Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts

    This is a topic which I have had to tell so many people about with none of them ever knowing what I was talking about prior to me informing them. Eugenics was born in the Anglo-American scientific societies long before German National Socialism began to practice a predominantly racial version of the philosophy.
   Eugenics is a obvious outcome when you have a society where their develops a separated class (Plato called them a guardian class) which sees themselves as more capable than the general public of leading their society. This separated class would see it as necessary to regulate the segments of society which are seen as a weak link in the progress of their plans for society.

    When, such as the ideas that birthed eugenics, this higher class of people feel that their resources are being drained by an unnecessary group of people within the society a form of eugenics will be the answer. These are important ideas in our times. Due to our depressed economy and advanced technology the elite see the lowest in society as unnecessary and dangerous to their power. hose which are our herders see it as necessary to cull the human herds. Hitler's German put a permanent black mark on the term of eugenics, so the same philosophies were cleaned up and wrapped in new names with perceived different principles. The new names and ideals are seen in such areas as; over population, bioethics, sustainability, and trans-humanism.
    We need to know our past in order to not be at the mercy of a forgotten history, such as the Jews of Europe.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Must See: Excerpt About Eugenics From 'Endgame: Blueprint For Global Enslavement'

Outrageous North Carolina sterilization program targeted women, young girls, and blacks 2011 11 10

By Michelle Kessel and Jessica Hopper | MSNBC.msn.com



Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

“I have to carry these scars with me. I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.

Riddick was never told what was happening. “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said. “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.”

Riddick’s records reveal that a five-person state eugenics board in Raleigh had approved a recommendation that she be sterilized. The records label Riddick as “feebleminded” and “promiscuous.” They said her schoolwork was poor and that she “does not get along well with others.”

“I was raped by a perpetrator [who was never charged] and then I was raped by the state of North Carolina. They took something from me both times,” she said. “The state of North Carolina, they took something so dearly from me, something that was God given.”

It wouldn’t be until Riddick was 19, married and wanting more children, that she’d learn she was incapable of having any more babies. A doctor in New York where she was living at the time told her that she’d been sterilized.

“Butchered. The doctor used that word… I didn’t understand what she meant when she said I had been butchered,” Riddick said.

North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program. By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.

Eugenics was a scientific theory that grew in popularity during the 1920s. Eugenicists believed that poverty, promiscuity and alcoholism were traits that were inherited. To eliminate those society ills and improve society’s gene pool, proponents of the theory argued that those that exhibited the traits should be sterilized. Some of America’s wealthiest citizens of the time were eugenicists including Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble fortune and James Hanes of the hosiery company. Hanes helped found the Human Betterment League which promoted the cause of eugenicists.




It began as a way to control welfare spending on poor white women and men, but over time, North Carolina shifted focus, targeting more women and more blacks than whites. A third of the sterilizations performed in North Carolina were done on girls under the age of 18. Some were as young as nine years old.

For the past eight years, North Carolina lawmakers have been working to find a way to compensate those involuntarily sterilized in the state between 1929 and 1974. During that time period, 7,600 people were sterilized in North Carolina. Of those who were sterilized, 85 percent of the victims were female and 40 percent were non-white.

“You can’t rewind a watch or rewrite history. You just have to go forward and that’s what we’re trying to do in North Carolina,” said Governor Beverly Perdue in an exclusive interview with NBC News.

While North Carolina’s eugenics board was disbanded in 1977, the law allowing involuntary sterilization wasn’t officially repealed until 2003. In 2002, the state issued an apology to those who had been sterilized, but the victims have yet to receive any financial compensation, medical care or counseling from the state. Since 2003, three task forces have been created to determine a way to compensate the victims. Officials estimate that as many as 2,000 victims are still alive.
Read the full article at: msnbc.msn.com

 I want to start this with re-posting the most important quote from this article written by none other than Chuck Norris (who would have thought?).

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. … Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. … For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics. - George Wald, Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology, Higgins professor of biology at Harvard University

I would add one more observation to this already foreboding warning. What is the motivation to hide the modified foods? In America it is supposed to be the consumer's ability to decide for themselves which regulates the economy. There appears to have to be a motivation to have us ingest these modified foods. With the possibility of the havoc which these new designed proteins could wreck upon the body why not let us decide for ourselves. Will the results of eating these foods have an affect which is desired by those in control?
___________________________________________________________________________

The U.S., U.N., and genetic engineering

By Chuck Norris
The U.S., U.N., and genetic engineering  – Chuck Norris calls for Accountability 
World Daily News
Would you know if you are eating genetically engineered foods?
The Los Angeles Times recently reported that, with no labeling on such foods, few realize that they are doing just that. Genetically modified crops comprise 93 percent of all soy, 86 percent of all corn and 93 percent of all canola seeds planted in the U.S., and are used in an about 70 percent of all American processed food.
The Times went on to say that the Pew Center, Consumers Union and Harris Interactive polls over the last decade have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans would like to see genetically modified foods better regulated and labeled. Despite that, President Obama’s administration has approved an “unprecedented number of genetically modified crops,” like ethanol corn, alfalfa and sugar beets
The U.S. government is not the only entity boosting and green-lighting genetic engineering of our crops and foods. In 1963, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, or CAC, was founded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. Its self-proclaimed mission was to protect health, remove trade obstacles and establish food guidelines. The membership of the commission now stands at 185 members, including the European community and the U.S.
Literally hundreds of guidelines have been adopted by the CAC in areas ranging from additives to pesticides and most recently, in 2005, for vitamins and mineral supplements. And now, this year, they are picking up the issue whether or not to label genetically altered and engineered fruits and vegetables.
The Alliance for Natural Health, or ANH, expressed another concern from the natural health community about the United Nation’s CAC guidelines, because its preamble “essentially discounts the benefits from dietary supplements, and the fact that the scope of the Codex Guidelines includes developing minimum and maximum levels of vitamins and minerals.”
Though regulating those maximum levels is currently prohibited by U.S. policy – because dietary supplements are not categorized as drugs, it is one more sign that global governance of our foods is right around the corner. As if American households relinquishing their health and fitness habits to Washington weren’t enough, now the entire U.S. needs to be governed by a global food and drug administration?
U.S. food policy may not acquiesce to worldwide regulations tomorrow, but global control is a slippery slope that is often yielded through small steps or so-called benign increments. The European Union has already enacted many universal food tenets into law. Could the U.S. be that far behind in this global age? If an era in which caving into international pressure is en vogue, how far behind are our food factories?
But does the U.S. really want foreign entities telling us how to eat, what vitamins to take or how (not) to label U.S. food now or in the distant future? I’ll say what I said in a previous column: I believe, the sooner we quit relinquishing our health and fitness responsibilities over to the government, and take control of our own lives, the better off we’ll be.
Americans have a right to be concerned with international influence over labeling, marketing and masking the truths behind foods coming abroad. Our health and welfare should not be turned over to foreign powers, lobbying groups, the FDA and the USDA. If we do, we can kiss goodbye the freedoms we’ve long enjoyed with dietary supplements and organic foods.
The added difficulty with genetic tampering and labels is that we know big business and lobbying often control the decisions in Washington. Recently that was made evident again by the actions of the USDA. Despite that tests prove genetically engineered organisms become a part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts, the ANH reported how the USDA now wants to eliminate any controls from genetically altered corn and cotton!
The ANH cited the wisdom of the late George Wald, Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology as well as Higgins professor of biology at Harvard University, one of the first scientists to speak out about the dangers of genetically engineered foods:

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. … Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. … For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.

Currently 14 states have introduced legislation on genetically modified organism labeling, but most face government gridlock. So please, take action and keep foods safe (genetically engineered free) by contacting your representatives, as well as the FDA and the USDA, and tell them that you are demanding that genetically modified food must say so on a label. In addition, corn and cotton must not be deregulated. Without strict controls, as the ANH concludes, genetically engineered crops will encroach on non-genetically engineered crops, contaminating them and rendering the organic crops as non-organic.
The only real solution to prevent global food governance and our body’s consumption of genetically altered foods is to mandate the proper labeling of all foods, and to buy local and buy organic. By diminishing the supply and demand of imported and genetically engineered foods, we can diminish its tyranny at the borders of our bodies.

If this is allowed to stand it will create a dangerous precedent for corporations being able to own parts of your genetic make up. Who knows what freedoms will be curtailed for those of us that have patented genes.

Who Owns Your Genes? The Case Continues…

Today, a divided appellate court upheld patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The ruling partially reverses a landmark decision by a federal district court in March 2010 that concluded that human genes cannot be patented. The appellate court did affirm the district court’s invalidation of several claims on methods for comparing two genetic sequences.
The decision today allows companies like Myriad Genetics, which controls the patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, to exclude others from testing and conducting research on patented genes. Patients who want to obtain genetic testing to determine whether they are at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer have only one option for full genetic sequencing: Myriad Genetics. Myriad decides what tests are offered, which mutations are included, at what cost, and what research can be conducted without fear of patent infringement liability.
The Supreme Court, the court that would hear any appeal, has long held that products of nature are not patentable subject matter. A gene, even once removed from the cell, remains a product of nature. The patentholder did not “invent” the genetic information it embodies, and we will continue to fight for that principle.

The information here should not only be singled out here for women. Men put many harmful hygiene products on our bodies everyday as well. In this day and age the list of the products men use are getting longer by the year. In most cases we are being given chemical waste products that would cost too much to just discard. Not all these toxins fall into this category, so what is the real purpose.......

Got to love the things that happen when the government regulates the health industry....

Doctors admit to practising 'slow euthanasia' on terminally-ill patients

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 3:20 AM on 29th October 2009

One in five doctors admit to keeping the terminally-ill heavily sedated until they die, in what critics have dubbed 'slow euthanasia'.
A poll of nearly 3,000 doctors found that 18.7 per cent had administered drugs to keep patients suffering from painful conditions such as cancer unconscious for hours at a time.
Subjected to 'continuous deep sedation', many slip into a drug-induced coma before dying - perhaps days earlier than they would have done. It is often given without the patient or the family being fully appraised of the consequences.
The survey found that GPs and hospital consultants who were not palliative care specialists were more likely to report using high doses of sedatives or painkillers to keep patients unconscious.
Experts have called for all doctors to be properly trained in the care of dying patients.
The study in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management also found that those who were strong supporters of assisted dying were 40 per cent more likely to use deep sedation to ease the final stretch of a patient's life.
But those with strong religious beliefs were less likely to use sedation to ease a patient's pain.
Usually the drugs were used for just a short period of time right at the end of someone's life. But in 8 per cent of cases, deep sedation was used for more than a week.
Continuous deep sedation was used more frequently in the hospital or in people's homes than in care homes or hospices, the poll shows.
There was no evidence it was used more often amongst vulnerable groups of patients, such as older people or those with dementia. It was sued more frequently to treat younger men with cancer.

When you read this article keep in mind that I advocate that there are problems with saying all boys should want to play contact sports and do male oriented behavior. There is one obvious place that you can see the effects of these hormones, male fertility. Why does no one seem to care?

You must watch this also, The Disappearing Male 

Chemicals used in plastics feminise the brains of little boys 'so that they avoid rough and tumble games'

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 2:29 PM on 16th November 2009
Chemicals used in plastics are 'feminising' the brains of baby boys, a disturbing study shows.
Those exposed to high doses in the womb are less likely to play with 'male' toys such as cars. They are also less willing to join 'rough and tumble' games.
The research adds to growing evidence that hormone-disrupting chemicals in thousands of household-products are interfering with the development of children.
Environmental campaigners called the study 'extremely worrying' and called for a crackdown.
The study looked at phthalates, chemicals which can mimic the female sex hormone oestrogen.
Some experts believe they are partly to blame for the increase in genital defects in boys and lower sperm counts in men over recent decades.
But the new research is the first to link hormone-mimicking chemicals to behaviour.
There are fears of further effects as the young children in the study grow up.
Although the plastics industry insists phthalates are safe, the EU has banned many of them from cosmetics, teething rings and children's toys.
But pregnant women are still exposed to phthalates, which are used to soften plastics in household items such as plastic furniture, shoes, PVC flooring and shower curtains.
They can also be transferred to food and drink from plastic packaging. The new study, published in the International Journal of Andrology, was led by Dr Shanna Swan, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Rochester in New York State.
Her team tested urine samples from mothers in the 28th week of pregnancy for traces of phthalates.
The women, who gave birth to 74 boys and 71 girls, were contacted again when their children were aged four to seven and asked about the toys the youngsters played with, the activities they liked and their personalities.
The researchers found that higher concentrations of two types of common phthalate - DEHP and DBP - were strongly linked with more feminine play in the boys but had no impact on girls.
The higher-phthalate boys were less likely than other boys to play with cars, trains and guns or engage in rough-and-tumble games such as playfighting.
They preferred 'gender-neutral' activities such as sports.
Professor Swan believes the chemicals reduce levels of the male sex hormone testosterone in unborn babies during a critical window of development between the eighth and 24th week of pregnancy.
This alters the development of the brain as well as male genitals.
She said last night: 'If replicated, these findings would be of serious concern because they indicate that these common chemicals can significantly alter the development of the male brain.'
A previous study by Dr Swan found that boys whose mothers had the highest phthalate levels were more likely to have undescended testicles and smaller genitals than other baby boys.
In animal studies, males with similar genital changes had lower sperm counts.
Elizabeth Salter-Green, director of the chemicals campaign group CHEM Trust, said last night: 'These results are extremely worrying. We now know that phthalates, to which we are all constantly exposed, are extremely worrying from a health perspective, leading to disruption-of male reproduction health and, it appears, male behaviour too.
'This feminising capacity of phthalates makes them true "gender benders". Clearly the boys who have been studied are still young, but reduced masculine play at this age may lead to other " feminised development" in later life.
'This cannot be good news for their long term health and development, or that of our society in general.'
But Tim Edgar of the European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates said: 'We need to get some scientific experts to look at this study in more detail before we can make a proper judgment.
'However, given the simple approach of the research and the relatively small sample of children, I think these results need to be treated with extreme caution. I don't think anyone should jump to such conclusions without some much more sophisticated research being carried out.'

note: Lets keep another fact in mind. If you don't need to vaccinate for HPV, then you are introducing the virus on mass to a population that normally doesn't come in contact with the virus. The results could lead to mass infection down the road. By then I am sure this connection will be forgotten about and be blamed on poor health or diet....

Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates

By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”



Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

By Johnnie Aysgarth
15.01.2008

Water Fluoridation has hit the main stream media after decades being brushed aside. Scientific American had an article about the dangers of fluoride if its overused, revealing that its almost impossible not to overuse it. Many people don’t think twice about the toxic waste that we are drowning in. Fluoride is not what you think, and the deceit is painfully obvious, you just have to look.
Acceptable amounts of fluoride to ingest is 1 part per million of water. More than 2 PPM has been ruled toxic. Acceptable levels allowed in our tap water have been rising, and more than 90 percent of our public water is fluoridated, so our food is grown with it, soda, soup, all canned with it, we are being bombarded with fluoride. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how much of the toxic fluoride we have stored in our bodies, it stays in your body, for unknown period’s of time. “Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age” Dr. Hardy Limeback
Last year the National Research Council released the report: “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” The report said too much fluoride for babies is toxic. It advised parents feeding babies powdered formula to prepare it with un-fluoridated bottled water. Yet on our grocery store shelves we have “nursery water” a brand aimed at formula fed babies, loaded with fluoride. The report was released, with little or no mention. This is INCREDIBLY dangerous, yet, the public draws a blank. Its no surprise we are being misled, the whole operation is confusing. Seven months after that report the FDA gave manufacturers of bottled water permission to print claims on their labels that drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of dental caries or tooth decay. Instead of the DANGER warning fluoridated water should have gotten, artificial water fluoridation gets the FDA golden seal of greatness. Currently bottled water remains virtually unregulated. “43 of 50 states have the equivalent of fewer than a single staff person dedicated to regulating bottled water.”The lawmakers are not looking to protect, but to harm, and they are preying on your inability to stay informed, drowning out the necessary information we need to make decisions. We just file in as complacent as the fluoride will get us, believing that no one would ever harm us…the government would never allow it. Do the research, WE are allowing it. In 1992, three counties of New Jersey had almost seven times the osteosarcoma (bone cancer) rate in males in the fluoridated communities compared to the non-fluoridated communities. It’s a proven carcinogen…still they fluoridate.In 1931 ALCOA, the worlds largest aluminum producer, was polluting the water with sodium fuoride, children’s teeth were turning yellow, because of the high levels found in the water supply. Sodium fluoride is a toxic pollutant, an aluminum by product, the same type of fluoride that is found in toothpaste. Look a little closer at the tube of toothpaste, you will find the phone number for poison control, “toothpaste overdose” can cause convulsions, and a break down of your nervous and digestive systems, along with difficulty breathing. The amounts we pollute our bodies with everyday are harmful, and we feel the effects of the poison, without recognition, fluoride lowers your IQ and it is a main component of anti-psychotic drugs, extremely dangerous for our children. We are drugged, like patients in a sanatorium, with little resistance.Fluoridated water is a tool of control, the benefits to the the masses are non existent, the benefits to a government trying to CONTROL the masses are endless. In the 1930’s Hitler created his plan of control, and force alone was not going to be enough. The plan involved what they called “water medication” (we call it “water fluoridation”). The Nazi’s would contaminate the water supply to make the people docile (and sterilize them as well).
Most of Europe does not (openly) fluoridate their water. The UK, however has unknown amounts of Prozac in their water, and its basic ingredient is fluoride, so basically they are being medicated by the government as well. We have been conned. Water Fluoridation is destroying the will of the people. It is just one of the tools that is being used against the population, it’s slowing us down. In order to Fight the tyranny, first we must remove the fluoride, how can you willing ingest something that will make you less smart? You can’t, its suicide. Filter your water. Don’t go willingly.

How can scientists who know all these facts still make these horrible vaccines? Why would this be allowed to happen? What is the purpose to go out of the way to pick toxic ingredients? We are so foolish to trust so blindly.



Here is some proof that they do put mercury in a commonly given vaccine. This doesn't even explain other ingredients that also go into making these vaccines. There are many adjuvants that go into these vaccines which are not listed here. Every vaccine is different. The new swine flu vaccine seems to be worse than most, as you can see by looking back at posts that I have put up. Also notice the risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrom. This happened back in the 70's with the last swine flu scare and vaccine.

Watch this video
This stunning censored interview conducted by medical historian Edward Shorter for WGBH public television (Boston) and Blackwell Science was cut from The Health Century due to its huge liability--the admission that Merck drug company vaccines have traditionally been injecting cancer viruses (SV40 and others) in people worldwide.





Here is some proof as to the effects that the last swine flu scare and vaccination. History repeats......


Here is an explanation of adjuvants.

A Glimpse into the Scary World of Vaccine Adjuvants
By Edda West  - Published in VRAN Newsletter - Winter 2005
Adjuvants are formulated compounds, which when combined with vaccine antigens intensify the body's immune response.  They are used to elicit an early, high and long-lasting immune response.  "The chemical nature of adjuvants, their mode of action and their reactions (side effect) are highly variable in terms of how they affect the immune system and how serious their adverse effects are due to the resultant hyperactivation of the immune system. While adjuvants enable the use of less *antigen to achieve the desired immune response and reduce vaccine production costs, with few exceptions, adjuvants are foreign to the body and cause adverse reactions", writes Australian scientist Viera Scheibner Ph.D.
Read entire article

When government begins to dictate spending and patient care regulations through laws and providing their own standard in health care doctors and hospitals are forced to take extreme measures to meet expectations from the government while still stuffing everyone's wallet. This leads to spending consideration and reallocation of scarce resources to more useful areas. This leads to even more insidious methods but for now here is an example happening now....

Report warns doctors snub families of the terminally ill amid growing use of 'death pathway'

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 9:11 AM on 15th September, 2009
More than a quarter of families are not told when life support is withdrawn from terminally-ill loved ones, a report has found.
Experts warn that growing use of a controversial 'death pathway' is seeing some patients killed off prematurely.
They say the system can lead to 'backdoor euthanasia' by encouraging doctors to deny fluids and drugs to those deemed to be in their final throes.
Under the so-called Liverpool Care Pathway, which is used across the NHS and in many nursing homes, doctors can withdraw assistance from the terminally ill and sedate them continuously until death.
About 20,000 patients are thought to die this way each year.
But a national audit of the scheme found that 28 per cent of relatives were not informed that a loved one had been placed on the pathway.
Researchers from the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool obtained details of almost 4,000 patients treated on the scheme last year.
Thirty-nine per cent suffered from cancer, while others had conditions such as pneumonia, stroke, organ failure and dementia. The average age of patients was 81 and they were typically on the pathway for 33 hours before death.
More than a third were given sedatives, and four out of five either did not need intravenous medication or fluids, or had them withdrawn. The study found that 76 per cent of families were told that a loved one 'had entered the dying phase'.
Read the entire article

            Sometimes the news gives us little clues within the headlines, if we are smart enough to realize what it is saying. Here they are saying that Obama needs to generate the feeling of a medical crisis within the country in order to revive his push for "Obamacare". Anyone should realize that a decision made under duress is not only likely to be a bad decision but also illegal. Duress includes moral pressure according original meanings. This article is in fact admitting to the most often used ploy by politicians. 
           We can not subcomb to fear. When you give into fear you tend to give up control of your life in exchange for a sense of alleviation of those fears. Government constantly attempts to play the role of public protector. Those who run the government know these techniques, and unless their intentions are as pure as the angels in heaven (which they can never be, only those who dream of control and power make it to the top of politics) this technique will be used to coerce the public to the ends which they desire for us.  As public servants they have only one opposition in life, the people. Only the people can take away their paychecks and positions of lofty power. That being the case it is us they need to coerce. 

 

Obama May Need Sense of Crisis to Revive Health-Care Overhaul
By Julianna Goldman and Nicholas Johnston

      Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.
      Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.
     “At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus.”

Read the entire article

*note when reading this article ........ "there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics"

Here is another example of the horrible ingredeints found in our vaccines. There are many things to know, and not want to know about this subject. The more you read, I gaurantee the more you will want to avoid any injections.

Again a link posted and found  by Alan Watt of Cutting Through the Matrix



Vaccine Ingredients
A Glimpse into the Scary World of Vaccine Adjuvants
By Edda West  - Published in VRAN Newsletter - Winter 2005
        Adjuvants are formulated compounds, which when combined with vaccine antigens intensify the body's immune response.  They are used to elicit an early, high and long-lasting immune response.  "The chemical nature of adjuvants, their mode of action and their reactions (side effect) are highly variable in terms of how they affect the immune system and how serious their adverse effects are due to the resultant hyperactivation of the immune system. While adjuvants enable the use of less *antigen to achieve the desired immune response and reduce vaccine production costs, with few exceptions, adjuvants are foreign to the body and cause adverse reactions", writes Australian scientist Viera Scheibner Ph.D,   (1)
      The most common adjuvant for human use is an aluminum salt called alum derived from aluminum hydroxide, or aluminum phosphate. A quick read of the scientific literature reveals that the neurotoxic effects of aluminum were recognized 100 years ago.  Aluminum is a neurotoxicant and has been linked to Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. Prior to 1980, kidney patients undergoing long term dialysis treatments often suffered dialysis encephalopathy syndrome, the result of acute intoxication by the use of an aluminium-containing dialysate. This is now avoided using modern techniques of water purification.  In preterm infants, prolonged intravenous feeding with solutions containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurologic development. Scientists speculate that aluminum neurotoxicity may be related to cell damage via free radical production, impairment of glucose metabolism, and effects on nerve signal transduction. (2) Vaccines which contain both aluminum adjuvants and mercury based preservative, greatly magnify the neurotoxic effects. (3)
      Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) is a muscle disease first identified in 1993, and has been linked to vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants. Muscle pain is the most frequent symptom which can be localized to the limbs or be more diffuse. Other symptoms include joint pain, muscle weakness, fatigue, fever, and muscle tenderness. The disorder is associated with an altered immune system in some, but not all patients. A study published in the journal Brain (2001) revealed that 50 out of 50 patients had received vaccines against hepatitis B virus (86%), hepatitis A virus (19%) or tetanus toxoid (58%), 3-96 months (median 36 months) before biopsy. "We conclude that the MMF lesion is secondary to intramuscular injection of aluminium hydroxide-containing vaccines, shows both long-term persistence of aluminium hydroxide and an ongoing local immune reaction, and is detected in patients with systemic symptoms which appeared subsequently to vaccination", write the authors of the study. (4)
        But aluminum's neurotoxicity is of less concern to the vaccine industry than the fact that it elicits a lesser antibody response to the so called purer recombinant or synthetic antigens used in modern day vaccines than in older style live or killed whole organism vaccines. "This has created a major need for improved and more powerful adjuvants for use in these vaccines."   (5)
          For decades, vaccine developers have been tinkering with various substances to trick the body into heightened immune responses.  The most effective adjuvants are formulated with oils but have long been considered too reactive for use in humans. Immunologists have known for decades that a microscopic dose of even a few molecules of adjuvant injected into the body can cause disturbances in the immune system and have known since the1930's that oil based adjuvants are particularly dangerous,  which is why their use has been restricted to experiments with animals.
        The classic oil based adjuvant called Freund's Complete Adjuvant can cause permanent organ damage and irreversible disease - specifically autoimmune diseases.  When scientists want to induce autoimmune disease in a lab animal, they inject it with Freund's Complete Adjuvant, which causes great suffering and is considered by some too inhumane to even inject into animals.

HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES

- In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. ( The Hadwen Documents)

- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

- In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)

- In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)

John Holdren is Pres. Obama's top science adviser. In today's world scientists are beginning to be the voice of reason to follow. So as the adviser to the president he will be directing the bureaucrats and money allocation in the sciences. Each day we give the scientists of the world more and more of a right to tell us how to live. Scientists start to see themselves as superior to most of the public. John Holdren's old ideas about population control and government demonstrates this quality. As these men gain a louder voice in how we all should live I believe you should know what this man co-authored back in 1977.The book is Ecoscience by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Don't let them tell you how you should live! How will they want to violate our bodies next?

In the future I will prove they are already doing many of these things.
examples: Floride, bisphenol a, etc.......

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

See more quotes at this website