Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2009

NaturalNews.com

November 17 2009

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In a bombshell finding that has far-reaching implications for society and culture, scientists at the University of Rochester have found that phthalates — the chemical found in many vinyl and plastic products — tends to “feminize” boys, altering their brains to express more feminine characteristics. The study has been published in the Journal of Andrology.

Phthalates are found in vinyl products (including vinyl flooring), PVC shower curtains, plastic furniture and even in the plastic coating of the insides of dishwashing machines.

The feminization process happens during pregnancy when phthalate exposure causes hormone disruptions in the unborn baby. This chemical feminizes males by disrupting the action of the hormone testosterone.

In this recent study, researchers found a strong correlation between the types of toys that male children play with and the level of phthalates found in their mothers when they were pregnant. Researchers discovered that boys exposed to high levels of phthalates in the womb tend to avoid playing with cars, trains or toy guns. They also avoided rough play, instead preferring more feminine toys and activities. (Barbie?)

Phthalates used in pharmaceutical coatings
What very few people know about phthalates is that they are used in the coatings of pharmaceuticals to create “enteric” coatings. This means that many people taking certain pharmaceuticals are unknowingly eating phthalates. If expectant mothers take such pharmaceuticals during pregnancy, they may then feminize their unborn male babies.

How do we know phthalates are used in pharmaceuticals? This Google Books link (http://books.google.com/books?id=e7…) shows a page from the Handbook of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Formulations: Over-the-counter products. In it, a recipe is given for manufacturing a clear enteric coating. The ingredients are:

Acetone
Purified water
Hydroxypropyl Methyl Cellulose Phthalate
Vanillin
Acetylated Monoglycerides
Alcohol

This combination of highly toxic chemicals is cooked, stirred and then used to coat pharmaceutical pills that people actually swallow!

Here’s a patent that describes the process in more detail:

http://www.wikipatents.com/5723151.html

Phthalates in antidepressant SSRI drugs
These phthalate chemicals are also used in antidepressant drugs. Here’s a patent that describes the process: “Controlled Release Compositions of an Antidepressant Agent” http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/200…

As the patent explains:

“…the enteric coating polymer is selected from the group consisting of cellulose acetate phthalate, polyvinyl acetate phthalate, methacrylicacid copolymer, cellulose acetate trimellitate, shellac, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate and combination thereof.”

Another section says:

“..the plasticizer is selected from diethyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, cetyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol-4000, triethyl citrate, triacetin or propylene glycol.”

Now here’s the real kicker: The drug companies are pushing to have expectant mothers dosed with antidepressant drugs during pregnancy! This is supposedly to prevent “post-partum depression” but the real reason is because Big Pharma simply wants to sell more drugs and pregnant women are the next target on the list.

But taking these drugs results in toxic phthalate levels in the body that are 50 times greater than a “normal” contamination level. As this study published in Environmental Health Perspectives explains:

“Select medications might be a source of high exposure to some phthalates, one of which, DBP, shows adverse developmental and reproductive effects in laboratory animals. These results raise concern about potential human health risks, specifically among vulnerable segments of the general population and particularly pregnant women and children.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art…)

If expectant mothers are taking more antidepressants coated with phthalates that cause the feminization of boys, we are going to be looking at the mass feminization of males in modern society.

Along with this mass feminization, you can expect to see dropping sperm counts (already happening), increased infertility and the emergence of more feminine physical characteristics among men.

Many would say this hormonal shift is already underway.

Macho Macho Man! (to quote The Village People)
If you look at the transformation of men in modern society over the last 50 years or so, there appears to be a measurable trend towards more feminine looks and behavior. NaturalNews doesn’t judge this one way or the other — it’s just an observation of a trend.

We all need to be mindful when discussing this topic due to potential issues ranging from male “femininity” to homosexuality. There is no indication from this particular study that phthalate exposure in the womb tends to cause boys to adhere to any particular sexual orientation, but it’s probably a question that scientists will be asking: Does exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals tend to alter the behavioral sexual expression of developing babies?

And if so, what’s “normal” anyway? Is it normal for boys to grow up playing with toy guns and fighting all the time? Some might label that an overly-aggressive expression of testosterone. It is arguably too much testosterone that has landed our planet in a perpetual state of military conflict, after all. Clearly, this research brings up some intriguing questions about nutrition, chemical exposure, sexual orientation and societal norms. It all deserves a tremendous amount of thoughtful discussion.

In any case, there does seem to be a subtle shift taking place toward the feminization of men. The full extent of the role of plastics chemicals in this matter has yet to be understood, but it certainly has an impact.

A recent 326-page report from the State of Denmark, by the way, warns that today’s children are exposed to hundreds of “gender-bender” chemicals found in products like sunscreen lotions, moisturizing creams, rubber boots and bed linens (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…). The title of the article? “Why boys are turning into girls…”

Does taking the Pill make feminine men more attractive to women?
At the same time this is going on, there is evidence that women who take birth control pills also have their hormones unknowingly altered to be more attracted to feminine males.

Here’s a fascinating story on this very topic, with lots of example photos of macho men vs. feminine men:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a…

As long as we’re on this touchy subject, I might as well mention that PETA recently ran advertisements claiming that hormones in animal products cause men to grow “man boobs.” Their campaign slogan is, “Dude looks like a lady. Lose the breasts. Go vegetarian.” (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/…)

These are just a few examples of the complex issues that surface during any investigation of sexual expression, sexual orientation and the consumption of chemically-laced foods or medicines. Clearly, what you put in your mouth (or on your skin) affects your hormone balance, and today’s consumers are assaulted with a bewildering array of toxic chemical substances such as phthalates.

Body care products are another source of phthalates
As it turns out, foods and pharmaceuticals may not be the only source of phthalate exposure you need to be concerned about. Phthalates are also commonly used in personal care products — especially “baby” products such as baby shampoos, baby lotions and baby powders. From Wikipedia:

“Body care products containing phthalates are a source of exposure for infants. The authors of a 2008 study ‘observed that reported use of infant lotion, infant powder, and infant shampoo were associated with increased infant urine concentrations of [phthalate metabolites], and this association is strongest in younger infants. These findings suggest that dermal exposures may contribute significantly to phthalate body burden in this population.’ Though they did not examine health outcomes, they noted that “Young infants are more vulnerable to the potential adverse effects of phthalates given their increased dosage per unit body surface area, metabolic capabilities, and developing endocrine and reproductive systems.”

So even if your baby is born with a macho mustache and leather tool belt already buckled around his waist, exposure to phthalate chemicals in baby personal care products might disrupt his hormones and have a feminizing effect. It’s yet another reason to avoid all conventional personal care products. (Phthalates aren’t the only chemical contaminant found in those toxic products…)

Drink from glass if you want to stay hormonally balanced
Phthalates aren’t the only chemicals you need to avoid in plastics — there’s also BPA (Bisphenol-A). To avoid such gender-bender chemicals, hormonally-aware men like Daniel Vitalis (www.DanielVitalis.com) drink only from glass containers. They avoid plastics like the plague. “When you drink bottled water,” Vitalis once told me, “you’re actually drinking a ‘plastic tea’ beverage.”

And that plastic tea may very well disrupt your hormones, causing strange biological effects for both men and women. Think about that the next time you pick up a bottle of water bottled by Coke or Pepsi (Dasani or Aquafina).

If you want to protect your manliness (or your womanhood), stay away from plastics! Doubly so if you’re a soon-to-be mom and you want your child to be born with unaltered hormone function.

For all the men out there, stay away from pharmaceuticals, since you never know what sort of bizarre chemical concoctions might be coating those pills. Swallowing enteric-coated antidepressants may very well lead to the shrinkage of your precious man junk, causing even more serious depression!

Editor’s note: I realize the subjects presented here may create a firestorm of discussion or debate among NaturalNews readers. For the record, NaturalNews does not condone the idea that little boys have to play with cars and toy guns to be considered “normal.” And men don’t necessarily have to be macho macho men in order to be “real” men. There are too many gender stereotypes in society today, including the idea that little girls have to play with Barbie dolls to be normal. My personal view is that I honor and respect each individual human being for who they are, regardless of their sexual orientation, skin color, religious beliefs, etc. And in terms of gender expression, my own opinion is that parental messages and societal cues probably have at least as much impact on gender expression as hormone-disrupting chemicals. Feel free to discuss these topics in the comment section, below.

Sources for this story include:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalates

Read Full Post »

25 Zil Qa’dh 1430 – 14 November 2009

ANCA SLAUGHTERER’S PLEA TO
SANHA’S NAVLAKHI

Allie Siraji, is a Malawian slaughterer employed at the ANCA Chicken plant in
Stutterheim. Anca Chicken plant is certified ‘halaal’ by SANHA, the leader in the carrion
chicken industry. Allie Siraji has desperately complained to Navlakhi of SANHA about
the Haraam chickens of ANCA which are marketed as halaal. He has complained to
Navlakhi in telephone calls and several faxes. He has finally come to The Majlis to
expose the Haraam carrion corruption of SANHA at Anca Chickens. For the benefit of the
Muslim community we reproduce here one of Allie’s faxes verbatim – errors and all. He
is not an expert of the English language, hence the numerous errors.
“To Maulana Navlakhi of SANHA, November 2009
Four days ago I sent you my letter by fax about ANCA HARAAM CHICKEN. But I did
not get reply from you. You must do something quick. We cant let Muslims eat these
HARAAM ANCA CHICKENS. Here is no night supervisor and no day supervisor. Issa
(Sanha’s day supervisor) is busy selling the Somalian (drug) Mira. He is not here at work
the whole time.
He (Issa) put kuffars to slaughter the chickens. How can ANCA CHICKEN BE Halaal?
But SANHA’s certificate is used by ANCA to deceive Muslims with SANHA certificate.
Muslims eat ANCA HARAAM chickens. This must stop. You Maulana must withdraw
SANHA’s certificate (from ANCA) because ANCA chickens are HARAAM. No day
supervisor – no night supervisor and kuffars are also cutting Anca chickens.
Allah Ta’ala will punish us all for you Maulana Navlakhi – for SANHA and for us
Muslimslaughterers because Anca is haraam.
Al-Majid, Al-Wajid, Al-Wahid, Al-Ahad, Al-Samad, Al-Quadir, Al-Malik, Al-Reman, Al-
Rahim. And make copy. Allah never fails. Send this to nine people. You will get good news
tomorrow. If you reject, bad luck (will fall on you) for 10 years. This is proved true. Don’t
take risk. Only 9 messages in the Name of Allah Ta’ala.”
(Comment: The brother Allie has
mentioned nine of Allah’s attributive designations. He believes that that using these Names of
Allah Ta’ala at least nine people should be informed of the Haqq, viz. that ANCA CHICKENS
ARE HARAAM. He believes that if this Haqq is not proclaimed that terrible misfortunes will
befall those who conceal the Haqq and allow Muslims to continue consuming the rotten,
diseased, haraam carrion chickens which SANHA sanitizes and halaalizes for the sake of
money. – The Majlis). Continuing his plea to Navlakhi, Alli Siraaji, laments:
“But what you know, the haraam is still going on there at ANCA. There at ANCA (the
haraam is) still made by your supervisor Issa. Maulana you only can make change the
Haraam to become true halaal. If you want ANCA to be halaal, it is better you chase
supervisor and the other slaughterers . They use drugs and are drinkers…………We don’t
want the kuffars to slaughter again chickens at ANCA. Haraam things is made by Issa in
ANCA FARM.”
PO Box 3393
Port Elizabeth
6056
Page 2
2
EXTRACTS FROM ANOTHER FAX, DATED 2 NOVEMBER 2009, OF ALLIE SIRAAJI
ALSO WRITTEN TO NAVLAKHI
“What happens is that when we slaughter though the knives are not sharp, he do forces
us to slaughter. He also eat Somalian drug called Mira. Instead of being at work, he only
concentrates on selling and chewing the Somalian drug, Mira. How can we slaughter
(properly with blunt knives)?
The supervisor is not around. He has to make sure that
ANCA chickens are halaal.
When he want to employ people to slaughter, he just employ the Xhosa people who are
not Muslims. They usually come to work while they are drunk. If you (i.e. Navlakhi) want
to make a proof, you can come to ANCA, then take supervisor and the people who
slaughter chickens to the doctor for check up. (If you come) you will see people
slaughtering chicken while they are drunk with beer and drugs. You can fax your answer
(to me) to 0436433925 or 0825492069. Do something please! So that HARAAM can be
stopped. Answer me know please! ALLIE SIRAAJI ” (End of slaughterer’s plea and
lament.)
OUR COMMENT:
Instead of answering the letters of Allie as he pleaded and instead of dismissing the drunks and
the drugs and instead of withdrawing the haraam certificate, Navlakhi dismissed Brother Allie.
Allie Siraaji has been fired for proclaiming the Haqq. It is not only Allie who has complained. We
have the affidavits of other ANCA slaughterers as well. Another ANCA slaughterer, Mohamed
Osman, resigned about two months ago. He could no longer tolerate SANHA’s Anca haraam
corruption. He claimed that the he had three primary reasons for having resigned:
(1)
His conscience could no longer tolerate deceiving Muslims and allowing them to eat
Haraam Anca chickens whilst he was fully aware that the chickens were Haraam.
(2)
Torturing the chickens to death with blunt knives was excruciating mental pain which
jarred his Imaan.
(3)
What answer will he give to Allah Ta’ala on the Day of Qiyaamah for all the years of
deception, corruption, torture and haraam?
When asked why did the slaughterers not complain before, they responded: (i) They had
complained on numerous occasions to SANHA’s drunken supervisor, to Maulana Variawa
(SANHA’s inspector in the area) and to other Muslims who had visited the plant. (ii) Finallytheir
eyes really opened when they read the numerous pamphlets on Earlybird and Rainbow Haraam
Carrion Chickens. This emboldened them to become more open and vociferous.
The Muslim community should now draw its own conclusions.
AFTER
READING
ALLIE’S
PLEA
AND LAMENT
AND NAVLAKHI’S
CONTEMPTUOUS DISMISSAL OF THIS BROTHER, CAN ANY MUSLIM STILL
DOUBT THAT
RAINBOW CHICKENS, EARLYBIRD CHICKENS
ANCA CHICKENS, COUNTYFAIR CHICKENS, AND ALL
COMMERCIALLY MURDERED CHICKENS CERTIFIED BY
SANHA AND MJC ARE HARAAM CARRION? SAVE YOUR
IMAAN! ABSTAIN FROM THE ROTTEN, DISEASED, HARAAM
CARRION PRODUCED BY THE COMMERCIAL CHICKEN
KILLING FACILITIES

Read Full Post »

Kellogg’s claims sugary “Cocoa Crispies” cereal can boost your child’s immunity (opinion)

November 03, 2009
by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The world of bizarre nutritional claims by sugary cereal makers just got a little more weird this week when Kellogg’s began shipping boxes of Cocoa Krispies emblazoned with the ridiculous claim, “Now helps support your child’s IMMUNITY.”

If processed white sugar, partially-hydrogenated trans fat oils and synthetic chemical vitamins could enhance human immunity, Kellogg’s would be King of the Hill, but in reality, of all the many foods for boosting human immune function, Cocoa Krispies somehow isn’t even on the list.

In fact, you might say that Kellogg’s claim of boosting immunity with a sugary cereal sprayed with synthetic vitamins is one of the most hilarious claims yet floated by a cereal company, but what’s definitely not funny is the fact that the FDA openly allows this deceptive, fraudulent food labeling to continue even while threatening, arresting or prosecuting nutritional supplement companies that make similar but true claims.

For example, it’s illegal in America to claim that vitamin D boosts immune function (even though it does), but it’s perfectly allowable for Kellogg’s to claim their sugared-up Cocoa Krispies boosts immunity (even though it doesn’t). What’s wrong with this picture?

Why doesn’t the FDA (or the FTC) send threatening letters to the CEO of Kellogg’s, threatening them with arrest and prosecution while confiscating Kellogg’s cereal inventory for “misleading labeling?” This is exactly what the FDA would do if the product in question were an herb or a bottle of vitamins. Somehow, Kellogg’s gets away with outright labeling fraud while regulators twiddle their thumbs and pretend to be doing their jobs.

Synthetic vitamins and loads of sugar
By the way, you might be curious why Kellogg’s thinks they can make such a claim on a box of Cocoa Krispies. The front of the box loudly proclaims “25% daily value of antioxidants & nutrients, vitamins A, B, C & E.” This, apparently, is the basis for their claim.

Except they aren’t using actual food-based vitamins A, B, C and E. Instead, they’re using synthetic, artificial chemicals that have been given the names “Vitamin B12″ or “Vitamin C” and so on. These aren’t holistic vitamins like the ones found in nature. They’re synthetic, sprayed-on nutrients concocted in a chemical factory somewhere. To even call them vitamins is an insult to real vitamins found in real food.

Cocoa Krispies isn’t even real food, if you ask me. It’s a nutrient-deficient, highly-processed, sugar-laden source of empty calories. To claim it “supports IMMUNITY” is so far-fetched that you’d have to be living in some alternate universe to even think about believing it. As one person quoted in USA Today said about this, if Kellogg’s can claim their vitamin-sprayed sugared-up puffed rice boosts immune function, then you could spray synthetic vitamins on a pile of leaves and make the same immune boosting claims about them, too!

Highly-processed sugary cereals are not medicine. They do not enhance or increase human immune function. If anything, the high acidity of the sugar used in the product causes the body to become more acidic, which suppresses immune function. I’m willing to bet that if you take a hundred people with the healthiest immune systems in the world, you won’t find their pantries stocked with Cocoa Krispies.

Eat more sugar as a defense against swine flu?
It’s clear that this package claim by Kellogg’s is aimed at all the flu-conscious parents who are worried that little Johnny might get infected and die from swine flu if he doesn’t get his vaccine shot and eat his Cocoa Krispies. Then again, if Cocoa Krispies can boost immune function, we do kids need vaccines at all?

The H1N1 vaccine itself, by the way, is just as ridiculous as this Cocoa Krispies claim. Neither one offers any real protection against the flu, but both are being hyped up as strong solutions. Maybe they should give away a free box of Cocoa Krispies with every swine flu shot just to double up on the protection, huh?

Nutritional illiteracy remains widespread
For years, the FDA has betrayed the American people by allowing ridiculous health claims on the packages of processed dead foods that have been chemically augmented with synthetic vitamins. Meanwhile, real foods like broccoli, blueberries and citrus fruits aren’t allowed to make any health claims whatsoever. Is it any wonder that America has so many sick people? Most of the information presented to consumers at the grocery store is the opposite of what’s real!

Junk food is good for you! Living foods are dangerous! Raw milk might kill you, but drink this pasteurized homogenized processed milk because it builds strong bones! Here, buy this “Smart Choices” processed food, it’s healthy!

We have become a nation of idiot information about food. It’s like in the movie Idiocracy where the population is convinced that water is “for toilets” and that only sports drinks beverages are safe for human hydration needs.

It also makes you wonder about the intelligence of the consuming population: Are there really moms out there who think that buying Cocoa Krispies will boost their childrens’ immune function?

If so, we don’t merely have a problem with misleading food labeling in America today; we have a problem with widespread nutritional illiteracy.

And it’s caused in part by the fact that our kids can’t learn well in school these days because they’re being fed processed, sugary junk foods like Cocoa Krispies for breakfast.

Sources for this story include:
USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus…

Read Full Post »

NaturalNews.com

November 9 2009

Synthetic DHA and ARA in Baby Formula is Causing Infant Illness

by Ethan Huff, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) For years, baby formula manufacturers have been fortifying and reformulating their blends in an effort to poise their products as equal or superior to natural breast milk. Beginning in 2002, many producers began supplementing their mixtures with synthetic forms of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA), the long-chain fatty acids naturally present in breast milk. Evidence is now showing that the synthetic versions are detrimental to the health of children, despite their continued usage in almost every available brand of infant formula.

The idea behind fortifying infant formula with DHA/ARA was substantiated based upon the fact that a mother’s breast milk naturally contains these polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. They are vital components to human eye and brain development, particularly in the formative infant years. The primary distinction is that the form of DHA/ARA being used in infant formula is structurally incompatible with the form found in human milk.

Martek Biosciences Corporation, the company who produces synthetic DHA/ARA, extracts the oils from laboratory-grown fermented algae and fungus using hexane, a demonstrated neurotoxic chemical. Identified as a hazardous air pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hexane resides in the same category as other serious toxins that are linked to causing cancer and other serious health problems.

Developed primarily as a marketing tool, Martek’s 1996 DHA/ARA investment promotional material states that even if the additive had no demonstrable benefit, it would nevertheless allow manufacturers to market their formulas as being the “closest to human milk”. Formula manufacturers quickly jumped on the bandwagon despite definitive evidence proving the additive’s safety.

Recently implicated in causing severe reactions in some babies, including breathing problems, gastrointestinal upset, and other illnesses, synthetic DHA/ARA is on the hot seat. Parents and professionals alike are questioning why the additive is still being used in almost every available brand of infant formula and why the companies using the additive are being allowed to claim that their product is superior to human breast milk, despite the hundreds of mounting FDA adverse event reports indicating its dangers.

Whether the culprit is the DHA/ARA itself, the hexane extraction residue, or both, it is anyone’s guess since no formidable scientific safety studies were conducted prior to the additive’s introduction into the formula market. Prior to hitting the market, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern to Martek about the safety of the new additive, indicating that the agency desired to convene a formal meeting to address the issue. Martek denied this request and, shortly thereafter, the FDA reversed its previous stance and approved the additive’s use despite the lack of any independent scientific safety review.

Since that time, Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed hundreds of FDA adverse event reports that have gone unnoticed by the FDA who has failed to act in conducting an investigation. Typically, a few well-documented adverse event reports are reason enough to conduct a product investigation; several hundred would indicate an immediate need for scrutiny.

Many empirical reports indicate that sick babies who were taken off formula containing synthetic DHA/ARA almost immediately recover from any ailments induced since starting the formula. This indicates a practical connection that deserves further investigation by the agency appointed to perform such analysis, the FDA.

Not only is Martek’s DHA/ARA supplement being used in baby formulas, it is now being added to a whole host of foods and nutritional supplements for adults, lauded as a great vegetarian alternative to animal-based oils of the same variety. Since the extraction method involves a known chemical neurotoxin, it is best to avoid this additive anyway.

With or without synthetic additives, no baby formula can replace the amazing nourishing properties of a mother’s breast milk. It is the perfect, natural blend of immune-building, brain-developing goodness that cannot be matched or replicated. While some natural formulas may seem to come close, breast-feeding continues to be the superior method of nourishing a baby and should be utilized whenever possible.

Sources:

Replacing Mother – Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory – The Cornucopia Institute

Dangerous Hype: Infant Formula Companies Claim They Can Make Babies ‘Smarter’ – AlterNet

Products containing life’s DHA – Martek Biosciences

Read Full Post »

NaturalNews.com

November 17 2009

Genetically engineered hormones used by dairy industry promote cancer

by E. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) An industry report claiming that the genetically-engineered hormone Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) is safe has received criticism from the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) for its dubious findings. Funded by producers of rBST, the report was conducted entirely by industry-paid consultants rather than by independent, credible scientists, indicating it is fallacious.

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the CPC, lambasted the report for failing to recognize the grave, scientifically-proven dangers imposed by rBST. Author of the 2006 book What’s In Your Milk?, Dr. Epstein stated the report was “blatantly false”.

One of the primary effects of rBST on cows is that is causes them to become seriously ill with various diseases including mastitis, an infection of the udder that ultimately contaminates milk with pus. Commonly branded as Posilac, rBST unnaturally increases milk production at the expense of the cow’s health, the repercussions of which are passed on to the consumer.

Monsanto, the original creator of rBST, was forced to reveal the truth that rBST induces roughly 20 toxic effects, all of which end up tainting the milk with disease. When farmers then treat these illnesses with antibiotics, those too end up in the milk that is eventually drunk by unsuspecting consumers.

Got milk hormones?
Research has also revealed that rBST-treated milk is both chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk and that traces of the hormone end up in the milk. Those who drink rBST-tainted milk readily absorb the hormone in their digestive tract which is then assimilated into the blood.

Milk from rBST-treated cows contains unnaturally high levels of natural growth factor (IGF-1) which inhibits the body’s natural defense mechanisms designed to fend off cancer. Well-documented scientific studies have implicated the hormone in precipitating prostate, breast, and colon cancer.

CPC has been working for decades to eliminate rBST from the milk supply. In 1990, the group issued a warning in conjunction with over 40 other organizations about the dangers of rBST. The warning fell upon deaf ears at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which continued to accept the flawed notion that rBST was safe in spite of its proven dangers.

In 2007, CPC sent a petition to the FDA entitled “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST”, which was endorsed by several farmer and consumer protection groups. Citing Congressional concerns about the hormone that date back to the 1980s, as well as countless studies illustrating the toxicity of rBST, these groups labored to reform the FDA’s flawed position. Unfortunately, the FDA ignored the facts and continues to keep the interests of industry as its priority at the expense of consumer protection.

Dr. Epstein’s recommendation, especially for children who are most susceptible to cancer-causing additives like rBST, is to choose organic milk if they are going to drink milk at all. Organic milk is not allowed to contain rBST or any artificial hormones and is the best alternative to conventional milk that may be tainted with rBST.

Organic, raw milk is the most preferable option as it is a whole, living food rich in beneficial enzymes, probiotics, and other nutrients that get destroyed during pasteurization and homogenization. Many believe raw milk is a perfect food rich in essential vitamins and high in protein.

Sources for this story include

http://www.organicconsumers.org/art…

http://www.realmilk.com

Read Full Post »

NaturalNews.com

November 16 2009

H1N1 “super flu” plague in Ukraine sparks concern, conspiracy theories about origins

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Here’s what we know with some degree of certainty about the H1N1 virus in Ukraine right now: nearly 300 people have died from the viral strain, and over 65,000 people have been hospitalized (the actual numbers are increasing by the hour). The virus appears to be either a highly aggressive mutation of the globally-circulating H1N1 strain, or a combination of three different influenza strains now circulating in Ukraine. Some observers suspect this new “super flu” might be labeled viral hemorrhagic pneumonia (meaning it destroys lung tissue until your lungs bleed so much that you drown in your own fluid), but that has not been confirmed by any official sources we’re aware of.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has issued emergency quarantine orders for nine of the country’s regions and ordered the deployment of mobile military hospitals. He announced that the nation had been simultaneously hit with two different seasonal flu strains plus H1N1 — and then hinted that all three might have recombined into the deadly new Ukrainian super flu.

In his own words, as reported by Daily Mail, “Unlike similar epidemics in other countries, three causes of serious viral infections came together simultaneously in Ukraine: two seasonal flus and the Californian flu. Virologists conclude that this combination of infections may produce an even more aggressive new virus as a result of mutation.”

On November 6, Ukraine’s Deputy Health Minister Zinovy Mytnyk announced that over 600,000 citizens had already caught the new flu. British scientists are now conducting tests on the new viral strain to find out why it appears to be so deadly (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor…).

The mainstream media is blaming Ukraine’s poor health care system for the relatively high rates of hospitalization and death (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/w…), but they refuse to mention (yet again) the vitamin D deficiency found across this population living at high latitude in the winter, where sunlight is relatively scarce.

Here’s a useful blog for staying up to date on the Ukrainian plague:

http://ukraineplague.blogspot.com/

What we don’t know
Now here’s what we don’t know about the Ukraine outbreak:

What is the actual genetic composition of this mutated strain?

Scientists have not released any meaningful news about the genetic sequence of the Ukraine strain. For the moment, the WHO is somewhat quiet on the matter. The last WHO update was from November 3 (and the situation has become considerably worse since). (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_…).

Was this viral strain released as a bioweapon?

There are numerous reports circulating widely across the ‘net that cite aerial spraying across Kiev in the days before the new “super flu” outbreak. People are speculating that this was a bioweapon attack intentionally unleashed upon the Ukrainian population. So far, NaturalNews can find no credible information supporting this theory, but it remains a possibility to be researched further.

Does Baxter Pharmaceuticals have anything to do with the outbreak?

You may recall that earlier this year, Baxter shipped live avian flu viral material to labs in 18 countries, including one in the Ukraine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html) There is suspicion that Baxter could be tied to a planned outbreak of a weaponized virus as a population control bioweapon of some sort, but NaturalNews has not been unable to find any credible information sources supporting this theory. Lacking any better leads on this subject, as far as we can tell right now this remains an unproven conspiracy theory. (If anyone has more credible info on this, please send it our way for review.)

It is plausible that Baxter had something to do with this, but we just don’t have any convincing evidence to back it up at this point.

H1N1 vaccines likely offer little protect against the Ukraine super flu
People receiving H1N1 vaccine shots right now need to know that currently-available H1N1 vaccine shots may offer no protection whatsoever against the “Ukraine Strain.” That’s because once the virus mutates, changing it genetic structure, it can instantly render all existing vaccines obsolete.

Depending on the degree of genetic changes, there is a possibility that some level of immunity may be conferred to people who already have H1N1 antibodies, but here’s the dirty little secret the vaccine industry doesn’t want you to know: People who built their own natural immunity to H1N1 through exposure rather than vaccines have a much greater likelihood of exhibiting natural immunity to genetic variations of H1N1. In other words, people who overcame H1N1 exposure on their own, without being vaccinated, have a far stronger defense against H1N1 variations that might appear.

This is yet another reason why flu vaccines are so dangerous: The deny your immune system the important opportunity to exercise its own adaptive defenses and build stronger protections against future infections.

One possible scenario that could unfold with all this is that the Ukraine strain might spread around the world, wiping out those who got vaccinated against H1N1 because their immune systems suffer from a suppressed ability to naturally generate antibodies to a new strain. Meanwhile, drug companies will try to scramble and create a whole new batch of “super flu” vaccines, but they’re always too little, too late. Theoretically, millions of people could die around the world while waiting in line for yet another vaccine shot.

All they really need is vitamin D3, some herbal anti-virals, a healthy diet and plenty of rest, but no one is telling them that.

Even the Ukraine super flu is no match for a healthy immune system. Remember: Out of 65,000+ hospitalizations, fewer than 300 people have died so far. That’s still a very low mortality rate, even if the spread of the viral infection seems aggressive.

WHO cranking up anti-viral drug push
Meanwhile, the WHO is upping its push for anti-viral drugs, saying that drugs like Tamiflu should now be used earlier on swine flu victims (http://www.google.com/hostednews/af…).

They still won’t recommend anti-viral herbs, foods, supplements or natural remedies, of course. The WHO remains a faithful pusher of Big Pharma’s profit agenda, even while denying the People of the world the truth about how they can save their own lives with anti-viral natural remedies. To both the WHO and CDC, the swine flu pandemic has always been about pushing a pharmaceutical agenda at the expense of public health.

Had the public been informed about vitamin D and natural anti-virals like Lomatium, many lives could have already been saved. Instead, the drug pushers at the CDC and WHO have tens of millions of people standing in line waiting for vaccines instead of consuming natural supplements and remedies that could help protect them from influenza.

The profit agenda forces us to wonder: With the current H1N1 strain fizzling out — and yet billions of dollars worth of vaccines still needing to be sold — could the Ukraine strain have been engineered to scare up more demand and more sales of vaccines and anti-virals?

That’s a question that all thinking people need to be asking right now. But we also need to be careful in assessing what’s true here. Reading the postings about this on the ‘net, I’ve noticed way too many people leaping to assumptions about what’s happening in the Ukraine without any real evidence to back that up. The reports about Joseph Moshe, in particular, appear to be a complete hoax.

While it’s possible this was an engineered bioweapon of some sort, it’s not enough to just assume that’s true and then declare it to be so. More evidence is needed before NaturalNews would back a theory like that.

We’ll keep you posted on what we find. New documents tend to come our way after we post the first story on a subject like this, often leading to a follow-up story that benefits from more information.

Read Full Post »

NaturalNews.com

November 17 2009

Vaccines and Pregnancy Do Not Mix

by Paul Fassa, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) From an internet forum: “I got both vaccines [seasonal and swine flu] on Thursday. I was 9 weeks pregnant. I miscarried on Sunday. I was told by several doctors to get these vaccines. Now I wish I followed my gut feeling and not get them at ALL!” This is not an isolated case.

Here’s another report: “I feel like I had a healthy baby and I caused this by getting the H1N1 vaccine. My doctors pushed it. I researched online and there have been many miscarriages after the H1N1 vaccine but they haven’t been reported since it is hard to say what caused the miscarriages.”

She researched online, the only source reporting vaccination tragedies throughout the world.

Lies Under the Light of Truth

First of all, the Swine Flu is less harmful than a normal seasonal flu. Research with ferrets, real statistics released by independent researchers, as well as reports from uncorrupted medical authorities have confirmed this. The CDC and mainstream media bury that information. Instead, they circulate alarming false swine flu statistics.

But one mainstream media outlet, CBS Washington Unplugged, did inadvertently reveal true swine flu statistics. They had tried to get information from the CDC about swine flu episodes actually confirmed. The CDC skirted the issue and stonewalled them.

So they surveyed all 50 USA state medical laboratories themselves. The results were that most states had confirmed five percent or less of reported cases as swine flu. Most labs reported half or more cases were not any kind of flu! So much for hysteria.

Dr. Michael Bronze of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, stated on WebMD that the actual risk of pregnant women getting hospitalized for swine flu infections is one in 300 thousand.

The Australian/New Zealand’s flu season was surveyed by American epidemiological statisticians. The data from around the middle of that flu season indicated that pregnant women are 99.97 percent sure of avoiding hospital care for any flu.

Of those few admitted and held in ICU 7.7 percent died. Not a high figure. And even those few had other health complications prior to being infected with the swine flu.
Vaccinations Are The Real Danger.

According to Dr. Russel Blaylock, retired neurosurgeon and author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, various studies have proven that artificially stimulating the immune system causes a cytokine immune reaction that damages the forming brain of a fetus.

Throw in thimerosal mercury additives as well as formaldehyde and other toxic materials delivered in the vaccines. These circulate through the fetus if a pregnant woman is vaccinated. The child can become prone to seizures, autism, schizophrenia, and a host of other neurological problems.

There is the case of Desiree Jennings, the young Washington Redskins cheerleader who was diagnosed with dystonia by doctors at John Hopkins and Fairfax Inova. They determined her dystonia, which caused chronic severe spasms and partial paralysis, was a reaction to her seasonal flu shot.

Right, she wasn’t pregnant. She was also active and healthy. But her story links the miscarriage stories to Dr. Blaylock’s conclusion, “The bottom line is vaccinating a pregnant women is vary hazardous to the mother’s health as well as the baby.”

As for miscarriages, there has been a history of sterilization agents planted surreptitiously in vaccines intended for women in developing countries. Some vaccines were examined and recovered before further damage could be done. More at – http://www.naturalnews.com/026907_f…

And now special flu jab centers are being set up for pregnant women here?

Sources for this article include:

Organic Health: Shocking H1N1 Vaccination Miscarriage Stories

http://organichealthadviser.com/arc…

Swine Flu — One of the Most Massive Cover-ups in American History

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a…

Dr. Blaylock: Vaccine Dangers to Pregnant Women and Small Children http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/headli…

Read Full Post »

Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
November 14 2009 | 145,798 views

Dr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who, from my view, is actually able to compellingly and convincingly provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases.

The Difference Between What You Learn in School and What Works

Dr. Palevsky says:

“When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it.

Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught.

But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.

… and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.

… It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.

It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.”

Were Vaccines Really the ‘Savior’ Against Past Diseases?

Conventional medicine teaches that the polio and the smallpox epidemics went away because of the vaccines, and that most of the diseases that we faced in the 20th century in the United States were brought down because of the power, strength and the implementation of the vaccine policy.

Meanwhile, there are a significant number of studies in the medical literature that actually show there were many other reasons that these infectious diseases went away.

For example, one article published in 2000 in the Pediatrics Journal describes how, before the World War II, the majority of the infectious diseases the US was faced with – such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, measles, influenza, parapertussis, tuberculosis and scarlet fever – were all reduced before World War II and BEFORE there were antibiotics and vaccinations available to treat or to vaccinate against these diseases.

The reasons for the reductions in incidence rates and mortality of these diseases were predominantly due to the implementation of public health strategies, including:

* Clean water
* Better living conditions
* Improved sanitation
* Improved nutrition

There are many such examples.

Have the Proper Safety Studies Actually Been Done?

So, why is there such a vast difference among intelligent, scientifically oriented, committed and objective scientists and physicians about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?

Dr. Palevsky says:

“I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals.

But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.

Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?

Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it’s injected into your body?

Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?

More and more studies are coming out to show that:

* The proper studies haven’t been done
* Antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
* There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
* There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
* There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain, and
* There are foreign DNA particles that get into your body

For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied.”

What we currently have is a one-sided policy; a one way of thinking that is impossible to really allow for the appropriate debate. Science is truly a field where you ask a question, you find an answer, and you don’t have the biases or the influences that change the way an answer or a conclusion is made. We are not seeing that with vaccines.

On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally.

How a Conventionally Trained Physician Accepts that Vaccines Can Cause Harm

Dr. Palevsky began his investigation in earnest about 10 years ago because parents came to him with complaints, worries, and concerns that something had happened to their children after they were vaccinated.

Interestingly, this is the same way that I became enlightened about vaccines — through the concern of a very patient mother whose family I was taking care of. She gently persisted in showing me the evidence and thank God I listened!

Tragically, most doctors are far too arrogant to even consider that there is any possibility that there might be something wrong with vaccines.

Most pediatricians are indoctrinated to simply tell parents that anything related to a bad outcome from a vaccine is a mere coincidence. But how come there are so many of these “coincidences”?

Says Palevsky,

“It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed asthma and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because they’re doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real.

The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age.

The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system.

Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction.

… When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards.

You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.”

When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.”

The NVIC Set to Create Groundbreaking Vaccine Safety Research

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) just raised $100,000 and continues to look for donations and sponsors to allow proper safety studies to be done by independent researchers, who aren’t going to influence the outcomes.

One study that looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children does exist.

Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in April 2005, that looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all.

All the investigators asked the parents to do was to report atopic illness. Atopic illness means allergies, asthma, eczema, hay fever. The investigators were blinded, meaning they didn’t know which category the participants belonged to.

When they assessed the data, they found that the largest number of reports by parents of children with atopic illness were in the kids who were fully vaccinated. The second highest reports were in the families who are partially vaccinated. And the lowest number of reports was in the children who were unvaccinated…

The investigators performed a statistical analysis to see if the data was based on chance or on real statistical differences, and found there were statistically significant differences between these groups. They couldn’t understand how this was possible, because the generally accepted consensus is that vaccines are completely safe, and completely effective.

Based on this initial finding, we clearly need to do follow-up studies to ask the same question over and over again; repeat this kind of investigation with different populations across different parts of the country, to unearth the truth!

Dr. Palevsky says:

“Certainly, the issue has been raised about the special interests, the money that’s tied, the policies, how much money the vaccine manufacturers stand to make, the doctors who make decisions on vaccines, and how much money they stand to make. But we need the science and not this conspiracy theory…

If we just stay with the science, and really start to address the need for the science, and look at the fact that there is a lack of science, we will definitely see that more needs to be done.

We have not done due diligence.”

Are Some Vaccines Safer Than Others?

Many may be surprised by Dr. Palevsky’s answer:

“… in my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we’re trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe.”

What most people don’t know is that a virus is not “alive,” per se.

It is simply a piece or strand of either RNA or DNA. And even of itself, a virus can’t “do” anything.

In addition it is so tiny that it can only be seen under an electron microscope. It is much smaller than bacteria, which can only be seen in the regular microscope. So viruses cannot be isolated when you make a viral vaccine. All that can be isolated is the tissue, whether it’s human tissue or animal tissue that is believed to have been infected by that specific virus that you’re trying to isolate.

So when a viral culture or a set of cultures are made including the specific virus, you’re going to have the DNA of people or animals who were already infected. Those cells are then taken and grown on animal cells, whether it’s monkey kidney cells or chicken embryo cells.

When mixed together, these cells will splice and recombine, which means that DNA from animal cells are going to mix with DNA from the known infected cells with the virus.

So by definition, a viral vaccine contains foreign animal and, even possibly, foreign human DNA. That’s why if you have an egg allergy, you shouldn’t get certain vaccines because it is known that there’s going to be egg protein in the vaccine.

So the question is, how safe is it to inject viral material that is embedded into the DNA of foreign DNA cells?

What studies have been done to actually test whether foreign DNA is getting into your body; whether it stays in your DNA; whether it gets into your brain; and whether there are foreign animal viruses that are inherently present in animal DNA to begin with?

The Dangers of Adjuvants

Adjuvants are used in vaccines in order to create a sufficiently strong immunological response. Adjuvants augment your immunological response.

But there is clear evidence that adjuvants, like aluminum and squalene impair your immune system.

So while you may be getting the antibodies desired, you are, at the same time, damaging your immune system. Particularly in children, this can set them up to develop chronic illness.

Pushing for Informed Consent

So, does that mean you should never vaccinate against anything?

Dr. Palevsky says:

“That’s something that needs to be left up to the individual parent. I am truly a proponent of informed consent, and I’m truly supportive of families who have done their homework and who have been able to make the choice.

What is the possible risk of the illness? What is the possible health outcome if your child gets one of those illnesses?

And how much do you know about those risks versus how much do you know about the risks of the vaccines and the health outcomes of what may happen when children are vaccinated against single, or even multiple, vaccines?

And when parents are given both sides, it is up to them to make that informed choice.

It is no longer my role to tell them that they must do this vaccine but not that vaccine, because each parent has to make an informed choice based on their understanding of how diseases occur or don’t occur, what science we have available, and whether they feel comfortable with the devil that they know (the science and the outcomes of disease) versus the devil that they don’t know (science and the outcomes of the vaccine).”

What about the Swine Flu Vaccine?

Echoing many other health professionals, including myself, Dr. Palevsky’s concern is that there haven’t been sufficient amounts of scientific investigation to actually be able to say that the vaccines are safe, or even effective.

He says:

“Now if you read the packaging first of the swine flu vaccine, it specifically states that the swine flu or the H1N1 flu vaccine was manufactured in the same manufacturing process as the flu vaccine. Therefore since we believe that the flu vaccine has been sufficiently tested to be safe, we can then conclude that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.

But the public should know that even though our authorities are standing there and saying that the H1N1 vaccine is safe, the proper studies have not been done.

… And it’s unfair to say to parents or to the public that if you come down with a flu-like illness, it must be H1N1. In studies that have been done, people who did get the flu had their noses swabbed, and they were found to have H1N1.

What’s missing in these data is a population of healthy people who have not had any flu symptoms – to actually see if their noses contained H1N1 – because if someone is sick and has the presence of an H1N1 virus in the nose, it doesn’t mean that the H1N1 is causing the illness.

You really have to take an appropriate control group to see if people are colonized with that virus even when they’re not sick.

So we don’t have that data; we really don’t know. I don’t think we can say with good scientific certainty that people who are getting sick from the flu and who are being diagnosed with H1N1 are actually having H1N1 as the cause.”

Other Ways to Protect Yourself Against the Flu

Again, there’s clear evidence in the medical literature that shows proper hygiene, proper sleep, proper diet, proper supplementation with things like vitamin D (making sure that you get your vitamin D level done first), and perhaps vitamin C, can actually prevent you from getting the flu.

Many insist that vaccinated individuals “protect” the unvaccinated against the flu virus – in essence, reaping the benefit of the protection they refuse for themselves, while at the same time putting others in danger.

But how does that make sense?

Says Dr. Palevsky:

“How does vaccinating against the flu virus stop you from carrying the flu virus in your nasal passages?”

And yet, this is what many believe.

The Concept of Herd Immunity – BUSTED!

One of the primary arguments that is being used to justify this insane behavior is “herd immunity.”

The fact is that vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin, or in your body.

But many do not understand the significance of this fact, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses, and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated.

As it turns out, this belief is NOT based on scientific fact.

Dr. Palevsky explains:

“This whole concept of herd immunity is very interesting, because we were taught that herd immunity occurs because a certain percentage of a population gets an active illness. Therefore by a certain percentage of getting the active illness, they impart a protection onto the remaining part of the population that has not gotten the illness yet.

And so the herd that is getting the illness is shedding the illness and protecting those who have not gotten it.

In vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated. And that has NOT been shown to be true, because the true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE DISEASE, and we know that despite what we’re taught, vaccination does not mimic the natural disease.

So we cannot use the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease in the vaccination policy. But unfortunately, we do use it even though it cannot be used because it doesn’t have scientific backing.

What’s most interesting to me is that the entire concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the viruses and the bacteria all on their own, and that what turns them on and off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.

All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn’t infect 70 or 80 percent of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20 or 30 percent that didn’t get the disease.

This is because the virus itself had a life cycle of its own. And so it came and went without any percentage of the population being protected. There wasn’t herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.

We fail to include that viruses have a life cycle, and that they are in relationship to other organisms and to us. Something activates them and something actually stops them, and it has nothing necessarily to do with the percentage of people who would have the illness or who have been vaccinated.

… It is preposterous to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria or the viruses that they have been vaccinated against. If, in fact, children are vaccinated, then why are parents and public health authorities afraid that non-vaccinated children are somehow carrying something that their children are not, when they should feel comfortable that their children are vaccinated?

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.

It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The Difference between Natural Immunity and Vaccine-lnduced Immunity

It’s important to understand that the natural illness has greater influence on the health of your body. Says Dr. Palevsky:

“In medical school, the mentors that I had saw children in their practices in the 40s, 50s and all the way up to the 80s getting these flu-like illnesses who were properly treated with rest, fluids and proper supplementation.

Those kids had developmental growth spurts after the illnesses were over.

There is something to say for these viral illnesses that impart a certain boosting of the immune system of your children. And if we’re not letting them have these illnesses, what are we doing to their immune systems? Aren’t we actually hampering their overall health?”

You need to understand that there’s a significant difference between natural immunity and vaccination immunity.

When children are born, they develop natural immunity to hundreds, thousands, millions, and even trillions of microorganisms that they breathe in, eat, and touch through their skin. Their immune systems at the lining of their airways, at the lining of their intestines, and on their skin are actively protecting their body from the outside world.

Those immune systems that are intricately and specifically located in the linings are very important to create memory and protection to the organisms that they continue to breathe, eat, and touch.

That immune system response then has a domino effect on creating other memory and immune responses that give your body antibodies and protection.

That’s a very important step for how the immune system matures in our children. From the linings, the immune system receives information, sends out signals to all other parts of the immune system, and creates an immune response, memory, and antibodies.

On the other hand, when you inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line of defense.

With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural disease.

Some people will argue that this is why we have nasal spray vaccines.

However, again, you’re making the assumption that you have not already been exposed to the virus at some point, and you’re also making the assumption that exposure automatically leads to infection.

Exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot of it has to do with the overall status of your immune system.

The Dangers of Combining Vaccines

One issue that is frequently ignored is the potential harm from the synergy of combinations of vaccines, which have never been studied.

No one knows whether there’s interaction between the bacteria and the viruses in the vaccines administered as part of the childhood vaccination schedule, or if there is interaction in the trace thimerosal (which is still in some of the multi-vials of certain vaccines), or the large amount of aluminum that is in many of them.

Dr. Palevsky says:

“There is a scientist named Boyd Haley, who has actually looked into some of the vaccine ingredients and (1) what happens to nerve cells when you inject them in the lab to specific vaccine ingredients, and (2) what happens to the nerve cells when you keep adding another vaccine ingredient.

He specifically showed that in the presence of thimerosal, there’s a lot of damage to nerve cells. When you add aluminum to the thimerosal, you need less thimerosal to create the damage to the immune and nerve cells in the presence of aluminum.

Then when you add neomycin – an antibiotic in some of the vaccines – it potentiates the potency of nerve cell damage with aluminum and mercury together.

And when you culture the nerve cells and testosterone, versus estrogen, and you expose them to some of the vaccine ingredients like thimerosal, you actually see that the nerve cells that are exposed to testosterone are more damaged in greater amounts than the nerve cells that are bathed in estrogen.

That raises some concern because we do see that children with neurodevelopmental disorders are 4:1, boys to girls.

So you have to question whether testosterone actually makes children more vulnerable to exposure to toxins like mercury, aluminum or their combination?

None of these studies have been done in humans. People say, “We can’t do those studies.” And I say, “Why not?” They say, “It’s unethical.”

I say, “Well, if it’s unethical to do those studies on vaccine ingredients and combining them together, then it’s unethical to give the vaccines in general.”

So we’re missing a lot of important data that we won’t believe, and we’re also missing a lot of important data that we won’t accumulate because most of the studies that are done are by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.”

About Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., F.A.A.P.

Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician who utilizes a holistic approach to children’s wellness and illness. Dr. Palevsky received his medical degree from the NYU School of Medicine in 1987, completed a three-year pediatric residency at The Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC in 1990, and served as a pediatric fellow in the ambulatory care out-patient department at Bellevue Hospital, NYC, from 1990-1991.

Since 1991, his clinical experience includes working in pediatric emergency and intensive care medicine, in-patient and out-patient pediatric medicine, neonatal intensive care medicine, newborn and delivery room medicine, and conventional, holistic and integrative pediatric private practice at the Center for Health & Healing- an integrative and complementary care medical facility affiliated with the Beth Israel Medical Center in NYC. Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association (www.hpakids.org) and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association (www.holisticmedicine.org).

In his current practice in Northport, Long Island and Manhattan, NYC, Dr. Palevsky offers consultations and educational programs to families and practitioners in the areas of preventive and holistic health; childhood development; lifestyle changes; nutrition for adults, infants and children; safe, alternative treatments for common and difficult to treat acute and chronic pediatric and adult conditions; vaccination controversies; mindful parenting; and rethinking the medical paradigm.

Additionally, he teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents, and medical and allied health professionals, both nationally & internationally, and is available for speaking engagements worldwide.

For more information or to contact Dr. Palevsky, please visit http://www.drpalevsky.com or contact info@drpalevsky.com

Read Full Post »

November 12, 2009 Issue

NVIC Vaccine News
H1N1: Fact or Fiction?

by Barbara Loe Fisher

It’s been about six months since the Department of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Homeland Security followed the World Health Organization and declared a very scary pandemic influenza public health emergency in the United States.

Last spring we suddenly found ourselves watching You Tube videos of people being quarantined in hotels and detained on airplanes by HazMat teams. When we went to the grocery stores, we encountered fellow Americans wearing face masks. And every time we turned on the television, there were news reports about schools closing so desks and lockers could be scrubbed down.

The Worst Is Yet To Come?

And we watched CDC press conferences warning us that the worst was surely yet to come because the H1N1 swine flu virus first identified outside a pig farm in Mexico had the potential to mutate and kill tens of thousands more Americans than the 36,000 that CDC officials tell us die every year from seasonal influenza.

It was enough to make us very, very afraid.

No Liability for Vaccine Makers

It was enough to make Congress give drug companies more than a billion dollars of our taxes to quickly create H1N1 swine flu vaccines and then throw in another couple of billion dollars for health officials to deliver and aggressively promote vaccination in Sesame Street ads and on the internet and radio and TV. And while they were at it, Congress shielded everyone who has anything to do with making, promoting and giving swine flu vaccines from all liability in civil court whenever somebody gets hurt or dies after getting vaccinated.

It was enough to make us very, very afraid.

Health Worker Mandates & School Vaccination Programs It was scary enough to make legislators in Massachusetts and other states talk about passing stronger laws to suspend civil liberties and force people to be quarantined or vaccinated whenever a public health emergency was declared. It was scary enough to prompt New York state health officials to mandate that health care workers get seasonal and H1N1 influenza shots or be fired. And then there were calls by public health officials for children to line up and get vaccinated in schools just like in the polio mass vaccination campaigns of the 1950′s and early 60′s….

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 94 other followers