+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst 1 8 17 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 336

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

  1. Link to Post #141
    Croatia Moderator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    Island Time
    Posts
    736
    Thanks
    8,392
    Thanked 3,659 times in 656 posts

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

    William Engdahl is one of the best researchers and writers on a variety of topics that are relevant today. Many excellent articles on his site and a new book is out:

    Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance

    George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984, is a masterful fictional account of a state which imposes cognitive dissonance on its citizens to control their perception of reality. It is summed up in the statement, “War is Peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.” The story of this book, Manifest Destiny, is an account of how agencies of US intelligence including the CIA and State Department, in collaboration with private “democracy” NGOs, developed and refined techniques of Orwellian doublethink or cognitive dissonance to create a series of regime changes around the world that sounded noble, democratic, but in reality were not...


    http://williamengdahl.com/englishNEO9Nov2017.php

    Now, on to the article...

    Killing Us Softly—Glyphosate Herbicide or Genocide?
    By F. William Engdahl
    9 Novemberr 2017

    One of the more bizarre actions in terms of the health and safety of EU citizens is the saga of Monsanto and its toxic herbicide or weed-killer, Roundup, the most widely used weed-killer on the planet. On October 25, 2017 the European Union Commission again announced that it lacked the necessary member state votes to approve a ten year license extension for weed-killer glyphosate. They will try again. Behind this seeming routine announcement is one of the hottest battles over food and human health the world has seen since the 1972 USA decision to ban spraying of deadly DDT pesticides on crops. This time the stakes go far beyond the ban on glyphosate. It affects the future of human fertility or lack of it. .

    In June 2016 the EU Commission made a rotten compromise to allow an 18 month extension of use in EU of glyphosate-based weed killers, during which time more scientific studies would supposedly clarify whether glyphosate was a carcinogen. It was the same member- states deadlock over whether to grant the toxic glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Roundup herbicide, a license renewal as we saw this October.

    In March 2017 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of the EU, issued a report stating that “available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria in the CLP Regulation to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or for reproductive toxicity.” The ECHA, based in Hensinki is a body created only in 2007 and established to monitor safe use of chemicals and to make information available rather than conduct its own tests on safety of chemicals. It made no independent study or tests to determine if glyphosate is or is not a probable carcinogen, a fact which Brussels and the pesticide industry slickly glosses over.

    In March 2015, the WHO’s Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which has such research competence, classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.”

    In October 2015 before the license expiry deadline, some 47 environmental, health and cancer organizations, scientists and doctors wrote an open letter to EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis calling on the Commission to ban glyphosate pending a full scientific assessment. The assessment that the EU Commission was using was provided by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), and was based on industry safety studies given to BfR by Monsanto and other industry sources.

    EU Corruption and human health

    The determination of “non-carcinogenity” for glyphosate by using the ECHA was an apparent political ploy by the corrupt EU commission to get another “yes” body to back their pro-glyphosate stance, a stance that benefits only Monsanto and other agro-chemical producers at the expense of human life and health.

    The source for both the EU’s European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency statements that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic, in contradiction to the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), is the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) responsible within the EU for the evaluation of glyphosate for the EU.

    According to stated EU regulations, a substance is to be considered carcinogenic if two independently conducted animal studies show an increased tumor incidence. In the case of glyphosate, at least seven out of twelve such long-term studies found an increased tumor incidence.

    A report by German toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing found that the EU bodies and the German body designated by the EU to evaluate the safety of glyphosate, the German BfR ignored those relevant studies. Clausing states, “BfR failed to recognize numerous significant tumor incidences, due to its failure to apply the appropriate statistical tests stipulated by the OECD and ECHA. BfR had instead relied on statistical tests applied by industry…” And the German BfR report was the basis for the later rubber-stamp determinations of EFSA and now of ECHA, the EU bodies entrusted with protecting the population from dangerous chemical toxins. Someone is being played for fools by Brussels, but the stakes involve far more in terms of human health and even human reproduction itself.

    Sperm disruptor?

    The dimensions of the human and animal exposure to the enormous quantities of glyphosate-based weed-killers in the world food chain are only dimly beginning to be appreciated. The reason is the enormous clout of the agro-chemical industry lobby around companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer AG, soon to be the owner of Monsanto. They have so far managed to use their financial resources and their legal resources to distort test results and to win regulatory approval from the demonstrably corrupt Monsanto-influenced Washington Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

    From there it has spread to the EU Commission and relevant agencies such as EFSA and European Chemicals Agency, this despite the overwhelming popular rejection of GMO crops.

    A recent study published by the Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology–a study given no visibility in mainstream media–sounds the alarm over the effects of long-term human exposure to glyphosate for the healthy production of human sperm, an issue that is beginning to be cause of great alarm across the western countries where chemical herbicides and pesticides are used in massive doses by agro-industry producers.

    The study, which definitely warrants major follow-up studies, found effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide after an 8-day exposure of adult rats, including

    “a significant and differential expression of aromatase in testis.” Aromatase is an enzyme responsible for a key step in the biosynthesis of estrogens according to Wikipedia, found among other locations of the body in the brain and in the gonads, and is an important factor in sexual development. The authors concluded that, “The repetition of exposures of this herbicide could alter the mammalian reproduction.”

    Ample tests now exist, independent of Monsanto and other corrupt industry sources demonstrating to an alarming degree that the exposure of human and animal species to glyphosate-based herbicides or weed-killers can cause cancer tumors but can also be damaging to human sexual reproduction, that is, as in the future of the human species.

    Other tests have revealed presence of significant amounts of glyphosate from spraying of weed-killers in major portions of the population in the United States where Monsanto Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed-killers are used in massive doses in agriculture as well as in home gardens. A study of urine samples of willing volunteers seeking to know if they had glyphosate exposure by the University of California at San Francisco found glyphosate in 93% of the urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB. The highest levels of glyphosate were found in the American West and Midwest, the heart of US agribusiness farming. The US-based Detox Project which published the study notes that “Glyphosate has never been studied by regulators or the chemical industry at levels that the human population in the U.S. is being exposed to–under 3 mg/kg body weight/day. This is a huge hole in the risk assessment process for glyphosate, as evidence suggests that low levels of the chemical may hack hormones even more than high levels…many toxic chemicals have as much or even more of an influence on our health at low doses– these chemicals are known as hormone hackers or endocrine disruptors. “

    Isn’t that what eugenics advocates such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, the Rockefeller family and more recently Britain’s Prince William are cheering for? Culling of the human herd so that the wealthy have more wildlife species?

    Frederick Osborn, first President of John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council, and a founding member of the American Eugenics Society, formulated the problem the eugenics advocates around Rockefeller, people who financed Nazi eugenics research in Berlin, faced after the horrors of the Nazi extermination camps was uncovered and their inhuman experiments in eugenics of killing off inferior human beings as defined by the Third Reich.

    In a 1956 article in the Rockefeller-financed Eugenics Review, “The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters…. We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong? We have all but killed the eugenic movement.” Osborn had a ready answer: people for some reason refused to accept that they were “second rate” compared to Osborn, Rockefeller, Sanger and their “superior class.” As Osborn put it, “We have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. People are simply not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation…. They won’t accept the idea that they are in general second rate….”

    The refusal of Monsanto, a company founded in World War I as part of the Rockefeller network of war chemicals makers, and which numbered a Rockefeller on its board until recently, to remove glyphosate-based Roundup, or even to allow independent testing of its “trade secret” adjuvants that by some estimates make the glyphosate 2000% more toxic, has more to do with that long-standing Rockefeller eugenics agenda of killing off or “culling” the human herd than with corporate profit. Prince William’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in an interview in 1988 with a German press agency declared, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Hmmmmm…





    F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

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

    avid (12th March 2018), Ewan (12th March 2018), Foxie Loxie (12th March 2018), Hervé (12th March 2018), Michelle Marie (17th April 2018), onawah (13th March 2018), Paul (13th March 2018), Reinhard (12th March 2018)

  3. Link to Post #142
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,240
    Thanks
    57,306
    Thanked 90,590 times in 14,934 posts

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

    The many ways glyphosate (active ingredient of the infamous Roundup herbicide) affects the general health of all living organisms on this planet...

    Listen to this MP3 interview of Dr. Stephanie Seneff whose studies traces many chronic illnesses and weird "epidemics" of diseases (beside autism) to glyphosate:

    https://media.sott.net/srn/20180309h...nie-seneff.mp3
    (right-click to download and "Save as...)

    and watch this video as well for a layman summary of these studies:

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (12th March 2018), Bob (12th March 2018), Foxie Loxie (12th March 2018), Franny (12th March 2018), Michelle Marie (17th April 2018), onawah (13th March 2018), Paul (13th March 2018)

  5. Link to Post #143
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,240
    Thanks
    57,306
    Thanked 90,590 times in 14,934 posts

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

    It's gone beyond "America"... it's now a generalized poisoning of the planet:

    German Beer Industry in Shock Over Monsanto Glyphosate Contamination

    By Sustainable Pulse
    Global Research, March 28, 2018

    Sustainable Pulse 25 February 2016



    The Munich Environmental Institute (Umweltinstitut München) has released shocking results (February) of laboratory testing it has completed on 14 of the most sold beers in Germany. The probable carcinogen and World’s most used herbicide – glyphosate – was found in all of the 14 beers tested.
    German Beer – Glyphosate Testing Results:
    Hasseröder Pils – 29,74 μg/l (ppb)
    Jever Pils – 23,04 μg/l
    Warsteiner Pils – 20,73 μg/l
    Radeberger Pilsner – 12,01 μg/l
    Veltins Pilsener – 5,78 μg/l
    Oettinger Pils – 3,86 μg/l
    König Pilsener – 3,35 μg/l
    Krombacher Pils – 2,99 μg/l
    Erdinger Weißbier – 2,92 μg/l
    Paulaner Weißbier – 0,66 μg/l
    Bitburger Pils – 0,55 μg/l
    Beck’s Pils – 0,50 μg/l
    Franziskaner Weißbier – 0,49 μg/l
    Augustiner Helles – 0,46 μg/l
    In 2015 the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC declared that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

    The German Brewers’ Association, reacted by calling the study by the Munich Environmental Institute “not credible”, but admitted that low residues of the probable human carcinogen glyphosate could not be prevented, because “the herbicide is now found virtually everywhere after decades of use in agriculture”.

    Sustainable Pulse Director Henry Rowlands stated Thursday:
    “Stone-Age industry funded science suggested that the higher the dose of a chemical the more dangerous it was, however modern independent science has discovered that many toxic chemicals have as much or more of an influence on our health at low doses– these chemicals are known as hormone hackers (endocrine disruptors).

    “A study from March 2015 stated that the health costs to the European Union of hormone hacking chemicals is over $ 150 Billion per year! The study stated that lower IQ, adult obesity and 5% or more of autism cases are all linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors.

    “Glyphosate is likely to be one of these hormone hacking chemicals according to independent science. Find more information on this here.”
    The original source of this article is Sustainable Pulse
    Copyright © Sustainable Pulse, Sustainable Pulse, 2018
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ewan (29th March 2018), Flash (29th March 2018), Foxie Loxie (29th March 2018), Michelle Marie (17th April 2018), Paul (30th March 2018)

  7. Link to Post #144
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    11,862
    Thanked 7,724 times in 1,233 posts

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

    This post by William R Sanford72 deserves some attention.

    Please visit for further links.

    Quote After more than 40 years of widespread use, new scientific tests show formulated weedkillers have higher rates of toxicity to human cells

    US government researchers have uncovered evidence that some popular weedkilling products, like Monsanto’s widely-used Roundup, are potentially more toxic to human cells than their active ingredient is by itself.

    These “formulated” weedkillers are commonly used in agriculture, leaving residues in food and water, as well as public spaces such as golf courses, parks and children’s playgrounds.

    The tests are part of the US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) first-ever examination of herbicide formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate, but that also include other chemicals. While regulators have previously required extensive testing of glyphosate in isolation, government scientists have not fully examined the toxicity of the more complex products sold to consumers, farmers and others.

    Monsanto introduced its glyphosate-based Roundup brand in 1974. But it is only now, after more than 40 years of widespread use, that the government is investigating the toxicity of “glyphosate-based herbicides” on human cells.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Flash (8th May 2018), onawah (10th May 2018), Paul (9th May 2018)

  9. Link to Post #145
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Good News! Judge Rules Non-Profits Can Sue Monsanto for Misleading Labeling of Popular Herbicide Roundup
    May 6, 2018
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/pre...bicide-roundup
    Quote Washington, DC- Beyond Pesticides (BP) and The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today responded to a federal judge’s ruling against Monsanto Co.’s motion to dismiss the groups’ lawsuit, filed in April, 2017.

    Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, the lead plaintiff in the case, said:

    “In the face of EPA’s poor regulation of pesticides, misleading pesticide product labeling cannot be left unchecked. The court’s decision to allow our case to move forward, in denying Monsanto’s motion to dismiss, is critical to showing that the company is deceiving the public with a safety claim on its Roundup (glyphosate) label. Its advertising and labeling claim that Roundup ‘targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets’ is false, given the devastating harm that glyphosate has on beneficial bacteria in the gut biome. The disruption of the gut biome is associated with a host of 21st century diseases, including asthma, autism, bacterial vaginosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Crohn’s disease, depression, inflammatory bowel disease, leaky gut syndrome, multiple sclerosis, obesity, Type 1 and 2 diabetes, and Parkinson’s.

    “The science on the hazards of Roundup (glyphosate) are clear and Monsanto officials know it. With this case, we seek to ensure that the public is not misled by false advertising and product labeling in the marketplace. It is a critical step toward ensuring that people are fully informed before purchasing toxic products that can poison them, their families, and the communities where they live.”

    OCA International Director, Ronnie Cummins said:

    “Monsanto aggressively markets Roundup as ‘safe’ for humans and animals, despite newer studies indicating that glyphosate may be carcinogenic and its use may affect human and animal cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous and reproductive systems. No reasonable consumer seeing the claim on this product that glyphosate targets an enzyme not found ‘in people or pets’ would expect that Roundup actually targets an important bacterial enzyme found in humans and animals, affecting the health of their immune system.

    “Survey after survey shows that consumers rely on labels to guide their purchases and keep them and their families safe. When corporations mislead on the issue of a product’s effect on consumers and their families, they put everyone, but especially young children—in this case, playing in yards and parks—at risk, leaving the public no other recourse than to use the legal system to seek the removal of this misleading information.”

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled that OCA and BP presented enough evidence to support that Monsanto’s labeling of its flagship weedkiller, Roundup, misleads consumers.

    Through their attorneys, Richman Law Group, OCA and BP sued Monsanto on behalf of the general public, in Washington D.C., under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, for misleading the public by labeling its popular weedkiller Roundup as “target[ing] an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.” The nonprofits allege that this statement is false, deceptive and misleading, because the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is, in fact, found in people and pets.

    Beyond Pesticides is a national grassroots non-profit organization headquartered in the District of Columbia that works with allies in protecting public health and the environment to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. For more information, visit www.beyondpesticides.org.

    The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. For more information, visit: www.organicconsumers.org.

    Richman Law Group (RLG) is a boutique law firm specializing in consumer protection and civil rights. RLG is dedicated to serving the greater good by holding large corporations accountable for actions that harm consumers, the environment, and the general public. For more information, visit: www.richmanlawgroup.com.
    Also See:

    Toxic Truth: New Evidence for Banning Monsanto's Roundup Weedkiller
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/blo...dup-weedkiller
    May 10, 2018
    Quote
    Organic Consumers Association
    by Katherine Paul

    Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller may be even worse for human health than we thought.

    As reported this week in the Guardian, new tests show that when Roundup’s key active ingredient, glyphosate, is combined with other chemicals to create the final product, the herbicide is more toxic to human cells than glyphosate alone.

    As if glyphosate alone weren’t toxic enough.

    01’s Carey Gillam reported on the first-ever testing, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), of glyphosate-based formulations. Previous testing focused exclusively on glyphosate in isolation.

    NTP’s acting chief of the National Toxicology Program Laboratory, Mike DeVito, told the Guardian the agency’s work is ongoing but its early findings are clear on one key point. “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it,” DeVito said.

    Labels mislead, Monsanto pleads ‘proprietary’

    That’s bad for farmers who spray Roundup, for people who eat Roundup-contaminated food, or for the millions of humans and their pets who are exposed to Roundup because it runs off into our waterways or is sprayed on parks, playgrounds and neighborhood lawns. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) latest figures, $9 billion worth of glyphosate-based herbicides were sold in the U.S. in 2012.

    Monsanto continues to claim that its product is safe, including the formulation it sells direct to consumers for their lawns and gardens. Beyond Pesticides (BP) and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) sued Monsanto for misleading consumers about the safety of its flagship herbicide. Monsanto tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but a federal judge recently ruled in favor of BP and OCA.

    The consumer case revolves around glyphosate, not the whole formulation, and Monsanto’s claim on Roundup containers that the product is safe because it “target[s] an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.” The lawsuit alleges this statement is false, deceptive and misleading, because the enzyme targeted by glyphosate is, in fact, found in people and pets.

    Besides providing new information about glyphosate-based herbicides, the NTP testing also highlights what the public (and interested scientists) don’t know about these herbicides, even though they’ve been on the market for 40 years, because Monsanto won’t tell us.

    “We don’t know what the formulation is,” Devito told the Guardian.” That is confidential business information.” According to the Guardian, for testing purposes, scientists sourced some samples from store shelves, picking up products the EPA told them were the top sellers, he said.

    Testing the full formulation—why it matters

    According to André Leu, international director of Regeneration International and author of "The Myth of Safe Pesticides," the overwhelming majority of registered pesticide products used in agriculture as insecticides, herbicides and fungicides are formulations of several chemicals. They are mixtures composed of one or more chemicals that are defined as the active ingredient(s) or active principle, and are combined with other mostly toxic chemicals, such as solvents, adjuvants and surfactants—otherwise known as “inerts.”

    The active ingredient is the primary chemical that acts as the pesticide and is the only chemical tested, Leu told us. The other chemicals in the mixture are called inerts because they have a secondary role in the formulation.

    “The name ‘inert’ is misleading as most of these other compounds are chemically active in their functions in the pesticide formulations. They help to make the active ingredient work more effectively. According to the United States President's Cancer panel report, many of these ‘inert’ ingredients are toxic; however, they are not tested for their potential to cause health problems.

    Many of the solvents, fillers and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer.”

    Leu said it should be of “great concern” to everyone that the vast majority of the nearly 1,400 registered pesticide and veterinary products used in the U.S. for the production of food have had no testing for numerous health and environmental problems linked to the exposure to cocktails of chemicals.

    “These are the toxicities that cause other health issues such as cancers, cell mutations, endocrine disruption, birth defects, organ and tissue damage, nervous system damage, behavior changes, epigenetic damage, and immune system damage,” Leu said.

    In the only study where nine formulated pesticides were tested on human cells at levels well below agricultural dilutions, the research scientists found that eight of the nine formulations were several hundred times more toxic than their respective active ingredients. The researchers stated:

    Adjuvants in pesticides are generally declared as inerts, and for this reason they are not tested in long-term regulatory experiments. It is thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their AP [active ingredient] in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer.”

    The only peer-reviewed, lifetime comparison feeding study of a formulated pesticide, in this case Roundup, found that rats fed a diet that contains minute residues of Roundup had significantly higher rates of kidney disease, liver damage, tumors and other negative health effects including endocrine disruption.

    Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here. http://action.organicconsumers.org/o...page_KEY=10633

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

    Ewan (10th May 2018), onevoice (22nd June 2018)

  11. Link to Post #146
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Pilot Study Shows Consumers Should Be Concerned About So-Called 'Safe' Levels of Glyphosate-Based Weedkillers
    May 14, 2018 Organic Consumers Association
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/pre...yphosate-based
    Quote FINLAND, Minnesota – The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today issued the following statement on the announcement by the Global Glyphosate Study that preliminary test results of a single-dose study on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) in rats, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidelines for "safe levels" produced adverse health effects in rats.

    International Director Ronnie Cummins said:

    “For years, the U.S. EPA has dismissed consumer concerns about glyphosate-based weedkillers in their drinking water and in their food, claiming that exposure to the chemical at low levels is harmless. This new pilot study confirms what many responsible scientists have been saying all along: There is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels when it comes to glyphosate, especially when it comes to children.

    “In fact, the EPA established what it calls ‘safe’ levels without having any scientific evidence to back up its claim because, until now, have been no comprehensive publicly available peer-reviewed studies of the potential health impact of glyphosate exposure at or lower than the EPA’s guidelines.

    “This new study confirms that consumers should be alarmed when products such as Ben & Jerry’s ice cream test positive for glyphosate at any level—despite corporations’ claims that these levels are ‘harmless.’

    “OCA looks forward to the completion of the full Global Glyphosate Study and will continue to test food products for glyphosate and warn consumers when food products test positive for this toxic chemical, no matter how small the amount.”

    The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The Organic Consumers Fund is a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action. Visit: https://www.organicconsumers.org/
    From Organic Consumers Assoc. newsletter today:
    Quote Now a new pilot study, soon to be published in the prestigious scientific journal Environmental Health, suggests that EPA “safe” levels aren’t safe at all—especially for kids.

    The Global Glyphosate Study pilot experimental phase, the first study of its kind, suggests that exposure to glyphosate at levels the EPA wants us to believe are “safe” can in fact lead to “certain important biological parameters, mainly relating to sexual development, genotoxicity and the alteration of the intestinal microbiome.”

    Has the EPA known all along that its guidelines were bogus? This wouldn't be the first time the agency charged with protecting consumers has been accused of colluding behind the scenes with Monsanto to keep consumers in the dark.
    The Study:

    Global Glyphosate Study Pilot Phase Shows Adverse Health Effects at ‘Safe’ Doses
    The Ramazzini Institute / May 16, 2018
    https://glyphosatestudy.org/press-re...at-safe-doses/
    Quote May 16th 2018

    Three peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts from the pilot phase of the Global Glyphosate Study are available online today (May 16th). The papers will be published in the prestigious scientific journal Environmental Health later in May.
    The pilot study was a single-dose study on glyphosate based herbicides (GBHs) in rats, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable daily dietary exposure level of glyphosate (cRfD) (1) – 1.75 mg/kg/day. (a single-dose study means that the same concentration was given to the rats daily over a 3 month period).
    The study was focused on the newborn, infancy and adolescence phases of life.
    The results reveal that glyphosate based herbicides (GBHs) were able to alter certain important biological parameters, mainly relating to sexual development, genotoxicity and the alteration of the intestinal microbiome.
    The pilot study involved the participation of multiple Institutions and Universities in Europe and the U.S.
    The € 300,000 pilot study was funded by 30,000 members of the public in Italy, who are associates of the Ramazzini Institute cooperative.
    A crowd-funding campaign (2) has been launched to help support a long-term comprehensive Global Glyphosate Study, which following these results is now urgently required.
    Background:
    Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in human history. 18.9 Billion pounds (8.6 Billion Kilograms) of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) have been sprayed worldwide since 1974. Glyphosate use has also increased 15-fold since genetically modified crops were introduced in 1996 (3).

    In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” (4). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), following the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) evaluation, has since stated that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans” (5) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) stated that “the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction” (6). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still has a new evaluation of glyphosate pending (7).

    The scientific uncertainty surrounding glyphosate and GBHs has also led to political uncertainty, with a shortened 5-year re-approval for glyphosate having been granted by European Union Member States in November 2017.

    The Ramazzini Institute and their partners have walked into this unclear situation so as to supply valuable and independent data to enable regulators, governments and the general public of every country to answer the question: Are glyphosate and GBHs safe at real-world levels of exposure?

    Pilot Study:
    The Global Glyphosate Study pilot experimental phase was carried out at the Ramazzini Institute in Bentivoglio, Bologna starting in 2016. The € 300,000 pilot study was funded by 30,000 members of the public in Italy, who are associates of the Ramazzini Institute.

    To set the study in motion the Ramazzini Institute built up a network of authoritative partners including the University of Bologna (Faculty of Agriculture, Veterinary Science and Biostatistics) the Genoa Hospital San Martino, the Italian National Institute of Health, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and the George Washington University.

    The pilot study, which is vital for the long-term comprehensive study, aimed to obtain general information as to whether GBHs are toxic at various stages of early life (newborn, infancy and adolescence), and to identify early markers of exposure and effect. Glyphosate and one of its formulates (Roundup Bioflow, MON 52276) were both tested in Sprague Dawley rats, starting from prenatal life until 13 weeks after weaning, exposed to a dose of glyphosate in drinking water corresponding to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable daily dietary exposure (1), referred to in the U.S. as the chronic reference dose (cRfD) – 1.75 mg/kg/day.

    The results show that GBHs – even at doses deemed safe and over a relatively short exposure time (which in human-equivalent terms correspond from embryo life to 18 years of age) – are able to alter certain important biological parameters, markers chiefly relating to sexual development, genotoxicity and alteration of the intestinal microbiome. In particular, the results showed an alteration in some sexual development parameters in rats treated with GBHs, especially in females. Moreover, rats treated with GBHs presented statistically significant changes of the intestinal microbiome in particular during development. Concerning genotoxicity, a statistically significant increase was observed in micronuclei in rats treated with GBHs, especially in the first part of life.

    Rats treated with pure glyphosate or its formulation presented similar levels in urine of glyphosate and its principal metabolite (AMPA), thus showing no significant difference in the absorption and excretion of glyphosate among the two treatment groups, but suggesting a bioaccumulation effect of glyphosate that was proportional to the length of treatment.

    The peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts for the data on microbiome effects and biomarkers of exposure will be published later in May in the prestigious scientific journal Environmental Health in open access format (8, 9, 10). The data on reproductive parameters and genotoxicity is currently in peer review and is soon to be published.

    Global Glyphosate Study: Crowdfunding
    The Ramazzini Institute, with the support of other independent Institutes and Universities in Europe and the United States, has now launched a crowdfunding campaign for the most comprehensive long-term study ever on GBHs. In fact, a long-term study is now necessary to extend and confirm the initial evidences emerged in the pilot study and provide definitive answers to the many health concerns on the chronic effects of GBHs, including its carcinogenic effects.

    The total budget for this study is € 5 Million and it is already receiving support from the public, politicians and NGOs around the world.

    The Ramazzini Institute, in over 40 years of activity, has studied more than 200 compounds from the general and occupational environment and many of its results have provided a solid scientific base for regulating and limiting the exposure of a number of substances. Examples include: Vinyl Chloride, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Trichloroethylene and Mancozeb.

    Quotes from Scientists:
    Prof. Philip J. Landrigan, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai:

    “By its very nature and purpose, the pilot study does not resolve the uncertainties puzzling the various Agencies (IARC, EFSA, ECHA) as to whether glyphosate and Glyphosate Based Herbicides (GBHs) are carcinogenic or not, but it does highlight health effects that are equally as serious, that might manifest as long-term oncological pathology, and that might affect a huge number of people, given the planet-wide use of the GBHs. These early warnings must be further investigated in a comprehensive long-term study”.

    Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute

    “Whatever the outcome of the Ramazzini Institute study, the findings will provide regulatory agencies and policy-makers with solid independent results obtained by a shared research project on which they can confidently base their risk assessments and their evaluations, including the upcoming decision for the reauthorization for glyphosate use in Europe in 2022”.

    Prof. Jia Chen, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

    “Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are of significant public health concern because of their widespread and sharply increased usage. As an herbicide, glyphosate exerts its herbicidal action by inhibiting the Shikimate pathway which exists not only in plants but also exist in some bacteria and fungi and other microbes. However, there are no studies on the potential effects of GBHs on the gut microbiome in the human population. Our study provides initial evidence that exposures to commonly used GBHs, at doses considered safe, are capable of modifying the gut microbiota in early development, particularly before the onset of puberty. Further long-term investigations are necessary to elucidate if the shift in the microbiota induced by GBHs exposure is contributing to the other health effects downstream. Nevertheless, understanding the microbiota changes during this critical window of susceptibility could be of great importance for disease prevention”.

    Prof. Giovanni Dinelli, Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna

    “The Ramazzini Institute’s global study is a valuable approach for trying to understand the potential negative health effects of glyphosate, one of the most controversial active ingredients used worldwide in agriculture. The main aim is not only to define the “per se” effects of this specific herbicide, but also to define and propose a new approach for the determination of toxicological side effects of pesticides: the new paradigm is to provide policy makers with reliable data from an independent research Institution. This is not only a new paradigm, but also the only way to avoid uncertainties and doubts in relation to the agricultural use of pesticides”.

    Dr. Alberto Mantovani, Italian National Institute of Health

    “An interesting feature is the time-related increase of unchanged glyphosate in the urine. This finding might indicate that glyphosate bioavailability increases with a longer duration of exposure; increased bioavalability, in its turn, might flag an increased internal exposure of target organs and tissues”

    Prof. Rossella Miglio, Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna

    “It has been interesting to participate in this project that I consider important for public health. Although this pilot study shows some statistically significant results it is important to stress that further solid scientific evidence could derive from experiments with increased dimension. Particularly, this will allow us to evaluate relevant outcomes that cannot be considered in a reduced sized experimental design”.

    Prof. Melissa J Perry, George Washington University:

    “Although glyphosate has been around for decades, it has not been well studied, and we know surprisingly little about its human health effects. This study was designed to use doses that compare to what humans are exposed to in their everyday environments including from the food they eat. This study will provide valuable information to more clearly assess the health risks to humans”.

    Prof. Marcella Spinaci and Prof. Giovanna Galeati, Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna

    “We think that the work is of great value. Even if preliminary results on some sperm parameters (daily sperm production, sperm count and morphology) using the Ramazzini Institute in vivo rat model did not show any significant effect, further research is needed in order to deeply investigate the possible role of glyphosate and GBHs as endocrine disruptors on other reproductive parameters in both males and females”.

    Media Contacts:
    Dr. Vincenzo Branà – glyphosate@ramazzini.it

    Notes:
    (1) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Glyphosate: Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Action. 2006.: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem...8-May-06_a.pdf
    (2) Global Glyphosate Study: https://glyphosatestudy.org/
    (3) Benbrook CM. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ Sci Eur. 2016;28:3. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/a...302-016-0070-0
    (4) IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 112 (2017).
    http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/
    (5) EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal 2015;13(11):4302, 107 pp. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302.
    https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302
    (6) European Chemical Agency (ECHA). Glyphosate not classified as a carcinogen by ECHA. ECHA/PR/17/06, 15 March 2017.
    https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-...inogen-by-echa
    (7) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for Glyphosate. Accessed May 9th, 2018.
    https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used...nts-glyphosate
    (8) Philip J Landrigan, Fiorella Belpoggi.The Need For Independent Research On The Health Effects Of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides. Environmental Health, 2018. https://glyphosatestudy.org/global-g...y-pilot-phase/
    (9) Simona Panzacchi, Daniele Mandrioli, Fabiana Manservisi, Luciano C Bua, Laura Falcioni, Marcella Spinaci, Giovanna Galeati, Giovanni Dinelli, Rossella Miglio, Alberto Mantovani, Stefano Lorenzetti, Jianzhong Hu, Jia Chen, Melissa Perry, Philip J Landrigan, Fiorella Belpoggi. The Ramazzini Institute 13-Week Study On Glyphosate-Based Herbicides At Human-Equivalent Dose In Sprague Dawley Rats: Study Design And First In-Life Endpoints Evaluation. Environmental Health, 2018. https://glyphosatestudy.org/global-g...y-pilot-phase/
    (10) Qixing Mao, Fabiana Manservisi, Simona Panzacchi, Daniele Mandrioli, Ilaria Menghetti, Andrea Vornoli, Luciano C Bua, Laura Falcioni, Corina Lesseur, Jia Chen, Fiorella Belpoggi, Jianzhong Hu.
    The Ramazzini Institute 13-Week Pilot Study On Glyphosate And Roundup Administered At Human-Equivalent Dose To Sprague Dawley Rats: Effects On The Microbiome. Environmental Health, 2018. https://glyphosatestudy.org/global-g...y-pilot-phase/

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

    Ba-ba-Ra (17th May 2018), Paul (17th May 2018)

  13. Link to Post #147
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Latest Update on Toxicity of Popular Weed Killer and Proposed Rule for Labeling of GMOs
    May 23, 2018
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=313300736
    Quote Story at-a-glance
    Government researchers warn the Roundup formula is far more toxic than glyphosate in isolation, due to synergistic interactions between various chemicals
    Testing by the U.S. National Toxicology Program reveals glyphosate formulations such as Roundup “significantly altered” the viability of human cells by disrupting the functionality of cell membranes
    The Ramazzini Institute in Italy is raising public funds to perform a comprehensive, independent, global glyphosate study. Stage 1 will investigate the chemical’s carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity potential
    Monsanto’s plan to release a new crop of Bt soybeans for the U.S. market has been shelved. Entomologists believe the decision may have been triggered by the fact that insects are rapidly developing resistance to the pesticide-producing plants
    May 3, the USDA released its highly problematic proposal for the labeling of foods containing GMOs. Call to action: Leave your public comment for the USDA before July 3
    By Dr. Mercola

    In recent years, concerns over the health effects of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup and other weed killer formulations — has risen exponentially. Researchers have discovered it not only may be carcinogenic,1 but may also affect your body’s ability to produce fully functioning proteins, inhibit the shikimate pathway (found in gut bacteria) and interfere with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes (required for activation of vitamin D and the creation of nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate).

    Glyphosate also chelates important minerals, disrupts sulfate synthesis and transport, interferes with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, resulting in folate and neurotransmitter shortages, disrupts your microbiome by acting as an antibiotic, impairs methylation pathways, and inhibits pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism.2,3

    Now, government researchers warn the Roundup formula is far more toxic than glyphosate alone. As reported by investigative journalist Carey Gillam:4

    “The tests5 are part of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) first-ever examination of herbicide formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate, but that also include other chemicals. While regulators have previously required extensive testing of glyphosate in isolation, government scientists have not fully examined the toxicity of the more complex products sold to consumers, farmers and others.”

    Toxicology Testing Long Overdue
    The NTP testing was done by request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassification of glyphosate as a Class 2A probable carcinogen three years ago.6 At the time, the IARC noted concerns about glyphosate formulations possibly having increased toxicity due to synergistic interactions.

    As it turns out, that’s exactly what the NTP testing found. According to the NTP’s summary of the results, glyphosate formulations “significantly altered” the viability of human cells by disrupting the functionality of cell membranes. Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP Laboratory, told Gillam, “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it.”

    While first-phase results do not indicate that weed killers like Roundup are carcinogenic, it does show that the formulations are more toxic than glyphosate in isolation (for which evidence of carcinogenic potential does exist), and that they have the ability to kill human cells.

    Jennifer Sass, who works as a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, added, “This testing is important, because the EPA has only been looking at the active ingredient. But it’s the formulations that people are exposed to on their lawns and gardens, where they play and in their food.”

    Despite public assurances that Roundup is harmless, internal documents from Monsanto, obtained through previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, reveal the company itself is unclear about the toxicity of Roundup as it has not been thoroughly studied. Internal discussions also reveal Monsanto employees have not been convinced the product is harmless. For example, in a 2002 email, Monsanto executive William Heydens said, “Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product … does the damage.”7

    A 2003 company email8 from Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer, Ph.D., states, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”

    Farmer also adds that, “We cannot support the statement about ‘no adverse effects whatsoever on flora, or fauna or on the human body.’ Adverse effects are seen on flora (glyphosate is meant to kill vegetation), adverse effects on fauna — in studies with laboratory animals — even death is seen (LDS0 studies for example) …” Yet another company email sent in 2010 said,9 “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on them directly.”

    Despite such internal discussions and doubts, in its “Benefits and Safety of Glyphosate” report published last year,10 Monsanto continues to claim that “Glyphosate-based herbicides are supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health and environmental effects databases ever compiled for a pesticide product. Comprehensive toxicological and environmental fate studies conducted over the last 40 years have time and again demonstrated the strong safety profile of this widely used herbicide.”

    Ramazzini Institute Seeking Donations for Global Safety Study
    The highly respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy — which recently confirmed the link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors found by NTP researchers11,12,13 — is now raising funds14 to perform a comprehensive, global glyphosate study. Stage 1 would investigate the chemical’s carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity potential. The Institute explains its decision to look for public funding:

    “Aiming to produce independent and solid scientific evidence, the Ramazzini Institute has decided not to accept any funding for the study from the industry that produces glyphosate-based herbicides or from the organic farming or food industry — to avoid all conflicts of interest.

    Do you want to know if glyphosate is safe for you and your family? If you do, you can now help fund a study that you can trust. This is the most comprehensive independent study ever on the World’s most used herbicide, the study that you and your family deserve!”

    Bt Soybean Plan Scrapped
    In related news, Monsanto’s plan to release a new crop of Bt soybeans for the U.S. market has been scrapped. While the company claims plans were shelved due to low demand, entomologists have proposed it’s more likely due to the reality that insects are rapidly developing resistance to the pesticide-producing plants.

    The first generation of Bt soybeans, Intacta RR2 PRO, contain a single Bt protein called Cry1Ac. The second-generation of this product, Intacta 2 Xtend, adds two other Bt proteins — Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 — plus dicamba tolerance. While Intacta 2 Xtend is still planned for release in South America in 2021, it will not be released in the U.S. According to a report by DTN/Progressive Farmer:15

    “[T]he Bt proteins in Intacta 2 — Cry1Ac, Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 — have already been compromised by insect resistance in the U.S., where they are used extensively in Bt cotton and Bt corn. Texas A&M entomologist David Kerns and his colleagues have identified bollworm populations across the South with resistance to Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.

    Resistance to Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 has also been found in corn earworm populations in Maryland. Moreover, Cry1A.105’s similar mode of action to other Cry1 proteins on the U.S. landscape spells trouble for the trait, Kerns noted.

    ‘It’s a vector stack — they’ve taken the active part of the toxin from several different Cry proteins — Cry1Ab, Cry1F and Cry1Ac — and put them into one … So cross resistance would be highly likely, and there is already established resistance to Cry1F in all bollworm populations. So I would suspect Cry1A.105 would not have much activity on our Helicoverpa zea [bollworm] populations.’”

    Vaccines for Plants Are Next
    As if genetically tinkering with plants to make them produce pesticide internally isn’t odd or unnatural enough, scientists are now working on plant vaccines. As explained by Regeneration International, RNA interference (RNAi) technology is being used “to develop biodegradable ‘vaccines’ intended to protect crops from pathogens.” The rationale for developing plant vaccines is to minimize the use of chemical pesticides.

    While we certainly need to eliminate agrochemicals from food production, RNAi technology is risky business and could produce any number of unforeseen consequences. In a letter to the editors of Yale Environmental 360 in response to its April 18 article, “Can ‘Vaccines’ for Crops Help Cut Pesticide Use and Improve Yields?”17 Regeneration International founding member Judith Schwartz writes, in part:18

    “As a journalist covering land management, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of skepticism demonstrated in this reporting. Any distinction between this and ‘chemical pesticides,’ or for that matter, ‘genetic engineering,’ is merely semantic; if gene editing is not considered genetic engineering that’s only because the companies say so. As we do not know if this technology is safe, how can we be sure that non-targeted genes are not deactivated? …

    This could dangerously impact insect, plant and/or mammal species and ecological stabilities … There are a growing number of farmers who are working with nature by means of no-till, cover-cropping and other ecological practices, who are finding that the best means of managing problem insects is biodiversity: the other insects that prey on them.

    Such farmers have been able to grow healthy crops while markedly reducing and often eliminating herbicides and pesticides. Independent research19 has shown that pesticide-treated croplands often have far more pests and impacts than untreated cropland. Aren’t problem pests a symptom of an out-of-balance ecology? Could not this RNAi experiment throw the ecology even further out of balance?

    How would this address the underlying problem, rather than merely boost the sale of pesticides? … [W]e can already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people; the challenge is in distribution, nutrient density and affordability. Nor is this the job of industrial agriculture. More than 70 percent of the world’s food is grown by small-holder farmers in the developing world …

    Given the limited research on RNAi technology that is not funded by entities that would benefit from its use, isn’t more critical analysis required? I would encourage your editorial staff to run an objective piece that goes into more details on the implications of RNAi technology and considers pest management alternatives.”

    Proposed GMO Labeling Rules Likely to Confuse and Mislead Consumers
    Another piece of related news: As recently reported by the Sierra Club20 and Modern Farmer,21 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its proposal22 for the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) May 3, and it’s pretty bizarre, or to use the word of Sierra Club, “Orwellian.” There are a number of problems with the USDA’s proposed GMO labeling rule:

    1. Perhaps most problematic is the fact that it’s not clear whether “highly refined foods” will be included in the labeling standard. Not only are a majority of foods sold in grocery stores highly refined, or contain highly refined ingredients, but these foods are also the most likely to contain GMOs. If highly refined foods will not require GMO labeling, the labeling requirement will be essentially useless, as very few whole foods are genetically engineered.

    2. The phrases “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” are not included anywhere on the label. Nor are any versions thereof, or the now well-recognized household word, “GMO.” Instead of calling it what it is, and what people now are most likely to understand, the USDA is using the word “bioengineered” — a rather misleading phrase for the simple fact that it sounds far more natural than it is; closer to biodynamic than genetically modified.

    3. The proposal also does not address whether foods produced using newer forms of genetic engineering, such as gene editing, CRISPR technology and synthetic biology, will need to be labeled, and/or whether they would require another type of label to distinguish them from in-vitro DNA techniques.

    4. The logo itself: The word “be,” short for bioengineered, inside a yellow and green smiley-face sun. Again, this smacks of biotech promotion and misdirection. As stated by George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, “We would support a little circle that said ‘GE’ or ‘GMO’ — something neutral that’s not pro-biotech propaganda.”

    5. Lack of standardized icon. Rather than mandating an easily recognizable icon or logo, companies would have the option of the smiley sun logo (above), two other “be” logos (see the proposed rule document23), simply adding a sentence along the lines of “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient,” or a simply including a QR code directing you to the company’s website for more information about the ingredients, the latter of which will require you to have a smartphone and reliable connection inside the store.

    As noted by Kimbrell, “USDA’s own study found that QR codes are inherently discriminatory against the one-third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even more so against rural, low-income, and elderly populations, or those without access to the internet.”24

    Take Action — Public Comments Open Until July 3
    Sophia Kruszewski, senior policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition told Sierra Club, “I think there’s a question as to why … USDA is choosing to consider new terms, other than GMO or GE, and other forms of labeling. Especially since … many companies have responded to consumer desire for transparency and started voluntarily labeling their products. [GMO disclosure] doesn’t seem to pose an enormous challenge.”

    Indeed, it seems the USDA is unnecessarily complicating matters, and the only reason I can come up with for this is they’re trying to help the biotech industry by making the labeling as obscure as possible. Considering the time it has taken to raise awareness about GMOs and GE food, suddenly calling GMOs “bioengineered” seems like a very deliberate attempt to mislead people who have now grown accustomed to looking for “non-GMO” labels.

    The USDA is accepting public comments on its proposal through July 3, 2018. The final rule is expected to be delivered July 29. You can read through the proposed rulemaking for the national bioengineered food disclosure standard here. If you agree that it largely fails to label GMOs in any meaningful and easy-to-understand way, please take a moment to submitting your comment on the federal eRulemaking portal.

    Comments may also be mailed to: Docket Clerk, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 4543-South, Washington, DC 20250, or faxed to 202-690-0338. Make sure you properly identify the docket ID for your comment if sending by mail or fax, which in this case would be AMS-TM-17-0050 (The Agricultural Marketing Service Proposed Rule for the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard).
    https://www.regulations.gov/comment?...M-17-0050-0004
    Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government
    Monsanto and their industry allies will not willingly surrender their stranglehold on the food supply. They must be resisted and rolled back at every turn. There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the chemical-intensive agricultural model of which they are part and parcel, pose a serious threat to the environment and our health. Yet, government agencies not only turn a blind eye to the damage they are inflicting on the planet, but actively work to further the interests of the biotech giants.

    This is not surprising. It is well-known that there is a revolving door between regulatory agencies and private corporations. This has allowed companies such as Monsanto to manipulate science, defang regulations and even control the free press, all from their commanding position within the halls of government.

    Consider for a moment that on paper, the U.S. may have the strictest safety regulations in the world governing new food additives, but has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides such as Roundup to circumvent these laws.

    In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s tenuous claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is demonstrably false. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency's own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.

    Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!
    In a further effort to deceive the public, Monsanto and its cohorts spoon-feed scientists, academics and journalists a diet of questionable studies that depict them in a positive light. By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity, and present it as independent and authoritative.

    Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council for Science and Health are both Monsanto-funded. Even WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of "independent and objective" health information, is heavily reliant on advertising dollars. It is no coincidence that they promote corporate-backed health strategies and products.

    There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do
    The biotech giants have deep pocketbooks and political influence, and are fighting to maintain their position of dominance. It is only because of educated consumers and groups like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) that their failed GMO experiment is on the ropes. We thank all of the donors who helped OCA achieve their fundraising goal. I made a commitment to triple match all donations to OCA during awareness week. It is with great pleasure to present a check to this fantastic organization for $250,000.
    At the end of the day, we must shatter Monsanto’s grip on the agricultural sector. There is no way to recall GMOs once they have been released into the environment. The stakes could not be higher. Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry allies are working so hard to protect?

    For more and more people, the answer is no. Consumers are rejecting genetically engineered and pesticide laden foods. Another positive trend is that there has been strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

    One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.

    In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country as well:

    Organic Food Directory (Australia) Eat Wild (Canada)
    Organic Explorer (New Zealand) Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
    Farm Match (United States) Local Harvest (United States)
    Weston A. Price Foundation (United States) The Cornucopia Institute
    Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they are on the wrong side of history. It’s you, the informed and empowered, who hold the future in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

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

    Houman (24th May 2018), Paul (24th May 2018)

  15. Link to Post #148
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Whole Foods Fails Consumers Again, 'Delays' GMO Labeling
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/blo...s-gmo-labeling
    June 4, 2018
    Organic Consumers Association
    by Katherine Paul
    Quote Five years ago, under mounting pressure from consumers, Whole Foods Market (WFM) announced that by the end of 2018, the then-largest retailer of organic foods would require all of its suppliers to clearly label GMO ingredients and foods.

    Last week, the company reneged on that commitment, or at least the timeline part of it.

    This time, there was no flashy press release, no media fanfare. Instead, the news was circulated quietly in an email to the company’s suppliers.

    In the email, WFM Chief Operations Officer A.C. Gallo claimed the company, now owned by Amazon, is merely “pausing” the plan, until the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finalizes labeling requirements under the federal mandatory labeling law passed in July 2016—a law that (intentionally) has no teeth.

    WFM claims it doesn’t want to burden suppliers by making them follow one set of labeling requirements for WFM, and another to satisfy the federal law. That statement suggests that the company will simply go along with the federal labeling requirements—a far weaker plan than what WFM originally promised consumers—and drop its own plan.

    If there were ever any doubt about WFM’s intentions, those intentions are clear now: The company’s GMO labeling promise, too little too late from the get-go, was always more about saving face and scamming consumers than it was about real transparency and forcing Big Food to change its ways.

    Dragged kicking and screaming into the GMO labeling battle

    In 2011, the Chicago Tribune reported on a protest organized by Organic Consumers Association against WFM. At issue? The retailer’s intentionally misleading statements about its commitment to carrying only healthy, “natural,” organic foods—when in fact the store’s shelves were full of products containing unlabeled GMO ingredients.

    A year later, as public sentiment around GMO labeling heated up after California citizens launched a mandatory GMO labeling ballot initiative (Proposition 37), WFM market became a target for critics, OCA included, who accused the retailer of “sitting out” the fight for labels.

    Under pressure, WFM did eventually officially endorse California’s Proposition 37. But the endorsement was tainted by then-CEO John Mackey’s claim that the “jury is still out” on the health and safety of GMOs.

    To make matters worse, WFM didn’t contribute a dime to the pro-labeling campaign, even though other organic retailers, including Dr. Bronner’s, Mercola.com and Nature’s Path, pitched in millions. The retail chain wouldn’t even allow signature-gathering outside its stores.

    Labeling promise—an act of marketing desperation?

    After Prop 37 was (narrowly) defeated, WFM tried to win back disgruntled consumers by announcing that it would become the first major retailer to require labels on GMO foods or ingredients sold in its stores. "We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer's right to know," Walter Robb, then-CEO said during his March 14 [2013] presentation at the Natural Products Expo West in Anaheim, California.

    Was it a genuine commitment? Or just PR stunt to help diffuse some of the bad press resulting from its lack of support for California’s labeling initiative?

    We tried to give the company the benefit of the doubt, though we questioned the five-year goal. If WFM in the UK was already labeling GMOs, why wait five years to provide U.S. consumers with the same level of transparency?

    Still, we thought, if WFM, one of the largest buyers of organic products in the U.S., required suppliers to label GMOs, this would be a giant win for consumers.

    But any glimmer of hope that WFM might do the right thing was extinguished when CEO Robb threw his support behind the DARK Act—the federal GMO labeling law that effectively ended the fight for meaningful GMO labeling by including a raft of exclusions and allowing companies to use electronic barcodes and other obfuscatory means of “disclosing” GMO ingredients. (The USDA is now considering using these silly images to “warn” consumers about GMOs).

    Where does that leave consumers? Without labels, for sure. But today’s increasingly savvy consumers aren’t without options. Many will turn to more reliable, and more loyal, retailers and brands as they seek out organic and regenerative products, many of them from local (and reliable) sources.

    WFM may have only recently sold out to Amazon. But it sold out consumers long ago.

    Want to give WFM a piece of your mind? Take action here.https://action.organicconsumers.org/...tion_KEY=21799

    Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.

  16. Link to Post #149
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Questionable Tactics Used in Vaccine ‘Safety’ Testing
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=334769496
    6/12/18 by Dr. Mercola
    Quote Story at-a-glance
    An eight-month investigation revealed shocking flaws in Merck’s clinical trial design, which effectively prevented assessment of safety. Serious adverse events arising outside of a two-week period post-vaccination were simply marked down as “medical history”
    A systematic review of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine concluded its effectiveness is both overstated and unproven. Merck’s own research reveals you increase your risk of precancerous lesions if you’ve been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to vaccination
    Reported side effects of Gardasil vaccination include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way, sometimes fatally
    One Gardasil 9 trial reported nearly 10 percent of subjects experienced “severe systemic adverse events” affecting multiple system organ classes, and over 3 percent suffered “severe vaccine-related adverse events”
    HPV infection is spread through sexual contact and research has demonstrated that using condoms can reduce risk of HPV infection by 70 percent, which is far more effective than the HPV vaccine
    In December 2017, Slate magazine published an astonishing article about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, revealing how the safety trials for this controversial vaccine actually "weren't designed to properly assess safety."1 Gardasil is supposed to prevent infection by certain strains of HPV virus, which in rare cases may cause cervical cancer if left untreated.

    However, trial data from Merck shows that Gardasil vaccinations may actually increase your risk of cervical cancer by 44.6 percent if you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to vaccination.2 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has made this document inaccessible, but we've saved a copy of it. In his Slate article, investigative journalist Frederik Joelving recounts the story of Kesia Lyng, a 30-year-old Danish woman who, at the age of 19, participated in a clinical trial for Merck's Gardasil vaccine

    "Lyng's grandmother had died of cervical cancer the year before, so when a letter arrived offering her $500 to take part in a crucial international test of Gardasil, the decision was easy," Joelving writes. "She got her first shot of the vaccine at Hvidovre Hospital in Copenhagen on September 19, 2002. The symptoms snuck up on her shortly after her second shot on November 14.

    They never abated. It wasn't until 2016 that she received her diagnosis — chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) … In recent years, Lyng has become suspicious that there is a connection between her disease and her Gardasil immunization. Her ailments evoke descriptions found in hundreds of news stories from women who also received the vaccine, as well as several medical case reports from around the world."

    HPV Vaccine Linked to Serious Side Effects, Including Death
    Reported side effects of Gardasil vaccination include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way, sometimes fatally.3,4 The dangers of high immunogenicity was addressed in my 2015 interview with Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., a research scientist at the University of British Columbia. In it, she explains that by triggering an exaggerated inflammatory immune response, vaccine adjuvants end up affecting brain function.

    In collaboration with a team led by professor Yehuda Shoenfeld, a world expert in autoimmune diseases who heads the Zabludowicz Autoimmunity Research Centre at the Sheba Hospital in Israel, Tomljenovic has demonstrated how the HPV vaccine can cause brain autoimmune disorders. It was these findings that prompted the Japanese government to remove the HPV vaccine from its list of recommended vaccines.5 The vaccine injury law firm Sadaka Associates also claims that:6

    "Medical researchers have accused drug regulators and manufacturers of concealing the real dangers of the HPV vaccine. Many girls have suffered life-threatening injuries as the result of the vaccine. The HPV vaccine has also caused death … The drug regulators have also been accused of adding aluminum to the placebo in order to manipulate scientific data. Even though aluminum was used in the placebo, scientists have confirmed that the HPV vaccine has been linked to death.

    There was a study done that involved 2,881 girls who receive the vaccine. Fourteen of the girls who received the vaccine died. Three of the girls who received the placebo died. There was a team of researchers at the National Institute of Cardiology that also found that there is a link between HPV vaccine and life-threatening reactions.

    They looked at 28 studies that involved girls who had been given the HPV vaccine. They also looked at 16 randomized trials. They found that girls were given a placebo with aluminum in 14 of the randomized trials.

    If aluminum is placed in a placebo, then a person is more likely to have an adverse reaction. Spanish researchers found that girls who receive the HPV vaccine are 10 times more likely to react to it. Canadian scientists found that 10 percent of the girls who were vaccinated had to be hospitalized due to a reaction. These girls had to be hospitalized within 42 days of receiving the vaccination."

    Overstated and Unproven Effectiveness
    A 2012 systematic review7 of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine also concluded that the vaccine's effectiveness is both overstated and unproven. According to the authors, the review revealed:

    "… evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

    For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70 percent reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

    Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities)."

    Gardasil Safety Trials Were Not Designed to Detect Safety Problems
    It's precisely these kinds of design flaws that are highlighted in the December 17, 2017, Slate article.8 Joelving reports that Merck has repeatedly "issued reassurances about the thorough randomized trials the vaccines were subjected to before approval."

    The public was told that the three HPV vaccines marketed in the U.S. were tested on tens of thousands of individuals around the world, without any compelling evidence of serious side effects having emerged. While that reads well on paper, the shocking truth appears to be that these trials were never designed to detect and evaluate serious side effects in the first place. According to Joelving:

    "An eight-month investigation by Slate found the major Gardasil trials were flawed from the outset … and that regulators allowed unreliable methods to be used to test the vaccine's safety. Drug regulators tend to look much more seriously at potential side effects that surface during a pre-licensure study, which is what Lyng participated in, rather than after a product has already been found to be safe and been put on the market.

    But regulators never learned of Lyng's plight. In fact, her repeated complaints of debilitating symptoms were not even registered in the study as potential side effects … Lyng's experience was not unique. Interviews with five study participants and more than 2,300 pages of documents obtained through freedom-of-information requests from hospitals and health authorities suggest inadequacies built into Merck's major clinical tests of Gardasil."

    Joelving describes these inadequacies in great detail, showing how Merck made the vaccine appear far safer than it actually is by using "a convoluted method that made objective evaluation and reporting of potential side effects impossible during all but a few weeks of its yearslong trials." Serious adverse events were only recorded during a two-week period post-vaccination.

    Moreover, during this narrow window of time, trial investigators "used their personal judgment to decide whether or not to report any medical problem as an adverse event."

    Side Effects Simply Marked Down as Medical History
    Importantly, and shockingly, most of the health problems that arose after vaccination were simply marked down as "medical history" rather than potential side effects — a tactic that basically ensured that most side effects would be overlooked. No record was made of symptom severity, duration or outcome.

    Even with this gross reporting flaw, at least one Gardasil trial of the new nine-valent vaccine reported nearly 10 percent of subjects experienced "severe systemic adverse events" affecting multiple system organ classes, and over 3 percent suffered "severe vaccine-related adverse events."9 The 2012 systematic review10 of Gardasil pre- and post-licensure trials mentioned earlier isn't the only report out there that has offered up severe criticism of Merck's trial tactics. Joelving writes:

    "In an internal 2014 EMA report11 about Gardasil 9 obtained through a freedom-of-information request, senior experts called the company's approach 'unconventional and suboptimal' and said it left some 'uncertainty' about the safety results. EMA trial inspectors made similar observations in another report, noting that Merck's procedure was 'not an optimal method of collecting safety data, especially not systemic side effects that could appear long after the vaccinations were given.'"

    Study Subjects Betrayed
    In other words, when Merck says Gardasil has been extensively studied for safety, it's referring to studies set up in such a way that data on potential side effects were actually excluded. If side effects are not included in the data collection, how can you rightfully claim that no significant problems exist? Sadly, shoddy and incomplete documentation of adverse events, and follow-up periods that are too short to detect problems, can have tragic ramifications, and this is what appears to have happened with the release of Gardasil.

    Joelving's investigation reveals at least five other Danish women went on to develop debilitating health problems during the Gardasil trial. One developed severe fatigue, persistent flu-like symptoms, and had to be admitted to the hospital for a serious infection shortly after one of her vaccinations. All of her symptoms were marked down as "medical history" and were not processed as adverse events.

    A year after her vaccination, she developed such debilitating pain she had to use a wheelchair. To this day, she still sometimes has to use crutches, and has been given a tentative diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis. Another young woman also developed severe fatigue and headaches. She told Joelving she reported it to study personnel, yet there's no mention of these problems anywhere in her file. Joelving writes:

    "'If I were a research subject, I would feel betrayed,' Trudo Lemmens, a bioethicist and professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, told me. 'If the purpose of a clinical trial is to establish the safety and efficacy of a new product, whether it's a vaccine or something else, I would expect that they gathered all relevant data, including whether it had side effects or not.'"

    Imprecision Medicine
    Vaccines are often riskier than oral drugs, since they're injected into your body and contain a number of toxic adjuvants. When there's risk, you'd expect the benefit to be worth it, but research shows many drugs provide shockingly little benefit for a majority of people, and one wonders whether the same does not hold true for vaccines as well.

    The following graphic is from a Nature article published April 29, 2015.12 It shows the effectiveness of the top 10 highest-grossing drugs in the U.S. Nexium, for example, commonly prescribed for heartburn, is beneficial for just 1 out of every 25 patients.

    Advair, prescribed for asthma, helps 1 in 20; Cymbalta eases symptoms of depression in 1 out of 9 patients; Crestor, prescribed for high cholesterol, benefits 1 in 20. While not included in the graphic below, the article13 also cites research14 suggesting statins may benefit as few as 1 in 50.

    Truly, when you're talking about a benefit rate of 5 percent or less, can you really say that the drug in question is an effective one? Yet they're certainly marketed as such. Meanwhile, all of these drugs have side effects, which means all those who gain no benefit from the drug are risking their health for no good reason whatsoever.

    As noted in Nature, a wide variety of factors play into how you might respond to any given medication, including your gender, age, ethnicity and genetics giving rise to differences in absorption, metabolism, excretion and more.

    "The drug vemurafenib, for instance, was approved in the United States to treat late-stage melanoma in people whose tumors carry the BRAF(V600E) mutation. But some tumor cells develop other anomalies that make them resistant to the drug. Thus clinicians considering whether to prescribe vemurafenib may need to take into account a whole slew of biomarkers," the article states.

    In December 2017, Slate magazine published an astonishing article about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, revealing how the safety trials for this controversial vaccine actually "weren't designed to properly assess safety."1 Gardasil is supposed to prevent infection by certain strains of HPV virus, which in rare cases may cause cervical cancer if left untreated.

    However, trial data from Merck shows that Gardasil vaccinations may actually increase your risk of cervical cancer by 44.6 percent if you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to vaccination.2 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has made this document inaccessible, but we've saved a copy of it. In his Slate article, investigative journalist Frederik Joelving recounts the story of Kesia Lyng, a 30-year-old Danish woman who, at the age of 19, participated in a clinical trial for Merck's Gardasil vaccine

    "Lyng's grandmother had died of cervical cancer the year before, so when a letter arrived offering her $500 to take part in a crucial international test of Gardasil, the decision was easy," Joelving writes. "She got her first shot of the vaccine at Hvidovre Hospital in Copenhagen on September 19, 2002. The symptoms snuck up on her shortly after her second shot on November 14.

    They never abated. It wasn't until 2016 that she received her diagnosis — chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) … In recent years, Lyng has become suspicious that there is a connection between her disease and her Gardasil immunization. Her ailments evoke descriptions found in hundreds of news stories from women who also received the vaccine, as well as several medical case reports from around the world."

    HPV Vaccine Linked to Serious Side Effects, Including Death
    Reported side effects of Gardasil vaccination include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way, sometimes fatally.3,4 The dangers of high immunogenicity was addressed in my 2015 interview with Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., a research scientist at the University of British Columbia. In it, she explains that by triggering an exaggerated inflammatory immune response, vaccine adjuvants end up affecting brain function.

    In collaboration with a team led by professor Yehuda Shoenfeld, a world expert in autoimmune diseases who heads the Zabludowicz Autoimmunity Research Centre at the Sheba Hospital in Israel, Tomljenovic has demonstrated how the HPV vaccine can cause brain autoimmune disorders. It was these findings that prompted the Japanese government to remove the HPV vaccine from its list of recommended vaccines.5 The vaccine injury law firm Sadaka Associates also claims that:6

    "Medical researchers have accused drug regulators and manufacturers of concealing the real dangers of the HPV vaccine. Many girls have suffered life-threatening injuries as the result of the vaccine. The HPV vaccine has also caused death … The drug regulators have also been accused of adding aluminum to the placebo in order to manipulate scientific data. Even though aluminum was used in the placebo, scientists have confirmed that the HPV vaccine has been linked to death.

    There was a study done that involved 2,881 girls who receive the vaccine. Fourteen of the girls who received the vaccine died. Three of the girls who received the placebo died. There was a team of researchers at the National Institute of Cardiology that also found that there is a link between HPV vaccine and life-threatening reactions.

    They looked at 28 studies that involved girls who had been given the HPV vaccine. They also looked at 16 randomized trials. They found that girls were given a placebo with aluminum in 14 of the randomized trials.

    If aluminum is placed in a placebo, then a person is more likely to have an adverse reaction. Spanish researchers found that girls who receive the HPV vaccine are 10 times more likely to react to it. Canadian scientists found that 10 percent of the girls who were vaccinated had to be hospitalized due to a reaction. These girls had to be hospitalized within 42 days of receiving the vaccination."

    Overstated and Unproven Effectiveness
    A 2012 systematic review7 of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine also concluded that the vaccine's effectiveness is both overstated and unproven. According to the authors, the review revealed:

    "… evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

    For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70 percent reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

    Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities)."

    Gardasil Safety Trials Were Not Designed to Detect Safety Problems
    It's precisely these kinds of design flaws that are highlighted in the December 17, 2017, Slate article.8 Joelving reports that Merck has repeatedly "issued reassurances about the thorough randomized trials the vaccines were subjected to before approval."

    The public was told that the three HPV vaccines marketed in the U.S. were tested on tens of thousands of individuals around the world, without any compelling evidence of serious side effects having emerged. While that reads well on paper, the shocking truth appears to be that these trials were never designed to detect and evaluate serious side effects in the first place. According to Joelving:

    "An eight-month investigation by Slate found the major Gardasil trials were flawed from the outset … and that regulators allowed unreliable methods to be used to test the vaccine's safety. Drug regulators tend to look much more seriously at potential side effects that surface during a pre-licensure study, which is what Lyng participated in, rather than after a product has already been found to be safe and been put on the market.

    But regulators never learned of Lyng's plight. In fact, her repeated complaints of debilitating symptoms were not even registered in the study as potential side effects … Lyng's experience was not unique. Interviews with five study participants and more than 2,300 pages of documents obtained through freedom-of-information requests from hospitals and health authorities suggest inadequacies built into Merck's major clinical tests of Gardasil."

    Joelving describes these inadequacies in great detail, showing how Merck made the vaccine appear far safer than it actually is by using "a convoluted method that made objective evaluation and reporting of potential side effects impossible during all but a few weeks of its yearslong trials." Serious adverse events were only recorded during a two-week period post-vaccination.

    Moreover, during this narrow window of time, trial investigators "used their personal judgment to decide whether or not to report any medical problem as an adverse event."

    Side Effects Simply Marked Down as Medical History
    Importantly, and shockingly, most of the health problems that arose after vaccination were simply marked down as "medical history" rather than potential side effects — a tactic that basically ensured that most side effects would be overlooked. No record was made of symptom severity, duration or outcome.

    Even with this gross reporting flaw, at least one Gardasil trial of the new nine-valent vaccine reported nearly 10 percent of subjects experienced "severe systemic adverse events" affecting multiple system organ classes, and over 3 percent suffered "severe vaccine-related adverse events."9 The 2012 systematic review10 of Gardasil pre- and post-licensure trials mentioned earlier isn't the only report out there that has offered up severe criticism of Merck's trial tactics. Joelving writes:

    "In an internal 2014 EMA report11 about Gardasil 9 obtained through a freedom-of-information request, senior experts called the company's approach 'unconventional and suboptimal' and said it left some 'uncertainty' about the safety results. EMA trial inspectors made similar observations in another report, noting that Merck's procedure was 'not an optimal method of collecting safety data, especially not systemic side effects that could appear long after the vaccinations were given.'"

    Study Subjects Betrayed
    In other words, when Merck says Gardasil has been extensively studied for safety, it's referring to studies set up in such a way that data on potential side effects were actually excluded. If side effects are not included in the data collection, how can you rightfully claim that no significant problems exist? Sadly, shoddy and incomplete documentation of adverse events, and follow-up periods that are too short to detect problems, can have tragic ramifications, and this is what appears to have happened with the release of Gardasil.

    Joelving's investigation reveals at least five other Danish women went on to develop debilitating health problems during the Gardasil trial. One developed severe fatigue, persistent flu-like symptoms, and had to be admitted to the hospital for a serious infection shortly after one of her vaccinations. All of her symptoms were marked down as "medical history" and were not processed as adverse events.

    A year after her vaccination, she developed such debilitating pain she had to use a wheelchair. To this day, she still sometimes has to use crutches, and has been given a tentative diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis. Another young woman also developed severe fatigue and headaches. She told Joelving she reported it to study personnel, yet there's no mention of these problems anywhere in her file. Joelving writes:

    "'If I were a research subject, I would feel betrayed,' Trudo Lemmens, a bioethicist and professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, told me. 'If the purpose of a clinical trial is to establish the safety and efficacy of a new product, whether it's a vaccine or something else, I would expect that they gathered all relevant data, including whether it had side effects or not.'"

    Imprecision Medicine
    Vaccines are often riskier than oral drugs, since they're injected into your body and contain a number of toxic adjuvants. When there's risk, you'd expect the benefit to be worth it, but research shows many drugs provide shockingly little benefit for a majority of people, and one wonders whether the same does not hold true for vaccines as well.

    The following graphic is from a Nature article published April 29, 2015.12 It shows the effectiveness of the top 10 highest-grossing drugs in the U.S. Nexium, for example, commonly prescribed for heartburn, is beneficial for just 1 out of every 25 patients.

    Advair, prescribed for asthma, helps 1 in 20; Cymbalta eases symptoms of depression in 1 out of 9 patients; Crestor, prescribed for high cholesterol, benefits 1 in 20. While not included in the graphic below, the article13 also cites research14 suggesting statins may benefit as few as 1 in 50.

    Truly, when you're talking about a benefit rate of 5 percent or less, can you really say that the drug in question is an effective one? Yet they're certainly marketed as such. Meanwhile, all of these drugs have side effects, which means all those who gain no benefit from the drug are risking their health for no good reason whatsoever.

    As noted in Nature, a wide variety of factors play into how you might respond to any given medication, including your gender, age, ethnicity and genetics giving rise to differences in absorption, metabolism, excretion and more.

    "The drug vemurafenib, for instance, was approved in the United States to treat late-stage melanoma in people whose tumors carry the BRAF(V600E) mutation. But some tumor cells develop other anomalies that make them resistant to the drug. Thus clinicians considering whether to prescribe vemurafenib may need to take into account a whole slew of biomarkers," the article states.

    Pregnant Women To Be Included in Experimental Drug Trials
    Historically, pregnant women have been discouraged from taking drugs and vaccines during pregnancy, as there's very little data on their safety for the growing fetus. Pregnant women have thus far not been included in clinical drug and vaccine trials. The reason for this should be obvious.

    A pregnant woman is not only putting her own health on the line, but also that of her unborn child. Now, that's all about to change. In April 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued draft guidance15 for industry on when and how they may include pregnant women in clinical trials for drugs and therapies. As reported by Science News:16

    "It addresses considerations such as the effect pregnancy has on the absorption of drugs, nonclinical studies that should be conducted, and appropriate data collection and safety monitoring. The key concern with pregnant women participating in clinical trials is safety of the fetus.

    The terrible birth defects that resulted from the wide use of the sedative thalidomide in the 1950s and '60s weighed heavily on the eventual decision to largely exclude pregnant women from trials that test drugs. But that tragedy didn't happen because pregnant women were studied, [obstetrician Anne] Lyerly says — it was because they weren't studied.

    'If you don't study a drug in a highly-controlled research setting,' Lyerly says, 'it's not like the risk that would be imposed on those individuals goes away.' Instead, the risk gets shifted to women who need the drug or women who get pregnant while on the drug.'"

    According to research17 published in 2011, 94 percent of pregnant women in the study had taken one or more over-the-counter or prescription medications during their pregnancy; 70 percent used at least one prescription drug. The average number of drugs used during pregnancy has also nearly doubled in recent decades, from 2.5 in 1976/1978 to 4.2 in 2006/2008. The researchers also concluded there was insufficient data to determine the risks to the baby for 98 percent of these drugs.

    While the inclusion of pregnant women in drug trials may be justifiable, as Lyerly tries to claim above, what guarantee do we have that drug companies will design studies to actually FIND side effects, opposed to doctoring studies in such a way that side effects are simply obscured?

    The fact is, there are no guarantees whatsoever, as these studies will be a) done by the same companies mass-marketing drugs that are effective for 5 percent of patients or less, and b) regulated by the same government agencies that let drug companies get away with doing safety studies that don't actually record side effects.

    Safety Is a Hindrance to Profits
    Getting back to the HPV vaccine, research18 shows Merck played a distinct role in state HPV vaccination policy, promoting school-entry mandates19,20,21 "by serving as an information resource, lobbying legislators, drafting legislation, mobilizing female legislators and physician organizations, conducting consumer marketing campaigns and filling gaps in access to the vaccine."

    It also found that most stakeholders thought the company "had acted too aggressively and nontransparently" to achieve their aim. Again, Merck designed their safety studies so as not to find side effects, and then aggressively lobbied to maximize vaccine uptake. So, in essence, children and teens were sacrificed in these studies just to allow the company to say they had studied the vaccine and found it safe and effective (even though it has NEVER been proven to have prevented a single case of HPV and/or cervical cancer).

    And now we're going to allow Merck and others to include pregnant women in their studies as well? What could possibly go wrong? Again and again, we see a pattern suggesting safety is not allowed to get in the way of profits and policy. History also reveals a pattern of marketing drugs and vaccines by playing on people's fears. Most recently, Bill Gates stated he believes a global pandemic that could kill 30 million in six months is on its way, and we're completely unprepared for it.22,23

    His comments were made during an "Epidemics Going Viral, Innovation Vs. Nature" speaker series on April 27, 2018, sponsored by Massachusetts Medical Society and The New England Journal of Medicine. According to Gates, the next pandemic killer might well be a disease we've never encountered before.

    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has a history of supporting questionable vaccination agendas with their millions, so it makes sense, I guess, that Gates would be anxious to create a need for some costly remedy by amping up the fear factor. In the past decade, there's been a string of attempts to rile up the masses and increase demand for pandemic vaccines.

    The predicted pandemics all fell flat, and no mass casualties ever occurred, yet the fearmongering strategy is not easily abandoned. In the case of the HPV vaccine, it's promoted as an anticancer vaccine, even though no proof exists that it actually prevents cancer. As mentioned earlier, Merck's own research revealed an increased risk of cervical cancer with the vaccine under certain circumstances.

    The Dangers of HPV Are Overhyped — Understand What You're Vaccinating Against and What the Alternatives Are
    It may be worth remembering the basics when pondering the decision of whether or not to vaccinate your child against HPV:

    • There are over 200 viral strains of HPV. Gardasil 9, licensed in 2015, contains the original Gardasil HPV types 16, 18, 6 and 11, plus types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, which are associated with cervical, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancers. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S. and anal cancer kills approximately 300 Americans each year. So, HPV vaccine is not targeting a major public health threat, no matter which way you look at it.

    • Most HPV cases are in fact harmless, and your immune system is typically able to fight and clear out the infection naturally, even without treatment. In 90 percent of cases, HPV resolves within two years or less; 70 percent clear within one year. In a small percentage of individuals, HPV can persist for years, and may cause symptoms to appear, particularly when the immune system weakens. High-risk HPV strains may also cause lesions that sometimes can evolve into cervical cancer if left untreated.

    • To avoid contracting HPV, use condoms during sexual activity. Research24 has demonstrated that using condoms can reduce the risk of HPV infection by 70 percent, which is far more effective than the HPV vaccine. If you have children nearing sexual maturation, teach them about the importance of safe sex — not just for the avoidance of HPV, but also to avoid other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are now resistant to antibiotics and exceptionally difficult to treat.

    • Get regular Pap smears once sexually active, and get treatment if testing positive for HPV infection. Remember, it's the long-term, untreated infections that can trigger cancer. According to research published in 2014, shiitake mushroom extract can speed up the elimination of HPV infection in women by boosting immune function.

    Routine Pap smear testing is a far more rational, less expensive, and less dangerous strategy for cervical cancer prevention, as it can identify chronic HPV infection and may provide greater protection against development of cervical cancer than blind faith in an unproven HPV vaccine.
    Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
    With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.

    NVIC Advocacy poster

    THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

    National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

    It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

    Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

    Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

    Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
    If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

    I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

    We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

    The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

    Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
    I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
    https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Home.aspx
    NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
    If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
    Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
    Vaccine Failure Wall: View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.
    Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care
    If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.

    At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

    It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

    So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

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

    avid (12th June 2018), Reinhard (25th June 2018)

  18. Link to Post #150
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    The Ongoing Thimerosal Travesty Needs to End
    JUNE 12, 2018
    https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...urce=mailchimp
    Quote By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr

    World Mercury Project Team Note:
    The lessons learned from the ongoing saga of thimerosal are significant to all who care about vaccine safety, want justice for the injured, and to prevent future harm. The government has said they corrected the thimerosal issue and want us to believe the case is closed. But has the public been fooled with swapping one heavy metal toxicity for another? While thimerosal is still in some flu shots and is especially harmful to pregnant women, infants and children, there are increasing amounts of aluminum exposures from vaccines as more shots are added to the schedule. Like early reports about mercury, now children’s toxic profiles show alarming amounts of aluminum. And the problems don’t end with heavy metals. There are other vaccine contaminants that can cause harm, like retroviruses, formaldehyde, and aborted human fetal tissue. In short, we are in desperate need of an agency that can protect our citizens, especially children, from vaccine injuries. How can the controversy and handling of thimerosal-containing vaccines instruct us as we move forward for real reform?
    Thimerosal is the infamous mercury-containing preservative in use, to this day, in some vaccines and also in dozens of other pharmaceutical products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1-3 Public health agencies, government regulators and medical trade groups have repeatedly declared thimerosal to be safe,4,5 but the published peer-reviewed science argues that nothing could be further from the truth. For anyone who bothers to investigate thimerosal’s appalling record, there is a vast, still accumulating and compelling body of research that contradicts the public health establishment’s deceptive safety claims.

    Thimerosal is almost 50 percent ethylmercury by weight. Ethylmercury is an organic mercury compound with toxicity mechanisms similar to methylmercury6 (the hazardous type of mercury in seafood). The danger posed by both types of mercury was evident in earlier eras when fungicides containing either ethyl- or methylmercury poisoned farmers, sometimes on a large scale, from the 1950s through the 1970s.7,8 Of the two compounds, the ethylmercury in vaccines is far more toxic to and persistent in the brain, where it has a propensity to accumulate as inorganic mercury,9,10 with an estimated half-life of as long as twenty-seven years.11

    HISTORY OF THIMEROSAL
    Before the invention of modern antibiotics and antiseptics, physicians experimented with mercury-containing compounds to try to stave off microbial pathogens. Thimerosal was born of those efforts. Dr. Morris Kharasch, a university chemist and Eli Lilly fellow, developed thimerosal and filed for a patent in June, 1929, describing thimerosal as an “alkyl mercuric sulfur compound” with antibacterial properties. Eli Lilly and Company registered thimerosal under the trade name Merthiolate later that year.

    …they did not consider the possibility of mercury-induced brain damage.
    Eli Lilly researchers reported in 1931 that animals seemed to tolerate high doses of thimerosal. However, many of those animals died of evident mercury poisoning just days after the study ended. Also noteworthy is the fact that in early animal toxicity studies and many later research efforts, researchers did not assess socialization behaviors or perform cognition tests. In other words, they did not consider the possibility of mercury-induced brain damage.

    During this same time period, the Eli Lilly researchers reported on the first injections of thimerosal into humans. The unlucky recipients of large doses of Merthiolate were twenty-two patients hospitalized during a 1929 epidemic of meningococcal meningitis in Indianapolis. The thimerosal had no apparent therapeutic benefit, and all twenty-two patients died—seven of them within one day of thimerosal administration. The researchers nevertheless described the experiment as a success, and a published paper stated that “these large doses did not produce any anaphylactoid or shock symptoms” (neither of which is associated with toxic mercury exposure). However, the clinician who treated the meningitis patients apparently was not convinced of thimerosal’s efficacy, stating, “Beneficial effects of the drug were not definitely proven.” Moreover, any short-term neurological or other deleterious effects of the thimerosal would likely have been masked by or attributed to the patients’ meningitis infections.

    For decades, Eli Lilly promoted its confident version of the Indianapolis results as evidence of thimerosal’s safety, paving the way for thimerosal’s inclusion in various antiseptic products, including nasal sprays, eyewashes, vaginal spermicides and diaper rash treatments. This escalation of thimerosal use in consumer products occurred despite numerous studies from the 1930s showing that thimerosal was not, in fact, “highly germicidal” and actually was more effective at destroying human cells than killing pathogens. Thimerosal never measured up to its supposed raison d’être of safely preventing microbial contamination, and studies continued to chalk up clear and unequivocal evidence that thimerosal was deadly to human cells.

    THIMEROSAL IN VACCINES
    Nonetheless, starting in the 1930s, pharmaceutical companies began to use thimerosal in multidose vials of vaccine to extend shelf life and lessen the risk of bacterial and fungal contamination that arises when several doses are drawn from the same vial. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines allow health providers to administer extra doses from multidose vials up until the printed expiration date “if the vial has been stored correctly and the vaccine is not visibly contaminated.”12 (The CDC does not say what to do about contamination that may not be “visible.”)

    Through the 1970s and 1980s, children in the U.S. generally received eight injections of three types of vaccines—oral polio, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine—in their first eighteen months. The DTP vaccine contained fifty micrograms of thimerosal per shot, translating into one hundred micrograms of mercury exposure by eighteen months. In 1986, after more and more people began suing vaccine manufacturers for serious vaccine injuries primarily related to the DTP vaccine, Congress took the unprecedented step of granting vaccine manufacturers full immunity from lawsuits. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established a compensation program “as an alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries.”13 By making it impossible for vaccine-injured plaintiffs to sue pharmaceutical companies, the result—whether intended or unintended—was to eliminate any financial incentive to make vaccine safety a priority.

    By making it impossible for vaccine-injured plaintiffs to sue pharmaceutical companies, the result—whether intended or unintended—was to eliminate any financial incentive to make vaccine safety a priority.
    Beginning in 1989, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) began steadily increasing the types and total number of vaccines required for school attendance, including thimerosal-containing vaccines. By 1999, the expanded vaccine schedule called for children to receive nineteen vaccine injections by age two, eleven of which contained thimerosal. Children born in the 1990s could be injected, therefore, with up to 237.5 micrograms of mercury by their second birthday, and as much as 62.5 micrograms at a single doctor’s visit.

    In my book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak,14 I quote school nurse Patti White, who noticed, early on, the vaccine-induced mercury overload in young children. In 1999, White testified before Congress about the thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine administered to newborns:

    The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological and/or immune system damage: epilepsy, seizure disorders, various kinds of palsies, autism, mental retardation, learning disabilities, juvenile-onset diabetes, asthma, vision/hearing loss, and a multitude of new conduct/behavior disorders. We [school nurses] have come to believe the hepatitis B vaccine is an assault on a newborn’s developing neurological and immune system. Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier. However, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.

    School nurses were not the only ones to call attention to the mounting evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines were having neurotoxic effects. In response to pressure from Congress and the public, the FDA conducted a review in the late 1990s that found that the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccine schedule surpassed some federal safety guidelines. Accordingly, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a lukewarm statement in 1999 about thimerosal’s potential risks. The statement’s authors called for the phase-out of thimerosal-containing vaccines “as expeditiously as possible,“ while still avowing that “the large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first 6 months of life.”15

    THE SIMPSONWOOD CABAL
    A year later (June 7-8, 2000), the CDC convened a secret scientific review panel of over fifty experts who began backpedaling from the AAP-USPHS pronouncement.16 The group that met at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center near Atlanta included high-ranking CDC and FDA representatives, state and international public health officials, vaccine company representatives and others. At the outset, the meeting’s chair, immunologist Richard Johnston, expressed regret that the group had not met to consider the data sooner, “in advance of…the public health decisions [to phase out thimerosal] that were made last summer.” Further betraying his preconceptions, Johnston stated that there was “no evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that young infants’ developing brains were being exposed to an organomercurial.”

    Despite these apparent attempts to make the association “go away,” Verstraeten was obligated to present the troublesome finding of linear and statistically significant dose-related relationships between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders to the group assembled at Simpsonwood.
    The group then heard a presentation by Thomas Verstraeten, a research fellow at CDC who subsequently went on to a decade-long career at GlaxoSmithKline. Verstraeten had been working up a study using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (established by the CDC in 1990 to study rare and serious vaccine adverse events), scrutinizing data from roughly one hundred and ten thousand children born between 1992 and 1997 and enrolled at U.S. health maintenance organizations. The study sought to assess the relationship between thimerosal exposure (at one, two, three and six months of age) and neurological damage. After the initial findings showed a possible causal link, Verstraeten reworked the study design and analyses several times prior to Simpsonwood. Despite these apparent attempts to make the association “go away,” Verstraeten was obligated to present the troublesome finding of linear and statistically significant dose-related relationships between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders to the group assembled at Simpsonwood.

    Although differing viewpoints emerged, many of the Simpsonwood attendees were less than persuaded by Verstraeten’s results. Some, such as John Clements of the World Health Organization’s Expanded Program on Immunization, focused more on the public relations implications. Clements stated:

    I hear the majority of the consultants say…that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes. …The research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association…through freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. […] My mandate…is to make sure…that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal-containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe. […] How will it be presented to a public and a media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they have in store for them? …I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here.

    Despite the clear association between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders demonstrated by the Verstraeten study, many of the industry and public health scientists present tried to minimize the implications by voting them away. When polled at the end of the day’s discussion, most of them voted to rate the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders as “weak.” In his summary comments as meeting rapporteur, Paul Stehr-Green described Verstraeten’s results as being only weakly indicative of a safety signal—defined as “information on a new or known adverse event that may be caused by a medicine.”17 While acknowledging that the signal “deserved further investigation and…raised some perhaps disquieting possibilities,” Stehr-Green concluded that “there was not anything close to sufficient evidence to support a finding of a causal relationship.”

    Pediatrician William Weil observed that “the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before.”
    Attendee William Weil (a pediatrician representing the AAP) noted that even accepting Stehr-Green’s assertion that Verstraeten hadn’t proven a link to neurodevelopmental disorders, it was alarming that he hadn’t disproven it, and there was insufficient evidence, he pointed out, to reject a possible causal relationship. He stated that “the possibility that the associations could be causal has major significance for public and professional acceptance of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” Weil also observed that “the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before.” Another of his observations was that thimerosal in vaccines represented “repeated acute exposures” and that “the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these [neurodevelopmental] effects.” Finally, Weil pointed out the limitations of epidemiological studies, calling for further indepth animal and developmental neurotoxicity studies and stating: “Some of the really gutsy questions from a person who is very concerned about neurodevelopment cannot be answered out of this.” At the same time, Weil cautioned others not to overly minimize or “play with” the VSD data. Weil was the only reviewer present to rate the association between thimerosal and the neurodevelopmental outcomes as strong, giving it a four on a scale of one to six (where one was weakest).

    …CDC moved aggressively to hastily gin up five poorly designed epidemiological studies to disprove the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders.
    The groupthink on display at Simpsonwood primarily illustrates that most public health and medical experts were itching to exonerate thimerosal, regardless of the science, and continue with business as usual. Following the Simpsonwood meeting, CDC moved aggressively to hastily gin up five poorly designed epidemiological studies18-22 to disprove the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. Written by industry scientists, the published studies focused solely on one injury (autism), and four out of the five were done on foreign populations with minimal exposure to thimerosal. Three of the five studies were published in a compromised journal, Pediatrics, which receives a significant portion of its revenue from vaccine-makers. In 2002, the AAP dutifully “retired” its 1999 joint statement on thimerosal.23 In January 2013, the AAP went even further in several articles in Pediatrics, going on record in favor of exempting thimerosal from an international treaty on the elimination of avoidable mercury exposures.24

    The notion that “trace amounts” of a substance as highly toxic as mercury might be benign is exceedingly misleading.
    THE FALLACY OF TRACE AMOUNTS
    Even when vaccines do not contain thimerosal as a preservative, manufacturers use it in some single-dose and multidose vaccines to impede bacterial growth during the manufacturing process.5 The CDC states that “when thimerosal is used this way, it is removed later in the process” and only “trace amounts” remain (no more than one microgram per dose).25

    The notion that “trace amounts” of a substance as highly toxic as mercury might be benign is exceedingly misleading. In a seminal 2014 publication in the prestigious journal Lancet Neurology, toxicology experts Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan observed that the developing human brain is uniquely vulnerable to mercury and other neurotoxins, often “at much lower exposure levels than had previously been thought to be safe.”26

    Discussing methylmercury, the Lancet authors also noted that developmental neurotoxicity occurs at far lower exposure levels than “the concentrations that affect adult brain function.” Other investigators have argued that there may be no meaningful safety threshold for methylmercury.27 Given the body of research indicating that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury and that both have comparable mechanisms of toxicity, it stands to reason that warnings about the risks of lower exposure levels would also apply to ethylmercury.

    A 2012 Italian study showed that ethylmercury-containing thimerosal diminished the viability of human cells in the lab at a concentration one-fiftieth that of methylmercury.28 Although thimerosal’s apologists like to state that ethylmercury disappears from the bloodstream more quickly than methylmercury, this is no evidence that it has cleared the body. Ethylmercury migrates more rapidly to and then lingers in the organs.29

    A study that analyzed hair samples from babies’ first haircuts found that children with autism who had received thimerosal-preserved vaccines excreted lower levels of mercury into their hair as infants compared with normal, same-aged children also receiving these vaccines, suggesting that the mercury had lodged in the autistic children’s brains and was hindering neurological development.30

    OPEN SEASON ON PREGNANT WOMEN
    Thimerosal passes more easily from a mother’s bloodstream through the placenta than does methylmercury.31 Fetal cord blood mercury levels are typically about double the mother’s mercury blood levels.32 This is cause for concern for developing babies in light of the CDC’s 2004 recommendation that all pregnant women in any trimester get flu shots. By 2012–2013, uptake of flu shots during pregnancy had steadily increased to approximately 50 percent.33 Manufacturers still preserve millions of flu shots with massive bolus doses of thimerosal (about thirty-six million flu shots containing twenty-five micrograms of mercury in the 2017-2018 flu season),34 meaning that children born since 2004 have been increasingly likely to be exposed to thimerosal in utero.

    A 2017 CDC study reviewing data from the 2010–11 and 2011–2012 flu seasons linked spontaneous abortions to flu vaccines, finding that women vaccinated with the inactivated influenza vaccine had 3.7-fold greater odds of spontaneous abortion within twenty-three days than women not receiving the vaccine.35 For women who received the H1N1 vaccine in both seasons covered in the study, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the month after receiving a flu vaccine were 7.7 times greater. The vast majority of flu vaccines available during the seasons studied were multidose formulations containing twenty-five micrograms of mercury.

    THIMEROSAL WORLDWIDE
    While the thimerosal debate has carried on in the United States, children around the world have never stopped receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines. The mindset revealed by Simpsonwood attendee John Clements of the WHO—who described a “mandate” to vaccinate one hundred million children “this year, next year and for many years to come” with thimerosal-containing vaccines—has not changed. In fact, the medical community continues to argue that the benefits of keeping thimerosal in vaccines outweigh the risks and that thimerosal is “critical” for low-resource countries that rely on multidose vials as the most affordable option.36 One of the AAP’s former presidents has asserted that, for the good of the global community, the Academy’s pro-thimerosal position is a “no-brainer.”37 The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety states that “no additional studies of the safety of [thimerosal] in vaccines are warranted.”38

    The global health authorities making cavalier and single-minded pronouncements on “life-saving vaccines” should consider the bigger health picture. For example, exposure to toxic metals such as mercury can contribute to malnutrition and, conversely, malnutrition may also increase susceptibility to mercury toxicity.39,40 Mercury is also a potent immunosuppressant, which has implications in low-resource settings where children already face numerous other health challenges and environmental pollutants.41

    THE TIME IS NOW
    The medical establishment’s defense of thimerosal’s safety has proven highly successful in tamping down deeper investigation into thimerosal and the vaccine industry. Perhaps because major pharmaceutical companies (the makers of vaccines) are among the biggest advertisers in the U.S., the mainstream press has accepted these government orthodoxies and ignored the ample evidence showing that thimerosal is toxic. In fact, the thimerosal saga illustrates the aggressive, knee-jerk rejection by the press, the medical community and allied financial interests of any scientific information suggesting that established medical practices are harming public health. Nevertheless, continuing to wait for more research is not a reasonable public policy option. Thimerosal is dangerous to human health and should immediately be removed from all vaccines (as well as other pharmaceutical and cosmetic products), both in the U.S. and globally.



    REFERENCES
    1. Geier DA, Sykes LK, Geier MR. A review of thimerosal (Merthiolate) and its ethylmercury breakdown product: specific historical considerations regarding safety and effectiveness. J Toxicol Environ Health B 2007;10:575-596.
    2. Food and Drug Administration. “Mercury in drug and biologic products.” https://worldmercuryproject.org/wp-c...dated_2009.pdf.
    3. World Mercury Project. “Mercury in medicine.” https://worldmercuryproject.org/merc...y-in-medicine/.
    4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Thimerosal in vaccines.” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/co...sal/index.html.
    5. Food and Drug Administration. “Thimerosal and vaccines.” Last updated Jan. 5, 2018. https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...fety/UCM096228.
    6. Risher JF, Tucker P. Alkyl mercury-induced toxicity: multiple mechanisms of action. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 2017;240:105-149.
    7. Al-Tikriti K, Al-Mufti AW. An outbreak of organomercury poisoning among Iraqi farmers. Bull World Health Organ 1976;53(Suppl):15-21.
    8. Hilmy MI, Rahim SA, Abbas AH. Normal and lethal mercury levels in human beings. Toxicol 1976;6:155-159.
    9. Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson T. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methymercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113(8):1015-1021.
    10. Dórea JG. Integrating experimental (in vitro and in vivo) neurotoxicity studies of low-dose thimerosal relevant to vaccines. Neurochem Res 2011;36(6):927-938.
    11. Rooney JP. The retention time of inorganic mercury in the brain—a systematic review of the evidence. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2014;274(3):425-435.
    12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2011;60(2).
    13. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-c...ouse-bill/5546.
    14. Kennedy, RF Jr. Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing; 2015.
    15. Joint statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS). Pediatrics 1999;104(3).
    16. Scientific review of Vaccine Safety Datalink information. Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, GA; June 7-8, 2000. Available at: https://worldmercuryproject.org/wp-c...-Documents.pdf.
    17. European Medicines Agency. “Signal management.” http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.j...01ac0580727d1b.
    18. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003;112:1039-1048.
    19. Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. Am J Prev Med 2003;25:101-106.
    20. Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 2003;290:1763-1766.
    21. Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB et al. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics 2003;112:604-606.
    22. Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 2004;114:584-591.
    23. Orenstein WA, Paulson JA, Brady MT, Cooper LZ, Seib K. Global vaccination recommendations and thimerosal. Pediatrics 2013;131(1).
    24. Cooper LZ, Katz SL. Ban on thimerosal in draft treaty on mercury: why the AAP’s position in 2012 is so important. Pediatrics 2013;131(1).
    25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Understanding thimerosal, mercury, and vaccine safety.” Last reviewed Feb. 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/pat...lor-office.pdf.
    26. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol 2014;13: 330-338.
    27. Rice DC. The U.S. EPA reference dose for methylmercury: sources of uncertainty. Environ Res 2004;95:406-413.
    28. Guzzi G, Pigatto PD, Spadari F, La Porta CA. Effect of thimerosal, methylmercury, and mercuric chloride in Jurkat T Cell Line. Interdiscip Toxicol 2012;5(3):159-161.
    29. Harry GJ, Harris MW, Burka LT. Mercury concentrations in brain and kidney following ethylmercury, methylmercury, and Thimerosal administration to neonatal mice. Toxicol Lett 2004;154(3):183-189.
    30. Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol 2003;22(4):277-285.
    31. Leonard A, Jacquet P, Lauwerys RR. Mutagenicity and teratogenicity of mercury compounds. Mutat Res 1983;114(1):1-18.
    32. Stern AH, Smith AE. An assessment of the cord blood: maternal blood methylmercury ratio: implications for risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 2003;111(12):1465-1470.
    33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women—United States, 2012-13 influenza season. MMWR 2013;62(38):787-792.
    34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Seasonal influenza vaccine supply for the U.S. 2017-2018 influenza season. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm.
    35. Donahue JG, Kieke BA, King JP, et al. Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010-11 and 2011-12. Vaccine 2017;35(40):5314-5322.
    36. Sifferlin A. Experts argue to keep thimerosal in some vaccines. TIME, Dec. 27, 2012.
    37. Tavernise S. Vaccine rule is said to hurt health efforts. The New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012.
    38. World Health Organization. “Thiomersal in vaccines.” http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/co...l/Jun_2012/en/.
    39. Anetor GO. Waste dumps in local communities in developing countries and hidden danger to health. Perspect Public Health 2016;136(4):245-251.
    40. Chakrabarti SK, Bai C. Effects of protein-deficient nutrition during rat pregnancy and development on developmental hindlimb crossing due to methylmercury intoxication. Arch Toxicol 2000;74(4-5):196-202.
    41. Tsai MS, Chen MH, Lin CC, et al. Children’s environmental health based on birth cohort studies of Asia. Sci Total Environ 2017;609:396-409.

    This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2018.
    Last edited by Paul; 13th June 2018 at 05:02. Reason: indent opening Note

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

    Paul (13th June 2018)

  20. Link to Post #151
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 128,856 times in 20,633 posts

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

    One of my favorite medical commentators, John Bergman, comments on vaccines this week:

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Alan (14th June 2018), Foxie Loxie (13th June 2018)

  22. Link to Post #152
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    That's a really excellent, easy-to-understand explanation of the most important issues surrounding the "science' of vaccines.
    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    One of my favorite medical commentators, John Bergman, comments on vaccines this week:
    Last edited by onawah; 13th June 2018 at 18:33.

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

    Paul (13th June 2018)

  24. Link to Post #153
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Senate Committee Moves to Force Release of Water Contamination Study Blocked by Scott Pruitt, White House
    by Alex Formuzis Environmental Working Group
    THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018
    This is about PFAS chemicals in drinking water, but hopefully will fit into this thread well enough.
    https://www.ewg.org/release/senate-p...e#.WyQR3adKgdU
    Quote WASHINGTON – The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill today that includes report language requiring the Trump administration to release a key scientific study it buried. The study proposed safe levels for fluorinated, or PFAS, chemicals in drinking water at levels up to ten times lower than those the Environmental Protection Agency recommends.

    The amendment to the committee report, authored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. and approved in the Interior-Environmental spending bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to publish the study within two weeks of the bill becoming law.

    Internal emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and reported by Politico revealed that the top aides to EPA head Scott Pruitt, as well as Department of Defense and White House officials, sought to block the study’s release, fearing a “public relations nightmare” that could follow.

    “Scott Pruitt and the White House clearly will do anything to hide information from the public on any number of issues, including the poisoned drinking water of 100 million Americans,” said EWG Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber. “But lawmakers from both sides of the aisle understand full well how important clean drinking water is for their constituents and all Americans.”

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

    onevoice (16th June 2018)

  26. Link to Post #154
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Chair of Senate Environment Panel to Call Scott Pruitt to Testify on Scandals
    by Alex Formuzis Environmental Working Group

    THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018https://www.ewg.org/release/chair-senate-environment-panel-call-scott-pruitt-testify-scandals#.WyQkvadKgdU
    Quote WASHINGTON – The Republican chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency plans to call the agency’s embattled chief Scott Pruitt to testify, specifically in response to multiple scandals and investigations surrounding the administrator.

    Through a spokesperson, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., informed Reuters of his decision to compel Pruitt to come before the Environment and Public Works Committee to answer questions about his alleged abuse of his office.

    Barrasso also formally requested Senate appropriators provide the EPA’s inspector general with “sufficient funding” to carry out ongoing investigations into Pruitt’s behavior.

    “Scott Pruitt’s low-rent grifting has finally become an albatross for those who have supported and defended him even as the scandals and investigations mounted,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “It’s one thing when Pruitt’s swamp stench lingers over only him, but it appears to be infiltrating the airspace around Republicans in Congress and President Trump.”

    Sen. Barrasso is the latest Republican senator to demonstrate growing impatience with Pruitt. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and close friend and political mentor to Pruitt, blasted the administrator during an appearance on Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham’s radio show and in an interview with The Washington Post this week.

    Ingraham called on President Trump to fire Pruitt after learning he tasked an aide with reaching out to conservative donors for help getting his wife a job.

    In her Tweet, Ingraham blasted Pruitt for damaging Trump.

    And the same day, the conservative magazine National Review published an editorial calling for Pruitt’s dismissal.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...should-resign/

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

    onevoice (16th June 2018)

  28. Link to Post #155
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Dept. of Justice Report: U.S. Government Continues to Pay Millions in Vaccine Injuries and Death Settlements
    June 21, 2018
    http://healthimpactnews.com/2018/u-s...h-settlements/

    Quote by Brian Shilhavy
    Editor, Health Impact News

    The federal government Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services just concluded their second meeting of 2018 on June 15th.

    These quarterly meetings include a report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on cases settled for vaccine injuries and deaths as mandated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

    The NVICP was started as a result of a law passed in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity from being sued due to injuries and deaths resulting from vaccines.

    Drug manufacturers in the vaccine market can now create as many new vaccines as they desire, with no risk of being sued if their product causes injury or death.

    This has resulted in a huge increase of vaccines entering the market, and the U.S. government, through the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), is the largest purchaser of these vaccines, spending in excess of $4 billion taxpayer dollars each year to purchase these vaccines.

    If you or a family member is injured or dies from vaccines, you must sue the federal government in this special vaccine court. Many cases are litigated for years before a settlement is reached.

    As far as we know, Health Impact News is the only media source that publishes these reports each quarter. Past reports can be found here.

    The June 15, 2018 report states that 263 petitions were filed during the 3-month time period between 2/16/18 – 5/15/18, with 147 cases being adjudicated and 113 cases compensated.

    But for some reason, the DOJ report only lists 68 of the settlements, leading one to wonder why only these particular cases were listed.

    These 68 cases (see below), specify the vaccine, the injury, and the amount of time the case was pending before settlement.

    53 of the 68 cases were for injuries (and one death) due to the flu vaccine, making the annual flu shot the most dangerous vaccine in the U.S., by far.

    The most common flu vaccine injuries are SIRVA (“Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration”) and GBS (“Guillain-Barré Syndrome“), which leads to paralysis.

    While “shoulder injury related to vaccine administration” may not sound serious, it can lead to very serious complications, including chronic pain.

    SIRVA can lead to intense, prolonged pain, limited range of motion, and shoulder-related injuries such as Adhesive Capsulitis or Frozen Shoulder Syndrome. (Source.)

    Read the story of how one man entered a hospital because of shoulder pain, and was dead six weeks later:

    http://medicalkidnap.com/2017/12/17/...n-in-hospital/

    Read the full report: http://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/...-June-2018.pdf
    Vaccine Injuries are Seldom Reported

    In November of 2014, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued the first report on America’s “Vaccine Court,” known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), in almost 15 years.

    As I noted above, Congress gave the pharmaceutical companies immunity against lawsuits for injuries or deaths resulting in vaccines in 1986. Prior to this time, there were so many lawsuits pending against pharmaceutical companies for injuries and deaths due to vaccines, that the pharmaceutical industry basically blackmailed congress and told them that if they did not grant them legal immunity against the liabilities of vaccines, that they would quit making them. These vaccine products cannot survive in a free market, they are so bad.

    The November 2014 GAO report criticized the government for not making the public more aware that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists, and that there are funds available for vaccine injuries. Therefore, the settlements represented by vaccine injuries and deaths included in the DOJ report probably represent a small fraction of the actual vaccine injuries and deaths occurring in America today.

    The U.S. government keeps a database of reports documenting vaccine injuries and deaths called The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The problem is that very few medical officials ever report vaccine injuries or deaths, either because they are not trained to recognize them, or due to pressure within their profession to not report them. To admit that vaccines do cause harm is professional suicide for most doctors and medical professionals.

    Hence, the quarterly DOJ report on vaccine cases only represents a tiny fraction of the actual cases that exist.

    One place we can get a glimpse of the amount of vaccine harm that is being caused in the U.S. today is to look at emergency room visits. As one can see in the report above, with most of the settlements being cases of harm caused by the flu vaccine, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is the most common injury suffered from the flu shot. GBS is a debilitating disease that attacks a person’s own immune system and damages their nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. It is very similar to the symptoms one may see with polio.

    If you are taken to the emergency room with signs of GBS during flu season, chances are one of the first questions the doctors will ask you is if you have received the flu shot recently. GBS is also listed as a side effect of the flu shot in the package insert.

    An emergency room nurse published his experience in dealing with the volume of vaccine injuries he was seeing, and how reluctant other medical personnel were in reporting these injuries:

    As an E.R. nurse, I have seen the cover up. Where do you think kids go when they have a vaccine reaction?

    They go to the E.R.

    They come to me.

    I cannot even begin to guess how many times over the years I have seen vaccine reactions come through my E.R. Without any exaggeration, it has to be counted in the hundreds.

    Sometimes it seemed like it was one or two cases in a single shift, every shift, for weeks. Then I would get a lull, and I wouldn’t catch one for a week or two, then I’d catch another case per night for a couple weeks. This was common.

    Once, I was training a nursing student, about to graduate, on their E.R. experience rotation in nursing school. This student and I floated up to triage to cover the triage nurse for a break. I was quizzing them on what to ask and look for as a triage nurse on pediatric kids that came through. I made a point about asking about immunizations right out the gates. The student was puzzled, and asked why, and I told the student because we see vaccine reactions every day and it’s their job to catch it, alert the doctor and the parents, and report it to VAERS.

    Some higher power apparently smiled on my attempt to open the eyes of another nurse I guess, because not even ten minutes later, a woman brought her child up to the counter. Sudden onset super high fever and lethargy. I asked if the child was up to date on vaccination.

    The mother replied he had them just a few hours ago.

    I glanced at the student, who looked shocked and looked back at me in disbelief. I nodded, told them to remember this, and then took the mom and her child to finish the triage in back. When I was done I came back and sat down with the student, and asked what he learned that night so far.

    The first response: “What I was told about vaccines wasn’t true”.

    I couldn’t have said it better. That student is going to go on to be like me, advocating for his patients with his eyes wide open.

    The cases almost always presented similarly, and often no one else connected it. The child comes in with either a fever approaching 105, or seizures, or lethargy/can’t wake up, or sudden overwhelming sickness, screaming that won’t stop, spasms, GI inclusion, etc.

    And one of the first questions I would ask as triage nurse, was, are they current on their vaccinations? It’s a safe question that nobody sees coming, and nobody understands the true impact of. Parents (and co-workers) usually just think I’m trying to rule out the vaccine preventable diseases, when in fact, I am looking to see how recently they were vaccinated to determine if this is a vaccine reaction.

    Too often I heard a parent say something akin to “Yes they are current, the pediatrician caught up their vaccines this morning during their check up, and the pediatrician said they were in perfect health!”

    If I had a dollar for every time I’d heard that, I could fly to Europe for free.

    But here’s the more disturbing part.

    For all the cases I’ve seen, I have NEVER seen any medical provider report them to VAERS. I have filed VAERS reports. But I am the ONLY nurse I have EVER met that files VAERS reports.

    Mind you, I have served in multiple hospitals across multiple states, alongside probably well over a hundred doctors and probably 300-400+ nurses.

    I’ve worked in big hospitals (San Francisco Bay Area Metro 40 bed ER, Las Vegas NV Metro 44 bed ER) and small hospitals (Rural access 2 bed ER, remote community 4 bed ER) and everything in between.

    When I say NEVER, I mean NEVER.

    I have even made a point of sitting in the most prominent spot at the nurses station filling out a VAERS report to make sure as many people saw me doing it as possible to generate the expected “what are you doing” responses to get that dialog going with people.

    And in every case, if a nurse approached me, their response was “I’ve never done that” or “I didn’t know we could do that” or, worse “What is VAERS?” which was actually the most common response.

    The response from doctors? Silence. Absolute total refusal to engage in discussion or to even acknowledge what I was doing or what VAERS was.

    The big take away from that?

    VAERS is WOEFULLY under reported.

    I am PROOF of that. (Read the full blog post here.)

    Autism Vaccine Injuries Not Allowed: Too Many
    One indication that the problem is more widespread than what the public is being told is the increasing rate of autism among children.

    The U.S. government vaccine court will no longer hear cases of vaccines causing autism. When the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund was set up in 1988, autism was the most prevalent vaccine injury brought before the vaccine court, mostly from the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

    It soon became apparent that the trust fund, funded through taxes the public pays on vaccines, would not be sufficient to litigate all the claims for autism as a vaccine injury. By March 1, 2010, 13,330 cases had been filed in the special vaccine court, with 5,617 representing autism cases. Of those 13,330 cases filed up to March 1, 2010, only 2,409 were compensated. The rest were dismissed, but there were 5,933 cases still pending, and most of those were claims for vaccine-induced autism, mostly due to either the MMR vaccine, or vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury).

    So how did the federal government and the vaccine court handle this?

    Simple. They took 3 “test cases” that they said represented all of them and litigated against those claims. Their own appointed judges then ruled in each case that vaccines were not the cause of their autism. Then they told everyone else that their autism could not have been caused by vaccines, and that they would pay no damages for all those hundreds of thousands of children suffering with autism.

    This was all part of what is called The Omnibus Autism Proceeding.

    So if you have a child today injured by vaccines and suffering with autism, you cannot sue the federal government in vaccine court, as their official position is that vaccines do not cause autism.
    More at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2018/u-s...h-settlements/

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

    Houman (22nd June 2018), Paul (22nd June 2018)

  30. Link to Post #156
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    “Herd Immunity”? A dishonest marketing gimmick
    JUNE 21, 2018
    https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...urce=mailchimp
    Quote By J.B. Handley, Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, World Mercury Project

    As a country and a society, we’ve never been anywhere close to “herd immunity” through vaccination, but where are all the epidemics? That doesn’t keep vaccine makers from using herd immunity as a weapon to guilt and scare parents. Why are we allowing “mythology to trump science”?

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Hiding in a nondescript office building in Washington, D.C., Every Child By Two (“ECBT”) poses as a nonprofit organization with a seemingly noble goal: getting as many children vaccinated as possible. Of course, a quick Google search or perusal of the nonprofit’s 990 forms reveals a different truth: ECBT is a front group for vaccine makers, the primary source of their funding. Don’t take my word for it, the prestigious British Medical Journal ran an expose of many groups like Every Child By Two titled, “The unofficial vaccine educators: are CDC funded non-profits sufficiently independent?” The BMJ was pretty unsparing:IAC, ECBT, and AAP have a few things in common. They are all non-profit organizations with large online presences that promote themselves as sources of reliable information on vaccines. They also receive funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And, in their advocacy for compulsory vaccination, they all have in common a goal that pushes beyond official governmental policy and, in the case of influenza vaccines, the evidence.Amy Pisani, ECBT’s director, maintains a twitter account for the organization where she recently encouraged parents to do their part in maintaining “community immunity” through an infographic that was part gentle reminder, part guilt-induced obligation, and 100% founded on nonsense.

    What, exactly, is “Community Immunity”?
    “Community Immunity” is the term du jour and an apparently more palatable synonym for the oft-invoked concept of Herd Immunity, the idea that unless enough people are vaccinated against a certain disease, everyone is at risk. Find the right doctor to come on TV, and they’ll be happy to explain the magic of vaccine-derived Herd Immunity, and what a scientific process it really is, according to them. Fall below Ms. Pisani’s 95% vaccination rate number in her infographic? We return to the Dark Ages!

    There’s just one problem with the Community/Herd Immunity math and the shaming and pressure that goes along with it: we’ve never come close to achieving “Herd Immunity” through vaccination, and we never will. In order for Herd Immunity to be a real thing, you need two things to be true (and neither have ever been):

    1. Adult vaccination rates would also have to be very high, just like rates for children

    Ms. Pisani’s infographic above mentions the 95% threshold needed to achieve herd immunity for measles, but she fails to mention one thing: the vaccination rate of all the adults. According to the CDC, adult vaccination rates have been, and remain, woefully low, as the CDC’s 2016 survey–Vaccination Coverage Among Adults in the United States, National Health Interview Survey— explained:

    “Many adults in the United States have not received recommended vaccinations…”

    How low are adult vaccination rates? Well, the CDC study included a chart of adult vaccination rates for at least some vaccines over time:
    Do you see what I’m seeing? According to the CDC, it appears that adult vaccination rates for most vaccines ARE BELOW 50%. But, wait a minute, how do we achieve “community immunity” if less than half the adults are playing along? We don’t, as some simple 8th grade math can show you.

    Let’s make some assumptions. Let’s assume the child (18 and under) vaccination rate is 100%. It’s not, so this is a conservative assumption. Also, let’s assume the overall adult vaccination rate is 60%. It’s not that high, so this is also a conservative figure. If we blend those two numbers, what do we get? Well, children 18 and under represent 24% of the US. Population, so here you go:

    (24% x 100%) + (76% x 60%) = 69.6%
    So, the actual “community” vaccination rate in this example is 69.6% (the children’s rate plus the adult rate equals the total rate), and this is probably a high figure, so the real number in the United States right now is probably somewhere around 65%. Nowhere near Herd Immunity thresholds.

    But, it’s actually worse, you also need to believe that:

    2. Vaccinations provide lifetime protection

    The mid-60 percent “community” vaccination rate above is enough to mathematically disprove that we’ve ever attained herd immunity all by itself, but it’s actually way worse than that. You see, vaccinations don’t confer lifetime immunity. In fact, many vaccines “wane” (meaning you lose the protection they provided you with) in under ten years. An eighteen year-old who received their last Hepatitis B vaccine at 4 years old? They probably have no more “protection” from the Hepatitis B vaccine. The “real” rate of vaccine protection in our society? Because of vaccine waning, it’s certainly well below 50%, just look at the “Duration of Protection” provided by some routine vaccines:



    The last vaccine I received was my senior year of college, in 1991. That was twenty-six years ago. And, I NEVER received many of the new vaccines on the childhood schedule that have all been introduced in the past 10-15 years. It’s safe to say that I have no vaccine-derived immunity from any disease right now, which raises an obvious question:

    If it’s mathematically true that we have never achieved herd immunity through vaccination because of adult vaccination rates and the fact that vaccines wane over time, where are all the epidemics?

    I’m not the first person to ask this question. It gets asked all the time by educated people who understand this topic and bristle at the ongoing discussions about herd immunity that take place in the mainstream media. One of the better articles I have read on this topic was in the The Hill, the daily newspaper of the U.S. Congress:



    Written by Gretchen DuBeau, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health, Ms. DuBeau destroys the myth of herd immunity in one short editorial, here’s just an excerpt:

    Vaccines may have a place in our medical arsenal, but they are not the silver bullet they’re portrayed to be. Year after year the pharmaceutical industry, looking for lucrative new profit centers, churns out new vaccines. They use pseudo-science to convince the public that these products are safe and effective, and they use public shaming to convince the citizenry that non-compliance is a public health threat. This entire racket completely falls apart with a close examination of the herd immunity myth. Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.

    Ms. DuBeau’s article quotes a doctor, Russell Blaylock, M.D., who has also been an outspoken critic of the herd immunity mythology, he writes:

    That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades. If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

    The school-specific vaccination rate argument is really absurd
    I live in Oregon. Like many states, our state publishes vaccination rates by school. If your child attends a school with “low” vaccination rates, the message is that it’s a time bomb waiting to explode! But, wait a minute.

    What’s the vaccination rates of the teachers in that school? No one knows. What’s the vaccination rate of the administrators? No one knows. What’s the vaccination rate of the parent volunteers, the janitors, the delivery people, and the parents who walk inside the school every day to pick up their children? That’s right: no one knows. And yet, we’re encouraged by the media to panic.

    History
    Perhaps you’re still confused. Yes, my math seems pretty airtight and direct. Ms. DuBeau’s article seems to support my argument, as does Dr. Blaylock. But could all these people screaming about the importance of herd immunity really be that far off base? What if I told you that banging the table about the importance of herd immunity is actually a very recent development, and one instigated by vaccine makers? What if our own history of vaccines and vaccination rates disproved the herd immunity myth all by itself? Let’s go back to the 1980s right here in the U.S. and see what the data says.

    Vaccination Rates: 1985
    No one can believe this chart when they first see it. They demand to see my data source. I got it from the CDC, here’s the link.
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pi...G/coverage.pdf



    These are vaccination rates for children in the United States in 1985. Does anything stand out to you? Yes, nine of the vaccinations we routinely give to children today didn’t exist in 1985. Yes, vaccination rates for the three vaccines we did give were dramatically below the “herd immunity” threshold that experts today like Ms. Pisani (who is funded by vaccine makers) tells us we need to hit. Well…where were all the epidemics? Feel free to Google “polio epidemic, United States, 1985.” I was alive in 1985. I was a sophomore in High School. No one was having a panic attack. No one was screaming herd immunity, or community immunity. Do I need to keep going?

    Final thoughts
    I’ve kept the arguments here very simple. I’ve just done some simple math and showed you some data from the mid-1980s. Herd immunity is an interesting theory, but it’s a myth that we’ve ever achieved it through vaccination. I could have gone down a few more levels. I could have asked why anyone should worry about vaccination rates if they themselves have been vaccinated? In turns out, the failure rate is probably way higher for vaccines than we think, way higher than even the numbers I quoted you above. Dr. Blaylock addresses this:

    In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

    It actually gets even more confusing. As one simple example, it turns out the pertussis vaccine (whooping cough) doesn’t keep you from carrying and spreading the disease. Why do we always read about whooping cough outbreaks? Boston University researchers explain:



    “This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it,” said Christopher J. Gill, associate professor of global health and lead author of the article. “Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.”

    Like I said, the story is quite a bit uglier than just basic math. Did you know there are employees of one vaccine maker–Merck–who filed a whistleblower lawsuit arguing that the company hid data that showed the mumps vaccine was losing efficacy:

    The suit charges that Merck knew its measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was less effective than the purported 95% level, and it alleges that senior management was aware and also oversaw testing that concealed the actual effectiveness. According to the lawsuit, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990’s to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to “report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy.”

    I could also share with you some other data from the CDC, some data that destroys the myth that vaccines saved us all from infectious disease. I could quote CDC scientists from a study published in Pediatrics in 2000 who said this:

    “Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.”

    I could keep going, but I won’t. Herd immunity is a myth. It’s a bully club planted in the media by vaccine makers to scare parents into vaccinating in order to “protect” others. The math doesn’t add up, and never has. The next time you hear someone invoke the importance of herd immunity, send them this article and ask them to refute it! And, ask yourself a question: “If they’re lying about herd immunity, what else might they be lying about?”



    Appendix: Other resources

    Can’t get enough information about the myth of herd immunity? Here’s some other articles and links.

    Do high rates of vaccination make us safe? Let’s talk about herd immunity. TruthSnitch

    Community Immunity? (From Informed Choice WA)

    Herd Immunity: Fact or Fiction? By Dr. Kelly Brogan

    HERD IMMUNITY: CAN MASS VACCINATION ACHIEVE IT? By Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

    There is no Herd Immunity By The Outliers

    Let’s talk about herd immunity By Levi Quakenboss

    Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych: Unvaccinated Children Pose “No Extra Danger to the Public”

    Great video from Dr. Suzanne Humphries (only 6 minutes long):

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

    Houman (24th June 2018), Paul (22nd June 2018)

  32. Link to Post #157
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    STATE BAR SUES LEADING VACCINE RIGHTS ATTORNEY IN CLASSIC WITCH HUNT
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/bre...sic-witch-hunt
    June 21st 2018
    Quote The North Carolina State Bar, the agency that licenses NC attorneys, has taken the unprecedented step of filing a lawsuit against the nation’s leading vaccine rights attorney, Alan Phillips, J.D., to force Phillips to hand over years of his clients’ files or risk being jailed for civil contempt…

    Attorney Phillips is the nation’s leading Vaccine Rights attorney, the only attorney whose practice is focused solely on vaccine exemptions and vaccine legislative activism, and who works with clients, attorneys, legislators and activists nationally in virtually every possible U.S. exemption setting.[1] North Carolina is known as “Vaccine Central” for its award-winning vaccine companies.[2] So, it’s not surprising that the NC State Bar is going after Phillips, with what Phillips claims are invented facts and law in a series of steps that appear to have been designed from the start to disbar Phillips, for helping people legally avoid vaccines. This is not just a personal attack against Phillips, it’s an attack on the entire vaccine awareness movement, given Phillips’ unique role in helping clients nationally with exemptions and legislative activism! So, please 1) share this story far and wide, 2) sign the petition linked below, 3) donate to support Phillips’ legal defense fund, and 4) stay tuned for updates to this story! (links below)

    BASELESS ATTACK

    The NC Bar’s lawsuit and underlying investigation are both unlawful for several reasons, according to Phillips. First, the Bar lacks the legally-required “allegation of misconduct.” That’s right, they are not even claiming Phillips actually did anything wrong, in which case (or should we say, “witch case”?) there is no legal basis for the investigation or lawsuit! There is also a blatant conflict of interest, Phillips points out, as he filed a good-faith complaint against State Bar attorneys for their fabrication of facts and law in a
    February 2017 “Letter of Warning” to Phillips. NC Bar attorneys can’t lawfully investigate Phillips while Phillips has an unresolved complaint open against Bar attorneys; both matters must be addressed by outside, independent people to avoid the obvious conflicts of interest. But the NC Bar is ignoring that conflict; it is suppressing Phillips’ complaint against Bar attorneys, and aggressively pursuing Phillips.

    Phillips is not alone in his claim that NC Bar attorneys have engaged in serious misconduct. His complaint against NC Bar attorneys is supported by two independent legal experts, and Phillips’ own preliminary investigation has turned up other witnesses to NC Bar officials fabricating facts, and other attorneys who claim they were disbarred based on facts invented by NC Bar attorneys. So, there appears to be a very serious problem at the NC State Bar!

    And Phillips isn’t the only one who has filed a complaint against NC Bar attorneys! Several organizations around the country have also filed complaints in recent months, based on contradictions between a NC Bar letter and other information posted on the Internet. NC Bar officials are suppressing these complaints as well—again, avoiding scrutiny of their own actions. Yet, they continue to pass judgment on other NC attorneys. More than just a little ironic…

    Finally, according to Phillips, the NC State Bar’s demand for years of Phillips’ clients’ files amounts to an unlawful “fishing expedition.” That’s a legal term for digging around in private information or documents to see if you can find something wrong, without a legitimate basis for having access to the information in the first place. It violates Constitutional due process. And this “expedition” would be particularly egregious, as it would violate hundreds of Phillips’ clients’ privacy rights based on the most sacred of legal tenets, the attorney-client privilege.

    Phillips fears the court may rubber-stamp the Bar’s unlawful demand, as courts sometimes do with government entities and powerful private persons. But Phillips also believes there is an out-of-the-box solution to the problem that involves putting a public spotlight on the matter, to expose publicly the NC Bar’s misdeeds, on the theory that “even a bad person will do the right thing when there’s a spotlight on them…” For example, Phillips founded a new non-profit, Bar Watch, Inc., to put a light on the NC Bar attorneys’ misconduct, and to garner support for a proper investigation of the NC Bar. But your help is needed to power that light!

    A summary and detailed description of the NC State Bar saga are available at the new Bar Watch, Inc. website: https://BarWatchOnline.org.

    HOW YOU CAN HELP!

    1. Please sign one of these petitions:

    (a) Petition for Attorneys:

    https://www.change.org/p/investigate-the-nc-ba

    (b) Petition for Non-Attorneys:

    https://www.change.org/p/no-attorney-is-above-the-law

    2. Please share this article throughout the vaccine awareness community!

    3. Please Donate to:

    (a) Bar Watch, Inc.: A NC non-profit corporation to document and expose publicly the NC State Bar’s misconduct regarding Phillips and other NC attorney-victims: https://www.patreon.com/BarWatchInc
    (b) Vaccine Rights Attorney Legal Defense Fund: Help Phillips pay for his legal defense. Phillips has spent over two decades donating most of his time to the vaccine controversy with frequent radio shows, legislative activism, conferences, information by phone and email—and never asked for donations. But now he needs our help: https://www.gofundme.com/vax-rights-...l-defense-fund short url: gf.me/u/jcjjwi
    (c) Personal donations: PayPal to alan@vaccinerights.com
    References

    [1] Phillips is the nation’s only attorney who works with clients, attorneys, legislators and activists nationally concerning vaccines required at birth; for daycare, school and college enrollment; as a condition of employment; for military members and families; for immigrants, including foreign-adopted children and refugees; for children of parents in child custody disputes; and a variety of sub-divisions of these categories. See www.vaccinerights.com

    [2] https://www.ncbiotech.org/news/four-...ies-win-awards

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

    Houman (24th June 2018)

  34. Link to Post #158
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    BIG PHARMA CAUGHT RED-HANDED!
    Quote BIG PHARMA CAUGHT RED-HANDED: Watch Del tear apart this Big Pharma advertisement and explain how the Whooping Cough Vaccine actually makes YOU a threat to babies. (Back by popular demand from Episode 63)

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

    Houman (25th June 2018), Paul (24th June 2018)

  36. Link to Post #159
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 128,856 times in 20,633 posts

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

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    BIG PHARMA CAUGHT RED-HANDED!
    Quote BIG PHARMA CAUGHT RED-HANDED: Watch Del tear apart this Big Pharma advertisement and explain how the Whooping Cough Vaccine actually makes YOU a threat to babies. (Back by popular demand from Episode 63)
    Each cough a gift...

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

    Houman (26th June 2018), onawah (24th June 2018)

  38. Link to Post #160
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 posts

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

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield
    AutismOne Conference 2018
    AutismOne Media
    Published on May 30, 2018

    Quote Who is the man behind the most highly controversial, intensely debated topics in modern medicine? In THE PATHOLOGICAL OPTIMIST, director Miranda Bailey brings us a character study of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, one of 13 co-authors of a notorious 1998 paper in the UK medical Journal The Lancet, but who became the very public face of what has come to be known as “The Anti-Vax Movement.” An expat from Britain who currently resides in Austin, Texas, Wakefield allowed Bailey and her team to follow him and his family for five years beginning in 2011 as he fought a defamation battle in the courts against the British Medical Journal and journalist Brian Deer. The results of that case – and the self-reflection, pronouncements, and observations of Wakefield, his legal team, wife, and his children – create a complex and incisive look at one of our era’s most fear-provoking and continuously provocative figures. THE PATHOLOGICAL OPTIMIST takes no sides, instead letting Wakefield and the battles he fought speak for themselves.

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

    Houman (26th June 2018), Paul (26th June 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst 1 8 17 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