Mr. Happy’s Banned Health News

Medical news the Main stream media or the Big Pharmaceutical Companies won’t print


“line up for the Vaccination Showers”

Jeffrey Prather, CYBERTRAGE! 15December2020


Making Plant-Based Diets the New Normal

by: Michael Greger M.D. 15December2015

Nutritional Update for Physicians was published in the official journal of Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed care organization in the United States. It told physicians that healthy eating may best be achieved with a plant-based diet, defined as a regimen that “encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy and eggs as well as all refined and processed junk.”


The Update notes:

“too often, physicians ignore the potential benefits of good nutrition and quickly prescribe medications instead of giving patients a chance to correct their disease through healthy eating and active living. Physicians should therefore consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.”


The major downside described is that it may work a little too well. If people are on medications, their blood pressure or blood sugar could actually drop too low, so physicians may need to adjust medications or eliminate them altogether.


The report continues that “despite the strong body of evidence favoring plant-based diets, many physicians are not stressing the importance of plant-based diets as a first-line treatment for chronic illnesses. This could be because of a lack of physician awareness or a lack of patient education resources.” So Kaiser sought to change that. “Want to lose weight, feel better, improve, stabilize, or even reverse chronic disease, and get off some of your medications?” a Kaiser Permanente leaflet (which you can see in my video, What Diet Should Physicians Recommend?) asks. “If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then a plant-based eating plan may be for you.” Side-effects include: lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar; reversal or prevention of heart disease, our number one killer; a longer life; a healthier weight; lower risk of diabetes; improvement of inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis; and a slowed progression of certain types of cancer.


Kaiser offers tips to get started, such as meal plan ideas, and a list of online resources (including!). The paper ends with a familiar refrain: “further research is needed.” In this case, though, further research is necessary, they explained,  to “find ways to make plant-based diets the new normal for our patients and employees.”

So exciting to see lifestyle medicine suppported. For more on this new medical specialty:

Unfortunately much of medical training is substandard when it comes to nutrition:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of DeathMore Than an Apple a DayFrom Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.



Best Foods for Autism



COVID Exposed The Medical-Pharmaceutical-Government Complex

by Tyler Durden 20June2022 – 11:25 PM

Authored by Mark Oshinskie via The Brownstone Institute,

In college, I took a Latin American Politics and Development class. When discussing Latin American medical care, Professor Eldon Kenworthy presented a deeply countercultural idea. Echoing a journal article by the scholar, Robert Ayres, Kenworthy maintained that building hospitals there costs lives. If, instead of erecting, equipping and staffing gleaming medical centers, this same money and human effort were devoted to providing clean water, good food and sanitation, the public health yield would be much greater.


United States medical history bears out Ayres’s paradox. The biggest increases in US life expectancy occurred early in the Twentieth Century, when people had increasing access to calories and protein, better water and sanitation. Lives lengthened sharply decades before vaccines, antibiotics or nearly any drugs were available, and a century before hospitals merged into corporate Systems.


Incremental American life span increases during the past fifty years reflect far less smoking, safer cars and jobs, cleaner air and less lethal wars more than they reflect medical advances. Books like Ivan Illich’s Medical Nemesis and Daniel Callahan’s Taming the Beloved Beast echo Ayres’s critique. But PBS, CNN, B & N, the NYT, et al. censor such views.


The American medical landscape has changed radically in the forty years since I learned of Ayres’ observation.


America spends three times as much, as a percentage of GDP, on medical treatments as it did in the 1960s.


By 2020, America devoted 18% of its GDP to medicine. (By comparison, about 5% goes to the military). Adding the mega-costs of mass testing and vaccines etc., medical expenditures might now approach 20%. Although the US spends more than twice per capita what any other nation spends on medical care, American ranks 46th in life expectancy. US life expectancy has flatlined, despite growing medical spending and broadened medical access via the vaunted Affordable Care Act.


Though medicine’s high-cost and relatively low yield are right in front of anyone who thinks about their medical experiences and those of people they know, most never connect the dots; more medical treatments and spending are continually advocated and applauded. There’s a regressive “if it saves—or even slightly extends—one life” medical zeitgeist/ethic.


As most medical insurance is employer-based, most people don’t notice annual premium increases. Nor do they see the growing slice of tax revenues used to subsidize Med/Pharma. Thus, they continually demand more stuff, like IVF, extremely high-cost drugs, sex changes or psychotherapy, as if these were their right, and free. To say nothing of these treatments’ limited effectiveness.


As all are required to medically insure and to pay taxes, one can’t simply opt out or buy only those medical services that one thinks justify their costs. With massive, guaranteed funding sources, aggregate medical revenues will continue to climb.


Thus, Medical-Industrial-Government Complex has become a Black Hole for today’s wealth. With great money comes great power. The Med/Pharma juggernaut rules the airwaves. Nonexistent until the 1990s, hospital System and drug ads now dominate advertising. By being such big advertisers, Med/Pharma dictates news content. Analysts who point out that lavish medical expenditures don’t yield commensurate public health benefit have small audiences. Med/Pharma critics can’t afford ads. 


The Medical-Pharmaceutical-Government Complex

The Medical-Pharmaceutical-Government Complex


Medicine has fed Coronamania. The TV news I’ve seen during the past 27 months painted a very skewed picture of reality. The virus has been misrepresented—by the media and government, and by MDs, like Fauci, often posing in white jackets— as a runaway train that’s indiscriminately decimating the American populace. Instead of putting into perspective the virus’s clear demographic risk profile and the very favorable survival odds—even without treatment, at all ages, or promoting various forms of contra-Covid self-care, including weight loss—the media and medical establishment incited universal panic, and promoted counterproductive mass isolation, mass masking, mass testing, and treatment with ventilators and expensive, often harmful anti-virals.


Later, mass injections were added to the “Covid-crushing” armamentarium. While the shots created many billionaires, and greatly enriched other Pfizer and Moderna stockholders, they failed, as Biden and many others had promised, to stop either infection or the spread. All of the many whom I know who have been infected in the past six months were vaxxed.


Many—whose voices are suppressed by mainstream media—observe that the shots have worsened outcomes, by driving the development of variants, weakening or confusing immune systems, and causing serious near-term injuries.


Further, people blindly, ardently believed in the shots simply because they were marketed as “vaccines” by bureaucrats wearing medical garb. Despite the shots’ failure and the failure of other “mitigation” measures like lockdowns, masking and testing, many refuse to concede that Med/Pharma has had much—overwhelmingly negative— influence over the society and economy and public health during Coronamania. Nonetheless, many billions of dollars have been—and are still being—spent to advertise shots that most people don’t want.


The Covid overreaction has to some extent also piggy-backed on TV programs that have, for decades, glorified medicine in TV shows like Dr. Kildare, Marcus Welby, M.D., Medical Center, MASH, Gray’s Anatomy and House. Wearing white coats connotes virtue, just as did wearing white hats in Western movies.


Given the cumulative PR onslaught of the ads and shows, medicine is widely seen as more effective than it is in real life. A few years ago, I heard some woman-in-the-street say, during a TV news clip, “If they make me change my doctor, it will be like losing my right arm.”


Many hold such polar views. Medicine is the new American religion. Given such fervent belief in medicine’s importance and the sense of entitlement regarding expanding medical treatments, government and insurance money is relentlessly overallocated to medicine.


Do these expenditures improve human outcomes? During the first Scrubs episode, resident J.D. complains to his mentor that being a doctor was different than he had envisioned; most of his patients were “old and kind of checked out.” His mentor responds, “That’s Modern Medicine: advances that keep people alive who should have died a long time ago, back when they lost what made them human.”


This largely describes those said to have died with Covid. Most people have disregarded that nearly all who died during the pandemic were old and/or in poor health. Most deaths have always occurred among the old and ill. Occasionally, sitcoms keep it realer than real people do.


Aside from not helping much and misspending resources, and extending misery, medicine can be iatrogenic, i.e., it can cause illness or death. Hospital errors are said to cause from 250,000 to 400,000 American deaths annually. Perhaps medical personnel try to do a good job. but when the bodies of old, sick people are cut open or dosed with strong medicine, stuff happens. Even well-executed surgeries and many medications can worsen health.


Further, though few know it, a brew of excreted medications and diagnostic radionuclides daily pours down drains across the US and world and ends up in streams and rivers. For example, the hormones in widely-prescribed birth control pills feminize and disrupt aquatic creatures’ reproduction. There are books about all of this, too, though such authors never appear on Good Morning America.


Faith in medical interventions also lessens individual and institutional efforts to maintain or improve health. If people didn’t abuse substances, ate better and moved their bodies more, there would be much less demand for medical interventions. And if people spent less time working to pay for medical insurance, they could spend more time taking care of themselves and others. Overall, America could spend a fraction of what it spends on allopathic medicine and yet, be much healthier. There are also plenty of books about this.


Given its place at the center of American life for 27 months, and counting, Covid has been—and will be—used to further intensify the medicalization of individual lives, the economy, and society. By exploiting and building an irrational fear of death, the Medical Industrial Complex will promote the notion that we should double—or triple—down on medical and social interventions and investments that might marginally extend the lives of a small slice of the population. Or, in many instances, shorten lives. 


But most people who live sensibly are intrinsically healthy for many years. Given enough nutritious food, clean water and a decent place to sleep, most people will live a long time, with little or no medical treatment. While intensive medical interventions can marginally extend the lives of some old, sick people, medicine can’t reverse aging and it seldom restores vitality.


If the media were honest brokers, the Covid mania would never have taken hold. The media should have repeatedly pointed out that the virus only threatened a small, identifiable segment of a very large population. Instead, captive to its Med/Pharma sponsors, the media went full-frontal fearmonger and promoted intensive, society-wide intervention. Social, psychological and economic catastrophe ensued.


Additionally, many doctors who could have spoken against the Covid craziness stayed silent so as not to jeopardize their licenses, hospital privileges or favored status with Pharma, or just because they were schooled in allopathic orthodoxy and hold fast to that faith. Props to those courageous few who broke ranks.


The Med/Pharma/Gov establishment, including the NIH and CDC, hasn’t saved America during 2020-22. To the contrary, Covid interventions have worsened overall societal outcomes. These net harms should have inflicted—and, depending on longer-term vaxx effects, may yet inflict—a big black eye on the Medical Industrial Complex.


If so, Med/Pharma will spend tens of billions of PR money to distort what’s happened for the past 27 months, and to portray well-paid medical personnel, administrators and bureaucrats as selfless heroes. Many gullible Americans will buy this slick revisionism, including its portrayals of healthy-looking people walking in slow motion on beaches or across meadows in golden light, accompanied by a contemplative solo piano soundtrack.




Drug Companies Want To Use The State To Shut Down The Competition

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/24/2018 – 14:25

Authored by Hunter Lewis via The Mises Institute,

Blue jeans have more in common with drugs than you might think.

One of the more consequential episodes in the history of crony capitalism occurred in 17th and 18th century France. Cheap clothing made from cotton was threatening the rich woolen, linen, and silk manufacturers, so they persuaded the government to ban it. In short order, government agents began spying into homes and coaches and reporting on anyone who dared to wear the new fabric. Thousands of violators of the ban were rounded up and either sent to prison or to ships as galley slaves, which was a death sentence.




In Britain, the same manufacturers demanded a similar ban from the King, but were turned down. As a direct result, Britain launched its industrial revolution by making cheap cotton clothing for the world, and began to get rich, while France stagnated economically.


If France had not banned cotton, and had not fallen so far behind Britain economically, Napoleon might have had the money to build a huge fleet and successfully invade Britain. European and world history might have turned out quite differently.


It is easy to recognize and mock the absurdities of crony capitalism in the past, but not always easy to spot it today.

Socialism for the rich

Socialism for the rich

For example, we have a replay of the cotton story in contemporary American medicine.


It is increasingly recognized that food, supplements, and lifestyle changes are the most potent medicines. But this represents a threat to drug companies, oncologists, and surgeons, and they have enlisted the power of the government to protect their interests.


The new age of crony capitalism

The new age of crony capitalism

It is illegal to claim that any substance, even a food, not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can cure, control, or even prevent an illness. But approval costs many billions of dollars, so with few exceptions only new to nature molecules, that is, patentable drugs, can be approved. A producer of food or supplements who violates this law will be threatened with massive fines and long jail terms.


In recent years, both walnut and cherry growers have been threatened by the FDA because they dared to share university research that their product had specific health benefits. Other producers have been convicted and put away for decades.


Meanwhile the protected drug and surgery interests charge more and more for products that may do as much harm as good, as you can read in the manufacturer’s own fine print. And the cost of this government protected monopoly, created under the guise of “protecting the public,” puts a lid on both job creation and employee raises while swelling horrific government deficits.


Nor is it only the federal government. State governments are also allied with entrenched medical interests. For example, it is against the law in California for doctors to treat cancer using anything other than drugs, radiation, or surgery. The federal government protects drug companies making vaccines free from any legal liability for harm to children, but California also mandates that any child attending public or private school must have had the full schedule of vaccinations. There is even a bill pending there that would gag free speech about vaccines. No wonder drug companies regard vaccines as one of their most promising profit making opportunities.


Like cotton clothing manufacture in centuries past, what might be called natural medicine could be an enormous new American growth industry. Customer interest is so strong, the industry has grown, albeit slowly, despite being legally throttled. There is however little or no prospect that other countries will take the lead, because their governments are even better controlled by bureaucrats allied with medical special interests.


Meanwhile it is still very difficult to educate the public because of the legal barriers. Even President Trump’s White House physician does not know that a score of 20 on a vitamin D test is extremely unhealthy. He reported that the president had passed all his tests with flying colors. A physician trained in natural medicine could set him straight, but he would then no doubt be targeted by his state medical board.




Top seven fuels that feed the cancer ‘fire’ and mutate more cells

December 02, 2016 by: S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) Cancer is not a disease, but rather a disorder of the cells, where they mutate and multiply uncontrollably. That’s why cancer is not contagious, except for HPV, because that’s a virus, not a cell disorder.


It doesn’t matter whether you believe in “conspiracies” or not, because the fact is that American conventional food has been engineered and processed to cause cancer, and in many more ways than one. There is a definitive reason why one out of every three Americans get cancer, when next to nobody in America got cancer 100 years ago.


Have you started wondering why the “search for the cure” is all one big scam? Sure, you wish that your donations were helping, but they’re not. The pink ribbons are just little mini-posters that represent Ponzi schemes invented by billionaires who wanted to double and triple their wealth. Want to prevent and cure cancer? Stop consuming chemicals, and while you’re at it, tell your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers what you’re doing. Yes, it is that simple. Sorry about all that money you wasted walking with “Komen.”


Cancer is a ‘fire’ that needs fuel to burn

Consider a metaphor for a moment here. Imagine cancer starting out like a small brush fire in a dry field next to a forest on a sunny day with very little wind blowing. That fire needs fuel to continue and to grow. It will use the drier brush to burn, and if the wind picks up, it will spread faster. If you go over to the fire and snuff out a small part of it, it will just continue to grow anyway (compare to surgery here for tumors). The ultimate fuel for the cancer is the consumption of chemicals, so if you throw gasoline, oil or even alcohol on it, it grows quite quickly (think of GMOs, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners and processed sugar here). The simple solution is to remove the fuel the fire needs to burn, and then the small brush fire simply fizzles out, never becomes a forest fire, and there’s no need to call in the fire department for trucks and planes to apply “emergency aid” (think of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy). Kill the fuel and you kill the cancer. Period.


You see, all cancer begins in the cells, and cells produce signals to control how often they divide. Chemicals in foods, beverages, vaccines, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy create faulty signals and destroy others, enabling the cells to multiply exponentially, and that begins the formation of a lump called a tumor. Folks, that’s where cancer starts – in the primary tumor. That’s the brush fire. If a surgeon goes in and cuts out a small portion of that “brush fire,” what happens when you keep on pouring fuel around the rest? You see what’s happening? The cancer industrial complex knows this.


When the genes of cells are changed by chemicals, it’s called gene mutation. This is when the cell genes have been damaged, lost or copied. There must be several of these mutations, up to half a dozen, before a normal cell turns into a cancer cell. You could have too many proteins triggering your cells to divide too often, or you could have abnormal proteins and mutated genes telling your cells not to divide. That is why it is so dangerous to consume genetically modified organisms in food. Scientists have woven toxic plant and insect genes into crops to kill insects, worms, animals and yes, people.


So, without further ado, here are the top seven “fuels” that feed the cancer “fire” and mutate more cells:

1. Fluoridated municipal tap water

2. Genetically modified food – (laced with pro-cancer herbicides)

3. Artificial sweeteners – namely aspartame, sucralose and sorbitol

4. Vaccines and the yearly flu shot – often contain mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and MSG

5. Pharmaceutical medications

6. OTC (over-the-counter) medications for colds, allergies, headaches and fever – often contain heavy metal toxins, artificial sweeteners and toxic industrial-based food dyes

7. Chemotherapy and radiation


Stop pouring gasoline on the cancer fire

What happens when someone goes to the hospital for surgery, chemotherapy or diagnostic testing? They are trapped under a roof where the only food served is GMO, processed, cancer-causing trash. Those same patients are exposed to superbugs – bacteria that are now immune to antibiotics and conventional medicine. Those same patients are given chemical-based pharmaceuticals for pain, infection and symptom cover-up, including toxic flu shots, vaccines, opioid-based drugs and everything else you can imagine that kills immunity and mutates cells. In effect, hospitals directly cause cancer. The food is a processed nightmare, and hospitals even serve artificial sweeteners that are proven to be carcinogenic. Go figure.


Your body is a machine, capable of healing itself with the right medicine – nature’s medicine. That means eating clean. Switch now to organic food, spring water and herbal remedies, and visit a naturopathic physician who understands that the right food is medicine that destroys cancer.


Sources for this article include



Debating Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Colchicine

By Justus R. Hope, MD 29June2021

Colchicine is derived from the Autumn Crocus Plant

Colchicine is derived from the Autumn Crocus Plant

Colchicine had been a Godsend drug to millions of gout sufferers worldwide – until the FDA stepped in and restricted its use. Colchicine, derived from the flowering autumn crocus plant, has been used since 1500 BC to treat joint swelling with exceptional pain-relieving properties. Like many natural gifts from God, like Ivermectin, this medication was regulated away from access to many in 2009 by the FDA.



Before 2007, colchicine was widely, safely, and appropriately prescribed to some two million US patients each year at the cost of just 9 cents per pill. However, the FDA gained jurisdiction over all prescribed drugs in 1962 – ostensibly with the sole purpose of protecting the public. Some medications that were in widespread use before 1962, like colchicine, escaped this FDA approval. Therefore, in 2007, the FDA sought to remedy this problem by forcing a study to prove that colchicine truly worked and was safe to use. Never mind the real-world evidence accumulated by the practicing experts, the in-the-trenches physicians.



So, Takeda Pharmaceuticals undertook this task, and tested the known drug colchicine in 184 patients, and guess what the study revealed? It answered the question that had already been answered. As expected, colchicine proved effective in gout, and it was effective in Familial Mediterranean Fever. In 2009, the FDA officially placed its rubber stamp of approval on the oral colchicine product, now known by the shiny new name of Colcrys. With the title came a price, and the cost of Colcrys was 5 dollars per pill – which was a 50 fold markup over the generic version.

Suddenly most patients could no longer afford their colchicine. Many were forced to take less expensive, less effective, and more dangerous drugs instead. Dr. E. William Sinclair, president of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), brought legal action against the FDA requesting that an affordable generic version be made available. After a legal battle, the court sided with the ACR. However, today the price of colchicine remains measured in terms of dollars, not cents.



Other physician groups spoke in outrage. Dr. Aaron Kesselheim of Harvard Medical School was particularly vocal,



“The way this case was handled has led to a potentially useful drug, colchicine, being prescribed to fewer patients, while there have been substantial cost increases for those who do use it and no evidence of a reduction in unsafe co-prescriptions.”



Closely related to this are the now proposed “forced studies” by opponents of Ivermectin. WHO scientist and evidence-synthesis researcher Dr. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed work is ranked in the top 5% of such scientists worldwide. She recently published the most comprehensive and authoritative meta-analysis on Ivermectin, analyzing some 24 randomized controlled trials involving 3406 patients. She concluded,



“The findings indicate with moderate certainty that Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit.”

Dr. Lawrie commented about its overwhelming evidence of safety,



“Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes.”



Safety concerns were disingenuously claimed by the WHO, the FDA, and even Merck. The WHO backed by the Gates Foundation, and Merck, who recently received 1.2 billion dollars for their new drug Molnupiravir (a competitor to Ivermectin), all expressed “safety concerns” with Ivermectin, and all three suffered massive financial conflicts of interest. Merck in particular, could not have been more aware of the contrary evidence from its own Mectizan Donation Program proving the drug to be exceedingly safe in billions of Mectizan doses since 1987.

Dr. John Campbell called them out, “It is almost…as if they are saying that a drug (Ivermectin) known to be safe in one disease is somehow dangerous for another.” See the 16:50 mark.

Dr. Campbell went on to explain that the basic science of Pharmacokinetics disproves this statement. He reiterated that if a drug has been deemed safe, as Ivermectin has, it cannot become unsafe.”



Notwithstanding this, Dr. Lawrie stated the obvious in proposing its immediate use in the pandemic.



“Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, Ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.”



Dr. Lawrie addressed the recent call for another study by Oxford,



“By calling for more trials on Ivermectin in the current health emergency, our scientific advisers appear to have suspended their common sense. Let’s not suspend ours. Ivermectin is the key to restoring health and economies. We have nothing to lose by using safe old Ivermectin to save lives in this dire situation. The worst thing that can happen is that the global population is de-wormed. The best is that the health of people and nations is restored. Better safe than sorry.”



Dr. Tess Lawrie has decades of experience in performing the technique of meta-analysis. The meta-analysis represents a pooling of multiple randomized controlled trials and deriving an overall signal. The meta-analysis ranks as the top form of medical evidence, and it even outranks the revered randomized controlled trial (RCT) that we have heard so much about. If the randomized controlled trial is the captain, then the meta-analysis is the admiral.



Then why exactly is Oxford University touting their upcoming RCT when the world already has heard the answer from the meta-analysis performed by the best of the best, Dr. Tess Lawrie?



Perhaps it is because Oxford, who famously backs the Astra Zeneca vaccine, has a financial conflict of interest.

If Ivermectin were approved, the Emergency Use Authorization for the experimental Astra Zeneca Vaccine would likely be voided.



The Gates Foundation has taken a particular interest in “testing” Ivermectin. In addition to the Gates’ support of the Oxford Ivermectin Study, they are funding the TOGETHER Trial at none-other than McMaster University, the same one that botched the WHO Ivermectin review, and advised against the use of Ivermectin – all by using academic sleight of hand – by eliminating the favorable studies, and over-weighting the one neutral study. And by calling a precise result imprecise.



Dr. Lawrie had this to say in her meta-analysis about the way the McMaster magicians made Ivermectin disappear, about the way they downgraded precision of a precise number by two levels without explanation,



“The recently updated WHO therapeutics guidelines included seven trials and 1419 people in the analysis of mortality. Reporting a risk reduction of 81% (odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.09–0.36), the effect estimate favoring Ivermectin was downgraded by two levels for imprecision, although the justification for this is unclear as the reported CI is precise (64%–91%).



The TIRC, the infamous Tobacco Industry Research Council, funded studies of tobacco that found results consistent with their interests. This resulted in more death and disease from cigarette smoking for five decades while the powerful tobacco lobby funded contrived studies.

We now see Oxford and McMaster trying hard to keep the EUA for vaccines alive amidst growing concerns of vaccine toxicity and variant escape. Will society stand by and allow Oxford and McMasters to subvert the overwhelming evidence already published in favor of Ivermectin?



Dr. Tess Lawrie was clear in her IICC speech when she wisely stated,



“Those who design the trials and control the data also control the outcome. So this system of industry-led trials needs to be put to an end. Data from ongoing and future trials of novel COVID treatments must be independently controlled and analyzed. Anything less than full transparency cannot be trusted.” See the 2:57 mark.

Similarly, Yale’s Dr. Harvey Rich, Distinguished epidemiologist and Associate Editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, has found alarming evidence of similar trials that were designed to fail in the case of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).



In a presentation delivered on June 24, 2021, Dr. Risch discussed how the conflicts of interest drove tainted data and contrived-to-fail studies. He explained,



“Randomized controlled trials are totally easy to subvert – in full public view. All you have to do is design them for unrealistic magnitudes of benefit, stop them early, use subjective outcomes or change outcomes in the middle of a trial or don’t validate the participants or their outcomes, ignore the medication shipping delays, use easily recognizable placebos so people can tell the difference, give inadequate or toxic doses, draw conclusions from part of the results and ignore inconvenient results, generalize the conclusions much wider than as applying to the actual subject, etc.” See the 18:25 mark.

“Just to set the stage, I point out that Boulware had an active Pharma conflict of interest at the time he published these studies, but the author did not disclose those conflicts in the materials with the published papers. The conflicts were discovered from the documents found on the internet.” See the 24:10 mark.



What Dr. Boulware failed to disclose in his 2020 HCQ publications was his research support from Gilead that he revealed in a 2019 conference, the ASTMH Annual Meeting on Tropical Medicine, given at National Harbor, Maryland.



Dr. Risch went on to review nine studies from across the world associated with a 4-fold [75%] reduction in mortality [RR of .25 (0.19 – 0.34)] with HCQ used in early outpatient treatment in COVID-19. Dr. Risch summarized that the HCQ studies involved some 40,000 patients, and the magnitude of early outpatient treatment mortality reduction appeared even greater than with Ivermectin. See the 43:05 mark.

These positive studies never made it to the mainstream media, unlike the subverted studies that demonized HCQ. The result of the deceptive studies was that the word of HCQ’s effectiveness never got out, and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost.



Former Harvard Professor and NIH scientist Dr. George Fareed has treated outpatients with a cocktail including HCQ since the beginning of the pandemic and has received praise and appreciation from thousands whose lives he has saved. Most notably, Dr. Fareed and his dynamic young associate, Dr. Brian Tyson, would not be silenced, despite the adverse publicity on the drug. Their story, “The Miracle of the Imperial Valley,” has been published as a model for other physicians to follow:

They have refined their cocktail with the addition of Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine, and various nutraceuticals. Dr. Fareed and Dr. Tyson together have now saved the lives of some 6,000 COVID-19 patients. There has been only one recorded death in a patient who presented late and did not receive the entire treatment course. There were only five hospitalizations.

Let us acknowledge that Ivermectin reduces overall death by at least 62%, as Dr. Tess Lawrie has shown, and HCQ independently reduces it by 75%, as Dr. Risch has demonstrated. In that case, it is not surprising that the combination of the two drugs has reduced death by 99.98%, as the Fareed/Tyson series reveals.



Some might question these numbers, thinking that the Ivermectin data should produce greater efficacy because of the numerous impressive natural experiments in India, Mexico, and Zimbabwe, showing 90+ percent reductions in cases and deaths.



However, as Dr. Risch explains, we need to clarify precisely when these drugs are being used. We need to compare apples with apples. Dr. Risch confines his review to early outpatient treatment, while Dr. Lawrie looks at Ivermectin use across all phases, both inpatient and outpatient.



Clearly, the reduction in death would be expected to be higher if the treatment review was confined to early in the outpatient phase rather than later in the hospital or the ICU. Ivermectin is proven to work well across all stages of the disease, including late in the cytokine storm, while HCQ works best early in the viral replication phase. Many case reports have shown that a single dose of Ivermectin can liberate a patient from the ventilator, even in the latest, worst stages of the disease.

In India, the use of Ivermectin has been awe-inspiring. Within weeks of ICMR and AIIMS instituting Ivermectin on April 20, 2021, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh cases were down 99%. Goa famously chose Ivermectin in all adults over 18, and their cases are down 95% [4195 to 215].

Goa’s deaths peaked at 75 and are now 5, down 93%. See the JHU CSSE database. However, just as publicly, the Indian State of Tamil Nadu rejected Ivermectin and vowed to use Remdesivir instead.

They paid the price with the highest number of daily COVID-19 cases in India and excess deaths that continue to this day.

As of June 26, 2021, there were 1258 deaths in India with a population of 1.36 billion. Tamil Nadu, with a population of 1/20 of India, saw 148 of these deaths, about 1/9 of India’s. This amounts to 80 excess deaths on June 26, 2021 [Predicted 1/20 of 1248 = 68. Actual = 148].



The question that emerges from Dr. Lawrie’s convincing meta-analysis and common sense when looking at Ivermectin’s massive benefit in those Indian States that used it is why any nation or state would want to repeat Tamil Nadu’s tragic error, and reject Ivermectin? Why would any area on earth wish to forego a treatment that works so well and is so safe?



Uttar Pradesh, a state with 200 million inhabitants, an area that uses Ivermectin, by contrast, saw only 62 deaths. Uttar Pradesh, with 1/7 the population of India, did not experience 1/7 of the 1248 death toll, which would have been 178 lives [1/7 x 1248 = 178]. Instead, the Ivermectin saved at least 116 lives [Predicted deaths of 178 less actual deaths of 62 = 116 lives saved] just on June 26, 2021.



Ivermectin reduces death in COVID-19 by a substantial percentage and with virtually no risk and minimal cost. Do we truly need more studies on Ivermectin while the Delta Variant rages on and vaccine resistance grows greater by the day? Do we need more studies on a drug that the world’s very best evidence – the meta-analysis – has proven reduces death by 62 to 91% and is safer than most vitamins?



Why would we require a second-rate form of evidence, another RCT, when the gold-standard meta-analysis has already been published?



We are asked to suspend our common sense while more people die and while Oxford and McMaster, both funded by the Gates Vaccine Foundation, make us wait on the result of another contrived-to-fail and forced study.



Dr. Tess Lawrie has been aptly named “The Conscience of Medicine.” She has stood up against the WHO at great personal and professional cost to do what is right and moral and do what is in her patients’ best interests. She has chosen to honor her Hippocratic Oath.

Like Dr. Roy Vagelos of Merck, Dr. Lawrie considers herself a physician first and foremost. Both individuals placed the interests of patients above those of money.—provides-ivermectin-for-humanity/article_df5674ee-d530-11eb-98a1-3fc9e8ddc005.html



Dr. Tess Lawrie closed her first annual International Ivermectin for COVID Conference with this passionate speech and these inspiring words to her fellow physicians,



“And never before has our role as doctors been more important, because never before have we become complicit in potentially causing so much harm. I ask all doctors here today to look into their hearts and remember their (Hippocratic) Oath so that we can move forward, united in the protection of those we serve, and with the greatest of courage.” See the 7:33 mark.



Are Your Medications Safe?

The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up.

By Charles Seife 09February2015

Why would the FDA let claims that have been undermined by fraud appear on drug labels? Photo by RCarner/Thinkstock

Why would the FDA let claims that have been undermined by fraud appear on drug labels?
Photo by RCarner/Thinkstock


Agents of the Food and Drug Administration know better than anyone else just how bad scientific misbehavior can get. Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—each of which catches a medical researcher in an unguarded moment, succumbing to the temptation to do things he knows he really shouldn’t be doing. Faked X-ray reportsForged retinal scansPhony lab testsSecretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.



That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.



Much of my research has to do with follies, foibles, and fraud in science, and I knew that the FDA wasn’t exactly bending over backward to correct the scientific record when its inspectors found problems during clinical trials. So as part of my investigative reporting class at New York University, my students and I set out to find out just how bad the problem was—and how much important information the FDA was keeping under wraps.



We didn’t have to search very hard to find FDA burying evidence of research misconduct. Just look at any document related to an FDA inspection. As part of the new drug application process, or, more rarely, when the agency gets a tipoff of wrongdoing, the FDA sends a bunch of inspectors out to clinical sites to make sure that everything is done by the book. When there are problems, the FDA generates a lot of paperwork—what are called form 483s, Establishment Inspection Reports, and in the worst cases, what are known as Warning Letters. If you manage to get your hands on these documents, you’ll see that, most of the time, key portions are redacted: information that describes what drug the researcher was studying, the name of the study, and precisely how the misconduct affected the quality of the data are all blacked out. These redactions make it all but impossible to figure out which study is tainted. My students and I looked at FDA documents relating to roughly 600 clinical trials in which one of the researchers running the trial failed an FDA inspection. In only roughly 100 cases were we able to figure out which study, which drug, and which pharmaceutical company were involved. (We cracked a bunch of the redactions by cross-referencing the documents with clinical trials data, checking various other databases, and using carefully crafted Google searches.) For the other 500, the FDA was successfully able to shield the drugmaker (and the study sponsor) from public exposure.

A redacted letter sent by the FDA to a clinical investigator in 2012.

It’s not just the public that’s in the dark. It’s researchers, too. And your doctor. As I describe in the current issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, my students and I were able to track down some 78 scientific publications resulting from a tainted study—a clinical trial in which FDA inspectors found significant problems with the conduct of the trial, up to and including fraud. In only three cases did we find any hint in the peer-reviewed literature of problems found by the FDA inspection. The other publications were not retracted, corrected, or highlighted in any way. In other words, the FDA knows about dozens of scientific papers floating about whose data are questionable—and has said nothing, leaving physicians and medical researchers completely unaware. The silence is unbroken even when the FDA itself seems shocked at the degree of fraud and misconduct in a clinical trial.



Such was the case with the so-called RECORD 4 study. RECORD 4 was one of four large clinical trials that involved thousands of patients who were recruited at scores of clinical sites in more than a dozen countries around the world. The trial was used as evidence that a new anti-blood-clotting agent, rivaroxaban, was safe and effective. The FDA inspected or had access to external audits of 16 of the RECORD 4 sites. The trial was a fiasco. At Dr. Craig Loucks’ site in Colorado, the FDA found falsified data. At Dr. Ricardo Esquivel’s site in Mexico, there was “systematic discarding of medical records” that made it impossible to tell whether the study drug was given to the patients. At half of the sites that drew FDA scrutiny—eight out of 16—there was misconduct, fraud, fishy behavior, or other practices so objectionable that the data had to be thrown out. The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire study to be “unreliable.” Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible.



It’s not just one study, either. The FDA found major problems with sites involved in the other three clinical trials that were used to demonstrate rivaroxaban’s safety and effectiveness. RECORD 2, for example, was nearly as awful as RECORD 4: Four out of 10 sites that the FDA inspected showed evidence of misconduct, or other issues grave enough to render the site’s data worthless—including clear evidence of data falsification at one site. In aggregate, these problems raise serious doubts about the quality of all four key rivaroxaban studies—and, by extension, doubts about how seriously we should take the claim that rivaroxaban is safe and effective. The FDA is keeping mum, even as wrongful-death lawsuits begin to multiply.



The FDA’s failure to notify the public is not merely a sin of omission. In March 2009, the FDA convened a committee of outside scientific experts to mull the “robustness and meaningfulness” of the results from the four rivaroxaban trials, RECORDs 1, 2, 3, and 4. (The agency regularly calls in advisers to get advice, or, more cynically, to get cover, about a decision the agency has to make.) When the agency briefed the committee, it was (to put it mildly) coy about the problems it was finding. It said only that inspectors had found “significant issues” at two clinical sites involved in the RECORD 4 study—and that data from one of them was included in the analysis. Inspections were still ongoing, so it’s not easy to say precisely what the agency knew at that point, but it’s clear that the FDA wasn’t admitting to everything it knew. A bunch of inspections had been completed a month prior to the meeting, and we know for certain that the agency was fully aware of major issues beyond the two it revealed to the advisory committee. In a memo dated three days before the advisory committee meeting convened, the FDA detailed “falsification of data by a subinvestigator” at a RECORD 2 site. The advisory committee was not told.



By itself, this might seem like a miscommunication or an oversight, but the FDA has a history of not notifying the public about the misconduct it finds. About a decade ago, the agency got into trouble over a newly approved antibiotic, Ketek. Inspectors had found extensive problems (including fraud) affecting key clinical trials of the drug. Yet the agency did its best to hide the problems from even its most trusted advisers. As David Ross, the FDA official in charge of reviewing Ketek’s safety, put it, “In January 2003, over reviewers’ protests, FDA managers hid the evidence of fraud and misconduct from the advisory committee, which was fooled into voting for approval.” However, when the reports of misconduct at one clinical site began appearing in the press—along with stories of liver damage and blurred vision associated with the new drug—Congress stepped in, demanding information from the agency about the fraud.



But even the Senate couldn’t wring key information about the misconduct out of the FDA. “Every excuse under the sun has been used to create roadblocks,” complained an indignant Sen. Charles Grassley, “even in the face of congressional subpoenas requesting information and access to FDA employees.” The head of the FDA, Andrew von Eschenbach, attempted to explain to Congress why the agency didn’t tell its advisory committee about the problems in the Ketek study: “After considering the fact that the investigation results were preliminary … FDA decided to hold the Advisory Committee meeting as planned …” without notifying the committee of the potential problems. But Rep. Bart Stupak quickly pointed to an email, which, he argued, contradicted von Eschenbach’s testimony. “So either you are not being forthright with us, when I believe you are, but whoever is doing your work is trying to  lead this committee down the wrong path.” And the correct path showed that site after site involved in study 3014, as well as other key Ketek studies, were tainted as well.


Then–FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach before Congress on April 22, 2008. Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images

Then–FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach before Congress on April 22, 2008.
Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images


In the decade since the Ketek affair, it’s hard to see any change in behavior by the agency. On occasion, the FDA has even actively approved and promoted statements about drugs that, according to its own inspectors, are based upon falsehoods. At the end of 2011, the FDA learned that an audit of a Chinese site involved in a key clinical trial of a different anti-clotting agent, apixaban, had turned up evidence of fraud: Personnel had apparently been fiddling with patient records. Worse yet, the fraud appeared to invalidate one key finding of the study. Just three months earlier, the researchers running the trial proudly announced in the New England Journal of Medicine that there was a “significant reduction in mortality” among patients who took apixaban compared with those who took the old standby, warfarin. Alas, the moment you exclude the data from the Chinese fraud site, as per standard FDA procedure, that statement went out the window. Yet look at the label for apixaban—the one approved by the FDA after the fraud was discovered—and you read that “treatment resulted in a significantly lower rate of all-cause death … than did treatment with warfarin,” backed up by the data set with the Chinese site included. In other words, the label is carrying a claim that the FDA knows is based upon fraud. In a written response to my questions on this subject, the FDA stated that, “The FDA extended the drug’s review period to address the concerns. However, the review team did conclude concluded [sic] that the data at that site and other sites in China did reflect meaningful clinical information; that was not what was considered unreliable.”



Again, this isn’t an isolated incident. I had previously encountered bogus data on FDA-approved labels when a colleague and I were looking into a massive case of scientific misconduct —a research firm named Cetero had been caught faking data from more than 1,400 drug trials. That suddenly worthless data had been used to establish the safety or effectiveness of roughly 100 drugs, mostly generics, that were being sold in the United States. But even after the agency exposed the problem, we found fraud-tainted data on FDA-approved drug labels. (The FDA still maintains its silence about the Cetero affair. To this day, the agency refuses to release the names of the 100-odd drugs whose approval data were undermined by fraud.)



And the FDA covers up drug-related misconduct in other, more subtle ways, too. For example, the agency publishes the canonical listing of generic drugs in the United States, known as the “Orange Book.” Prescription drugs in this book are often given what’s called a “therapeutic equivalence code.” This code is a two-letter designation that signals the quality of the scientific evidence that a generic is “bioequivalent” to the name-brand drug. The code “AB,” for example, tells pharmacists and physicians that there are solid scientific studies proving that bioequivalence. Another code, “BX,” signals that there isn’t sufficient data to prove the generic is bioequivalent to the name brand.



When the Cetero misconduct was uncovered, key bioequivalence studies for scores of generic drugs turned out to be worthless. By rights, some of those drugs should have had their designation downgraded from AB to BX. But even though the FDA updates the Orange Book monthly, there was no rash of drugs losing their AB rating in the months after the Cetero affair broke. In the year and a half after the Cetero fraud was first announced, I was able to identify a grand total of four generic drugs (in various dosages) that were downgraded to BX, none of which appeared to be linked to the Cetero problem. On the other hand, the one prescription generic drug that I knew for sure had been hit hard by the Cetero fraud—both key studies supporting its bioequivalence to the name brand were declared worthless—had no change in its designation. The FDA apparently allowed the drug to keep its AB badge for months without any valid data backing the drug’s bioequivalence. When asked, point blank, whether the agency had downgraded the bioequivalence code of any products due to the Cetero affair, officials promptly dodged the question. A written statement issued by the agency’s press office in response to my queries noted that the FDA requested additional data from the companies whose drugs were implicated in the Cetero affair and that “If the data were not provided within 6 months or the data provided did not support a finding of bioequivalence, FDA said it would consider changing the generic product’s therapeutic equivalence rating in the Orange Book from AB to BX.” Not a word about a single bioequivalence rating actually being changed.



This, too, is a pattern of behavior rather than a one-off. In the past few weeks, another major Cetero-type case began to emerge—this time, having to do with GVK Biosciences, a firm in Hyderabad, India. The European Medicines Agency, the European equivalent of the FDA, examined more than 1,000 drugs in various dosages affected by GVK’s “data manipulations” and has suggested pulling 700 off the market. You can find the full list on the EMA website; to their credit, the Europeans are being relatively transparent as the crisis develops. Not so much on this side of the pond, alas. So far from the FDA, we’ve heard precious little, even though there are drugs on the U.S. market that rely entirely on GVK’s tests. In a written statement, the FDA admitted that there were some 40-odd drugs whose approval depended upon GVK-run studies. Which ones? The agency is keeping mum, as it did with Cetero and with other similar cases. However, the agency assures us that it inspected GVK’s facility and found nothing to be concerned about; if the situation changes, “FDA will take swift and appropriate action to ensure that the drug products available to American consumers are safe and effective.”



Why does the FDA stay silent about fraud and misconduct in scientific studies of pharmaceuticals? Why would the agency allow claims that have been undermined by fraud to appear on drug labels? And why on earth would it throw up roadblocks to prevent the public, the medical community, its advisory panels, and even Congress from finding out about the extent of medical misconduct? The answers the FDA gives are fascinating—they show how an agency full of well-meaning people can do intellectual backflips to try to justify secrecy.



The most common excuse the agency gives is that exposing the details about scientific wrongdoing—naming the trials that were undermined by research misconduct, or revealing which drugs’ approvals relied upon tainted data—would compromise “confidential commercial information” that would hurt drug companies if revealed. This claim falls apart under scrutiny. The courts have ruled that when information is provided by companies involuntarily, such as the information that an FDA inspector finds, “commercial confidential information” refers to proprietary material that causes substantial, specific harm when it falls into the hands of a competitor. It doesn’t cover embarrassing peccadilloes—or misconduct that might cause bad publicity when word gets out.



Another excuse I’ve heard from the FDA is that it doesn’t want to confuse the public by telling us about problems, especially when, in the FDA’s judgment, the misconduct doesn’t pose an immediate risk to public health. For example, when my colleague and I asked the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research why the agency wouldn’t name the drugs affected by the Cetero fraud, she told us that the matter “did not rise to the level where the public should be notified. We felt it would result in misunderstanding and inappropriate actions.” But even the most paternalistic philosophy of public health can’t explain why the FDA would allow drug companies to put data on its labels that the agency knows are worthless, or to fail to flag bioequivalence problems in a publication that is specifically designed for the purpose of flagging those very problems.



The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception. And despite being called out numerous times over the years for its bad behavior, including from some very pissed-off members of Congress, the agency is stubbornly resistant to change. It’s a sign that the FDA is deeply captured, drawn firmly into the orbit of the pharmaceutical industry that it’s supposed to regulate. We can no longer hope that the situation will get better without firm action from the legislature.



The FDA wants you to take it on faith that its officials have the public’s best interest at heart. Justification through faith alone might be just fine as a religious doctrine, but it’s not a good foundation for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our drugs. After all, the whole point of science-based medicine is to keep us from having to make a leap of faith every time we swallow a pill.



About the Author
Charles Seife is a journalism professor at New York University. His most recent books are Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking and Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception.

As usual, it’s all about protecting corporate profits. America’s new religion.
The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception. And despite being called out numerous times over the years for its bad behavior, including from some very pissed-off members of Congress, the agency is stubbornly resistant to change. It’s a sign that the FDA is deeply captured, drawn firmly into the orbit of the pharmaceutical industry that it’s supposed to regulate. We can no longer hope that the situation will get better without firm action from the legislature.

Who Determines if Food Additives are Safe? from NutritionFacts on Vimeo.
For links to all the cited sources, a written transcript, commentary from Dr. Greger, as well as discussion and Q&A about this video, go to:

The following articles expose the EVIL of the Medical Profession and the Government Agencies that support them.


9 Absolutely Evil Medical Experiments

By 29June2018

Many evil medical experiments have been conducted in the name of science, here are nine of the most horrific.

Evil experiments

An SS operating theatre used for evil medical experiments (Image credit: Getty/ Corbis Historical)

An SS operating theatre used for evil medical experiments (Image credit: Getty/ Corbis Historical)

Throughout history a number of evil experiments have been carried out in the name of science. We all know the stereotype of the mad scientist, often a villain in popular culture. Yet in real-life, while science often saves lives, sometimes scientists commit horrific crimes in order to achieve results.



Some are ethical mistakes,  lapses of judgement made by people convinced  they’re doing the right thing. Other times, they’re pure evil. Here are nine of the worst experiments on human subjects in history.


Separating triplets

SEPARATING TRIPLETS (Image credit: Richard Lee/NY Daily News via Getty Images)

(Image credit: Richard Lee/NY Daily News via Getty Images)

In the 1960s and 1970s , clinical psychologists led by Peter Neubauer ran a secret experiment in which they separated twins and triplets from each other and adopted them out as singlets. The experiment, said to have been partly funded by the National Institute of Mental Health(opens in new tab), came to light when three identical triplet brothers accidentally found each other in 1980. They had no idea they had siblings.



David Kellman, one of the triplets, felt anger towards the experiment: ”We were robbed of 20 years together,” said Kellman in the Orlando Sentinel article. His brother, Edward Galland died by suicide in 1995 at his home in Maplewood, New Jersey, according to the LA Times(opens in new tab).



The child psychiatrists who headed up the study — Peter Neubauer and Viola Bernard — showed no remorse, according to news reports, going as far as saying they thought they were doing something good for the kids, separating them so they could develop their individual personalities, said Bernard, according to Quillette(opens in new tab). As for what Neubauer learned from his secret “evil” experiment, that’s anyone’s guess, as the results of the controversial study are being stored in an archive at Yale University, and they can’t be unsealed until 2066, NPR reported in 2007(opens in new tab). Neubauer published some of his findings in a 1996 book, Nature’s Thumbprint: The New Genetics of Personality(opens in new tab), primarily concerning his son. According to Psychology today, as of 2021, some of Dr Viola Bernard’s papers have become viewable at Columbia University(opens in new tab).



Director Tim Wardle chronicled the lives of the triplets in the film “Three Identical Strangers(opens in new tab),” which debuted at Sundance 2018.


Nazi medical experiments

The entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp (Image credit: Getty/ Bettmann)

The entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp (Image credit: Getty/ Bettmann)

Perhaps the most infamous evil experiments of all time were those carried out by Josef Mengele, an SS physician at Auschwitz during the Holocaust. Mengele combed the incoming trains for twins upon which to experiment, hoping to prove his theories of the racial supremacy of Aryans. Many died in the process. He also collected the eyes of his dead “patients,” according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum(opens in new tab).


The Nazis used prisoners to test treatments for infectious diseases and chemical warfare. Others were forced into freezing temperatures and low-pressure chambers for aviation experiments, according to the Jewish Virtual Library(opens in new tab). Countless prisoners were subjected to experimental sterilization procedures. One woman, Ruth Elias, had her breasts tied off with string so SS doctors could see how long it took her baby to starve, according to an oral history collected by the Holocaust Museum(opens in new tab). She eventually injected the child with a lethal dose of morphine to keep it from suffering longer.


Some of the doctors responsible for these atrocities were later tried as war criminals, but Mengele escaped to South America. He died in Brazil in 1979, of a heart attack, his final years spent lonely and depressed according to The Guardian(opens in new tab).


Japan’s Unit 731

Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731 Image credit-Wikipedia

Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731 Image credit-Wikipedia



Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, the Japanese Imperial Army conducted biological warfare and medical testing on civilians, mostly in China. Led by General Shiro Ishii, the lead physician at UNIT 731,  the death  toll of these brutal experiments is unknown, but as many as 200,000 may have died, estimates Historian Sheldon H Harris according to a 1995 New York Times report(opens in new tab).



Numerous diseases were studied in order to determine their potential use in warfare. Among them were plague, anthrax, dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid and cholera, according to a paper by Dr Robert K D Peterson for Montana University(opens in new tab). Numerous atrocities were committed including infecting wells with cholera and typhoid and spreading plague-ridden fleas across Chinese cities.



According to Peterson the fleas were dropped in clay bombs, which were dropped at a height of 200-300 meters and showed no trace. Prisoners were marched in freezing weather and then experimented on to determine the best treatment for frostbite.



Former members of the unit have told media outlets that prisoners were dosed with poison gas, put in pressure chambers until their eyes popped out, and even dissected while alive and conscious. After the war, the U.S. government helped keep the experiments secret as part of a plan to make Japan a cold-war ally, according to the Times report.



It was not until the late 1990’s that Japan first acknowledged the existence of the unit and not until 2018 that the names of thousands of members of the Unit were disclosed, according to The Guardian(opens in new tab).

The “monster study”

The Monster Study

The Monster Study

In 1939, speech pathologists at the University of Iowa set out to prove their theory that stuttering was a learned behavior caused by a child’s anxiety about speaking. Unfortunately, the way they chose to go about this was to try to induce stuttering in orphans by telling them they were doomed to start stuttering in the future.



The researchers sat down with children at the Ohio Soldiers and Sailors Orphans’ Home and told them they were showing signs of stuttering and shouldn’t speak unless they could be sure that they would speak right. The experiment didn’t induce stuttering, but it did make formerly normal children anxious, withdrawn and silent.



Future Iowa pathology students dubbed the study, “the Monster Study,” according to a 2003 New York Times article(opens in new tab) on the research. Three surviving children and the estates of three others eventually sued Iowa and the university. In 2007, Iowa settled for a total of $925,000.


The Burke and Hale murders

The anatomist Dr Robert Knox, who Burke and Hare supplied the bodies of their victims to (Image credit: Getty/ Hulton Archive)

The anatomist Dr Robert Knox, who Burke and Hare supplied the bodies of their victims to (Image credit: Getty/ Hulton Archive)

Until the 1830s, the only legally available bodies for dissection by anatomists were those of executed murderers. Executed murderers being a relative rarity, many anatomists took to buying bodies from grave robbers — or doing the robbing themselves. “Body snatching as a ‘professional’ occupation didn’t really start to take shape until the end of the 18th century” Suzie Lennox, the author of Bodysnatchers: Digging Up the Untold Stories of Britain’s Resurrection Men(opens in new tab)  told All About History(opens in new tab) in an interview “up till then the students and anatomists would have carried out their own raids in graveyards, acquiring cadavers as and when they could”.



Edinburgh boarding house owner William Hare and his friend William Burke found a way to deliver fresh corpses to Edinbrugh’s anatomy tables without ever actually stealing a body. From 1827 to 1828, the two men smothered more than a dozen lodgers at the boarding house  and sold their bodies to anatomist Robert Knox, according to Mary Roach’s “Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers(opens in new tab)” (W.W. Norton & Company, 2003). Knox apparently didn’t notice (or didn’t care) that the bodies his newest suppliers were bringing him were suspiciously fresh, Roach wrote.



Burke was later hanged for his crimes, and the case spurred the British government to loosen the restrictions on dissection. “The scandal led to the Anatomy Act of 1832 which made greater numbers of cadavers legally available to schools” Maclolm McCallum, the curator of the Edinburgh Anatomical Museum told All About History in an interview. “If you died in an asylum or hospital, and had no relatives or means to cover your funeral costs, your body would go to the schools for dissection. Crucially, the institutions which were providing the cadavers only supplied them to anatomy schools that were associated with teaching hospitals”.

Surgical experiments on slaves

James Marion Sims, the 'father of gynecology', whose experiments on slaves continue to cause controversy (Image credit: Getty/ Hulton Archive)

James Marion Sims, the ‘father of gynecology’, whose experiments on slaves continue to cause controversy (Image credit: Getty/ Hulton Archive)

The father of modern gynecology, J. Marion Sims, gained much of his fame by doing experimental surgeries (sometimes several per person) on slave women, according to The Atlantic(opens in new tab). Sims remains a controversial figure to this day, because the condition he was treating in the women, vesico-vaginal fistula, caused terrible suffering. Women with fistulas, a tear between the vagina and bladder, were incontinent and were often rejected by society.



Sims performed the surgeries without anesthesia, in part because anesthesia had only recently been discovered, and in part because Sims believed the operations were “not painful enough to justify the trouble,” as he said in alecture according to NPR(opens in new tab).



Arguments still rage as to whether Sims’ patients would have consented to the surgeries had they been entirely free to choose. Nonetheless, wrote University of Alabama social work professor Durrenda Ojanuga in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 1993(opens in new tab), Sims “manipulated the social institution of slavery to perform human experimentations, which by any standard is unacceptable.” In 2018, a statue of Sims was removed in response to the ongoing controversy, according to The Guardian(opens in new tab).

Guatemala syphilis study



(Image credit: CDC)

Many people erroneously believe that the government deliberately infected the Tuskegee participants with syphilis, which was not the case. But the work of professor Susan Reverby recently exposed a time when the U.S.  Public Health Service researchers did just that, according to Wellesley College(opens in new tab). Between 1946 and 1948, Reverby found, the U.S. and Guatemalan governments co-sponsored a study involving the deliberate infection of 1,500 Guatemalan men, women and children with syphilis according to The (opens in new tab)Guardian.



The study was intended to test chemicals to prevent the spread of the disease. According to ​​Michael A. Rodriguez(opens in new tab) in a 2013 paper; “The experiments were not conducted in a sterile clinical setting in which bacteria that cause STDs were administered in the form of a pin prick vaccination or a pill taken orally. The researchers systematically and repeatedly violated profoundly vulnerable individuals, some in the saddest and most despairing states, and grievously aggravated their suffering” Those who got syphilis were given penicillin as a treatment, Reverby found, but the records she uncovered indicate no follow-up or informed consent by the participants. On Oct. 1, 2010, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a joint statement apologizing for the experiments, according to The Guardian(opens in new tab).

The Tuskegee study

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

The most famous lapse in medical ethics in the United States lasted for 40 years. In 1932, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Public Health Service launched a study on the health effects of untreated syphilis in black men.



The researchers tracked the progression of the disease in 399 black men in Alabama and also studied 201 healthy men , telling them they were being treated for “bad blood.” In fact, the men never got adequate treatment, even in 1947 when penicillin became the drug of choice to treat syphilis. It wasn’t until a 1972 newspaper article exposed the study to the public eye that officials shut it down, according to the official Tuskegee (opens in new tab)site.

Stanford Prison Experiment

Phillip Zimbardo whose controversial Stanford Prison experiment continues to generate interest (Image credit: Getty/ Hearst Newspapers)

Phillip Zimbardo whose controversial Stanford Prison experiment continues to generate interest (Image credit: Getty/ Hearst Newspapers)

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

In 1971, Philip Zimbardo, now professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University(opens in new tab), set out to test the “nature of human nature,” to answer questions such as “What happens when you put good people in evil situations?” How he went about answering his human nature questions was and is thought by many to have been less than ethical. He set up a prison and paid college students to play guards and prisoners, who inevitably seemed to transform into abusive guards and hysterical prisoners. The two-week experiment was shut down after just six days because things turned chaotic fast. “In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress,” Zimbardo stated, according to Times Higher Education(opens in new tab). The guards, pretty much from the get-go, treated the prisoners awfully, humiliating them by stripping them naked and spraying their bodies with delousing chemicals and generally harassing and intimidating them, according to the Stanford Prison Experiment(opens in new tab) site



Turns out, according to a report on Medium(opens in new tab), a news publication, in June 2018, the guards didn’t become aggressive on their own — Zimbardo encouraged the abusive behavior — and some of the prisoners faked their emotional breakdowns. For instance, Douglas Korpi, a volunteer prisoner said that he faked a meltdown to get released early so he could study for an exam.



Even so, the Stanford Prison Experiment has been the basis of psychologists’ and even historians’ understanding of how even healthy people can become so evil when placed in certain situations, according to the American Psychological Association(opens in new tab).


For more concerning the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, check out the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum(opens in new tab). The New York Times original 1995 report on the events that occured at Manchu 731 is available here(opens in new tab). Those interested in the Stanford Prison Experiment should check out the experiments website(opens in new tab).





Callum McKelvie 

Callum McKelvie is features editor for All About History Magazine. He has a both a Bachelor and Master’s degree in History and Media History from Aberystwyth University. He was previously employed as an Editorial Assistant publishing digital versions of historical documents, working alongside museums and archives such as the British Library. He has also previously volunteered for The Soldiers of Gloucestershire MuseumGloucester Archives and Gloucester Cathedral.




FDA Committee Members Reviewing Pfizer Vaccine For Children Have Worked For Pfizer, Have Big Pfizer Connections

by Tyler Durden 27October2021 –

Authored by Patrick Howley via National File,

Pfizer Conflict of Interest

Pfizer Conflict of Interest

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is holding a virtual meeting Tuesday October 26 to discuss authorizing a Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus vaccine for children between the ages of 5 to 11 years old.


This committee has a lot of sway with the FDA and their findings will be relevant, considering the Biden administration is getting ready to ship vaccines to elementary schools and California has already mandated the vaccine for schoolchildren pending federal authorization.


But the meeting roster shows that numerous members of the committee and temporary voting members have worked for Pfizer or have major connections to Pfizer.


Members include a former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines, a recent Pfizer consultant, a recent Pfizer research grant recipient, a man who mentored a current top Pfizer vaccine executive, a man who runs a center that gives out Pfizer vaccines, the chair of a Pfizer data group, a guy who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine, and numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for children. Meanwhile, recent FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is on Pfizer’s board of directors.


HERE’S THE MEETING ROSTER: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 26, 2021 Meeting Draft Roster.


Acting Chair Arnold S. Monto was a paid Pfizer consultant as recently as 2018.


Steven Pergam got the Pfizer vaccine: Building trust in safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines (

Steven Pergam-Pfizer Vaccine

Steven Pergam-Pfizer Vaccine


Committee member Archana Chatterjee worked on a research project related to vaccines for infants between 2018-2020, and the research project was sponsored by Pfizer.

Archana Chatterjee pfizer research grants

Archana Chatterjee pfizer research grants

Myron Levine has mentored some U.S. post-doctoral fellows, and one of his proteges happens to be Raphael Simon, the senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer.

Myron Levine mentored pfizer

Myron Levine mentored pfizer

James Hildreth, temporary voting member, made a financial interest disclosure for this meeting in which he disclosed more than $1.5 million in relevant financial interests, including his work as president of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer Coronavirus vaccines.


Geeta K. Swamy is listed as the chair of the “Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program,” a committee sponsored by Pfizer. Duke University states that “Dr. Swamy serves as a co-investigator for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.”

Geeta K Swamy pfizer

Geeta K Swamy pfizer

Gregg Sylvester previously served as a vice president for Pfizer Vaccines, where he launched Pfizer vaccines including one for children.

Gregg Sylvester-Pfizer

Gregg Sylvester-Pfizer

Among the meeting’s “temporary voting members,” Ofer Levy, Boston Children’s Hospital, is for the Pfizer vaccine for children, Eric Rubin is pro-vaccine for children, Jay Portnoy supports authorizing Coronavirus vaccines for kids, and Melinda Wharton complained over the summer about how orders for the CDC’s “Vaccines For Children” program dropped.

FDANews stated last December: “FDA advisory committee members in the past have frequently been the target of heavy politicking by industry representatives of whatever drug they were considering for a recommendation at in-person meetings. That process has been somewhat altered by the fact that during COVID-19, meetings are being held virtually. But it’s likely that behind-the-scenes pressuring still goes on. The industry defends the attempts to influence committee members as simply efforts to best present their case.”


In short, a staggering conflict of interest…

Robert W Malone MD-tweet-27October2021 FDA Pfizer staggering conflict of interest

Robert W Malone MD-tweet-27October2021 FDA Pfizer staggering conflict of interest

* * *

JerusalemCats Comments: Talk about “The Fox guarding the Hen House”



TIMELINE: The CDC’s corrupt history revealed as it pushes mass hysteria to sell dirty vaccines

April 13, 2021 by:



(Natural News) How could it be that we can’t trust the CDC? How could a country so strong and efficient have the regulatory agency for disease control and prevention be so insidious that all they care about today is controlling the populace by actually spreading disease? It’s always all about money and control, and we have a comprehensive timeline of the CDC’s nefarious acts of cruelty and greed, and this timeline dates back to the beginning of the founding of the Center for Damaged Credibility, a.k.a. the CDC. From hoax pandemics to dirty vaccines and biological warfare, the Centers for Disease Control in the USA has a mile-long rap sheet of horrendous crimes, including fraud, felonies and murder, dating back to its founding in Atlanta in 1946.


An inside look at the evil CDC, beginning in 1946


The CDC is a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet. They support several corrupt industries dating back to 1946. The CDC is supposed to focus attention on food borne pathogens, environmental health and non-infectious diseases like obesity and diabetes. Coincidentally, there were not many cases of cancer or diabetes to speak of in the United States before the CDC was created. Founded just after WWII in the late 1940s, the CDC was first named the “Communicable Disease Center” and was busy fighting mosquitoes by spraying cancer-causing DDT on six million US homes, all in the name of fighting the malaria ‘pandemic’ of the time. Did the CDC run any safety tests on DDT for the environment, humans, pregnant women, food, anything? Of course they did not or they wouldn’t have used it.



By 1957, the Center for Damaged Credibility dipped their wick in STD control (sexually transmitted diseases), and widened their efforts to understand more about birth defects, E. coli and biological warfare (yes, they knew back then). Instead of engaging in preventative measures using nutrition, supplements and natural immune system aids, the CDC began what we know today as chronic care management, which means treating symptoms but never preventing or defeating disease. That’s how vaccines came into play.


The CDC has known mercury in vaccines is deadly since the beginning


Fatal cases of mercury poisoning were reported as early as 1865. It was proven shortly after that BOTH elemental mercury and methyl-mercury are toxic to the human CNS (central nervous system) and peripheral nervous systems. Just the inhalation of mercury vapors can prove fatal, showing severe damage to normal functioning of human systems, including nerves, digestion and immunity. Here comes the rub.


The CDC and EPA both agree that consuming no more than 0.1 micrograms of mercury for each kilogram of your body weight is safe. That equates to a full grown man, average size and weight, consuming 8 micrograms (mcg) of mercury every day. Yet, thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury, is used in multi-dose flu vaccines, as a preservative, at 25 mcg mercury.


So what happens when you give that severe overdose to an infant or a pregnant woman? The CDC knows exactly what happens. They helped build centers for it, called “Planned Parenthood” (also known as black population control centers). The CDC also promotes the use of formaldehyde (embalming fluid), MSG and aluminum in vaccines scheduled for developing children. The aluminum helps the mercury cross the blood/brain barrier, making the mercury even MORE deadly than it already is. That’s severely taxing your cleansing organs and central nervous system, and it’s all thanks to the CDC.


1955 – 1970: CDC scandals, lies, cover-ups, and lack of safety research


The insidious CDC still promotes the polio vaccine lie today. Way back in 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk, an American virologist, removed the kidneys of rhesus monkeys and incubated those cells with three different strains of Polio virus. Then he deadened it with chemicals. Then he injected it into mice, rabbits and monkeys. Polio cases were on a massive decline already due to hygiene and plumbing advancements, so the timing was perfect. The CDC and Salk announce it to the world — the cure for Polio.


Everyone celebrate by going out and getting inoculated! They injected it into millions of children, with no proof it even worked at all. And that’s how the modern-day medicine “miracle of vaccines” lie was born. A pandemic cured in just one month. Halleluiah!


Swine flu hoax of 1976, and then AGAIN in 2008


How easily Americans forget, all doped up on mercury, margarine and canola oil, that the Swine Flu hoax first came in 1976 and was catalyzed by MASS HYSTERIA whipped up by CDC junk scientists hungry for physical and mental control of the populace. The CDC and Congress worked in tandem to vaccinate 45 million Sheeple, unnecessarily, with a vaccine for a disease that already fizzled by the time the shots came out of the lab. Oops. “Better safe than sorry,” They always say after huge mistakes. That dirty vaccine resulted in case after case of Guillain-Barre syndrome, which leads to muscle weakness and often paralysis.


The swine flu, much like Covid-19, turned out to be normal seasonal virus, like the flu, hyped like swine, in order to sell millions of people on getting dirty vaccines. Turns out the Swine flu wasn’t even as dangerous as the seasonal flu, so that pandemic was also planned and created by the CDC. The whole thing unraveled before everyone’s eyes, yet everyone forgot, twice. It was a hoax.


Then, in 1999, the CDC wasted $22 million on “chronic fatigue syndrome” and embezzled a cool $13 million doing “hepatitis C research.” The CDC went rogue and began functioning without Congress, appropriating their own funds wherever they chose to. Can you guess what that leads to?


2014: CDC budget approaches $7 billion, employing 15,000 people


Add in about 6,000 contractors and 150 different occupations and you’ve got the behemoth of bureaucratic red-tape get-nothing-done agencies. From computer scientists to statisticians and toxicologists, the CDC spends billions upon billions of dollars to tell Americans to shoot mercury into their veins and wear masks all day and night to prevent disease from spreading.


After all of that, the very next year, 2015, the CDC admits on national television that the flu shot doesn’t even work. This is the same time period when the CDC’s top scientist, Dr. William Thompson, blew the whistle on the fraudulent MMR-II vaccine.


Thompson confessed while protecting his life with his attorney, and told the world that the CDC buried the evidence of the MMR-II vaccine causing noticeably higher rates of autism in Black boys under age three. They knew it for 10 years before Thompson caved to ethics and blew the whistle.


Also 2014: CDC imports Ebola to Atlanta and New York City, on purpose


Like the bungling idiots of the TV comedy “Three Stooges,” the CDC exposed the entire country to deadly Ebola, a disease without a cure that eats you alive from the inside. The CDC told an Ebola nurse, Amber Jay Vinson, to go ahead and fly to Texas because, get this, her fever was below the official mark the CDC just made up of 100.4 degrees.


These were the erroneous guidelines for Ebola, just like Covid now. This was October of 2014. Turns out the nurse DID have Ebola, and she was the nurse for Ebola’s USA “Ground Zero” case of Ebola, the now-deceased Mr. Thomas Eric Duncan.


The CDC flew the nurse of the patient who had just DIED of Ebola, from Ohio to Texas, in order to spread the disease, just like they’re spreading Covid into Texas now using infected illegal immigrants. Airplanes themselves are catapults for starting worldwide pandemics and a great vehicle for the CDC to use as a bio-weapon against the American people. The trend continues.


Here was the CDC’s “preparedness report” (ominous warning) about Ebola traveling to NYC: “New York City (NYC) is a frequent port of entry for travelers from West Africa, a home to communities of West African immigrants who travel back to their home countries, and a home to health care workers who travel to West Africa to treat Ebola patients.”


Still, the CDC told a doctor who was exposed to Ebola-infected patients that he could go drinking beer at the bowling alley, as long as he didn’t come into contact with anyone. How easily we forget the CDC’s blatant lies and propaganda.


February, 2016 – Zika virus is detected in Brazil so the White House submits to Congress $1.9 billion emergency money to “prepare” for Zika’s spread to the  USA


Oh yes, they did. The insidious “shrunken baby head” syndrome is coming soon, everyone run! Get vaccinated or your newborn baby’s head will be the size of a tennis ball, forever. As Zika virus spread into 18 of the 26 states in Brazil, scientists behind the scenes discovered that the babies being born with shrunken heads all came from the same district where millions of gallons of chemical pesticide were dumped in/near the drinking water for those inhabitants.


Pregnant women were affected most and the babies came out with that specific deformation, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with Zika virus, except for the mass media’s fake news narrative in the USA. All scare tactics to sell everyone on getting vaccinated, and it worked then, and it’s working right now with Covid-19 and the deadly mRNA vaccine series.


By the way, the CDC received $800 million to research the ‘clinical patterns’ of shrunken-baby-head-syndrome-side-effect of Zika, and they never bothered to discredit the myth. Just pure propaganda and the staging of disease pandemics brought to you by none other than the CDC. Remember Zika Bowl Sunday, the Super Bowl during the Zika Pandemic?


Tune your internet frequency to for daily updates on the Center for Damaged Credibility using pathogens to wreck red states so the whole USA can turn communist. Yes, the CDC is “in” on the plan; in fact, they are the nucleus of the “cell” – the terror cell.


Sources for this article include:



Cruelty of Covid Vaccines — References

Covid vaccines were produced and/or tested with morally dubious ingredients:

  • Aborted Fetal Cell Lines
  • Fetal Bovine Serum





  • Abortion is tantamount to murder, a grave violation of Genesis 9:6.
  • Deriving benefit thereof and compensating the company for this product, thereby funding future research and development of new fetal cell lines, is a grave violation of Torah Law. (Maimonides Mishne Torah, Laws of Murder 2:1)
  • The desecration of any human corpse is a violation of Deuteronomy 21:23.


The following references document that Aborted Fetal Cell Lines were used in the production and/or testing of the covid-19 vaccines:

  1. Pfizer:

Aborted fetal cell line HEK293 was used:
Arunachalam, P.S., Scott, M.K.D., Hagan, T. et al. Systems vaccinology of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in humans. Nature 596, 410–416 (2021). [SEE “REPORTING SUMMARY”]
HEK293 is a fetal cell line, derived from kidney tissue of an aborted female embryo in 1973:

  1. Moderna:

Aborted fetal cell line HEK293 was used:
Corbett, K.S., Edwards, D.K., Leist, S.R. et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness. Nature 586, 567–571 (2020).

  1. Johnson & Johnson:


Aborted fetal cell line PER.C6 was used:


Note: Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products are mRNA vaccines. Johnson and Johnson’s vaccine is Recombinant Adenovirus Serotype 26 (Ad26).
For a list of other medications that were produced and/or tested using aborted fetal cell lines, see below [footnote 2]




  • Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) is inhumanely collected from live calves without anesthesia.
  • This practice (live dissection of animals) is a grave violation of Genesis 9:4.
  • Causing excessive suffering to animals is a violation of Exodus 23:5


The following references document that Fetal Bovine Serum was used in the production of the covid-19 vaccines:

  1. 1. Pfizer:


Arunachalam, P.S., Scott, M.K.D., Hagan, T. et al. Systems vaccinology of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in humans. Nature 596, 410–416 (2021).

  1. 2. Moderna:


Corbett, K.S., Edwards, D.K., Leist, S.R. et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness. Nature 586, 567–571 (2020).

  1. 3. Johnson & Johnson:


Mercado, N.B., Zahn, R., Wegmann, F. et al. Single-shot Ad26 vaccine protects against SARS-CoV-2 in rhesus macaques. Nature 586, 583–588 (2020).
The following references discuss the ethical dilemma of how Fetal Bovine Serum is produced:

[1] Abstract: “Fetal bovine serum (FBS) is a common component of animal cell culture media. It is harvested from bovine fetuses taken from pregnant cows during slaughter. FBS is commonly harvested by means of a cardiac puncture without any form of anaesthesia. Fetuses are probably exposed to pain and/or discomfort, so the current practice of fetal blood harvesting is inhumane. Apart from moral concerns, several scientific and technical problems exist with regard to the use of FBS in cell culture. Efforts should be made to reduce the use of FBS or, preferably, to replace it with synthetic alternatives.”


[2] Some other common medicines that were reportedly developed and/or tested using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines. Please note that some of these medicines existed and were in use long before they were tested on Fetal Cell Lines. Furthermore, these medicines are curative/therapeutic, not preventative. Regarding whether one should make use of any of these medications, please consult your local rabbi who has researched contemporary fetal cell line development. (Most sadly haven’t)

Some other common medicines that were reportedly developed andor tested using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines

Some other common medicines that were reportedly developed andor tested using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines


Posted by Rabbi Michoel Green at 4:00 PM

Readers comments:
Anonymous said…
Very nicely documented.


A word on FBS (Fetal Bovine (unborn cow) Serum): it is often a necessary additive in tissue culture. Many mammalian cell lines will not grow at all without the factors it contains. Sometimes, however, other sera work better, like porcine (pig) or equine (horse).


I stopped drinking Pepsi products when I found that cells/tissues from aborted human fetuses were used in testing them. (It’s NOT in the products, but using it to test and develop them is. IMO, bad enough.)


NOTE – to any who think that industrially grown meat for human consumption can be grown w/o it or antibiotics, I know of a bridge in Brooklyn that’s for sale. I’ve recently read that some are even to be certified kosher.

October 27, 2021 at 8:49 PM

Anonymous said…

For the sake of being intellectually honest, it’s worth pointing out that also Tums and Motrin have these morally dubious



Thimerosal and Vaccines

Link to Adjuvants and Vaccines


Questions and Concerns

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that has been used for decades in the United States in multi-dose vials (vials containing more than one dose) of medicines and vaccines. There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

About Thimerosal

Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in the earth’s crust, air, soil, and water.  Two types of mercury to which people may be exposed — methylmercury and ethylmercury — are very different.


Methylmercury is the type of mercury found in certain kinds of fish. At high exposure levels methylmercury can be toxic to people. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.


Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm.

Thimerosal prevents the growth of bacteria in vaccines.

Thimerosal is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose (multi-dose vials) to prevent growth of germs, like bacteria and fungi. Introduction of bacteria and fungi has the potential to occur when a syringe needle enters a vial as a vaccine is being prepared for administration. Contamination by germs in a vaccine could cause severe local reactions, serious illness or death. In some vaccines, preservatives, including thimerosal, are added during the manufacturing process to prevent germ growth.

J 2013 Aug;33(8):700-11. doi: 10.1002/jat.2855. Epub 2013 Feb 11.

Toxicity of ethylmercury (and Thimerosal): a comparison with methylmercury

José G Dórea 1 Marcelo Farina, João B T Rocha


Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidade de Brasilia, 70919-970,
Brasilia, DF, Brazil.

PMID: 23401210 DOI: 10.1002/jat.2855


Ethylmercury (etHg) is derived from the metabolism of thimerosal (o-carboxyphenyl-thio-ethyl-sodium salt), which is the most widely used form of organic mercury. Because of its application as a vaccine preservative, almost every human and animal (domestic and farmed) that has been immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines has been exposed to etHg. Although methylmercury (meHg) is considered a hazardous substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and rice (in Asia), the World Health Organization considers small doses of thimerosal safe regardless of multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy. We have reviewed in vitro and in vivo studies that compare the toxicological parameters among etHg and other forms of mercury (predominantly meHg) to assess their relative toxicities and potential to cause cumulative insults. In vitro studies comparing etHg with meHg demonstrate equivalent measured outcomes for cardiovascular, neural and immune cells. However, under in vivo conditions, evidence indicates a distinct toxicokinetic profile between meHg and etHg, favoring a shorter blood half-life, attendant compartment distribution and the elimination of etHg compared with meHg. EtHg’s toxicity profile is different from that of meHg, leading to different exposure and toxicity risks. Therefore, in real-life scenarios, a simultaneous exposure to both etHg and meHg might result in enhanced neurotoxic effects in developing mammals. However, our knowledge on this subject is still incomplete, and studies are required to address the predictability of the additive or synergic toxicological effects of etHg and meHg (or other neurotoxicants).
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Adjuvants and Vaccines

Questions and Concerns

What is an adjuvant and why is it added to a vaccine?

An adjuvant is an ingredient used in some vaccines that helps create a stronger immune response in people receiving the vaccine. In other words, adjuvants help vaccines work better. Some vaccines that are made from weakened or killed germs contain naturally occurring adjuvants and help the body produce a strong protective immune response. However, most vaccines developed today include just small components of germs, such as their proteins, rather than the entire virus or bacteria. Adjuvants help the body to produce an immune response strong enough to protect the person from the disease he or she is being vaccinated against. Adjuvanted vaccines can cause more local reactions (such as redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site) and more systemic reactions (such as fever, chills and body aches) than non-adjuvanted vaccines.

Adjuvants have been used safely in vaccines for decades.

Aluminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used safely in vaccines for more than 70 years. Aluminum salts were initially used in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s with diphtheria and tetanus vaccines after it was found they strengthened the body’s immune response to these vaccines.
Newer adjuvants have been developed to target specific components of the body’s immune response, so that protection against disease is stronger and lasts longer.

In all cases, vaccines containing adjuvants are tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States, and they are continuously monitored by CDC and FDA once they are approved.

Several different adjuvants are used in U.S. vaccines.

Several different adjuvants are used in U.S. vaccines.
Adjuvant Composition Vaccines
Aluminum One or more of the following: amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate,
potassium aluminum sulfate (Alum)
Anthrax, DT, DTaP (Daptacel), DTaP (Infanrix), DTaP-IPV (Kinrix), DTaP-IPV (Quadracel), DTaP-HepB-IPV (Pediarix), DTaP –IPV/Hib (Pentacel), Hep A (Havrix), Hep A (Vaqta), Hep B (Engerix-B), Hep B (Recombivax), HepA/Hep B (Twinrix), HIB (PedvaxHIB), HPV (Gardasil 9), Japanese encephalitis (Ixiaro), MenB (Bexsero, Trumenba), Pneumococcal (Prevnar 13), Td (Tenivac), Td (Mass Biologics), Tdap (Adacel), Tdap (Boostrix)
AS04 Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) + aluminum salt Cervarix
MF59 Oil in water emulsion composed of squalene Fluad
AS01B Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) and QS-21, a natural compound extracted from the Chilean soapbark tree, combined in a liposomal formulation Shingrix
CpG 1018 Cytosine phosphoguanine (CpG), a synthetic form of DNA that mimics bacterial and viral genetic material Heplisav-B
No adjuvant ActHIB, chickenpox, live zoster (Zostavax), measles, mumps & rubella (MMR), meningococcal (Menactra, Menveo), rotavirus, seasonal influenza (except Fluad), single antigen polio (IPOL), yellow fever

Aluminum-containing adjuvants are vaccine ingredients that have been used in vaccines since the 1930s. Small amounts of aluminum are added to help the body build stronger immunity against the germ in the vaccine. Aluminum is one of the most common metals found in nature and is present in air, food, and water. Scientific research has shown the amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule is low and is not readily absorbed by the body. Read the research on aluminum exposure and vaccines.external icon  Also, see FDA’s web page on common ingredients in U.S. licensed vaccinesexternal icon for more information.

Beginning in 2009, monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) was used in one U.S. vaccine (Cervarix®); however, the vaccine is no longer available in the United States due to low market demand. This immune-boosting substance was isolated from the surface of bacteria.

MF59 is the adjuvant contained in Fluad (an influenza vaccine licensed for adults aged 65 or older). MF59 is an oil-in-water emulsion composed of squalene, which is a naturally occurring oil found in many plant and animal cells, as well as in humans. MF59, used in flu vaccines in Europe since 1997 and in the United States since 2016, has been given to millions of people and has an excellent safety record.

AS01B is an adjuvant suspension used with the antigen component of Shingrix vaccine. Shingrix is the recombinant zoster vaccine recommended for persons aged 50 years or older. AS01B is made of up of monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), an immune-boosting substance isolated from the surface of bacteria, and QS-21, a natural compound extracted from the Chilean soapbark tree (Quillaja saponaria Molina). In pre-licensure clinical trials, AS01B was associated with local and systemic reactions, but the overall safety profile was reassuring.
AS01B is also a component of vaccines currently being tested in clinical trials, including malaria and HIV vaccines. To date, these trials have included over 15,000 people.

CpG 1018
CpG 1018 is a recently developed adjuvant used in Heplisav-B vaccine. It is made up of cytosine phosphoguanine (CpG) motifs, which is a synthetic form of DNA that mimics bacterial and viral genetic material. When CpG 1018is included in a vaccine, it increases the body’s immune response.
In pre-licensure clinical trials, adverse events after Heplisav-B were comparable to those observed after another U.S.-licensed, non-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine.


New York Attorney General Targets Supplements at Major Retailers


GNC, Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens accused of selling adulterated ‘herbals’

Sarah Kaplan
Feb. 3, 2015

A warning to herbal supplement users: Those store-brand ginkgo biloba tablets you bought may contain mustard, wheat, radish and other substances decidedly non-herbal in nature, but they’re not likely to contain any actual ginkgo biloba.


That’s according to an investigation by the New York State attorney general’s office into store-brand supplements at four national retailers — GNC, Target, Walgreens and Wal-Mart. All four have received cease-and-desist letters demanding that they stop selling a number of their dietary supplements, few of which were found to contain the herbs shown on their labels and many of which included potential allergens not identified in the ingredients list.


“Contamination, substitution and falsely labeling herbal products constitute deceptive business practices and, more importantly, present considerable health risks for consumers,” said the letters, first reported today by the New York Times.


The tests were conducted using a process called DNA barcoding, which identifies individual ingredients through a kind of “genetic fingerprinting.” The investigators tested 24 products claiming to be seven different types of herb — echinacea, garlic, gingko biloba, ginseng, saw palmetto, St. John’s wort and valerian root. All but five of the products contained DNA that was either unrecognizable or from a plant other than what the product claimed to be.


Additionally, five of the 24 contained wheat and two contained beans without identifying them on the labels — both substances are known to cause allergic reactions in some people.


[How a fake doctor made millions from ‘the Dr. Oz Effect’ and a bogus weight-loss supplement]

Of the four retailers, Wal-Mart was the worst offender: None of its six supplements that were tested was found to contain purely the ingredient advertised. Target’s supplements were the least misleading of the lot — though that isn’t saying much, since tests on six of the brand’s products resulted in only one unqualified positive. Two of Target’s other supplements contained DNA from other plants alongside their purported ingredients, while the remaining three tested negative.


Harvard Medical School assistant professor Pieter Cohen, who is an expert on supplement safety, told the New York Times that the test results were so extreme he found them hard to accept. He suggested that the manufacturing process may have destroyed some of the ingredients’ DNA, rendering the DNA barcode test ineffective.


On the other hand, he said, “if this data is accurate, then it is an unbelievably devastating indictment of the industry.”


This investigation is just the latest in a series of blows against the dietary supplement industry. Supplements are not considered food or drugs, so they have long been only loosely regulated. Federal guidelines require companies to ensure that their products are safe and accurately labeled, but the FDA has little power to enforce that rule.


[Half of Dr. Oz’s medical advice is baseless or wrong, study says]

2012 paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association warned that this lack of regulation of the supplement industry could lead to “adverse events.” In the past five years, tainted supplements have been associated with kidney failurehepatitis and other problems.


Also in 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report saying that supplements’ claims about their structure and function often lack scientific support. HHS recommended that the FDA seek “explicit statutory authority to review substantiation for structure/function claims” — essentially, it should subject the health claims made by supplement manufacturers to the same kind of scrutiny that drugs must undergo.


The New York attorney general’s letters also cited a 2013 Canadian study of 44 common supplements, in which one-third of herbal supplements that were tested contained no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle.


The Canadian study “alerted the dietary supplement industry to the fact that it is not providing the public with authentic products without substitution, contamination or fillers. It is disappointing that over a year later the attorney general’s researcher reached similar conclusions,” the letters chastised, sounding like a frustrated parent.


In response to the findings, Walgreens told the New York Times that it would remove the offending products from its shelves nationwide, while spokesmen for Wal-Mart and GNC both said that the companies would respond “appropriately.” Target did not respond to requests for comment.


The study was prompted by a Times article that raised questions about the supplements.


[Dr. Oz solicits health questions on Twitter, gets attacked by trolls instead]




Ten year study shows that UNVACCINATED are far healthier than their vaccinated peers who suffer from more respiratory infections, asthma, allergies, etc.

Sunday, December 13, 2020 by:

(Natural News) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) refuse to conduct any study comparing the unvaccinated child to his/her peers. While HHS is legally obligated to conduct safety studies every two years and report to Congress in accordance with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, it was admitted in a 2018 court ruling that none of these vaccine safety studies were ever conducted over a thirty year span!


This medical fraud has enabled the rise of a predatory vaccine industry and a growing number of recommended childhood vaccinations. However, as childhood vaccinations increase, the health of American children has not improved in the past thirty years and respiratory infections are rampant. Visits to the pediatrician have skyrocketed, with chronic health issues becoming a normal way of life for many. A whopping 54 percent of children and young adults in the U.S. now suffer from chronic illnesses that lead to life-long pharmaceutical prescriptions.


Ten-year study finds that unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits

A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health finds that UNVACCINATED children are far healthier than vaccinated children. As the rate of vaccination increases, so does chronic health issues such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, respiratory infections, eczema and a host of other health problems. The study, titled, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” shows how childhood vaccination causes an increasing number of pediatric visits and an influx of diagnoses. The research followed 3,300 pediatric patients for ten years and was conducted at Integrative Pediatric, a pediatrics practice in Oregon run by Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.


During the study, Thomas’s pediatric practice prioritized parental decision-making and followed the informed consent doctrine of the American Medical Association. The plan allows parents to stop or delay vaccination if vaccine injuries were present. Not every child processes vaccine ingredients in the same way; conditions like eczema, developmental delay, allergies, or autoimmune conditions are typical signs that their body is unable to process the vaccines. Dr. Thomas’s practice contained the perfect mix of children who ranged from being unvaccinated to partially vaccinated to fully vaccinated per the CDC’s guidelines.



The study found that the unvaccinated child shows fewer signs of respiratory infections and fewer fevers at well-child visits. The unvaccinated child required twenty-five times LESS pediatric care over a ten year span! The CDC pushes for 70 doses of 16 vaccines on a child before they reach the age of 18. Children who received 90 to 95 percent of the CDC-recommended vaccines for their age group were about 25 times more likely to see the pediatrician than the unvaccinated group.


Vaccinated children (with a family history of autoimmune issues) suffer more compared to their unvaccinated peers

An important feature of this study was Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld’s work, which singled out a predisposition to vaccine injury called autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants. If there is family history of autoimmunity, children who get vaccinated are more likely to suffer from ear infections, asthma, allergies and skin rashes, when compared to the unvaccinated who also share the same family history of autoimmune issues. The aluminum adjuvant and the other various chemicals in the vaccine may turn on the genes that enable autoimmune issues. Family history of disease is important in determining whether vaccines should be used in the child.


Vaccinated children up to six times more likely to suffer from anemia, allergies, sinusitis and asthma

The most concerning aspect of the study was the rise in chronic health issues among the vaccinated children. The vaccinated children were three to six times more likely to wind up in the pediatrician’s office to treat anemia, allergies, sinusitis and asthma. The vaccinated were also 70 percent more likely to suffer from various respiratory infections compared to the unvaccinated. Do the vaccines weaken overall immunity and make children more susceptible to other infections? (Related: Vaccinated children face a 3,000% increase in allergic rhinitis.)


No ADHD in the unvaccinated

There was absolutely no ADHD in the unvaccinated children, but as vaccination uptake increased, ADHD and behavioral issues increased. Thomas’s practice halted vaccination when signs of ADHD were prevalent, which is why his practice saw roughly half the rate of ADHD overall, when compared to the general population.


Vaccine-preventable illnesses were not prevalent in the vaccinated or the unvaccinated

Strangely, a quarter percent of the vaccinated were diagnosed with infections that the vaccines were supposed to prevent, including chicken pox or whooping cough. A slight uptick in chicken pox and whooping cough was observed in the unvaccinated, but they all recovered and gained lifelong immunity to the infections. Predictably, there were no cases of measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis, or any other vaccine targeted infection for the children who were vaccinated. Surprisingly, there were also NO CASES of these infections in the unvaccinated during the entire 10.5-year study period. This brings up the question: Are the vaccines even necessary, or do they impose a burden of unnecessary harm to children?


age-specific cumulative office visits

age-specific cumulative office visits

Sources include:


Groundbreaking Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Vaccinated Children

This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers that compare the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children. These studies suggest we have long underestimated the scope of vaccine harms, and that the epidemic of chronic illness in children is hardly a mystery.

By Alix Mayer, MBA 07 December 2020


Unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, according to a new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Click to download PDF file   Click to Download the Paper  Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U S children-JTS-3-186

The study — “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” — by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
and Paul Thomas, MD, was conducted among 3,300 patients at Dr. Thomas’ Oregon pediatrics practice, Integrative Pediatric.

This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers (Mawson, 2017; Hooker and Miller, 2020) that compare the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children. These studies suggest we have long underestimated the scope of vaccine harms, and that the epidemic of chronic illness in children is hardly a mystery.

The study the CDC refused to do

Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been legally obligated to conduct safety studies and issue a safety report on children’s vaccinations every two years. In 2018, it was determined they had never done so. It is therefore incumbent upon non-governmental groups to do the work the CDC refuses to do.


As the leading governmental organization driving vaccination among Americans, the CDC refuses to incriminate themselves in the epidemic of childhood chronic illness. It is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. They are complicit in creating an evidence vacuum to deliberately manage against the possibility of the public turning against vaccination.


Since the Lyons-Weiler and Thomas study demonstrates that vaccinated children have more chronic illness and were also more likely to get respiratory infections, those who downplay vaccine risks will be sent into another round of apoplectic machinations to attempt to invalidate the results.


Despite the rigor with which this study was conducted, expect critics to do anything but cite opposing science. They cannot. It simply has not been done. Instead, expect critics to draw from a hackneyed playbook to draw the attention away from these scientific findings by directing ad hominem attacks on the authors, criticizing the journal where it was published, and claiming that the study design was not sound.


When research highlights anomalies that diverge from a dominant scientific paradigm, it’s important to remember that the playground of science is not in proof, but in the accumulation of evidence that bolsters an emerging paradigm. The Lyons-Weiler and Thomas study strengthens this emerging paradigm that vaccines may cause more harm than previously documented and characterized.

A perfect pediatric practice to study health outcomes among varying rates of vaccination

Thomas’ pediatric practice follows The Dr. Paul Approved Vaccine Plan, allowing for fully informed consent and parental decision-making in vaccination choices for their children. The plan was developed to reduce exposures to aluminum-containing vaccines and to allow parents to stop or delay vaccinations if some telltale signs of vaccine injury were starting to appear. Conditions like allergies, eczema, developmental delay or autoimmune conditions are typical signs that a child’s immune system is not processing vaccines normally.


These conditions serve as early indicators to help the parent and pediatrician consider slowing or stopping vaccination. As such, Dr. Thomas’ practice has an incredible mix of children who range from fully vaccinated, to partially vaccinated, to not vaccinated at all, making it the perfect pediatric practice to mine for insights into side effects of vaccination.

Study results based on relative incidence of office visits

The Lyons-Weiler and Thomas study was conducted among pediatric patient records spanning 10 years, from Thomas’ practice in Oregon. Instead of using odds ratios of diagnoses in the two groups, the authors found that the relative incidence of office visit was more powerful. Even after controlling for health care exposure, age, family history of autoimmunity and gender, the associations of vaccination with many poor health outcomes were robust.

Unvaccinated children have less fever, seek 25X less pediatric care outside well-child visits

The study found that vaccinated children in the study see the doctor more often than unvaccinated children. The CDC recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines before a child reaches the age of 18. The more vaccines a child in the study received, the more likely the child presented with fever at an office visit.


The study had unique data that allowed the researchers to study healthcare seeking behavior. Unlike increases in fever accompanied by increased vaccine uptake, which is accepted as causally related to vaccination, increases in vaccine acceptance was not accompanied by a major increase in well-child visits. In fact, regardless of how many vaccinations parents decided their children would have, the number of well-child visits was about the same.


Any concerns that the non-vaccinated or less-vaccinated children would avoid the doctor are unfounded, and puts the jaw-droppingly large difference in office visits in perspective — outside of well-child visits, children who received 90 to 95% of the CDC-recommended vaccines for their age group were about 25 times more likely than the unvaccinated group to see the pediatrician for an appointment related to fever.


Children got CDC recommended vaccines office visit for fever vs non vaccine

Children got CDC recommended vaccines office visit for fever vs non vaccine

Compared to their unvaccinated counterparts, vaccinated children in the study were three to six times more likely to show up in the pediatrician’s office for treatment related to anemia, asthma, allergies and sinusitis. The striking charts below show age-specific cumulative office visits for various conditions among the fully vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.


age-specific cumulative office visits

age-specific cumulative office visits


No ADHD among unvaccinated


In a stunning finding sure to rock the psychiatric community, not a single unvaccinated child in the study was diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD,) while 0.063% of the vaccinated group were diagnosed with ADHD. Likely due to the vaccine-friendly plan parent-doctor dyad decision-making at Dr. Thomas’ practice, the overall rates of ADHD and autism in the practice were roughly half the rates found in the general population of American children.

Low levels of chicken pox and whooping cough in vaccinated and unvaccinated

Regarding the question of whether or not vaccines prevent the infections they are intended to prevent, a quarter of a percent of the vaccinated were diagnosed with either chicken pox or whooping cough, while a half percent of the unvaccinated were diagnosed with chickenpox, whooping cough, or rotavirus.


Significantly, there were no cases of measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis or other vaccine-targeted infections in either the vaccinated or unvaccinated, during the entire 10.5 year study period.

Vaccinated 70% more likely to have any respiratory infection

Vaccinations do appear to make recipients more generally susceptible to infections, so it is ironic, yet not surprising that the vaccinated children in the study appeared at the doctor’s office for respiratory infections 70% more often than the unvaccinated. This finding is likely why vaccinated children present to the pediatrician so often with fevers. Your grandmother was right when she asked why kids these days seem to be sick all the time, despite heavy vaccination.

Family history of autoimmunity correlated with ear infection and allergic conditions

Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld and others have described a condition called autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), where genetics and family history of autoimmunity appear to pre-dispose vaccinated patients to higher risks of developing an autoimmune condition. With this in mind, the authors compared patient records from those with a family history of autoimmune conditions — such as multiple sclerosis, type I diabetes or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis — to patients whose families do not have autoimmunity. The results were striking. Vaccination among children with autoimmunity in their family appeared to increase the risk of ear infection, asthma, allergies and skin rashes relative to the unvaccinated with family history of autoimmunity.

Past studies have used a weaker statistic

Readers of the study will learn about flaws in past vaccine safety studies, such as over-adjustment bias, in which the data are analyzed many times over in search of the right combination of variables to make associations of adverse health outcomes with vaccines go away. One of the most important findings of this study is that the comparison of the number of office visits related to specific health condition is a far more accurate tool than just using the incidence of diagnoses. In fact, the study authors show this with simulation — and they point out that studies that use odds ratios with incidence of diagnosis are using a low-powered special case of the method introduced by their study, the relative incidence of office visits, because patients with a “diagnosis” have at least one billed office visit related to the diagnosis. The authors conclude that future vaccine safety studies should avoid using weak measures such as odds ratios of incidence of diagnosis.


Since the study found healthcare seeking behavior could not explain vaccination rates, the only remaining explanation of why vaccinated patients require more healthcare for symptoms of chronic illness associated with vaccination is that vaccines are not only associated with adverse health outcomes — they are also associated with more severe and chronic adverse health outcomes. Recalling that 54% of children and young adults in the U.S. have chronic illnesses that lead to life-long pharmaceutical prescriptions, it seems a lot of human pain and suffering could be reduced by adhering to informed choice regarding the true risks of vaccination, and heeding signs of vaccine sensitivity. Although the authors call for more studies to be conducted using similar methodology, this study should certainly cause pediatricians to pause and wonder if they are contributing to life-long chronic illness in some of their patients.


The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Suggest a Correction
Alix Mayer, MBA

Alix Mayer, MBA serves on the board of Children’s Health Defense and is the president of the California chapter of Children’s Health Defense.


Shocking MMR Vaccine Trial Results Released


Shocking MMR Vaccine Trial Results Released

Shocking MMR Vaccine Trial Results Released

Delete The Elite
May 4, 2019

Trial results

Click to download PDF file   Click to download the results FDA-Relied-Upon-STUDIES-LICENSING-MMR-VACCINE-FOIA

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request results in the release of MMR vaccine trial data, showing that a shocking percentage of children participating in the study suffered from gastrointestinal illness and upper-respiratory illness in the days and weeks after receiving the Measles, Mumps & Rubella shot.

These studies are the ones that the FDA relied upon when licensing the MMR vaccine. Study results were obtained by a FOIA request after a court case was won. The FDA has kept these results hidden for 40 years.


CDC’s vaccination schedule inevitably leads to autoimmune diseases

by November 7th, 2013 Updated 11/11/2013 Natural Society

Several epidemiological surveys show vaccinated children suffer from poorer chronic health more than unvaccinated kids, but it means little to vaccine pushers and advocates. Well, here is another study which shows how over-stimulating the immune system (through vaccines) inevitably leads to autoimmune diseases.

The Japanese Study Summarized

Here’s the Kobe University study’s conclusion: journal.pone. autoimmune


Click to download PDF file  Click to download the Study Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity

“Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organize criticality.” (Emphasis added.)

Ironically, the initial purpose of this independently funded study was to understand how autoimmune diseases develop. It was not originally intended as an effort to prove vaccination safety or danger.


The researchers even used mice that were bred to avoid autoimmune diseases. They were injected with solutions that contained antigens without toxic additives.

Antigens generate antibodies to protect against invading disease pathogens. Antibodies can turn against the host if they become overly and unnecessarily self generated, causing long term autoimmune diseases, such as asthma, food allergies, arthritis, MS, and a host of neurological disorders that plague us much more than infectious diseases.


A vaccination injects cultured vaccine antigens of weakened (attenuated) or dead viruses to create an immune response of antibodies to that antigen, supposedly for creating immunity to that particular disease.


Read: Study Detracting Vaccine-Autism Link Backfires


The researchers injected the mice repeatedly with the antigen Staphylococcus entertoxin B (SEB) with just enough time between each injection to recover from immediate antigen reactions. They wanted to ascertain the specific mechanics of how an immune system could turn on itself to create autoimmune diseases if it was over-stimulated.


Toxic adjuvants or preservatives normally used in vaccines were not part of the study. After seven injections, the mice recovered each time with their immune systems intact. But after the eighth injection, problems with key immunity cells began arising. Looks like “greening” vaccines is useless.


Damaged cells were observed microscopically and showed signs of early autoimmunity. Their immune systems had started to self generate antibodies for autoimmune reactions after repeated antigen inoculations.


As expected, this lab study summarized here has not received much if any public attention. The findings were echoed by others, including retired neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock. He expressed concern over the over-stimulation of young people’s immune systems with repeated antigen vaccinations, even without toxic additives. Here is the video interview.


This study should put to rest the notion that “greening” vaccines by removing or withholding vaccines’ normal toxic additives would make the childhood vaccination schedule of close to 40 vaccinations by 18 months of age more acceptable. It is also a direct challenge to the theory and practice of vaccinations.

With the CDC-Immunization-Schedule  human infants and children are usually not given enough  “recovery time”, which was allowed for the study mice.


Click to download PDF file Click to download the CDC-Immunization-Schedule



CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 1

CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 1


CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 2

CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 2


CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 3

CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 3


CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 4

CDC Immunization Schedule-Page 4


The very basis of creating immunity with even “greened” vaccinations is worse than false, it is actually very unhealthy.


Vaccine Study on Infant Deaths

Study Shows Vaccines Cause Infant Deaths
Click to download PDF file  Click to Download the Formal National Institutes of Health report Infant-mortality-rates-regressed-against-number-of-vaccine-doses-routinely-given-10.1177_0960327111407644

“Nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates [IMR]. The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year – the most in the world – yet 33 [out of 34] nations have better IMRs.”
~~ From a study linking vaccines to infant deaths on the National Institutes of Health website

A vaccine study posted on the website of the NIH (U.S. National Institutes of Health) under the National Library of Medicine shows a strong correlation across the 34 countries evaluated between the number of vaccines given to infants and the rate of infant deaths, or in scientific lingo “infant mortality rate” [IMR]. The abstract, conclusion and two key graphs from this study are posted below.


Common sense would tell us that an infant’s immune system is not well developed and that the 26 vaccines scheduled for infants by the age of one year in the U.S. could easily overtax the coping mechanisms of many infants. Now the data from this study confirms that those countries which give only 12 to 14 vaccines to infants have much lower infant death rates (by as much as 50% or more) than the U.S. and other countries with higher numbers of vaccinations.

Remember that huge pharmaceuticals which focus on maximizing shareholder value above all else make billions of dollars on these vaccines. They do everything they can to hide information like this to protect their huge profits. Dozens of major media articles have shown the serious dangers of vaccines, yet the media largely parrots the views of its largest advertisers, including big pharma. Educate yourself and don’t fall for all of the media and government hype. By being well informed and taking action, we can protect the health of our children and future generations.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman
National Institutes of Health website



The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year – the most in the world – yet 33 [out of 34] nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12-14 vaccine doses and those giving 21-23, and 24-26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.

Compare the infant death rates in the left column above with the number of vaccines given to infants listed in the right row. The graph below shows the strong overall correlation with few exceptions.

Figure-1 2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.

Figure-1 2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.


Figure 2. 2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories).

Figure 2. 2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories).



Figure 3. Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. However, during this period there was a significant increase in postneonatal deaths attributed to suffocation in bed and due to unknown causes. When these sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUIDs) are combined with SIDS deaths, the total SIDS rate remains relatively stable, resulting in a non-significant decline.

Figure 3. Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. However, during this period there was a significant increase in postneonatal deaths attributed to suffocation in bed and due to unknown causes. When these sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUIDs) are combined with SIDS deaths, the total SIDS rate remains relatively stable, resulting in a non-significant decline.


Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?


Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines, there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.” Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.” Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.


Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.


Reclassified infant deaths

It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination. Some infants’ deaths categorized as ‘suffocation’ or due to ‘unknown and unspecified causes’ may also be cases of SIDS reclassified within the ICD. Some of these infant deaths may be vaccine related as well. This trend toward reclassifying ICD data is a great concern of the CDC “because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths.” If some infant deaths are vaccine related and concealed within the various ICD categories for SUIDs, is it possible that other vaccine-related infant deaths have also been reclassified?


Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes. Of course, all SUID categories should be re-inspected. Other ICD categories may be related to vaccines as well.


For example, a new live-virus orally administered vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea—Rotarix®—was licensed by the European Medicine Agency in 2006 and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of the Rotarix vaccine, vaccinated babies died at a higher rate than non-vaccinated babies—mainly due to a statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related fatalities. (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.) Although these fatalities appear to be vaccine related and raise a nation’s infant mortality rate, medical certifiers are likely to misclassify these deaths as pneumonia.


Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system, influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities. All nations—rich and poor, industrialized and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals. Progress on reducing infant mortality rates should include monitoring vaccine schedules and medical certification practices to ascertain whether vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD.


How many infants can be saved with an improved IMR?

Slight improvements in IMRs can make a substantial difference. In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000. If health authorities can find a way to reduce the rate by 1/1000 (16%), the United States would rise in international rank from 34th to 31st and about 4500 infants would be saved.


The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 [out of 34] nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.


Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations – rich and poor, advanced and developing – have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.

Note: See all charts and read the full study on this webpage of the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine. The study was published in Sept. of 2011.



Biggest Medical Scandal In History Breaking! UN Comes Clean, Admits Vaccine Death / Damage Coverup

BOMBSHELL: WHO Chief Scientist caught on video overtly contradicting public propaganda videos that falsely claim vaccines work “without risks”

15January2020 by: Mike Adams

On December 2nd and 3rd, the UN-funded WHO held a Global Vaccine Safety Summit where scientists admitted that vaccines are killing people, adjuvants in the vaccines are part of the problem, and they have not conducted adequate safety studies. This is a bombshell report!


World Health Organization

Leaked Video! Head U.N. Scientist Admits Vaccines Are Killing People

(Natural News) Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, M.D.Chief Scientist of the World Health Organization, has been caught blatantly lying to the public about vaccine safety. In a public service announcement produced by the W.H.O., she claims “Vaccines are very safe” and that vaccines can “prevent disease without risks.” But in a leaked W.H.O. vaccine summit video that has now gone public, she frets about vaccine safety, saying, “we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems” and, “[we] learned about adverse events only after the drug’s been licensed and introduced into the population. So I think that risk is always there…”


The blatant contradiction underscores the deliberate, outright lies that characterize the vaccine industry and its propagandists like Dr. Swaminathan. It’s not simply that these people are providing the public false, misleading information about vaccines; it’s that they are fully aware of their lies.


The very same people who publicly proclaim vaccines are “risk free” are caught behind the scenes, just five days later, openly admitting to all the adverse effects (side effects) and failed public safety monitoring systems.



These globalist vaccine pushers are liars. They are criminals against humanity. They knowingly harm children with toxic vaccines that, in their own private meetings, they openly admit to each other are extremely risky.



This video, by the way, would be banned on YouTube, Facebook and Vimeo. Fortunately, we built so that we could host these videos without being molested by the tech giants. h/t to Del Bigtree and his HighWire broadcast, which

Watch and share. The full transcript is posted below:



Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, M.D.Chief Scientist, W.H.O., Pediatrician – Promotional Video, Nov 28, 2019
Vaccines are very safe. If someone gets sick after vaccination, it is usually either a coincidence and error in administering the vaccine or very rarely, a problem with the vaccine itself. That’s why we have vaccine safety systems. Robust vaccine safety systems allow health workers and experts to react immediately to any problems that may arise. They can examine the problem rigorously and scientifically look at the data and then promptly address the problem. W.H.O. works closely with countries to make sure that vaccines can do what they do best: prevent disease without risks. New vaccines against malaria, meningitis, and encephalitis in Asia and Africa are now being thoroughly monitored with support from W.H.O. Vaccines are one of the safest tools we have to prevent disease and ensure a healthy future for all children.



Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, M.D.Chief Scientist, W.H.O., Pediatrician – W.H.O. Global Vaccine Safety Summit, Dec 3, 2019


I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media. One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in most cases, there’s some obfuscation at that level and therefore, there’s less and less trust then in the system. Putting in place the mechanisms, whether they’re cohort studies or whether they’re Sentinel Surveillance sites, to be able to monitor what’s going on and report back and then for corrective action to be taken because unexpected things could arise after introduction. And one always has to be prepared as we’ve seen, you know, in the history of many drugs you’ve heard about– I mean, learned about adverse events only after the drug’s been licensed and introduced into the population. So I think that risk is always there and the population needs to understand that and feel confident that mechanisms are being put in place to study some of those things.



Stay informed. Read and watch vaccine truth videos on (or post your own).



Also listen to my podcast that summarizes the total criminality and villainous deception of the entire vaccine industry (and all its propagandists):

UN vaccine experts ADMIT to massive, global vaccine cover-up



VACCINE BOMBSHELL as U.N. health experts admit toxic vaccine ingredients are harming children worldwide – see video, transcript

Monday, January 13, 2020 by: Mike Adams

(Natural News) A Dec. 2, 2019 World Health Organization “Global Vaccine Safety Summit” video has been found and leaked to the world, revealing shocking admissions of the health hazards posed by vaccines and their toxic ingredients.



A first-wave compilation of some of the more damning quotes was created by Del Bigtree’s “Highwire” organization, which posted the video to YouTube. Knowing that video would quickly be banned, we posted it to, where “Highwire” is expected to launch a channel very soon.



You can watch the full video at this link on Brighteon. For a related article that covers this, see this link at


A full transcript of this video compilation is offered below. Watch the video here, via Brighteon:


Some of the highlights:

An admission that vaccine adjuvants increase cell death and damage to vaccine recipients. For this paragraph, the term “reactogenicity” means vaccine adverse reactions and side effects, including those that are known to be extremely harmful and cause long-term damage or even death:


Dr. Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology – It seems to me that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens that they are added to, and that is their intention.  It seems to me they multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions that are associated with the antigen…

Warnings about long-term effects from vaccine adjuvants:

Some of the highlights:

An admission that vaccine adjuvants increase cell death and damage to vaccine recipients. For this paragraph, the term “reactogenicity” means vaccine adverse reactions and side effects, including those that are known to be extremely harmful and cause long-term damage or even death:


Dr. Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology – It seems to me that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens that they are added to, and that is their intention.  It seems to me they multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions that are associated with the antigen…


Warnings about long-term effects from vaccine adjuvants:


Dr. Martin Howell Friede – You are correct. As we add adjuvants, especially some of the more recent adjuvants, such as the ASO1, saponin-derived adjuvants , we do see increased local reactogenicity… The major health concern which we are seeing are accusations of long term, long term effects.


An admission that the W.H.O. is panicking over the fact that many doctors and nurses are finally starting to question the safety and vaccines and are becoming aware of the coordinated cover-up of vaccine injuries:


Prof. Heidi Larson, PhD, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project – We have a very wobbly health professional front line that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the front line professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it to the person asking them the questions.  I mean most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you’re lucky if you have a half-day on vaccines. Never mind keeping up to date with all this.


Also from Prof. Heidi Larson, PhD – You can’t repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problem. So we need much more investment in safety science.


An admission that vaccine clinical trials are insufficient and that vaccines are approved without adequate safety data. Also admits that vaccines damage children far more than they damage elderly adults:


Dr. Marion Gruber – Director, Office of Vaccines Research and Review Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. FDA – And again as you mentioned pre-licensure clinical trials may not be powered enough. It’s also the subject population that you administer the adjuvant to because we’ve seen data presented to us where an adjuvant, a particular adjuvant added to a vaccine antigen did really nothing when administered to a certain population and usually the elderly, you know, compared to administering the same formulation to younger age strata.


A warning about the lack of vaccine safety monitoring systems around the world:


Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, M.D., Chief Scientist, W.H.O., Pediatrician – I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t havevery good safety monitoring systems in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine…


Here’s an admission that viral fragments don’t work as promised by immunization theory and that it’s the adjuvants which are responsible for the inflammatory response to vaccines. In other words, vaccine science as described by the vaccine establishment, is quackery:


Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator, Initiative for Vaccine Research, W.H.O. – Without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.  And many of the vaccines that we do have, ranging from tetanus through to HPV require adjuvants in order for them to work. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so.


An admission that vaccine safety tracking systems don’t even exist and that efforts to build such systems are only just beginning:


Dr. Robert Chen, M.D. – Scientific Director, Brighton Collaboration – [W]e’re really only in the beginning of the era of large data sets where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies. And there’s actually an initiative underway… Helen there may want to comment on it to try to get more national vaccine safety database linked together so we could start to answer these types of questions that you just raised.

Full transcript of what’s on this video – there’s a lot more yet to come

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: W.H.O Scientists Question Safety Of Vaccines

Prof. Heidi Larson, PhD, Anthropologist, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project
There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed, and without the good science, we can’t have good communication. Although I’m talking about all these other contextual issues, and communication issues it absolutely needs the science as the backbone.  You can’t repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problem. So we need much more investment in safety science.


Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, M.D., Chief Scientist, W.H.O., Pediatrician
I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media.  One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of the deaths are, but in most cases there is some obfuscation at that level and therefore, there’s less and less trust then in the system.


Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator, Initiative for Vaccine Research, W.H.O.
Every time that there is an association, be it temporal or not temporal, the first accusation is it is the adjuvant. And yet, without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.  And many of the vaccines that we do have, ranging from tetanus through to HPV require adjuvants in order for them to work.  So the challenge that we have in front of us is:  How do we build confidence in this? And the confidence first of all comes from the regulatory agencies (I look to Marion). When we add an adjuvant it’s because it is essential.  We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so.  But when we add them, it adds to the complexity. I give courses every year on “How do you develop vaccines?”, “How do you make vaccines?” And the first lesson is, while you’re making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so.  Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.


Dr. Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology
It seems to me that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens that they are added to, and that is their intention.  It seems to me they multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions that are associated with the antigen, but may not have been detected through lack of statistical power in the original studies.


Dr. Martin Howell Friede
You are correct. As we add adjuvants, especially some of the more recent adjuvants, such as the ASO1, saponin-derived adjuvants , we do see increased local reactogenicity. The primary concern, though, usually is systemic adverse events rather than local adverse events. And we tend to get in the Phase II and the Phase III studies quite good data on the local reactogenicity. Those of us in this room that are beyond the age of 50 who have had the pleasure of having the recent shingles vaccine, will know that this does have quite significant local reactogenicity. If you got the vaccine, you know that you got the vaccine. But this is not the major health concern. The major health concern which we are seeing are accusations of long term, long term effects. So to come back to this, I’m going to once again point to the regulators. It comes down to ensuring that we conduct Phase II and the Phase III studies with adequate size and with the appropriate measurement.


Dr. David Kaslow, M.D. – V.P., Essential Medicines, Drug Development program PATH Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access (CVIA)
So in our clinical trials, we are actually using relatively small sample sizes, and when we do that we’re at risk of tyranny of small numbers, which is, you just need a single case of Wegener’s Granulomatosis, and your vaccine has to, solve Walt’s, How do you prove a null Hypothesis? …And it takes years and years to try to figure that out. It’s a real conundrum, right? Getting the right size, dealing with the tyranny of small numbers, making sure that you can really do it. And so I think one of the things that we really need to invest in are kind of better biomarkers, better mechanistic understanding of how these things work so we can better understand adverse events as they come up.


Dr. Marion Gruber – Director, Office of Vaccines Research and Review Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. FDA
One of the additional issues that complicates safety evaluation is that if you look at, and you struggle with the length of follow-up that should be adequate in a, let’s say a pre-licensure or even post-marketing study if that’s even possible. And again as you mentioned pre-licensure clinical trials may not be powered enough. It’s also the subject population that you administer the adjuvant to because we’ve seen data presented to us where an adjuvant, a particular adjuvant added to a vaccine antigen did really nothing when administered to a certain population and usually the elderly, you know, compared to administering the same formulation to younger age strata.  So these are things which need to be considered as well and further complicate safety and effectiveness evaluation of adjuvants combined with vaccine antigens.


Dr. Bassey Okposen – Program Manager, National Emergency Routine Immunization Coordination Centre (NERICC). Abuja, Nigeria
I cast back my mind to our situation in Nigeria where at six weeks, ten weeks, fourteen weeks, a child is being given different antigens from different companies, and these vaccines have different adjuvants and different preservatives and so on. Something crosses my mind… is there possibility of these adjuvants, preservatives, cross-reacting amongst themselves? Have there ever been a study on the possibility of cross-reactions on from the past that you can share the experience with us?


Dr. Robert Chen, M.D. – Scientific Director, Brighton Collaboration
Now the only way to tease that out is if you have a large population database like the vaccine safety datalink as well as some of the other national databases that are coming to being worthy. Actual vaccine exposure is trapped down to that level of specificity of who is the manufacturer? What is the lot number? Etc..etc. And there’s an initiative to try to make the vaccine label information bar-coded so that it includes that level of information. So that in the future when we do these type of studies, we are able to tease that out. And in order to be – each time you subdivide them, the sample size gets becoming more and more challenging and that’s what I said earlier today about that we’re really only in the beginning of the era of large data sets where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies. And there’s actually an initiative underway… Helen there may want to comment on it to try to get more national vaccine safety database linked together so we could start to answer these types of questions that you just raised.


Prof. Heidi Larson, PhD
The other thing that’s a trend and an issue is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional front line that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the front line professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it to the person asking them the questions.  I mean most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you’re lucky if you have a half-day on vaccines. Never mind keeping up to date with all this.

Watch the full video at





By Jefferey Jaxen

The World Health Organization (WHO) often finds itself at the center of controversy. It is also considered the “go to” source for authoritative health information. The organization toggles between parroting industry talking points and propaganda, while also producing information that purportedly assists public health awareness.

Yet the WHO has a history of ignoring reality and warnings while shaping their policy. Here are a few examples

1 – Ignoring Vaccine Safety and Risk Concerns

Vaccinations have been a central focus of WHO for many years. Until recently, they’ve been enthusiastic about vaccine uptake, but in 2019, WHO went “all in” on the manufactured talking point regarding “vaccine hesitancy.”


When WHO declared vaccine hesitancy one of their top ten threats to global health, corporate news headlines and government bureaucrats around the world echoed the WHO’s proclamation, despite limited safety testing from a notoriously unscrupulous industry.


Unanswered questions surrounding vaccine safety are consistently listed in polls, surveys and research around the world as a reason many people are ‘hesitant’ about vaccination.


But what’s there to be hesitant about if vaccines are “safe and effective”? Heck, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labels vaccines one of the top ten public health achievements in the twentieth century – along with water fluoridation.

Yet here’s Prof. Heidi Larson, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project discussing the biggest issue surrounding growing vaccine hesitancy worldwide. Spoiler alert – it’s safety.

Larson later added,

There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed. You can’t repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problems.

Doesn’t sound like a lot of “confidence” from the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, does it?

Vaccine safety doesn’t just rest on the so-called “settled science” of missing double-blind, placebo controlled studies [which all other drugs and medications must adhere to] and the complete absence of total health outcome comparisons in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.


Product safety is also justified by robust surveillance and monitoring systems – you know, the same ones enacted to track the vaccine wariness of you and your family.


Now let’s listen in on Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at the WHO She’s caught flatfooted, contradicting herself when talking about her (own waning) confidence in vaccine surveillance, behind closed doors at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva, Switzerland, last December.

That same day, Marion Gruber of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly acknowledged it was only now beginning to organize the components needed for planning the creation of proper vaccine surveillance systems.


2 – Ignoring America’s Opioid Epidemic To Expand Problems Globally 

In hindsight, there have been some pretty shocking headlines about opioids over the past few years.

The 2016 Los Angeles Times investigative piece OxyContin goes global – “We’re only just getting started” exposed a global opioid marketing push by Mundipharma International – a network of pharmaceutical companies owned by the Sackler family.


The LA Times piece prompted a letter from 12 members of Congress to WHO’s then Director-General Margaret Chan. The letter urged Chan and the WHO to “…do everything in its power to avoid allowing [Purdue Pharma] to begin a worldwide opioid epidemic.


Citing irrefutable examples and internal documents, the members of Congress wrote:

We urge the WHO to learn from our experience and rein in this reckless and dangerous behavior while there is still time.

But it was already too late. Little did Congress know at the time, the WHO’s guidelines and policy on opioids had already been updated in 2011 to reflect deep industry talking points.

In 2019 a Congressional report detailing WHO’s infiltration by the opioid industry was released through the offices of Clark and Rogers: Exposing Dangerous Opioid Manufacturer Influence at the World Health Organization.


The document unequivocally states,

We are disturbed that the WHO, a trusted international agency, appears to be lending the opioid industry its voice and credibility.

The Congressional report goes on to warn, “Based on the course of events that has taken place in the U.S. over the past 20 years, if the recommendations in these WHO guidelines are followed, there is a significant risk of sparking a worldwide public health crisis.


3 – Ignoring Alarming Death Rates of Vaccine Campaigns in Third World Countries 

In Dr. Peter Aaby’s recent presentation WHO is the brain in the system? A case study of how public health vaccinology deals with fundamental contradictions of current policy he recounted his studies in Africa with a newly approved measles vaccine.


After finding that girls given the measles vaccine had a two-fold higher mortality rate, Dr. Abby alerted the WHO. After WHO initially discounted his findings, Dr. Aaby worked to convince the WHO to hold an expert panel to discuss his data and discoveries.


According to Dr. Aaby, the panel concluded his findings weren’t plausible because there was no biological explanation. Additionally, the WHO panel claimed that since the study and deaths weren’t planned, they should simply be discounted.


You might want to read that previous paragraph a couple times, just to let it sink in.


Later, after similar findings were found in Haiti and Sudan by other researchers, the WHO withdrew the new measles vaccine as quietly as they could “with no real explanation” and making “no attempt to understand what has happened,” Dr. Aaby explains.


Dr. Aaby continued to look at the introductions and combinations of other vaccines given to children in Guinea-Bissau over his career. In 2018 he published Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection


Dr. Aaby and his team concluded the following:


“…6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.


He also found in a separate study that DTP vaccination was associated with increased mortality and that oral polio vaccination may modify the effect of DTP.


In late 2017, The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sent a legal notice letter to UNICEF and 150 other underdeveloped nations. The letter demanded UNICEF “cease distribution of the DTP vaccine or at least confirm that parents of children receiving this vaccine are advised of Dr. Aaby’s findings…


After two months UNICEF replied to ICAN’s notice with a canned response completely ignoring Aaby’s study and refusing to address the concerning results of their DTP vaccination campaign.


4 – Ignoring Safety Issues About the HPV Vaccine

In 2016, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan received an open letter from Dr. Sin Hang Lee, regarding safety issues with the aluminum adjuvant contained within the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, along with evidence several individuals and organizations had deliberately mislead Japanese authorities regarding the safety of Gardasil® and Cervarix®.


The WHO ignored Dr. Lee’s warnings, along with a decade of international research showing aluminum adjuvants are harmful.


Instead, a year later WHO published its position paper, which it stands by to this day, stating, “Data from all sources continue to be reassuring regarding the safety profile of all 3 vaccines…All 3 licensed HPV vaccines – bivalent, quadrivalent and nonavalent – have excellent safety, efficacy and effectiveness profiles.


Ummmmmm…No. Studies and information are continuously being produced that warn of the dangers and toxicity from injected aluminum.


In closing, one must give credit where credit is due even if the information arrives late to the party. The WHO’s International Agency For Research on Cancer now labels glyphosate as a Group 2A probably carcinogenic to humans product, banging Bayer-Monsanto’s so-called settled herbicidal science.


That 2015 finding teed up the company for record cancer lawsuits against its flagship Roundup product, which are still ongoing today. Let’s hope currently-protected-from-litigation Big Pharma will soon find itself in similar straits.


Arutz Sheva

New Jersey vaccines law defeated (for now) as parents cheer

Bill would have ended religious exemptions to mandatory vaccinations for New Jersey public school students.

Mordechai Sones, 14January2020

Thousands descended on Trenton, New Jersey Monday in response to New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s (D-Gloucester) vow to pass S2173 that would have ended New Jersey parents’ ability to avoid vaccinating their children based on religious beliefs. Failure to pass the bill means lawmakers must start over in the next legislative session that begins Tuesday.


Months of organizing a national movement culminated in protesters flooding the chamber and cheering when the Senate session ended without a vote.


The legislation as initially written would have ended a religious exemption to vaccine requirements for children attending any school in the state, but lawmakers amended the bill last week to allow exemptions for pupils at private schools and for siblings of children who had vaccine-related injuries.


Sweeney said the lawmakers would reintroduce the bill Tuesday and restart the entire process, threatening “We’re ready to go to war with this.”


In years past, most states, including New York and New Jersey, granted parents the legal right to opt out of mandatory vaccination for their school aged children by submitting a religious exemption letter to their schools. Jewish schools accepted these letters in lieu of immunization records. This satisfied government agencies, such as local health and education departments, and the small minority of unvaccinated students remained unobtrusive.


Many Jewish communities have been terribly challenged by the issue of vaccination. The vaccination controversy entered the Jewish public’s notice in the fall of 2018 when the measles hit Monsey, Brooklyn, Lakewood, Passaic, and other Orthodox population centers. Legislation in New York State removed parents’ right to claim a religious exemption. New York schools were forced to identify and expel unvaccinated students. Many New Jersey schools began to do so voluntarily.


However, Orthodox Jewish voices were prominent at New Jersey’s protest, with bill opponents arriving by bus from Brooklyn, Monsey, Lakewood, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, reporting that gentiles repeatedly thanked them for their solidarity, happy to see Jewish opposition to repealing the religious exemption, explaining that they had previously not heard outcry from Jewish communities.


A publication produced by students of Rabbis Shmuel Kamenetzky, Elya Ber Wachtfogel, and Malkiel Kotler make their views on vaccination known, writing that “Their view is not extreme. They do not advocate against vaccination. They rule that vaccination is a parental choice, and that parents may not be coerced into vaccination.” The document can be viewed here.


They also state that parents who choose not to vaccinate should be viewed as parents exercising a right and making a justifiable decision, not as agitators recklessly endangering the public welfare.


The publication refutes the assertions that all Gedolim (Torah sages) obligate parents to vaccinate, and that non-vaccinating parents are “pursuers” and “murderers”.


“Non-vaccinating parents in our communities are acting with the full consent of da’as Torah, yet they are being maligned and vilified, and, in countless cases, victimized and hurt. The unity and peace within our communities and families is being gravely damaged; the above unfounded and untrue assertions have had much to do with it.”


World Health Organization discusses need for vaccine safety studies:

W.H.O. Scientists Admit The Lack Of Safety Studies

Shocking footage from inside The W.H.O. Global Vaccine Safety Summit on Dec. 2&3 2019.



New science proves that vaccines SPREAD infectious disease, causing up to 15 times MORE infections among fully vaccinated children

09January2020 by:


(Natural News) A new peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines has found that the DTaP vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) is causing children who receive it to become more prone to contracting whooping cough later on in life.


According to the study, children who receive the entire DTaP series of vaccinations are up to 15 times more likely to contract whooping cough at the five-year mark following these jabs compared to unvaccinated children, completely obliterating the myth that whooping cough outbreaks are the result of “anti-vaxxers.”


As it turns out, the vast majority of children being affected by pertussis outbreaks are vaccinated children, which some health authorities are reluctantly admitting. Even so, pro-vaxxers are insistent that all disease spread is caused by unvaccinated children, despite the fact that science continues to prove otherwise.


What’s more, the DTaP vaccine, along with many other vaccines, fails to provide permanent protection against disease – assuming they provide any protection at all. As reported in the same aforementioned DTaP study, pertussis antibodies experience a “rapid decline” in as little as 2-3 years post-vaccination, “often to pre-vaccination levels.”


Even though antibody levels alone “are not necessarily indicative of waning immunity,” this same study goes on to explain, “in this case given the higher risk of infection after aP (acellular pertussis) vaccine with time, it is strongly suggestive of it.”


It would be better if children weren’t vaccinated with DTaP vaccines at all because research shows that they actually increase susceptibility to disease after the antigens have all worn off. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) says that this “linked-epitope suppression,” once it subsides, increases disease susceptibility, “and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”


Modern whooping cough vaccines don’t protect against whooping cough or its spread, just like polio vaccines

Another paper published in the journal BMC Medicine contrasts the difference between whole-cell pertussis vaccines (wP) and aP vaccines, the latter of which replaced the former. Acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines, this particularly study denotes, might block symptomatic disease but not asymptomatic transmission, which could account “for the observed increase in B. pertussis incidence.”


It’s a little science-heavy for the average person to understand, but suffice it to say that aP vaccines for pertussis, including DTaP, might appear to work initially, but ultimately fail to provide long-term protection from, also known as real immunity to, disease. Likewise, aP vaccines fail to protect against transmission of disease, which means people vaccinated with them are a serious public health risk.


“… public health authorities may be facing a situation similar to that of polio, where vaccinated individuals can still transmit infection,” this same paper reveals.


Pro-vaxxers can call these findings “misinformation” all day long, but the science speaks for itself. The temporary “immunity” – if you can even call it immunity – provided by the DTaP vaccine is illusory at best. At worst, it’s a mass deception that’s triggering disease outbreaks that are being erroneously blamed on the unvaccinated and used as an excuse to censor vaccine truth online while simultaneously eliminating vaccine exemption laws in as many states as possible.


“Even though vaccine propaganda is filled with malicious lies and deliberate false information, anyone who questions the official false narratives of the vaccine industry is instantly censored and de-platformed from all the major tech platforms, including Pinterest, Vimeo, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook,” warns Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.


“The entire tech industry, in fact, has gone all-in with the medical violence of the vaccine industry and its history of running inhumane medical experiments on human children.”


To learn more, visit

Sources for this article include:



Whooping cough outbreak sweeps through Texas school with 100% vaccination rate, PROVING that vaccines don’t work (yet again)

24December2019 by:


(Natural News) A Texas school that touts a “100% vaccination rate” has been forced to close its doors and send students home after a whooping cough outbreak swept through the school, infecting students who were already vaccinated.


The incident proves yet again that vaccines don’t work as advertised, and that infectious disease outbreaks very often occur among children who are vaccinated.


This simple, stunning realization contradicts all the false promises, fake science and malicious propaganda of the vaccine industry, which absurdly insists that all vaccines work all the time and that no children are ever harmed by vaccines.


As reports:

On Dec. 4th, St. Theresa Catholic School in Memorial Park, reported its first case to the Texas Department of State Health Services. Since then, the outbreak has continued to escalate — and not because of the abuse of religious and medical exemptions, and so-called “anti-vaxxer” parents.


According to the FoxNews report, the school vaccine uptake rate was at 100%:


“Officials with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston said that 100 percent of students who attend St. Theresa Catholic School are vaccinated against the illness.”


This was confirmed by the following statement to parents sent by the school:


St theresa school whooping cough letter

St theresa school whooping cough letter


The letter actually says, “All St. Theresa students are 100% vaccinated. Doctors are unsure why vaccinated children may still get the disease.”


This is an open admission that vaccine propaganda is total bunk, pushed by malicious liars and propagandists who are placing the health of children (and adults) at risk by repeatedly misrepresenting vaccine safety and effectiveness.



And if “doctors are unsure why vaccinated children may still get the disease,” it proves that doctors still don’t understand why vaccines fail, which means their entire model of how vaccines “work” is broken and invalid. The entire realm of so-called “vaccine science” is, in fact, total quackery and fraud.


The real science openly admits DTaP vaccines actually SPREAD infectious disease

Children’s Health Defense has detailed the failure of these vaccines by highlighting important new research revealing how vaccines actually spread infectious disease:


These studies show that the Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine has now failed. Studies show that by five years after completion of the DTaP series, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. California schools are now suffering a Pertussis outbreak (3,455 cases in 2018 compared to 14 Measles cases) affecting primarily vaccinated children.


Yes, you read that correctly: After receiving the DTaP vaccines, children are up to 15 times more likely to be infected with pertussis. If vaccines protect children from infectious disease, how can it be that children who are vaccinated show an increased risk of infection?


Answer: Because the vaccines are spreading the disease, of course. From the study itself:


More recent studies show that by 5 years after completion of a DTaP series, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. Studies have also documented rapid decline in pertussis antibodies within as few as 2–3 years of the most recent aP vaccination, often to pre-vaccination levels and although antibody levels alone are not necessarily indicative of waning immunity, in this case given the higher risk of infection after aP vaccine with time, it is strongly suggestive of it.


And here’s another study cited by CHD that also admits the vaccines are spreading the infections:


In this paper, we have presented empirical evidence — from both case and genomic data — for asymptomatic B. pertussis transmission following the switch from the wP to the aP vaccine in the US and UK. Then, using mathematical and computational transmission models, we have demonstrated that an aP vaccine which blocks symptomatic disease but not asymptomatic transmission is able to account for the observed increase in B. pertussis incidence…public health authorities may be facing a situation similar to that of polio, where vaccinated individuals can still transmit infection.


Even though vaccines often fail, those who question vaccine propaganda are censored and silenced

Even though vaccine propaganda is filled with malicious lies and deliberate false information, anyone who questions the official false narratives of the vaccine industry is instantly censored and de-platformed from all the major tech platforms, including pinterest, Vimeo, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. The entire tech industry, in fact, has gone all-in with the medical violence of the vaccine industry and its history of running inhumane medical experiments on human children.


That’s why vaccine truth content is exploding across alternative platforms. Here’s where you can find the truth about vaccines: is a health freedom-friendly platform for free speech about vaccines, GMOs, fluoride, chemtrails and more. Thousands of channels and hundreds of thousands of videos. is the upcoming new search engine for holistic health that indexes websites which report the truth about vaccines and their dangers to humanity. (Launching early January, 2020.) is an independent website we publish, reporting the truth about vaccines on a daily basis. aggregates news headlines from all the top censored news websites on the ‘net. Many of these publishers cover vaccines, 5G toxicity, electropollution and more.


Coming in 2020: A “vaccine video” website focused entirely on videos about vaccines.



Committees on Vaccination Found To Withhold Critical Data On Adverse Reactions From Both Parents and Health Practitioners

September 16, 2013 by DAVE MIHALOVIC From Prevent


Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. That’s exactly the behavior exhibited by health authorities for the last 30 years. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.




Vancouver scientist Chris Shaw who is on faculty at the University of British Columbia the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, and his colleague Lucija Tomljenovic have recently published a carefully parsed and thoroughly peer reviewed paper on vaccine safety.


Despite the cautious and professional tone of the paper, and despite the authors’ clear statement that their findings are not in themselves decisive, only pointing to the need for more extensive research into vaccine safety, the paper, published in November 2011 in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry which describes correlations and possible causal links between increased exposure to aluminum salts used as adjuvants in vaccines and increased levels of neurological trouble in exposed populations, seems to inflame angry and punitive responses in some quarters.  Tomljenovic provided evidence to show that the JCVI 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 with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence.


As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) but also, their own Code of Practice.


The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992.


The documents reveal that vaccinations don’t work, and that they cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They also indicate scientific fraud, that government ‘experts’ are working to conceal information. The 45 page paper was published in 2011 and presented at the BSEM scientific conference organised by Dr David Freed.


They resolved to publish the proceedings online, and Dr. Freed worked with the speakers to put papers into an agreed and acceptable format. The next day he suddenly died. What follows are the last words that he wrote. He speaks from the heart about science, about corruption in high places, about the ethics of patient care, and above all about truth.


In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;


2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;


3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;


4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;


5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;


6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;


7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;


8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;


We dedicate these proceedings to David Freed. We have lost a wise man and a friend.


The issue of vaccination and its risks arouse strong emotions, not least of fear – fear of public attack for speaking out, for one. These are the conference presentations that we are permitted to publish. Several booked speakers withdrew, for various reasons, so are not posted. Some speakers were unable to attend, but were keen for their papers to be included in the proceedings; they are posted here.



1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention-html

1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention-pdf

Dr David Freed

It seems to me that the ethical background to vaccination – giving potentially harmful medications to healthy individuals in the hope of keeping them that way – has never been clearly addressed… Who gave us the right (a) to invade the bodies of healthy people who never asked us to, and (b) to do it not only without explanation of the possible risks, but in some countries even applying coercive pressures, denying the existence of the risks, and suppressing relevant information?


2. Vaccines, Atopy & allergy: Problems & Solutions


Dr Richard Halvorsen

Time and time again I have heard from parents how they have been patronised, bullied and accused of not doing the best for their children, when they have simply questioned the necessity of the large number of vaccines that are being given to their children at such an early age…. The risk of severe eczema (atopic dermatitis) in a child who has caught chickenpox under eight years of age is 4% of that of a child who has not contracted the illness.


3. The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?

Lucija Tomljenovic

Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (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.


4. Labels of Convenience: Are Labels of Child Abuse being used to cover up Vaccine Damage?

Christina England

Just over ten years ago my family became one of the families in the child abuse statistics. In 1999, I was accused of suffering from Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy. In my case many of the reports and evidence ascertaining to my children were not read and many mistakes were made. I adopted both of my children and was accused of making up and causing the disabilities that they both had before I ever met them. This would not have happened if reports had been read in full.


5. Global Concerns about HPV Vaccines

Leslie Carol Botha and Freda Birrell

We believe in science-based medicine. Our primary goal is to provide the information necessary for you to make informed decisions regarding your health and well-being. We also provide referrals to helpful resources for those unfortunate enough to have experienced vaccine-related injuries.


6. The Autism Epidemic & The Pill

Dr Ellen CG Grant

The use of hormonal contraceptives rose steeply in the 1970s, becoming nearly universal; the incidence of autism and ASD rose steeply in the 1980s. Exogenous hormones have been shown to be genotoxic in their own right, but they are also associated with accumulation of DNA-damaging toxins, and ASD subjects have decreased detoxifying ability.


The pathogenesis of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in the development of cervical cancer: are HPV vaccines a safe and effective management strategy?

Judy Wilyman

The decision to use an HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer was based upon circumstantial evidence: assumptions. HPV vaccines have been promoted to women on selective information. This vaccine is an HPV vaccine not a cervical cancer vaccine. There is inconclusive evidence it will reduce any cervical cancer and the long -term risks of using this vaccine have not been determined.


Animal Vaccination Concerns: Vaccine-Associated Auto-Immune And Other Diseases

Download: fox-revised

Michael W. Fox

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, transferrin, cardiolipin and collagen. Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in genetically susceptible patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The widespread use of multiple modified live and new generation genetically engineered vaccines in food animals raised under cruel, stressful and disease-promoting intensive ‘factory’ farm conditions that have become epicenters for global zoonoses and food-born illness, are also examined.


The UK Health Select Committee Report ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’ published April 2005

Doris M Jones MSc

For almost a century patients have taken prescribed drugs on medical advice and on trust, believing them to be based on sound and reliable science and playing a vital part in healing processes. Now huge question marks hang over many if not all these assumptions…


Summary of vaccine ingredients according to the current US and UK vaccination schedules

Download: vax-ingredients-us-uk

Lucija Tomljenovic

‘ASIA’ – Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

Download: shoenfeld-link

Yehuda Shoenfeld


Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.



Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism

Tuesday, October 01, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer


(NaturalNews) Mainstream doctors and media pundits are notorious for claiming that the vaccine-autism debate is over and that no legitimate scientific evidence exists to suggest even a possible link between vaccinations and autism spectrum disorders (ASD): case closed. But a thoroughly-researched report recently published by Arjun Walia over at Activist Post reveals that there are at least 22 published scientific studies that show a link between vaccines and autism and that there are many more out there with similar findings.


Much of the original controversy stems from Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study back in the late 1990s, which exposed gastrointestinal inflammation as an obvious side effect of vaccination with the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Dr. Wakefield obviously struck a major nerve with his research, which was quickly torn apart by the establishment and maliciously paraded around as being fraudulent, even though his groundbreaking findings have repeatedly been validated and replicated by many other studies.


A 2002 study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences, for instance, observed a causal effect between the MMR vaccine and autism, particularly with regards to the measles portion of the vaccine. The researchers from Utah State University concluded that MMR is capable of inducing an abnormal measles infection in some children, which in turn can lead to neurological problems that fall under the umbrella of ASD.


Another study published in the journal Entropy in 2012 observed a strong correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism, except in this case aluminum was the culprit. According to an abstract of this study, vaccines that contain aluminum are particularly toxic to children, who end up later being diagnosed with ASD, as they have insufficient serum levels of both sulfate and glutathione. The aluminum found in some vaccines, in other words, appears to be a primary aggravator of ASD symptoms.


“Regardless of the MMR vaccine and autism debate, there are still a number of studies that link vaccines to a possible autism connection,” writes Walia. “[M]ultiple courts worldwide have ruled in favor of vaccines causing autism, brain damage and other complications that include the MMR vaccine,” he adds, noting that many other side effects besides autism have been observed in relation to vaccines.

Heavy metals, adjuvants, preservatives and other vaccine additives all linked to causing autism

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Walia’s extensive research on the subject is the fact that there appear to be multiple ingredients in vaccines responsible for triggering autism. Besides toxic metals like aluminum and mercury, vaccines also contain adjuvant materials, preservatives and other additives that have all been identified as culprits in the studies listed in his article. Realistically, each of these additives is most likely toxic both in isolation and in combination with the other additives, eliciting compounded toxicity depending on the mixture.


“Oxidative stress, brain inflammation and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals,” admits one study out of Massachusetts General Hospital, which verified that autistic individuals possess a unique type of neuroinflammation in their brain tissue that points to vaccine damage.


Several of the studies listed in Walia’s report also pin thimerosal, a toxic mercury derivative that is still being added to multidose vials of flu vaccine, as a trigger in causing the types of brain damage linked to autism. One particular study out of the University of Texas Health Science Center found that for every 1,000 pounds of mercury released into the environment, there is a consequential 61 percent increase in autism rates.


With thimerosal-containing flu shots now being administered to children as young as six months old, it is highly plausible that ASD-associated brain damage is still occurring as a result of mercury being injected directly into muscle tissue.

Be sure to read Walia’s full report, which contains 22 cited scientific studies, here:

Sources for this article include:
Learn more:


22 Medical Studies That Show Vaccines Can Cause Autism

Arjun Walia Thursday, September 12, 2013 Activist Post-


Concerns regarding vaccinations continue to increase exponentially in light of all of the information and documentation that has surfaced over the past few years. As a result, corporate media has responded to alternative media, stating that the increase of persons who are choosing to opt out of vaccines and the recommended vaccine schedule is a result of ‘fear mongering.’



This may not be too surprising as the corporate media is owned by the major vaccine manufacturers, and the major vaccine manufacturers are owned by corporate media(1)(2)(3)(4). Given this fact, it’s easy to fathom the possibility that these institutions are desperately trying to protect the reputation of their product.



For example, if we take a look at GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, they are owned by the same financial institutions and groups that own Time Warner (CNN, HBO etc.) and General Electric (NBC, Comcast, Universal Pictures etc.).(1)(2)(3)(4) This is seen throughout all of the major vaccine manufacturers and all of the 6 corporations that control our mainstream media. Keep in mind that these are the major funders of all ‘medical research’ that’s used to administer drugs and vaccinations. Despite these connections, medical research and documentation exists to show that vaccines might indeed be a cause for concern.

Vaccines and Autism, Both Sides of The Coin

Here we will simply present information from both sides of the coin because many are not even aware that two sides exist. We’ve presented multiple studies, citing multiple research papers and published research conducted by doctors and universities from all across the world. Here is an example of a paper that describes how vaccine manufactures and medical ‘experts’ with drug industry connections have been aware of the multiple dangers associated with vaccinations for over 30 years. We’d also like to present medical research that indicates the many dangers associated with vaccines, and have done this on multiple occasions. We do this because the safety of vaccinations is commonly pushed by the mainstream media, without ever mentioning or citing the abundant medical research that should also be taken into consideration when discussing vaccinations. Please keep in mind that there is evidence on both sides. At the same time, some of the evidence on the side that negates a positive outlook on vaccination has been labelled fraudulent, but then again many haven’t.


The vaccine-autism debate has been going on for years. It has been a tale of shifting beliefs as child vaccination rates remain high. On February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist and his colleagues published a paper that supposedly linked Autism to Vaccines(5). More specifically, he claimed that the MMR vaccine was responsible for intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually non-permeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development(5). His work was unpublished, and he lost his medical license despite the fact multiple studies seem to support Andrew Wakefield’s work (here is one example, and here is another.) He has been labelled a fraud by the mainstream medical world, some experts claim that his research and methods are weak and based on very little evidence. Dr Wakefield’s research will NOT be used in this article.


At the same time I must mention that multiple studies from around the world have concluded that there is no link between Autism and the MMR Vaccine(5). It can become quite confusing a subject given that we have multiple medical studies contradicting each other. Was Dr. Wakefield exposing something that the medical industry did not want you to know? It is known that vaccine manufacturers suppress harmful data regarding their product, as mentioned and illustrated earlier in the article. Regardless of the MMR vaccine and autism debate, there are still a number of studies that link vaccines to a possible autism connection. Please keep in mind that multiple courts worldwide have ruled in favour of vaccines causing autism, brain damage and other complications (6)(7), that include the MMR vaccine.


Here is a great video narrated by Rob Schneider outlining the vaccine-autsim link. Below that you will find a list of 22 medical studies that show possible connections to vaccines and autism. Please keep in mind that we’ve only presented 22 studies here, there are many more published papers that document the link. Hopefully this inspires you to further your research on the subject. Also keep in mind that Autism is only one of the multiple shown consequences of vaccine administration, as they have been linked to a number of other ailments.


Do Vaccines Cause Autism?


1. A study published in the journal Annals of Epidemiology has shown that giving the Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn baby boys could triple the risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder compared to boys who were not vaccinated as neonates. The research was conducted at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY.


2. A study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry by researchers at the Neural Dynamics Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia determined that Aluminum, a highly neurotoxic metal and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant may be a significant contributing factor to the rising prevalence of ASD in the Western World. They showed that the correlation between ASD prevalence and the Aluminum adjuvant exposure appears to be the highest at 3-4 months of age. The studies also show that children from countries with the highest ASD appear to have a much higher exposure to Aluminum from vaccines. The study points out that several prominent milestones of brain development coincide with major vaccination periods for infants. These include the onset of synaptogenesis (birth), maximal growth velocity of the hippocampus and the onset of amygdala maturation. Furthermore, major developmental transition in many bio-behavioural symptoms such as sleep, temperature regulation, respiration and brain wave patterns, all of which are regulated by the neuroendocrine network. Many of these aspects of brain function are known to be impaired in autism, such as sleeping and brain wave patterns.


According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals. Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their vaccine safety”. While the FDA does set an upper limit for Aluminum in vaccines at no more that 850/mg/dose, it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Aluminum in such amounts enhanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety. Given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude paediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcomes , including those associated with autism.


3. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues by the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of New York shows how researchers suspect one or more environmental triggers are needed to develop autism, regardless of whether individuals have a genetic predisposition or not. They determined that one of those triggers might be the “battery of vaccinations that young children receive.” Researchers found a positive and statistically significant relationship between autism and vaccinations. They determined that the higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher the prevalence of autism. A 1 % increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having autism. The results suggest that vaccines may be linked to autism and encourages more in depth study before continually administering these vaccines.


4. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by the Department of Neurosurgery at The Methodist Neurological Institute in Houston has shown that ASD is a disorder caused by a problem in brain development. They looked at B-cells and their sensitivity levels to thimerosal, a commonly used additive in many vaccines. They determined that ASD patients have a heightened sensitivity to thimerosal which would restrict cell proliferation that is typically found after vaccination. The research shows that individuals who have this hypersensitivity to thimerosal could make them highly susceptible to toxins like thimerosal, and that individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be affected by thimerosal. The fact that ASD patients’ B cells exhibit hypersensitivity to thimerosal tells us something.


5. A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR. The study determined that autism could be a result from an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or it could be the MMR vaccine.


6. Study published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry suggests that Autism is likely triggered by a virus, and that measles virus (MV and/or MMR vaccine) might be a very good candidate. It supports the hypothesis that a virus-dincued autoimmune response may play a causal role in autism.


7. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism. It’s well known that viral infections cause increased oxidative stress. Research suggests that metals, including those found in many vaccines are directly involved in increasing oxidative stress.


8. A study published by the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Northeastern University, Boston determined that a novel growth factor signalling pathway that regulates methionine synthase(MS) activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions. The potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins. You can read more about this here, and here. You can read more about the MS/autism link here


9. A study published in the Journal of Child Neurology examined the question of what is leading to the apparent increase in autism. They expressed that if there is any link between autism and mercury, it is crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs. Researchers determined that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and the diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.


10. A study published in the Journal of Child Neurology noted that autistic spectrum disorders can be associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Researchers determined that children who have mitochondrial-related dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.


11. A study conducted by Massachusetts General Hospital at the Centre for Morphometric Analysis by the department of Paediatric Neurology illustrates how autistic brains have a growth spurt shortly after birth and then slow in growth a few short years later. Researchers have determined that neuroinflammation appears to be present in autistic brain tissue from childhood through adulthood. The study excerpt reads:

Oxidative stress, brain inflammation and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals. The awareness that the brain as well as medical conditions of children with autism may be conditioned by chronic biomedical abnormalities such as inflammation opens the possibility that meaningful biomedical interventions may be possible well past the window of maximal neuroplasticity in early childhood because the basis for assuming that all deficits can be attributed to fixed early developmental alterations in net.


12, A study conducted by the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Arkansas determined that thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with the depletion of intracellular glutathione (GSH) in both cell lines. The study outlines how many vaccines have been neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Depletion of GSH is commonly associated with autism. Although thimerosal has been removed from most children’s vaccines, it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women, the elderly and to children in developing countries.


13. A study published in the Public Library of Science (PLOS) determined that elevation in peripheral oxidative stress is consistent with, and may contribute to more severe functional impairments in the ASD group. We know that oxidative stress is triggered by heavy metals, like the ones contained in multiple vaccines.


14. A study conducted by the University of Texas Health Science Center by the Department of Family and Community Medicine determined that for each 1,000 Ib of environmentally released mercury, there was a 43% increase in the rate of special education services and a 61% increase in the rate of autism. Researchers emphasized that further research was needed regarding the association between environmentally released mercury and developmental disorders such as autism.


15. A study published in the International Journal of Toxicology determined that in light of the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopment disorders, the present study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism.


16. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health determined that mercury exposure can induce immune, sensory, neurological, motor and behavioural dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs. Based upon differential diagnoses, 8 of 9 patients examined were exposed to significant mercury from Thimerosal-containing vaccine preparations during their fetal/infant developmental periods. These previously normal developing children suffered mercury encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive ASDs. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive ASDs.


17. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine conducted by the University of Texas Health Science Centre suspected that persistent low-dose exposures to various environmental toxicants including mercury, that occur during critical windows of neural development among genetically susceptible children, may increase the risk for developmental disorders such as autism.


18. A study conducted by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine showed that Macaques are commonly used in pre-clinical vaccine safety testing. Collective Evolution does not support animals testing, we feel there is a large amount of evidence and research that already indicated the links to vaccines in which some animals have been used to illustrate. The objective of this study was to compare early infant cognition and behaviour with amygdala size and opioid binding in rhesus macaques receiving the recommended childhood vaccines. The animal model, which examines for the first time, behavioural, functional and neuromorphometric consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen, mimics certain neurological abnormalities of autism. These findings raise important safety issues while providing a potential model for examining aspects of causation and disease pathogenesis in acquired disorders of behaviour and development.


19. A study conducted by The George Washington University School of Public Health from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics determined that significantly increased rate ratios were observed for autism and autism spectrum disorders as a result of exposure to mercury from Thimerosal-containing vaccines.


20. A study published in the journal Cell Biology and Toxicology by Kinki University in Osaka, Japan determined that in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.


21. A study published by the journal Lab Medicine determined that vaccinations may be one of the triggers for autism. Researchers discovered that substantial data demonstrates immune abnormality in many autistic children consistent with impaired resistance to infection, activation of inflammatory responses and autoimmunity. Impaired resistance may predispose to vaccine injury in autism.


22. A study published in the journal Neurochemical Research determined that since excessive accumulation of extracellular glutamate is linked with excitotoxicity, data implies that neonatal exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines might induce excitotoxic brain injuries, leading to neurodevelopmental disorders.



All sources not listed below are listed throughout the article and highlighted. To view them, please click on them.








Arjun Walia writes for Collective-Evolution, where this first appeared. You can Email him here: [email protected]



Breaking: Courts discreetly confirm MMR vaccine causes autism

Tuesday, September 03, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer


(NaturalNews) You won’t hear anything about it from the mainstream media, but the federal government’s kangaroo “vaccine court” has once again conceded, albeit quietly, that the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine does, indeed, cause autism. In a recently published ruling, part of which was censored from public view, a young boy was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars after it was determined that the MMR vaccine led to a confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).



Ten-year-old Ryan Mojabi’s parents say he first suffered an encephalopathy after being vaccinated for MMR on December 19, 2003. Known as a “table injury,” encephalopathy is a recognized, compensable adverse reaction to vaccines, and one that the kangaroo vaccine court has previously linked to vaccines. According to Ryan’s parents, the MMR vaccine caused their son’s encephalopathy, which manifested as “neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD.”



After being bumped around from court to court, Ryan’s case was eventually heard by the vaccine court’s Autism Omnibus Proceedings, according to The Huffington Post. And in the end, the federal government agreed that Ryan’s encephalopathy had been caused by the MMR vaccine, a landmark ruling that confirms what Dr. Andrew Wakefield found more than 15 years ago when studying gut disorders in children given the MMR vaccine.



“Ryan suffered a Table injury under the Vaccine Act — namely, an encephalitis within five to fifteen days following receipt (of MMR),” admitted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the case. “This case is appropriate for compensation,” it added, in full agreement with the court’s decision.



Of particular note in the case is the fact that concession documents by the government remain under seal. While the court and the government at large openly admitted that the MMR vaccine caused Ryan’s encephalitis, it did not make public its opinion on whether or not that encephalitis led to Ryan’s other injuries, including those that fall into the category of ASD. But the fact that these documents remain censored shows that the government is hiding something of importance from the public, which most definitely has to do with the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.


Concerned parents everywhere were right all along: MMR vaccine can cause autism


In a similar case heard during the same month, young Emily Moller from Houston, Texas, was also awarded massive compensation for injuries resulting from the MMR vaccine. According to reports, Emily experienced a severe reaction after receiving not only the MMR vaccine but also the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), HiB, and Prevnar vaccines. Like with Ryan’s case, the government conceded that these vaccines led to Emily’s autism and other developmental problems.



These two cases, combined with numerous published studies out of the U.S., South America, and Europe, prove that the MMR vaccine is not the harmless vaccine that the conventional medical industry claims it is. In fact, everything that Dr. Wakefield found back in the late 1990s concerning the MMR vaccine — findings that cost him his career and reputation, by the way — are proving to be undeniably true.



“There can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism,” Dr. Wakefield recently stated from his home in Austin, Texas. “In these children, the evidence for an adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged. My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long, long overdue.”

Sources for this article include:





Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized

11May2015 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger:



(NaturalNews) Despite the insidious attempts of the corporate-controlled U.S. media to censor the stories about the deadly side effects of vaccines, the truth keeps surfacing. The latest vaccine tragedy to strike has killed two babies in La Pimienta, Mexico and sent 37 more to the hospital with serious reactions to toxic vaccine additives. (Tweet this story)


“…14 children are in serious condition, 22 are stable and one is in critical condition,” the Chiapas Health Secretariat said in a statement via


What’s especially alarming is that only 52 children were vaccinated in all, meaning that 75% of those receiving the vaccines are now either dead or hospitalized.


The vaccines were administered by the Mexican Social Security Institute, known as IMSS. The IMSS confirmed the deadly reactions occurred after children received injections of vaccines for tuberculosis, rotavirus and hepatitis B — the same viral strains targeted by vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States.


IMSS suspends vaccination pending further investigation

According to Fox News Latino, the IMSS has suspended the vaccines pending the outcome of an investigation into why so many children have been killed and hospitalized.


According to the entire mainstream media in the United States — which is 100% controlled by corporate interests — vaccines never harm anyone and are perfectly safe to inject into children in unlimited quantities. This dangerous, inhumane “Vaccine Injury Denialism” is rampant across the corporate-controlled media, which contributes to the deaths of innocent babies and children by refusing to acknowledge the truth that vaccines kill and injure children on a regular basis.


Just recently, in fact, the UK government agreed to pay $90 million to victims of the swine flu vaccine. That vaccine caused permanent brain damage to over 800 children across Europe. The truth is that vaccines regularly harm and even kill innocent children, most likely because of the toxic chemical adjuvants and preservatives they still contain.


As the CDC openly admits, vaccines are still intentionally formulated with mercury, aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde. Some vaccines even use ingredients derived from aborted human fetal tissue. Last year, a CDC scientist blew the whistle on the CDC committing scientific fraud to cover up links between vaccines and autism in young African-American males.


Test run for depopulation via vaccines?

As globalists now fully realize, vaccines are by far the best way to cull the human population because most people can be tricked into lining up and asking for them. Thus, there’s no need to resort to all the difficulties used by the Nazis to commit genocide in World War II, involving complex logistics of railroad cars, gas chambers, construction of mass graves, prisoner tracking via IBM computing technology, and so on. (Yes, Nazi genocide and prisoner tracking was powered by early IBM computers. See IBM and the Holocaust, the strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s most powerful corporation…)


As the vaccine industry has now come to realize, it’s so much easier to kill people when they voluntarily comply with the injections. Hence the aggressive media propaganda push to achieve absolute blind obedience to vaccines so that no one will ask questions when sterilization or euthanasia chemicals are used. That’s no doubt why vaccines have been routinely tested for depopulation programs via two primary methods:


# 1) Achieve covert sterilizations of targeted populations by combining sterilization chemicals with vaccines. (The “slow kill.”)


# 2) Directly kill vaccine recipients by intentionally lacing vaccines with euthanasia chemicals that cause death. (The “fast kill.”)


Method #1 has been repeatedly used throughout Africa, Mexico and South America to inflict sterilization upon targeted groups via immunization and vaccination programs. Just last year, in fact, I reported on the discovery of a covert depopulation vaccine program being run in Kenya:


Tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya have been confirmed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages, reports the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization.


A whopping 2.3 million young girls and women are in the process of being given the vaccine, pushed by UNICEF and the World Health Organization.


“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”


Method #2 now appears to be under way in Mexico as 75% of those children injected with vaccines are now either dead or hospitalized.


Vaccine-induced depopulation was attempted in Mexico in 1974

As Truth Stream Media exhaustively documented, a depopulation exercise was run in Mexico in 1974, using vaccines as the cover story.


The scheme was dreamed up after the release of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 which highlighted the global population problem and urged governments to find ways to reduce the global population.


As explains:


Concentration on this “problem” of how to reduce the population was planned for 13 key countries, including India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. Of those, the document singled out Mexico as having one of the highest (and therefore, most worrisome) growth rates of all. The document read, “Perhaps the most significant population trend from the viewpoint of the United States is the prospect that Mexico’s population will increase from 50 million in 1970 to over 130 million by the year 2000.”


To combat this problem, “medical spooks” — who were almost certainly U.S.-funded depopulation vaccine crews — began injecting women all across Mexico with anti-fertility drugs disguised as vaccines. If you doubt this, read your history. The U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health was caught red-handed running human medical experiments on prisoners in Guatemala. President Obama was even forced to publicly apologize in 2011 after the cover-up collapsed! There is nothing the Nazis did in the 1930s and 40s that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn’t be willing to repeat today under the label of “science.”


But getting back to Mexico, as the covert depopulation vaccination program spread across Mexico City in 1974, locals began to catch on to the deception, and public resistance grew. As these newspaper clippings reveal, parents began hiding their children in their own homes to avoid them being injected with sterilization chemicals at the public schools. (California, by the way, also targets children at schools in order to avoid parents having the opportunity to say “No!”)


Mexico City – Associated Press – Rumors that persons disguised as inoculation teams were giving school children shots that sterilized them forced health authorities to suspend all vaccination drives today and to post police outside Mexico City schools. Thousands of parents stormed various schools in the Mexico City area Tuesday and took their children home.


Santa Cruz Sentinel-Wed-Dec-11-1974

Santa Cruz Sentinel-Wed-Dec-11-1974

It’s also important to note that these sterilization vaccines were being administered essentially at gunpoint, as police were accompanying the vaccine crews:


Callers told newspapers and TV stations that the sterilization crews were protected by police escorts and that they included white-robed men and women “who looked like foreigners.”


This same scenario is now about to be replicated in California, by the way, where SB 277 would criminalize parents of children who are not vaccinated, essentially at gunpoint.


What’s even more interesting is that the exact same arguments we hear today about vaccine skeptics — they’re punitively labeled “anti-vaxxers” or “anti-science” — were also being used in Mexico in 1974. As the following newspaper clipping shows:


The Mexican Medical Association issued statements denying that any kind of inoculation could cause sterility… Officials said superstition and ignorance of preventive health [i.e. “anti-science”] were responsible for the widespread belief that the rumors were true.


Las Vegas Optic-Fri-Dec-13-1974

Las Vegas Optic-Fri-Dec-13-1974

In other words, even though sterilization teams were running around Mexico, injecting people with chemicals as part of a depopulation agenda, any person who pointed this out was immediately labeled “anti-science” and derided as “ignorant.”


Very little has changed in four decades, it seems: the same tactic is still used today, even while children are being killed or injured every single day due to the toxic ingredients used in vaccines.


CDC’s intelligence operatives caught running disinfo campaigns

The “science bullying” behind vaccines also allows governments of the world to run sterilization and depopulation programs disguised as public health. Once the population is bullied into accepting vaccines without question — blind obedience is now demanded almost everywhere — governments can add any chemicals they want to those vaccines, including chemicals that cause permanent sterilization or even death.


The fact that all vaccine injuries are systematically denied to exist also means that any person harmed or killed by vaccines is immediately wiped from the national memory. Like a criminal mafia, the vaccine industry works hard to hide the bodies and thereby maintain its monopolistic racket on the utterly false premise that vaccines are 100% safe. To further drive home this extraordinary medical propaganda, the CDC uses intelligence operatives like Nurse Hickox who spread disinfo through the mainstream media, which is always happy to comply with the destructive agendas of the vaccine industry.


As Natural News uncovered during the Ebola scare of 2014:


Nurse Kaci Hickox, who has made headlines over the last few days by refusing to quarantine herself after returning from the Ebola front lines in Africa, turns out to have been trained as an “intelligence officer” under a two-year CDC program modeled after the U.S. military.


As you can see from the document below, Hickox graduated from a two-year CDC intelligence officer training program in 2012. This is the same nurse whose LinkedIn page was recently scrubbed to hide her ties to the CDC


The official intelligence designation granted to Nurse Hickox by the CDC was “Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer,” and she is a graduate of the 2012 EIS program according to this CDC document (PDF). (See page 138 – 139 for her name and photo, or view photo below.)


That same year, the CDC graduated 81 such “intelligence officers” whose names and photos are also listed in the public document.


EIS Officers Class of 2012

EIS Officers Class of 2012

Bottom line? Don’t trust the vaccine industry

What’s the takeaway realization from all this? Vaccines have been and will continue to be used as a cover for forced depopulation programs involving sterilization or euthanasia chemicals.


Obedience to vaccines allows depopulation teams accompanied by armed police to intimidate people into accepting any liquid they want to put in a syringe. That liquid might be a vaccine, or it might be a sterilization chemical or even a euthanasia chemical.


Any population that is indoctrinated into trusting the vaccine industry — an industry steeped in repeated criminal activity combined with a total disregard for human life — is ripe for being targeted for depopulation. (See Nigeria Issues Arrest Warrants for Top Pfizer Officials After Drug Experiments Conducted on Children.)


After all, why go through the trouble of building gas chambers and rounding people up for mass extermination when you can achieve the same result without any resistance at all if you simply label the chemicals “vaccines”?


(Click here for hi-res version of the graphic below.)


Infographic: The Vaccine Racket

Infographic: The Vaccine Racket

Sources for this article include:……………………………………



The globalist plan to exterminate humanity begins now: “Useless eaters” must be eliminated, say globalists

(Natural News) Far beyond the distractions of political bickering and cultural trends, the big, big picture that’s unfolding across our world right now is a plan to exterminate 90% of the current human population in order to “save” the planet and protect what globalists see as the future of human survival on a cosmic scale.


This plan is under way now due to two very important developments:


#1) The rise of robotic systems that can replace human labor, eliminating the need for a world of impoverished human workers whose only reason for existence — from the point of view of the globalists — was to be exploited for cheap labor and manipulated votes.


If you aren’t yet aware that robots are replacing human labor, you’re way behind the curve. As this Zero Hedge story shows, heavy duty robots are already being introduced that can replace human labor in construction and other similar jobs.

robot construction

robot construction

Critically, the reason Democrats and globalists are ready to replace low-wage humans with robots is because robots will be granted voting rights. Once robots are granted voting rights under the justification that AI is “conscious,” Democrats will have no more need for humans, migrant waves or Third World populations. They will simply program all the robots to vote Democrat in every election… which, originally, isn’t far from what’s being done right now with human voters.


#2) Entitlement payouts to humans are draining government resources that globalists believe should be spent on space colonization, space weaponization, faster-than-light (FTL) travel technology and other exotic tech systems that can defend human civilization against cosmic threats.


Thanks to the socialist policies of Leftists, so many people are now collecting entitlements that governments now see the masses as an unsustainable financial burden. If the masses were eliminated, governments that were on the path to financial insolvency could suddenly achieve balanced budgets and remain solvent (rather than collapsing under endless debt spending). This is especially true when considering the robot replacement of human workers, given that robots collect no welfare, food stamps workers comp, sick days or retirement benefits. Once robots can replace all the benefits of human labor without all the costs associated with human entitlements, the globalists will very quickly accelerate their plan to exterminate what they see as “excess humans.”


(See my full, accompanying Counterthink video below, which explains this in more detail.)


Part of the elitist justification for all this rests on the fact that globalists believe Earth is a vulnerable planet for multiple reasons, including space weather events (asteroid strikes, solar flares, etc.) as well as the human depletion of natural resources. The elimination of 90% of the human population, they believe, is necessary to prevent the planet’s resources from being consumed by “useless eaters” instead of being redirected into exotic research projects that would shore up the survival of the human species and protect against cosmic events that, right now, could wipe out humanity in an instant.


Specifically, globalists believe that Earth’s elitists must:

  • Colonize other planets in order to diversify the survival odds of the human race. Ultimately, this colonization must move beyond our solar system and build human worlds near other stars.
  • Build faster-than-light travel systems to colonize planets orbiting other stars within our galaxy.
  • Build exotic planetary defense systems that protect Earth from attacks by other civilizations that they know inhabit the cosmos.
  • Achieve breakthrough leaps in Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing and materials science that enable, for example, the construction of space elevators — a necessary breakthrough for lifting materials into orbit to support the construction of human colonies on Mars and elsewhere.

The current situation where Earth’s governments are spending the vast majority of their wealth paying for “useless eaters” to continue living and reproducing isn’t a sustainable scenario, globalists believe. Thus, they see the extermination of 90% of the human population as a necessary evil in order to save the world and save humanity on a cosmic scale. (It almost reminds you of Thanos from the Marvel universe, a powerful cosmic being who travels around the universe exterminating half the population on each planet he encounters, all in the name of sustainability.)


In essence — and this is not my point of view, but theirs — every dollar that’s currently going to feed a food stamp recipient, process a migrant or finance the retirement of a former government worker would be better spent on colonizing Mars, the globalists believe. All their current talk of advocating for migrants is merely a way to overthrow sovereign nations, eliminate borders and establish global United Nations control from which global depopulation can be directed without resistance from independent nation states (i.e. Trump is the enemy).


One coming conflict, by the way, will be between this UN-directed global government and communist China, which is about to face its own economic and environmental collapse. Brexit is also playing a role here, throwing a huge delay into the globalism plan.


How globalists plan to exterminate 90% of the human race

The extermination plan rests on the “accidental / on purpose” release of an engineered bioweapon viral strain. Such bioweapons offer several distinct advantages to extermination efforts, from the point of view of globalists:


1) They are not traceable and are easily released into the population with complete anonymity.


2) They are self-replicating. Once the initial population is infected, there’s no need to manufacture more because cellular physiology runs the replication automatically.


3) They exploit the natural social structure of human societies. People will automatically spread the virus because people like to be around other people. Very few people are completely isolated in modern society.


4) They allow globalist governments to declare “pandemic emergencies” and mandate mass vaccinations which, of course, will be laced with additional bioweapons to accelerate the pandemic die-off. As more people become infected from the vaccines, governments will mandate mass vaccination as an “emergency” public health initiative. Those who comply will be infected. Never forget that the mass polio vaccinations of the 1960s and 70s were laced with cancer viruses. This was admitted by the CDC for decades, right up until a few years ago when the CDC scrubbed its website of all such history. Further supporting this realization, UN-approved vaccines administered to women in Kenya have been exhaustively tested in science labs and confirmed be laced with infertility chemicals designed to reduce the population of blacks. See also this story with further details.


5) They tend to more aggressively target low-wage populations and Third World populations, achieving one of the key goals of the globalists which is to wipe out the “useless eaters” as they see them, while maintaining the top 10% of the human population to carry out the science and innovation that globalists see as necessary to protect Earth. In effect, the globalists are carrying out Adolf Hitler’s eugenics “utopia” on a global scale, but instead of merely six million people being exterminated, the globalists seek to eliminate more than six billion people.


The other advantage of bioweapons, from the point of view of globalists, is that they do not destroy the ecosystem in the way that nuclear weapons do. Since part of the goal here is the extermination of humans without damaging the ecosystem, bioweapons become the obvious choice, and they can even be tweaked to target specific races such as South Americans, Africans or Europeans.


Global immune system suppression is under way to prepare humanity for the bioweapon assault

For bioweapons to succeed in their goal of exterminating 90% of the human race, humans must have their immune systems suppressed in advance of bioweapons exposure.


This plan is already well under way.

Immunosuppression is easily accomplished through multiple vectors described below. Here are just a few of the ways this is being done right now:


#1) Biosludge mass contamination of soils and the food supply. See my upcoming film Biosludged, which launches Nov. 28th. You can watch the entire film for free at The trailer is posted here:




#2) Toxic medicine and toxic vaccines – Nearly all the prescription medications now consumed by westerners are biologically toxic. Most cause immune suppress in one way or another, and many lead to nutritional deficiencies that further weaken the human immune system. Flu shot vaccines are scientifically proven to weaken immune response in subsequent years, meaning anyone who takes vaccines is more vulnerable to bioweapons. This is not a coincidence. It is a global IQ test to see which humans are stupid enough to commit suicide via injection while calling it “medicine.”


#3) Toxic food supply laced with neurodegenerative chemicals and immunosuppressive chemicals – The human food supply is intentionally laced with toxic chemicals that impede brain function, immune function and fertility. These chemicals, known as pesticides and herbicides, are intentionally designed to interfere with key neurological or physiological functions, otherwise they would not kill other living organisms such as insects. The fact that they are designated as pesticides is proof that they kill living organisms. Most people don’t realize this, but popular breakfast cereals such as Corn Flakes are made almost entirely out of ingredients that are registered with the EPA as “biopesticides.”


#4) Propaganda attacks on nutrition: The entire fake news media complex continues to denigrate the importance of immune-enhancing nutrients such as vitamin D, zinc and selenium, knowing that gullible news consumers can be convinced to avoid nourishing their own bodies. Those who believe the corporate-run news cartels are committing nutritional suicide, turning to Big Pharma instead of supplementary nutrition, causing them to become weak in both body and mind. This is all by design: Weak-minded people are easier for the info-propagandists to manipulate and control. And the last thing they want is people obtaining the ability to operative with cognitive clarity and presence of mind.


#5) Chemtrails. This is a very controversial subject. Not every contrail in the sky is a chemtrail, but it is a simple scientific fact that “global warming” scientists are well into the process of altering the atmosphere using what they call “geoengineering” experiments. The very subject of chemtrails used to be derided as a conspiracy theory, but now it’s openly explored by scientists in the name of reversing climate change. See for coverage of some of the current experiments being conducted by university and government scientists. According to some analysts, the substances being “amended” into the atmosphere also serve to suppress human immune function.


#6) The promotion of immunosuppressive sexual behaviors involving multiple partners and anal penetrative sex. This point offends the easily offended, but the promotion of gay lifestyles involving unprotected sex with multiple sex partners also creates the rapid transmission of blood borne disease. This is exactly why the gay community is currently experiencing an epidemic explosion in anal cancer, which the left-wing media is desperately trying to sweep under the rug and pretend isn’t happening. See this article on for more details of the anal cancer cover-up (and the desperate protection of anal penetrative sexual promiscuity by the LGBT propagandists).


#7) The planned global debt bubble collapse is being engineered right now by the central banks of the world. One of the desirable outcomes of this is the plunging of first world nations into financial destitution, which ultimate promotes infectious disease and dissuades access to medical care. Right this very moment, the streets of San Francisco are littered with human feces and drug needles. The medical implications of the financial collapse of cities into feces-ridden filth hubs should be obvious. Impoverished cities and nations are cesspools for the spread of pandemics. Financial collapse is just one small part of the very big picture.


The bottom line is that the effort to soften up your immune system is well under way. Be sure to do exactly what the anti-human media tells you to do and keep taking “your” flu shot. Your obedience to this quack science ritual is required in order for you to “serve” the interests of the globalists by eliminating yourself from the human gene pool. The sicker you are, the more easily you can be killed off in the interests of “saving the world.”


Solutions: The greatest act of resistance against eugenics is found in herbs, nutrients and healthy living

In a way, globalists are running a planet-wide IQ test for humanity: Anyone stupid enough to keep taking vaccine shots, popping medications and avoiding nutrition is probably not qualified to represent the future of humankind, they figure. On that particular point, they may not be wrong.


The defense against the global pandemic is simple and readily available: Boost your health with herbs and nutrition, and you are far more likely to survive the planet-wide culling of 90% of the human population.


In anticipation of this, I have created a little-known website based on cutting-edge modern science and medicine research. It’s called, and the site covers both plant-based antibiotics as well as anti-viral phytonutrients that can also help protect you from viral pandemics. (Note that antibiotics alone do not harm viral strains. Anti-virals are necessary for that.)


I also publish, which documents the scientifically-backed evidence on hundreds of medicinal herbs, including anti-viral and anti-bacterial herbs. Many of these herbs can be grown in your own garden, meaning that you can literally grow your own anti-pandemic medicine at home, without permission from any doctor, drug company or government.


Over the last several years, I have also built a multi-million dollar analytical research laboratory running multiple mass-spec instruments. The lab is ISO accredited, and we use the lab to produce the world’s cleanest supply of nutritional supplements, superfoods and green living products for home and health. Here’s a recent photo of me giving a tour of the QQQ (triple-quad) mass spec instrument that we use for quantitation of pesticides and herbicides (a full video tour of the mass spec analysis process is coming soon).



Mike Adams lab equipment mass spec

Mike Adams lab equipment mass spec

The lab-verified products we offer to the public are found at, the only nutrition manufacturer and online retailer in the world which lab-tests every raw material and every production lot. We have the most strict heavy metals limits in the world, which is why tens of thousands of customers who have survived cancer, heart disease, diabetes or other ailments shop at our store to find ultra-clean foods that support their healing journey.


Avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals and heavy metals can strengthen your immune response to viral infections. Clean food, clean water and clean air is the answer to making it through the global attack on humanity that’s now under way. (Read for more stories on clean food.) If you aren’t yet drinking clean water, eating clean food and avoiding toxic chemicals in the food supply — be sure to buy organic where possible — you are playing right into the hands of the globalists who can’t wait to eliminate you (and people like you) from the planet.


Here’s the full video explanation that accompanies this story:

See more full episodes of Counterthink videos at


Genetic sequencing science breakthrough just proved that measles “outbreaks” are caused by the measles vaccine

Wednesday, March 06, 2019 by:

(Natural News) The entire fear mongering campaign surrounding measles outbreaks in the United States centers around a “big lie” that’s pushed by vaccine propagandists. All measles outbreaks, they falsely claim, are due solely to unvaccinated children. Thus, the answer to outbreaks is more vaccines, they say.


But a science paper published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, entitled, “Rapid Identification of Measles Virus Vaccine Genotype by Real-Time PCR,” has discovered something that vaccine fanatics don’t want the public to know. As it turns out, a large number of measles outbreaks are actually “vaccine reactions” from the measles vaccine itself (MMR vaccines).


“During measles outbreaks, it is important to be able to rapidly distinguish between measles cases and vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary outbreak response measures such as case isolation and contact investigations,” the study authors write. “We have developed a real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) method specific for genotype A measles virus (MeV) (MeVA RT-quantitative PCR [RT-qPCR]) that can identify measles vaccine strains rapidly, with high throughput, and without the need for sequencing to determine the genotype.”


With the help of this breakthrough science on genetic sequencing, these researchers have stumbled onto something the CDC is desperately trying to make sure the American public never learns. (Keep reading, below…)




Journal of Clinical Microbiology Rapid ID Measles Virus Vaccine

Journal of Clinical Microbiology Rapid ID Measles Virus Vaccine


Almost 38% of measles cases were found to be “vaccine reactions” caused by measles vaccines


As the published science paper reveals:


During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees (3). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J. McNall, unpublished data).


In other words, measles outbreaks were occurring among children who were already vaccinated with the measles. If you do the math, nearly 38% of the genetic sequences that were conducted on supposed “measles” cases turned out to identify measles strains that originated in the vaccines themselves. Thus, more than one out of three cases of measles in the United States was actually a reaction from a measles vaccine, not “wild-type” measles.


Notably, the lying lamestream media never attributes measles outbreaks to measles vaccines. In every case, without exception, measles outbreaks are blamed exclusively on “anti-vaxxers,” even when more than one-third of measles outbreaks are actually caused by the vaccines themselves, as this breakthrough science now proves.


Measles vaccines create market demand for more vaccines by causing measles outbreaks followed by media hysteria


Thanks to breakthrough science in genetic sequencing, it’s now clear that measles vaccines are causing measles outbreaks which then lead to media hysteria over “the measles,” resulting in hyperventilating among journalists and lawmakers who demand more vaccines (while condemning anyone who dares to question the vaccine dogma of the day).


Measles vaccines, truthfully stated, are creating their own demand for more vaccines by causing measles outbreaks in children. Naturally, the entire vaccine establishment and fake news media complex refuses to report the truth about any of this, pretending that measles outbreaks are only occurring among unvaccinated children. This is how outbreaks that are caused by vaccines end up getting blamed on “anti-vaxxers,” resulting in wholesale censorship of vaccine awareness content by Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest and other tech giants that universally function as the propaganda arm of Big Pharma and the CDC.


In just the last few days, Amazon banned vaccine awareness documentaries like Vaxxed after being threatened by Democrat lawmaker Adam Schiff. Apple has also threatened Natural News over articles that cover vaccines, abortions or Satanism, and Pinterest has banned all vaccine searches to prevent users from discovering content that questions the lies of vaccine propagandists. (As a side note, is becoming the go-to video platform for vaccine truth videos. Vaccine researchers are increasingly posting content there because it’s being banned everywhere else.)


Thus, the measles vaccine false flag operation achieves both the hyping up of measles hysteria while also justifying the censorship of independent journalists who are investigating and exposing the lies of the vaccine industry. This is one more way the vaccine industry operates as a massive RICO Act racketeering cartel that involves the media, the CDC, the FDA, lawmakers and Big Pharma drug giants. The entire system exists to profit from vaccines while using children to spread infectious disease for the purpose of creating demand for yet more vaccines.


Astonishingly, this science paper also reveals that American children appear to be selectively targeted for this vaccine false flag operation. Here’s how we know that:


In Germany, only 2% of measles cases are caused by vaccines


According to the same scientific study cited here, scientists also ran genetic sequencing on measles cases in Germany. There, they found that only 11 out of 542 cases of measles could be traced back to the measles vaccine.


In other words, in Germany, only 2% of measles cases are caused by vaccines. Yet in the United States, nearly 38% of measles cases are caused by vaccines.


How can such an enormous difference exist?


The answer is obvious. Measles vaccines administered in the United States are deliberately engineered to cause more measles outbreaks for the purpose of promoting measles hysteria and pushing for more measles vaccines. It’s all a marketing ploy, and children are being deliberately infected with live measles viruses that are added to the vaccines for this purpose.


The reason the vaccine industry can get away with this is because they enjoy absolute legal immunity for all vaccines that are part of the childhood immunization schedule. Thus, even if the truth were to come out about MMR vaccines containing non-sufficiently weakened viral strains (i.e. “live” viruses), these vaccine manufacturers would have zero legal liability.


This enables them to turn vaccines into marketing weapons, exploiting the bodies of children to infect them with measles as part of the vaccination process itself. Those children then spread the measles to other children, which is why numerous measles outbreaks keep occurring among children who have been vaccinated against the measles. The deceptive media then plays its part and hypes up the outbreaks, blaming “anti-vaxxers” for everything and pushing for nationwide vaccine mandates to achieve “100% compliance,” which they imply will halt the outbreaks.


Vaccines in the United States are deliberately engineered to contain live measles viruses to cause outbreaks that feed the media frenzy

What’s especially fascinating in all this is that breakthrough science in genetic sequencing just revealed the truth about the science deception of vaccines. In other words, good science (in genetic sequencing) just helped expose bad science (vaccine propaganda).


Now we know that measles vaccines are a marketing vector for the vaccine industry, which is essentially running a medical false flag to infect U.S. children with measles for the insidious purpose of creating media hysteria that will call for more vaccines. The real purpose of vaccines, it turns out, is to promote more vaccines, not to prevent outbreaks. Infectious disease outbreaks, it turns out, are a necessary component of vaccine marketing propaganda. If measles cases ceased to exist in America, there would be no panic push to make vaccines mandatory, and the vaccine industry would miss out on billions of dollars in revenue. By keeping the measles outbreaks alive through the deliberate spread of measles through vaccines themselves, the pharmaceutical industry — which has a long, documented history of using human beings for medical experiments — keeps itself relevant and profitable.


All this should come as no surprise to any informed person, given that the vaccine industry currently generates over $30 billion a year in revenues from the sales of vaccines, almost all of which are promoted through engineered fear campaigns.


Vaccine-originated measles outbreaks are also used by Democrat propagandists like Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) or California State Senator Richard Pan to demand that the tech giants censor all content which questions the safety of efficacy of vaccines. Once “anti-vaxxers” can be blamed for everything, the justification for silencing their independent research is sufficiently established to de-platform their channels and silence their speech.


Anyone who dares to point out the fact that the genetic sequences of nearly 38% of measles outbreaks are traced back to measles vaccines themselves will, of course, be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” and mocked by Jimmy Kimmel, even as the scientific paper supporting this has already been published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology.


The bigger truth in all this is that the vaccine industry deliberately uses vaccine mandates as a biological weapons delivery system to propagate outbreaks of infectious disease as an insidious marketing plot to sell more vaccines.


Now you know why the truth about vaccines is being systematically censored out of sheer desperation.


Where to learn more truth about vaccines

Read for daily news updates on vaccines.


See for legislative updates on vaccine laws.


Find vaccine truth videos exclusively at, the YouTube alternative for truth videos on any subject.


Check out for authoritative articles on the dangers of vaccines and prescription medications.


Read, the alternative to Google News, covering the internet’s most censored news sources on vaccines, medicine and politics.


Most importantly, stop using Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter or Pinterest to get your information, since all those tech giants censor all truthful information about vaccines, cancer and other topics.





From Clinical Infectious Diseases

Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011

Jennifer B. Rosen1, Jennifer S. Rota2, Carole J. Hickman2, Sun Sowers2, Sara Mercader2, Paul A. Rota2,
William J. Bellini2, Ada J. Huang3, Margaret K. Doll1, Jane R. Zucker1,2, and Christopher M. Zimmerman1

+ Author Affiliations

  1. 1Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, New York, U.S.A.

  2. 2National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.

  3. 3Westchester County Department of Health, New Rochelle , New York, U.S.A.
  1. Corresponding author: Jennifer Rosen, MD, Address: 42-09 28th St, 5th Fl, CN 21, Queens, NY 11101; Phone: 347-396-2473, Fax: 347-396-2558; Email:
  1. Alternate corresponding author: Christopher Zimmerman, MD, MPH, Address: 409 Vanderbilt St, Brooklyn, NY 11218; Phone: 770-371-2093; Email:


Background.  Measles was eliminated in the United States through high vaccination coverage and a public health system able to rapidly respond to measles. Measles may occur among vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.


Methods.  Suspected cases and contacts exposed during a measles outbreak in New York City in 2011 were investigated. Medical histories and immunization records were obtained. Cases were confirmed by detection of measles-specific IgM and/or RNA. Tests for measles IgG, IgG avidity, measurement of measles neutralizing antibody titers, and genotyping were performed to characterize the cases.


Results. The index case had two doses of measles-containing vaccine. Of 88 contacts, four secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response. Neutralizing antibody titers of secondary cases reached >80,000 mIU/mL 3-4 days post-rash onset while that of the index was <500 mIU/mL 9 days post-rash onset. No additional cases occurred among 231 contacts of secondary cases.


Conclusions.  This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status.

  • Received November 6, 2013.
  • Accepted February 9, 2014.



Groundbreaking New Study: 42% of Drug Reactions are Vaccine Related

By Christina Sarich
Posted On April 14, 2014

Read more:
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook


A pioneering new drug study testing the safety of many common pharmaceutical drugs has revealed that almost half of all adverse drug reactions reported in Shanghai, from anaphylaxis to death, were caused by vaccines.


The study is published in an all access journal called PLos, titled, “Adverse Drug Reactions of Spontaneous Reports in Shanghai Pediatric Population,” and within it Chinese pediatric populations were studied via spontaneous reports gathered from physicians (52.03%), pharmacists (24.27%) and other health care practitioners (15.46%), with only 2.52% coming from ‘consumers.’


This is a significant study for those who are anxious to dismiss vaccine dangers as just consumer confusion or merely anecdotal reports from those who are without real facts. Since many are wary to give weight to any reports that are not from a clinical setting, it is difficult to argue with this particular study’s findings.


This is also one of the first-ever studies conducted on the topic of vaccines in China.


“Knowledge of drug safety in the pediatric population of China is limited. This study was designed to evaluate ADRs in children reported to the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) of Shanghai in 2009.”

The results were reported as such:


“A male overrepresentation was observed regarding the total number of reports. The most frequently reported group of drugs were vaccines (42.15%). Skin rash and fever were the commonest symptoms reported in the total pediatric dataset. The proportion of children that suffered from a serious ADR was 2.16% and that for drug related deaths was 0.34%.


And we found that the multiple drug exposure experienced a high proportion of serious ADRs compared with the single drug use (χ215.99, P<0.0001). Sixty-five percent of ADRs were for children less than 6 years of age. And more than half of reports were from doctors.”

Read: If Publicized, this Study Would be a Vaccination Schedule Bombshell


The study quotes the World Health Organization (WHO) for its definition of an adverse drug reaction (ADRs) as ‘events related to a medication that are noxious, unintended and occur at normal doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy of disease, or for modification of physiological function.’ The WHO does not include deliberate or excessive consumption (overdose) in their definition of an ADR.

The Study Findings

The study found that ADRs are so globally problematic that they are in fact one of the leading causes of morbidity in many countries. A 1998 report published in JAMA found that 106,000 Americans die every year from correctly prescribed medications. These are not deaths from overdoses or misuse of drugs – another prevalent problem which is seldom discussed in the scientific community. Furthermore, the study finds that the younger an individual, the more at risk they become for harm due to vaccines and ADRs.


Also at higher risk are males compared to females:


The Young Are More at Risk to ADRs: “When the data were assessed in terms of age groups, almost two thirds of ADRs were reported for children from birth to 5 years of age (65.01%) and 39.46% concerned children aging 2 months-2 years.” Furthermore, “The highest proportion (6.58%) of serious reports was reported for newborn (0–1 month).”


Males Were More Prone than Females to ADR Dangers: A total of 1790 ADRs (40.41%) and 2640 ADRs (59.59%) were reported for female and male patients, respectively.


Of note in the study – children under five are the most often vaccinated!


The study expands on this fact further:


“The ADR rate causes by vaccine is much higher than other drugs, and this may be related to the types and number of vaccination being used in China, as the types of routine immunization vaccines in China reach up to 15 kinds, which is much higher than 7 kinds in India and Vietnam, 9 kinds in Thailand and 11 kinds in America, and most of the vaccines in China are attenuated live vaccines, which may bring greater potential safety hazard.”

Chinese vaccine schedules are similar to American schedules, often subjecting young children, prior to the full development of their immune systems, to a ‘polypharmacy’ approach, exposing their little bodies and minds to a cornucopia of combined toxins. The total affect of these toxins cannot be minimized. Their interactions are at least part of the reason for such high incidence of ADRs as well as death, not just their singular use. There is no way that small, developing bodies are ready for more than 12 different strains of vaccines before they even leave kindergarten.


Read: Study Shows How Vaccines Stimulate Autoimmune Diseases


This study extrapolates the dangers linked to vaccines further:


“With the seemingly constant flow of new therapeutic agents and new treatment indications for existing medications, polypharmacy is increasingly common. Drug-drug interactions (DDI) occur when two or more drugs are taken in combination and one drug influences the effects of another drug. This may subsequently cause a change in the pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic parameters which may lead to lack of efficacy, or to an increase in the number of reported adverse drug reactions.


The association between multiple drug exposure and the incidence of ADRs has been studied, consistently showing an exponentially increased risk with the increase of the number of drugs taken. When assessing the severity of the reported ADRs, our study confirmed that multiple drug exposure experienced a high proportion compared with the single drug use. This finding indicate that in order to minimize the risk of serious ADRs, HCPs should pay particular attention to children who are prescribed two drugs or more.”

Dr. Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD, agrees that vaccine schedules are harmful, if not likely fatal, with the US having one of the highest infant mortality rates of  over 33 developed countries in the world:


“The current schedule has never been studied – not one vaccine in a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated design, let alone multiple delivered at once, or the entire long-term effects of 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.”

This study is monumental, in that it proves the onslaught of vaccines we give our children is not exactly a medical miracle as it has been touted.


The autoimmunity generating properties of vaccines, and other chronic health issues associated with the presence of ‘hidden’ pathogenic viruses in the live and attenuated vaccines most commonly used in China and the underdeveloped or developing world, will become more curious to researchers with eyes to see how ‘preventative’ vaccines really are.




9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims

Lire en Français  October 28, 2009

vaccination questions

vaccination questions


Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called “vaccine experts” coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.


Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?


2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?


3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?


4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?


One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.


There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).


There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any
part of the world.


Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won’t address those.


Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?


6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?


This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines


Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don’t read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.


See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.


Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.


7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?


8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?


9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?


All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.


Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!


Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.


I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:


– They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped


– They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.


– They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again.


Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

Flu Vaccine Exposed: Think Twice!


Flu Vaccine Exposed: Think Twice!

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

* A full list of h1n1 vaccine ingredients, alerts and warnings.
Reference Sources:
October 28, 2009



H1N1 Vaccine Ingredients, Packages’ Inserts and Warnings

September 21, 2009


The following are the ingredient lists, warnings and side effects for vaccines currently scheduled to be administered to populations worldwide for the H1N1 swine flu.

Not one scientific study has ever established the long-term safety of adjuvants and none have ever been approved for use in vaccines for humans.

International Chart of ALL H1N1 Vaccines By Country

2009 H1N1 Vaccines FDA-Approved in the U.S.

including Ingredients and Toxicity (REPORT)

H1N1 Vaccines’ Immunotoxity, Neurotoxicity,
Sterility and Carcinogenic Ingredients

Research Citations Linking Vaccines To Disease (REF)

9 Questions That Stump Every
Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims

GlaxoSmithKline Arepanrix™ H1N1
AS03-Adjuvanted Pandemic Influenza Vaccine 

Analysis of Arepanrix H1N1 Vaccine
and How It Can Harm Your Health

Assessment Report For GlaxoSmithKline
Pandemrix based on application to EMEA

Pandemic H1N1 Vaccines Authorized EMEA (PDF)

Product Characteristics of Pandemrix H1N1 Vaccine 2009 (PDF)

Focetria H1N1 Adjuvanted EMEA 2009

GlaxoSmithKline Fluarix 2009-2010 Formula (PDF)

Sanofi-Pasteur Influenza A-2009 H1N1 Vaccine
Package Insert Based On 1980 Approval for Fluzone

Novartis FLUVIRIN Latest 2009 Package Insert (PDF)

Novartis A-H1N1 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Package
Insert Based On 1980 Approvalfor Fluvirin

Intranasal Spray MedImmune A-H1N1 Vaccine
Package Insert Based On 2003 Approval for FluMist

FLUARIX 2009 Latest Package Insert (PDF)

ID Biomedical Corporation 2009 H1N1 Monovalent Vaccine (PDF)

CSL Influenza A-H1N1 2009 Vaccine Package
Insert Based On 2007 Approval for Afluria

CSL Product Information of PANVAX H1N1 Vaccine 2009 (PDF)

CSL 2009 Latest Afluria Package Insert (PDF)

BAXTER Patent Application Citing
Monkey Kidney (VERO) Cell Culture

Download PDF on H1N1 Flu Vaccines

Chemicals and Package Inserts of Common Vaccines



Untested vaccines causing new wave of polio-like paralysis across India

Friday, April 20, 2012 by: PF Louis

(NaturalNews) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is financially backing and publicly endorsing mass polio virus vaccinations in India. In case you didn’t hear him yourself, Bill Gates publicly announced that vaccines could help reduce the world population by 15%.


Gates also proclaimed that every newborn should be registered for vaccinations immediately to assure the goal of 90% of the population getting vaccinated for his “century of the vaccination.”


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation program in India was promoted as “The Last Mile: Eradicating polio in India.” The promotional video displayed numbers showing thousands of cases of polio in India decades ago, with the number of cases dropping to 42 by 2010. But it appears that wild polio virus stats have been traded for polio from vaccines and non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP).


In India, over 47,000 cases of NPAFP were reported in 2011. The paralysis symptoms of NPAFP are practically the same as what’s attributed to “eradicated” wild virus polio. Apparently, vaccine polio viruses also cause polio paralysis.


Some experts argue that wild virus polio rarely causes paralysis and was declining on its own before the Salk vaccine ( Ironically, the Salk vaccine contained SV-40 (Simeon virus 40) associated with cancer’s surge since the 1950s.


In neighboring Pakistan during 2011, 136 children came down with polio. Yet 107 of them had been vaccinated multiple times with oral polio vaccines (OPVs). That’s over 78% of those supposedly “immunized” against polio getting that same disease (


Yet the Gates Foundation wants to vaccinate the world? Hmmm.

Explaining OPVs (oral polio vaccines)

OPVs have been phased out in western countries because of their high incidence of adverse side effects. This type of vaccine was developed by Dr. Albert Sabin and FDA approved in 1963. The viruses in this vaccine are not dead. They are merely “attenuated” but still alive.


What is done with OPVs that are produced but banned in the West? Dump them on third world countries with the humanitarian cover that they are less expensive and easier to administer to large groups simultaneously.


Outbreaks of paralysis using labels other than polio, such as NPAFP (non-polio acute flaccid paralysis), conveniently obscures polio outbreaks among vaccinated populations. Experts outside the vaccination dogma box point out there are other polio type maladies with different names, including NPAFP, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and others.


Some incidents of vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) from OPVs are reported, which is why OPVs were banned in the West. Those polio episodes can be vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP). VAPP affects only those who had consumed the OPVs.


Yet there are other ways OPVs can spread polio. Family members, friends, even villagers associated with those who took OPVs can be infected from viral shedding.


Viral shedding is common among OPV vaccinated persons and those inoculated with attenuated live viruses. The attenuated viruses become more virulent after residing in the vaccinated person’s body. Upon excretion, water and materials exposed to the urine or stool has been known to spread this now more virulent polio virus to others.


Read more on case histories of OPVs’ causing polio in the USA and Nigeria, both to vaccine recipients and to others from rejuvenated viruses shed by those who were vaccinated:


This “Last Mile” campaign has caused many to walk their last mile. A lot of money has been spent for this campaign, money that could have been used more wisely on improving general basic living health conditions to minimize all diseases.


When millions are spent on vaccinations instead of improving basic sanitation and potable water in poorly developed regions, there is another agenda behind the humanitarian cover story.


Sources for this article include:




Arutz Sheva

Oral Polio Vaccine to Be Given In Southern Israel

The Health Minister has decided to administer an advanced form of the oral polio vaccine to 150,000 children in southern Israel, in drops.

Chana Ya’ar , 30June2013

They and an official from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control were in Israel to see what the Jewish State is doing to prevent the possible spread of poliomyelitis – a disease once considered “dead.”



The decision to spend “several million shekels” for nearly one million doses of the “live attenuated” vaccine came after the live virus had been detected in February in routine samples of sewage extracted from the Negev Bedouin city of Rahat.



Health Minister Yael German and other officials stressed there was “no reason to panic” as there has not been even one case of the clinical form of poliomyelitis – the type that causes paralysis.



But the decision to administer oral polio vaccine (OPV) was made after consulting with the foreign experts.



No Israeli children under age eight have received a Sabine OPV, due to a decision to discontinue the vaccine when the disease was considered eradicated. But babies and young children do receive several doses of IPV – the Salk vaccine – in well baby clinics around the country.



Israel is one of only five countries in the world that routinely tests stool samples via 16 sewage treatment plants around the country.



WHO figures indicated there were an estimated 350,000 actual cases of polio in 125 endemic countries in 1988; but in the countries which routinely test for the disease, last year the number had dropped to only 223 reported cases.



From the British Medical Journal:

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: (Published 16 May 2013)

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f3037
  1. Peter Doshi, postdoctoral fellow

Author Affiliations


The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so


Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

Now we are all “at risk” of serious complications

Influenza vaccine production has grown parallel to increases in the perceived need for the vaccine. In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1).⇓ Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the …


Vaccines Sold by Marketing Fear of Disease: BMJ Report

by Heidi Stevenson  October 1, 2013

Influenza vaccines are killers, life destroyers, and provide little or no benefit. The evidence is clear. A report published in the BMJ clarifies how these facts are ignored by health agencies. To get around them, they simply push fear of disease well past the point of absurdity. But the CDC and other health agencies have no other way to sell the unsellable.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world’s most highly revered scientific medical publications, has published an article that condemns influenza vaccines and their marketing. The last sentence reads:


It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.[1]

Influenza vaccines don’t work as advertised. Nonetheless, they’re heavily marketed by governmental agencies through one consistent tactic: fear. Dr. Doshi  describes how influenza vaccinations are sold:


[I]nfluenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.

In other words, he’s saying that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which supposedly exists for the benefit of the people’s health, is selling influenza vaccines by trying to scare people into it. It’s pure fear mongering and as we’ll see later, outright lies, to market flu vaccines. He goes on to state that looking through the CDC’s vaccine-marketing lens gives the impression that:


… the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities, precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.


Dr. Doshi is telling us that a combination of fear mongering and force are now being used to compel people to accept forced drugging by vaccination. Then, he states:


Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims.


The science supporting influenza vaccines is poor. Surely the CDC must know this. After all, it’s their job to know! So, the fact that they use junk science to support a massive program of vaccination clearly demonstrates an utter lack of faith towards the people. There can be no explanation for this dereliction of duty other than having sold out to the manufacturers and the medical system itself.


By the way, those quotes all comes from the first paragraph of Dr. Doshi’s report. Because they’re all provocative statements, it’s imperative that he support them—and that he does, with clarity and force.


Who’s at risk?

When the flu vaccine was originally recommended in the United States in 1960, only adults age 65 or older were considered at risk if they got the flu. Now, the CDC calls for everyone age 6 months or more is considered “at risk”. If the CDC is believed, then the entire population is now as weak as only those over 65 were about 50 years ago.


Does the influenza vaccine save lives?

The CDC wants us all to believe that flu vaccines save lives. However, as Dr. Doshi points out, the evidence does not support the claim. The so-called evidence cited by the CDC consistently contains flaws so severe that they should be discounted completely. He points out one study that appears to show a huge improvement in the odds of death from influenza. But, the study was done outside the influenza season, a time that he refers to as, “when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit.” Even the authors found the results implausible, stating that their result:


… is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect”.


Dr. Doshi points out that this same bias is present in many studies. Further, he points out that the CDC itself acknowledges this particular bias in studies. Of course, they buried the admission deep inside a 68 page document:


These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.[2]


This point is only one flaw in the studies cited by the CDC. Also significant is that the CDC completely ignores studies that do not support their chosen vaccination program. They do not admit that the evidence simply does not support their claim that lives are saved.


Is the flu vaccine safe?

The CDC claims that the influenza vaccine is safe. The reality has proven to be the complete opposite. The National Institutes for Health (NIH) actively promoted a video by their director, Anthony S. Fauci, in which he claims:


[T]he track record [of the H1N1 vaccine] for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event.


This same swine flu vaccine resulted in these massive adverse effects:


  • It was suspended by Australia in children under 5 years because of febrile convulsions. 1 in 110 children were affected.
  • It caused narcolepsy, a life-devastating neurological illness, in hundreds of adolescents in Europe. 1 in 55,000 adolescents lost their futures to narcolepsy as a direct result of this vaccine.[3]
  • Just recently, the UK has admitted that it caused narcolepsy.[4]

Yet the CDC continues claiming that these vaccines are safe!

Have influenza vaccines reduced mortality?


Vaccine-choice advocates have been pointing out that vaccination has not affected mortality rates from other diseases. Dr. Doshi makes exactly the same point about influenza vaccines, and provides a graph that clearly illustrates the point.
As you can see, it’s obvious that any benefit has been, at best, minimal, making a mockery of the CDC’s claims that thousands die from influenza every year.


Flu Mortality 1930-Present

Flu Mortality 1930-Present


How much flu is genuine influenza?

Dr. Doshi is particularly troubled by the abuse of terminology. He states:



But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza.

He focuses on the distinction between real influenza and influenza-like illness. People often say that they have “the flu”, when they really don’t. Doctors often diagnose “the flu” when their patients don’t have it.


The fact is that most cases of “flu” aren’t. They’re actually influenza-like diseases, and there are many of them.


Influenza Positive or Negative

Influenza Positive or Negative


This graph documents how few people who’ve been diagnosed with influenza actually have it. This is one of the sneakiest tricks used by the CDC, NIH, and such agencies all over the world.


They give the impression that influenza is a far more common disease than it is. That, in turn, is used to drum up yet more fear to sell vaccines.

Is this a legitimate review?

With so much junk science being passed off for the purpose of selling products, it’s always a fair question to ask if the authors are legit. In this case, of course, the question is a bit different. Why would this author write this paper?


Dr. Peter Doshi is a post-doctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, which is generally considered to be one of the world’s finest. His career is ahead of him, but this paper may have derailed it. We’ve seen what’s been done to the career of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was already a world-renowned researcher with impeccable credentials. Dr. Doshi cannot be unaware of that, so the only conclusion to be drawn is that he feels conscience-bound to tell the truth and to inform people of the fact that influenza vaccines are both dangerous and, if not entirely ineffective, certainly they provide only minuscule benefit.



Dr. Doshi has eviscerated both the claims in support of influenza vaccination and the inherent character of our health regulatory agencies. So, will we see any change in the health regulation agencies’ push to vaccinate every human and animal on the face of the earth?


Not a chance. The CDC and virtually all the other so-called health agencies ceased to be protectors of people’s health decades ago, and likely never were. They are nothing but a marketing front for Big Pharma and Big Medicine.


  1. Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing diseaseBritish Medical Journal; Peter Doshi; 346 doi:
  2. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010.
  3. Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Narcolepsy in Thousands: BMJ Claim
  4. U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy [/wpex]



U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy

September 24, 2013 | By Nick Paul Taylor


Evidence linking GlaxoSmithKline’s ($GSK) swine flu vaccine to narcolepsy has mounted this year, with new findings from Finland, Sweden and the U.K. emerging. Now, having previously knocked back compensation claims, the data has prompted the U.K. government to accept the link.


The U-turn comes 7 months after a paper published in the British Medical Journal found a link between GSK’s vaccine, Pandemrix, and increased risk of narcolepsy in English children. Data from the English children added to evidence from Finland and France. The U.K. study is one of several published in 2013 that has strengthened the link between the vaccine and narcolepsy. [wpex Read more]


Having turned down compensation claims last year, the U.K. government has reversed its position in response to these new papers. In a letter seen by the Guardian, U.K. welfare minister Iain Duncan Smith wrote: “It has been accepted that, on the balance of probability, vaccination has contributed to … disablement.” The newspaper expects Duncan Smith to make an official announcement next month.


Parents who believe their children developed narcolepsy as a result of the vaccine can apply for statutory compensation, a £120,000 ($192,000) tax-free lump sum for anyone with a ‘severe’ disability. Families may also seek compensation through the courts. Peter Todd of the law firm Hodge, Jones and Allen is preparing a case for some of the 100 people reportedly affected in Britain, and believes damages could reach £1 million ($625,000) per person.


GSK has an indemnity clause in its contract, Todd said, so the government will pay out if the case is successful. The government could also be hit with hefty legal fees. “Some of these multiparty actions cost endless millions. You can imagine the number of experts involved. We fill up the court when we turn up with these cases,” Todd said.

– read the Guardian article
– check out Forbestake
Related Articles:
Study links GSK’s swine flu vaccine to narcolepsy in adults
U.K. too finds link to GSK’s Pandemrix, narcolepsy
EMA: ‘Insufficient’ link between narcolepsy and GSK flu vaccine
WHO urges investigation into link between flu shots, narcolepsy
Read more: U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy – FierceVaccines
Subscribe at FierceVaccines



8 Damn Good Reasons Not to Get the Flu Shot


Every year the mainstream media war drum beats for you to get vaccinated against the flu. They rarely discuss anything but the benefits of the vaccine.




Maybe it is because many people are already skeptical about the flu vaccine.


I’m going to be very up front with you here. You rarely hear about the adverse reactions or about the toxic chemicals being injected into you. My goal is to get you to investigate vaccines more closely. Here are eight reasons to question the flu shot.

Let’s begin…




A common urban myth is that the mercury has been taken out of vaccines. This is not true.


Several of the flu vaccines contain a neurotoxic ingredient called thimerosal (mercury). Each one of the flu vaccines listed below contains 25 micrograms of mercury. [1] The vaccines are:


  • Afluria CSL (Limited for Merck)
  • FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline)
  • Fluvirin (Novartis)
  • Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur)

Keep in mind you are being told conflicting stories.


After parents and scientists discovered that mercury was present in the vaccines, they had concerns about the substance causing neurological problems in children.


Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control have told you mercury in the vaccines isn’t bad for us, but as a precaution, it will be taken out of the vaccines.


Now the same organizations are telling parents if mercury isn’t kept it in the vaccines, millions will suffer. Why? Removing the mercury from vaccines would cause a major disruption in the manufacturing and supply of vaccines.[2]


Much of the evidence on the toxicity of thimerosal was swept under the rug at a secret meeting held by the Centers for Disease Control in Simpsonwood, Georgia. I’d like to invite you to read a few quotes from the meeting. I think you will see why the Centers for Disease Control wants to keep the lid on thimerosal.


Here are three important quotes from the Simpsonwood Document:


…the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000


“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” – Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000


But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” – Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 [3]


We at VacTruth encourage you to investigate what is being injected into your child.




Speaking of mercury being unsafe — if you’re pregnant, beware of doctors using aggressive fear tactics pushing you to get vaccinated. Here’s why…


On September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published a study by Dr. Gary Goldman reporting a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4]


That year the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had recommended the double-dosing pregnant mothers with two flu shots spiked with mercury.


In his abstract, Goldman said:


“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.” [4]


How can injecting these filthy vaccines into pregnant mothers be remotely safe?





Do you recall the vaccine-frenzied media telling us to get our flu shots during the H1N1 pandemic? What they didn’t tell you are the possible long-term side effects of those vaccines that are now being revealed.


Recent news about the flu vaccine suspects one of the experimental vaccines causing narcolepsy in about 800 European children. [5]


Specifically, two studies in Finland directly point the finger at the vaccine. [6, 7]


The conclusion of one study states:


“We observed a 17-fold increase in the annual incidence of narcolepsy in 2010 as compared to previous years in children aged under 17 years of age. A common feature in the history of our 54 newly diagnosed childhood narcoleptic patients was that 50 children had received an adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine (Pandemrix) within 8 months before the onset of symptoms. In most cases, the development of symptoms was fast. We consider it likely that Pandemrix vaccination contributed to the increased incidence of narcolepsy in Finland…” [7]


The children’s misfortune is they now have to deal with an illness that all but destroys their once normal life. Do you think the pharmaceutical companies will take any responsibility?





I’m not sure about other countries, but in the United States, if your child is harmed by a vaccine, there is little action you can take legally.


The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed was to protect pharmaceutical companies from anyone claiming a vaccine injured their child. Under this law, no parent can sue a vaccine manufacturer. [8]


If you decide to vaccinate your children, you do so at your own risk. No vaccine manufacturer is liable for your child’s vaccine-related injury or death from a recommended vaccine, regardless if the FDA or CDC helped get an untested flu vaccine approved.





If getting injected with neurotoxins or suffering from narcolepsy isn’t enough, expect to shed the flu virus and likely infect others if you decide to get the nasal spray vaccine.


Information from the Centers for Disease Control website indicates “that both children and adults vaccinated with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses.” [9]


In one study of children in a daycare setting, 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains for an average of 7.5 days. [9]




This might be a shock to you – if you investigate the vaccine carefully enough, you’ll discover that getting vaccinated can actually predispose you to getting the flu!


One particular study surprised researchers when they discovered “a significant positive association between the seasonal influenza vaccine and lab confirmed H1N1 was observed.” [10]


As anecdotal evidence, you may or may not have seen what happened to television host Piers Morgan. If you didn’t, here is the condensed version.


Piers Morgan went on the Dr. Oz television show to get injected with the toxic flu vaccine in front of a live audience. Days later he came down with the flu. [11]


Did the flu vaccine cause him to get the flu? You can decide for yourself on this one.





Do you know how the flu strain is picked to put into the vaccine every year? The “experts” guess.


Every year, the influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected through calculations about what flu viruses are most likely to cause illness in the coming season. The FDA, acting in concert with the CDC, decides what vaccine strains for influenza vaccines to be sold in the U.S. [12]


What happens if the virus mutates or the “experts” guess incorrectly? Please see Reason #1…





Many people believe the Centers for Disease Control is beyond using propaganda ploys. You might get a different impression from the information I’m about to share with you. It may seem as if the CDC fears you into getting vaccinated, much like doctors do.


What do I mean and where is this recipe?


Some years ago, the associate director for communications for the national immunization program, Glen Nowak, made a presentation entitled Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis.


I am going to include the entire “recipe” so you can see the complexity of the propaganda being regularly used on you to get vaccinated.


The slide on page 27 of the presentation reads:


“Recipe” that Fosters Higher Interest and Demand for Influenza Vaccine


1. Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)


2. Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:


–Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes


–Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors)


–In cities and communities with significant media outlets (e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)


3. Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)–and urge influenza vaccination.


4. The combination of ‘2’ and ‘3’ result in:


A. Significant media interest and attention


B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)


C. Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people–helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.


6. Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)


7. References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza– along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.” [13]


The message is extremely familiar. You see it played out every year on the news channels. To be clear, what you just read is a recipe to sell more of Big Pharma’s toxic vaccines.

















– See more at:



Systemic Failure: “Doctors Prescribing Meds Based On Drug Company Kickbacks” Edition

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09December2014 blog,

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

When the drug maker Genentech introduced a major product in 2006, it found itself in an awkward position: persuading eye doctors to start using its new more expensive drug instead of a popular cheaper version that the company already sold.


Ophthalmologists had been enthusiastically using the company’s cancer drug Avastin, which cost about $50 a dose, to treat a common eye disease in the elderly, wet macular degeneration. Then Genentech introduced Lucentis, a nearly equivalent drug that cost $2,000 a dose and was approved specifically to treat the disease.


Now, a new federal database shows that many of the doctors who were the top billers for Lucentis were also among the highest-paid consultants for Genentech, earning thousands of dollars to help promote the drug. The data raises questions about whether financial relationships between doctors and drug companies influence treatment decisions, even though physicians maintain they cannot be swayed.


Half of the 20 doctors who received the most money from Genentech to promote Lucentis in 2013 were among the highest users of the drug in 2012, billing for higher amounts of Lucentis than 75 percent of their peers. The figures were compiled from two federal databases that covered different periods, and it is not known whether or how much Genentech paid the doctors in 2012.


– From the New York Times article: Paid to Promote Eye Drug, and Prescribing It Widely

The topic at the heart of the following post is not a commonly discussed one here at Liberty Blitzkrieg. It has to do with big corporate money influencing and corrupting the medical profession. The reason I chose to highlight this particular article, is because it perfectly puts into focus two of the most important macro cancers plaguing these United States today: A complete loss of ethics, and the dangers of over-centralization/corporatization.


Let’s start with ethics. If there’s one thing I want readers to take away from reading this site, it’s an understanding that the banker bailout following the 2008 financial crisis was one of the most destructive events to happen within the U.S. during my entire lifetime. The other was the government and public’s reaction to the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist attacks turned most of the American public into groveling cowards, while the bailouts taught every criminal and person of questionable moral character that systemic crimes are encouraged and rewarded, while petty crimes will be punished to the full extent of the law.


In other words, if your criminality is compatible with and supportive of the status quo power of large corporations and government bureaucrats, it will be permitted to flourish without punishment. On the other hand, if you commit even the slightest infraction against anyone or anything even marginally related to the status quo (police, banks, government bureaucrats, corporate profits, etc) you will likely end up dead or in jail.


While criminals will often be attracted to positions of power in order to conceal and protect their schemes, criminal tendencies and a lack of ethics exists throughout all socio-economic layers of a society. Such a mindset is particularly dangerous in certain professions, which is likely why the hippocratic oath came into prevalence to begin with. Here’s a brief description from MedicineNet:

Hippocratic Oath: One of the oldest binding documents in history, the Oath written by Hippocrates is still held sacred by physicians: to treat the ill to the best of one’s ability, to preserve a patient’s privacy, to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on.

Basically, the idea is to do no harm. While the medical industry/profession hasn’t been a key theme of mine, I’ve covered some disturbing trends and developments previously. See:


Americans are Now Traveling Overseas for Surgery

Fraud Alert: FDA Allowed Drugs with Fraudulent Testing to Remain on the Market

Problems in the Education System? Solution: Give Toddlers Powerful Drugs

The second main problem I want to highlight, are the dangers of centralization and corporatization and how these things provide a fertile environment for systemic criminality.


The overwhelming majority of people who become doctors do so with good intentions. You don’t enter medicine to make as much money as possible, particularly not these days. The few friends I have who became M.D.’s are good people with strong ethics. This is where centralization and corporatization come into play.


There is no doubt that the historically personal and intimate relationship between patients and doctors has been in a long-term decline in the U.S. My contention is that a lot of this has to do with the centralization and corporatization of the industry. In this day and age, most of us merely owe a copay and some deductible when we go in for treatment, but beyond that, one’s insurance company or the government is responsible. Thus, when a doctor decides to prescribe a much more expensive medicine versus a cheaper alternative, in that person’s mind he or she isn’t directly harming the patient. The insurance company or the government pays for it, so such a decision becomes much more ethically justifiable in the doctor’s mind.


Of course, taxpayers and society as a whole ends up footing the bill, but it is this disconnect between patient and doctor that makes it an easier choice. That, and the overall decline in societal ethics ever since the no strings attached banker bailouts told everyone that systemic crime pays.


The people who blew up the global economy are doing better than ever, as well as better than everyone else. What sort of message do you think that sends? What sort of culture does it promote? You’re seeing the answers to those questions all around you.


Now from the New York Times:


When the drug maker Genentech introduced a major product in 2006, it found itself in an awkward position: persuading eye doctors to start using its new more expensive drug instead of a popular cheaper version that the company already sold.


Ophthalmologists had been enthusiastically using the company’s cancer drug Avastin, which cost about $50 a dose, to treat a common eye disease in the elderly, wet macular degeneration. Then Genentech introduced Lucentis, a nearly equivalent drug that cost $2,000 a dose and was approved specifically to treat the disease.


Use of Lucentis took off, and it has become one of Medicare’s most expensive treatments — costing the federal government about $1 billion a year — even though several studies have concluded Lucentis has no significant advantage over its cheaper alternative.


Now, a new federal database shows that many of the doctors who were the top billers for Lucentis were also among the highest-paid consultants for Genentech, earning thousands of dollars to help promote the drug. The data raises questions about whether financial relationships between doctors and drug companies influence treatment decisions, even though physicians maintain they cannot be swayed.


Half of the 20 doctors who received the most money from Genentech to promote Lucentis in 2013 were among the highest users of the drug in 2012, billing for higher amounts of Lucentis than 75 percent of their peers. The figures were compiled from two federal databases that covered different periods, and it is not known whether or how much Genentech paid the doctors in 2012.


The 20 doctors earned $8,500 to $37,000 over five months in 2013, payments that included consulting and speaking fees as well as travel expenses and meals. Genentech says it has an annual cap of $50,000 a doctor for speaking fees.

Sure they have an annual cap of $50,000 per doctor, but this is just one company. If a doctor can earn that amount from 2 or 3 companies, that quickly adds up to real money.


Since Lucentis was approved in 2006, several studies have shown that the drugs are nearly equivalent, including a large government-sponsored clinical trial involving 1,200 patients that was completed in 2011. Avastin is still the most popular choice of doctors: About half of patients who were treated for wet macular degeneration received Avastin, with Lucentis and Eylea sharing the rest of the market.


Genentech has aggressively promoted Lucentis to doctors to encourage them to switch, even paying rebates to those who use large amounts of Lucentis, a practice that critics have described as improper but the company says is legal. For Genentech, the stakes are high. Lucentis is one of its top products, generating $1.3 billion in sales in the first nine months of this year, an increase of 5 percent over that period last year.


Even with widespread Avastin use, injecting Lucentis remains one of Medicare’s costliest procedures. In 2010, Medicare paid $1 billion to treat macular degeneration patients with Lucentis, while it spent $27 million for such patients treated with Avastin, according to a 2012 study from the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services.


Here’s the problem I alluded to earlier. When a doctor can say to him or herself “who cares, Medicare pays for it,” you make a questionable ethical decision much easier to justify.




Review of 3,000 studies finds almost 400 medical reversals: HUNDREDS of current medical practices are INEFFECTIVE

26January2020 by:




(Natural News) Hundreds of current medical practices are ineffective and/or unsafe. Researchers from the Knight Cancer Institute at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland reviewed 3,000 medical studies conducted over the past fifteen years. The studies were taken from three prestigious medical journals: The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)The researchers identified nearly 400 cases of medical reversal – clinical evidence that challenges the validity, necessity, and/or safety of modern medications and medical procedures.



Hundreds of medical practices are ineffective and/or dangerous


A medical reversal can only occur if researchers are brave enough to challenge the science. Medical reversal can occur if a new clinical trial provides results that contradict currently accepted medical science. New results can be obtained by way of better controls, design, size or endpoint. Physicians and patients want to believe in the procedure, in the medication, and the science, but many times, currently accepted medical science and evidence-based medicine is a sham.



In the new meta-analysis, medical reversal occurred most often in cardiology (20%), public health and preventative medicine (12%) and critical care (11%).



Broken down into categories, medical reversals included ineffective medications (33%), dangerous procedures (20%), misleading science on vitamins and supplements (13%), unsafe medical devices (9%), and faulty system interventions (8%).



Senior author, Dr. Vinay Prasad says, “There are a number of lessons that we can take away from our set of results, including the importance of conducting [randomized controlled trials] for both novel and established practices.”



“Once an ineffective practice is established, it may be difficult to convince practitioners to abandon its use,” he continued. “By aiming to test novel treatments rigorously before they become widespread, we can reduce the number of reversals in practice and prevent unnecessary harm to patients.”



Why medical science progresses slowly and harms patients along the way


In an age of evidence-based medicine, medical reversal often occurs because we learn that a drug or therapy either failed to achieve its intended goal or inflicted more harm all along. Common examples of medical reversal include the discontinuance of routine hormone replacement therapy, avandia, ezetimibe, and atenolol. Clinical trials would eventually show these drug protocols to be ineffective and/or harmful even after they were routinely used as “evidence-based medicine.”



Another example includes the needlessness of routine mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years. A study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2009 recommends that women in this age group do NOT get a mammogram because there was no change in mortality for women who did not get the screening.



Another good example of medical reversal includes the use of class 1C anti-arrhythmics after myocardial infarction. The CAST trial contradicted the drug’s use in these situations, potentially saving lives in the process. Another contradiction was found for routine stents for stable coronary disease. The COURAGE trial reversed currently accepted medical practices for routine stenting, saving many lives in the long run. Almost every medical procedure, drug, and biologic (vaccine) needs to be questioned, challenged and held to new clinical standards. Medical science is not to be worshiped; it is to be advanced through the scientific process.



Full blown medical reversal is avoided because it implies that authorities are responsible for harming patients under the old scientific model. Medical professionals do not want to admit fault and take responsibility for harming patients. Abandoning a familiar drug or commonplace therapy requires that medical authorities humble themselves across the board. Furthermore, financial rewards, financial conflicts of interest and costly medical infrastructure prevent changes to faulty medical procedures and drug protocols. Medical authorities may be hesitant to learn and invest in new standards of care.



Learn more about medical reversal and why we must raise the bar before adopting new technologies.

Sources include:




The US Healthcare System: Most Expensive Yet Worst In The Developed World Archived:


One month ago we showed that when it comes to the cost of basic (and not so basic) health insurance, the US is by far the most expensive country in the world and certainly among its “wealthy-nation”peers (in a world in which indebtedness is somehow equivalent to wealth), which in the context of the irreversible socialization of American healthcare, was in line with expectations.


Cost of Healthcare_1_0

Cost of Healthcare_1_0


It would be logical then to think that as a result of this premium – the biggest in the world – the quality of the healthcare offered in the US among the best, if not the best, in the world. Unfortunately, that would be wrong and, in fact, the reality is the complete opposite: as a recent study by the Commonweath Fund, looking at how the US healthcare system compares internationally, finds, “the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.” In other words: most expensive, yet worst in the developed world.


healthcare ranking 2_0

healthcare ranking 2_0

From the report:
The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1).


healthcare ranking 1_0

healthcare ranking 1_0


Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care. It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).


The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, though the data in this report are from years prior to the full implementation of the law. Thus, it is not surprising that the U.S. underperforms on measures of access and equity between populations with above- average and below-average incomes.


The U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency. U.S. physicians face particular difficulties receiving timely information, coordinating care, and dealing with administrative hassles. Other countries have led in the adoption of modern health information systems, but U.S. physicians and hospitals are catching up as they respond to significant financial incentives to adopt and make meaningful use of health information technology systems. Additional provisions in the Affordable Care Act will further encourage the efficient organization and delivery of health care, as well as investment in important preventive and population health measures.


For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.

Major Findings


  • Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
  • Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
  • Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
  • Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
  • Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.


The U.S. ranks last of 11 nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier four editions of Mirror, Mirror, with the U.S. still ranking last on indicators of efficiency, equity, and outcomes. The U.K. continues to demonstrate strong performance and ranked first overall, though lagging notably on health outcomes. Switzerland, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked second overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks higher on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians. Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.


Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderate-income families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.


Many U.S. hospitals and health systems are dedicated to improving the process of care to achieve better safety and quality, but the U.S. can also learn from innovations in other countries—including public reporting of quality data, payment systems that reward high-quality care, and a team approach to management of chronic conditions. Based on these patient and physician reports, and with the enactment of health reform, the United States should be able to make significant strides in improving the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system in coming years.

* * *

It should, although if the government is in charge of it, as it now appears to be, it won’t.

Stuck on Zero 06/22/2014
Here in Southern California wait times for specialists can easily exceed 6 – 9 months. Allergists, 9 months, surgeons, 6 months. My friends wife needs knee surgery and she is on a 5 month wait list. In the meantime she is confined to a wheel chair. The second biggest killer in the United States is now the medical system: MRSA, hospital caused infections, errors, and mis-use of prescription drugs top the list. U.S. doctors prescribe more medicine than all doctors in the rest of the world and we’re paying the price.


I helped develop digital x-ray systems that we exported all over the world. We sold them for $180K in the U.S. and $60K in third world countries. The price difference was due to FDA approval. The third world countries get better, more advanced equipment faster and cheaper. Southern California hospitals very often use thirty year old, high-dose equipment because they can’t afford the more modern systems.

TheFourthStooge-ing 06/22/2014
The study on which the article is based completely misses the point.

The purpose of the healthcare system in the US is to rake in as much money as possible via skimming operations of ever increasing complexity. The only connection it has with actual health is that it must facilitate the bare minimum level of treatment required to maintain the thin veneer of “care” that keeps enough people from seeing through the scam.
When viewed in this context, the US healthcare system is the best in the world.

AdvancingTime 06/22/2014
Healthcare is ridiculously expensive because many people have convinced themselves of three things: The answers for good health outcomes rest with pills and procedures rather than good diet and exercise. Death at late stages of life is some strange, recent development in human history which justifies and necessitates extreme, exorbitant payouts to delay it for every possible last second. And last but not least, thinking that mixing all the myriad of “health care” transactions that result from the just mentioned concepts with health insurance as originally conceived to protect a person from unforeseeable, catastrophic events like an accident is a good idea. Just because we can does not mean we should, healthcare is like a tape worm ever ready and always wanting to grow larger. More on wht healthcare is so expensive in the article below.



How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia

@iansample 26February2014 19.00 GMT

More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences

 Higgs would not have found his boson in today’s publish-or-perish research culture

humanistic robots

humanistic robots

‘I’ve written five PhDs on Heidegger just this afternoon. What next?’ Photograph: Blutgruppe

Like all the best hoaxes, there was a serious point to be made. Three MIT graduate students wanted to expose how dodgy scientific conferences pestered researchers for papers, and accepted any old rubbish sent in, knowing that academics would stump up the hefty, till-ringing registration fees.



It took only a handful of days. The students wrote a simple computer program that churned out gobbledegook and presented it as an academic paper. They put their names on one of the papers, sent it to a conference, and promptly had it accepted. The sting, in 2005, revealed a farce that lay at the heart of science.



But this is the hoax that keeps on giving. The creators of the automatic nonsense generator, Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, have made the SCIgen program free to download. And scientists have been using it in their droves. This week, Nature reported, French researcher Cyril Labbé revealed that 16 gobbledegook papers created by SCIgen had been used by German academic publisher Springer. More than 100 more fake SCIgen papers were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both organisations have now taken steps to remove the papers.



Hoaxes in academia are nothing new. In 1996, mathematician Alan Sokal riled postmodernists by publishing a nonsense paper in the leading US journal, Social Text. It was laden with meaningless phrases but, as Sokal said, it sounded good to them. Other fields have not been immune. In 1964, critics of modern art were wowed by the work of Pierre Brassau, who turned out to be a four-year-old chimpanzee. In a more convoluted case, Bernard-Henri Lévy, one of France’s best-known philosophers, was left to ponder his own expertise after quoting the lectures of Jean-Baptiste Botul as evidence that Kant was a fake, only to find out that Botul was the fake, an invention of a French reporter.



Just as the students wrote a quick and dirty program to churn out nonsense papers, so Labbé has written one to spot the papers. He has made it freely available, so publishers and conference organisers have no excuse for accepting nonsense work in future.



Krohn, who has now founded a startup called in New York that provides encryption to programmers, said Labbé’s detective work revealed how deep the problem ran. Academics are under intense pressure to publish, conferences and journals want to turn their papers into profits, and universities want them published. “This ought to be a shock to people,” Krohn said. “There’s this whole academic underground where everyone seems to benefit, but they are wasting time and money and adding nothing to science. The institutions are being ripped off, because they pay publishers huge subscriptions for this stuff.”



Krohn sees an arms race brewing, in which computers churn out ever more convincing papers, while other programs are designed to sniff them out. Does he regret the beast he helped unleash, or is he proud that it is still exposing weaknesses in the world of science? “I’m psyched, it’s so great. These papers are so funny, you read them and can’t help but laugh. They are total bullshit. And I don’t see this going away.”



 This article was amended on 27 February 2014, to cite Nature as the source of the story

Some things are ‘nice to have’: TV subscriptions, restaurant meals, new clothes. Other things are ‘need to have’: food, water, heating. And access to reliable, trustworthy information.

As the cost of living crisis sweeps the world, rising costs mean many people in Israel will be cutting back on the ‘nice to have’



But news is most certainly a ‘need to have’. It is essential to ensure justice and fairness prevail at a time of squeezed living standards, economic mismanagement and gross unfairness towards the disadvantaged. Without trusted, independent news, we will be blind to the complex crisis that lies ahead. This is the most important time to know as much as possible about what is going on.



Rising energy costs and food bills mean that many readers cannot afford to pay for news. But as a reader-funded news organisation, we are reliant on the support of those who can manage it. If you can, please consider showing your support for open, independent Guardian journalism today, so we can keep it freely available for everyone. This means millions more can understand the events shaping our world, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.



Unlike many others, the Guardian has no shareholders, no billionaire owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, always free from commercial or political influence. Reporting like this is vital for democracy, for fairness and to demand better from the powerful.



We’re proud to say we now have more than 1.5 million supporters in 180 countries. Will you join them? Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism in tight economic times and sustains our future.


Academia hoaxed by fake scientific papers auto-generated by gobbledygook text generators

March 27, 2014 by: PF Louis



(NaturalNews) Natural News has exposed dirty dealings with Big Pharma, the FDA and medical journals who publish bogus study reports for years. Bogus study reports included ghost-written papers signed by credentialed physicians and paid for by the drug companies. They also included papers based only on data from trials considered favorable, while data from trials with adverse reactions were withheld.


The first woman editor-in-chief for the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, MD, resigned from her position at the prestigious journal upon realizing that she couldn’t trust journal submissions anymore due to various corrupt, profit-motivated influences within Big Pharma and conflicts of interest between Big Pharma and the FDA.


She went on a crusade from there with her best-selling book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Despite more sophistication for peddling drugs and stomping on non-pharmaceutical solutions or anything critical of pharmaceutical interventions, what’s going on now is basically not so different than how medical journals, the American Medical Association and Big Pharma have been colluding for decades. There’s just more of it.

Bring on the gobbledygook text generators

In 2005, three MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) grad students decided to test their perception of journal and scientific publishing integrity by creating a software program named SCIgen that would create a wordy, convoluted paper to be accepted.


They had noticed that paper-publishing pressure was evident at scientific conferences, as well as from within a university’s need for notoriety and research funding, and the need for professors and researchers to publish or perish. They thought that their hoax would expose low acceptance standards of research papers.


Journal publishers that offer peer reviews are paid registration fees ranging from $2,500 to $5,000. The lower-end fees are with a few newer open-access journals such as PLOS ONE. “Open-access” means anyone can read them free of charge. The more “old guard” journals take a heftier registration fee and charge readers for viewing. Institutions that are interested have to pay per view or pay subscription fees.


So those three naughty nerds at MIT decided to see how much garbage in for garbage out these academic publishers would withstand for their fees. Their first computer-generated paper was called “Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy,” by Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn.


It was accepted by an international scientific conference that’s been spamming scientists for papers since 1995. That conference group took the paper down after the hoaxers informed them that it was bogus. You can download a PDF file of it here.


More recently, a French researcher named Cyril Labbe revealed that 16 gobbledegook papers created by SCIgen had been used by German academic publisher Springer. More than 100 more fake SCIgen papers were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both groups took steps to remove the papers.


Labbe has developed a program that understands SCIgen’s vocabulary, phrasing and how it generates convincing diagrams to locate bogus reports originating from that software. He tested SCIgen to create a fake researcher, Ike Antkare, who became the 21st most highly cited scientist in Google Scholar’s database in 2010 based only on SCIgen papers.


“This ought to be a shock to people,” Krohn, one of the MIT original three hoaxers said. “There’s this whole academic underground where everyone seems to benefit, but they are wasting time and money and adding nothing to science. The institutions are being ripped off, because they pay publishers huge subscriptions for this stuff.”


Krohn actually expects an arms race of computer programs to generate better, more convincing papers and programs similar to what Labbe developed to counter the fakes.

Sources for this article included:


A Medical Dictatorship

29 November 2018




Just look at these cute sheep. So innocent. So clueless. So sheep-ish.


They almost look human. Except I suspect that they’re slightly more intelligent than we are. At least, some of us.


As you may have heard, there’s been tons of insanity and hysteria regarding the recent measles outbreak in the Northern U.S.


It’s gotten so bad that many rabbis have issued statements demanding that everyone vaccinate their children. Even schools have threatened to kick children out if they are not vaccinated. One friend of mine got a 30 day notice just yesterday. In the middle of the school year!


This gets my blood boiling. Iraqi Balboa is ’bout to come out in all her fighting glory.


I’d like to give the sheeple a little common sense, because obviously the radiation from their smartphones has fried their pre-frontal cortices. In layman’s terms, they’ve lost their ability to use their critical thinking skills.


Believe it or not, I’m not going to tell you about all of the potential health dangers of vaccines. You can look that up for yourself, if you feel like being more informed.


I am going to point something out that people on the pro-vaccine side seem to be incapable of understanding.


It is completely unethical, and overstepping your social boundaries, to demand that I, or anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs, have a medically unnecessary treatment performed on my child.


Since when are we living in a Communist Dictatorship?


As far as I was aware, the United States was one of the few places in the world where a person could make decisions based on his personal beliefs. I thought that was our right.


And now, the religious world, the rabbis, the religious day schools, want to take it away from us. They want to invalidate our right to raise our children the way we deem fit. They want to force us to accept their demands, even it if means going against our beliefs.


How disgustingly unethical.


Let me give you an example just to show you how wrong this is.


Say, tomorrow morning, you get an email from your Jewish Day School Principal: “Dear Mr. Goldberg, In the next 30 days we will be transitioning our students over into a more inclusive Jewish learning program. Our goal is to teach our students that gender is not as fixed as we were led to believe, and they must learn to be more fluid in their lifestyle and life choices. We want our students to feel comfortable breaking down the gender barrier so they will be able to do things as girls or boys, in whichever way they feel more comfortable.


Practically, this means that girls will be attending the traditional morning service that was reserved for boys. They will be putting on tefillin and wearing talits. They will be called up to the Torah and do all of the mitzvot boys traditionally do. Boys will be taught about family purity laws and how to count their clean days. They will learn about the different types of blood stains so they can better understand if they are ritually pure or impure.


We also demand that our girls and boys dress both in pants and skirts. Eventually we aim to do away with the gender-based terms altogether. It is our hope that we will create a more unified, inclusive student body who understands each other more and blah, blah, blah.”


So, if you’re a Torah-based, traditional parent with traditional beliefs, how would you feel having this forced on your child? Wouldn’t you feel that you are entitled to raise your children according to the belief system that you feel is appropriate for your family? Wouldn’t you be angry if someone were trying to force you to live by a belief system that is so completely against yours?


Who is anyone else to tell you how to raise your children??


That’s what gets me so angry.


In the name of the greater good, parents are being forced to violate their right to live as they want and put their children in potentially serious danger.


Oh, right! When it comes to health, it’s okay to think like a communist.


Let’s take a deep breath and look at the most recent measles outbreak, courtesy of the CDC website, which I hate so much.





Can you read that little line in the black there? Right above? What does it say? In case you can’t see it, here it is:




So far this year, there have been 220 reported cases of measles. 220. Does that justify kicking kids out of school, especially in an area that didn’t even have an outbreak?? Does it justify rabbis overstepping their boundaries and telling the general public how to take care of their health?


What has gotten into everyone??? Why all the hysteria??


Is Judaism turning into communism? You would think the one place a person could trust that their religious beliefs would be respected would be in a RELIGIOUS SCHOOL! For G-d’s sake!


Now that I’ve hopefully made my first point clear, I’d like to make another point.


The theory of herd immunity is totally bogus.


It’s a theory, not a fact. And it doesn’t apply to “immunity” that’s received through a vaccine. It only applies to natural immunity, which is immunity a person develops once they’ve been exposed to a pathogen. The chicken pox is a great example.


Here is a wonderful article among many you can find that explains why herd immunity will never occur in a mostly vaccinated population. I encourage everyone to read it so they understand the words they are speaking instead of saying words that sound like they’re informed but mean absolutely nothing.


Any doctor will admit that vaccines are not 100% effective, meaning that not every kid develops an immunity from a vaccine. Let’s not take this point for granted. Just because a kid got vaccinated, it doesn’t mean he’s developed an immunity to the disease. And I’m not even getting into all of the side effects that could potentially happen.


Furthermore, assuming he does develop antibodies, there is no doctor that will 100% guarantee you that the kid is absolutely 100% protected for a certain number of years. Even 10 years no one can promise that.


All that being said, the point is that since the effectiveness of a vaccine cannot be absolute, there is no chance to fully eradicate these diseases.


Did you get that? That means that even if 100% of the population were vaccinated, the measles and all of the other diseases would still exist and still circulate!


In any case, what I want to say to all the rabbis and schools who have suddenly started acting like Fidel Castro: back off.


Give each parent the right to come to an informed decision and raise his child the way he feels is best.


And for G-d’s sake, give us a little more credit. We’re not a bunch of pot-smoking hippies that refuse all unnatural medical interventions. We are parents who do our research, question the status quo, and are not afraid to do the right thing for ourselves and our families. We are well-educated and trust our judgment and common sense.


Therefore, our decision to not vaccinate comes from tons of reading, deliberating the pros and cons, and a deep desire to do what’s best for our kids.


Stop invalidating us. And stop bullying us.




Why Patients Aren’t Informed About Mammograms



What The Cancer Industry Does Not Want You To Know About Chemotherapy and Radiation

October 21, 2013 by DAVE MIHALOVIC


They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry are false. Poison kills indiscriminately– always has and always will. While damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment. That’s right…chemotherapy will actually boost cancer growth and cancer treatment is the leading cause of secondary cancers.




Vaccines, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and therapies, dentistry, psychiatry and practically all medical research is an industry and driver of corporate profits. The cancer industry is particularly ironic because the products that cause many cancers are made by divisions of the same multi-national corporations whose subsidiaries make the scanners and equipment that is used to diagnose cancers, the drugs used in chemotherapy and those given to prevent the cancer returning.


In what reality do we live in when cut, poison and burn are the only ways acceptable to treat cancer?


The cancer industry destroys or marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies that do more harm than good.


No chemotherapy drug has ever actually cured or resolved the underlying causes of cancer. Even what mainstream medicine considers “successful” chemotherapy treatments are only managing symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other precious physiological functions in patients that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.


Chemotherapy and Radiation May Kill Cancer, But They Also Kill You


Chemotherapy has a number of post-treatment adverse effects. Most chemotherapeutic agents do enter the brain and they can directly and indirectly produce a number of acute and delayed changes to the central nervous system. These effects can last for years, then dissipate, or, when they occur in young children, can ripple into adulthood.


The long-term survival rates of chemotherapy patients are grossly exaggerated because most of these patients end up dying of diseases unrelated to the original cancer itself, but instead related to the treatment.


Chemotherapy drugs (especially alkylating agents) are known to cause other cancers including leukemia many of these drugs fall into this class. Alkylating agents directly damage DNA of all cells. These agents are not phase-specific; in other words, they work in all phases of the cell cycle. Because these drugs damage DNA, they can cause long-term damage to the bone marrow and consequently affect long-term immunity. With these drugs, the risk for a second cancer develops slowly over time but their diagnosis is inevitable. Studies have shown that the risk begins to rise about two years after treatment, is highest about five to 10 years after treatment. It’s the reason most chemotherapy patients die 10-15 years after treatment.


Radiation therapy can also increase the risk of developing cancer in most people. The types of cancers linked to radiation therapy are vast, but primarily consist of leukemia and sarcomas. These cases typically develop a few years after radiation exposure with the peak of risk being about five to nine years after exposure. Again, most patients that pursue radiation therapy develop secondary cancers related to treatment and not as a consequence of the original cancer. Radiation-induced cancers have exploded in the past two decades ever since radiation has proliferated as a treatment, usually secondary to chemotherapy.


Some other cancer risks are tied to radiation therapy, as well. Solid tumors can develop at or near the site of the radiation exposure even 10 or more years after the radiation therapy. These risks seem to be greatest in certain areas of the body, such as the breast and the thyroid. In some of these cases, your age at the time of radiation treatment plays a role. For example, younger breast cancer patients are more likely to develop a second cancer from radiation therapy than older breast cancer patients.

Doctors Speak Out About The Cancer Industry


Dr. Robert Atkins, MD, of Atkins Diet fame once announced there are several cures for cancer, but there’s no money in them. They’re natural, effective, and inexpensive, no expensive drugs are involved but they require quite a lot of self-discipline from patients. It costs millions to fund research and clinical trials needed to produce a new cancer drug that can be patented and sold. Often these drugs create more illness. It has been said that the key to success in the health business is to pull off the trick of making people patients for life. Consider how many people who registered a couple of abnormal blood pressure readings have been kept on medication until the medication killed them, when a quick fix course of drugs supported by major changes of diet and lifestyle would have returned their physical condition to an unmedicated healthy state.


According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”


Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in 2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the United States. He used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”


Dr. Alan C. Nixon, past president of the American Chemical Society writes, “As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “…if I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”


Dr. Allen Levin stated: “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” In his book, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, Dick Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.


How Chemotherapy Actually Boosts Cancer Growth

Researchers tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.


Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.


The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.


“The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.


The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.


“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.


In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.


Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.


“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics,” wrote the team.


The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.


Patients with incurable cancers are promised much greater access to the latest drugs which could offer them extra months or years of life, however many doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, advice supported by Nelson’s study.


90% of Patients Who Receive Chemotherapy Suffer Fatal Effects

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases.


Globally, almost 90% of patients who are administered chemotherapy die within 15 years of treatment either from secondary cancers, or a compromised immunity as a direct consequence of the treatment. Chemotherapy and radiation combined are the leading cause of secondary cancer worldwide.


There has been a 68% increase in the use of chemotherapy drugs since 2003 and despite the massive increase in the incidence of cancer since then; the risk factors (according to the cancer industry) for primary and secondary cancers are still related to tobacco, alcohol, occupational exposures and genetic determinants. Cancer treatment or diagnostics is never mentioned as a cause of any primary or secondary cancers.


Cancer is a leading cause of disease worldwide and if recent trends in major cancers are seen globally in the future, the burden of cancer will increase to 22 million new cases each year by 2030. This represents an increase of 75% compared with 2008


More than half of all cancer patients suffer significant treatment-related toxicity. Treatment can also result in life-threatening infections or patients may simply die of their cancer.


When asked about how to improve a patient’s response and outcome, Nelson replied “alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy.”


But small doses of poison are still poison.


The bottom line is that chemotherapy destroys virtually all cells and systems before getting to the actual cancer. This means your central nervous system, organ systems and your immune system (to name just a few) are all compromised even years after the treatment has subsided. Forget about cancer killing you because chemotherapy will do a much better job in the long term.


Chemotherapy causes healthy brain cells to die off long after treatment has ended and may be one of the underlying biological causes of the cognitive side effects — or “chemo brain” — that many cancer patients experience.


Conventional cancer treatment is a massive and expensive fraud–a non-treatment that sickens and kills more people than it ever “cures.” It can never cure anything because it poisons the body which only causes more disease in the future.


The question [of whether or not chemotherapy really extends life, ed.] can probably no longer be answered. In clinical studies the manufacturers always compare their new drugs with older cellular poisons. There are no control groups that are given no treatment at all.


In order to be allowed onto the market, it suffices to achieve a “statistically significant” advantage in one small group of hand- picked test subjects vs. those treated with some already approved cellular poison.



Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.



Top seven natural cures for cancer that got buried by the FDA, AMA, CDC

Sunday, October 27, 2013 by: S. D. Wells



(NaturalNews) How do you keep the spread of cancer “growing”? Bury the cure. How do you keep 1.5 million Americans “infested” yearly with mutated cells that multiply uncontrollably? You breed cancer in food and medicine. How many years ago did America start this evil strategy to make people sick and deny them the cure? Nearly 100 years. Where did it all really start? The American Medical Association (AMA) and a man named Morris Fishbein, who single-handedly removed nutrition from medical schools in the U.S. and installed a fake seal of approval for harmful lab-made drugs that made cancer worse. What else did Fishbein do? (


Just in case you “doubters” and skeptics want some concrete proof, some evidence to take with you on your journey NOT to get cancer, here are some historical, proven facts to help you understand WHY you need to go 100% organic and research and use natural remedies, to build your immunity to disease with superfoods, herbs, tinctures and organic supplements. (


Let’s begin this journey of truth and the not-so-healthy history of medicine in this bold country we call the “Land of the Free.” Let’s begin with the TOP SEVEN CURES for cancer that mainstream media will never admit to, because their advertising money comes from Big Pharma, the GMO Agriculture giants (Monsanto/Dupont/Bayer/Dow Chemical/etc.) and the lobbyists and politicians who make their money off of stocks in cancer therapies that don’t work:


1. The AMA once paid a cancer virus researcher $250K to retire in Mexico and stop working on natural cures:

2. Burzynski documentary reveals true agenda of FDA and cancer industry to destroy cancer cures that really work:

3. ‘Dying to Have Known’ documentary features Gerson Therapy natural cancer cure:

4. Harry Hoxsey: Guilty of Curing Cancer with Herbs:

5. Medicinal mushrooms like reishi and chagacan beat cancer:

6. Marijuana – A cure for cancer?

7. Beat cancer with 35% hydrogen peroxide!

Pay it forward 100 years

Nearly 100 years ago, the AMA began removing nutritional education from medical schools in America. Medical doctors would no longer understand anything about using food as medicine (or be allowed to suggest it), and all mid-wives, Native American herbalists and natural healers would be referred to in medical journals as “quacks.” The Western Medicine philosophy would soon come to be that no food in the world could ever heal a human being or cure any disease or disorder; in fact, only pharmaceuticals and vaccines would ever be able to make that claim (legally) and get away with it, whether in peer reviews, medical and science journals (JAMA), scientific “studies” or labeled as such on products. (


Currently, it is illegal for any food, herb, tincture or superfood product to say that it cures anything, yet medications advertised on TV since 1997 can say they treat all kinds of diseases and disorders, even though the side effects are horrendous, some of the time including internal bleeding and suicide. (


Mother Nature, on the other hand, has a CURE for everything and also offers prevention and immunity for everything under the sun. Nutritionists and Naturopathic Physicians will tell you all day that organic fruits and vegetables are the key to healing and living a healthy life. A plant-based diet can heal nearly any health problem, and the body is like a machine that fires “on all cylinders” when given the correct fuel. Take this knowledge and be on your way to health freedom and natural living, where you have lots of energy, rarely ever get sick, can think critically all the time, can be spiritual and independent and take care of your family! Follow Natural News and track the truth. Learn and grow from it. Don’t eat cancer. Don’t drink cancer. Be organic. (

Sources for this article include:



Clinical Trial Results Under the Rug Cartoon (Drug Discovery & Development)

(Illustration: Roger Schillerstrom. Published in Drug Discovery & Development, March 2008)

Pharmaceutical company asks FDA to withdraw approval for its own drugs since agency is too corrupt to protect public safety on its own

Sunday, October 06, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer



(NaturalNews) A major manufacturer of antibiotic and arsenical chicken feed drugs has voluntarily requested that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdraw approval for some of the combination varieties that the company has stopped manufacturing in recent years. In alleged compliance with the FDA’s Judicious Use of Antimicrobials plan for improving the safety of factory animal feed, Phibro Animal Health Corporation decided to pull the drugs in response to escalating scrutiny of their combined effects on animal health and food quality, despite no real formative mandates from the FDA.


World Poultry reports that Phibro, of its own volition, recently petitioned the FDA to withdraw approval for both New Animal Drug Application (NADA) 098-371, which includes the use of nicarbazin, penicillin and roxarsone in a three-way, combination drug Type C used in animal feed for broiler chickens, and NADA 098-374, which includes nicarbazin and penicillin in a two-way, combination drug Type C used in similar feeding protocols. Both combination drugs have been approved and on the market for more than 40 years.


But the rise of deadly “superbugs,” or mutated pathogens that no longer respond to standard treatments, has been staggering throughout the past decade, prompting many to call for moratoriums on the use of all antibiotics and arsenicals in animal feed. Dozens of public advocacy groups, including the Alliance for Natural Health USA and the Cornucopia Institute, have pleaded with the FDA to initiate strict bans on such drugs for the safety of the public and the health of factory farm animals.


Instead, the FDA decided to issue a non-binding guidance for drug companies to voluntarily withdraw antibiotics and arsenicals from animal feed, a definitive non-move that many prominent media outlets have repeatedly lambasted as useless. But now that the market is dictating that people no longer want to buy meat that contains antibiotics and arsenic, it appears as though some such drugs are being phased out voluntarily, no thanks to the FDA. In fact, Phibro’s recent action in requesting that the FDA withdraw approval for its own drugs suggests that even some drug companies might be starting to have more sense than the FDA.


Drug companies continue to regulate themselves while FDA plays pretend


Or are they? According to a recent contribution posted at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog, Phibro apparently still plans to continue producing penicillin and other drugs for factory animal feed — the company has simply switched its drug configurations around to make it seem like it is complying with the FDA’s spineless guidelines for voluntary removal of antibiotics, which further proves the uselessness of the initiative.


“In addition to the two approvals that Phibro just withdrew for penicillin combined with non-antibiotic drugs in feed, the company also has another feed approval for penicillin used by itself for growth promotion in pigs and turkeys, along with chickens,” writes Avinash Kar for Switchboard. “So Phibro is keeping open the option to sell penicillin for growth promotion in an even wider range of species while withdrawing combination approvals it was not even using.”


In other words, the FDA’s suggested guidelines for reducing and eliminating antibiotics likely did not even play a role in Phibro’s recent decision, despite what the agency is now claiming. Rather, Phibro has always been in charge of steering its own ship, with the FDA simply posing as pseudo-captain to appease the masses.


“For FDA’s plan to have any impact it has to change how antibiotics are used not just how they are labeled, and this action does not meet that goal,” adds Kar.

Sources for this article include:




Bill in Congress Could Limit Access to Drug Safety Information

by Rebekah WilceMay 29, 2012 – 3:51pm

"Open Government" cartoon (Source: Adam Zyglis, Buffalo News)

“Open Government” cartoon (Source: Adam Zyglis, Buffalo News)

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 30, on the Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012, H.R.5651. Groups advocating for open and transparent government have found a provision in the bill that would keep potentially important health and safety information away from the public. Section 812 would, according to a letter to leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee penned by several of these groups, deny the public access to information relating to drugs obtained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from any government agency — local, state, federal, or foreign — if that agency has requested that the information be kept confidential.


Patrice McDermott, Executive Director of, which works with the legislative and executive branches to encourage more open government, told the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) that the provision might blow a huge hole in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It would give the FDA carte blanche with regard to drug information.


Deadly Drugs, Foreign Multinationals

Clinical Trial Results Under the Rug Cartoon (Drug Discovery & Development)

(Illustration: Roger Schillerstrom. Published in Drug Discovery & Development, March 2008)

(Illustration: Roger Schillerstrom. Published in Drug Discovery & Development, March 2008)

Why is this a problem? Take the example of a cancer drug that’s manufactured overseas. Due to a problem in its manufacturing, certain batches are contaminated, making it dangerous or even lethal to those taking the drug. The company issues a voluntary recall, and health agencies across the world assist in disseminating the information to protect patients. So far, so good.


Under this new provision, if the foreign government agency with jurisdiction over the pharmaceutical company were to give the FDA information pertaining to an internal process that could lead to a repetition of this deadly problem, it could request that the FDA keep the information confidential. It could do this to protect corporate trade secrets or for any other reason. Consumer advocates and the public would be denied critical information for tracking the safety and soundness of the drug.


Senate Agrees to Modify the Bill, House Does Not

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced an amendment to the Senate version of the bill, S.3187, which would preserve FOIA. According to McDermott, the amendment limits the exemption from FOIA to information about drug investigations and inspections that foreign governments share with the FDA on condition of keeping it confidential. The new provision would allow the FDA to receive and keep the information confidential for up to three years (or longer if specified in writing), but the foreign government in question has to request in writing that the information be kept confidential, and specify a time period.


The original language remains in the House version of the bill. According to Julie Murray, attorney for the consumer group Public Citizen, the way the provision is drafted, a sharing agency — local, state, federal, or foreign — that gives information to the FDA would need only to request that the information be kept confidential verbally to blow a hole in the current FOIA.


“From Public Citizen’s perspective — we work a lot on issues relating to drug safety here — the current provision in the House bill really threatens to undermine the public’s access to information about drug safety and effectiveness. It’s an issue all consumers should care about,” Murray told CMD.


House Will Vote Wednesday

The bill has been placed on the suspension calendar for a vote on Wednesday. CMD has signed on to a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Fred Upton and Ranking Member Henry Waxman, asking the committee to strike the provision and preserve public access to health and safety information. The text of the letter follows:

The illustration above from Drug Discovery & Development, March 2008, appeared in this article.



Bad Trial News Means No News

07March2008 – 11:33am Ted Agres, Contributing Editor Archived:

Clinical Trial Results Under the Rug Cartoon (Drug Discovery & Development)

(Illustration: Roger Schillerstrom. Published in Drug Discovery & Development, March 2008)

Even as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) begins implementing sweeping new powers granted last year by Congress for drug safety oversight, including requiring manufacturers to conduct additional post-marketing clinical trials, the agency is coming under renewed congressional scrutiny into the standards for clinical trials required for new drug approvals.


The potential impact on manufacturers is significant: If the FDA toughens its requirements for clinical trials, the cost of bringing a new drug to market could increase by hundreds of millions of dollars and the length of time could stretch by several years. “If you’re looking at a decade-long trial, you may not have sufficient incentive … to pursue that drug,” Alan Goldhammer, deputy vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) told the Wall Street Journal in January.


The most recent congressional foray into the FDA’s operations was triggered by a January announcement from Schering-Plough Corp. that a clinical study showed its blockbuster cholesterol drug Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) was no more effective than cheaper generic simvastatin alone in slowing the progress of cardiovascular disease. Vytorin was, however, more effective in reducing LDL-cholesterol. Vytorin and its cousin Zetia (ezetimibe) are jointly marketed by Schering-Plough and Merck & Co., and have combined annual sales of more than $5 billion.


Members of Congress and the New York attorney general’s office are investigating whether Schering-Plough and Merck improperly withheld results of the study, called ENHANCE, which was completed in April 2006. They also want to determine whether the companies engaged in improper “aggressive marketing” with or without FDA’s approval, and whether company insiders sold stock properly in advance of the announcement. Both companies have denied any wrongdoing and “strongly object to mischaracterizations” about the trial.


“While the ENHANCE trial was time-consuming and took longer than originally anticipated to complete, our companies acted with integrity and good faith in connection with the trial,” said Thomas Koestler, PhD, president of the Schering-Plough Research Institute.


Unknown is the extent to which FDA’s reliance on biomarkers for drug approval will be impacted by the Vytorin and other recent controversies, including Avandia (rosiglitazone), GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s (GSK) blockbuster for type 2 diabetes. Potentially significant increased cardiovascular risks were identified last year in long-term use of Avandia even though other published and unpublished data from long-term clinical trials provided contradictory evidence.


FDA approvals of Avandia and Vytorin were based, in part, on data from surrogate endpoints, which have the advantage of being obtained more cheaply and quickly than larger population studies, but which may not be wholly accurate or detect important side effects. At worse, the use of surrogate endpoints may fail to pick up a drug’s long-term harmful effects, as has been alleged with Avandia. “In light of what’s happened with Avandia and Vytorin, maybe the FDA needs to re-examine when it’s appropriate to use surrogate endpoints,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who opened a probe into Vytorin.

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders Reps. Bart Stupak and John Dinglell, both Democrats of Michigan, also announced probes into Vytorin. “People taking Vytorin are doing so because they believe it will reduce their risk of heart attack,” Stupak said. “It would make sense for FDA to require manufacturers to conduct an endpoint study to determine whether Vytorin just reduces cholesterol or if it also reduces heart attacks.”


So far, the FDA is taking the middle road. In a statement in January, the agency said it “will be considering what, if any, impact [the ENHANCE] study will have on our standards for approval of cholesterol-lowering drugs and may seek outside input at a future public meeting.” In an “early communication” on the ENHANCE study, the agency was careful to say that it was “not advising health care professionals to discontinue prescribing these products,” and noted it “has not reached a conclusion about whether this information warrants any regulatory action.”


Don’t publish or perish?

While the FDA normally is given access to all clinical trials data, several major drug manufacturers chose to withhold from publication studies that found their drugs were less than effective. Manufacturers of 12 antidepressant agents, including Eli Lilly and Co. (Prozac), GSK (Paxil), Pfizer Inc. (Zoloft), and Wyeth (Effexor) conducted 74 registered trials to win FDA approval. However, they did not publish 31% of these studies, mainly those that had negative or questionable results, according to a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on Jan. 17, 2008.


Erick H. Turner, MD, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University, and his colleagues found that about 94% of trials of antidepressants published between 1987 and  2004 conveyed positive outcomes. A total of 37 out of 38 studies that the FDA viewed as having positive results were published, compared to only three out of 36 trials that were negative or questionable. Eleven of the negative or questionable studies were published in a way that conveyed positive outcomes, they reported.


PhRMA’s Goldhammer said the NEJM study failed to mention that industry has voluntarily decided to post all clinical trial data, and that new Federal laws require this information to be made public. “This is all based on data from before 2004, and since then we’ve put to rest the myth that companies have anything to hide,” he told the New York Times.


While making clinical trial data public may be a public benefit, it is unlikely to make blacks in the US more comfortable about participating in these studies. A recent survey found that blacks are 60% as likely as whites to participate in clinical trials largely because they distrust physicians and are concerned they could be harmed.


The survey, published online in Medicine (Jan. 14, 2008) by Neil Powe and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, found 58% of blacks thought their doctors would willingly give them experimental drugs without their consent compared to 28% of whites. Powe, an epidemiologist, associated the deep mistrust among blacks to past unethical medical treatments, such as the notorious Tuskegee syphilis experiment.


“So long as the legacy of Tuskegee persists, African-Americans will be left out of important findings about the latest treatments for diseases, especially those that take a greater toll on African-Americans and consequently may not have ready or equal access to the latest medicines,” Powe said.


About the Author
Contributing editor Ted Agres, MBA, is a veteran science writer in Washington, DC. He writes frequently about the policy, politics, and business aspects of life sciences.

This article was published in Drug Discovery & Development magazine: Vol. 11, No. 3, March, 2008, pp. 10-12.



This is health care in America: Nursing home patient left to burn up and die by medical staff

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) You wouldn’t think such things could happen in America, but with today’s heavily regulated medical industry, which has left hospitals and nursing facilities chronically short of help and undertrained, you can expect such incidents to climb.


According to CBSChicago, Michael Lewis, a patient rehabilitating at the Lake Shore Healthcare and Rehabilitation Centre, was coming close to the end of his stay recently when something tragic happened.


“He burned to death,” says his sister, Lisa Couch. Literally. “He sustained burns from mid-thigh up to the eyebrows.”

Clinic personnel inadequately trained and did the wrong things

The disturbing video footage shot by the rehab center’s security cam is here. The footage, which is disturbing, “shows Lewis on the patio, a designated smoking area, when the lighter in his pocket suddenly catches his shirt on fire. Residents try, but fail, to put out the flames. Lewis then frantically pushes himself back inside to get help,” CBSChicago reported.


As you can see in the video, there was no one outside to keep an eye on the patients there.


“The horror, to think my brother is on fire and no one is there?” Couch says.


As you watch the video, you can see frantic rehab center workers inside of the building. Eventually, staff members spray Lewis with a nearby fire extinguisher – which was exactly the wrong thing to do, according to state nursing home regulators – then he is pushed back outside, where his body continues to smolder and where he sat, motionless, covered in foam.


“Doesn’t look like they were trying to take care of Michael,” his sister says.


Dr. Stanley Zydlo, an emergency response expert, watched the video and says there were numerous additional problems.


“There didn’t seem to be anybody in control as to who was to do what,” Zydlo told CBSChicago. He added that Lewis – or anyone whose clothing is on fire – should have used a blanket to cover himself immediately, in order to choke off the oxygen feeding the flames. Afterward, someone should have made sure Lewis had an adequate airway to breath, as breathing in flames often can cause an airway to swell shut. No one was doing much of anything, however.


It took more than five minutes for a worker in blue scrubs to even bring Lewis some oxygen.


“We don’t see anybody evaluating him or doing CPR for him,” Zydlo said.


As noted on the security cam, no one was performing potentially life-saving CPR on Lewis. That didn’t happen until EMS crews from the Chicago Fire Department arrived on the scene, but by then, critical moments had elapsed.


When they found him, Lewis was in cardiac arrest. It took a total of 10 minutes after the flames engulfed him until CPR was initiated. But it didn’t do much good.


Rules, regulations will only make things worse

In an interview with CBSChicago, Zydlo says someone should have put damp sheets on Lewis.


“The burn process is progressive unless you cool it down,” he said. “It will continue.”


Not surprising, officials and healthcare workers at the rehab facility refused to discussed Lewis’ death. Instead, they cited privacy laws in a statement explaining why no one could – or would be – commenting.


State regulators reportedly went on to cite the facility for failing to adequately train staff in emergency procedures.


“There was no one there to help him,” said Couch, sadly, adding that she has filed a wrongful death suit against Lakeshore HealthCare and Rehabilitation Centre.


Because the incredible regulatory burdens placed on healthcare facilities – even before Obamacare’s provisions require workers to comply with hundreds more – these kinds of things are happening. Anyone who believes such gross mistakes will only improve under a wave of new rules and mandates is fooling himself.





The Unfolding Healthcare Holocaust

Dave Hodges The Common Sense Show


OBAMA Yes, We can Murder you

OBAMA Yes, We can Murder you


Submitted by Dave Hodges on Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Dave Hodges December 4, 2013 The Common Sense Show   This article is not just about Obamacare costs and quality of treatment, it is about the  healthcare holocaust which commenced on October 1, 2013. Obamacare, or dare I say, Obamacide, represents the biggest threat to the well-being and longevity for you and your loved ones.

Rule for Thee but Not for Me

One of the most incredulous aspects of Obamacare enforced, mandatory compliance is that the mandatory provision does not include the legislators who imposed this monstrosity upon us, namely, the Congress. Obamacare is going to prove so substandard that even Obama and his family want nothing to do with it. Are you mad yet? Well, we are just getting started. The corporate friends of the President, such as the employees at General Electric, McDonalds, several labor unions, SEIU, the thugs at ACORN and over 1,300 big contributors to the Democratic party will not be forced to participate. The agency which will enforce the penalty phase of Obamacare, the IRS, was recently issued an exemption from participating as well. In short, if your corporation donated heavily to Obama’s re-election campaign, an exemption to the mandatory phase of Obamacare has been issued. For everyone else, tough luck, you will be participating in a system which will no doubt hasten the demise of yourself as well as tens of millions of other Americans. Obamacare mandates the imposition of 19 new taxes which have never existed before including the tax on a home sale which really has nothing to do with healthcare. And if you use an indoor tanning booth, expect to pay a 10% tax.

Obama Said “You Can Keep Your Plan”

Obamacare-There have already been over five million policy cancellations

Obamacare-There have already been over five million policy cancellations

There have already been over five million policy cancellations because employers will not conform to the excessive dictates of Obamacare. The estimates are that at least 16 million Americans will lose their healthcare because of the excessive demands placed upon employers and their health care coverage regulations.

Obama Said “You Will Save Money On My Plan”


If you think Obamacare is expensive just wait

If you think Obamacare is expensive just wait



Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Under Department of Health and Human Services poverty level guidelines, if you’re a single earning worker making $44,680, or a couple earning a mere $60,520, or a family of four earning a modest income of $92,200, Obama eliminates your subsidy from the government for lower health costs. I do not mean to speak down to anyone, but do you realize that a couple making $60,520 per year is the equivalent of two fast food jobs? These are very modest incomes and the cost aspect of Obamacare should be raising red flags for all middle class income families. The Kaiser Foundation published an ObamaCare Cost Calculator which will help you and your family calculate your costs, after subsidies. Please be aware this is a basic estimate for the cost of a “Silver plan” (the second tier plan, as opposed to the basic “Bronze plan” on the Exchange). Please also note that the total cost is greatly affected by a “regional cost factor” (increasing or decreasing the premium by as much as 20%). There are indeed separate plans, consisting of Bronze, Silver, Gold and something called the Cadillac plan. However, there is an absence of information about what each level of the Obamacare plan entails in terms of cost and treatment. One thing is clear, when the health plan is divided up into differing levels of care and cost, there is indeed a problem because it is apparent that people will not be treated equally under Obamacare. For a family of four with two dependent children and a $100,000 income, Obamacare insurance costs are nearly $10,000 per year. Such a family could have expected to pay about $500 per month under existing plans such as United Health Care. Under Obamacare, the cost more than doubled. For the same family listed above making $150,000 per year, they will pay almost $14,000 per year or 350% more than they would expect to pay in today’s health insurance market. This is obviously why the corporate friends of Obama are seeking exemptions from participation. And for those who seek their own exemption through non-participation, they will be fined 2.5% of gross adjusted income and the amount will increase with each successive year that they refuse to participate.


Communist ObamaCare

Communist ObamaCare


England’s NHS System Is Obamacare’s Model


Obama final solution

Obama final solution


In England, Granny must die to save the state money. These words ring true as Dr. Patrick Pullicino discovered that there are approximately 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in a hospital or under NHS care. Around 29% of that number, or about 130,000, were euthanized patients who were on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). The Pullicino findings are bolstered by the newly discovered heinous compensation practices from the NHS with regard to the LCP. The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial “pathway” to death, as this fact has not been publicly disclosed. The undeniable fact is that the British NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage and they wish to free up beds. However, the main motivation for this attack upon humanity is that they are making money by eliminating the lives of the elderly in Britain. Pullicino states that NHS doctors have turned the use of a controversial death pathway into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly. Pullicino has extensively researched the issue and asserts that elderly patients, who could live longer, are prematurely placed on the LCP and it has now become an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway. On average, patients submitting to LCP die within 33 hours. For the Seventy-two trusts to receive compensation for euthanizing the elderly, the trust must respond to such questions as how many people had died on the LCP over the past three years and how much money received in that period was attached to goals involving the premature deaths of the elderly. A staggering 62% of the trusts admitted that they had received, or will receive, cash rewards for meeting targets (i.e., killing old people) associated with the implementation of the LCP. The other 38% seem to enjoy killing for just the sport of it, as they admitted that they had adopted the LCP without receiving any payments from NHS. This is hell on earth.

 Obamacare Death Panels


Planned GrandParenthood Obamacare Death Panels

Planned GrandParenthood Obamacare Death Panels


One would think that the Globalists would be ecstatic with the murder of over 50 million fetuses in the last 40 years in the United States. There seems to be a Planned Parenthood abortion factory on every corner attempting to abort every baby that they can get their hands on, but the Eugenics crowd at the United Nations are not satisfied. They want even more death and destruction as they are demanding an even greater reduction in population from an increasing number of segments in our population. A top Democrat strategist, Steven Rattner, who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he calls for death panels and that the implementation of these panels are inevitable. Of course, Rattner’s comments have been totally ignored by the corporate-controlled media. As was the case with the LPC of the NHC, Rattner supports the rationing of health care for elderly patients, while unequivocally stating that  “We need death panels.” Rattner also serves on the board the New America Foundation, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting rationed healthcare. Clearly, this is an Agenda 21 population reduction program. Similar systems exist in many countries, including Australia and New Zealand, where their governments have decided to ration care to the elderly. The President’s position on denial of care is abundantly clear as his health care reform encourages rationing healthcare by levying a tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans in an attempt to push as many Americans as possible into Obamacare. Additionally, Obamacare calls for the appointment of a small contingent to make decisions on elderly care following the full implementation. Obamacare is modeled after England’s NHC, only with even more denials of care through age-related treatment exclusions. The NHC is the unquestionable blueprint for Obamacare. However, we do not yet have a complete picture because Obamacare is still holding back many of the details of age-related exclusion. Ezekiel Emanuel (MD) President Obama’s Special Adviser for Health Policy, coincidentally, the brother of Rahm Emanuel), wrote an article in The Lancet (January 2009) entitled, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Emanuel proposes an ethical basis for rationing healthcare resources based upon age. He calls it the “complete lives system”. In the article, Emanuel expresses the notion that all lives do not have a fundamentally equal value. Dr. Emanuel states that the state has the right and the mandated obligation which espouses the Eugenics belief that certain members of society are more valuable and should be saved at the expense of less valuable individuals. The obvious implication is that the state will decide which people will be condemned to death. Emanuel proposes that the very young and people 75 years of age and over, should not be given life-saving treatments, only comfort care. These statements speak to the likely implementation of post-birth abortion (murder) and physician assisted suicide. Emanuel is one of the front men for Obamacare and his words are to be taken seriously. Dr. Suzanne Allen is the present head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical Center in Tennessee. Allen told Snopes that “Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally receive dialysis that can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis, not anymore.” So, what will be their outcome? “They will die soon without dialysis,” she stated. In the no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by locally administered Ethics Panels. In the Snopes interview Dr. Allen added that “These Panels will determine whether a patient receives medical treatment or not.”  Most Americans are in a great deal of trouble.


It turns out that Sarah Palin was correct, there are indeed death panels in Obamacare. We are in the midst of the implementation of these heinous practices across the nation. In short, the elderly have a duty to die and to die inexpensively. As the Agenda 21 watchdogs have repeatedly reported, Obama represents global interests that want 90% of us dead. Through the use of abortion, contraception and elderly genocide, can there be any question that our population is being targeted for a British style elderly genocide? I propose that we oppose Obamacare with every means available. Much of the foundations of representative government has been destroyed. However, in this instance we may wish to pursue making our Congress feel the extreme heat of our wrath, for it is not hyperbole to state that Obamacare is genocidal and we have entered a period of an extreme healthcare holocaust.


Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

  • Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
  • Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
  • Pensioner admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift

By Steve Doughty PUBLISHED: 23:08 GMT, 19 June 2012 | UPDATED: 12:07 GMT, 26 October 2012

Worrying claim: Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial 'death pathway' into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly

Worrying claim: Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.


Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.


He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.


It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.


There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.


Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.


He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.


Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.


He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’.


In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.


Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.


‘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,’ he said.


Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.


Distressing: The professor has claimed an approved technique of looking after the terminally ill is not being used in all hospitals Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Distressing: The professor has claimed an approved technique of looking after the terminally ill is not being used in all hospitals Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Distressing: The professor has claimed an approved technique of looking after the terminally ill is not being used in all hospitals


He said: ‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.

‘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.


‘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 added: ‘If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’


The LCP was developed in the North West during the 1990s and recommended to hospitals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2004.


Medical criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.


Experts including Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.


In the example of the 71-year-old, Professor Pullicino revealed he had given the patient another 14 months of life by demanding the man be removed from the LCP.


Professor Pullicino said the patient was an Italian who spoke poor English, but was living with a ‘supportive wife and daughter’. He had a history of cerebral haemorrhage and subsequent seizures.


Professor Pullicino said: ‘I found him deeply unresponsive on a Monday morning and was told he had been put on the LCP. He was on morphine via a syringe driver.’ He added: ‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance.’


The patient’s extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to the NHS and the taxpayer, Professor Pullicino indicated.


He said he needed extensive support with wheelchair, ramps and nursing.


After 14 months the patient was admitted to a different hospital with pneumonia and put on the LCP. The man died five hours later.


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.’



Liverpool Care Pathway: The Road to Backdoor Euthanasia

2013 Winter
Written by Wesley J. Smith
Several years ago, bureaucrats at the United Kingdom’s National Health Service—a socialized system in which hospitals are funded and operated by the state—reacted to legitimate and widespread complaints from family members that their loved ones were dying in agony in NHS hospitals.In response, well-meaning pain-control experts created a protocol—known as the Liverpool Care Pathway—which, among other provisions, informed doctors when to apply a legitimate medical palliative intervention known as palliative sedation. The protocol was recommended for adoption by the National Institute on Clinical Excellence (NICE)—the NHS’s rationing and quality oversight board—and there you go; problem solved.1Except it wasn’t. Indeed, as so often happens in centralized systems, the bureaucratic remedy for one problem led to even worse trouble down the line. The LCP’s palliative sedation protocol has, in practice, too often been applied as “terminal sedation”—a form of backdoor euthanasia. Understanding how and why that happened serves as an important cautionary tale about potent dangers of centralized healthcare.

“Palliative” Versus “Terminal” Sedation

In order to understand what went so badly wrong in the implementation of the LCP—and why it is important—we must first detail the crucial moral and factual distinctions between the legitimate pain-controlling medical treatment known as palliative sedation (PS) and a slow-motion method of euthanasia sometimes called “terminal sedation” (TS). The two are too often conflated, particularly by euthanasia advocates seeking to blur moral distinctions and definitions.


A very good article published in the Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy clearly distinguishes between

sedation applied to control pain and sedation used as a method of killing.2 First, author Michael P. Hahn, a respiratory therapist with Loma Linda University, notes that palliative sedation applies the least amount of sedative to obtain the needed relief:

Ideally, the level of palliative sedation is provided in a fashion that is titrated to a minimal level that permits the patient to tolerate unbearable symptoms, yet the patient can continue to periodically communicate.3


PS employs varying degrees of sedation and time under that sedation level, depending on the circumstances:


The three most common levels of providing PS include mild, intermediate, and deep. When mild sedation is used, the patient is awake and the level of consciousness is lowered to a somnolent state, with verbal or nonverbal communication still possible. With intermediate sedation, the patient is asleep or stuporous and can still be awakened to communicate briefly. The third level is deep sedation, which refers to the patient being near or in complete unconsciousness and does not communicate verbally or nonverbally. Besides regulating the degree of sedation, palliative sedation may also be provided intermittently or continuously.4


In other words, palliative sedation is a medical treatment applied when necessary to relieve intense suffering; it offers individualized relief from pain and suffering (caused by conditions such as severe agitation) as the situation may warrant. It is not directed at ending the patient’s life. Death is not the goal. If the patient dies, it is usually from the underlying condition or as an unwanted side effect, which can happen with any medical treatment. In other words, PS is no more euthanasia if a patient dies from complications than if a patient dies during heart surgery.


In contrast, terminal sedation intends to kill by putting the person into a permanent artificial coma and withholding food and fluids. TS-caused deaths usually are caused by dehydration over a period of about two weeks. In this sense, Hahn notes, palliative sedation and terminal sedation are mirror opposites (my emphasis below):


Palliative sedation is not a euphemism that is morally equivalent to euthanasia, nor is it “slow euthanasia” [e.g., terminal sedation], or physician-assisted suicide (PAS). There is a sharp distinction between euthanasia and PS or PAS and PS, the distinction between the three can be ascertained by recognizing the primary intention and outcome of each measure. Although PAS and euthanasia are intended to relieve suffering, it is accomplished by causing death, whereas PS is provided in a proportionate manner without an intention of causing death . . . .


Slow euthanasia and PAS specifically involve the intent to end life deliberately with lethal (nontherapeutic) doses of drugs, or with rapid administration of drugs, that exceed the amount needed to alleviate the symptoms. When death unintentionally occurs following a proportionate administration of drugs in PS, the patient dies from the underlying illness and the death certificate does not list the cause of death as “drug overdose.”5


The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization supports the application of palliative sedation in “rare” cases for “the limited number of imminently dying patients who have pain and suffering that is (a) unresponsive to other palliative interventions less suppressive of consciousness and (b) intolerable.” Again, the Position Statement of the NHPCO specifically notes that neither death nor unconsciousness is the goal of the intervention:


The goal of palliative sedation is to provide relief from symptoms that are otherwise intolerable and intractable. Since the goal is symptom relief (and not unconsciousness per se), sedation should be titrated to the minimum level of consciousness reduction necessary to render symptoms tolerable. For some patients, this may be total unconsciousness. For most, however, it will be less than total unconsciousness, allowing the patient to rest comfortably but to be aroused.6


In summary, while both palliative sedation and terminal sedation involve the use of consciousness-altering drugs, they are apples and oranges:


• PS is individualized and the level of sedation varied according to the patient’s present medical condition. In contrast, TS places the patient in a deep artificial coma until death.

• The purpose of PS is to treat the patient’s pain and symptoms while simultaneously offering the best possible quality of life, whereas the explicit goal of TS is making the patient dead.

• Patients who die while undergoing PS usually expire from their underlying physical condition, whereas most patients undergoing TS die of dehydration. (Hence, Hahn’s use of the term “slow euthanasia.”)

• PS is a legitimate and ethical medical treatment. TS is slow euthanasia, which is not legal or ethical in most countries.

With the above in mind, we now turn to the Liverpool Care Pathway and what went wrong.

The Liverpool Care Pathway Only Authorized Palliative Sedation

It is clear from the terms of the policy that the LCP’s authors never intended it to become a form of terminal sedation. For example, an educational document prepared for healthcare professionals by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute (Liverpool)—under which auspices the Pathway was created—notes that the specific “aim” of the Pathway is to “improve care of the dying in the last hours or days of life.7 It also stated unequivocally that:

• “The LCP neither hastens nor postpones death;”

• “The LCP does not recommend the use of continuous deep sedation;”

• “The LCP does not preclude the use of artificial hydration;”

• “The LCP supports continuous reassessment.”8

It is also important to reiterate that the LCP was designed to be applied in a patient-specific and nuanced manner. Thus, as the educational document notes:


A blanket policy of clinically assisted (artificial) nutrition or of no clinically assisted (artificial) hydration is ethically indefensible and in the case of patients lacking capacity prohibited under the Mental Capacities Act (2005).9

Indeed, an early audit of 4000 dying patients found that only 4 percent needed deep levels of sedation to control pain and distressing symptoms at the very end of life.10

Backdoor Euthanasia

Alas, that is not how the LCP has been carried out in many NHS hospitals and nursing homes. The trouble began when NICE urged hospitals to adopt the Pathway as a means of caring for dying patients. Perhaps because it came to be perceived as a bureaucratic order rather than a guideline encouraging individualized patient care, deep sedation apparently came to be seen as the norm in some institutions—to the point that at least in some cases, the LCP became a means of backdoor euthanasia, threatening a full-blown medical scandal.


The serious problems with the Pathway first came to light in 2009 when the Telegraph published an open letter signed by palliative physicians and other pain-control experts. It complained that hospital personnel were applying the LCP in a “tick-box” manner that threatened the lives of patients who did not need sedation based on their medical conditions:


Just as, in the financial world, so-called algorithmic banking has caused problems by blindly following a computer model, so a similar tick-box approach to the management of death is causing a national crisis in care. The government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing homes, and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death.


This, the letter writers warned, had resulted in some patients who were not actively dying—a core requirement for application of the LCP—being sedated:


As a result, a nationwide wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients. Syringe drivers are being used to give continuous terminal sedation, without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong . . . . Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped, “dying” patients get better.11

A concurrent Telegraph story reported that an alarming 16.5 percent of patients who died in 2007-08 expired while under “continuous deep sedation.” Tellingly, the Telegraph reported that twice as many patients in the U.K. died while under deep sedation as in the Netherlands—a country where terminal sedation sometimes serves as a substitute for active euthanasia.12 (It is worth noting that the use of TS as a means of euthanasia has increased in the Netherlands in the intervening years. A recent study found that 12.3 percent of Dutch deaths now result from sedation and dehydration—which is still below the rate in the UK!)13


Soon, disturbing stories in the press added credence to the open letter writers’ fears. Again, the Telegraph led the way, reporting Rosemary Munkenbeck’s claim that her father, hospitalized with a stroke, was quickly deprived of fluids and medications. She further claimed that doctors wanted to sedate him under the Pathway protocols until he died. The family refused, but not before Munkenbeck’s father went five days without sustenance.14


The Sunday Times of London soon reported another case, headlined, “Daughter Saves Mother, 80, Left by Doctors to Starve”:


An 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened. Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients. Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool Care Pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.15

Fenton lived to tell the tale. Not so 76-year-old Jack Jones. As reported by the Daily Mail, Jones was hospitalized in the belief that his previous cancer had recurred and was now terminal. The family claimed he was soon denied food and water and put into deep sedation. But his autopsy showed that he did not have cancer at all, but actually had a treatable infection. The hospice denied wrongdoing but paid £18,000 to Jones’s widow.16


As time progressed, it became abundantly clear that despite the LCP’s intent that the protocol not be applied in a blanket manner, precisely such unthinking applications were happening in actual clinical practice. Another story in the Telegraph reported that two-thirds of NHS hospitals were receiving financial incentives from the government to place patients on the LCP:


The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial ‘pathway’ to death, it can be disclosed. The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the full scale of financial inducements for the first time. They suggest that about 85 per cent of trusts have now adopted the regime, which can involve the removal of hydration and nutrition from dying patients. More than six out of 10 of those trusts—just over half of the total—have received or are due to receive financial rewards for doing so amounting to at least £12million.

And the statistics show that the Pathway has indeed become backdoor euthanasia:


At many hospitals more than 50 per cent of all patients who died had been placed on the pathway and in one case the proportion of foreseeable deaths on the pathway was almost nine out of ten.17

Not only that, but the Telegraph published news that while some hospitals applied the LCP in a professional manner, others offered little training to staff and applied the protocol as a checklist item “to be done” to terminal patients.18 Clearly, this was not what the authors of the LCP had intended.


Bureaucratic “Death Targets”

This article cannot determine the full nature and extent of the problems with the LCP, a still unfolding story and the subject of multiple investigations and inquiries. But we can come to some preliminary conclusions as to why a clearly well-intentioned, appropriately defined, and medically ethical guidance instrument came to be used, at least in some cases, to kill.


The prime suspect seems to be the nature of bureaucracy. Jacqueline Laing, a senior lecturer in law at London Metropolitan University, points to the problem of “managerialized death targets” that were apparently established by the NHS’s centralized bureaucracy:


Part of the difficulty is that, where a patient is diagnosed as terminal and imminently dying, the combination of morphine and dehydration is likely to undermine a patient’s capacity. Persistent dehydration of even the fittest sedated patient will kill him. This was the problem with the Pathway from the very outset. It reversed the burden of proof, on the strength of a diagnosis that is not always certain, so that an increasingly incapacitated patient would have to speak on his own behalf in favour of water. Even assuming he was healthy enough, in an environment in which the Pathway is normal his pleas may not be heard.19

To put it another way, doctors applying the LCP ceased to treat patients as individuals, but instead yielded to bureaucratic imperatives—precisely the approach that the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute stated should not happen.


Laing also warned cogently that more trouble lay ahead unless medical personnel applied the LCP in a patient-specific manner:


Recent revelations of financial incentives and staggering compliance in rolling out the managerial programme radically alter the debate. Diagnostic concerns in the context of arguably self-fulfilling sedation-dehydration regimes and overarching financial and political pressure to implement the Pathway, suggest that the regime may have acquired a lethal power of its own. This lethal character is almost certainly one that exists independently of the best intentions of those who formulated or apply it. Some of history’s most important lessons highlight the problems of institu-tionalising programmes that invite homicide and reverse burdens of proof in ways that undermine the vulnerable.

In other words, the bureaucratic imperative transformed a benign and beneficial medical treatment into a method of intentionally causing death—without necessarily intending that lethal outcome.


The LCP and the Affordable Care Act

There is a warning here for the United States under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), by which the federal government centralized management of the American health-care system. While the ACA does not create a socialized system akin to the UK’s NHS, it does establish a centralized federal bureaucracy authorized to give incentives to doctors and medical institutions to follow pre-defined approaches of providing “excellence.” Indeed, many of the architects and implementers of the ACA have stated that they hope to emulate NICE-style cost containment/quality care methods—the very approach that subverted proper application of the LCP.


The greatest potential danger of managerializing healthcare (to borrow Laing’s term) may be posed by the soon-to-be-implemented Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is not a garden-variety “advisory” commission like so many seen in government these days. Rather, the unique “fast track authority” granted to IPAB authorizes it to impose its “recommendations” into law. Specifically:


• By January 15 each year, the Independent Payment Advisory Board must submit a proposal to Congress and the president for reaching Medicare savings targets in the coming year. The majority leaders in the House and Senate must introduce bills incorporating the board’s proposal the day they receive it.

• Congress cannot “consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report . . . that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the board” if such changes fail to meet the board’s budgetary target.

• By April 1, the committees of jurisdiction must complete their consideration of the proposal. Any committee that fails to meet the deadline is barred from further considering the bill.

• The secretary of health and human services must implement the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s proposal, as passed by Congress and signed by the president, on August 15 of the year in which the proposal is submitted.

• If Congress does not pass the proposal or a substitute plan meeting the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s financial target before August/15, or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress, the original Independent Payment Advisory Board recommendations automatically take effect.

Further demonstrating the Star Chamber-like powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, Congress cannot consider any bill or amendment that would repeal or change this fast-track congressional consideration process without a three-fifths vote (60) in the Senate. Not only that, but the implementation of the board’s remedy is exempted from administrative or judicial review.20


IPAB defenders claim that the IPAB’s iron fist is necessary to ensure cost containment. They also note that the board does not have a completely free hand. For example, as it pursues its mission of frugality, it is not currently allowed to recommend health care rationing, changes in Medicare benefits, or revision of eligibility standards.


That is hardly reassuring. Before IPAB is even up and running, powerful voices began calling for IPAB to be granted expanded powers—including explicit NICE-style powers of health care rationing. Thus, Christina D. Romer, former chairwoman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in the New York Times: “Once the payment advisory board has a track record . . . it could be empowered to suggest changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided—say, along the lines of successful demonstration projects.”21


Even more explicitly, former Obama Treasury Department adviser and New York Times columnist Steven Rattner wrote, “We need death panels,” urging that IPAB be transformed into a rationing board. “No one wants to lose an aging parent,” he wrote. But the cost of caring extensively for the elderly “imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear,” and so we too must jump into the rationing pool:


Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life. At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.22

Similarly, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)—an explicit supporter of NICE-style health care rationing—has opined that “strengthening of IPAB is of critical importance.”23 Moreover, the NEJM has supported a system of rationing utilized by NICE based on the discriminatory quality of life year (QALY), which judges healthier, younger, and more able-bodied lives as having greater value than those on life’s edges. For example, an editorial favoring using QALYs in the context of the ACA argued:


As the country searches for ways to curb health care spending, consideration of the cost-effectiveness of health interventions will unavoidably be part of the health care debate, alongside considerations of possible payment- and delivery-system reforms. The use of explicit, standard metrics such as cost-per-QALY ratios has the advantage of transparency and can help direct our resources toward the greatest health gains.24


Such thinking demonstrates how centralized healthcare management practices unleash broad technocratic impulses. Rather than reinforcing standards of professional excellence in medicine, health care instead comes to be dominated by the bureaucratic imperatives, in turn leading to connect-the-dots medicine.


Indeed, because the Liverpool Care Pathway often has been perceived through a distorting bureaucratic prism, it has become a pronounced threat to the most weak and vulnerable patients precisely when they are at their most weak and vulnerable. We ignore that lesson in the United States at our own peril.


1. For more information on the National Institute on Health and Clinical Excellence, see

2. Michael P. Hahn, “Review of Palliative Sedation and Its Distinction From Euthanasia and Lethal Injection,” Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy. 2012; 26:30-39.

3. Id., p. 31.

4. Id.

5. Id., pp. 36-37.

6. Timothy W. Kirk, PhD, and Margaret M. Mahon, PhD, RN, FAAN, for the Palliative Sedation Task Force of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization Ethics Committee, “National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) Position Statement and Commentary on the Use of Palliative Sedation in Imminently Dying Terminally Ill Patients,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Vol. 39 No. 5 May 2010, 914-923.

7. Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, “What is the Liverpool Pathway for the Dying Patient?: Information for Health Care Professionals,” April 2010, p. 2.

8. Id., p. 4.

9. Id., p. 5.

10. Id., p. 8.

11. P.H. Millard et al., “A Group of Experts Who Care for the Terminally Ill Claim That Some Patients are Being Wrongly Judged as Close to Death,” Telegraph, September 3, 2009.

12. Kate Devlin, “Sentenced to Death on the NHS,” Telegraph, September 2, 2009.

13. Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., “Trends in end-of-life practices before and after the enactment of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands from 1990 to 2010: a repeated cross-sectional survey,” The Lancet, July 11, 2012

14. Chris Irvine and Kate Devlin, “Daughter Claims Father Wrongly Placed on Controversial NHS End of Life Scheme,” Telegraph, September 8, 2009.

15. Sarah-Kate Templeton, “Daughter Saves Mother, 80, Left by Doctors to Starve,” The Sunday Times, October 11, 2009.

16. James Tozer, “My husband had beaten cancer, then doctors WRONGLY told him it had returned and sent him to a hospice who let him die,” Daily Mail, October 14, 2009.

17. Laura Donnelly, “Half of Those on Liverpool Pathway Never Told,” Telegraph, December 1, 2012,

18. John Bingham, “Hospitals Treating Liverpool Care Pathway as Just Another ‘Thing to Do,’” Telegraph, January 8, 2013.

19. Jacqueline Laing, “A Lethal Power?” Legal World, November 23, 2012.

20. Affordable Care Act of 2010, Section 3403,

21. Christina D. Romer, “Only the First Step in Containing Health Costs,” New York Times, July 21, 2012.

22. Steven Rattner, “Beyond Obamacare,” New York Times, September 16, 2012,


23. Henry J. Aaron, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board—Congress’s Good Deed,” New England Journal of Medicine, 364:2377-2379, June 23, 2011.

24. Peter J. Neumann et al., “Legislating Against the Use of Cost Effectiveness Information,” New England Journal of Medicine, 363:1495-1497, October 14, 2010.

* * * * *

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute. He also consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His latest book is A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement (Encounter).


[scribd id=262021001 key=key-XZL1klhUsfFlzyX4GYsv mode=scroll]

October 28, 2019

 Globalists Warn A Deadly Pandemic Could Sweep The World In Hours, Killing Millions: Here Are Some All-Natural Remedies To Help You Survive And Avoid Big Pharma’s Poisons

–  What Do The Globalists Know About ‘Disease X’ That We Don’t Know?

By Stefan Stanford – All News Pipeline – Live Free Or Die October 28, 2019

According to this new story over at the Daily Mail, a new scientific study has determined that a deadly pandemic could sweep the world in hours and kill millions because NO country is fully prepared and while the United States stands head and shoulders above most of the rest of the world when it comes to ‘preparedness‘ for such an ‘event‘, given how fast the pandemic would spread, even the US and other countries with advanced health care systems would struggle.


Reporting within their story that scientists believe the mass outbreak of a flu-like illness is inevitable and it could spread worldwide within hours because of the inter-connectedness of the world in 2019 and a constantly travelling population, the sobering report put out by scientists from Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security called the ‘Global Health Security (GHS) index‘ recommends that governments should immediately invest money into putting preparations in place, also doing pandemic simulation exercises.


Also reporting that only 13 countries even have the resources and medical ‘know how‘ to put up a fight against what they call an ‘inevitable‘ outbreak, with the US ranked #1 in preparedness followed by the UK, Holland, Australia, Canada and Thailand, the DM story warns “a threat anywhere is a threat everywhere” while sharing the map seen below, warning that numerous diseases could trigger an outbreak that rapidly spirals out of control. From the Daily Mail story.:


The report, named A World At Risk, said current efforts to prepare for outbreaks in the wake of crises such as Ebola are ‘grossly insufficient’.


It was headed by Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Norwegian prime minister and director-general of the WHO.


He said in the report: ‘The threat of a pandemic spreading around the globe is a real one. ‘


A quick-moving pathogen has the potential to kill tens of millions of people, disrupt economies and destabilise national security.’


He claimed that previous recommendations about the threat of a global pandemic have been largely ignored by world leaders.


The team drew up a map of the world with a list of possible infections which could trigger the hypothetical outbreak.

So with globalist scientists hinting a major outbreak of a deadly disease that could rapidly kill 10’s of millions is inevitable, we’ll be taking a look below at two new stories over at Natural News titled “Survival Medicine: Basic Tips And Supplies For A Pandemic” as well as “Survival Medicine: Home Remedies For Digestive Problems, The Flu And Stress Relief” to help get us prepared for what the globalists are warning is ahead while also taking a look at numerous all natural solutions to help us avoid ‘big pharmas‘ vaccines that are sure to emerge once ‘disease X‘ arrives.

(Free-speech hating Democrats and ‘big tech tyrants’ want ANP silenced forever. So if you like stories like this, please consider donating to ANP to help keep us in this ‘Info-war’ for America at a time of systematic censorship and corruption.)




Global Diseases.

Global Diseases.

In the 1st video at the bottom of this story titled “BrisScience (October 2019): Pathogens, Pandemics and Preparing for Disease X” we’re warned why the outbreak of a new disease could spread so quickly and be so deadly, with the World Health Organization refering to these currently unknown pathogens as ‘Disease X‘.


As we hear in the video, a Conference at the University of Queensland in Australia, once ‘Disease X‘ arrrives, it’ll take perhaps thousands or more tests to develop a ‘vaccine‘ for the newly emerged disease, taking as long as 16 weeks or more before one could be developed, hence one of the reasons why they feel it will spread so rapidly.


And while I choose to avoid any vaccine as if it were the plague, instead focusing upon building up my immune system naturally and eating foods regulary such as raw garlic, which has been determined to be not only anti-viral but anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-microbial and anti-protozoal, as this October of 2018 story over at Natural News reported, it’s very simple to make our own antibiotic garlic tincture that can kill almost any diseases with garlic also happening to be anti-cancer according to the American Institute for Cancer Research.


So while many will be lining up to take whatever vaccine that the globalists develop to deal with whatever ‘Disease X‘ turns out to be, we’ll be using the best all natural anti-biotic, anti-viral around. From this Natural News story.:


During the time of the pioneers, most natural cures were made from local herbs and plants. They often used garlic (Allium sativum) to make herbal remedies, and this article will discuss a potent antibiotic garlic tincture that even modern preppers can use to treat various ailments like a cold or skin infections. (h/t to



Making the antibiotic garlic tincture



Garlic is a popular superfood for a reason. It has powerful antibacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-viral properties. The Chinese first discovered that garlic is also an immune stimulant and an effective antioxidant.



This antibiotic garlic tincture is a potent infusion of garlic in distilled water, grain alcohol, or vinegar. Garlic has many health benefits thanks to allicin, but the antibacterial agent is only active for a short period after garlic is crushed and before it is heated.



The chemical compound allicin is derived from the amino acid cysteine. Allicin is odorless but it also contains sulfur. (Related: Yummy superfoods that even beginner gardeners can plant today.)



To retain the allicin content of garlic while making this tincture, the bulbs are macerated or steeped in one of the liquids listed above to preserve the potent chemicals. The recipe below is similar to the one used by pioneers, although it incorporates some modern ingredients like distilled water.


While you can read the rest of the Natural News story here on how to go about creating the garlic tincture, and it’s very, very easy, the final video at the bottom of this story also provides a detailed explanation.


Also from Natural News in this story titled “Survival medicine: Basic tips and supplies for a pandemic“:

When prepping for a pandemic, here are a few things you need to know:


Know the symptoms. Not all diseases work the same way, so it’s important to learn which condition is currently on the rise and its symptoms.



Wear protective gear. Wearing protective clothing like coverall suits, gloves, and masks can help quell the spread of disease, especially when dealing with outsiders.



Keep a stockpile of food and water. The baseline of every prepping plan is keeping a steady supply of food and water available.



Learn how to use essential oils. These elixirs in a bottle have a very long shelf life and are commonly used to treat basic ailments. Essential oils can also ward off sickness and germs when diffused into the air.



Stock up on entertainment. Being locked up inside your own home for a long time can cause some people to get bored. Having a bunch of board games, party games, and even video games can help keep everyone entertained.


Set up sanitation stations. Areas allotted for sanitation supplies should be spread out throughout the home, especially near entrances. These should be used regularly to keep everything clean.


Being aware of the situation and preparing well is what every prepper needs to do to survive when SHTF. If you’re well-prepared, a pandemic is just another hurdle for you to get over. Read to stay informed.





The title of this October 26th story over at Natural News is Survival medicine: Home remedies for digestive problems, the flu and stress relief” within which author ‘Isabelle Z‘ offers us some outstanding suggestions on how to deal with certain illnesses, diseases if we don’t trust doctors or don’t like going to medical facilities.

Reporting immediately that if we fall into one of those categories, we’re definitely not alone with millions of Americans no longer trusting the medical system that seemingly only wants to enrich ‘big pharma‘, as their story reports, there are thankfully some very good alternatives to traditional medicines and as the previously mentioned Natural News story pointed out, remedies going back to the time of the pioneers and long before.

If you’ve come to distrust conventional medicine, you’re not alone. The questionable side effects and poor efficacy of these drugs have many people turning to alternative treatments. While home remedies are certainly a more attractive option right now, they could become downright essential in a collapse situation. Now is the perfect time to start learning how to address common problems without heading for the pharmacy.


Home remedies are natural, inexpensive, and generally safe, but perhaps one of their biggest draws is how accessible they are. In fact, there’s a good chance you already have the things you need to heal in your kitchen.


While their story then details for us home remedies for digestive problems, cold and flu and stress, even the NY Times had reported all the way back in 1979 that in 16th‐century France, garlic was worn in little pouches around people’s necks to ward off the plague while Louis Pasteur experimented with garlic as an antiseptic. And Jacques Henri Bernardin de Saint‐Pierre is quoted in the Larousse Gastronomique as having said that “garlic, the smell of which is so dreaded by our little mistresses, is perhaps the most powerful remedy in existence against the vapors and nervous maladies to which they are subject.


And although we don’t have all of the answers, and we’re not medical doctors, with globalists now warning of a fast moving pandemic that could kill millions in no time at all, while claiming that no country is fully prepared to deal with such a scenario, it’s in our own best interests to be fully prepared for whatever is unleashed because the government/medical industry certainly aren’t going to save us.


So we’ll close with an excerpt from this story over at Medical News Today titled “Top Seven Safe, Effective Natural Antibiotics” to help get us ready for a time when ‘Disease X‘ arrives and big government begins pushing ‘big pharmas‘ poisonous vaccines on to the masses as ‘the only solution‘.


The scientific jury is still out concerning natural antibiotics. While people have used remedies like these for hundreds of years, most treatments have not been thoroughly tested.


However, some show promising results under medical review, and further studies are underway.


With an ongoing increase in drug-resistant bacteria, scientists are looking to nature when developing new medications.


Here, we examine the science behind seven natural antibiotics.


1. Garlic. Cultures across the world have long recognized garlic for its preventive and curative powers. (ANP: Both Susan and I swear by this garlic as it has gotten rid of tooth infections and other illnesses!)


2. Honey. Since the time of Aristotle, honey has been used as an ointment that helps wounds to heal and prevents or draws out infection.


3. Ginger. The scientific community also recognizes ginger as a natural antibiotic. Several studies, including one published in 2017, have demonstrated ginger’s ability to fight many strains of bacteria. Researchers are also exploring ginger’s power to combat seasickness and nausea and to lower blood sugar levels.


4. Echinacea. Echinacea has been used to treat infections for many years. Native American and other traditional healers have used echinacea for hundreds of years to treat infections and wounds.


5. Goldenseal. Goldenseal is usually consumed in tea or capsules to treat respiratory and digestive problems. However, it may also combat bacterial diarrhea and urinary tract infections.


6. Clove. Clove has traditionally been used in dental procedures. Research is now finding that clove water extract may be effective against many different kinds of bacteria, including E. coli.


7. Oregano. Some believe that oregano boosts the immune system and acts as an antioxidant. It may have anti-inflammatory properties.

BrisScience (October 2019): Pathogens, Pandemics and Preparing for Disease X



BREAKING: Coronavirus Hits 15% Fatality Rate, 83% Infection Rate for Those Exposed; Lancet Publishes Early Study That Points to Alarming Consequences for Humanity

25January2020 by:

hospital workers in protective suits with infected citizens

hospital workers in protective suits with infected citizens



(Natural News) BREAKING: The U.S. news media is currently running about one to two days behind the Chinese media in covering the bombshell revelations surrounding the coronavirus pandemic. Natural News has Chinese-speaking investigators on the ground in Taiwan, and they’re scanning the Chinese media for the most important announcements.



Earlier today, the Taiwan media began reporting on a new mainland Chinese study that specifically looked at the individuals involved in this Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. We have a partial translation and link below. According to this news, which is widely circulating in the Taiwan press and is based on a study published in The Lancetthe Wuhan coronavirus fatality rate has leaped to 15%, and the infection rate among those exposed is 83%.



These numbers are virtually unheard of in the world of microbiology and infectious disease transmission. It means that 15 out of every 100 infected people will die. It also means that 83 out of 100 exposed people will become infected and able to transmit the disease to others.



So for every 100 people who are exposed, around 12 will die (15% of 83).


The only criticism of this study is that its sample size was relatively small, given that it’s still very early in the outbreak of this disease. The study looked at 41 cases of individuals who were exposed.


If the infection rate stands at 83%, this pandemic will be impossible to contain

The story is from and says this (translated):


Hong Kong and Chinese researchers published the latest research on “New Coronavirus 2019” (referred to as “Wuhan pneumonia”) in the medical journal “Lancet” on the 24th. Chinese experts pointed directly to the disease. The [fatality] rate is fifteen percent. Hong Kong experts confirmed for the first time that Wuhan pneumonia can be transmitted from person to person, and patients may not have surface symptoms. Taking a Shenzhen seven-person home with six people as an example, the analysis shows that the attack rate is as high as 83% and the incubation period is three to six days It is expected that a large number of cases will break out in China within a week, and the next two weeks will be a crucial period to prevent any place from becoming “another Wuhan”.



The same article also reveals the recorded rate of symptoms among those who are infected:


Overall, 98% of the symptoms were fever, 76% coughing, 44% muscle pain or feeling tired.


With 98% showing fever, this means that one out of 50 people infected will show no fever and therefore easily bypass current screening methods that are practiced by health officials.



If one in 50 infected people is able to get through screening that’s primarily looking for fever and respiratory symptoms, it means this outbreak is highly unlikely to be contained.



The article from Taiwan also describes the slow progression of symptoms, in some cases taking as long as eight days to appear:



As a result, one person had fever and diarrhea in Wuhan one day; many relatives they visited also began to have fever and cough on the fourth day; another did not go to Wuhan, but lived with four family members who were subsequently diagnosed, and the eighth day also began Found physical discomfort and confirmed the illness.

The Lancet publishes the study: More details

As we were working on this story, The Lancet study appeared, providing more details and a direct link to the research article. You can find it here:

The findings:


By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNF?.




The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies.



Note the language saying there are “major gaps in our knowledge” about the “duration of human transmission.”



Also note the more detailed list of symptoms offered by The Lancet:

Fever: 98%
Cough: 76%
Fatigue: 44%
Sputum production: 28%
Headache: 8%
Haemoptysis: 5%
Diarrhea: 3%

Also note it took eight days to develop dyspnoea, or difficulty breathing.



Also notice that 12% suffered “acute cardiac injury” which means permanent damage to the heart.


Sadly, through policies such as open borders, filthy liberal cities and biosludge “recycling” of human sewage onto food farms, humanity has created the “perfect storm” for a pandemic wipeout that cannot be stopped:

10 Steps to Survive a Global Pandemic

January 24 2020
In light of recent events its a good opportunity to go over the basics of pandemic preparedness. That’s right, buy your preps from Canadian Prepper !
Leaked Video! Head U.N. Scientist Admits Vaccines Are Killing People
Biggest Medical Scandal In History Breaking! UN Comes Clean, Admits Vaccine Death And Damage Coverup
Federal Court Secretly Ordering Takedown Of Anti-Vaccine Sites As Coronavirus Spreads
Coronavirus – It’s way worse than you think – Is humanity finished
The Real Reason Amazon Banned Alex Jones’ Film ‘Endgame’
Also support the InfoWar, visit and shop at:

Daily shows and news links: (Main news website) (Shows from 8AM to 9PM – Central time) (New and improved, also broadcasting the live shows)



COVID-19 vaccine trial participant DIES… AstraZeneca downplays the death and continues the medical experiments on the remaining humans



(Natural News) A person who volunteered for the medical experimentation on humans with the COVID-19 vaccine has died during clinical trials, reports The Epoch Times. The death was confirmed by government officials in Brazil, where the trial was taking place, and the company whose vaccine is being tested in the medical experiments — AstraZeneca — says it will continue its experiments on the remaining human survivors.


No deaths will stand in the way of vaccine profits, it seems.


“The volunteer died on Oct. 15,” reports The Epoch Times. “It’s not clear whether the volunteer received the placebo shot or the vaccine.”


Had this person died in any other context, their death would of course have been counted as a “covid-19 death,” but since they are involved in a vaccine trial, the scheming mainstream media will claim the person received a placebo, not a live vaccine. Such claims are complete fiction, given that no such patient data are allowed to be released on individual patients. As TET reports:


The health authority noted that “data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants,” according to a news release.



Thus, any media outlet reporting the vaccine trial participant was part of the placebo group is lying. Then again, all they do is lie.


The human medical experiments continue, no matter how many die in the process


“We cannot comment on individual cases in an ongoing trial of the Oxford vaccine as we adhere strictly to medical confidentiality and clinical trial regulations, but we can confirm that all required review processes have been followed,” said AstraZeneca in a public statement.


This isn’t the first indication of dangerous side effects linked to coronavirus vaccines. “It came after AstraZeneca said on Sept. 8 that its vaccine trial was placed on hold due to an illness in a patient in the United Kingdom,” reports TET. “The Food and Drug Administration placed a late-stage clinical trial from AstraZeneca on hold in the United States.”


Just yesterday, Natural News reported how Johnson & Johnson was forced to halt another coronavirus vaccine trial after a trial participant experienced an “unexplained illness.” As that story explains:


Johnson & Johnson is pausing its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine trial after a study participant fell ill. The halt comes just weeks after the company announced that they were in the final stage of the trials.


In its news release, Johnson & Johnson said that the trial was paused in compliance with regulatory standards after the unnamed participant developed an “unexplained illness.”


In related news, nine people have died in South Korea after receiving flu shots there, causing a nationwide panic over the “death vaccines” that are killing so many people so quickly. As Strange Sounds reports:


Nine people have died after getting flu shots in South Korea in the past week, raising concerns over the vaccine’s safety just as the seasonal inoculation programme is expanded to head off potential COVID-19 complications.


Health authorities there are saying the vaccines didn’t kill anyone, since the dead people had “underlying health conditions,” which is exactly what Natural News warned would be said about vaccine deaths as the body count started to accelerate. Notably, when people with underlying health conditions die with a coronavirus infection, they are said to have died from covid-19. But when they have underlying health conditions and are found dead after receiving a vaccine injection, health authorities claim the vaccine isn’t related to their death.


How convenient.

Operation Fast Kill


It all begs the question: If human volunteers are now starting to die during the carefully controlled trials that recruit extremely healthy individuals for testing, what’s going to happen when these risky, rushed vaccines are unleashed upon the wildly unhealthy general public?



Operation Warp Speed is about to become Operation Fast Kill, it seems.



Then again, there’s no faster way for globalists to exterminate people who are too stupid to realize the covid-19 agenda is actually an extermination agenda targeting the human race.


On the other hand, those who are intelligent enough to want to survive should be steering clear of all vaccines and vaccine industry medical experiments carried out on humans. Obviously.


Dr. Carrie Madej warns us all about the dangerous of coronavirus vaccines. Check out her video channel on

Dr. Carrie Madej warns about coronavirus vaccines and transhumanism nanotechnology to alter your DNA

And follow my real-time news reports and commentary at, the new free speech alternative to Facebook and Twitter. Over 13,000 users are there already, and they are truly enjoying being able to speak freely, without Big Tech censorship.

Also see for more reporting on how vaccines are killing people.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email