicate judgments about the likelihood that any person will commit murder? The psychiatrists, naturally. More power for them.

This goes beyond deciding whether a resident of the US can own a gun. It invades any aspect of a person’s life to assess his “mental predisposition.” That’s precisely the kind of infrastructure that would come into being.

Don’t imagine for a moment that psychiatrists actually have the ability to make scientific calls on these questions. Their entire pantheon of 297 official mental disorders is such a pathetic fraud that not one physical test exists to make a diagnosis.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic test.

But that’s never stopped them before, and it wouldn’t stop them in the new Psychiatric Police State. They’d keep winging it, and they’d realize they have to err on the side of caution, to avoid getting caught with their pants down, when a killer is found to have received “clearance” from a psychiatrist to own a gun or walk around unsupervised.

Therefore, many more Americans would be marked down for “special tracking” and mandatory 72-hour holds in mental lockups.

While in such custody, the strategy would be to load up the patient with as many drugs as possible, to render him docile after release.

Is this entire nightmare scheduled to happen this year? Of course not. But gradual steps eventually add up to a fully boiled frog.

In the world of brain research, the principal push is toward creating the conditioned human. Behind the mask of curing disease, that’s the real agenda. And it ties in quite nicely with a culture in which every human is looked upon as a potential threat to life and limb of his fellow humans.

The shrinks will say they care. They’ll say they only want what’s best for you. They’ll say these mental disorders only need the right drugs to keep them under control. They’ll say we’re all in this together. They’ll say their diagnosis-treatment is the most humane program ever devised in the history of the planet. They’ll say it’s all about greatest good for the greatest number. They’ll say whatever they need to.

Biden and Obama are trying to make a definitive move to take away guns. But for the psychiatrists, this is a trial balloon. Inside the profession, there will be debates about whether linking gun ownership to psychiatric history is a plus or a minus for shrinks.

Will it enhance or injure their reputation and standing? What about doctor-patient confidentiality?

But the first steps are being contemplated. The issue is on the table.

In the “old psychiatry,” before smooth PR and modern marketing really took over, doctors were far more ready to make predictions about the future political ramifications of their work. Absolute madmen like Dr. Jose Delgado and Dr. Ewen Cameron went public with the idea that no human being has an inherent right to his own personality.

The true role of psychiatry, they asserted, was to re-invent human character, personality, behavior, and thought, from the ground up.

Well, decades later, with psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies tied to the hip as one juggernaut, and with marketing departments modulating their pronouncements to fit these times, a redux- prospect is emerging.

Psychiatry can pick up its old political and social banners again. It can enter into an even closer embrace with big government. It can announce that violence can be substantially curbed through an expansion of mental-health services. It can frame this program as both a humane necessity and a leap ahead into “a better world for all of us.”

It can begin, cautiously, at first, to bring back the utopian promises.

“We have the science. Our understanding of the brain is expanding every day. We’re literally seeing why and how conflict arises between people, and we’re seeing it in the folds and channels of that wondrous brain. And we can do something about it. We’re on the cusp of a new dawn…”

Yes, the psychiatric police are ready to take the next step.

Meanwhile, behind certain closed doors: “Gentlemen, it’s interesting, isn’t it, how so many killings over the last twenty years have been committed by people under the influence of our drugs. And yet, we use the murders to prove how people need more of these same drugs. Sales skyrocket. And now we can become plainclothes cops with more ultimate power than any cops in history…”

Jon Rappoport

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

Source

Life, whether human or otherwise, is no longer sacred to many of today’s scientists, who actually believe that tampering with the genetic blueprints of living beings will somehow improve humanity and create a better world. And this disturbing reality became ever more apparent recently when genetic butchers at Oregon Health & Sciences University (OHSU) announced their discovery of a way to manipulate the DNA of human embryos to obstruct normal gene transfer and create genetically “superior” babies that are supposedly less prone to disease.

According to the Chicago Tribune, these genetically-modified (GM) embryos are not yet intended to actually produce real, living children – although it is only a matter of time before this nightmare becomes a reality (remember the movie Gattaca?) – but they will be used in the present to investigate how babies of the future might avoid certain inherited diseases. By combining the genes of one man with those of two women, OHSU researchers claim they have devised a way to effectively replace “defective” genes with normal ones.

There are two types of genes contained in cells – those found inside the nucleus of cells, which influence visible traits such as eye color and height, and those found outside the nucleus in energy-generating mitochondria, which do not influence visible traits, and are only passed along by the mother rather than the father. It is these exterior genes that OHSU scientists have learned to alter, reprogram, and literally block from being passed down from mother to child, which they claim could one day unveil ways by which inherited diseases might be avoided

Tampering with human genes will likely unleash a Pandora’s box of health horrors

But is this genetic manipulation of the human genome safe and ethical? The answer to this, just like to all genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), is a resounding no, as nobody knows for sure what the long-term effects of vandalizing human genes really are until after the irreversible process has been set into motion. And yet this has not stopped OHSU researchers nor their British predecessors who conducted similar experiments back in 2008 from engaging in the abominable practice under the guise of supposedly preventing incurable diseases.

According to reports, the OHSU team that worked on the study, which was published in the journal Nature, is currently trying to gain federal approval to test the development of its GMO babies in actual women rather than in petri dishes, which will take such experiments to a whole new level of reality. It will presumably not be long after, should these “Frankenscientists” receive such approval, before GMO babies are normalized throughout society, and eventually perceived as genetically superior to normal babies with genetic “defects.”

British news claims GMO babies are already being manufactured in women

The U.K.’s Daily Mail; however, reported recently that similar GMO babies are already in existence, having been created using similar techniques in women with fertility problems. According to that particular report, at least two babies born using gene-splicing techniques have already been confirmed to possess genes from three different parents, one father and two mothers.

“The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their ‘germline’ means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring,” wrote Michael Hanlon about the issue. “Altering the human germline – in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species … could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.chicagotribune.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Source

You may not have heard the explosion, but it happened.vaccines they could discover. They rejected the studies that were badly constructed. In some cases, to expand available data, they contacted individual researchers who had conducted studies.flu vaccines. However, because the Cochrane team owes nothing to pharmaceutical companies, they analyzed the literature with sober eyes and minds.Sources: http://gaia-health.com

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

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

Boom!

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

Boom!

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, The Cochrane Collaboration did an exhaustive review of all previous studies on flu

Therefore, Cochrane’s findings represent the best of the published literature on

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

Now who in the world would benefit from such manipulating?

Oh yes. One other thing.

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

Over two years ago.

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

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

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/full (registration required)

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
www.nomorefakenews.com

About the author:
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.Source

On October 2nd a retired demographer at the World Bank admitted that vaccination campaigns are an integral part of the World Bank’s population policies. John F. May, the Bank’s leading demographer from 1992 to 2012, told the French web journal Sens Public (and in turn transcribed by the think-tank May works for) that vaccination campaigns, especially in so-called “high-fertility countries”, are means to achieve population reduction in those countries. May:

“The means used to implement population policies are “policy levers” or targeted actions such as vaccination campaigns or family planning to change certain key variables.”

Defining “population policy” as “a set of interventions implemented by government officials to better manage demographic variables and to try to attune population changes (number, structure by age and breakdown) to the country’s development aspirations”, May continues to explain that the World Bank is taking up the lead role in achieving general population reduction.

It is not the first time that World Bank officials boast about their willingness to implement strict population control policies in the Third World. In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using “sterilization vans” and “camps” to facilitate its sterilization policies for the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing the bank’s population policies with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”, the report states.

Some of those steps are now being taken.

A study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology in May of 2011 concluded that “nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (page 8).

After an in-depth study into the effects of vaccine-coverage in relation to mortality rates among infants, the authors Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman came to this disturbing conclusion and advised that “a closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential.”- but naively concluded that “All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

The authors cannot be expected to know that, actually, that the desired goals are exactly being achieved. Their final point is significant in this regard, that they obviously were not working on the notion that vaccines were harmful and obviously drew their final conclusions on the basis of the idea that the increase in high mortality rates among infants were unintended. The opposite is the case. The World Health Organization, the World Bank, The UN environmental department, the UN Population Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and all the other arms of the creature we call the scientific dictatorship are closing in on all of humanity with mass-scale vaccination programmes and genetically engineered food.

Where the mantra used to be “to combat global warming, we need a one world government”, now it sounds something along the lines of “when we wish to eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers, by the way.” Any pretext will do. More recently it were oceans in need that prompted the World Bank to initiate a global “alliance”. The same argument can of course be applied and is being applied to every other possible calamity.

Following this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to pretexts under which global population control can be sold. Want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. The scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.

Under the guidance of Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé’s Pejman Rohani and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology of infectious diseases. They write that the “poverty trap may (…) be broken by improving health conditions of the population.”

The question that arises, of course, is how to improve “health conditions”. In another study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:

““(…) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases.”

Earlier that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.

“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds writes.

“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”

“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”

If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:

“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”

The answer to that question is given by Bill Gates in 2010 when he promoted using vaccines to lower the population by 10 to 15%:

Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mas-scale fertility reduction. The religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.

It wasn’t the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:

“We’re in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth’s processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development.”

“We don’t necessarily need diplomats around the table”, Sachs continued. “We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process.”

What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He stated in an Economist publication in 2000:

“The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish.”

I don’t have to remind readers that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and developed vaccines designed to reduce your fertility, and intended to distribute these vaccines on a mass-scale.

In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns, Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:

“We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.”

As Paul Joseph Watson reported in his September 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change to Poverty, the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is moving forward is undergoing a transformation. The focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to “reduce fertility.” Global government, in other words, to facilitate global scientific dictatorship. 

Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mas-scale fertility reduction. The religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.

It wasn’t the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:

“We’re in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth’s processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development.”

“We don’t necessarily need diplomats around the table”, Sachs continued. “We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process.”

What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He stated in an Economist publication in 2000:

“The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish.”

I don’t have to remind readers that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and developed vaccines designed to reduce your fertility, and intended to distribute these vaccines on a mass-scale.

In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns, Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:

“We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.”

As Paul Joseph Watson reported in his September 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change to Poverty, the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is moving forward is undergoing a transformation. The focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to “reduce fertility.” Global government, in other words, to facilitate global scientific dictatorship.

Source

Titanium Dioxide is used in cosmetics and vitamins and other drugs as a filler to construct tablets. But it is also used in skimmed milk, cheeses, yogurts, mayonnaise, chocolate marshmallows, manufactured fast foods, tomato ketchup. It is fed to animals that humans eat. 

Titanium dioxide accounts for 70% of the total production volume of pigments worldwide. It is widely used to provide whiteness and opacity to products such as paints, plastics, papers, inks, foods, and toothpastes. It is also used in cosmetic and skin care products, and it is present in almost every sunblock, where it helps protect the skin from ultraviolet light.

Titanium dioxide is a metal oxide with unique properties. It rivals diamonds for hardness and is notable for excellent electrical properties. 

But why in food? This chemical is not a nutrient; it is totally insoluble and amounts to eating ground glass!

The American Cancer Society has listed Titanium Dioxide among the five most carcinogenic substances on the planet. It is considered a cause of Asthma, cancer, kidney disease,  Alzheimer’s and fertility loss. There are many animal studies on the Internet linking this chemical to the above diseases.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified it as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen ”possibly carcinogen to humans”. 

But the real explanation may be political control. When one considers the military effectiveness of this chemical, one begins to realize that we are being “magnetized” for control by future electromagnetic weapons and tasers.

Continues at source …

If you read the mainstream news headlines today, you might be shocked to see headlines that say things like, “Organic foods no healthier than conventional foods” or “Organic foods may not be healthier for you.” You’ll see these headlines all across the usual disinfo outlets: NPR, Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, WebMD and elsewhere.

The problem with these headlines is that they are flatly false. The study these news outlets are quoting actually confirms that organic foods are far healthier for you than conventional foods.

So how is the mainstream media lying about this? By fudging the facts, of course.

For starters, the “study” isn’t even a study. It was just a review of other studies. No new laboratory analysis was done whatsoever!

The “review” was conducted at Stanford University and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. You can read the abstract here:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

As the study itself concludes:

• Exposure to chemical pesticides was significantly lower in organic foods (roughly 30% less than conventional foods).

• Exposure to “superbugs” in meat (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) was also significantly lower in organic foods (roughly a 33% risk difference).

• The study conclusion says, right out, that “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

How the media lied

Somehow, the mainstream media took this study and then lied to their readers, claiming organic food is “no different” than conventional food. That is a flat-out lie, of course. Because it fails to mention all the following:

• GMOs are not allowed in organic foods. So GMO exposure is many orders of magnitude higher in conventional foods, where GMOs are commonplace.

• Artificial chemical sweeteners are not allowed in organic foods. But conventional foods are often sweetened with toxic chemicals such as aspartame or saccharin.

• The study completely failed to look at the use of genetically-modified bovine growth hormones (rBGH) in conventional milk versus organic milk.

• The environmental impact of conventional food production is devastating to the planet. Chemical pesticides aren’t just found in the crops; they also run off into the streams, rivers and oceans. No mainstream media article that covered this story even bothered to mention this hugely important issue – it’s one of the primary reasons to buy organic!

• The funding source of the study is listed as “None.” Does anybody really believe that? All these scientists supposedly volunteered their time and don’t get paid to engage in scientific endeavors? It’s absurd. The money for the study had to come from somewhere, and the fact that the Annals of Internal Medicine is hiding the source by listing “none” is just further evidence of scientific wrongdoing.

A total psyop to confuse the public and push GMOs

Ultimately, this study comes down to being a total psyop pushed by the mainstream media for the purpose of confusing the public and ultimately promoting GMOs.

The media’s coverage of this is pure disinfo along the lines of other health disinfo campaigns such as:

• Mercury in vaccines is actually GOOD for you and makes vaccines work better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyR2XeLjYTU

• GMOs shouldn’t be labeled on foods: it should be a huge corporate secret!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151004427426316&set=pb.35590531315….

• Flu shots are great! Take more flu shots and you’ll be protected from the flu (total disinfo, a complete lie).
http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.ht…

• West Nile Virus is a huge danger to everyone. Run! Run! Spray yourself with deadly chemicals to be “safe!”
http://www.naturalnews.com/037039_West_Nile_virus_chemical_spraying_f...

• Vitamins are dangerous! Don’t take vitamins! They might kill you!
http://www.naturalnews.com/033883_vitamins_mortality_risk.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/033893_mainstream_media_vitamins.html

Anthony Gucciardi, by the way, has published an excellent video overview of the deception regarding this issue:
http://naturalsociety.com/ridiculous-study-claims-organic-same-as-con…

Source

Professor Patrick Pullicino has claimed that doctors are using a care pathway designed to help make people’s final days more comfortable as an equivalent to euthanasia.

The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is used in hospitals for patients who are terminally ill or are expected to die imminently. Under the pathway, doctors can withdraw treatment, food and water while patients are heavily sedated.

Almost a third of patients – 130,000 – who die in hospital or under NHS care a year are on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino said he believed the LCP was being used as an “assisted death pathway” with patients placed on the LCP without clear evidence, according to the the Daily Mail.

The senior consultant at East Kent Hospitals told the Royal Society of Medicine he had personally intervened to have a 71-year-old man taken off the LCP and be treated successfully, despite claims he was expected to die within hours or days. He had arrived in hospital with pneumonia and epilepsy.

“I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,” he said. “His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family.

“The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.”

Professor Pullicino said the 71-year-old man lived for another 14 months before he suffered pneumonia again and was admitted to a different hospital. He was put on the LCP and died five hours later.

“Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP. Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition,” he added.

“Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically. This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the LCP.”

He said those who went on to come off the LCP and live longer than expected were costly to the taxpayer because of the extra health care and support needed.

The LCP was developed as a template for health workers to make the last days of terminally ill patients comfortable.

The guidance recommends patients’ on the pathway are regularly assessed, and they can be taken off the LCP if they are no longer close to death.

A Department of Health spokesman said: “The Liverpool Care Pathway is not euthanasia and we do not recognise these figures. The pathway is recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians – at home and abroad – including the Royal College of Physicians.

“A patient’s condition is monitored at least every four hours and if a patient improves, they are taken off the Liverpool Care Pathway and given whatever treatments best suit their new needs.”

Source

“He needs multiple surgery outside Iraq. It’s a dysfunctional problem. He has no hearing in his left ear. They told me he has to be six before they can remove cartilage from his chest wall to put in his ear. All operations have to be outside Iraq to beautify the ear and give him his hearing.”

And all the while his father talks, five-year-old Sayef Ala’a sits obediently on the sofa beside us, doing as his father tells him, moving his head to show us the scrappy bit of flesh that constitutes his left ear, tipping his head to one side so we can take pictures of it. Compared to other children with birth deformities, Sayef Ala’a is lucky. He can see, breathe, walk, run, play and listen to his father and friends with his right ear. And he is a little boy of much courage.

Rates of cancer, leukaemia and congenital deformities higher in Fallujah than those reported in the aftermath of nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Click to enlarge

“He hasn’t learnt much yet – that’s because he hasn’t been to school,” his father says. “I’m worried he would be bullied at school. He’s a child, but sometimes he comes to me and says he knows he has a deformed ear; but it doesn’t matter, he says, because he has no other problems. He is shy but he doesn’t mind seeing you.” And here the father points at us as we sit beside his son on the sofa. “But no other foreigners come to see him.”

Like others in Fallujah, Sayef Ala’a's father, who is a businessman, hopes that NGO officials will turn up at his door one day and offer the boy a foreign visa, medical treatment abroad, education. It is a dream that will never be realised – not so long as even the Iraqi government takes no interest in the deformed children of Fallujah.

Sayef Ala’a has a three-year-old brother who has no health problems – but then Sayef Ala’a was conceived in 2006, two years after the battles of Fallujah, his brother two years after that. Sayef Ala’a's mother is his father’s first cousin but the families had no history of congenital anomalies. “It’s the result of chemical weapons used by the Americans in Fallujah,” the father says. He has seen other, much worse abnormalities than that from which his son suffers. All the other families say the same thing.

“Yes, my son’s case is a bit trivial compared to the rest. But he only has half his hearing. I have got myself and my son a passport” – and here Sayef Ala’a's father produces the documents for our inspection – “because some day a charity organisation will knock on my door and take him outside Iraq.”

Yet, remarkably, when I ask him who is to blame, Sayef Ala’a's father says almost exactly the same words uttered by the father of 14-month-old Sayef Mohamed, who has an outsize head and is blind and paralysed. He replies at once. “I do believe in God, so I leave things to God – I don’t believe any human being is going to help. Yes, I was concerned before we had our second child in case he had similar problems, but I decided to leave things to God because I wanted this second child.”

The family have consulted two Baghdad professors – one of them with a diploma of medicine from Glasgow University – and they have a sense of perspective that others may lack in Fallujah.

Sayef Ala’a's grandfather claims that the RAF dropped mustard gas on their distant relatives, in the town of Diyala, in 1917, during the First World War – and that there were deformities even then. Of course, it may be easy for a family – fearful of shaming their “honour” by admitting their child suffers birth anomalies – to blame the weapons of Fallujah’s American enemies for their misfortunes.

But in that case, why did the US first deny using phosphorus in built-up areas of the city in 2004 – and admit the truth only when a video-tape clearly showed phosphorous being fired into housing concentrations? And why does no one from outside come to examine Sayef Ala’a's scratch of an ear?

Back story: The evidence was clear, but no one cared – except you

It’s the same old story. Know nothing. See nothing. Say nothing. When children died in a plague of cancers in southern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, the Americans and the Brits didn’t want to know about it. Nor, of course, did Saddam Hussein. If children had been poisoned by our depleted uranium munitions, then Saddam would lose face, wouldn’t he? Independent readers contributed $250,000 for medicines for the children we met in Iraq who were suffering from cancers and leukaemia after that war.

Margaret Hassan of Care – later murdered by unknown killers months after her kidnapping, following the “liberation” of Iraq – helped us distribute the medicines from our readers across the country. No thanks from Saddam, of course. And all the children died. And not a word from our masters, armaments manufacturers and jolly generals.

It’s the same again in Fallujah today. The doctors talk of a massive increase in child birth deformities. The Americans used phosphorous munitions – possibly also depleted uranium (DU) – in the 2004 battles of Fallujah. Everyone in Fallujah knows about these deformities. Reporters have seen these children and reported on them. But it’s know nothing, see nothing, say nothing. Neither the Iraqi government nor the US government nor the British will utter a squeak about Fallujah. Even when I found in the Balkans a 12-year-old Serb girl with internal bleeding, constant vomiting and nails that repeatedly fell out of her hands and feet – she had handled the shrapnel of depleted uranium munitions after a Nato air strike near Sarajevo in 1995 – Nato refused to respond to my offer to take a military doctor to see her.

Already, I had discovered that up to 300 Serb men, women and children who had lived close to the Nato target in the Sarajevo suburb of Hadjici, had died of cancers and leukaemias over the five years that followed the bombing. As for southern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, the less said, the better.

I met Ali Hillal in 1998, when he was just eight, in Baghdad’s Mansour hospital. He lived next to factories and a television station in Diyala, the repeated targets of US and British aircraft in 1991, the fifth child in a family with no history of cancer. Now he had a brain tumour. Latif Abdul Sattar had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Youssef Abdul Raouf Mohamed from Kerbala had gastro-intestinal bleeding. There was Cherou Jassem in her party dress – she wanted her picture taken – who had acute myloblastic leukaemia.

And so it went on as I met each child 14 years ago. Dhamia Qassem, 13, suffered heart failure during treatment for acute leukaemia. Ahmed Walid, a baby during the 1991 Iraq bombings, developed chronic myeloid leukaemia in 1995. Many of the parents were with their children during the raids and some spoke of strange smells, of insecticide and flowers. Western diplomats – who otherwise chose to remain silent – wondered if the children might have been stricken by the smoke from Saddam’s bombed chemical warfare factories.

In Basra, I found Dr Jawad Khadim al-Ali who had drawn maps of the clusters of the new child and adult cancer cases across southern Iraq, some of the children from the very battlefields in which US tanks fired DU munitions at Saddam’s armoured forces. Even when I visited these sites I found farming families with new cancers. This, the doctors attributed to DU, of course, not phosphorous, although some researchers have suggested DU was also used at Fallujah in 2004.

What was astonishing, however, was the response. While The Independent’s readers gave generously for medicines for the children, the British government’s reaction was pitiful. Lord Gilbert at the Ministry of Defence, in a letter dripping with sarcasm, said that my account of a possible link between DU ammunition and children’s cancer – “coming from anyone other than Robert Fisk” – would be “a wilful perversion of reality”. Particles from DU warheads became difficult to detect, he wrote, “even with the most sophisticated monitoring equipment”.

Yet when an Atomic Energy Agency official wrote to the Royal Ordnance in London in 1998, he said that the spread of radioactivity and toxic contamination would be “a risk to both the military and the civilian population” if not dealt with in peacetime.

In December 1998, Doug Henderson, then the British minister for the armed forces, wrote – in a letter that may soon have to be repeated over Fallujah – that while the government was aware of reports linking DU with “alleged [sic] deformities, cancers and birth defects, the government has not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data on this population to support these claims and it would therefore be premature to comment on this matter”.

And so it went on. The authorities had nothing to say since there had been no “peer-reviewed epidemiological data” – which there would not be, because no such research would be carried out. Now, too, the same is happening in Fallujah where DU ammunition may also have been used in 2004, and where white phosphorous certainly was used. But there has been no “peer-reviewed epidemiological data”. So goodbye to the children of Fallujah, their brave parents and any chance of finding out the truth.

Unless, of course, some worthy NGO steps forward with the money and resources and training to do what neither the Iraqi government nor the Americans have shown any interest in doing: cataloguing the increase in birth deformities in a city where US forces fought their toughest battles since the Tet offensive in Vietnam. Phosphorous can be used to identify targets – but if used as a weapon in civilian areas, it would breach the 1980 Convention on conventional weapons. Which is probably why no one outside Iraq wants to hear the name of Fallujah.

Source

Also see:

The Children of Fallujah – Sayef’s story

The Children of Fallujah – the hospital of horrors

For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actually cause measles. And flu shot vaccines actually increase susceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)

Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.

New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…)

In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough — the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. “We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention.”

This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:

“GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine’s protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it’s still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough.”

Huh? So let me get this straight:

• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.

• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.

• Doctors openly admit the vaccine “doesn’t provide lasting protection” against the disease.

• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!

That’s essentially like saying, “We know these vaccines don’t really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway.”

Whooping cough outbreak? Demand everybody be vaccinated!

Despite the fact that the whooping cough vaccines actually cause an increase in the risk of being infected with whooping cough, every time a whooping cough outbreak occurs, there’s a mad rush of everybody screaming, “Vaccinate! Vaccinate! Vaccinate!”

For example, this mindless article in The Seattle Times typifies the kind of brain-dead journalism observed across the mainstream media: “Whooping cough spreading fast in state; vaccinations urged.”  (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017902210_whoopingco…)

This mindless, irrational cry for vaccinations utterly contradicts scientific truth, but it get published over and over again with zero skepticism and no intelligent questioning by anyone in the (whored-out) mainstream media.

Whooping cough vaccines, it turns out, do nothing to reduce the rate of whooping cough infections. But they do accomplish something else that’s even more important for Big Pharma. Care to guess what that is?

You guessed it: Whooping cough vaccines keep whooping cough in circulation! The vaccines cause the very disease they claim to treat, so the more kids get vaccinated, the more outbreaks occur! This then results in more people calling for more vaccines, which causes even more whooping cough outbreaks to occur, and this sick profiteering cycle of vaccine quackery repeats itself over and over until children are pumped full of useless vaccines while the drug companies bank on record profits and all the parents are living in fear.

The drug companies figured it out a long time ago, see? The best way to SELL a vaccine that claims to treat a disease is to make sure the vaccine contains the disease! Thus, the vaccination itself becomes the pathway to re-infection and repeat business!

Want to make money in the cancer industry? Put cancer viruses into the vaccines! Oops, Merck already did that, didn’t they? Here’s an admission by a Merck scientist of exactly this point:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html

How the media is trying to spin these shocking revelations about the failure of vaccines

The media is trying to spin this revelation, of course, claiming that the whooping cough vaccine merely “wears out” or “fades over time.” While that alone is an admission of total vaccine failure, it’s actually much worse: The findings show that vaccines make children MORE vulnerable to infection than the unvaccinated children.

Virtually nowhere in the lamestream media will you see any real admission that whooping cough vaccines are based entirely on scientific fraud because they simply don’t work. That simple truth is just not allowed to be printed anywhere except places like NaturalNews, where we haven’t sold out to Big Pharma’s corporate interests. The fact that even a hint of this has appeared in Reuters is astonishing, and I suspect they will pull their story as quickly as possible before it starts getting too much attention.

If vaccines “fade out” then they don’t work!

The bedrock of vaccination theory is that when your body is exposed to a weakened virus, it will build up its supply of antibodies that will forever recognize that virus and defend your body against it. Sound familiar? That’s the fairy tale told to every parent and child by a vaccine-wielding brainwashed doctor.

The key element of the story is that your body is supposed to keep those antibodies forever, right? Just like if you get the chicken pox one time, you won’t ever get it again because your body is immune to the chicken pox, right?

But wait: Now they’re saying vaccines fade out over time. Somehow your body “forgets” the antibodies, they now admit, so you need a booster shot, what else? (Repeat sales, anyone?)

So then, vaccines don’t really invoke lifetime antibodies at all, do they? And if that’s the case, then the entire vaccine mythology crumbles. No lifetime antibodies means the vaccines aren’t really working like real infections (such as the chicken pox). Something doesn’t add up here, especially when you figure that vaccines make children MORE susceptible to future infections.

Healthy kids are not vaccinated kids

Want to find the healthiest children in America? Find families who follow these rules:
#1) They live on small farms and their children play in the dirt (they have contact with nature).
#2) Their children are all home schooled.
#3) None of their children are vaccinated.
#4) They drink raw milk and eat farm fresh foods.

As you will readily find, these are the healthiest, smartest kids in America! They don’t have problems with autism, allergies, cancer or ADHD. They are bright, healthy, and easily capable of surviving an infection of chicken pox.

The least healthy children in America are vaccinated children who eat public school food (GMOs) and never spend time in nature. These are the asthmatics, the diabetics, the ADHD cases, the suicidal psych drug takers. They’re vaccine damaged and nutritionally depleted, and they catch every cold every winter, it seems, you know what I mean?

Media lies about vaccine effectiveness (written by brain-dead journalists)

The media, you see, is so steeped in lies about vaccines that they are now utterly unable to recognize the truth. In the Seattle Times article mentioned above, for example, you’ll find this mysterious sentence in the story: “Pertussis vaccines are about 85 percent effective overall…”

And yet I’ll bet you twenty bucks there’s not a single journalist on the entire Seattle Times staff who even understands what that number means and where it came from. They probably think it means that for every 100 people vaccinated with the whooping cough vaccine, 85 percent of them will be completely protected against the disease even if they are exposed to it. (Insert laughter here…)

But it’s nothing like that at all. This number is simply made up. It is invented from fabricated relative statistics cherry-picked out of distorted clinical trials funded by drug companies. It’s sort of like the CDC’s completely fabricated number of “35,000 people die each year from the flu” – a bald-faced conjuration of pure fiction that’s repeated as if it were fact across every paper in the country. And even if you believe the 85 percent number, it was probably derived from something more like this: For every 1,000 children in America, only 1 catches the whooping cough, but if those 1,000 children are vaccinated (says the corporate-funded study), then only 0.15 children out of 1,000 will catch the whooping cough.

Thus, in other words, using these numbers you’d have to vaccinate 1,000 children in order to prevent less than one child from getting the whooping cough – and meanwhile, out of those 1,000 children perhaps 10 – 20 of them suffer vaccine damage in other ways that are far serious, including autism.

Lamestream media journalists who work for these rag papers just don’t have any real ability to exercise critical thinking anymore. They don’t know how to read scientific studies. They don’t understand numbers. And you know why? Because they’ve been over-vaccinated! And vaccines cause neurological damage, which is why the most brain-dead people you’ll find in the country are the ones who line up every year to receive annual flu shots.

When it comes to vaccines, the only thing mainstream newspapers know how to do is rephrase corporate press releases and spout vaccine propaganda that ends up harming, maiming and often killing more innocent children.

That’s why NaturalNews continues to tell the truth about vaccine fraud – because it saves lives by protecting children against bad science and stupid journalism.

Sources include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…

Source

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?

“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”

Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

Source

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has been comprehensively exposed as a vaccine propaganda organization promoting the interests of drug companies, is now engaged in a household surveillance program that involves calling U.S. households and intimidating parents into producing child immunization records. As part of what it deems a National Immunization Survey (NIS), the CDC is sending letters to U.S. households, alerting them that they will be called by “NORC at the University of Chicago” and that households should “have your child’s immunization records handy when answering our questions.” (See copies of the letter, below.)

This NIS vaccine compliance program is revealed in a letter being sent to U.S. households by Edward J. Sondik, PhD, the director of the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC. The CDC, you may recall, was instrumental in pushing the false swine flu pandemic scare and encouraging governments to order billions of dollars worth of vaccines from drug companies. Following this marketing fraud, the former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, went on to accept the lucrative job as the president of Merck’s global vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D…). One of the CDC’s top researchers who worked under Gerberding, Dr. Poul Thorsen, was later indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly stealing grant money and using it to buy luxury cars and motorcycles (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T…).

Now the CDC is bullying parents across the USA to comply with child immunization surveillance programs by calling their home phones and asking them to produce child immunization records.

NaturalNews has acquired a copy of the letter being sent by the CDC, which you can view in these two images:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/C…
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/C…

Vaccine compliance tracking

“Your phone number was chosen randomly by computer,” explains the letter, which goes on to say that the CDC will use your information to generate a map of vaccine compliance — no doubt to later target low-compliance areas with increased vaccination propaganda or even court-ordered immunization mandates like the one we witnessed in Maryland (http://www.naturalnews.com/022242_m…).

“It is important for us to interview every household we call to get a complete picture of your area’s immunization rates,” the CDC letter explains. “Your answers to the NIS will provide information to help improve the nation’s health now and in the years ahead,” it continues. Which means, of course, that this information will be used to push more vaccines onto more infants by targeting areas with low vaccine compliance rates, such as African American neighborhoods which are rightly skeptical of government’s claims about vaccines.

Note that in this letter, the CDC admits it is using this information to track vaccine compliance at the local level. On top of that, the NORC.org website openly admits this is all about public health surveillance, saying: “the NIS is one of the largest telephone surveys in the nation and its data are considered the gold standard for public health surveillance on immunization rates.”

Ever notice how these organizations are so aggressive at tracking vaccination rates but they care nothing about tracking rates of autism? Have you wondered why they aren’t calling U.S. households and asking parents whether their children became autistic after receiving vaccines? (Gee, maybe they don’t want to know the answer to that question…)

Public health surveillance = interrogations by phone

Once your private home phone is called as part of this vaccine surveillance and tracking program, you will be essentially interrogated over the phone about your vaccine immunization compliance:

“Respondents are asked a series of questions about the vaccinations received by selected children (including recommended seasonal flu vaccines),” says NORC. And after that, NORC will request permission to acquire your child’s immunization records from your doctor!

“Respondents are also asked for permission to contact the children’s health providers for the sole purpose of obtaining immunization records, providing an important supplement to the household report,” NORC explains. Yes, once you answer the interrogation questions on the phone, they will then go straight to your doctor to acquire vaccine records there in order to determine whether you were lying on the phone.

See our screen capture of the NORC.org website which admits all this:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/N…

The original source of this is: http://www.norc.org/Research/Projec… (but they will no doubt change their page after this NaturalNews story goes live, which is why we posted a screen shot).

It’s all admittedly a way to increase vaccination rates of low-income children

“NORC then sends an Immunization History Questionnaire via mail to these health providers,” it says. And once the data are compiled: “These data are used by the CDC and state and local public health agencies to monitor the potential for disease outbreaks at the community level and to allocate resources for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, which ensures that all children in the U.S. have access to vaccinations regardless of financial status.”

In other words, the CDC, working on behalf of the drug companies, wants to make sure that all children are vaccinated even if their parents can’t afford it. That’s government being “helpful” to its slaves, you see. “Public health” has been so perverted and distorted under the government / pharmaceutical collusion regime that instead of teaching people how to prevent disease with nutritious foods, vitamin D and low-cost natural cures, the government is all about injecting infants with vaccines, irradiating women’s breasts with mammograms, and outlawing dietary supplements while claiming to be working under the label of “public health.”

And now, thanks to the police state tactics being increasingly used by the federal government to enforce vaccines even at gunpoint (as we saw in Maryland), it appears we are about to enter a phase where it’s not just TSA reaching down your pants, but CDC running vaccine surveillance and compliance tracking in order to make sure no one goes unvaccinated in America.

Enhanced government surveillance for teen vaccination rates

This vaccine compliance tracking and surveillance program is also being used to target teens and to push for increased vaccination rates using flu vaccines. As NORC admits on its website: “In response to the need for improved surveillance on teen immunization rates, CDC expanded the use of the NIS sampling frame in 2008 to screen households for the presence of teens between 13-17 years of age.”

But flu vaccines are scientifically useless and simply don’t work on 99 out of 100 people who receive them (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…). Besides, flu vaccines only contain DNA proteins from last year’s flu strains, meaning that even if you believe flu vaccines work, they would only be useful to time travelers who go back in time to the previous year’s flu season. And this is all in addition to the fact that flu vaccines actually weaken the immune system and make you more vulnerable to future flu infections. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s…)

Flu vaccines also cause seizures (http://www.naturalnews.com/029334_f…), vomiting, fevers and other dangerous or even deadly side effects (http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A...).

Ties to the military industrial complex

Under a heading called “Advances in Survey Research,” NORC adds something that should raise some red flags among privacy advocates, saying “In collaboration with CDC, NORC has spearheaded an ambitious research program to identify best practices for sampling landline and cell telephones and develop valid statistical approaches for weighting and estimation.”

Cell phones? Ambitious research programs? This only begins to make sense when you realize that the CDC awarded $5 billion grant money to computer surveillance and weapons contractors to develop aggressive public health (vaccine compliance) surveillance programs (http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/...). Northrup Grumman is a weapons manufacturer that has been caught by the U.S. State Department selling technology secrets to the Russians and violating international arms trafficking laws by selling computer guidance systems to Israel and China, among other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northr…).

If this seems surprising, remember that the Institute of Medicine, another key propaganda mouthpiece for the vaccine industry, is funded in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. It also receives money from junk food companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an aggressive vaccine-pushing non-profit. This was all exposed in an exclusive NaturalNews article available here: http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_I…

What’s clear from all this is that today’s government-run “public health” fiasco is really all about the following:

Vaccines – Surveillance – Compliance – Tracking – Military – Weapons

This is all being conducted like a military operation, not a compassionate public health initiative that genuinely seeks to save the lives of children. If the CDC really wanted to save lives, it would aggressively promote vitamin D, which can prevent nearly all winter flu cases, cancer cases (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html) and even kidney disease or osteoporosis. But instead of recommending affordable solutions that really work, the CDC focuses its billions of dollars in taxpayer money on tracking household compliance with deadly vaccines.

This is public health? Get real.

Non-compliant households to be added to quarantine list?

What the CDC is also probably not telling you is that people who answer the survey and admit they have not given their children vaccines could in theory be added to a quarantine list to be arrested and thrown into FEMA camps during the next pandemic outbreak.

The recent “terror exercise” in Denver, called Operation Mountain Guardian featured government SWAT teams and armed military-style squads entering public schools and terrorizing children with simulated gunfire and explosions, then conducting secret mass-arrest exercises in a large sports stadium. As Alex Jones explains on InfoWars.com, this is all practice for kidnapping children, taking them to stadiums, then calling parents to come pick them up at which point the parents are then arrested and taken away by law enforcement authorities (http://www.infowars.com/denver-terr…) while the children are turned over to the state.

The children are essentially used as “bait” to arrest parents who happen to be on whatever government “lists” are considered offensive. If your name is on a list provided by the CDC, claiming that you are a “bad parent” because you refuse to vaccinate your children, you could have those children taken away by the state — at gunpoint!

This is similar to what happened recently with Maryanne Godboldo in Detroit, who was subjected to a 12-hour SWAT team standoff because she refused to medicate her teenage daughter with dangerous psychiatric drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/032091_M...).

Of course, the CDC claims your privacy will be protected in all this (yeah, right). “Strict U.S. laws require that we protect your family’s information and keep it confidential,” the CDC’s letter says. Importantly, however, there is nothing in the CDC’s letter that says it will not violate those laws. So it’s really just clever lawyer-speak to say that “laws require we protect your information” without saying the CDC will abide by those laws.

After all, there are strict U.S. laws that prevent the ATF from running guns into Mexico, but it violated those laws anyway (http://www.naturalnews.com/032934_A…). There are strict U.S. laws that require the President to seek Congressional approval for acts of war, but those laws have been violated routinely for decades. There are strict U.S. laws that protect the due process of U.S. citizens, and yet the U.S. is steeped in illegal secret prisons and torture initiatives that were rolled out under Bush and yet have actually been expanded under the Obama administration. In fact, if there’s anything we’ve all learned about watching the federal government over the last decade, it’s that the government will openly and brazenly violate whatever laws it wants in order to get what it wants. This is especially true in health care, where the FDA, for its part, openly engaged in illegal international abductions of American citizens (http://www.naturalnews.com/033573_F…) in order to oppress herbal cancer cures that really work.

And the CDC, we all know, wants increased “vaccine compliance” so that vaccine makers earn more profits from selling these deadly injections to parents who have no idea those vaccines are making their children autistic (or even killing them).

The real agenda of this entire vaccine survey becomes crystal clear at the end of the CDC’s letter, which pushes a vaccine agenda with the question: “How do I find out more about immunizations and places to get them?” It then gives out a toll-free number to call to “get the phone number of a doctor of clinic near you.”

When the CDC calls your house, don’t answer

The message is quite clear in all this: We’re from the government, we’re going to be calling your private home phone number and asking you questions about your child’s immunization history. We want you to produce your child’s vaccination records. We will also acquire your doctor’s vaccine records to find out if you are lying. The information will be used to track vaccine compliance in your area. And if you want to get “compliant,” here’s a government phone number to call which will direct you to the nearest vaccine center.

If your receive one of these letters from the CDC, the safest thing to do in all this is screen all your phone calls and simply refuse to answer your phone. Just refuse to talk with them at all. After four or five attempts, they will figure you’re never home and probably stop calling. Do NOT speak to them and tell them you are opposed to vaccines, or you may suddenly find yourself being visited by Child Protective Services or government thugs wielding loaded firearms pointed at your head. (This is no longer just a theory. It’s factually true.)

The vaccine industry, remember, is running a kind of modern-day McCarthyism, where being intelligently opposed to vaccines is a lot like being accused of being a “Communist” back in the McCarthy era. The government is now admittedly using weapons technology companies, phone surveillance techniques, immunization tracking and statistical analysis to find out who is not being vaccinated. These are police state tactics now being used by the vaccine industry — in collusion with dangerous government mandates and rogue CPS agents — to attack your freedom of choice and your right to make parental decisions about the health of your child.

And it’s all being done under the false Orwellian mantra that “VACCINES ARE THE SOLUTION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH!” It’s all a complete lie, of course. Vaccines cause autism, live viral infections, seizures, comas and even deaths. That’s because they contain neurologically damaging adjuvants such as aluminum! They also contain “stealth viruses” that can cause cancer and autoimmune disorders. SANE Vax, Inc. recently found HPV vaccines to be contaminated with the rDNA of HPV viral strains (http://www.naturalnews.com/033585_G…), and vaccine manufacturers have been caught placing live viral strains directly into the vaccines! (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html)

Perhaps even more shockingly, a top Merck vaccine scientist, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, openly admitted that polio vaccines were contaminated with 40 unknown viral strains, including some strains that caused cancer. Read the incredible transcript of this secret recording at: http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D…

What we are all suffering under today, friends, is a vaccine-pushing police state and its accompanying Ministry of Truth (the CDC and FDA). This is not about public health, it’s about injecting infants and maximizing the profits of the vaccine manufacturers, even if countless children and teens are permanently harmed as a result.

Source 

Scores of prolife groups are calling for a public boycott of food giant, PepsiCo, due to its partnership with Senomyx, a biotech company that uses aborted fetal cells in the research and development of artificial flavor enhancers.

LifeSiteNews previously reported on Senomyx’s partnership with major food corporations, most notably PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and Nestlé.

Pro-life watchdog group, Children of God for Life (CGL), is now joined by major pro-life organizations calling upon the public to target PepsiCo in a boycott.

Pepsi is funding the research and development, and paying royalties to Senomyx, which uses HEK-293 (human embryonic kidney cells) to produce flavor enhancers for Pepsi beverages.

“Using isolated human taste receptors we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor,” says the Senomyx website.

“What they do not tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors,” stated Debi Vinnedge, President for CGL, the watch dog group that has been monitoring the use of aborted fetal material in medical products and cosmetics for years.

The aborted fetal cells are not in the product itself. However, “there are many options PepsiCo could be using instead of aborted fetal cells,” noted Vinnedge.

The revelation about Senomyx’s research techniques motivated Campbell Soup to sever all relations with Senomyx.

However, PepsiCo continues their business relationship despite the abortion connection. They drew pubic ire earlier this year when they responded, saying, “our collaboration with Senomyx is strictly limited to creating lower-calorie, great-tasting beverages for consumers.”

When pressed further, PepsiCo sent out a form letter response saying they had been accused of conducting aborted fetal tissue research.

Bradley Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute, said, “While aborted fetal cells aren’t actually in the product itself, the close relationship is enough to repulse most consumers. To our knowledge, this is the first time a food product has been publicly associated with abortion.”

The pro-life groups noted that additional companies collaborating with Senomyx will be targeted for boycott next.

The pro-life organizations are asking the public to boycott all Pepsi drink products and encourage consumers to contact Pepsi management requesting that they sever all ties with Senomyx.

For a list of Pepsi Beverages included in the boycott:

To Contact PepsiCo:

Jamie Caulfield, Sr. VP
PepsiCo, Inc.
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577
(914) 253-2000
Email form.

Edmund M. Carpenter, Chair, Corporate Development
Campbell Soup
1 Campbell Place
Camden, NJ 08103-1701
1-800-257-8443
Email form

Pro-life groups joining CGL in the boycott to date are: Life Issues Institute, American Life League, Colorado Right to Life, American Right to Life, Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, ALL Arizona, Central Nebraskans for Life, Pro-Life Waco, Houston Coalition for Life, Mother and Unborn Baby Fox Valley, Womankind, Billboards for Life, Movement for a Better America, Defenders of the Unborn, Focus Pregnancy Help Center, Idaho Chooses Life, EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers of NY, Four Seasons for Life, CREDO, Life Choices, STOPP Dallas, CA Right To Life, Human Life Alliance, International Right to Life Federation, Operation Rescue, Pro-Life Nation, LifeNews.com, and Mary’s Outreach for Women.

Source

In the wake of hundreds of dietary supplements recently being outlawed across the EU, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has quietly unleashed a regulatory scheme that, if fully implemented, could ban virtually all dietary supplements in the USA that were formulated after 1994.

That means nearly all superfoods, multivitamins, detox supplements, and medicinal herbal products we have all come to depend on to prevent disease and boost our immune health could soon be stripped from store shelves and outlawed across the nation. I call it the “End Game” of the FDA’s war against humanity: Phase one was the enforcement of nutritional ignorance by threatening and raiding companies that dared to make truthful health claims on their own websites (http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html). Phase two involves “nuking” the entire dietary supplements industry by simply denying the use of nearly all the ingredients presently used in supplement products.

On the front lines of health freedom

The discovery of this new End Game strategy by the FDA to outlaw virtually all dietary supplements comes to us from the Alliance for Natural Health, the leading health freedom non-profit group in America, and the group that consistently reports fact-based information on how the FDA and FTC are squashing health freedom in America. Their most recent announcement, entitled FDA’s New Sneak Attack on Supplements (http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-new-snea…) explains how this new assault on your freedom is being engineered by the FDA.

Here’s the brief story of where this comes from and how the FDA is now waging a new war on our vitamins, herbs and supplements:

In 1994, after years of armed raids, oppression and censorship by the FDA, Congress passed a law known as DSHEA. This is the law that essentially forced the FDA to stop regulating dietary supplements out of existence, and groups such as the Life Extension Foundation (www.LEF.org) were instrumental in helping get this law passed in 1994.

But one of the little-known sections of the law required dietary supplement manufacturers to “notify” the FDA any time they used a new ingredient in their formulations. However, the details on how supplement companies were supposed to abide by these notification guidelines (called “NDI” or New Dietary Ingredient rules) were never published by the FDA, and since 1994, this entire section of DSHEA has remained essentially unenforced (or selectively enforced).

Now, suddenly, the FDA has decided it wants to enforce NDI, and its enforcement of this technicality would essentially amount to the FDA denying permission to use nearly all dietary supplement ingredients introduced since 1994. So last Friday, the FDA proposed its new rules on NDI — on the Friday before a long weekend, no less, which is a common tactic government uses when it wants to do something that nobody notices — and these new rules run the risk of being adopted as active regulations, threatening virtually the entire dietary supplement industry with an eventual shutdown.

Why did the FDA wait 17 years to take action on NDI rules? Believe it or not, this was mandated under the new Food Safety Bill (S.510 remember?) that Congress passed into law late last year without even reading the bill (http://www.naturalnews.com/030789_F…). So now, the FDA has been forced into issuing these new guidelines, and it obviously is going to take every opportunity it can to destroy the nutritional supplements industry (and thereby protect the profits of Big Pharma).

FDA goes Fukushima on dietary supplements

Importantly, nearly all vitamin and supplement ingredients could soon be banned under the FDA’s new NDI rules because very few supplement ingredients can be conclusively shown to have been widely used BEFORE 1994. As the ANH points out, the FDA recently banned a common form of vitamin B6 by claiming the vitamin was a “drug” that was never “approved” for use in supplements (http://www.anh-usa.org/when-is-a-vi…).

That story is also covered here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/025606_v…

The upshot of all this is that by issuing new guidelines on the NDI requirements, the FDA can now essentially disallow the use of virtually all supplement ingredients that exist in the market today. As ANH warns:

“We fear that they will use this power to ban any supplement innovation unless the supplement is turned into a drug and brought through the drug approval process. Since nobody can afford to pay for the new drug approval process if the substance is not patented, and supplements generally already exist in nature and cannot therefore be patented, to require full new drug approval is to ensure that there will be no new supplements. This should suit the drug industry very well and, based on past behavior, the FDA as well.”

Supplement companies would need to seek FDA approval for all their formulations

Through this clever trick with NDI rules, the FDA can now position itself as the gatekeeper for all supplement approvals. Far from merely being a requirement to “notify” the FDA of the use of new ingredients, NDI rules essentially subject supplements to approval from the FDA.

As the FDA has proven time and time again, it can simply refuse to approve anything used in natural products. Even today, the FDA refuses to approve walnuts for preventing heart disease, or vitamin C preventing scurvy. The FDA won’t even admit that vitamin D can prevent rickets! Imagine the difficulty of trying to get the FDA to approve cherry extracts, or Chinese medicine herbs, or glucosamine for that matter. Nearly all the top supplements you’ve come to enjoy and value over the last two and a half decades are now threatened with being utterly outlawed and stripped off the shelves.

The FDA, in other words, is now gearing up to gut the natural products industry, bankrupt vitamin retailers and enslave the American people in a system of failed chemical medicine where they now have zero options for natural nutritional therapies. This, of course, would cause chronic disease rates to explode across the nation, greatly enriching the pharmaceutical industry and cancer treatment centers, all of which must be cheering these proposed new rules as a great way to recruit new patients who can then be milked for profits.

But synthetic drugs need no notification approval!

Amazingly (or maybe not, if you know the FDA), the new NDI rules state that synthetic copies of natural molecules are exempted from any new reporting requirements. Thus, drug companies that commit biopiracy and steal molecules from nature then turn them into chemical drugs are exempted from this whole thing. But natural product companies offering safe, effective and full-spectrum nutrients made by Mother Nature are suddenly put out of business.

These rules are selectively applied, in other words, only to natural products, not synthetic chemicals. It is yet another monopolistic betrayal of the American people by the FDA, an agency that has consistently and maliciously taken every opportunity to protect the drug companies while destroying the natural products industry. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021952.html)

“In these proposed rules, the FDA has effectively created a de facto pre-market approval system” for nutritional supplements, says the ANH. And the FDA will, of course, routinely deny virtually all supplement ingredients from ever being approved. Because the FDA is already on the record with its position that there is no such thing as any vitamin, nutrient, herb or food that has any biological effect whatsoever that could prevent, cure or reverse any disease or health condition.

That’s the FDA’s official position! With that kind of distortion, it is impossible for this agency to ever recognize the innate ability of any natural ingredient to actually produce a health benefit.

Take action now

Help us oppose the FDA’s proposed new rules by signing this online petition:

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=833

Once again, your representatives in Washington need to hear from you — pronto! — if you hope to maintain your right to purchase vitamins and supplements in the USA.

Lest you think this is an exaggerated warning, keep in mind that hundreds of dietary supplements have just been banned across the EU (http://www.naturalnews.com/032302_h…). Regulators in the USA are gunning for the same kind of wipeout of the supplements industry as a way to lock in decades of disease profits for Big Pharma and the greed-driven cancer industry (which cares far more about treating cancer than preventing it).

If these new FDA regulations go into effect, your access to dietary supplements could simply disappear before the end of this year, turning vitamin sellers into “criminal dealers” and “smugglers” (much like raw milk retailers today). Armed FDA raids would be conducted on vitamin and supplement companies, and the founders of those companies would be rounded up and sent to prison for their “crimes” of selling unapproved ingredients.

This is the FDA’s end game. Even if the FDA only partially enforces this new rule, it would still place a heavy compliance burden on small nutritional supplement companies. As the ANH says, “The bottom line is that when new and unreasonable burdens are placed on supplement manufacturers, it immediately becomes a financial increase for consumers. And if the pressure becomes too great, the nutritional supplements on which you rely may simply become unavailable.”

That’s exactly what the FDA wants, of course: To put dietary supplement companies out of business, leaving the field open only to those pharma-chemical vitamin companies largely owned by the drug companies themselves. They use synthetic chemicals which are NOT subjected to these new FDA rules. Many of those synthetic vitamins are, in essence, poisons. Isn’t it interesting that the FDA says companies need no approval to use poisons in their formulations, but they need FDA permission to use natural substances that actually prevent disease?

Learn more at the ANH: http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-new-snea…

And please consider supporting this outstanding group with a donation so that it can continue its mission of staying on top of legislative and regulatory issues that impact our health freedoms. NaturalNews is a long-time ANH supporter, and we honor the work this group is doing.

Source

Footnote – July 6, 2011

What Mike Adams outlines above isn’t confined to the United States. Legislation with similar effect is being imposed on both sides of the Atlantic, as I discovered when I was in London’s Chinatown recently on a trip to pick up traditional Chinese herbal tonics.

To my dismay I found that many of these herbal concoctions that I have been using for years are now in short supply and some are unobtainable. The reason is new legislation enacted by the European Union that makes it prohibitively expensive to sell herbal remedies. 

Even though many of these concoctions have been used safely and effectively for centuries they are now in effect illegal.

The only real winners from this legislation are the pharmaceutical giants who have had competition from natural remedies removed. 

Nor is it any coincidence that this is happening on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously: it is another example of the relentless encroachment on personnel freedom and how the elite are trying to usurp the God-given natural order of things with their own self-serving New World Order.

Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, the TSA has been caught covering up a surge in cases of TSA workers developing cancer as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the latest FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

After Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.

The documents indicate how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

“The Department, rather than acting on it, or explaining its position seems to have just dismissed. I don’t think that’s the way most other agencies would have acted in a similar situation if they were confronted with that question,” EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg said.

In an email sent to Heather Callahan (PDF), deputy federal security director at Boston Logan International Airport, union representatives express their concern about “TSA Boston’s growing number of TSOs working here that have thus far been diagnosed with cancer.”

Of course, if TSA workers who are merely standing near the scanners are already developing cancer, frequent flyers are also putting themselves in harm’s way by standing directly inside the radiation-firing machines.

As we reported yesterday, newly released internal government documents, obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, reveal that the TSA, and specifically the head of the Department of Homeland Security, “publicly mischaracterized” the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in stating that NIST had positively confirmed the safety of full body scanners in tests.

In erroneously citing both NIST and the Johns Hopkins school of medicine to claim that the body scanners are safe, the TSA has also deliberately misled the public on the dangers posed by the devices.

Documents obtained by EPIC show that, far from affirming their safety, NIST warned that airport screeners should avoid standing next to full body scanners in order to keep exposure to harmful radiation “as low as reasonably achievable.”

Further documents illustrate how a Johns Hopkins study actually revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the “General Public Dose Limit,” contradicting repeated claims by the TSA that Johns Hopkins had validated the safety of the devices.

At the time we pointed out that Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine had publicly stated two days previously that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”.

TSA workers complained about the radiation dangers of the scanners back in December, saying they were being kept in the dark by their employers, despite repeated requests for information.

“We don’t think the agency is sharing enough information,” said Milly Rodriguez, occupational health and safety specialist at the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers.

A study conducted last year by Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s center for radiological research, found that the body scanners are likely to lead to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which affects the head and neck.

Following the study, Brenner urged medical authorities to look at his work, pointing to the dangerous notion of mass scanning millions of people without proper oversight.

“There really is no other technology around where we’re planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in the radiation world,” said Brenner.

Similar concerns to those explored in the Columbia University study were voiced in February 2010 by the influential Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, who warned in a report that the scanners increase the risk of cancer and birth defects and should not be used on pregnant women or children.

Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the organization concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”

“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.

In a recent letter to President Obama’s Science Advisor, several University of California professors also complained of how, “There is still no rigorous, hard, data for the safety of x-ray airport passenger scanners.” The scientists noted how the safety tests for the scanners were carried out exclusively by manufacturers, and recommended an immediate moratorium on use of the devices until the health risks can be independently studied.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Source