+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst 1 7 17 18 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 347

Thread: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

  1. Link to Post #121
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Monsanto's Mess--Four Signs Consumers Are Winning
    Quote When the colours turn grey and the lights all fade
    To black again
    We’re in over our heads
    But somehow we make it back again – lyrics from “Beautiful Mess”

    Next month will mark one year since Congress obliterated Vermont’s GMO labeling law and replaced it with its own faux-labeling measure. The DARK Act was an outright attack on consumer and states’ rights. Still, then-President Obama refused to veto it.

    We lost the right to labels on GMO foods. But we never lost our determination to expose Monsanto’s corrupt manipulation of government agencies, or the truth about just how harmful Roundup herbicide is to humans and the environment.

    Fast forward to today. Monsanto is facing down scores of lawsuits by people, or their families, who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup. Those lawsuits have led to revelations about possible collusion between Monsanto employees and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials to bury evidence of Roundup’s carcinogenicity.

    Meanwhile the EPA, perhaps fearing consumer backlash, refuses to rule on whether to renew the license for glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), even though we’re now nearly two years past the deadline.

    Food companies are being sued, too, when product testing reveals that brands labeled “100% Natural” contain glyphosate residues. And the Food & Drug Administration recently announced it will resume testing of consumer foods for glyphosate.

    Farmers are growing fewer GMO crops. Other countries are banning GMOs and glyphosate.

    It’s no wonder Monsanto can’t wait to hand over the keys to Bayer. Things are getting messy. For consumers and environmentalists, it’s a beautiful mess.

    Here are four signs we’re winning the battle against Monsanto.

    1. Court battles pull back the curtain on Monsanto’s corrupt activities. The fact that over 1,000 plaintiffs are involved in dozens of lawsuits alleging that exposure to Roundup caused them or their families to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (a potentially deadly cancer) is compelling enough. Especially when a mainstream media outlet like CNN, often silent when it comes to challenging the corporate establishment, takes notice. That in itself is a win for consumers.

    But the bigger win may be what those lawsuits are doing to shed light on Monsanto’s sustained campaign to bury the truth about its deadly products.

    In March, the New York Times, citing court documents, reported on possible collusion between former EPA officials and Monsanto employees to hide the facts about the health risks of glyphosate:

    The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

    The revelations confirmed consumer suspicions that Roundup isn’t “safe,” and validated the opinions of scientists who question its safety. They’ve triggered calls in Europe for further investigation.

    Reporters continue to scrutinize the MDL (multi-district lawsuits) documents unsealed so far (the judge in the case has since refused to unseal any further documents). US Right to Know’s Carey Gillam, who has been following the court documents closely, recently reported on her on a decades-old study, “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice,” uncovered during litigation but until now hidden from public view, that suggests Roundup causes cancer:

    The two-year study ran from 1980-1982 and involved 400 mice divided into groups of 50 males and 50 females that were administered three different doses of the weed killer or received no glyphosate at all for observation as a control group. The study was conducted for Monsanto to submit to regulators. But unfortunately for Monsanto, some mice exposed to glyphosate developed tumors at statistically significant rates, with no tumors at all in non-dosed mice.

    2. EPA forced to investigate Monsanto corruption. Thanks to the work of reporters studying court documents, the EPA has stepped in. On May 31, the agency’s inspector general responded to Rep. Ted Lieu’s (D-Calif.) call for an investigation into possible collusion between Monsanto and EPA officials. (Organic Consumers Association also called for an investigation. We haven’t heard back).

    The EPA may just be going through the formalities to appease Lieu and his constituents. But even if that’s true, it’s still a sign that consumers are getting through to an agency that has historically been aggressively pro-Monsanto.

    3. Consumers are fighting back through the courts, too. Monsanto and Big Food have long been allies in the campaign to hide GMOs, and the pesticides used to grow them, from consumers. Will the Junk Food Giants reconsider their position, if they, too, get dragged through the courts?

    The Organic Consumers Association, along with other groups, have been testing food products for glyphosate, and taking companies to court for falsely marketing their products as “natural” and “100% Natural.” Pending cases include the one against General Mills’ Nature Valley granola bars, and another against Sioux Honey. Both products contain glyphosate. (A recent study from Canada revealed glyphosate in 30 percent of the food products tested).

    And lest we forget, Roundup isn’t just sprayed on agricultural products—it’s a best-selling consumer product, too. Labels on Roundup sold in stores like Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, and online at Amazon, claim the product is safe for humans and pets. That’s not true—so we’ve sued Monsanto directly for false labeling.

    4. FDA resumes testing food for glyphosate. As the lawsuits flow, and more evidence comes to light about the toxic impact of glyphosate on human health (including bad outcomes for pregnant moms and their babies), the FDA has been shamed into testing foods for glyphosate residues—a project it had previously abandoned:

    The FDA, the nation’s chief food safety regulator, launched what it calls a “special assignment” last year to analyze certain foods for glyphosate residues after the agency was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office for failing to include glyphosate in annual testing programs that look for many less-used pesticides in foods. But the agency scuttled the testing after only a few months amid disagreement and difficulties with establishing a standard methodology to use across the agency’s multiple U.S. laboratories, according to FDA sources.

    The testing reportedly resumed in early June. It remains to be seen if the FDA will share, much less publicize, its findings—and whether the agency will continue to claim, as it has in the past, that glyphosate residues are “safe.” Stay tuned.

    Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.
    Each breath a gift...

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    BMJ (30th June 2017), Reinhard (19th June 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  3. Link to Post #122
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    California Proposes Safe Level for Roundup More Than 100 Times Lower Than EPA Limit
    Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor for Children's Environmental Health
    Wednesday, June 21, 2017

    Quote In a landmark rule with global repercussions, California state scientists are preparing to issue the world's first health guideline for Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide based on its cancer risk. The state’s proposed safe level is more than 100 times lower than the the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s legal allowance for the average-sized American​.

    Glyphosate is the key ingredient in Roundup, the most heavily applied weed killer in the history of chemical agriculture. Use of glyphosate has exploded in the last 15 years, as Monsanto has promoted genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds to grow crops that aren't harmed by the herbicide. In the U.S. alone, more than 200 million pounds of Roundup are sprayed each year, mostly on soybeans and corn.

    In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer – part of the World Health Organization, with no regulatory authority – reviewed human cancer studies and determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” to people. Based on that finding, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, announced its intention to add glyphosate to the state's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

    By itself, that listing would be a big blow to Monsanto, because it would require cancer warning labels on containers of Roundup and on foods that have high residues of glyphosate. Monsanto is appealing the decision in state court, but in the meantime the OEHHA has moved forward in setting a so-called No Significant Risk Level of the amount of glyphosate people could safely consume each day.
    Each breath a gift...

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    BMJ (30th June 2017), Reinhard (30th June 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  5. Link to Post #123
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Glyphosate linked to Autism
    Published on Jun 24, 2017
    This video used images copyrighted by Monsanto, and some from Dr. Seneff's presentations.

    Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at MIT (CSAIL)
    Her personal page: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
    Interview was recorded by phone on June 23, 2017, from 10:00 - 10:35 AM eastern time USA
    OTF2018: http://www.observatoryproject.com

    Quote This is an important interview by Suspicious0bservers with Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Since 2011, she has published over two dozen papers in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using Natural Language Processing techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health. Her impressive Bio can be seen here.

    She goes into great detail here into how glyphosate, the primary ingredient of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, RoundUp is her prime suspect as the underlying cause of autism and many other modern diseases which plague us today.

    Exposure to this probable carcinogen has become virtually unavoidable, as it’s embedded throughout the food chain. The US Geological Survey has found RoundUp in the air, rain, streams and surface water. Reuters reports that it’s in honey, soy sauce, flour and breast milk, to name a few. Consumer Reports has said that if we don’t know what other foods are contaminated or how much glyphosate we carry in our bodies, it is simply because we haven’t looked for it yet.
    Each breath a gift...

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    BMJ (30th June 2017), Reinhard (30th June 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  7. Link to Post #124
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination A Human Right?
    Posted: 6/28/2017 10:49:23 AM http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...man-right.aspx
    Quote Civil liberties.

    They include the legal right to exercise freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief. 1 2

    mom with child and doctor

    Protection of autonomy and bodily integrity includes the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking. 3 4 5

    What is informed consent?
    Informed consent means you have the legal right to be fully and accurately informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention, including a pharmaceutical product, and are free to make a voluntary decision about whether to accept the risk for yourself or your minor child without being coerced or punished for the decision you make. 6 7

    Informed consent has guided the ethical practice of medicine since the Doctor’s Trial at Nuremberg after World War II, where the informed consent principle was internationally acknowledged as a human right for individuals participating in scientific research. 8 9 Today, informed consent to medical risk taking also means you have the legal right to be fully and accurately informed by a doctor or medical facility about the benefits and risks of a lab test, surgical procedure, prescription drug or other medical intervention performed on you or your minor child and give your voluntary permission. 10 11

    Why is informed consent to vaccine risk taking a human right?
    Vaccines are biological products manufactured by pharmaceutical corporations. Like other pharmaceutical products, vaccines carry a risk of injury or death, which can be greater for some people than others, and often doctors cannot predict who will be harmed. 12 13

    mom with child and doctor
    One-size-fits-all vaccine policies and laws, which force you to risk your health or your child’s health without your voluntary, informed consent and with the threat of punishment for declining a vaccine, violate human rights. 14 15

    It is important to protect civil liberties, including the freedom to exercise voluntary, informed consent to medical risk taking. Without the legal right to protect autonomy and bodily integrity, without the legal right to freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief, we are no longer free. 16 17

    Within NVIC.org, learn more about vaccines, diseases and the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking.

    Empower yourself today with well-referenced information that can help you make educated decisions about vaccination.

    It’s your health. Your family. Your choice.
    Each breath a gift...

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    BMJ (30th June 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  9. Link to Post #125
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Parents and Pediatricians Need To Be Aware Of

    Quote Story at-a-glance

    Comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations revealed a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants receive. The U.S. requires the most vaccines and has the highest infant mortality
    Research shows the more vaccines an infant receives simultaneously, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to those receiving fewer vaccines
    The earlier in infancy a child is vaccinated, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to children receiving the same vaccines at a later time
    Here's What Happens When You Quit Smoking
    Tickle Your Taste Buds With This Guilt-Free, Good-for-You Green Dip Recipe
    By Dr. Mercola

    Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller,1 a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.

    Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including "Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?," "Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners" and, most recently, "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers."

    "Miller's Review," published in 2016, is a magnificent piece of work. In it, he reviews the concern about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies. The book doesn't review studies that support vaccination (almost all of which are funded by the industry and the government, by the way) as those studies are available on the CDC website.

    "I got started when my own children were born … over 30 years ago … When my wife was pregnant, I felt I had to do due diligence about vaccines. I have to be honest, though. Before I even started to research vaccines, my wife and I pretty much knew intuitively that we were not going to inject our children with vaccines.

    When I give lectures, I often tell people, 'How can you expect to achieve health by injecting healthy children with toxic substances?' I intuitively knew that … but still felt an obligation to do my due diligence and to do the research," Miller says.

    "The thing is that when I do things, I do them pretty thoroughly … I was doing my research at medical libraries. I was gathering everything and I started to collate it and coordinate it … People started to find out about the information I had organized. They were asking me about vaccines even way back then. I organized it into a booklet. I started to share that with people. Everything snowballed from that first booklet."

    Don't Believe the 'There's No Evidence' Argument
    "Miller's Review" was created in response to the common refrain that "there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective."

    "I hear this often," Miller says. "Parents come to me all the time, saying, 'My doctor told me that vaccines are safe and there are no studies that prove [otherwise].' I've been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document [concerns]. My books all document [those] studies."

    "Miller's Review" is unique in that it summarizes 400 studies in bullet points with direct quotes from the study — with one study per page — plus citations so that you can find and read the study in full should you decide to do so. All of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

    "These are valid studies by valid researchers in many journals that people have heard about — The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, all the mainstream journals (and some of the smaller journals, but they're still valid peer-reviewed studies) that show there are problems with vaccines: There are safety problems, there are efficacy problems.

    They're all in one place so that people, like doctors, can get this information all in one convenient place. This book has been very effective with medical doctors. When medical doctors who are on the fence, or who are pro-vaccine, get this book and read it, I hear back from parents that their doctor is no longer pressuring them to get the vaccines.

    Their doctor is now respecting their decisions to not vaccinate or to go to some sort of alternative vaccine schedule if that's the choice these parents make …

    I am all about having uncensored, unfettered access to all of the available information out there about vaccines. Not just what your medical doctor wants you to know. Not just what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know and not just what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is telling doctors to share with their patients.

    I want [parents] to be absolutely free to make a decision whether or not they want to vaccinate their children … It's really a human rights issue. It's really about the mandatory aspect of vaccines. I think all vaccines are problematic. I think this not just based on my own feelings, but based on the evidence I've researched over the years."

    Uninformed Decision-Making Is Part of the Problem
    Ultimately, every parent will make a decision about whether or not to vaccinate. The problem is, most of the time, it's an uninformed decision. An issue brought up in some of his earlier books is that there's been a deliberate misinformation campaign aimed at making you believe vaccines are far more effective than they actually are.

    For example, disease incidence data is used to suggest vaccines have dramatically reduced the incidence of a given disease, when in fact the disease rate had already declined by 90 percent, or more in some cases, before a vaccine was ever available. Measles has been problematic in developing nations, mostly because of malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, lack of clean water, sanitation and quick access to medical care. As these measures are addressed, the mortality from measles declines on its own.

    Vitamin A appears particularly important, and studies sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that high doses of vitamin A supplementation protect children against complications and death associated with the disease.

    "By the time the measles vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1963, by the late 1950s, the mortality rate from measles had drastically dropped. This was due to the [fact] that the population had gained protection against the more dangerous ravages of the disease. This happens with a lot of different diseases.

    In my book, I've got many different types of graphs and illustrations to help the reader understand the main points I'm making … [M]any of these graphs show that these diseases were declining significantly on their own, well before vaccines were introduced.

    For example, scarlet fever. Where did scarlet fever go? Why don't we see cases of scarlet fever when we didn't have mass vaccinations with a scarlet fever vaccine? That's an important point to be made."

    Many Childhood Diseases Are Protective Against Cancer
    Another significant point is there are dozens of studies demonstrating that contracting certain childhood diseases actually protects you against various types of cancer later in life — everything from melanoma to leukemia.

    It's important to realize that when you have a naturally-acquired infection, you're really exercising your immune system quite profoundly, developing authentic, lifelong immunity in the process, which is radically different from the type of artificial and temporary immunity you get from a vaccine.

    One of the reasons for this is because vaccines stimulate a completely different part of your immune system than does fighting off a naturally-acquired infection. There's even evidence suggesting childhood diseases help protect against future heart disease.

    "[A] Japanese study … looked at over 100,000 men and women of elderly age. They looked back at their history of catching these common childhood illnesses. Did they catch chickenpox, rubella, measles and mumps? What they found was it's actually protective against heart disease.

    You're protected against heart attacks and various types of arteriosclerotic disease of the artery systems. It's protecting the arterial system so that you are protected not only — when you catch these diseases — from cancers, but from heart disease, heart attacks and strokes as well … There are different theories on why that takes place. But the important thing is that study after study confirms that it takes place."

    Vaccines Create Problematic Mutations
    Another vaccine-related problem that many are completely unaware of is the fact that vaccines cause mutations in the disease-bearing microorganisms, much in the same way antibiotics cause bacteria to mutate. The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), for example, has caused the pertussis microorganism, Bordetella pertussis, to mutate and evade the vaccine. The same thing happened with the pneumococcal vaccine and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.

    "They're finding, for example, when you've got a vaccine that targets only certain strains of disease where multiple strains are actually causing the disease, the vaccine is pretty effective at reducing the incidence of disease from that particular strain. But what happens is the other strains come and take their place … They come back even stronger.

    That's what [happened] with Prevnar, a vaccine for pneumococcus, pneumococcal disease. All infants that receive vaccines according to the CDC's standard immunization schedule receive a pneumococcal vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. That vaccine only targeted seven strains. Pneumococcal has 90 different strains capable of causing pneumococcal disease.

    They were pretty effective at reducing the amount of disease caused by the pneumococcal strains targeted by the vaccine. But what happened within just a few short years, the other strains became more prevalent … taking the place of the original strains [and] they became more virulent.

    They came out with a new vaccine in 2010 … to deal with the vaccine losing its efficacy because of what I just explained. The new vaccine included the original seven strains plus six additional strains, the ones that were causing most of the pneumococcal disease now. Within two years of the new upgraded, updated pneumococcal vaccine, the strains had already mutated … "

    Tragically, parents are being blamed and harassed for many of these vaccine failures. Parents are being told that if you don't vaccinate your kids, you are responsible for spreading the disease. That's the idea the CDC, the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry are promoting.

    However, if you actually read the studies, you'll find what the scientists know —the real problem is evolutionary adaptation. Dr. Meryl Nass expounded on this issue in a 2013 interview. The microorganisms adapt. "What's happened with pertussis [is] the pertussis microorganism has changed. It's now not only become more virulent; it's become more prevalent," Miller explains. "It's evaded the actual vaccine."

    Herd Immunity Cannot Be Achieved Through Immunizations
    Another core argument for mass vaccinations is achieving herd immunity. Miller believes, and I agree with this belief that herd immunity may never be achieved through vaccination because high vaccination rates encourage the evolution of more severe disease-causing agents. In a vaccinated population, the virulence increases due to selective pressure, as the pathogen is strengthened and adapts in its fight for survival against the vaccine.

    Meanwhile, in an unvaccinated population, the environment actually promotes lowered virulence, as the pathogen does not want to kill its host. A wise pathogen is one that's able to infect many hosts without killing them, because when the host dies, the pathogen loses the environment upon which its own survival depends.

    However, once the disease organism mutates and becomes more virulent within the vaccinated population, it raises the stakes not only among the vaccinated but also among the unvaccinated, who are now faced with a far more virulent foe than normal.

    "In terms of herd immunity, you not only have … this selective pressure that's keeping you from being able to achieve herd immunity (because the microorganisms are always attempting to evade the vaccine), but pertussis vaccine is only 60 percent effective. That's with the best estimates. And that's only for a couple of years.

    Studies show that even after three, four or five years, you're back to almost no efficacy whatsoever, almost back to the pre-vaccine period.

    How can you expect to achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60 percent effective? You can vaccinate 100 percent of the population and you cannot achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60 percent effective. Influenza vaccines — many years, these vaccines are not good matches for the circulating virus — so you have zero percent efficacy. In the best years, you only have 30, 40 or 50 percent efficacy."

    Studies Show Vaccinations Increase Infant Mortality
    One of the tenets of conventional medicine is that if you vaccinate a population, everyone is going to be healthier. There will be less disease. But when you compare vaccination rates and health statistics, you find the converse is actually true. This is some of the most compelling information Miller shares in his book.

    For example, when comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations, they found a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants received. Developed nations like the United States that require the most vaccines tend to have the highest infant mortality. You can read this study here.2

    "I'm the lead author on that study, actually. My co-author was Gary Goldman [Ph.D., who] worked for the CDC for seven years. He quit when he found that the CDC was not allowing anything detrimental [to get out]. Goldman found problems with the chickenpox vaccine and wanted to publish that data. The CDC said, 'We're not going to allow you to do that.' That's when Goldman quit …

    Goldman and I did two peer-reviewed studies … The children in the United States are required — if they follow the CDC's immunization schedule — to receive the most vaccines in the developed world, actually throughout the world. Globally. Twenty-six vaccines. Other developed nations require less.

    Some nations only require 12 vaccines — Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland and other European nations — yet they have better infant mortality rates. That's what our study looked at. [V]accines are promoted as being lifesaving. They're given to children to protect them against dying from infectious diseases.

    We gathered all the immunization schedules from the 34 nations [and found] the United States had the 34th worst infant mortality rate ... It had the worst. Thirty-three nations in the developed world had better infant mortality rates. We did the study and we found what many people would find to be a counterintuitive relationship.

    We found a statistically significant relationship. There was a direct correlation between the number of vaccines that a nation required for their infants and the infant mortality rate. The more vaccines that a nation required, the worse the infant mortality rate."

    Why Is This Not Front-Page News?
    Many naïvely believe that if all of this is true, if vaccines truly were doing more harm than good, it would be front-page news. The reason you rarely if ever hear anything about studies such as this one is because the vaccine industry has an iron grip on the information being publicly disseminated. Collusion between federal regulatory agencies, the government and the industry is just one of several hurdles preventing this kind of information from being widely known.

    You have individuals like Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed up the CDC and was in charge of infectious disease recommendations for seven years before moving on to become president of Merck Vaccines, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world. That's just one of many dozens of examples of this revolving door, which in turn has led to the breakdown of true science-based medicine.

    "We have a serious problem where top scientists admit that they drop data points from studies that they've been influenced by the people who are funding their studies to sometimes not publish the study because it didn't come up with the results they wanted, and so on," Miller says.

    "We have a serious problem with the pharmaceutical industry controlling which studies get published. Also, there's a serious problem because the pharmaceutical companies are controlling the advertising dollars that go out to the major media.

    Mainstream media makes approximately 70 percent of its income from pharmaceutical ads. They do not want to publish or promote anything, even in their newscasts that would be critical of vaccines because it could compromise their potential to keep bringing in these millions of dollars they make every year from the pharmaceutical companies."

    The greatest, most serious problem we currently face is the concerted push to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions. For example, to go to school in California, you now have to be fully vaccinated. No exemptions are allowed, which is really a violation of human rights.

    Giving Multiple Simultaneous Vaccines Is Extremely Risky, Study Shows
    The second study3 Miller and Goldman published analyzed nearly 40,000 reports of infants who suffered adverse reactions after vaccines. Here, they found that infants given the most vaccines were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die compared to those who received fewer vaccines.

    It's worth noting that this data was obtained from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) database, a passive reporting system, and that research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50 to 1.

    What this means is that when you find one report in VAERS, you have to multiply that by 50 to get closer to reality because, on average, only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported. Doctors have a legal obligation to report side effects to VAERS, but they don't, and there are no ramifications for failure to make a report. Parents can also make a report to the database, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction.

    At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. Miller and Goldman downloaded this database and created a program to extract all the reports involving infants. In all, they extracted the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines.

    They then created a program that was able to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction, and stratified the reports by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place. They specifically honed in on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here's what they found:

    Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
    Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
    Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were "off-the-charts" statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
    Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age
    Childhood Vaccination Schedule Is Based on Convenience, Not Science or Safety
    As noted by Miller:

    "The industry, the CDC and Dr. Paul Offit tell us that you can take multiple vaccines. Offit said you could theoretically take 10,000 vaccines at one time; that an infant can be exposed to that many pathogens simultaneously without hurting the child. The CDC's immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age.

    I ask parents, 'When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time? … If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?' Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity … What this study confirms is that it's a dangerous practice to give multiple vaccines simultaneously.

    The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say '[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months' because it's convenient. They're afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].

    They said, 'We're going to make this schedule based on convenience.' Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There's nothing scientific about the CDC's recommended immunization schedule. We've shown it with our study …

    We also showed that children who received vaccines at an earlier age are statistically significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive it at a later age. We divided it up to children who receive their vaccines in the first 6 months of age versus children who receive their vaccines in the last six months of infancy.

    Again, off-the-charts statistically significant, it's much more dangerous to give younger infants multiple vaccines than to give older infants multiple vaccines. This makes sense because they're giving the same dose to a newborn or a baby that might be 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 pounds at 2 months of age versus a child who might be 15 or 17 pounds … at a later age."

    More Information
    You can find "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers" on ThinkTwice.com. This book is an invaluable resource for parents who want to do their due diligence before making up their mind about whether or not to vaccinate their children. On his website, you will also find his other books, along with studies and publications relating to vaccine safety and efficacy concerns.

    Another resource is the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). NVIC is leading the charge when it comes to educating the public about efforts to impose mandatory vaccinations, and how to preserve our health freedoms on the local, state and federal levels.

    Ultimately, everyone will have to make a choice about vaccinations. They key is to make it an informed one — to understand and weigh the potential risks and benefits. To do that, you need access to both sides of the debate, and Miller has done us all a great favor by making the largely hidden side of the equation more readily accessible.
    Each breath a gift...

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Franny (18th July 2017), william r sanford72 (17th July 2017)

  11. Link to Post #126
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    More important to use ineffective and contaminated cancer-causing vaccines than take them off the market, says doctor
    Posted by: Dena Schmidt, staff writer in Vaccine Dangers July 1, 2017

    (NaturalHealth365) As far back as the early 1960s there was evidence of vaccines being pushed upon the public without full disclosure of their potential risks. Several vaccines in widespread use were found to be contaminated with cancer causing compounds like SV-40.
    However, as shocking as this may be to read, they continued to be administered a full three years after the cancer evidence was detected. In fact, government health agencies did everything they could to suppress the truth and keep the public in the dark about the dangers.
    The following video includes several disturbing news items from the 1960s and 70s. They describe how vaccines like the flu shot, adenovirus inoculation in soldiers and widespread polio vaccines could have caused cancer in millions of Americans.
    In 1971, the Federal Communicable Disease Center admitted that the flu vaccine was ineffective at recommended doses, and potentially harmful at higher doses.
    Four scientists who helped to create the flu shot in the 1960s also said that these vaccines were ineffective and even refused to give them to their own family members. These scientists were either reassigned or left their positions. Their negative assessments of the flu shot never received public attention.
    Some may have received a double dose of cancer causing compounds in vaccines
    The adenovirus vaccine given to soldiers to fight upper respiratory issues was found to contain a cancer-causing contaminant. It was eventually taken off the market – but not until three years after the division’s own scientists had pointed out the danger.
    Dr. Frederick Murray of the Division of Biologic Standard defended the delay in taking a cancer causing vaccine off the market. He said it took three years to complete the testing, and that during this time it was “more important to offer the vaccines than to take them off the market and remove the (cancer causing) agent.”
    Other vaccines such as the polio shot were also linked with cancer. It was determined that in 1961 numerous batches of the polio vaccine were contaminated with SV-40, a harmful compound linked with cancer in both laboratory animals and humans.
    Research also showed lab animals that received both the contaminated polio immunization and the flu shot were at a much higher risk for cancer. It’s likely that many people received this double dose of cancer causing contaminant during the 1960s and 70s.
    Cover-ups related to vaccine side effects, cancer and other conditions continue today
    This tendency of government agencies and big pharma companies to suppress information about vaccines has not changed. Dr. Judy Mikovits is a molecular biologist and biochemist and with over three decades of esteemed experience in the vaccine research field. Dr. Mikovits knows first-hand how government health agencies actively work to keep the public uninformed about the dangers of vaccines.
    Dr. Mikovits has studied cancer, HIV, autism and chronic fatigue syndrome with over 50 peer-reviewed articles published. In 2011, Dr. Mikovits discovered that an alarming 30 percent or more of vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses, which can contribute to autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. Yet, most of her work is actively being suppressed to this day.
    When will vaccine makers start treating consumers with respect, compassion and “The Golden Rule”?
    Dr. Andrew Wakefield warned Dr. Mikovits that coming forward with these results would make her a target, just as he’d been. After facing threats, being fired and facing false charges and a gag order for four years, she is now sharing what she’s learned about the grave threats some vaccines hold.
    The technology now exists to clean up contaminated vaccines. Dr. Mikovits continues to fight for safer vaccines that are free of neurotoxins and gammaretroviruses. She also advocates the cessation of vaccinating newborns and infants, and a more sensible approach to vaccine use overall.
    Editor’s note: Click here to gain FREE access to the Vaccine World Summit – the world’s first online summit dedicated to vaccine safety news, infectious disease solutions and the latest advances in immune protective protocols.
    ( I'm officially on sabbatical, but am taking today to tie up loose ends and tomorrow will go on sabbatical in earnest. )
    Each breath a gift...

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (5th July 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  13. Link to Post #127
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    July 13, 2017

    Quote The Neo-Liberal propaganda-
    comedy of John Oliver, Stephen
    Colbert and Trevor Noah
    demonstrates the stranglehold that
    the Corporatist-Fascist agenda now
    has on pop culture. An example of
    this is shown here of John Oliver
    sniping at Robert F Kennedy Jr
    over his very valid concerns about
    the mercury-based preservative
    used in many vaccines, Thimerosal.

    Kennedy recently appeared on Tucker
    Carlson's show to rebut the savaging
    that he'd received by Oliver. Although
    otherwise healthy, Kennedy suffers
    from spasmodic dysphonia (aka
    laryngeal dystonia), a rare neurological
    disorder that causes involuntary spasms
    of the vocal cords, so I am transcribing
    their conversation here.

    The segment opens with the abysmal
    John Oliver clip, followed by a clip of
    Kennedy giving a speech, in which he
    says, "For 33 years, I've been working to
    get mercury out of fish. Nobody as ever
    called me 'anti-fish' and because I want
    mercury out of vaccines, I should not be
    called 'anti-vaccines.'"

    Carlson, conservative pundit and father
    of four children then asks, "As someone
    whose bonafides as a Democrat and a
    Liberal are unimpeachable, and yet, they
    piled on you - why? Why is raising
    questions about the safety of vaccines
    a no-go zone on the Left?"

    Kennedy responds, "It's not consistent
    with the traditional Liberal posture of
    skepticism towards large corporate
    power and particularly the pharmaceutical
    industry and government agencies. The
    CDC has been characterized in at least 4
    Federal studies as a cesspool of corruption
    because of its pervasive interactions -
    entanglements, I should say - with the
    vaccine industry...

    "The CDC vaccine branch...is really a
    subsidiary of the vaccine industry. It
    sells $4.1 billion worth of vaccines a
    year. It spends about $4.6 billion,
    about half of its budget promoting
    vaccines and it only spends $20 million
    testing vaccines (!)...I've been meeting
    recently with the heads of various
    Federal agencies and one of the
    shocking things about vaccines is that
    there's very little safety testing.

    "If you have a normal drug, let's say
    Vioxx or Viagra, if you want to bring that
    to market, typically, FDA requires you to
    do double-blind placebo studies, so you
    take 9,000 people, give them a pill and
    9,000 people and give them a pill that's
    identical except it's sugar and you watch
    them, typically for 5 years and you see if
    there's harm. But with vaccines, all of
    those requirements are waived."

    When Carlson asks Kennedy if he is getting
    paid for his advocacy, Kennedy responds,
    "I'm not. In fact, I'm getting unpaid for
    this! It's been probably the worst
    career move I've ever made! But it's
    deeply concerning to me. If you look at the
    vaccine schedule, [it] was expanded
    dramatically in 1989. In 1987, Congress
    passed a law giving blanket immunity from
    liability to vaccine manufacturers. So,
    suddenly, vaccines became pay dirt. It
    was a gold rush to put vaccines on the

    "I got 3 vaccines when I was a kid and I
    was fully compliant. My children got 69
    vaccines. Today, children get 74 vaccines.
    74 shots of 16 vaccines. And nobody has
    ever tested what all of those vaccines do
    together. And in fact, many of the vaccines
    have not been tested, at all for the illnesses
    that are associated with them."

    Carlson then says, "I don't know what the
    answer is but I know what the questions
    ought to be and you always have a place
    on this show to ask them," to which
    Kennedy responds, "That is very kind
    and courageous of you because, as you
    know, most television hosts will not let
    you on to talk about this issue. On the
    evening news, typically 17 out of 24
    advertisements are pharmaceutical
    advertisements and most hosts are
    frightened of that. So, I'm very grateful
    to you for your willingness [to have
    me on]."
    Each breath a gift...

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Baby Steps (17th July 2017), william r sanford72 (17th July 2017)

  15. Link to Post #128
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Owen Shroyer and Jon Rappoport oF Infowars: America’s Children Need Your Help!
    By Kent Heckenlively, JD

    Quote Last week I put out a plea to twenty-five leading individuals with knowledge of vaccine injury to help with my White House petition for a FIVE YEAR MORATORIUM ON CHILDHOOD VACCINES.

    At the top of my list were Owen Shroyer and Jon Rappoport of Infowars. I did this for a very specific reason, combining a relatively young truth seeker, with a more experienced veteran.

    About Owen Shroyer…

    For Shroyer, who is one of the leading lights of Infowars, you might be surprised to learn he has taken the “red pill“ (Matrix reference), relatively recently, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. In listening to Shroyer, it is clear he understands what is at stake in the vaccine issue.

    As something of a veteran in this fight I have to say I am pleased at what I see as an emerging libertarian streak in this generation. I especially like the libertarian philosophy as it allows one an ideological basis to attack the lies of the left and right. As an attorney, this comes naturally to me. We are taught to follow principles, not personalities.

    There is a reason all dictators throughout history have wanted to “first, kill all the lawyers.” We are trained to follow the law, without fear or favor. Tyrants of all persuasions fear lawyers.

    About Jon Rappaport…

    By contrast, Jon Rappoport (also a contributor to The Bolen Report), is a more seasoned hand.

    In 1982, the LA Weekly submitted his name for a Pulitzer prize, for his interview with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus. He has also run for Congress and started “The Great Boycott” against eight corporate chemical giants: Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, and others, which continues to this day. He is a prolific writer and commentator, although since 2000 he has largely operated away from the mainstream media, because as he says, “My research was not friendly to the conventional media.” I have also heard him speak about vaccines on Infowars and he knows the very fate of humanity is at stake in this issue.

    Here is my petition on the White House web-site:


    American children are in crisis with an explosion of once-rare neurological problems like autism and seizures.

    Recent scientific evidence has shown massive contamination of vaccines with unsuspected chemical and biological agents. Other evidence shows dramatic differences in in health outcomes between vaccinated and un-vaccinated children. In order to remedy this we ask the White House to:

    ONE: Impose a five year moratorium on all childhood vaccines from birth to age eighteen.

    TWO: Repeal the 1986 National Childhood vaccine injury Act and return vaccines to the traditional civil justice system.

    THREE: Perform large scale studies of vaccinated and un-vaccinated children.

    FOUR: Ban direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers and allow such advertising only to medical professionals.

    I need 100,000 signatures by August 2, 2017. I am ready to fly out to Texas to appear live on your show or appear remotely through Skype.

    I estimate that this measure will save at least 250,000 children from developing autism and 15,000 babies from dying of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. And when the world sees these dramatic improvements in children’s health, there will be NO GOING BACK. BIG PHARMA will forever be changed into little pharma.

    Here is the link:


    Thanks to Tami Canal of March Against Monsanto for being the first on my list to publicize this effort. For the rest of you, I’m still waiting for a response. Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, where are you on this?

    By Kent Heckenlively, JD

    Kent Heckenlively is the author of INOCULATED: How Science Lost its Soul in Autism, available on Amazon and at Barnes&Noble.com
    Each breath a gift...

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (21st December 2017)

  17. Link to Post #129
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Monsanto's Army of Online Bullies
    (Today's newsletter from Institute for Responsible Technology)
    by Jeffrey Smith
    Quote There are hundreds, possibly thousands of them—paid to bully, shame, and endlessly argue with anyone posting a comment deriding GMOs or pesticides. And when a high-profile person stands up to Monsanto’s technology, watch out. The trolls swarm in and gang up.

    Take Marion Nestle, for example. When a GMO propaganda film called Food Evolution purposely quoted her out of context, she demanded that her 10-second clip be removed. Nestle’s blog was then ambushed with 870 comments by Monsanto’s minions, forcing her to block all comments from her site, Food Politics.

    The presence of a troll army was revealed during the on-going lawsuit against Monsanto over the cancer-causing properties of their herbicide Roundup. The lawyers wrote:

    “Monsanto even started the aptly-named “Let Nothing Go” program to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.”

    Scientists Attacked

    The legal brief also points out that, “Monsanto quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the ‘Genetic Literacy Project’ and the ‘American Council on Science and Health,’ organizations intended to shame scientists . . .”

    As a frequent target of these groups, I know well their unethical bullying tactics. And so too do the scientists who discover evidence that GMOs are harmful.

    World renowned biologist Arpad Pusztai, for example, was pummeled by the biotech machinery when he accidentally discovered that GMOs caused massive damage to rats in just 10 days. In the late 1990s. he led a team that was designing test protocols to be used by European authorities to evaluate GMO safety. His research, however, revealed that the generic process of creating a GMO caused dangerous and unpredictable side-effects that might already be eroding the health of consumers. Because his shocking discovery could have destroyed the entire GMO industry, they came after Pusztai with far more than just a shaming campaign. Within days, his employer of 35 years terminated his contract. Pusztai’s 20-member team was dismantled. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. And the biotech industry and pro-GMO UK government unleashed a campaign to destroy his reputation.

    Although Pusztai was the first scientist to undergo this type of industry battering, many others have since been targeted. One told me that these types of attacks have deterred hundreds of other scientists from doing research on GMOs.

    The online bullies have a similar intimidating effect. Their well-chosen words are sharp and condescending, designed to scare away others from making comments—lest they become the next target.

    The folks at the International Fitness Profesionals Association learned this the hard way. After posting what they considered to be a balanced article on GMOs, a troll got wind of it, posted a negative comment on the Pro-GMO FB site “We Love GMOs and Vaccines,” and asked his comrades to also make comments. The trolls swarmed.

    They not only challenged the GMO article, they attacked the integrity and reputation of the organization. And of course, the trolls avoided commenting on details about GMOs, since they would quickly lose that argument with anyone familiar with the science. Facts are not their strong point. They prey on emotions.

    Standing up to the Bully

    Bullying and shaming can traumatize. In schools, online, at work, they have damaged and destroyed lives. It works. That’s why the biotech industry uses them.

    Before discussing what to do, the first step is how to feel. The answer: INVINCIBLE!

    After reporting for years about Monsanto’s strong-arm tactics, I finally became their target about eight years ago. Rather than feeling hurt or depressed, I felt uplifted. I viewed their baseless attacks as a badge of honor. I was now such a threat to their business dealings around the world, they invested a significant amount of money trying to distort my work and discredit me.

    I considered whether I should spend time countering their spin to set the record straight, but soon realized that it was a black hole that would suck up my life. After all, why would I want to write posts to correct the views of the handful of people who wander onto their site, when I could reach millions of others with real information.

    And so I smile, shake my head, and don’t even bother to read their posts about me. We’re winning the battle against GMOs and soon these bounty hunters will be hired by the next toxic industry.

    That’s right, I said we are TOTALLY WINNING. Mainstream food companies in the US are falling over themselves to remove genetically engineered ingredients in order to boast a Non-GMO label. With 57% of surveyed Americans saying that they are concerned about the health impacts of GMOs, we are now the majority. We have the average American on the right side of this issue.

    And that’s why Monsanto has unleashed its online army. It’s a last-ditch attempt to turn the tide.

    So, if you get a troll on your case or see one doing their dark dance on someone else’s post, feel GREAT! Let it remind you that our collective work sharing the truth about GMO dangers has been so successful, we are seeing the dying embers of a desperate and failing industry.

    And have absolutely no anxiety or concern about any details of their accusations. They will portray themselves as mainstream, pretending to have logic and science on their side. They will appear absolutely sure of themselves. And their colleagues will give them support.

    It’s their game. It’s just a game. It means nothing. And by the way, we have become the mainstream in this argument (finally).

    So What Do We Do? Strike Back!

    Arguing with a professional GMO huckster is hopeless. Forget about it. (Or as my NY colleagues say: fugedabowdit.)

    If you are in charge of the website or account, just delete their comments. Don’t waste the time or damage the emotions of your readers. Replace their mindless ramble with a statement like:

    We just found a Monsanto troll! That’s right. Monsanto hired and trained an online army to attack anyone who dares to reveal the dangers of GMOs and pesticides like Roundup. Their campaign is called “Let Nothing Go.” So we deleted a post that had all the markings of a troll: It was emotionally bullying or shaming. It used talking points made popular by Monsanto’s PR companies, including myths like GMOs feed the world, increase yield, reduce pesticide use, or are proven safe. And it was clearly uninformed. So it was either posted by a paid troll, or worse yet, some poor person who actually believes and emulates them. Read more about the GMO trolls and GMO dangers in general.

    If you can’t delete the offending post, here’s a similar type of statement you can post in response:

    Looks like we’ve found a Monsanto troll! If you haven’t heard, Monsanto hired and trained an online army to attack anyone who dares to reveal the problems with GMOs and pesticides like Roundup. Their campaign is called “Let Nothing Go.” You can decide for yourself if this is one of Monsanto’s minions. The tone of the trolls are typically emotionally bullying or shaming. They claim the high ground, pretending that science is on their side. They often roll out one of the many talking point myths made popular by Monsanto’s PR companies, pretending that GMOs feed the world, increase yield, reduce pesticide use, and are proven safe, etc. And they are clearly uninformed. So either this is a troll, or worse yet, some poor person who actually believes and emulates them. Read more about the GMO trolls and GMO dangers in general.

    If they engage you in an online argument (and if they’re a troll, they or their friends will) you can ignore the baseless claims and just use the opportunity to post links to one of the many informative articles that shreds Monsanto’s myths. Find lots of stuff to post at ResponsibleTechnology.org or on our Facebook page. Please subscribe to our newsletter and like our page so we can get you more ammunition—and stories of success.

    This is a time to celebrate our victories, but we can’t let up. Let’s nail the coffin shut on this dangerous and irresponsible use of genetic engineering and protect future generations. With life itself at stake, we can withstand the buzzing of a few online gnats.

    Safe eating and posting.

    Jeffrey Smith
    Each breath a gift...

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (21st July 2017), Bob (7th August 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  19. Link to Post #130
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Glyphosate warning: Unfavorable birth outcomes for moms exposed to Roundup
    Posted by: Dena Schmidt, staff writer July 24, 2017
    Quote New data was recently presented at a children’s health conference warning the public about the grave dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in weed killers like Roundup and similar herbicides.
    When glyphosate gets into the systems of expectant mothers, the risk of a number of adverse outcomes rises. These include lower birth weight, shorter gestation times and additional risks to the health of both the child and the mother.
    Babies exposed to glyphosate at increased risk for neurodevelopmental issues
    The recent study looked at 69 expectant mothers receiving prenatal care at an Indiana obstetric practice. Glyphosate was detected in the urine of 63 of the 69 pregnant women – a stunning 91 percent. It was also found that the presence of glyphosate made it far more likely that they would have unfavorable birth outcomes.
    The women were tracked over two years and it was determined that high amounts of glyphosate were linked with much shorter pregnancies as well as babies with low birth weights. These factors are known to give children a more difficult start in life and raise the risk of neurodevelopmental issues and other health problems going forward, even into their adult years.
    The research is part of an ongoing project overseen by the Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN). This group has been studying the impact of herbicides on reproductive health as well as newborns and young children.
    A growing mountain of evidence about the dangers of glyphosate in Roundup and other herbicides
    It was also determined that women who resided in rural areas tended to have higher glyphosate levels than those who lived in urban or suburban neighborhoods. It’s no surprise that living close to areas where soybeans and corn are grown and treated with herbicides containing glyphosate dramatically increases the risk of exposure to these chemicals.
    Based on their findings, the researchers call the effects of glyphosate exposure a “huge issue.” This is the first study of its kind to assess the effects of herbicides like Roundup on the health of expectant mothers and their children.
    In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) named glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen.” Past studies have also connected glyphosate with cases of multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In addition, chronic glyphosate exposure – even at low doses – has been linked to kidney and liver problems.
    Monsanto and the EPA continue to downplay glyphosate dangers
    Exposure to the weed killer, sold under the brand name Roundup, can cause DNA adducts – an alteration in the genes that’s linked with an increased cancer risk. Monsanto, maker of the Roundup product, has since tried to discredit these findings despite strong evidence of the health risks. In fact, the New York Times reported on the collusion between Monsanto and the EPA to suppress findings linking glyphosate to a higher cancer risk.
    No doubt, the dangers of glyphosate keep piling up. The government and Monsanto need to stop undermining testing efforts and start taking action that’s in the interest of public safety. For now, you can minimize your glyphosate exposure by always eating organic and staying clear of farms where these toxic substances are sprayed.
    Sources for this article include:
    Each breath a gift...

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bob (7th August 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  21. Link to Post #131
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Bill calling for first ever federal vax/un-vaxxed study
    Autism Action Network
    US Take Action: Bill calling for first ever federal vax/un-vaxxed study
    Basic questions never asked and never answered

    Believe it or not a study comparing the overall health of a vaccinated population and an unvaccinated population has never been done in the United States. US Representative Bill Posey just introduced H.R. 3615 a bill which directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services "to conduct or support a comprehensive study comparing total health outcomes, including risk of autism, in vaccinated populations in the United States with such outcomes in unvaccinated populations in the United States, and for other purposes." We believe such a study is long overdue and you have to wonder why such a study was never done.


    Please click on the Take Action above to send a message to your member of the House of Representatives asking him or her to co-sponsor Rep. Posey's H.R. 3615. A message will also be sent to your two US Senators from your state asking them to introduce a similar bill in the US Senate.

    The number of vaccines given to American children has quintupled since 1986 when doctors and vaccine companies were given complete legal immunity from any injury caused by a vaccine. Since then we have seen an explosion in the prevalence of a wide range of pediatric disorders associated with immune system dysfunction including diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, allergies, asthma, ADHD, as well as autism. Yet the US has never taken a hard look at the health outcomes with a vaccinated and unvaccinated population.

    Here is a video of Rep. Posey trying to extract confirmation from Dr. Colleen Boyle, Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, that these studies have never been done at a hearing of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on November 29, 2012.
    Each breath a gift...

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bob (7th August 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  23. Link to Post #132
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    My interview with CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson: not fake news
    by Jon Rappoport
    Quote I’m reprinting an excerpt from an interview I did, several years ago, with former CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson.

    It’s a reminder about the difference between fake and real news, and about who the major purveyors of fake news are.

    It also reveals a familiar strategy major news outlets deploy, when they happen to publish a true story and then realize its explosive implications: they shut down all further investigation. They close the book.

    Here is the piece in full:

    Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re aware that a film, Vaxxed, has been showing in theaters across America and overseas—and audiences are stunned by its revelations.

    Vaxxed exposes a huge scandal at the CDC, where a long-time researcher, William Thompson, confessed (2014) that he and colleagues committed gross fraud in a study of the MMR vaccine.

    Thompson admitted the evidence showed the vaccine led to a higher risk of autism in children—but that finding was intentionally buried, and the vaccine was given a free pass.

    Of course, mainstream reporters have been mercilessly attacking Vaxxed, and a segment of the population finds it impossible to believe that the CDC would ever commit this kind of fraud.

    So, as a mind-changer, let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

    The problem was, the CDC was concealing another scandal.

    At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

    Understand that the CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

    What was the Agency up to?

    Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

    Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

    Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

    —end of interview excerpt—

    It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

    That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

    But it gets even worse.

    Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

    Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

    Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

    In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

    There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

    Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

    So…the premise that the CDC would never lie about important matters like, oh, a vaccine increasing the risk of autism…you can lay that one to rest.

    The CDC will lie about anything it wants to. It will boldly go where no person interested in real science will go.

    It will completely ignore its mandate to care about human health, and it will get away with it.

    And CBS will conveniently forget how it aided and abetted the CDC, by censoring real news, and instead opted for egregious and titanic fake news.
    Each breath a gift...

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Franny (4th January 2018), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  25. Link to Post #133
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Register to see 7 part documentary Truth About Vaccines free online 8/17
    Quote We brought together 60 of the world’s top health experts to bring you…
    “The Truth About Vaccines”
    Register NOW and you’ll be first in line to see the entire 7-part series – for free – series begins August 17th!
    Each breath a gift...

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    East Sun (4th January 2018), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  27. Link to Post #134
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines


    by The Vaccine Reaction Staff
    Published August 9, 2017

    "The mandates were first proposed following a measles outbreak that prompted a travel warning by the U.S. and amid a public scandal involving a nurse who had claimed to be vaccinating children for years but had not."
    Quote Following a hotly contested public debate, the Italian parliament has given final approval to a law mandating full compliance with government-sanctioned vaccines for all school children in Italy up to 16 years of age.

    Under the new ruling, small children without the proper documentation will be denied access to preschool, and parents of children legally required to attend school could face fines of up to €500 (about $590).1 Before the law was passed, there were reports the fines could reach approximately €7,094 ($8,380) and that repeat offenders may face the possibility of losing custody of their children.2

    The vaccine mandates, which were signed into law on July 28, 2017 by a vote of 296 to 92, include requirements for vaccination against measles, rubella, chickenpox, tetanus, diphtheria, polio, and hepatitis B and are expected to be implemented beginning in September 2017.3 The original list included 12 vaccines, but meningococcal B and meningococcal C were dropped from the final law.4

    According to Italian government reports, the ruling is meant to offset what it calls “misinformation about vaccines,” which government sources say has led to a decline in Italy’s vaccination rate in the 20 years since the repeal of school vaccination mandates. The current vaccine mandates were first proposed following a measles outbreak that prompted a travel warning by the U.S. and amid a public scandal involving a nurse who had claimed to be vaccinating children for years but had not.5

    Many people in Italy strongly disagree with the new law and an intense public debate has ensued, with tens of thousands of Italians taking to the streets in cities throughout the country to protest what they believe is government overreach and a violation of their informed consent rights.6
    1 Associated Press. Italy to Make all Childhood Vaccinations Mandatory. Business Insider July 28, 2017.
    2 Livesay C. Amid Measles Outbreak, Italy Makes Childhood Vaccinations Mandatory. NPR June 19, 2017.
    3 AP. Children in Italy Have to Be Vaccinated or They Can’t Go to School: Government. Global News July 28, 2017.
    4 Barry C (AP). Italy Approves Hotly Contested Mandatory Vaccine Program. U.S. News & World Report July 28, 2017.
    5 Italy Makes 12 Vaccines Mandatory for School-Age Children. U.S. News and Special Reports. May 19, 2017.
    6 Fisher BL. Vaccine Freedom Marches Across Italy Highlight Global Vaccination Agenda. The Vaccine Reaction June 20, 2017.
    Each breath a gift...

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Franny (4th January 2018), Houman (11th August 2017), Nasu (11th August 2017), william r sanford72 (11th August 2017)

  29. Link to Post #135
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    EPA Allowing Widespread Use of Unapproved Pesticides, Study Finds
    December 12, 2017
    Quote The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely been allowing use of unapproved pesticides under the pretext of an "emergency" when no actual emergency exists, according to an analysis released Monday by the Center for Biological Diversity.

    The abuse of the emergency provision has created a loophole allowing the widespread use of unapproved pesticides, year after year, across millions of acres in ways that are either known to be harmful to wildlife or haven't been tested to be safe.

    In one case the EPA has granted 78 "emergency" exceptions over the past six years for a well-known, bee-killing pesticide called sulfoxaflor, allowing its use on more than 17.5 million acres of U.S. farmland.

    "It's disgusting to see the EPA's broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry," said Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program. "These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal."

    The EPA has the authority to OK temporary emergency use of unapproved pesticides if the agency determines the pesticide is needed to prevent the spread of an unexpected outbreak of crop-damaging insects, for example.

    But the Center for Biological Diversity's analysis shows the EPA's routine use of the emergency provision has allowed pesticide manufacturers to bypass the typical pesticide approval process, resulting in poisons with either known or undetermined risks being applied across millions of acres of crops.

    The 78 emergency exceptions for sulfoxaflor are notable because previous approval for its use on cotton was cancelled by a federal judge in 2015 due to sulfoxaflor's potential harm to pollinators, and it has never been approved for use on sorghum, which is attractive to bees. Yet the EPA granted every single requested emergency exemption for the pesticide's use on sorghum and cotton. The EPA has not released any information regarding bee die-offs or pollinator impacts as a result of these widespread exemptions.
    Each breath a gift...

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (21st December 2017), East Sun (4th January 2018), Franny (4th January 2018), Hervé (21st December 2017), william r sanford72 (21st December 2017)

  31. Link to Post #136
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Bill Gates, are vaccines a “miracle” over disease and a “fantastic investment”… — or a disaster for child health that may break the bank?
    JANUARY 03, 2018
    Quote By World Mercury Project Team
    Bill Gates is fond of using his bully pulpit to talk about “miracles” and “magic.” Gates has featured one or both words in nearly all of his annual wrap-up letters for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017), most often in reference to the Gates Foundation’s outsized financial and ideological support for global vaccine programs. As Gates says, “In the same way that during my Microsoft career I talked about the magic of software, I now spend my time talking about the magic of vaccines.”

    Gates’s words give us an immediate clue that he is engaging in his own brand of magical thinking—which social scientists define as “illogical causal reasoning.” How else to explain his simplistic endorsement of vaccines as a miraculous intervention with unmitigated benefits and no down side? The Gates Foundation’s global spreadsheet appears to have no room to tally the massive flood of vaccine injuries afflicting children worldwide, despite abundant evidence that this damage is standing the vaccine risk-benefit calculus on its head and turning childhood into an extended round of Russian roulette.

    Let’s report history accurately
    In a widely cited 2014 blog post on the “miracle of vaccines,” Gates expressed enthusiasm about the “inspiring” data on vaccines and the “fantastic” and “phenomenal” progress being made to expand vaccine coverage. There is one major problem with Gates’ professed reliance on “data,” which is that the philanthropist ignores fundamental historical facts governing infectious disease and vaccine timelines.

    There is one major problem with Gates’ professed reliance on “data,” which is that the philanthropist ignores fundamental historical facts governing infectious disease and vaccine timelines.
    Vital statistics data reveal that in the U.S. and elsewhere, fatalities from diseases such as scarlet fever—in the absence of any vaccine—had become quite rare by the mid-20th century. Mortality from infectious diseases such as measles and whooping cough (pertussis) also had declined rapidly, well before the introduction of the corresponding vaccines (see Figure 1). A meticulous review of U.S. mortality data from 1900–1973 concluded:

    “Medical measures [such as vaccines] contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900—having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in.”

    The same researchers, in another article, chastised the medical establishment for its misplaced confidence in “magic bullets” (there is that word “magic” again!). Instead, if the decline in infectious disease incidence and mortality in the last century represented any kind of “miracle,” the phenomenon was, by all honest accounts, attributable to classic and long-term public health measures such as better sanitation and, especially, improved nutrition. A study of 20th-century mortality trends in Italy found a significant association between increased caloric intake and declining mortality, reflecting “progress in average nutritional status, lifestyle quality, socioeconomic level and hygienic conditions.” Moreover, mortality dropped most sharply in Italy’s youngest age groups—who were “probably the most sensible to the changes in nutrition and wellness.” Even early 20th-century epidemiologists who were inclined to give some credit to vaccines recognized that other factors were at play, including changes in “human resistance and bacterial quality” as well as factors yet to be determined.

    Figure 1. U.S. mortality rates, 1900–1963Source: Data compiled from the National Office of Statistics.

    Oh miracle, where art thou?
    Even if one leaves 20th-century vital statistics behind, there is a glaring piece of evidence that gives the lie to Bill Gates’ disingenuous assertions about vaccine miracles: vaccines are not actually making or keeping children healthy. Instead, in the U.S. (where children are the most highly vaccinated in the world), over half of all young people have a chronic illness—a trend that coincides with the expansion of the nation’s vaccine schedule. Similar patterns of chronic illness are emerging worldwide, including for potentially life-threatening conditions such as food allergies and asthma.

    …there is a glaring piece of evidence that gives the lie to Bill Gates’ disingenuous assertions about vaccine miracles: vaccines are not actually making or keeping children healthy.
    The World Mercury Project’s Campaign to Restore Child Health has been documenting parents’ first-hand accounts of serious adverse outcomes experienced by their children following vaccination. These testimonials, which represent the tip of the iceberg, cover a panoply of disorders that were rare or even unheard of a few decades ago:

    Thirteen percent of U.S. children are in special education.
    One in six American children has a developmental disorder such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
    Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects nearly 11% of American children.
    One in 20 children under the age of five has epilepsy.
    Peanut allergies are the most common cause of food-related death.
    Women who receive flu and Tdap vaccines during pregnancy are at greater risk of miscarriages and other problems.
    Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal or other infections (PANDAS or PANS) may affect as many as 1 in 200 children in the U.S., including up to 25% of children diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and tic disorders.
    Sensory processing disorder (SPD) often co-occurs with ADHD and ASD.
    In the U.S., the infant mortality rate, including from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), is double the rate in many other high-income countries. In Africa, a comparative study in Guinea-Bissau found that infant mortality was at least twice as high (10%-11%) in children who received the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and polio vaccines as in children who did not receive the vaccines (4%-5%).
    …large foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation exert influence not just through their “enormous resources” but also “by shaping development concepts and policies.”
    Cui bono?
    A recent German report on global philanthropy observes that modern philanthropy has its roots, first and foremost, in business tycoons’ self-interested desire to shield income from taxation while “garner[ing] prestige and influence in the U.S. and world affairs.” The report’s authors note that large foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation exert influence not just through their “enormous resources” but also “by shaping development concepts and policies.” The Gates Foundation—established in 2000 with an initial endowment of $42.9 billion and amplified by an additional $30 billion from Warren Buffet in 2006—has become the world’s leading global health player as well as the largest non-state funder of the World Health Organization (WHO). As a result of the Gates Foundation’s “tremendous agenda-setting power,” the global health community designated 2010–2020 as the Decade of Vaccines; developed a Global Vaccine Action Plan; and created the public-private Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI Alliance), which receives almost one-fourth of its funding from the Gates Foundation.

    While Gates has rhapsodized that vaccines are a fantastic investment, the vaccine industry, in fact, is a primary beneficiary of Gates Foundation largesse. According to the German analysts, for example, the Gates Foundation’s support of the GAVI Alliance has incentivized manufacturers to increase production of specific vaccines. These incentives have resulted in payments of over $1 billion to Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Some reporters have described this arrangement as “a leg-up for pharmaceutical companies ‘seeking to expand into faster-growing, lower-income countries.’” However, as the German report notes, the non-governmental organization Doctors without Borders (MSF) has questioned the GAVI Alliance’s overall impact on vaccine affordability, stating that “the cost to fully immunize a child was 68 times more expensive in 2014 than it was in 2001.”

    The German analysts and others have outlined key features of the Gates Foundation’s close partnership with the pharmaceutical industry, including the revolving door between the staff of the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GSK…
    The German analysts and others have outlined key features of the Gates Foundation’s close partnership with the pharmaceutical industry, including the revolving door between the staff of the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GSK; the preponderant focus of the Foundation’s largest global health awards (20/50 or 40%) on research and development of new vaccines and drugs; and the Foundation’s $52 million equity stake in CureVac (a German pharmaceutical company) to speed up development of mRNA-vaccines. The Gates Foundation also has increased its direct support for the biotechnology industry, which is of considerable relevance to the vaccine industry due to the rapidly increasing use of biotech in modern vaccine manufacturing. Recent articles have pointed out, moreover, that the Gates Foundation routinely pays public relations firms to manipulate scientific decision-making in favor of the risky genetic engineering technologies that the Foundation supports.

    What these observations make apparent is that Bill Gates’s vaccine philanthropy indeed represents a “miracle”—but the miracle’s beneficiaries are the corporations and stockholders who are laughing all the way to the bank, and certainly not the children and adults around the world who are bearing the brunt of unsafe vaccines. Dr. Arata Kochi, the WHO’s former director of malaria research, chose to call a spade a spade in 2008 when he described the Gates Foundation as a cartel that suppresses diversity of scientific opinion and is “accountable to no one other than itself.”

    Sign up https://worldmercuryproject.org/ for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
    Each breath a gift...

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    East Sun (4th January 2018), Ewan (1st March 2018), Franny (4th January 2018), Hervé (12th March 2018)

  33. Link to Post #137
    Avalon Member East Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2010
    Cape Cod MA USA
    Thanked 4,037 times in 1,046 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines


    Gates = Reptilian mind.

    Check out David Icke's work.

    I highly recommend his latest book,
    especially if you have not read any
    of his previous books.
    Last edited by East Sun; 5th January 2018 at 17:59.

  34. Link to Post #138
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Not so Surprising Reason for Toxic Water Crisis--it's glysophate, of course!
    Quote Story at-a-glance
    Phosphorus is a known driver of toxic blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, as they use it readily for fuel
    Glyphosate is a synthetic phosphonate herbicide and cyanobacteria can utilize the phosphonate portion of the glyphosate molecule for “food”
    Toxic algae may be thriving, in part, due to increasing usage of glyphosate, which was found to be likely to stimulate algal blooms
    Glyphosate is also capable of releasing phosphorus from the soil and spikes in dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) runoff have increased with increased use of glyphosate
    By Dr. Mercola

    If you live near a lake in the U.S., you may have noticed signs warning of toxic blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria. Such warnings, advising swimmers and boaters to stay out of the water, and keep pets away as well, are becoming increasingly common as the thick, green muck appears on once-pristine waterways. Blue-green algae make up a portion of the phytoplankton in many bodies of water,1 and they're not inherently dangerous or even altogether unusual.

    According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), fossil evidence suggests blue-green algae have been around for millions of years, with algal blooms dating back to the 12th century. However, the agency notes, "[I]t is possible that the frequency and duration of blooms are increasing in some Wisconsin waters as a result of increased nutrient concentrations."2

    The problem of increasing algal blooms is not unique to Wisconsin — it's happening all over the U.S., particularly in agricultural areas where the use of phosphorus-based fertilizers is prolific.

    Phosphorus is a known driver of blue-green algae, as they use it readily for fuel. Researchers have uncovered another, relatively surprising, source of phosphorus that also appears to be driving the toxic algae growth to unprecedented levels — glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide.

    Glyphosate May Be Driving Up Rates of Toxic Algae
    Glyphosate is a synthetic phosphonate herbicide and is the most heavily used agricultural chemical of all time. In the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of the chemical have been applied since 1974.3 It was long believed that plankton could not access phosphonates like glyphosate as a fuel source, but in 2009 R. Michael McKay and George Bullerjahn of Bowling Green State University in Ohio showed that this is not the case.

    Instead, they found that cyanobacteria can utilize the phosphonate portion of the glyphosate molecule.4 In a report released by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — the Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force Final Report — it's stated, "The researchers estimate that as much as 1,000 metric tons [about 2.2 million pounds] of Roundup is applied to Lake Erie's watershed per year, and it is being detected in adjacent waterways particularly in the spring."5 Bullerjahn further stated in an Ohio State University news release:6

    "It turns out that many cyanobacteria present in Lake Erie have the genes allowing the uptake of phosphonates, and these cyanobacteria can grow using glyphosate and other phosphonates as a sole source of phosphorus."

    Lake Erie has been struggling with algae blooms due to manure, sewage and fertilizer runoff, as well as runoffs from glyphosate applications, leading to contaminated drinking water and fish die-offs for decades. Algae-triggered "dead zones" in the lake are now larger than they've been since the '80s and cover 25 percent of the entire lake.7 Further, in 2017 the lake's algal blooms were recorded as the third-largest on record.8

    Spikes in Phosphorus in Lake Erie Watershed Linked to Planting of GE Crops
    Adding to the evidence that glyphosate could be playing a role is research by Ohio Northern University chemist Christopher Spiese and colleagues, who suggested that spikes in dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) runoff that have increased since the mid-1990s coincided with an increased use of glyphosate.

    At the 2016 Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference, Spiese shared the results of his study, which found a significant correlation between DRP loads and the number of acres planted with herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops (which are heavily sprayed with Roundup). "For every acre of Roundup Ready soybeans and corn that you plant, it works out to be about one-third of a pound of P coming down the Maumee [watershed and into Lake Erie]," Spiese told Sustainable Pulse.9

    Spiese also found that glyphosate is capable of releasing phosphorus from the soil and conducted studies to see what happens when soil samples were applied with phosphorus and then sprayed with glyphosate. Some of the samples showed significant phosphorus release, with "hot spots" likely contributing a significant amount of DRP. Sustainable Pulse reported:10

    "Based on the average two glyphosate applications growers make every year, Spiese estimates that overall, 20-25% of the DRP runoff is caused by glyphosate. But depending on the location within the watershed, that percentage could be much lower or much greater."

    In February 2016, the U.S. and Canada announced plans to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering Lake Erie by 40 percent by 2025,11 but it's seeming increasingly clear that reaching this goal must take into account not only fertilizer runoff but also glyphosate applications. The problem has gotten so bad in the area that even drinking water has been affected.

    In 2014, citizens in Toledo, Ohio, were warned not to drink their tap water as it was found to contain significantly elevated levels of microcystins, caused by algae blooms in Lake Erie.12 Microsystins are nerve toxins produced by some blue-green algae that can cause fever, headaches, vomiting and seizures.

    The city and surrounding areas became the first to report drinking water-associated outbreaks caused by harmful algal blooms, as highlighted in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) November 2017 surveillance for waterborne disease outbreaks report.13

    "The cyanobacterial toxin microcystin caused the largest reported toxin contamination of community drinking water in August 2013 and September 2014 and was responsible for extensive community and water disruptions," the CDC noted.14 The agency is now tracking harmful algal blooms (HABs) via its One Health Harmful Algal Bloom System (OHHABS), calling them an "emerging public health issue."15

    Toxic Algae Using Toxic Roundup for Food
    In short, it appears that toxic algae are thriving, in part, due to increasing usage of glyphosate. In another report by Bullerjahn and colleagues, it's noted that, "Glyphosate is a phosphonate that can be used by cyanobacteria as a source of phosphorus" and is 'likely to stimulate algal blooms."16

    Interestingly, separate research published in 2016 also revealed that glyphosate has an effect on phytoplankton — in some cases leading to its growth and in other cases proving to be toxic or having no effect. Writing in PLOS One, the researchers explained:17

    "[G]lyphosate could be used as P-source by some species while is toxic to some other species and yet has no effects on others. The observed differential effects suggest that the continued use of glyphosate and increasing concentration of this herbicide in the coastal waters will likely exert significant impact on coastal marine phytoplankton community structure."

    Unfortunately, glyphosate is but one agricultural chemical that is wreaking havoc on lakes, streams and other bodies of water. Runoff from synthetic chemical fertilizers as well as the excessive amounts of manure from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that's often sprayed onto farm fields are also highly problematic. In fact, an AP investigation revealed alarming trends, including that levels of nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer runoff are getting higher in lakes and streams.

    Further, despite government agencies spending billions of dollars to help farmers prevent fertilizer runoff and circumvent the problem, algae blooms are getting worse instead of better.18 Overall, the EPA states that about 15,000 water bodies have been identified that have "nutrient-related problems,"19 and many more probably have yet to be identified.

    Outside the U.S., meanwhile, algal blooms spanning thousands of miles have been recorded in China and Australia, while microcystin has been detected in more than 240 bodies of water in Canada. In Greece, Italy and Spain, algal blooms are also a problem and estimated to cost the economy $355 million annually.20

    The Problem With Toxic Algae
    Blue-green algae is smelly and can lead to discolored, foul-tasting water, but that's just the start. One way blue-green algae become toxic is by virtue of its thick density, which blocks light and can deplete oxygen in the water, leading to dead zones. Wisconsin DNR explained:21

    "[W]hen blue-green algae reach bloom densities, they can actually reduce light penetration, which can adversely affect other aquatic organisms both directly (e.g., other phytoplankton and aquatic plants) and indirectly (e.g., zooplankton and fish that depend on phytoplankton and plants) … When a blue-green algae bloom dies off, the blue-green algae cells sink and are broken down by microbes.

    This breakdown process requires oxygen and can create a biological oxygen demand. Increases in biological oxygen demand result in decreases in oxygen concentration in the water, and this can adversely affect fish and other aquatic life, and can even result in fish kills."

    The other major problem stems from toxic chemical compounds that are naturally produced by some types of blue-green algae. Harmful to humans, pets and marine life, the toxins may lead to skin rashes and respiratory issues, and, should they get into an open wound, may even lead to a staph infection.22 A type of cyanobacteria called microcystis are nerve toxins that may lead to nausea, vomiting, headaches, seizures and long-term liver disease if ingested in drinking water.23

    Researchers are also looking into whether another toxin, BMAA (Beta-N-Methylamino-L-alanine), in blue-green algae may be linked to neurological diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease).24

    You can be exposed to algae toxins via direct contact with the water or algae, breathing in the toxins in the air or even by eating fish or shellfish that have eaten toxic algae.25 What makes toxic algae even more troubling is that you can't tell which types are toxic by looking at them. Wisconsin DNR continued:26

    "These [toxic] chemicals are not produced all of the time and there is no easy way to tell when blue-green algae are producing them and when they are not. When the cells are broken open, the toxins may be released. Sometimes this occurs when the cells die off naturally and they break open as they sink and decay in a lake or pond.

    Cells may also be broken open when the water is treated with chemicals meant to kill algae, and when cells are swallowed and mixed with digestive acids in the stomachs of people or animals. The only way to be sure if the toxins are present is to have water samples analyzed in a laboratory using sophisticated equipment."

    Changes in Agriculture Are Necessary to Stop the 'Green Plague'
    Many of the world's lakes are at risk due to agricultural chemicals feeding harmful blue-green algae. The answer, according to the researchers, is better land-use management that addresses fertilizer runoff. Dramatic reductions in synthetic fertilizer use are also recommended, and hopefully it won't be long until a similar recommendation is made for glyphosate as well.

    The effects of agricultural runoff on water quality are finally starting to be addressed in some areas, where farmers are trying new conservation methods to ward off toxic runoff and protect water quality. This includes strategies such as building "artificial wetlands and underground 'bioreactors' to capture nutrients in drainage systems," according to The Christian Science Monitor.27 Others have started using cover crops and no-till methods to slow fertilizer and pesticide runoff.

    On an individual level, you can help by buying food from organic farmers who are not using glyphosate and instead rely on natural methods and soil-regenerative techniques, such as no till, cover crops, composting and livestock integration. This will naturally help you to eat better too, since typically only real whole foods are grown this way (while most processed foods are the product of destructive industrial nitrogen fertilizer-laden and glyphosate-heavy agriculture).

    It's important to note that if you see signs warning of harmful algae blooms, stay out of the water and keep your pets out too. Even if there are no signs present, avoid entering water that smells bad, looks discolored or has foam, scum or algae mats on the surface.28 If you suspect there could be a problem, you're better off safe than sorry, and be aware that algae toxins can be present in the water even if there's no visible algae on the surface.

    In addition, avoid consuming any water that could be contaminated with algae toxins, even if the water has been boiled. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Boiling water does not remove algal toxins and can increase the amount of toxin in the water by concentrating it,"29 so you'll need to find an alternative source of water if an advisory is issued in your area.
    Last edited by onawah; 6th February 2018 at 23:12.
    Each breath a gift...

  35. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (11th March 2018), Ewan (1st March 2018), onevoice (1st March 2018), Paul (2nd March 2018)

  36. Link to Post #139
    Italy Avalon Member Rebecca's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th February 2018
    Washington, U.S.
    Thanked 1,878 times in 345 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Wow, I didn't know that glyphosate was the most toxic additive in our food supply. I knew it was something to avoid, yet I would often forget about it when consuming conventional oat products and other foods contaminated by glyphosate.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rebecca For This Post:

    avid (11th March 2018), Paul (2nd March 2018)

  38. Link to Post #140
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,605 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    The deeper reason for drug ads on television
    March 11, 2018
    by Jon Rappoport
    Quote Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

    Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

    Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

    What’s going on here?


    If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

    Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

    Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

    Control the news.

    There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:

    By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

    Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

    The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

    But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

    If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.


    That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

    It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?

    Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

    So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

    Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?

    Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”

    The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

    The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.

    The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.
    Each breath a gift...

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (11th March 2018), Hervé (12th March 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst 1 7 17 18 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts