The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

[onawah]

Kids in DANGER: The disturbing link between vaccines and joint pain
Sharon Thomas, staff writer January 12, 2019
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/joi...itis-2836.html

(NaturalHealth365) "Arthritis, a broad term used to describe joint pain caused by inflammation, is a leading cause of disability. But, it’s not just an ailment affecting adults and seniors.

According to estimates, well over a quarter of a million children are living with juvenile arthritis. This is likely a conservative number to boot, given how broad the condition is and dissimilar the studies are on the matter.

What’s behind the growing trend of childhood joint pain – something which appears to impact American children at a three-fold higher rate compared to Canadian children? For some reason, the mainstream media (and pharmaceutical industry) is quite mum about the possibility that an aggressive childhood vaccine regime is a contributing environmental factor.

Understanding how vaccines contribute to childhood joint pain
Here’s the thing: both genetics and environment play huge roles in determining which children develop arthritis.

As far as environmental factors go, we already know that childhood infections can stimulate an autoimmune snowball effect – an effect which can cause a child’s immune system to attack its own joint tissues.

The result? Chronic joint pain, stiffness, and swelling.

Now, think about what vaccines do: they stimulate a “controlled” infection with whatever virus is injected into the body. This is done with the pure intention of triggering an immune system response, the idea being that the child’s body will create antibodies so the next time he or she is exposed to the virus, the immune system will be better equipped to fight it off.

These days, twice as many children (about 1 in 1,000) develop chronic joint pain compared to the estimated incidence rates from the 1980s. Since that time, even more vaccines have been added to the standard childhood regime.

Even more interestingly, studies have found two peak onsets of a juvenile arthritis diagnosis – once in the toddler years (around age 1-2) and again right before adolescence when children are between the ages of 8-12. What happens at and around these ages?

You guessed it, doses and boosters of vaccines, at least as advised by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Many studies point to ‘multiple vaccines’ as a potential factor behind childhood joint pain
One 2001 study published in Annals of Epidemiology found a positive association between hepatitis B vaccines given in infancy with the onset of chronic arthritis.

And it’s not just hepatitis B vaccines which have shown a correlation with childhood joint pain. Research points to vaccines for influenza and rubella as additional possible triggers or augmenters of juvenile arthralgia (aka joint pain).

Does the fact that incidences of juvenile arthritis peak during the winter months, just after children have been dosed with flu shots, seem telling?

No? How about the fact that joint pain is listed as one of the most common side effects of the Fluarix Quadrivalent influenza vaccine?

The drug actually comes with literature explicitly stating that 13% of children between the ages of 5 and 17 experience joint pain after administration of the vaccine.

Lastly, what about the fact that many childhood vaccines still contain thimerosal (neurotoxic mercury) and metals like aluminum – which have been linked to autoimmune dysfunction?

When you truly consider all the facts, it would be absurd to ignore these links. Yet somehow, so many in the conventional healthcare system seem willing to stick their heads in the sand about it.

The link is HERE: Why aren’t more doctors and scientists concerned about it?
When it comes to vaccines and childhood arthritis, we’re not saying there’s a definite cause and effect. After all, ‘correlation’ does not necessarily mean causation.

But, there is an obvious correlation! We need more studies to clarify how vaccines are contributing to the growing prevalence of joint pain. Of course, without awareness of the potential association, the drive to do more research can easily be snuffed out by big pharma.

We must push back. We want our children healthy and pain-free.

In addition, any reasonable person would want these unanswered questions brought to light and investigated. If you’re a parent, we wonder if you feel the same way."

Sources for this article include:

Childrenshealthdefense.org
Rheumatology.org
NIH.gov
CHOP.edu
NIH.gov
Sciencedirect.com
CDC.gov

[onawah]

GODFATHER OF VACCINES UNDER OATH
The HighWire with Del Bigtree
Streamed live 4 hours ago
1/17/19

Breaking: France, Costco Reject Round-Up;
Cancer Expert's Shocking Death;
Vaccine Risk Awareness Tops Charts;
Plotkin on Vaccines;
Ethical Uprising at BMJ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bTIz7FpfuMw

Or cut to the chase:

The HighWire with Del Bigtree
Published on Jan 17, 2019

KING OF VACCINES COMES CLEAN!

"The world's leading authority on vaccines details the use of aborted babies in vaccines while under oath." (76 fetuses 3 months or older, normally developed when aborted, to be exact.)
For the full episode: https://bit.ly/2CwsE5k

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NACBHtFMllA

[ThePythonicCow]

Wow - just wow - an awesome discussion on the world's food supply, how we're poisoning it, and the spiritual transformation through which humanity must pass.

It's an almost two hour video, but skip to the closing remarks at the 1:37:47 mark for a wonderful summation. Just don't do that until you have a chance of freeing up the couple of hours it will take to go back and listen to it all.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=X3aOQ0N74PI

This consists of an interview by Rich Roll of Zach Bush, who is a triple board certified physician, master healer & consciousness. Bush is the founder and director of M Clinic, an integrative medicine center in Charlottesville, Virginia and simply put, one of the most compelling medical minds currently working to improve our understanding of human and environmental health.

Here are Rich Roll's show notes for this interview:

============

Zach Bush, MD On The Science & Spirituality of Human And Planetary Transformation

January 8, 2019

“If we don’t reconnect with nature, we will just destroy it again.”

-- Zach Bush MD

In my humble opinion, Zach Bush, MD isn’t just one of the most compelling medical minds currently working to improve our understanding of human and environmental health. He’s a virtuoso healer. A master consciousness. And a gift to humanity.

Today Dr. Bush returns to the podcast (his first appearance was RRP #353 in March of 2018) for a formidable and moving conversation that will leave you rethinking not only how you eat and live, but what it means to be a conscious consumer and engaged citizen of this precious planet we all share.

A pioneer in the science of well-being, Dr. Bush is the founder and director of M Clinic, an integrative medicine center in Charlottesville, Virginia, and one of the only ‘triple board-certified’ physicians in the country, expert in Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism, and Hospice/Palliative care.

How we treat the planet impacts human biology. Intuitively, we understand this to be fact. But what distinguishes Dr. Bush from his medical peers is his rigorous application of science, strength of humanity, and the intelligence of nature to his commitment to transforming our world. A man with a deep understanding of the interdependence of macrocosm and microcosm, Dr. Bush’s brilliance truly shines on subjects like soil degeneration and regeneration. The relationship between intensive farming practices and the rise of environmental degradation and chronic disease. And his vision for a more integrated and holistic approach to physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being.

============

[onawah]

Merck’s Recombivax Vaccine Shortage Causes Reduced Deaths In Babies – A Natural Experiment?
JANUARY 22, 2019
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp
By Eileen Iorio, Children’s Health Defense Contributing Writer

(Charts are in the article at the link. I could not copy and paste as images for some reason. [Fixed now, Hervé])

"In the summer of 2017, a malware virus mainly affecting the Ukraine, found its way onto the mainframe computer systems of Merck wreaking havoc for the company. The malware was called “NotPetya,” referring to the ransomeware family Petya, which disables computer systems and demands a ransom to be paid in bitcoin before it will restore access to a company’s files. It is destructive and costly, something Merck was to find out as its sales and manufacturing operations were disrupted by the June 7th attack. According to the Wall Street Journal, the incident cost the pharmaceutical giant $670 million to remediate, but more importantly, it caused disruption to the production of two of Merck’s pediatric vaccines: Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus) and Recombivax (Hepatitis B virus), vaccines to help prevent sexually transmitted infections.

During the crisis, Merck borrowed from a CDC vaccine stockpile, in order to meet supply commitments for Gardasil 9. However, that was not the case with Recombivax, the Hepatitis B vaccine given to all babies beginning the first day of life. There is no clear medical reason for giving every baby a vaccine against hepatitis B if its mother tests negative for the disease. Nevertheless, American babies receive three doses each, which is 12 million doses in any given year for the US alone. Following the cyber-attack, Merck was unable to meet this high demand, citing production problems.

The CDC acted quickly in asking GlaxoSmithkline to supply its Hep B vaccine Engerix-B, to meet the needs of the US market. The CDC published a notice about a shortage of Recombivax on July 28th 2017 on its website, stating that the vaccine would be unavailable as of early August 2017. GSK was able to supply a monovalent (single) vaccine for the birth dose and subsequent newborn doses. Doctors could give the pentavalent combination vaccine Pediarix to older babies, depending on supply.

Just prior to the ransomware attack, two scientists from Europe wrote to the FDA to express concern that recent research on aluminum adjuvants in vaccines suggested that these adjuvants were contributing to Autism Spectrum Disorder and other neurological disorders.
Merck initially expected to resume distributing Recombivax in February of 2018. However, this deadline came and went and the expected resumption of distribution was pushed back many times. Currently, the CDC is reporting that Recombivax will not be available until the middle of 2019, almost two years since the cyber-attack happened and without the public fully understanding why this particular vaccine was affected.

What are the wider ramifications of this incident? Just prior to the ransomware attack, two scientists from Europe wrote to the FDA to express concern that recent research on aluminum adjuvants in vaccines suggested that these adjuvants were contributing to Autism Spectrum Disorder and other neurological disorders. There is growing concern among some scientists about the aluminum adjuvant load in vaccines and its effects on the neurological health of children. Researchers are particularly concerned with Merck’s highly immunogenic adjuvant, Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulphate (AAHS). Gardasil and Recombivax are the only vaccines licensed to contain AAHS. Some scientists believe it may contribute to serious autoimmune conditions referred to as Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants or ASIA.

Very often, when the safety of AAHS is questioned in Gardasil, the response from vaccine proponents is to say that it is the same adjuvant in the Hep B vaccine given to babies for many years, so it must be safe. That is only acceptable if Merck’s Recombivax vaccine is entirely safe for babies, which is difficult to measure. Since the ransomware attack however, there may now be a way to examine the relative effects of the swift change to GSK’s vaccine.

Did a Natural Experiment Occur?
Could there be an effect on vaccine reactions if one highly immunogenic adjuvant was removed from the earliest possible childhood immunizations? What happened since Recombivax went out of production in July 2017? The only way researchers can look at reactions is through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is a passive system not without errors, but most reports are by physicians, medical professionals and vaccine manufacturers themselves. A further limitation of VAERS, is that it only captures between 1-10% of reportable reactions, thus it significantly under-reports, which should be kept in mind when looking at data.

Following the cyber-attack in June 2017, for the first time in a very long time, researchers have the ability to view in plain sight, a natural experiment whereby one vaccine was abruptly swapped out for another – replacing the very adjuvant many critics are concerned about, AAHS – with an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant contained in Engerix-B. Neither has a published independent safety profile but AAHS is suspected to be more problematic due to its immunogenicity profile.

We now have more than a year’s worth of data to examine since the attack in 2017 when Engerix-B was introduced. On average there were 29 deaths reported annually for fifteen years prior to the attack (2003 to 2017). In 2018 there were only 6 reported (to end of November 2018). Two of those deaths followed Recombivax. Assuming the same death rate to the end of the year, at most there will be 7 deaths recorded, resulting in roughly 75% less deaths since Recombivax was discontinued as a pediatric vaccine.

Source: VAERS Hep B reported deaths annually 2003 – 2018.

Injuries have also halved since Engerix-B was introduced, from on average 1,400 reported annually from 2003 to 2017, to 756 cases in 2018 with one month’s reporting yet to be recorded.

Source: VAERS Hep B reported injuries annually 2003 – 2018.

There is an obvious suggestion that GSK’s vaccine is a safer option for parents and pediatricians. Of course, a more in depth analysis is needed. Moreover, because VAERS has incomplete data, it warrants an immediate FDA investigation since most of these deaths occur in babies under three years old.

It is unknown whether this anomaly was as a result of the switch to the GSK version of the vaccine, but considering the concern some scientists have over the lack of science and unsupported safety of Merck’s AAHS, the FDA should be concerned. At the very least, there should be a moratorium on reinstating Recombivax until the disparity can be investigated. Vaccine safety should be everyone’s concern, not just vaccine safety advocates. The precautionary principle must be invoked where there is doubt. We hope the FDA agrees."

[onawah]

Herd Immunity: A False Rationale for Vaccine Mandates
JANUARY 23, 2019

(More hyperlinks in the article at the link)

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp
By the Children’s Health Defense Team

"Herd immunity is a largely theoretical concept, yet for decades, it has furnished one of the key underpinnings for vaccine mandates in the United States. The public health establishment borrowed the herd immunity concept from pre-vaccine observations of natural disease outbreaks. Then, without any apparent supporting science, officials applied the concept to vaccination, using it not only to justify mass vaccination but to guilt-trip anyone objecting to the nation’s increasingly onerous vaccine mandates.

… 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.
Apparently, herd immunity bullying sometimes works: A review of 29 studies showed that “willingness to immunize children for the benefit of the community” was a “motivating reason” for about a third of parents. There is one problem with using herd immunity as a motivator, however—the theory of herd immunity relies on numerous flawed assumptions that, in the real world, do not and cannot justify compulsory vaccination policies. In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice. http://vaccinesafetycouncilminnesota...d-Immunity.pdf

False logic and troubling consequences
One of the principal arguments made by Holland and Zachary is that herd immunity is not achievable with modern vaccines. In part, this is because the underlying assumptions upon which herd immunity is premised are largely “irrelevant in the real world.” These assumptions include the erroneous notions that all members of the population are equally susceptible to infectious disease and that all persons behave identically in spreading disease. In reality, many different factors shape patterns of risk and susceptibility to disease, including age and sex, race/ethnicity and life circumstances, including stress. Although the NYU scholars do not mention it, a healthy lifestyle and naturally resilient immune system also matter, giving individuals the “upper hand” in encounters with pathogens. In contrast, the artificial immunity engineered by vaccines— administered to children before their immune systems have even had a chance to develop—not infrequently leads to subsequent immune dysfunction https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...mmune-systems/ and chronic illness. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...e-study-finds/

Whereas hepatitis B is a disease for which only a tiny portion of the U.S. population (mostly adults) is at risk, mandatory hepatitis B vaccination targets low-risk infants and schoolchildren, ‘selected for convenience’.
The flawed logic that ignores individual and population differences and pretends that there is no distinction between natural and vaccine-induced immunity has given rise to many troubling vaccine policies, according to Holland and Zachary. This is particularly the case for children, who are “overwhelmingly” the targets of mandatory vaccine policies. Hepatitis B vaccination offers one example of a disconnect between risk and policy. Whereas hepatitis B is a disease for which only a tiny portion of the U.S. population (mostly adults) is at risk, mandatory hepatitis B vaccination targets low-risk infants and schoolchildren, “selected for convenience.”

The authors also call attention to the problematic assumption of “perfect vaccine efficacy” that undergirds herd immunity, again noting that this assumption has “limited bearing in real-world conditions.” This is because vaccines often fail to perform in the manner predicted. For example, the phenomenon of “primary vaccine failure” occurs in at least 2% to 10% of healthy vaccinated individuals; these individuals are “non-responsive” to a given vaccine, meaning that they fail to mount “sufficient protective antibody responses” after either the initial vaccine or a booster shot.

The legal scholars’ review discusses a number of other problems that make the theoretical concepts of vaccine efficacy and herd immunity highly imperfect in practice and, in fact, unachievable. These include:

Secondary vaccine failure, defined as waning vaccine-induced immunity that no longer offers protection
Mutation of the virus against which one is vaccinating, with the mutation plausibly triggered by the vaccine itself (vaccine researchers also allude to the problem of “genotype mismatch” between the vaccine strain and the wild-type virus)
Viral shedding that allows asymptomatic vaccinated individuals to transmit the vaccine strain of the illness
Importation of illness due to travel
Recurrent outbreaks of illness in vaccinated populations that, say Holland and Zachary, “scientists simply cannot explain”
The various forms of vaccine failure not only make herd immunity impossible to achieve but also feed the occurrence of ‘vaccine-preventable illnesses’ in highly or even fully vaccinated populations.
Outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations
The NYU authors note that the herd immunity model “entirely discounts the possible benefits of contracting and overcoming disease naturally, thereby achieving long-lasting immunity.” In the pre-vaccine era, children routinely got the measles—which even the most enthusiastic vaccine proponents recognized as a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality.” These individuals, once recovered, confidently carried their natural immunity into adulthood without ever worrying about the measles again.

Vaccination, however, has “changed the landscape for disease transmission,” making “preventable illness rarer…[but] also increas[ing] the expected severity of each case.” As childhood vaccination has pushed the average age of infection into the older age groups, adolescents and adults have been exposed to new and historically unprecedented risks. One study suggests that lapsed vaccine immunity has led to negative outcomes that are 4.5 times worse for measles, 2.2 times worse for chickenpox and 5.8 times worse for rubella, compared to the pre-vaccine era.

The various forms of vaccine failure not only make herd immunity impossible to achieve but also feed the occurrence of “vaccine-preventable illnesses” in highly or even fully vaccinated populations. There are numerous examples of this in the published literature. One example cited by Holland and Zachary was a 1985 measles outbreak in a Texas high school where 99% of the students had been vaccinated and 96% had detectable measles antibodies—the authors of the outbreak report acknowledged that “such an outbreak should have been virtually impossible.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3821823 More recent studies around the world describe mumps and pertussis outbreaks in highly or fully vaccinated middle and high school populations, including in Belgium (2004), Korea (2006), the U.S. (2007) and Ontario (2015). The Ontario researchers perplexedly stated, “In light of the high efficacy of the MMR [measles-mumps-rubella] vaccine against mumps, the reason for these outbreaks is unclear.”

…current vaccine programs are failing citizens on multiple other fronts, including giving little deference to individual choice and bodily integrity and depriving parents of the ‘discretion to act in their own children’s best interests’.
Real solutions
Astonishingly (or perhaps not), the solution proposed by most of the researchers who recognize various forms of vaccine failure is…more vaccination. However, recommendations for more doses and more boosters ignore the “illusory” nature of herd immunity. As Holland and Zachary painstakingly show, illogical mandates and “imperfect vaccine technology” mean that “herd immunity does not exist and is not attainable.” Even one hundred percent vaccination “cannot reliably induce herd immunity.” Thus, herd immunity is a “weak rationale” to compel all vaccines for all children.

The authors also point out that current vaccine programs are failing citizens on multiple other fronts, including giving little deference to individual choice and bodily integrity and depriving parents of the “discretion to act in their own children’s best interests.” Holland and Zachary argue that the public health would be better served by policies that “take into account all the economic costs and health risks of vaccination,” respect individual autonomy and provide vaccine consumers with complete information—recognizing that “prior, free, and informed consent is the hallmark of modern ethical medicine.”

[onawah]

Pro-vaccine medical expert ADMITS ‘there is a link’ between vaccinations and autism
by: Sara Middleton, staff writer
January 23, 2019
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/vac...news-2849.html

"It’s rightly known as “one of the biggest medical controversies” of all time: vaccinations. And, while proponents of the vaccine movement have credited these toxic ‘solutions’ with eradicating communicable diseases such as polio and measles, there’s still a heavy debate about the serious implications linked to vaccine side effects.

In fact, more and more research shows that these effects are often serious and life-altering. There are countless injuries (and lawsuits) associated with vaccines. Yet, to make matters even worse, we see doctors – who dare to question the validity of vaccinations – under attack.

BOMBSHELL news about vaccinations from a respected medical expert that worked for the government
Case in point: naysayers and government officials have long poo-pooed or even outright ridiculed evidence showing a link between childhood vaccination schedules and autism – a condition that’s estimated to affect as many as 1 in 59 children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Autism is (often) a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder that can affect virtually every aspect of a child’s life. Signs and symptoms include social, behavioral, and communiation impairments, as well as telltale physical behaviors including repetitive movements and a lack of eye contact.

The pains taken by the government and Big Pharma officials to hide the fact that vaccines can cause autism will never outweigh the pain endured by the parents and children affected by this condition. Fortunately, there is now a new harsh light shining directly at this highly ‘controversial’ – and scientifically supported concept.

One person blowing the whistle on the alarming vaccination – autism association is Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a long-respected pediatric neurologist.

He now reveals in a sworn affidavit that back in 2007, he warned officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that vaccines could induce fever and immune stimulation in a certain “subset” of children. These vaccine side effects could ultimately lead to brain damage typified by autism spectrum disorder.

You can learn more about him and his astonishing admission in this breaking video just released on January 6th of this year:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1XUM2gvfbW8

Expert witness-turned-whistleblower: Guess what happened to him when he tried to blow the cover off a major government cover-up
Dr. Zimmerman’s admission is a major reversal from the early 2000’s, back when the federal government itself used him as a key expert witnesses arguing against the vaccine autism link. In fact, he testified in multiple cases in the so-called Federal Vaccine court – a little known entity which to date has shelled out billions of dollars to families affected by injuries and death caused by vaccines.

But after consulting the research and finally acknowleding the causal relationship between vaccines and autism to the DOJ, Dr. Zimmerman was promptly fired as an expert witness. No surprise there.

Then, the federal government continued to stick their heads in the sand about the issue and (equally non-surprising) misconstrue and discredit Dr. Zimmerman’s professional opinion.

In light of this breaking vaccine news, we would be thrilled about the hard-hitting admission if it weren’t so disturbing: the fact that government officials have known all along vaccines can cause autism…but have been trying to hide this reality from the American public.

Time will tell if this disturbing truth will earn its rightful revelation. In the mean time, a lauded pediatric neurologist who once debunked the vaccine autism connection now admits that many of his own young patients got autism from the standard childhood vaccination schedule.

Who knows how many other children living with autism were handed the same fate."

Sources for this article include:

CDC.gov
NationalAutismAssociation.org

[onawah]

Eliminate Glysophate, Mercury, Aluminum, Lyme and More from Your System

Dr. Joseph Mercola Interviews Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt on His Top Tips for Detoxification

1/27/19

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=529785333

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2jZBC9LVKLw

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Ten years ago, the average German had 20 toxins over the threshold of detection in their blood. Today, the average is over 500 — an indication suggesting detoxification is a necessity for everyone
• When your body is contaminated with man-made toxins, your body tends to compartmentalize them. Eventually, those compartments reach a certain threshold of toxicity, at which point your immune system can no longer control the microbial growth in that area, resulting in chronic infection
• Two major water-soluble toxins are the vaccine preservative thimerosal (mercury) and the herbicide glyphosate, which tend to be sequestered in areas such as the kidneys, lungs and bones
• Examples of fat-soluble toxins are benzene derivatives, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides. They like to settle in the fatty tissue, which makes them potent neurotoxins, since your brain is composed primarily of fat
• Water- and fat-soluble toxins require differing methods of detoxification. Strategies are included for the detoxification of glyphosate, aluminum, fat-soluble toxins and parasites that accumulate and store toxins

Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt is well known for his successful treatment of neurological illness and Lyme disease with integrative medicine. Originally from Berlin, Germany, Klinghardt has practiced medicine in the U.S. for over 35 years. He also sees patients in England and Switzerland.

In Switzerland, he was part of a group that instigated a change in the constitution, making alternative medicine a constitutional right of all citizens. That includes homeopathy, neurotherapy, acupuncture and all other hands-on healing techniques.

"It's the only country on the planet where complementary medicine or alternative medicine is the birthright of every citizen," he says. "When we managed to do that, I made sure I got a [medical] license in Switzerland, as a possible escape route from the forces that are sometimes very obstructive here [in the U.S.]"

Here, we discuss the importance of detoxification for general health and the treatment of disease, and review some of Klinghardt's top tips for detoxification. Dr. Richard Straube, a German toxicologist, developed a blood-washing procedure (apheresis) where toxins are filtered from the blood and can then be analyzed using affordable lab testing.

"Ten years ago, he found, on average in the population, 20 toxins over the threshold of detection," Klinghardt says. "In just 10 years, that number has gone up to over 500, which is a shocking number … That's an exponential increase that is not compatible with life …

He's actually about to publish this research. He did the research on 1,200 patients. It's one of the largest toxicology studies. Of course, the leaders are aluminum, barium, lithium and strontium. These are the [toxins] in geoengineering. It makes them sort of rain down on us. Because of that — and many of these toxins are specifically mitochondrial toxins — detox … is a survival strategy for everybody."

Toxicity and Infectious Disease Go Hand in Hand

When your body is contaminated with man-made toxins, your body tends to compartmentalize them. Eventually, those body compartments will reach a certain threshold of toxicity, at which point your immune system can no longer control the microbial growth in that area.

"These become the areas where the microbes are domiciled, whether it's Bartonella, Lyme, Babesia or herpes viruses. They're not everywhere, but at the same time they've very strictly set up housekeeping in certain body compartments," Klinghardt explains. For this reason, you can no longer distinguish between the toxicity and the infection, because they go together. As Klinghardt notes, "It's a package deal."

"For 20 years, I've been harping on Lyme disease and developed treatments that do not involve antibiotics, because it's an absolute mistake to treat Lyme with antibiotics," he says. "We know too much about the microbiome now and how sensitive the structures are.

The latest development in the last two years have been my work with Judy Mikovitz. She was part of our think tank that we had in 2006 or 2007, and tried to alert us then to the fact that embedded in our DNA are retroviruses, and that certain environmental conditions disable our mechanisms to silence those viruses, allowing them to become active …

The most well-known retrovirus is the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but there are hundreds of others. Most of them are immunosuppressive. I'd like to prefer the term 'immune-disturbing.' Some aspects of the immune system are upregulated, others are downregulated. That makes us hugely vulnerable for Lyme's, mycoplasma and Bartonella … Detoxification … is an absolute necessity to survive this insane time."

Toxins can be either water or fat soluble. Two major water-soluble toxins are the vaccine preservative thimerosal (mercury) and the herbicide glyphosate. According to Klinghardt, they tend to be sequestered in areas such as the kidneys, lungs and bones.

Examples of fat-soluble toxins are benzene derivatives, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides. They like to settle in the fatty tissue, which makes them potent neurotoxins, since your brain is composed primarily of fat. Water- and fat-soluble toxins require differing methods of detoxification.

Detoxification Strategy for Glyphosate

While you may have over 20,000 chemicals in your body, two that are particularly hazardous to your brain are glyphosate and aluminum. Glyphosate is an analog of the amino acid glycine.1 It attaches in places where you need glycine. Importantly, glycine is used up in the detoxification process, hence many of us do not have enough glycine for efficient detoxification.

To eliminate glyphosate, you need to saturate your body with glycine. Klinghardt recommends taking 1 teaspoon (4 grams) of glycine powder twice a day for a few weeks and then lower the dose to one-fourth teaspoon (1 gram) twice a day. This forces the glyphosate out of your system, allowing it to be eliminated through your urine.

I personally have been taking 1 gram twice a day for some time now. The glycine is inexpensive and actually tastes sweet. Ideally it is best to take it around the time you are eating food that might be contaminated with glyphosate.

"At least for a while, we use high doses of glycine. There are no issues with it. There are no problems with it. The other one that has been published is admittedly only a chicken study that shows that humic acid and fulvic acid can completely clean up the organ systems of a chicken …

So, we do the glycine for a while. We monitor the urine output of glyphosate. When that slows down — in some people two months, in some it's six months — we back off on the glycine and go on a smaller dose."

How to Detox Aluminum

Aluminum is even more sinister. Stephenie Seneff, Ph.D., has shown that aluminum, when it gets in the extracellular space, completely changes the voltage on the cell walls — the voltage-gated channels — and has a profound effect on the microstructure of that matrix.2

"It basically impairs the receptors that we have on the cell wall, hormone receptors, neurotransmitter receptors, insulin receptors. They all get messed up by aluminum. It has a really, really strong effect, stronger than any other toxin," Klinghardt says.

"Seneff's work shows that glyphosate is a chelating agent. When you have glyphosate in the food, it binds all the trace minerals. They're no longer available for absorption. It depletes us of trace minerals. However, there's one exception and that's aluminum. It works like a shuttle agent for aluminum. It binds aluminum, takes it across the gut wall into the tissues, and distributes it widely."

One common ailment related to aluminum toxicity is underactive thyroid (hypothyroid), which is incredibly common these days. Aluminum hydoxides — such as that found in antiacids — actually interferes with intestinal absorption of thyroid hormones.3 Being a metal, it also has an affinity for the nervous system, and tends to collect in your brain, spinal cord and the enteric nervous system of the gut.4 In all of these places, it blocks vital functions.

To eliminate aluminum, you need to increase your intake of silica. Klinghardt recommends using silica-rich herbs for this, such as cilantro. "Dr. Yoshiaki Omura did a study5 20 years ago where he showed that you could decrease aluminum content in the animal model very quickly just by giving a cilantro extract," he says. Other good options are horsetail (which is also high in silica) and a liposomal silica product called BioSil.

Citric acid has also been shown to mobilize aluminum. An easy and inexpensive strategy is to squeeze some lemon into a bottle of water and drink it throughout the day. Malic acid — apple cider vinegar — is another. You can also buy malic acid in capsule form, or use magnesium malate.

"Medical doctors can use desferal. It's an injectable that's injected once a week subcutaneously. It's an excellent detoxer. However, there is some question as to whether it crosses the blood-brain barrier or not. Silica does. Desferal probably not, but you can debulk the aluminum in the body with a once-a-week injection."

How to Eliminate Fat-Soluble Toxins

To eliminate fat-soluble toxins, Klinghardt recommends a combination of sauna and binding agents such as chlorella, ecklonia cava (a brown algae), and enterous gel such as methylated silica and zeolite. One or more of these should ideally be taken daily. When you do sauna therapy, the released toxins are then bound by these agents, allowing them to be safely eliminated rather than being reabsorbed.

"Do that regularly and watch your bowel transit time; it should be 24 hours or less. That means if you swallow something that's not digestible, it should come out of the other end within 24 hours.

We have some patients where the transit time was 20 days or so. Those people are not able to excrete through the small intestine. They're really doomed. It becomes a priority then to get the digestion going. That's mostly the parasite issue. That is sort of my other hobby — to diagnose and treat parasites."

Address Parasites

Many parasites, especially worms, but also fungi and Candida, can absorb multiple times their body weight in toxins. For example, many worms are able to concentrate lead 300fold compared to the tissues of the host. The parasite load of a host is also a bioindicator for the toxicity of that host's environment.

"Every chronic Lyme patient is also full of parasites," Klinghardt says. "If you don't address those, it's been shown that the worms in the Lyme patient themselves are infected with Lyme spirochete. If you do antibiotic treatment, it doesn't harm the parasites.

The Lyme spirochete simply retreat into the worms, wait until you're done with the antibiotics and then hatch back out. The teaching is to treat from large to small. In a chronically ill patient, always assume there are parasites. Treat them and then kind of slowly go down."

Unfortunately, there are few effective tests to assess your parasite burden. Klinghardt uses autonomic response testing (ART), and prescribes various cocktails of antiparasitic drugs based on that testing. Knowing that parasites are loaded with toxins, you want to coax them out of the tissues and into the gut, where they can be safely expelled.

Klinghardt uses the Gubarev protocols for this. These are enema protocols developed by a Russian scientist. Once no more parasites are to be found, he puts the patient on antiparasitic agents such as Rizol Kappa and Rizol Gamma — ozonated plant oils from BioPure.

"Recently, there's an incredible increase in literature showing that pretty much every medical antiparasitic can also be used for treating cancer. I'll give you an example: Albendazole, a monthly treatment, used to cost $80. Then the articles came out of cancers healing from it. Now, it's $24,000 a month …

We use the antiparasitic drugs, the multipurpose drugs. It happens to be that the internal pathways of a cancer cell are similar to the pathways of the parasite. It's a very good policy to start chronic treatment [of parasites] early on, before attending to Lyme disease or mycoplasma …

The main issue with parasites is this: If you undertreat a parasite, that means if you use a dose of an herb or a medical drug that's not enough to kill it, but enough to make it sick, that parasite will put out huge amounts of biotoxins that make you really deathly ill. The trick with parasite treatment is to come in high and strong from the beginning, so these creatures cannot shoot back at you …

Parasites only come out in the poop if the parasite is sick. Parasites do not show up that way. As long as they still live in the belly, in the gut, you can palpate and you can get certain signs that make it [seem] like you got the right diagnosis. But unfortunately, the larval stages of many parasites stray to the lung, and also end up in the brain.

Cysticercosis is the name given for that larval stages of tapeworms in the brain. We see that all the time. Kids that have seizures, most of the time it's that issue. They're easy to treat … but it's difficult to do it with natural things. We find that the natural herbs that are used are good if we use them in conjunction with the medical drugs."

Rectal Ozone Therapy
Klinghardt also uses ozone therapy, preferring rectal ozone administration to injection. "We have a lot of our patients buy an inexpensive ozone machine and do rectal ozone every day," he says.

Klinghardt has worked with one of the leading parasitologists in India, studying the impact of parasites on illness. Not surprisingly, they found a direct, linear relationship between the colonic count of anaerobes and the patient's health.

The more anaerobes the patient had in their feces, the sicker the person was. At that time, they did not have ozone available, and ended up treating patients with rectal oxygen. "It was very successful as a strategy to get people out of chronic illness," he says. Ozone is an even more effective option.

Avoiding EMF Is Also Important for Effective Detoxification

In a previous interview, we also discussed the importance of avoiding electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones, modems and Wi-Fi routers when treating chronic disease, as this exposure will exacerbate illness, including infections. Klinghardt comments:

"I think that is the most important issue of our time … Wi-Fi is destroying life on the planet. There's absolutely no question. Unfortunately, titanium and aluminum in our system act like an antenna for the Wi-Fi. There's a beautiful study on amalgam.

When you have an amalgam filling and you make a phone call on the side where the filling is, the speed at which mercury is evaporated from the tooth is increased multiple times.

Basically, we hold the position that the body needs to be metal-free in order to survive this crazy time … One phone call — I think a seven-minute phone call — activates the Epstein-Barr virus for many years. We have this published. All of us have that virus in us. If you want to have chronic fatigue, that's a great recipe …

[There's a] direct linear relationship between the cumulative exposure to man-made radiation and chronic illness. The more you're exposed to, the more ill you are … This has to be modified when people are metal-toxic. They concentrate radiation in them, and then it goes up exponentially …

The combined effect of the toxicity and the Wi-Fi has unleased these viruses that are called human endogenous retroviruses. That is really, ultimately, what's causing the severity of chronic illness."

To protect against EMF, Klinghardt recommends the Building Biology approach to EMF remediation, which involves shielding your home, especially your bedroom. For internal protection, he recommends taking tincture of rosemary and/or tincture of propolis.

As for addressing retroviruses, Klinghardt has developed an herbal mix called RetroV powder6 made by Ki Science, which contains 10 herbs. It's been shown to be superior to the eight drugs available for silencing retroviruses. Citrus tea and broccoli sprouts are two additional powerful tools against retroviruses."

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
Eliminate Glysophate, Mercury, Aluminum, Lyme and More from Your System

Dr. Joseph Mercola Interviews Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt on His Top Tips for Detoxification

1/27/19

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=529785333

That was a good article - I like Klinghardt's well informed, practical, holistic understanding.

I spiffed up the formatting a wee bit, in hopes a few more will have a glance at it.

[onawah]

Thanks Paul. It's a great article! I've already added a few items to my next order of supplements.

[Houman]

The part on glycine is interesting,
https://metabolichealing.com/l-glyci...n-gut-tissues/
I wonder if there are any references on its ability to detox glyphosate ("Research from Seneff and Samsel suggest that the pesticide glyphosate may exert its toxic effects by replacing glycine in the connective tissues" so supplementing with glycing might protect against uptake but that doesn't mean that it will detox glyphosate).
I saw some people recommending (along the same lines) the use of manganese but there is a fine line between benefits and neurotoxicity with manganese supplementation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338437/)

[onawah]

Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward
JANUARY 29, 2019
By Lyn Redwood, R.N, M.S.N., President, Children’s Health Defense
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp

"On Wednesday January 9th, I attended Science Day Presentations in the Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente case in Los Angeles Superior Court. I want to report to our community on the outcome of this important event and provide some personal commentary.

It is difficult to describe the feelings of elation and frustration that I experienced during the full day of furious arguments that began at 9:30 am before Judge Maren Nelson. Due to the restrictions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, my son and thousands of children like him, have never been able to have their injuries acknowledged in a court of law. This day gave families around the globe whose children’s health was permanently harmed by the HPV vaccine a glimmer of hope that their injuries and suffering would finally be acknowledged. The frustration I felt came from the obvious fact that the science relied on by our federal agencies to approve the HPV vaccine was criminally inadequate and that Jennifer’s injuries and those of the thousands of others like her could have been prevented.

Prior to Science Day, plaintiffs’ attorneys worried that because Judge Nelson threw out a $472 million 2017 jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson for causing ovarian cancer in women exposed to its asbestos-containing baby powders, the Court might not be very receptive to their arguments here. However, Judge Nelson gave scrupulous attention to the science presentations by both sides and clearly seemed to be approaching the Robi case with an open mind.

A red-letter day
After 20 years of advocating for vaccine safety, this was the first time that I’ve watched vaccine science issues adjudicated in a true court of law. It was truly a red-letter day. Jennifer’s lawyers brilliantly laid bare Merck’s anemic case for Gardasil, dissecting the science in withering presentations challenging both the efficacy and safety of the Gardasil vaccine, and then chronicling the horrifying agency and corporate corruption that lead to its approval.

Jennifer Robi is a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccines at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation.

Jennifer’s attorney, Sol Ajalat, initially brought her case in Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and then, following a judgment in the program, elected to proceed in civil court. Since VICA (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act) forbids recoveries for product defect or negligence, Ajalat brought Jennifer’s civil case under the theories that Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Jennifer (and, by implication, other injured girls) about the high risks and meager benefits of the vaccine.

In order to support Sol Ajalat and his sons Greg, Larry, and Steve, who compose the Los Angeles firm Ajalat & Ajalat, a blue ribbon A-Team of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms have joined Jennifer’s trial team. These include the firms most feared by Pharma: Weitz & Luxenberg (countless major pieces of litigation over 30 years), Morgan & Morgan (Vioxx, Phenphen, Breast Implants, Tobacco), Baum Hedlund, (Monsanto $289 million verdict 2018 and the $54 million 2000 verdict against Bayer in Haemophiliac/AIDS case) as well as Children’s Health Defense’s own Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Kim Mack Rosenberg (a co-author of The HPV Vaccine on Trial). The plaintiff’s bar has steered clear of vaccine lawsuits since the 2008 Thimerosal fiasco which nearly bankrupted several big firms. Now, Merck, through its reckless overreaching with Gardasil—a public health flimflam currently emerging as the most dangerous vaccine in history—has brought the nation’s leading trial lawyers back to the brawl.

The three Merck attorneys who made presentations were Dino Sangiamo, Sally Bryan, and Christina Gaarder. Jo Lyn Valoff represented Kaiser.

Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity.
Gardasil’s super-powered aluminum adjuvant
Plaintiffs began the day with a 2.5 hour presentation. Sol Ajalat first introduced Paul Pennock of Weitz & Luxenberg. Pennock ran through a riveting 50-minute slide show demonstrating how Gardasil’s super-powered Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) adjuvant over-stimulated the immune systems of vaccine recipients tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies’ own organs. This “autoimmune process” causes a cascade of illnesses that, in Jennifer Robi’s case, resulted in damage and deterioration in diverse organ systems throughout her body.

Victims like Jennifer are left exhausted as the body fights off disease on multiple fronts. Pennock explained that vaccine makers add aluminum adjuvants (to weak antigens and a long list of other potentially toxic ingredients) to elicit an immune response, hoping to extend the short-term immunity otherwise provided by most vaccines. Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity. Most vaccines provide immunity for only 5-10 years. Gardasil’s promoters were promising lifelong protection, and needed a super toxic adjuvant that would provide this unprecedented level of protection. After all, Merck was promising regulators, pediatricians and the public that inoculations given to 9-12-year-old girls would provide immunity against a relatively rare cancer that typically doesn’t kill until age 58!

Pennock explained that Merck has refused to disclose the contents of AAHS or to provide samples to independent and university scientists for testing. AAHS, astonishingly, has never been safety tested by government regulators or by Merck. Studies on animals conducted by world renowned independent scientists like Dr. Chris Exley, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, Dr. Chris Shaw and others have found that mice and sheep exposed to aluminum adjuvants, at concentrations comparable to those found in vaccines, develop strange behavioral patterns and illnesses resembling autoimmune diseases.

Using a poisonous placebo in the control group allowed Merck to mask the cascade of injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials.
A parade of deceptive canards
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. next gave the court an explosive 50-minute presentation of 112 disturbing slides describing the parade of deceptive canards that composed Merck’s clinical trials. Kennedy described a series of fraudulent gimmicks employed by Merck to deceive regulators during the clinical trials including the use of a “spiked” extremely toxic AAHS placebo rather than a true inert placebo that is standard for control groups in blue ribbon safety studies for other pharmaceutical products. Using a poisonous placebo in the control group allowed Merck to mask the cascade of injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials. Half the girls in the Gardasil group and half the girls in the spiked placebo group suffered serious injuries, including several deaths, in the first seven months of the clinical trials, yet Merck was able to claim that reactions in the study group “were similar to the reactions in the placebo group,” and that, therefore, the vaccine was safe. Merck reported most of these serious injuries as “new medical conditions” not adverse events, dismissing any connection to the vaccine by fiat. Information about this parade of grave injuries appears nowhere in the Gardasil package insert.

Merck committed its boldest fraud in its key clinical trial, Protocol 18. Merck told FDA that Protocol 18 was the single study in which its researchers gave the control group a true inert placebo. For this reason, FDA declared Protocol 18 “of special interest.” However, in reality, Merck appears to have taken the precaution of removing half the aluminum from the vaccines administered to this study group. Plus, The Company laced the “placebo” with a witches’ brew of other toxic chemicals. This study, the only “controlled” study that included children in the target cohort of 9-12-year olds, may not have in fact tested the vaccine that Merck went on to inject into millions of young children around the world. Kennedy told the judge that this is not just scientific malpractice, it is outright fraud!

… Merck’s control groups did not reflect the target population for its drug.
Another tactic utilized by Merck was to purge the study group of anyone with the slightest vulnerabilities to the vaccine or its ingredients despite the fact that the vaccine would ultimately be marketed to girls with the very vulnerabilities excluded during the clinical trials. This precaution allowed the company to mask effects that occur only in vulnerable subgroups. Mr. Kennedy drew laughter from the large court room audience when he described how Merck had prescreened the study subjects to exclude people with allergies, immunological or nervous disorders, more than 4 lifetime sexual partners, genetic vulnerabilities to cancer or to any other medical condition, or with any hint of general infection, a history of alcohol or drug abuse, or a serious or chronic illnesses, and so forth. Finally, Merck told its researchers to exclude any individual with “any condition which in the opinion of the researchers might interfere with the study objective.” The remaining participants were an elite club of super healthy individuals. “You couldn’t get into the clinical trials unless you were a superhero,” Kennedy told Judge Nelson. “You had to be eligible for the Avengers.” The problem, of course, is that none of the people receiving the vaccine under CDC’s mandate are screened for these vulnerabilities. In other words, Merck’s control groups did not reflect the target population for its drug.

The mayhem caused by Gardasil
Even these flimflams could not conceal the mayhem caused by Gardasil. Kennedy showed the court data from Merck’s own package insert showing that 2.3 % of the girls receiving the vaccine complained of symptoms of autoimmune disease within 7 months. Since cervical cancer kills only 1.5 Americans in every 100,000, he noted, “Merck’s own data show that the chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 1000 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.”

Merck’s own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%.
Not only did a heartbreaking 50% of the subjects in both the study group and the spiked placebo group experience a serious adverse event within the seven months of the trial, death rates among girls in the study were double background rates. In fact, the rate for girls during the clinical trials (85/100,000) was 37 times the death rate from cervical cancer! Birth defects among children conceived during the study period were 5x those of the control group and miscarriages were doubled over background rates. Reproductive problems among vaccinated girls were 10x background rates. Finally, Merck’s own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%. This revelation is particularly frightening since sexual behavior is only one of many vectors for acquiring HPV. Many children are exposed in the birth canal. Kennedy cited numerous studies showing many very young children are exposed to HPV, including one in which upwards of 34% of girls had exposure to HPV prior to age 10.

Kennedy closed his powerful presentation by chronicling the parade of corrupt conflicts that caused HHS officials to turn a blind eye to the rife fraud that characterized the clinical trials. Merck loaded the two FDA and CDC panels that approved Gardasil, with paid toadies. He showed that the pharmaceutical industry actually pays 45% of FDA’s annual budget and that NIH and its officials own part of the patents to the Gardasil vaccine and collect royalties on every vaccine sold. NIH collects tens of millions of dollars annually from Gardasil sales. Finally, 45% of CDC’s budget goes to promoting and purchasing vaccines. Merck exerts control over the CDC with millions of dollars in contributions to the CDC foundation, which allows funding for pet projects. This level of support gives Merck the power to also punish the CDC by withholding funding if displeased by the agency.

Jennifer’s illness due to Gardasil
Nicole Maldonado of Baum Hedlund next described the onset of Jennifer’s illness which worsened with each stage of the three vaccine series and how her symptoms were identical to the symptoms seen among hundreds of injured women during the clinical trials around the world, in places as diverse as Japan, Australia, Colombia, and Denmark (where special clinics have been set up to treat Gardasil’s victims), as well as among many girls here in the United States. These symptoms included menstrual irregularities, gastrointestinal dysfunction, musculoskeletal pain, neurological conditions and even death.

One courtroom observer, a concerned mother identifying herself as Rachel Harris said she felt sick to her stomach at the revelations. Jennifer Robi’s mom told me that she felt elated that Mr. Kennedy had mastered the facts so completely and that their family’s story was finally being told.

…Merck’s AAHS adjuvant was safe because of the small quantities of this known neurotoxin in each vaccine. She told the judge that ‘the dose makes the poison,’ and that even water in large enough doses can be toxic.
The rebuttal
The Defendants’ three-hour rebuttal was mainly toothless. Sangiamo doggedly described six studies, that he claimed were relied upon by the plaintiff, that had been retracted. However, only one of those studies was even mentioned on the plaintiff’s lengthy exhibit list (Plaintiff’s attorneys never referred to it in their briefs) and that study was republished elsewhere after the original journal retracted it under pressure from its pharmaceutical advertisers.

Sangiamo argued that the plaintiff had relied on case studies rather than large scale epidemiological studies of the kind largely funded by industry or the NIH which owns the Gardasil patent and profits on every injection sold. He cited five of those NIH and industry-authored epidemiological studies that found no causal relationship between Gardasil and autoimmune diseases. All are plagued by fatal defects such as only looking for a very limited number of potential injuries for a short period of time following exposure to the vaccine, despite the fact that autoimmune diseases can take months or years to manifest. The authors of these studies had financial ties to Merck.

Finally, Merck’s Sally Bryan rose to the podium to explain to Judge Nelson that Merck’s AAHS adjuvant was safe because of the small quantities of this known neurotoxin in each vaccine. She told the judge that “the dose makes the poison,” and that even water in large enough doses can be toxic. She pointed out that there are only 225 micrograms of aluminum in each vaccine. To illustrate how small this is, she asked Judge Nelson to imagine a dollar bill – which weighs one gram – cut into 1 million tiny pieces. She pointed out that only 225 of these pieces would be in any Gardasil vaccine, far too little to cause any adverse outcome. So in one breath, Merck was telling Judge Nelson that the amount of aluminum in Gardasil was substantial enough to permanently alter a person’s immune system to prevent cancer for the next half century and, at the same time, small enough to cause no harm.

The path forward
At the end of a long day, Judge Nelson ordered both sides to work out a discovery schedule and to reappear in court on February 7 to resolve any differences.

In Merck’s zealous promotion of the Gardasil vaccine, the company and its allies have shamed parents into vaccinating their children, through a series of misleading ad campaigns which play on parental instincts to protect their children from harm, especially from a disease as frightening as cancer. One commercial depicts young girl and boy actors recounting how they developed cancer from HPV and asking their parents if they knew this could have been prevented. “Did you know – Mom and Dad?” Jennifer Robi has had the courage to tell a real-life story that the public rarely hears – about the risks of the Gardasil vaccine itself."

[onawah]

The Flawed Logic of Hepatitis B Vaccine Mandates
JANUARY 31, 2019
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp

"By the Children’s Health Defense Team

Summary:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that newborn babies receive the hepatitis B vaccine on their first day of life.
The infants, toddlers and young children receiving this vaccine face little to no chance of hepatitis B infection, but the vaccines impose significant risks, including the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune illness and even death.
In the 0-1 age group, there is at least a 20:1 ratio of reported vaccine injuries/deaths associated with hepatitis B vaccines compared to cases of hepatitis B infection.
The constitutionality of hepatitis B vaccine mandates in these populations where there is little risk for disease is arguably questionable.
Hepatitis B vaccination mandates fail to honor young children’s liberty, equal protection, and health.
…unless their mothers harbor the virus (determined by routine prenatal blood testing), newborns are probably the least likely human beings on the planet at risk of actually getting hepatitis B.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly recommend that newborn babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on their first day of life. About 12 million doses are administered to American babies in any given year. However, unless their mothers harbor the virus (determined by routine prenatal blood testing), newborns are probably the least likely human beings on the planet at risk of actually getting hepatitis B. Infection risks are also extremely low for young school-age children, but—in all but two states (Alabama and South Dakota)—three to four doses of hepatitis B vaccine are not only recommended but mandated for preschool attendance, K-12 education or both.

New cases of hepatitis B were low in the 1970s; they began climbing in the early 1980s (coincident with the HIV/AIDS epidemic) but then started falling again. Although the CDC first began recommending hepatitis B vaccination on a limited basis in 1982 for the small population of at-risk adults (and infants of infected mothers), the agency attributes the decline in hepatitis B cases during the 1980s and early 1990s to “reduction of transmission among men who have sex with men and injection-drug users, as a result of HIV prevention efforts.”

At the time, hepatitis B was a relatively “obscure” infection of “little direct relevance to most Americans,” but in the early 1990s the “picture of hepatitis B being held up before Americans” changed, as the CDC began promoting a more comprehensive hepatitis B vaccine dragnet. With a stark shift in policy emphasis toward universal vaccination for all newborns (1991), adolescents (1995) and children through age 18 (1999), “a vaccine with a limited initial target population [came] to be accepted as compulsory for every child in the country.”

Whereas the young people being vaccinated face little to no chance of hepatitis B infection, the vaccines impose significant risks …
A questionable rationale
From the beginning, hepatitis B vaccines have had their critics, who question the public health logic of across-the-board hepatitis B vaccination for infants and children. Whereas the young people being vaccinated face little to no chance of hepatitis B infection, the vaccines impose significant risks, including the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune illness and even death. In the decade from 1991 to 2001 (when hepatitis B vaccines contained the mercury-based preservative thimerosal), vaccine exposure in early infancy resulted in an estimated 0.5-1 million U.S. children being diagnosed with learning disabilities, representing lifetime costs in excess of $1 trillion. Other hepatitis B vaccine ingredients (including aluminum adjuvants and yeast) as well as the vaccines’ use of recombinant DNA technology have been linked to a variety of adverse outcomes.

In 1986 (five years before the CDC began pushing for vaccination of all newborns), the nation documented fewer than 280 cases of hepatitis B infection in children under age 14; by 2006, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received over 23,000 reports of adverse events related to hepatitis B vaccination in the 0-14 age group, including nearly 800 deaths.

In congressional testimony in 1999, the father of a five-week-old who died immediately following a hepatitis B shot described a 20:1 ratio of VAERS reports compared to cases of hepatitis B infection in the 0-1 age group (likely an underestimate due to VAERS underreporting). Given that the vaccine has been shown—by the CDC itself—to wear off well before the age of any likely exposure to hepatitis B virus, the father concluded that hepatitis B mandates for newborns represented a “teaming up” of “ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy” against “common sense.”

The out-of-date legal context for mandates
The legal framework that seemingly permits compulsory childhood vaccination, including hepatitis B vaccine mandates for preschoolers, is astonishingly out-of-date. The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed compulsory vaccination “in any depth” for over a century and has not revisited the issue at all since 1922, despite the fact that “the contours of the vaccine issue have changed fundamentally since the early 1900s.”

These are some of the points made by New York University legal scholar Mary Holland in a far-reaching discussion of hepatitis B vaccine mandates in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, published in 2013. As Holland explains, the 1905 Supreme Court decision that set the stage for vaccine mandates (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) did so in response to the “markedly different” one-disease-one-vaccine context of smallpox. Although the Court upheld smallpox mandates, in most cases, noncompliant individuals faced no worse than a “relatively small monetary fine.” Subsequent courts, however, “have used Jacobson to justify results that the original decision did not condone: vaccination mandates exclusively for children with no imminent disease outbreaks and with serious penalties for noncompliance”—not just forfeiture of the right to an education but also outcomes such as “social isolation, parents’ loss of custodial rights, child-neglect sanctions against parents, and, even, forced vaccination.”

… neither the federal government nor states have alleged that [hepatitis B] transmission among preschoolers is a serious threat to public health.
Holland finds the constitutionality of hepatitis B vaccine mandates for preschoolers questionable, particularly in light of other legal precedents. What might happen if today’s Supreme Court were to evaluate a legal challenge to a state’s hepatitis B mandate? Although the Court’s historical track record displays a legal tug-of-war between limits set on individual liberty and support for individuals’ “fundamental claims to bodily integrity and autonomy,” Holland suggests that the Court’s fairly reasoned answer to each of the following six questions ought to be a clear “no”:

Is there a sufficient public health necessity to impose a preschool hepatitis B vaccination mandate?
Holland observes that “neither the federal government nor states have alleged that [hepatitis B] transmission among preschoolers is a serious threat to public health.”

Does a vaccination mandate for preschoolers constitute a reasonable means of addressing hepatitis B in broader society?
At least two factors undermine the presumption of reasonableness, including shockingly inadequate safety testing in the targeted age groups (infants and young children) and poor long-term efficacy. The prelicensure clinical trials for GlaxoSmithKline’s Engerix-B vaccine monitored about 5,000 subjects (“adults and children”) for just four days following administration of the vaccine, without disclosing the proportion of subjects who were children or their ages. The pediatric prelicensure trials for Merck’s Recombivax HB vaccine involved a grand total of 147 infants and children “monitored for five days after each dose.”

Is a hepatitis B vaccination mandate proportionate to the risk of disease (i.e., do disease risks outweigh vaccine risks)?
Holland states that “this would be very difficult to prove since incidence of the disease in the preschool population is exceedingly low, yet the risks of adverse events from the vaccine, including anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, and death, are well-documented.”

Does the government provide for harm avoidance and offer a fair process for allowing medical exemptions?
Medical exemptions were one of the “core requirements” established by the 1905 Jacobson decision. A federal policy that arm-twists parents into vaccinating their newborns—whose medical history is largely a blank slate—“makes harm avoidance almost impossible.”

Is the hepatitis B vaccination mandate non-discriminatory?
A mandate imposed on young children “not primarily for their benefit” can be construed as “arbitrary” and discriminatory in application.

Do parents have a “liberty interest in being able to refuse an unwanted medical intervention”?
Holland notes that the Court has “repeatedly acknowledged that the right to bodily integrity and to refuse unwanted medical treatment is deeply rooted in the historical traditions of the United States.”

Prescient Justices
Holland’s conclusion is straightforward: The hepatitis B vaccination mandate “has failed to honor young children’s liberty, equal protection, and health.” In support of this conclusion, she cites comments by three past Supreme Court Justices over the century since Jacobson:

Justice Harlan foresaw, in 1905, that mandates “might be exercised…in such arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons.”
In 1942, Justice Jackson cautioned that “There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of…a minority.”
And in 1990, Justice Stevens discussed the “sanctity, and individual privacy, of the human body” as “obviously fundamental to liberty,” adding that “every violation of a person’s body is an invasion of his or her liberty.”
Holland also reminds us that the millions of doses of hepatitis B vaccine administered to babies every year represent “a substantial annual income stream” for vaccine manufacturers—in this instance, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. Vaccine companies’ freedom from liability for injuries and deaths related to childhood vaccines also creates “manifold” financial motivations to continue to expand vaccine recommendations and mandates, even when the latter do not lead to “optimal or even rational public health outcomes.”

Encountering pushback from concerned parents, legislators and the medical/pharmaceutical establishment are resorting to threatening tactics that include forced vaccination, apparently heedless of the fact that all vaccines and medicines, including hepatitis B vaccines, come with sizeable risks.
Honoring young children’s liberty, equal protection, and health
Across the country, state legislatures are introducing vaccine mandate bills requiring all vaccines for all children, even threatening to go after the medical exemptions that the Jacobson decision insisted were vitally important. Encountering pushback from concerned parents, legislators and the medical/pharmaceutical establishment are resorting to threatening tactics that include forced vaccination, apparently heedless of the fact that all vaccines and medicines, including hepatitis B vaccines, come with sizeable risks. For the sake of children’s present and future health, we must keep up public pressure to resolve financial conflicts of interest, insist on the highest standards of vaccine safety and persist in questioning both the overt and underlying premises of unjustifiable vaccine mandates."

[onawah]

Welcome to the Literal Nanny State
Truthstream Media
Published on Jan 31, 2019

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wXAFqwRuiMs

[Delight]

Just posting this because some may not follow these weekly videos. ICAN is a very sound way to support these initiatives.

http://icandecide.org/
Informed Consent Action Network
140 Broadway, 46th floor
New York, NY 10005

info@icandecide.org

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_6b3PHmgDFI

Also I like this organization

Children's Health Defense
Our mission is to end the epidemic of children’s chronic health conditions by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards so this never happens again.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

also FYI

A new house bill could add pressure on Washington parents to vaccinate their children, and it’s generating discussion from people on all sides of the vaccination argument.

HB 1638 — a more urgently pressed piece of legislation because of the ongoing state measles outbreak — would remove the personal and religious exemptions currently allowed for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.https://www.kirklandreporter.com/new...hington-state/

House Health Care & Wellness Committee
February 8, 8:00 am
Public Hearing: HB 1638
(bill to eliminate voluntary patient exemptions to MMR)

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=...artStream=true

Written Testimony for HB 1638 - 2019-20
Madam Chair and members of the committee,
I am Eric Ranger from Vancouver, WA. The following is my written testimony for the public hearing in
the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness for HB 1638 - 2019-20 on vaccine preventable
diseases. I am not representing other citizens or a separate group. The purpose of this testimony is to
explain how, after researching the topic of vaccines for over 1,000 hours, I am still left questioning the
risks and benefits of the MMR-II vaccine for my children.
I do not support HB 1638 - 2019-20, as it would recall a fundamental right of Washington parents, who
seek to enroll their children in schools and state and licensed day care centers, to have legitimate
personal or philosophical reasons in choosing to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and
rubella. As we all know, the supreme law of the U.S. protects the people’s right to free speech. Hurtful,
infectious, or reckless as it may be, it is only language. I am dumbfounded how free speech is
considered sacrosanct, but a parent’s hesitation for their child to have a preemptive medical procedure
using a highly suspect vaccine and vaccine manufacturer, is not something universally respected and
safeguarded by law with the utmost zeal. After all, such reservations shared by these parents are not
baseless—not in the slightest.
The following are my personal and philosophical reservations regarding Merck’s MMR-II vaccine and the
act of vaccinating my children with it.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...ted-2-6-19.pdf

[onawah]

WHO, Pharma, Gates and Government: Who’s Calling the Shots?
February 05, 2019
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=537198810

By Barbara Loe Fisher

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The World Health Organization (WHO) has ranked “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top 10 Threats to Global Health in 2019
Since 2011, pharmaceutical companies have no liability for injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they sell in the U.S. that are government recommended and mandated
A joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed that three key scientists who influenced WHO’s decision to declare a swine flu influenza pandemic in 2009 and recommend all countries use and stockpile vaccines and pandemic flu drugs had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies profiting from the WHO recommendations
The Gates Foundation has donated more than $3 billion to Gavi. Between 2000 and 2013, only 10 percent of total funding provided by Gavi was used to strengthen health systems in developing countries, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines
The National Institutes of Health and other U.S. federal health agencies give millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to academic institutions and vaccine manufacturers to improve vaccine technology, find new lucrative vaccine markets and boost vaccine marketability. The U.S. government also partners with the Gates Foundation to develop and promote vaccine use"

"The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report on January 16, 2019 ranking "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the top "10 Threats to Global Health in 2019," alongside air pollution and climate change, noncommunicable diseases, global influenza pandemic, antimicrobial resistance and infectious diseases such as ebola, dengue fever and HIV.1

Throughout history, the greatest contributors to disease and early death in human populations have been poverty, poor sanitation and poor nutrition,2,3,4 but infectious diseases with pharmaceutical solutions dominated this list.

And, there was no mention of the major opioid addiction crisis crippling and killing tens of thousands of people in the U.S. and Europe,5,6 or the iatrogenic medical error epidemic that every year claims more than 750,000 lives in Europe7 and 250,000 lives in the U.S., where it is the third leading cause of death.8

The immediate mainstream media response to the WHO's announcement was to focus on "vaccine hesitancy," with The Editorial Board of The New York Times declaring January 19 that "anti-vaxxers" are "the enemy" and calling on the U.S. government to "get tough" by waging a "bold and aggressive" pro-vaccine campaign that includes "tightening restrictions around how much leeway states can grant families that want to skip essential vaccines."9

By January 23, The Hill announced Washington state had declared a state of emergency because of 23 cases of measles reported in an "anti-vaccination community" near Portland, Oregon,10 and there was a public call in the U.K. for social media platforms to "clamp down on fake news" and censor "misleading information and negative messaging around vaccination."11,12

The New York Times' editorial headline, "How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers," was a theme repeated in articles reacting to the WHO's suggestion that people wanting to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccination are a global menace. One doctor suggested that parents who don't vaccinate their children are selfish: "[I]t's a matter of 'I don't care about other people in the community, I only care about the health and welfare of my own child.'"13

There was no discussion about institutionally acknowledged gaps in vaccine safety science14,15 or the fact that most parents dutifully follow the advice of pediatricians and public health officials and only became vaccine safety critics after the risks of vaccination for their children turned out to be 100 percent.16,17

There was no discussion about the fact that since 2011, pharmaceutical companies have no liability for injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they sell in the U.S. that are government recommended and mandated.18

Instead, parents of vaccine injured children and others concerned about vaccine safety, who for decades have been asking government and industry to produce better quality vaccine science and more humane vaccine policies that respect genetic and biological diversity, were stereotyped as "anti-vaxxers" and demonized as a "threat" to public health.

The Editorial Board of The New York Times explained, "It's no mystery how we got here. On the internet, anti-vaccine propaganda has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information."

Authoritatively, "the Board, its editor and the publisher" of The New York Times stated that, "Scientists, especially, are uncomfortable with black and white statements, because science is all about nuance. But, in the case of vaccines, there are some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted. Vaccines are not toxic, and they do not cause autism. Full stop."

There was no discussion about why people are legitimately concerned about vaccine ingredients19 and Pharma paying the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to fast track new vaccines to licensure without adequate testing.20

There was no discussion about the fact that doctors giving children 69 doses of 16 vaccines starting on the day of birth21 — three times as many vaccinations as they got in 198322 — cannot explain why so many highly vaccinated children in the U.S. today are sicker, not healthier today: 1 child in 6 is learning disabled23 and 1 in 40 has autism.24

Millions more suffer with asthma, diabetes, severe allergies, epilepsy, cancer, schizophrenia, depression and other chronic disease marked by chronic inflammation in the body.

The CDC states that "90 percent of the $3.3 trillion in annual health care expenditures are for people with chronic and mental health conditions."25 The largely unexplained chronic disease and disability epidemic in the U.S. is bankrupting the U.S. health care system and there is no research being funded to investigate the role that ever-increasing numbers of vaccines given to infants, children and adults may be playing.

Multinational pharmaceutical corporations26,27 in command of a global $34 billion vaccine market28,29 are holding billion-dollar contracts with mass communication companies30 and public-private partnerships with governments to purchase vaccines and create vaccine marketing campaigns31,32,33,34 that dwarf the relatively small number of websites and blogs labeled "anti-vax" simply for criticizing vaccine science and government policy.35

Yet, there is no recognition by mainstream media articles of the fact that wealthy corporations and philanthropic foundations with political agendas,36,37 well-paid medical doctors38,39,40 and government health officials in charge of operating the vaccine system41 are in privileged positions of power with a distinct advantage over ordinary people subjected to vaccine laws that place an unequal risk burden on individuals with genetic and biological susceptibility to suffering harm from vaccination.42,43

'Bio-Populism' Blamed for Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe
In the U.K., The Economist published an article entitled, "The Campaign Against Vaccination," in which an anonymous author declared, "Across Europe, the rise of populism is damaging public health. A common feature is skepticism of vaccines."44

Pointing to Italy, Austria and France as hotbeds of political support for "parental choice" about vaccination, the author attempted to politically tie growing public support for vaccine choice to a fear of migrants and coined a new term: "bio-populism," saying:

"It is increasingly clear that Europe's populists want for the body what they want for the nation: purity, unity and self-governance. Populist health policies mean citizens being free from outside influences — whether vaccines devised by doctors, regulations invented by politicians or diseases supposedly carried by migrants — and in control of their own epidemiology."

He (or she?) went on to explain that bio-populism is a "combination of me-first libertarianism and anti-expertise herd mentality." Quoting Italian medical professor Dr. Roberto Burioni, who has stated authoritatively that "Vaccines are not an opinion" and offered an explanation for "Why science can't be democratic," The Economist article ended with a warning that, "At least one pandemic will probably sweep the interconnected world in the next decade. Viruses, after all, know no borders."

There was no discussion of the fact that most parents and physicians calling for better quality vaccine science and informed consent protections in vaccine laws are ideologically diverse and do not all identify with one particular political party. In fact, a 2015 Pew Research Center survey revealed that age and parenthood had more to do with vaccine hesitancy, with young adults and parents with children under age 18 being less supportive of mandatory vaccination.45

Vaccines, Autism, Erosion of Trust in Drug Companies and Doctors
In the U.S., Live Science trumpeted: "Anti-Vaccine Movement Joins Ebola, Drug Resistance on List of Top Global Threats."46 A doctor at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security was quoted as saying the reason that noncommunicable diseases and not infectious diseases made the WHO's top 10 global threat list is "a testament to how powerful vaccines are."

Pointing to the jubilant public response to the release of polio vaccine in the 1950s, he commented, "We need to get back to that era when vaccines were celebrated the way a new iPhone [is]."

The headline People Magazine chose was "World Health Organization Names Anti-Vaxxers As a Top Threat to Global Health in 2019."47 At the beginning of the article, the following statement appeared: "There is no scientific link between vaccines and autism, according to the Centers for Disease Control."

It ended with the statement, "To tackle the rising levels of vaccine hesitancy, WHO plans to push forward with the goal of eliminating cervical cancer with greater application of HPV vaccine …"

U.S. News & World Report ran this headline: "WHO: Anti-Vaccine Movement a Top Threat in 2019."48 That author stated, "So-called anti-vaxxers refuse the required shots for their children on religious or philosophical grounds. An increase in unvaccinated children has, in part, been tied to the medically discredited belief that vaccines cause autism spectrum disorder."

Pointing out that a recent U.S. survey found that public trust in vaccination is on the decline, she added, "The heightened mistrust, researchers said, was especially prevalent in small pockets of people in insular communities or like-minded communities online."

Pacific Standard asked, "Are Anti-Vaxxers a Major Health Threat? The World Health Organization Says Yes."49 This article included a quote from a pediatrician:

"The ongoing erosion of trust in the medical establishment as a whole is also to blame, as frequent reports of dubious financial relationships between physicians, professional medical societies, and the pharmaceutical industry leave many questioning whether or not physicians can be trusted. Unsure of what to do and whom to listen to, many seek answers to their questions elsewhere, or simply rely on their gut feeling …"

Salon created the most sensational headline that asked the foreboding question, "The Anti-vaxxocalypse: What Happens to Humanity if Vaccine Hesitancy Continues?"50 The author explained to readers, "In other words, the anti-vaccination movement, which has inspired many in first-world countries to refuse or hesitate vaccination for easily-preventable diseases, is now a threat to global health and, ergo, stability."

The exaggerated response to the WHO announcement by corporations owning mainstream media outlets has been curiously uniform. Often using identical talking points, perspective from parents and physicians in the U.S. and Europe rationally calling for reform of the vaccine policies and laws is left out.51

The politics of vaccination are in full swing, but where is the money coming from to fund these vaccine marketing campaigns using name calling, threats, shaming and misinformation to demonize and call for discrimination against those who criticize vaccine science and government policy?

The WHO Markets Vaccines
Immediately after World War II in 1945, the United Nations (U.N.) voted to establish a new international health organization. In 1948, WHO was founded by the U.N. after ratification by 26 member states and given a budget of $5 million.

WHO is a specialized agency of the U.N. headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and is composed of six regional offices operating in different parts of the world, including the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) in Washington, D.C.

Today, 194 member states of the U.N. are impacted by the activities of the WHO, which has a broad mandate to "act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work."52

The WHO Constitution, revised in 2006, states that its objective "is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health," and health is defined as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."53

The WHO Constitution also states that "Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people." The top priorities of the WHO when it was founded 70 years ago were malaria, tuberculosis, venereal diseases, maternal and child health, sanitary engineering and nutrition.

During the first 30 years of WHO's operation, the U.N. agency spearheaded a global smallpox eradication campaign (1958 to 1980); prevention and control of yaws, endemic syphilis, leprosy, trachoma, cholera and yellow fever (1960s); fertility regulation and birth control (1970s); childhood vaccination programs (initiated 1974); and the institution of primary health care of all national health systems (initiated 1978).54

Today, the WHO is the world's largest and most influential public health agency with an annual budget for 2018 to 2019 of $4.4 billion.55 Slightly more than 21.6 percent ($956.9 million) of the WHO budget is funded by assessments on member states and the remaining is funded by "voluntary contributions."

The biggest individual programs funded by WHO are for polio eradication vaccine campaigns ($903 million); vaccine campaigns for other communicable diseases ($805 million); and corporate services/enabling functions ($715.5 million).

Currently, the top 10 U.N. member state annual funders of WHO are the governments of the U.S. ($125 million); Japan ($49 million); China ($40 million); Germany ($33 million); France ($27 million); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ($23 million); Brazil ($19.5 million); Italy ($19 million); Canada ($15 million) and Australia ($12 million).56

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest non-state funder of the WHO, having donated more than $2 billion in earmarked grants to the international health agency since 1998, and is the second largest WHO funder overall (after the U.S. government). Because Gates Foundation grant money is earmarked for specific programs, such as vaccine purchase, delivery and promotion, the Gates Foundation significantly influences the setting of WHO's program priorities.57

In 2010, after a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in collaboration with the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an article was published in the BMJ revealing that three key scientists — who influenced the WHO's decision to declare a swine flu (H1N1) influenza pandemic in 2009 and recommend that all countries use and stockpile vaccines and pandemic flu drugs — had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies profiting from the WHO recommendations (GlaxoSmithKline and Roche).

WHO was also criticized for lack of transparency for refusing to release the identities of the 16 members of an emergency committee formed in 2009 to guide pandemic policy.58

The 2009 pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which was rushed to market to address a WHO declared pandemic that did not happen, triggered an autoimmune reaction in more than 1,300 people in Europe who got GSK's Pandemrix vaccine and left them with narcolepsy, an incurable immune mediated neurological disorder.59

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Marketing Vaccines
The WHO and the U.S. government are founding partners of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. In 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed money to spearhead the creation of Gavi, a public-private partnership and multilateral funding mechanism involving the WHO, governments, the vaccine industry, the World Bank, philanthropic foundations and civil society groups to "improve access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world's poorest countries."60

Of the more than $15 billion raised by Gavi since 2000 to vaccinate the world's children, U.S. government contributions have totaled $1.9 billion or 12 percent of all contributions received by Gavi. The United Kingdom has contributed $2.2 billion or 14 percent of Gavi's total contributions.

The single biggest funding source for Gavi is the Gates Foundation, which has donated more than $3 billion or 20 percent of Gavi's total income.61 Between 2000 and 2013, only about 10 percent of total funding provided by Gavi ($862 million) was used to strengthen health systems in developing countries, such as improving sanitation and nutrition, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines.62

Gavi is headquartered in Geneva with an office in Washington, D.C. that carries out day-to-day operations, and one of Gavi's core goals is to "shape markets for vaccines and other immunization products."

In 2008, Gavi announced that five countries — Italy, Norway, Canada, the U.K. and Russia — had joined the Gates Foundation to pledge $1.5 billion in Advance Market Commitments (AMC) to accelerate access to pneumococcal vaccines with donors providing up-front funding commitments to support vaccine purchase and speed the introduction and use of vaccines in countries partnering with Gavi.

Currently, the AMC incentivizes vaccine manufacturers to sign contracts to provide pneumococcal vaccine to developing countries at lower per dose prices and be reimbursed by Gavi funds. By March 2015, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline had received more than $1 billion from Gavi's AMC funds.63

CDC officials provide Gavi with technical support and guidance. In 2015, the U.S. Congress pledged to appropriate $1 billion to Gavi that was spread over four years (2015 to 2018).64

At the World Health Summit in Berlin on October 16, 2018, Gavi CEO Dr. Seth Berkley announced that 11 heads of the world's leading health and development organizations had signed a "landmark commitment" to find new ways to accelerate achieving goals of the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals created in 2015.

The new Global Action Plan vaccine marketing initiative is being coordinated by the WHO.65 Relating Sustainable Development Goals to vaccination of all the people in the world, Gavi states that:66

Immunization protects people from being forced into poverty by high out-of-pocket expenses
Vaccines protect child health and support cognitive development, allowing children to perform better at school and have more opportunities
Vaccinated healthy children grow into a productive workforce and become strong contributors to the economy, and healthy children free up parents' time so they are able to work
Vaccines are critical to building people's resilience to and mitigating the risk of disease outbreaks tied to climate change
Good health is a critical determinant of peace and well-being in a society. People-centered health systems are core social institutions in every country, and immunization is often the first point of contact between these systems and the population
In 2016, Berkley and other Gavi executives came under criticism in the U.K. for taking excessively high salary packages. According to an investigative news report:67

"Seth Berkley has taken home more than £2 million over the past four years as chief executive officer of Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi), which has been given £1.5 billion by Britain. Another official at the Geneva-based group collects a pay package of more than £500,000 a year. Incredibly, Dr. Berkley was given a housing allowance on top of his £623,370 pay package."

In December 2018, Berkley told CNN that "while measles is one of the few diseases we could potentially eradicate, that will never happen if wealthy countries like the United States can't maintain herd immunity. Because a measles case anywhere is a threat everywhere."

He said parents in the U.S. are delaying their children's vaccinations "perhaps because they believe in immunization but are worried by some of the anti-vaccine scaremongering. This needs to stop."

Echoing the idea that parents who don't go along with the vaccine program are selfish, he added, "In countries like the United States we need to stop thinking about vaccination as something you only do to protect the ones you love, and instead view it also as a goodwill act for the benefit of others."68

According to the CDC, in 2017 to 2018 "vaccination coverage among kindergarteners remained high," with 94 percent of children having received two doses of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine; four or five doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine; and two doses of varicella zoster (chickenpox) vaccine (among many other vaccines required by states for school attendance). Only 2 percent of kindergarteners had an exemption from one or more state required vaccines.69

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Marketing of Vaccines
The Gates Foundation was established in 2000 by Microsoft Corporation founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda.70

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, the Gates Foundation is the largest philanthropic foundation in the world with a $43.5 billion trust that makes grant payments of more than $3 billion annually to advance the foundation's goals for reforming education systems, such as the institution of Common Core curriculum in all U.S. schools,71 and funding public health initiatives, primarily global vaccination programs.72

A major goal of the Gates Foundation is to make sure every child in the world is vaccinated.73 Investor businessman Warren Buffet, who took control of textile manufacturer Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. in 1965 and went on to amass a personal fortune of more than $60 billion, pledged $31 billion and became a co-director of Gates Foundation in 2006.74

In 1998, the same year that the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation,75 Bill and Melinda Gates committed $100 million to create the Bill & Melinda Gates Children's Vaccine Program. One purpose of that program was to establish an international consensus on vaccine use recommendations:

"Efforts will be made to support international conferences and the development and dissemination of strong international consensus statements and recommendations for the use of the new vaccines."76

The homepage of the Gates Foundation proclaims ALL LIVES HAVE EQUAL VALUE and states77

"We believe we can save lives by delivering the latest in science and technology to those with the greatest needs. We work with partners to provide effective vaccines, drugs and diagnostics and to develop innovative approaches to deliver health services to those who need it most. And we invest heavily in developing new vaccines to prevent infectious diseases that impose the greatest burden."

In 2016, Global Justice Now published an investigative report, "Gated Development: Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?" Authors were critical of the unchecked political power and influence on global health programs and agricultural policies of Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF):78

"To say that the BMGF has become an important actor in international development would be an understatement. When it comes to global health and agriculture policies, two of its key grant areas, the BMGF has become probably the most influential actor in the world.

It is also likely that Bill Gates, who has regular access to world leaders and is in effect personally bankrolling hundreds of universities, international organizations, NGOs and media outlets, has become the single most influential voice in international development.

But the BMGF's increasing global influence is not being subjected to democratic scrutiny. Unlike governments, which are formally accountable to their electorates, the BMGF is a private U.S. foundation, and remains unaccountable to public bodies (except for tax reporting purposes).

Even worse, the BMGF appears to have bought the silence of academics, NGOs and the media who might otherwise be expected to criticize aspects of the foundation's work."

Money Makes the World Go Around
Congress appropriated nearly $90 billion to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2018, and the biggest line item in the CDC's $11 billion budget was the Vaccines for Children program (VFC) ($4.5 billion), which was created by Congress in 1993.79

Under the VFC program, the federal government purchases CDC recommended vaccines from vaccine manufacturers to administer to children who are on Medicaid, are uninsured or whose health insurance plans do not fully cover CDC recommended vaccines.80,81 Hundreds of millions of dollars are additionally allocated in the HHS budget for vaccination programs, including $700 million for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

One of the most politically powerful public-private partnerships in the world today is the lucrative one that has been forged by the pharmaceutical industry with government,82,83,84,85,86 mainstream media87 and wealthy philanthropic foundations with political agendas.88,89

In the past decade, these public-private partnerships have come under scrutiny by public policy analysts. In 2015, authors of a special report published by the Global Policy Forum observed:90

"However, it is not only 'big business' but also 'big philanthropy' that has an increasing influence in global development policy, particularly large philanthropic foundations. The scope of their influence in both past and present discourse and decision-making processes is fully equal, and in some cases goes beyond that of other private actors.

Through the sheer size of their grant-making, personal networking and active advocacy, large global foundations, most notably the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have played an increasingly active role in shaping the agenda-setting and funding priorities of international organizations and governments."

For example, the Gates Foundation has given Johns Hopkins more than $100 million in research grants since 2015, including for vaccine development and promotion.91 At the same time, Johns Hopkins University receives more than $2 billion per year in funding from U.S. government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), to conduct research, including for vaccine development and vaccine use promotion.92

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal health agencies give millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to academic institutions and vaccine manufacturers to improve vaccine technology, find new lucrative vaccine markets and boost vaccine marketability.93 The U.S. government also partners with the Gates Foundation to develop and promote vaccine use.

For example, in 2013, the CDC Foundation received three grants totaling $13.5 million from the Gates Foundation to globally "advance the implementation" of meningitis and rotavirus vaccine programs.94

The Centers for Disease Control and the CDC Foundation have received more than $167 million from the Gates Foundation.95 Vaccine manufacturers have also received millions of dollars in grants from the Gates Foundation, including GlaxoSmithKline (over $50 million);96 Merck ($1.4 million);97 Pfizer ($16.5 million);98 and Sanofi Pasteur ($3.6 million).99

Big Media: Under the Influence
Mass media corporations also are under the influence of Big Pharma and Big Philanthropy money. For example, National Public Radio has received $20 million in grants100 and Solutions Journalism Network has received $4 million101 in grants from the Gates Foundation. Recently, Gates' Microsoft Corporation partnered with NewsGuard Technologies Inc.,102,103 a new corporation that is rating websites and online publications to "fight false news, misinformation and disinformation."104,105,106

The NewsGuard corporation is also collaborating with other corporations, such as Google,107,108 which owns over 90 percent of the internet search market.109 One of the biggest investors in NewsGuard is Publicis, the oldest advertising company in the world and the third largest mass communications company today.110

Publicis is paid billions of dollars by pharmaceutical companies to market vaccines,111 including a $1.5 billion media contract with GlaxoSmithKline.112 PDI, a Publicis health company, states:113

"Vaccination coverage in the United State is high, but in the face of the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases such as pertussis and measles, the existing gaps in the vaccination coverage of the U.S. population have become worrisome.

Gaps exist because not every patient who needs a vaccination gets it at the recommended age. Moreover, the recommendations for new vaccines, including vaccines for influenza and human papillomavirus (HPV), have been expanded ...

PDI's field-based medical sales representatives and inside medical sales representatives from our health care contact center can increase adoption of vaccines by responding to questions and concerns ... To increase immunization rates, we must build sustainable systems for vaccination within the context of a changing health care system.

Here [are] some recommended steps toward achieving this goal: assessment of the actual vaccination rate in a provider's practice; consistently making recommendations for timely vaccinations to both the parents of pediatric patients and adult patients; standing orders for non-physician personnel to carry out vaccinations at the scheduled time without physician involvement; educating physicians on emerging research of vaccine risks and on how to interact with parents who are concerned about the detrimental effects of the MMR and HPV vaccines; and educating physicians about state-sponsored and other programs that can help patients overcome financial barriers to vaccination."

It is clear that mass media communication today is being controlled by corporations financially tied to pharmaceutical companies and influenced by powerful political institutions in society. It goes a long way to explaining why mainstream media outlets have been nearly united in attacking parents and physicians who defend the ethical principle of informed consent, including informed consent to vaccination, and are calling for vaccine exemptions to be severely restricted or eliminated.114

The five largest companies in the world today are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook.115 These and other technology corporations dominate online communications and sales and are positioned to join together to aggressively market vaccines and promote "no exceptions" vaccine use policies endorsed by the WHO and governments.

The threat to autonomy and freedom of thought and speech posed by these companies, especially in censoring online public conversations about vaccination and health, is considerable.116,117

The People Are Not Represented
Today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again. The people whose lives are being impacted by business deals between governments, Big Pharma and Big Philanthropy increasingly are being marginalized in the top-down public policymaking process by wealthy and powerful institutions in society financing the global multibillion-dollar vaccine industry.118

This is evident when the people raise their voices to ask for better vaccine science and more humane public health policies and are demonized, discriminated against and punished by those in control of those wealthy and powerful institutions.

A system that will not bend will break. The responsibility for the crisis of trust in the global vaccination system lies squarely at the feet of those who operate the system and refuse to acknowledge the suffering of the people harmed by vaccines.119,120"


+ Sources and References
https://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Re...references.pdf

[ThePythonicCow]

When listening to an old video by the inestimable Dr. John Bergman, called How to Have HEALTHY Kidneys for LIFE, the confluence of toxins in our food, water, air, medicines and vaccines, each of which individually may harm us, and the combination of several of which may gravely harm or kill us, it crossed my mind that we might be seeing a variation of China's "One Child" policy, which was in effect from about 1980 to 2018.

Under the "One Child" policy, China ended up with an unnaturally high proportion of young men (as male children were more preferrred), and these young men often ended up competing for scarce wives by competing in such areas as academic and employment success in various manufacturing, technical, scientific, and engineering disciplines.

As a consequence, while American children are being dumbed down, China is developing the world's largest and most capable manufacturing, technical, scientific, and engineering talent.

Once China and their cohorts, such as Russia, wrest clear control from the dying American Empire, I anticipate that China will be able to unveil and maintain dominant control over the next major round of technical advances, just as the United States did after World War II, when it unveiled transistors, jet engines, mass television, and nuclear power, all in the late 1940's.

Then we will see, in broad public view, such things as "free energy", anti-gravity, much faster than light propulsion, likely something more advanced in computation, communications, and "smart" robots mining the asteriods to feed China's voracious appetite for minerals. ... Unfortunately, I won't be able to read of this in detail, as the primary documents will be in Chinese.

Meanwhile, back in the declining, once great Anglo-American Empire, especially in the United States, we will see a declining "white" population, due to lower birth rates and a sick population.

That is: I am thinking that the "Poisoning of America" (this thread's title) is a long term planned operation, as was (I suspect) China's "One Child" policy. Both seem to have been intended to setup major change a few decades ahead of time, specifically a smarter cohort of Chinese scientists, engineers and technicians, and a smaller, dumber, sicker cohort of Americans.

[Flash]

Posted by Paul (here)
When listening to an old video by the inestimable Dr. John Bergman, called How to Have HEALTHY Kidneys for LIFE, the confluence of toxins in our food, water, air, medicines and vaccines, each of which individually may harm us, and the combination of several of which may gravely harm or kill us, it crossed my mind that we might be seeing a variation of China's "One Child" policy, which was in effect from about 1980 to 2018.

Under the "One Child" policy, China ended up with an unnaturally high proportion of young men (as male children were more preferrred), and these young men often ended up competing for scarce wives by competing in such areas as academic and employment success in various manufacturing, technical, scientific, and engineering disciplines.

As a consequence, while American children are being dumbed down, China is developing the world's largest and most capable manufacturing, technical, scientific, and engineering talent.

Once China and their cohorts, such as Russia, wrest clear control from the dying American Empire, I anticipate that China will be able to unveil and maintain dominant control over the next major round of technical advances, just as the United States did after World War II, when it unveiled transistors, jet engines, mass television, and nuclear power, all in the late 1940's.

Then we will see, in broad public view, such things as "free energy", anti-gravity, much faster than light propulsion, likely something more advanced in computation, communications, and "smart" robots mining the asteriods to feed China's voracious appetite for minerals. ... Unfortunately, I won't be able to read of this in detail, as the primary documents will be in Chinese.

Meanwhile, back in the declining, once great Anglo-American Empire, especially in the United States, we will see a declining "white" population, due to lower birth rates and a sick population.

That is: I am thinking that the "Poisoning of America" (this thread's title) is a long term planned operation, as was (I suspect) China's "One Child" policy. Both seem to have been intended to setup major change a few decades ahead of time, specifically a smarter cohort of Chinese scientists, engineers and technicians, and a smaller, dumber, sicker cohort of Americans.

Paul, you are dreaming in color with blinding glasses on over and above, imo - but not only imo, history brings me that conclusion.

The mission of America WAS to bring ease of living and all those technologies to help the planet. The mission has been overtaken by greed and poisonous intent. American have been lazy. But we would have been much better off under America's help if they would have accomplished their mission. America was the first place in the world where freedom to individual was granted. Not Britan, not France, but America. The experience was a huge success. It was however diverted by those who do not want it, by greed and darkness.

China is and always have been a dictature. Always. China is terrible towards its own people, no freedom, no free thinking, no creativiy except through fear or imitation (which dictatures produce usually). And extreme greed from businessman or higher politician (this has become the same in America, but China has thousands of years into this behavior, contrarily to America).

We will see no free anything, believe it, coming from China. None. On the contrary.

In Asia, in business, Chinese are nicknamed the Jews of Asia. Minus the creative skills.

Their country profile is collectivism, high hierarchy, masculinity (war like - in common with America on this), time perceived on very long periods (long time planning - on hundred years), I am missing one. Anyhow, they are not for creativity and freedom. Collectivism will stop it as well as high hierarchy and masculinity.

America profile: individualistic, low hierarchy, masculinity, short time planning.

You see, it creates very different worlds.

-----------------------------------

As for the one child policy:
China had no choice, they had too many people and having produced many more children would have meant immediate war for territories with neighborhood countries (told directly to me by a Chinese University rector).

My conclusion: They were not in a developmental state where they could afford war all around, being technically and economically too poor. Now they are approaching the time where they would win with a strike of the hand.

[onawah]

Science Settled: Unvaxxed No Risk to Vaxxed
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/scien...isk-to-vaxxed/
"Dr. Rima: Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD has been on my podcast. I know this brilliant scientist. It takes courage for a scientist to speak the truth when that truth is suppressed by Big Pharma Money. It is my pleasure to present scientific truth to you documenting what I have been saying for decades. Unvaccinated people pose no threat to anyone, but our would-be Big Pharma “masters.” Dr. Obukhanych speaks truth to power. Read this article. Share this article.

Make sure you and the people you care about are equipped with this knowledge, with an Advance Vaccine Directive providing legally protected vaccine exemption and my Nano Silver 10 PPM providing immune support. That way you are covered intellectually, legally and immunologically.

I agree completely with Dr. Obukanych, “People who have not received the vaccines … pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted. … Taken together … discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.” Dr. Obukanych’s arguments supporting unvaccinated children apply to adults as well, including nurses and others working in the health care field.

There is a battle being fought, state by state, to abrogate our universal right to Informed Consent with regard to vaccination. Conscientious Objectors to vaccination are being pressed harder than ever before to abandon their beliefs and submit to what our courts have called “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines. You must assert your right to Informed Consent or it will be deemed waived.

Learn more here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard and read Dr. Obukanych’s important article below:"

Harvard Immunologist to Legislators: Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone
April 3, 2018 by Edward Morgan
https://prepareforchange.net/2018/04...isk-to-anyone/

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8h66beBrEpk

AGF Meko
Published on Oct 30, 2013
Dr Tetyana Obukhanych is the author of Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do to Regain Our Health. In her book, she presents a view on vaccination that is radically different from mainstream theories
Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, has studied immunology in some of the world's most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. and Stanford University in California.

"Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.

You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.

I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.

People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

Polio Vaccine
IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades.

Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces.

Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

DTaP Vaccine
Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.

While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.

The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.

Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

Flu Vaccine
Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).

These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children. The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign.

Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.

Hepatitis B Vaccine
Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex.

Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces.

Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.

Vaccine Adverse Events
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.

Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.

A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment.

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

Measles Outbreaks
Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:

“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”

Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called low vaccine responders. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.

Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.

Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.

Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.

Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15.

Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.

The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure.

Conclusion: Discrimination Against Unvaccinated Children Unnecessary
In summary:

1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;

2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free;

3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.

Sincerely Yours,

~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD"

"Make a Statement for Health Freedom!
Big Pharma and government health authorities are trying to pass laws mandating vaccines for all children, and even adults.

Show your opposition to forced vaccinations and support the cause of Vaccine Impact, part of the Health Impact News network.

Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm."

[onawah]

“No Forced Vaccination” Message Back Up in Times Square as Americans Fight for Human Rights
by Barbara Loe Fisher NVIC
Published February 14, 2019
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/...-human-rights/

"There have been 101 cases of measles that have been reported in 10 states since the beginning of 2019,1 hardly a public health emergency in a U.S. population of more than 320 million people where 94 percent of school children have received two doses of MMR vaccine and only two percent of children have a vaccine exemption for any reason.2 In what looks like a repeat of the “measles in Disneyland” media feeding frenzy that stampeded California state legislators into eliminating the personal belief vaccine exemption in 2015,3 4 the tiny minority of parents who have made a conscious choice not to give their children every one of the dozens of doses of federally recommended and state mandated vaccines are being once again relentlessly stereotyped, demonized and bullied.5 6 7 8

In what appears to be another well-orchestrated campaign to pressure state legislatures to remove all personal belief vaccine exemptions in the U.S. and further restrict already narrow medical exemptions to vaccination,9 10 11 12 13 forced vaccination proponents are whipping up irrational fear to justify attacking human rights, including freedom of thought, speech, religious belief and conscience.14 15 16 17 18 It is a spectacle unworthy of a nation where human rights19 and civil liberties have been valued since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in 178920 and the informed consent principle became the anchor for medical ethics after World War II.21 22 23

During this time of discrimination and oppression, the nonprofit educational charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), is back up in Times Square with NVIC’s “Vaccinations: Know the Risks and Failures” and “No Forced Vaccination” animated digital message. Displayed on a giant 56 foot by 29 foot electronic screen in the heart of New York City’s Times Square Plaza at 1500 Broadway (where the ball drops on New Year’s Eve), NVIC’s 10-second spot celebrating the human right to freedom of thought and conscience will be broadcast a minimum of three times per hour for 20 hours per day from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. through April 2019. More than one million people pass through Times Square daily. View the digital ad on NVIC’s referenced Vaccinations: Know the Risks and Failures page on NVIC’s website here.

During the past decade, NVIC has sponsored national vaccine education campaigns to encourage well-informed, voluntary vaccine decisionmaking. In 2011, NVIC sponsored a digital vaccine education billboard in New York City’s Times Square on New Year’s Eve24 and produced a flu prevention video for Delta Airline’s in-flight programming.25 In 2013, NVIC launched a national vaccine education billboard and ad campaign that featured billboards on highways and buses New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Illinois, Texas, Georgia and Colorado, Vermont and other states.26 In 2015 and 2016, NVIC’s message advocating for vaccine education and choice was up in Times Square, as well.27 28

Founded by parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982 to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education, NVIC has steadfastly defended respect for the informed consent principle and its protection in vaccine policies and laws because vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death. More than $4 billion has been paid by the government since 1988 to children and adults who have been harmed by FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.29 Some people are biologically more susceptible to suffering vaccine reactions but doctors are unable to reliability predict who will be harmed before vaccination.30 This fact makes protection of personal belief vaccine exemptions even more important, as does the fact that Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have shielded vaccine companies and vaccine administrators from liability for vaccine injuries and deaths.31 32

In a population of more than 320 million people, a few hundred cases of measles is not a public health emergency and should not be used to justify eliminating the legal right to exercise informed consent to vaccination, which is protected by the inclusion of flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions in public health laws.33

The human right to freedom of thought, speech, religious belief, conscience and informed consent will be preserved if Americans stand up for human rights that protect against tyranny. Only if we elect and support lawmakers who protect human rights will human rights be protected in government policy and law.

Whether it is in the states, on Capitol Hill or in Times Square, our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America."

References: 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles Cases in 2019. Feb. 1, 2019.
2 CDC. Vaccination Coverage for Selected Vaccines and Exemption Rates Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2017–18 School Year. MMWR Oct. 12, 2018; 67(4)): 1115-1122.
3 Fisher BL. The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready? National Vaccine Information Center Mar. 8, 2015.
4 Richardson D. Fallout from California SB277: What Happens Next? NVIC Newsletter Aug. 5, 2015.
5 Editorial Board. How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. New York Times Jan. 11, 2019.
6 Cohen E, Bonifield J. Some states allow parents to get out of vaccinations. Then this happens. CNN Jan. 29, 2019.
7 Keneally M. Parents who don’t vaccinate kids tend to be affluent, better educated, experts say. ABC News Jan. 29, 2019.
8 Cáceres M. Media Takes Low Road by Pitting Children Against Their Parents To Promote Vaccines. The Vaccine Reaction Feb. 13, 2019.
9 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Advocacy Portal: 2019 State Legislative Session Vaccine-Related Bills.
10 CBS. Hundreds rally to preserve right not to vaccinate children amid measles outbreak. Feb. 8, 2019.
11 Douglass J. Oregon lawmaker wants to end non-medical exemptions to school vaccine requirements. KATU2 Feb. 11, 2019.
12 MacReady N. Questionable Medical Exemptions for Vaccines Up After New Law in California. Emedicine health Oct. 29, 2018.
13 CDC. Recommendations and Guidelines of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Contraindications and Precautions. Table 4-2. Conditions incorrectly perceived as contraindications or precautions to vaccination (i.e., vaccines may be given under these conditions). Jan. 10, 2019.
14 Fisher BL. The New Internet Police Protecting You From Freedom of Thought and Speech. NVIC Newsletter Dec. 3, 2018.
15 Ad Age. Google, Facebook Queried on Anti-Vaccine Information by Democrat. Feb. 14, 2019.
16 Najera RF. Measles Epidemic Continues and Grows in Washington State, New Cases in Houston, Texas. History of Vaccines Feb. 6, 2019.
17 Newsday. End the religious exemption for vaccines in New York. Editorial Feb 8, 2019.
18 Fisher BL. Forced Vaccination: The Tragic Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. National Vaccine Information Center Nov. 2, 2016.
19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly Dec. 10, 1948.
20 National Archives. America’s Founding Documents: The Bill of Rights.
21 Annas GJ, Grodin MA. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code. Oxford University Press 1992.
22 U.S. Library of Medicine. Informed Consent – Adults. Medline Plus Jan. 28, 2019.
23 Fisher BL. Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination a Human Right? National Vaccine Information Center June 28, 2017.
24 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Educates One Million Plus in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. NVIC Newsletter Dec. 26, 2011.
25 National Vaccine Information Center. Flu Prevention Video. November 2011.
26 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Launches National “Know the Risks” Billboard Vaccine Education Campaign. Mar. 12, 2013.
27 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC’s “No Forced Vaccination” Message in Times Square, Philadelphia and New Jersey. Apr. 13, 2015.
28 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Back in Times Square for Christmas and New Year’s Eve. Dec. 17, 2015.
29 DHHS. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Vaccine Injury Compensation Data. Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) Feb. 1, 2019.
30 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Evaluation of Biologic Mechanisms of Adverse Effects: Increased Susceptibility. Chapter 3 (p. 82). Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press 2012.
31 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. NVIC Press Release Feb. 23, 2011.
32 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Position Statement on National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. May 2018.
33 Fisher BL. Guide to Reforming Vaccine Policy and Law. National Vaccine Information Center 2014, Revised 2017.

[onawah]

Is This the Beginning of the End for Quality Supplements? 7
BY ANH-USA ON FEBRUARY 14, 2019
http://www.anh-usa.org/is-this-the-b...y-supplements/

"A new announcement from the head of the FDA gives reason for concern. Action Alert!
Take action here: http://www.anh-usa.org/is-this-the-b...y-supplements/

Just a few days ago, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb released a wide-ranging statement about the FDA’s regulatory approach to dietary supplements. The statement was short on details, and without more explanation we see some potential causes for concern. Consumers who care about supplement access must be on alert and stay engaged in this process, given the agency’s demonstrated hostility towards the natural products industry.

Commissioner Gottlieb starts out by saying that he has personally benefitted from supplements, and as a physician recognizes the benefit of supplements for patients. So far, so good: we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he means what he says.

Commissioner Gottlieb goes on to discuss the prospect of “modernizing” the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Since the FDA cannot unilaterally change legislation, presumably he means working with Congress to change DSHEA. DSHEA set up the current framework for the regulation of supplements. Importantly, it said that supplements are food and would be regulated as such—not like drugs. This is crucial. If supplements were regulated like drugs, we would lose widespread access: supplements, being natural products, generally cannot be patented the same way drugs can and therefore, without that protection, they cannot afford to go through the expensive FDA approval. We’ve also been telling you about the back-channel at the FDA that allows Big Pharma to turn nutrients into drugs.

Could the FDA be preparing to work with Congress to make changes to DSHEA that further undermine supplement access and/or result in Big Pharma turning more of our valued nutrients into drugs? It is a possibility.

Especially concerning is a passing reference to amending DSHEA to allow for “supplement exclusivity.” No further explanation is offered, so it’s impossible to know precisely what Gottlieb means. ANH-USA met with FDA staff last year and discussed a number of issues that hamper innovation in the supplement industry and consumer access to important supplements, including how the FDA allows Big Pharma to turn nutrients into drugs. Supplement exclusivity sounds like monopoly and it makes no sense for the government to be promoting more of that.

If what Gottlieb means by “supplement exclusivity” is a similar “pay-to-play” scheme for supplements as there currently is for drugs, where a company could bring a supplement through an FDA approval process and be granted market exclusivity, this could be disastrous. We know from history that the FDA is focused single-mindedly on one thing: pre-approval of supplements based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—federal regulators even demand RCTs to back up health claims on food and supplements. Conducting the studies required for FDA drug approval is incredibly expensive: estimates range from $1 billion to almost $3 billion. If a “supplement exclusivity” system costs even one-tenth of the price of drug approval, it would still be too expensive for most supplement companies. Such an exclusivity system would likely be an option only for synthetic supplements owned by Big Pharma, the only entities capable of footing this considerable bill.

Furthermore, natural supplements cannot be patented the same way drugs can; a company may be able to patent a process, a proprietary method for producing a natural supplement, but they cannot patent a naturally-occurring vitamin and prevent other companies from making it. But if a company creates a synthetic version of a vitamin, they may be able to patent their proprietary formula and method. If that company then wins “supplement exclusivity” from the FDA, does that mean that similar natural forms of the vitamin will no longer be available? This is our major concern, and until we know more we cannot rule out this possibility.

Gottlieb also mentions the possibility of creating a mandatory listing requirement for the supplement industry—that is, requiring each supplement manufacturer to register all the products it makes, including all the ingredients of those products, with the FDA. The stated purpose for such a policy is to improve the FDA’s ability to “manage emerging risks” and to root out bad actors who sell dangerous products. These are undeniably laudable goals, but the FDA already has the authority to go after companies who break the law, as discussed further below.

The mandatory list is also a concern given the current state of the FDA’s “new supplement” guidance. This guidance, as we’ve discussed previously, seeks to impose drug-like pre-approval requirements on all “new supplements” that came to the market after 1994. In classic fashion, the FDA’s proposed definition of what it considers a “new supplement” is extremely broad and could encompass most of the products currently on the market. A mandatory list could then be used to target and eliminate supplements that have not yet complied with the FDA’s over-reaching policy.

To be clear, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with a mandatory list. The problem is with how the FDA will use it. Given the agency’s track record, we are forced to view the creation of such a list with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Other initiatives mentioned by Gottlieb are also worrisome. To ensure that the FDA is utilizing its resources “as efficiently and effectively as possible,” he mentions the creation of a Dietary Supplement Working Group at the FDA, which is tasked with “taking a close look at [FDA’s] organizational structures, processes, procedures and practices in order to identify opportunities to modernize our oversight of dietary supplements.” The FDA has also created the Botanical Safety Consortium which will “promote scientific advances in evaluating the safety of botanical ingredients and mixtures in dietary supplements.” The purpose of this consortium, according to Gottlieb, is to keep up with innovations in the supplement industry and to ensure the FDA can evaluate the safety of botanical ingredients.

There is nothing wrong with protecting consumers by evaluating the safety of ingredients—in theory. But, as we’ve seen with the FDA’s review process determining which dietary ingredients can be compounded, in which many objectively safe ingredients have been denied, the FDA doesn’t seem equipped to make good decisions about what is safe and what isn’t. Again, given the FDA’s deference to Big Pharma (pharmaceutical companies support the FDA through drug user fees) and the agency’s hostility towards supplements, we’re skeptical of the agency’s goals.

As a side note, much of this is reminiscent of Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) bill that we defeated in 2013. Sen. Durbin’s bill aimed to create a supplement registration (like the master list) so that the FDA, along with the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), could create a list of supplements that might lead to adverse events. At the time we said that this was a power-grab having very little to do with safety, and that the FDA’s bias against supplements and the NAM’s skewed, anti-science recommendations regarding supplements were reason enough to oppose such a measure. Recall that the NAM (then called the Institute of Medicine) once said that people up to age 70 don’t need more than 600 IU of vitamin D per day and that more than 4,000 IU is dangerous. Gottlieb is proposing the creation of a master list, a Botanical Safety Consortium, and an FDA Working Group on supplements. Will he take us down a similar path that Sen. Durbin tried to lead us down, and attempt to restrict therapeutic doses of supplements? We don’t know yet, but the danger is present.

Remember that the FDA already has the power to take products with illegal ingredients off the market, and it exercises this power—as it should. What’s being obscured in Gottlieb’s statement, and routinely throughout the media, is that the overwhelming evidence is that supplements are safe. Consider the following:

A recent report using data from two supplement manufacturers found that less than 1% of adverse events related to supplements are serious.
Our colleagues at ANH-International found that UK residents were about as likely to get struck by lightning as to die from taking supplements.
The American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Poison Data System (NPDS) releases an annual report that tracks deaths and serious adverse events as a result of poisoning from a wide variety of substances, including drugs and supplements. The most recent report found a total of 3 deaths related to dietary supplements in 2016.
Contrast that with the estimates that properly prescribed FDA-approved drugs cause an estimated 1.9 million hospitalizations and 128,000 deaths each year.
What these facts tell us is that supplement safety isn’t really an issue. If it’s not an issue, why does the FDA feel the need to revamp and “modernize” supplement regulation? If the FDA is working on implementing the reforms we brought forward, great. But our fear is that it’s nothing more than a power-grab to extend the agency’s control over the supplement industry, allowing the agency to further tip the scales in favor of dangerous and expensive drugs and, if our fears about “supplement exclusivity” are correct, low-quality, synthetic supplements Big Pharma is known for. To provide just a few examples, Pfizer owns the Centrum brand, which uses low doses of synthetic vitamins like E and C (ascorbic acid)—some variations of Centrum contain as little as 35 IU vitamin E. NatureMade is owned by Otsuka Pharmaceutical, which also uses synthetic E and C in its products. The same goes for Bayer’s One A Day line of multivitamins.

Low doses of cheap, synthetic versions of nutrients seems to be the industry standard for Big Pharma. Will these be the only products left when the FDA is done “modernizing” DSHEA? It is imperative that we defend quality, natural ingredients as well as therapeutic doses of those vitamins. We’ve highlighted these points in previous articles, but suffice it to say that high dose supplements impart benefits that are not possible at lower doses, such as high-dose vitamin C having heart-protective benefits and improved ability to fight off colds. Without high-dose vitamins, we lose these benefits.

This isn’t to say that the regulation of dietary supplements cannot be improved; there are a number of much-needed reforms, including fixing the disastrous new supplement (NDI) guidance, protecting and promoting free speech about supplement benefits, and preventing drug companies from turning supplements into expensive drugs, as they have with CBD oil and l-glutamine. All of these reforms and more are included in a legislative proposal we are currently drafting.

We will follow these developments closely and keep you updated. In the meantime, we must tell the FDA that we are watching, and they must not do anything to restrict consumer access to high-dose, quality supplements.

Action Alert! Write to the FDA and Congress, telling the agency not to make changes to existing supplement regulations that will result in a loss of access to quality dietary supplements. Please send your message immediately." http://www.anh-usa.org/is-this-the-b...y-supplements/