Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts

   There is constantly problems with the vaccines which are promoted to us, but rarely are we informed of them. Gardasil and the flu shots are the recent vaccines that seem to continually have adverse reactions. Protect your immune system by not polluting it and bombarding it with unnatural viruses and toxins. We need to have more research about the raising rates of autoimmune diseases that never was common before modern medicine. Slow debilitating autoimmune style diseases are perfect for controlling the populations of an educated society. When pharmaceutical companies are not made accountable for all these problems you have to wonder if their is a bigger purpose to letting them and ourselves continue to kill our natural immune systems.

Gardasil Victims Take Legal Action Against Merck Over Miscarriage, Deadly Reactions

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

When one Australian woman decided to lead the charge against Gardasil maker Merck after experiencing serious adverse reactions, she soon found another 7 Victorian women with similar intentions and experiences. Naomi Snell, a resident of Melbourne, Australia, suffered an auto-immune and neurological attack after being injected with the HPV shot Gardasil. After reading about a Sydney neurologist who exposed Gardasil as a potential cause of MS-like symptoms, Snell realized that Gardasil could be behind her recent health ailments.

She made a timeline of her declining health using reports from her doctor and physiotherapist. What she found was that the events unfolded right after she had received the Gardasil vaccine. At 28 years of age, Snell lost her ability to walk, suffered from crippling back and neck pain, and experienced convulsions that put her life on hold for 2 years. The health issues started soon after receiving the HPV shot in July 2008.

I never attributed it to my vaccine so I went back for my second and third dose, Ms Snell said. My doctors said I was a case for Dr House. They were baffled.

After launching the class action lawsuit against Merck, 7 Victorian women considered joining the case after experiencing similar reactions to the Gardasil vaccine. One woman linked the Gardasil injection to her miscarriage, which occurred afterwards in her local supermarket.

Gardasil has led to thousands of adverse reactions and even death

Naomi Snell is not the first Gardasil recipient to develop adverse reactions. In fact, many before her have actually died as a result of the Gardasil vaccine.

The Gardasil vaccine has a very questionable timeline, riddled with corruption and devastating side effects. Shockingly, the HPV shot led to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths between May 2009 and September 2010 alone. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents.

Merck of course makes no mention of this in their deceptive advertisements, leading consumers to think that the vaccine is safe.

Explore More:

1. The Gardasil Timeline | A History of Corruption and Negative Reactions
2. Merck’s Profits Explode as Government-Backed HPV Shot Gardasil Sales Skyrocket
3. FDA Rejects Merck’s Attempt to Expand Deadly Gardasil to Older Women
4. California Gardasil Law Signed | Children to Receive Deadly Shot Without Parental Consent
5. Advisory Panel Urges CDC to Push Gardasil on Young Boys

In 'universal' flu shot push, medical industry admits current flu shots are useless

(NaturalNews) The medical community is in the process of unveiling a "universal" influenza vaccine that it claims will prevent all flu strains with a single jab. The only problem is that, in the process, the system has inadvertently admitted that current flu shots are medically useless because they fail to target the correct flu strain in many cases, and they do not stimulate a natural flu-fighting immune response even when the strain is a match.

A recent report by CBS 11 News in Dallas / Fort Worth explains that researchers from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas have identified a compound they say spurs the growth of a key protein known as REDD-1, which prevents cells from becoming infected. By injecting this compound into patients, REDD-1 will increase, say the researchers, and thus effectively prevent any strain of flu from taking hold.

But what about current flu vaccines? Dr. Beatrice Fontoura, one of the head researchers involved with the new universal flu shot, explained to CBS 11 that it works differently than current flu shots because it "stimulates our own (immune) response which is already there and boost[s] it to fight an infection."

In other words, flu shots being sold today at pharmacies across the country do not actually promote natural immunity at all, which begs an important question. If current flu shots do not boost the immune response, then what, exactly, are they good for?

Not much, according to a recent study published in The Lancet. Though the mainstream media widely reported that the study's findings showed an effectiveness rate of 60 percent for flu shots, actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate (http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_i...).

And yet, for years, medical professionals everywhere have been hounding the public to get their flu shots or else face horrific sickness and even death. And those who continue to avoid the flu shot based on concerns about its safety and effectiveness have been routinely dubbed "anti-science," or worse.

Ironically, the CBS 11 piece about the universal flu shot also contains an interview with a woman who admits that she stopped getting the flu shot because it made her sick every single year. Once she stopped getting flu shots, she stopped getting the flu. So why, again, do we even need a universal flu shot?

Sources for this article include:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/11/04/...

Baxter, same company that unleashed tainted avian flu vaccines, recalls 300,000 flu vaccines for serious adverse reactions

(NaturalNews) Baxter Healthcare Corp. has announced it is recalling roughly 300,000 doses of its Preflucel influenza vaccine due to what it says is an excessive number of adverse events. Baxter is the same drug company that was caught inserting Avian Flu Virus into flu vaccines back in 2009 (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html).

The UK's Daily Mail reports that a high number of individuals injected with an apparently tainted batch of Preflucel have been reporting side effects like fatigue, muscle pain, and headaches. The vaccine, which was crafted specifically for those with egg allergies, has only been in use since March when it was first approved for use in the UK.

"The vaccine is being recalled because these side effects have been reported more frequently with this specific batch," said a Baxter spokesmen. This spokesman also attempted to reassure the public that those who have already been vaccinated with Preflucel "should not be concerned (for their safety)."

At the same time, however, Baxter has instructed healthcare providers not to administer any more Preflucel, no matter what batch it came from, to patients. And since this announcement, many European countries where the vaccine was distributed have ceased using it, and have instead switched to various alternatives.

Repost from NaturalNews
CDC now calling U.S. households and demanding child immunization records as part of vaccine surveillance and tracking program 

By Mike Adams, The Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has been comprehensively exposed as a vaccine propaganda organization promoting the interests of drug companies, is now engaged in a household surveillance program that involves calling U.S. households and intimidating parents into producing child immunization records. As part of what it deems a National Immunization Survey (NIS), the CDC is sending letters to U.S. households, alerting them that they will be called by "NORC at the University of Chicago" and that households should "have your child's immunization records handy when answering our questions." (See copies of the letter, below.)

This NIS vaccine compliance program is revealed in a letter being sent to U.S. households by Edward J. Sondik, PhD, the director of the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC. The CDC, you may recall, was instrumental in pushing the false swine flu pandemic scare and encouraging governments to order billions of dollars worth of vaccines from drug companies. Following this marketing fraud, the former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, went on to accept the lucrative job as the president of Merck's global vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D...). One of the CDC's top researchers who worked under Gerberding, Dr. Poul Thorsen, was later indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly stealing grant money and using it to buy luxury cars and motorcycles (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T...).

Now the CDC is bullying parents across the USA to comply with child immunization surveillance programs by calling their home phones and asking them to produce child immunization records.

NaturalNews has acquired a copy of the letter being sent by the CDC, which you can view in these two images:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/C...
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/C...

Vaccine compliance tracking

"Your phone number was chosen randomly by computer," explains the letter, which goes on to say that the CDC will use your information to generate a map of vaccine compliance -- no doubt to later target low-compliance areas with increased vaccination propaganda or even court-ordered immunization mandates like the one we witnessed in Maryland (http://www.naturalnews.com/022242_m...).

"It is important for us to interview every household we call to get a complete picture of your area's immunization rates," the CDC letter explains. "Your answers to the NIS will provide information to help improve the nation's health now and in the years ahead," it continues. Which means, of course, that this information will be used to push more vaccines onto more infants by targeting areas with low vaccine compliance rates, such as African American neighborhoods which are rightly skeptical of government's claims about vaccines.

Note that in this letter, the CDC admits it is using this information to track vaccine compliance at the local level. On top of that, the NORC.org website openly admits this is all about public health surveillance, saying: "the NIS is one of the largest telephone surveys in the nation and its data are considered the gold standard for public health surveillance on immunization rates."

Ever notice how these organizations are so aggressive at tracking vaccination rates but they care nothing about tracking rates of autism? Have you wondered why they aren't calling U.S. households and asking parents whether their children became autistic after receiving vaccines? (Gee, maybe they don't want to know the answer to that question...)

Public health surveillance = interrogations by phone

Once your private home phone is called as part of this vaccine surveillance and tracking program, you will be essentially interrogated over the phone about your vaccine immunization compliance:

"Respondents are asked a series of questions about the vaccinations received by selected children (including recommended seasonal flu vaccines)," says NORC. And after that, NORC will request permission to acquire your child's immunization records from your doctor!

"Respondents are also asked for permission to contact the children's health providers for the sole purpose of obtaining immunization records, providing an important supplement to the household report," NORC explains. Yes, once you answer the interrogation questions on the phone, they will then go straight to your doctor to acquire vaccine records there in order to determine whether you were lying on the phone.

See our screen capture of the NORC.org website which admits all this:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/N...

The original source of this is: http://www.norc.org/Research/Projec... (but they will no doubt change their page after this NaturalNews story goes live, which is why we posted a screen shot).

It's all admittedly a way to increase vaccination rates of low-income children

"NORC then sends an Immunization History Questionnaire via mail to these health providers," it says. And once the data are compiled: "These data are used by the CDC and state and local public health agencies to monitor the potential for disease outbreaks at the community level and to allocate resources for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, which ensures that all children in the U.S. have access to vaccinations regardless of financial status."

In other words, the CDC, working on behalf of the drug companies, wants to make sure that all children are vaccinated even if their parents can't afford it. That's government being "helpful" to its slaves, you see. "Public health" has been so perverted and distorted under the government / pharmaceutical collusion regime that instead of teaching people how to prevent disease with nutritious foods, vitamin D and low-cost natural cures, the government is all about injecting infants with vaccines, irradiating women's breasts with mammograms, and outlawing dietary supplements while claiming to be working under the label of "public health."

And now, thanks to the police state tactics being increasingly used by the federal government to enforce vaccines even at gunpoint (as we saw in Maryland), it appears we are about to enter a phase where it's not just TSA reaching down your pants, but CDC running vaccine surveillance and compliance tracking in order to make sure no one goes unvaccinated in America.

     California is one of the most draconian states as far as vaccinations are concerned. There is currently a law on the governor's desk dealing with children being able to consent to their own HPV vaccinations. As the people of California (not the government) seem to be waking up to the dangers of vaccines, there is a recent news report from Natomas, California where a school nurse and official is going door to door in order to administer the Tdap ( tetanus, diphtheria , and pertussis) vaccine.
     The media and school officials speak in a way to make it seem that all students must be vaccinated without exception, but there always have been ways to option out of any vaccination program. These door to door vaccination is an attempt to reinforce such preconceptions of mandatory vaccinations for a time where the governments may officially remove any opt out procedure. Students without proper vaccinations are told they will be kept from attending with the threat of eventual truancy if they miss too many days. This is an abuse through color of law because they don't ever tell the parents of all their options.
      The medical tyranny is closing in on our schools. They desire to have full compliance to vaccinations. You have to wonder the reasons for such desires due to the massive contributions and rewards provided by the pharmaceutical industry to our politicians and schools.
       If you ever want to opt out yourself you have to demand the paper work or regulations for declaring a religious or philosophical exemption.
     Ask yourself, If all those who trust vaccines are vaccinated then what do they have to fear from those of us who do not agree with vaccinations? So leave those of us alone to take chances with our lives, and stand behind our convictions.

   In this world of modern medicine you would believe that our bodies would be in better shape. The medical profession hides behind the guise of treating major medical problems while the truth is we are riddled with more health problems than ever before. We need to investigate the possible causes of the increase of such health problems. We need to examine the changes that the industrialized world has gone through in the last century. Some of these changes must account for the differences in the human body. One of the biggest changes besides diet and technology is the interaction with doctors and medicine. We have allowed doctors to give us numerous medicines and vaccinations without ever knowing any of the details for ourselves. Any major change made to the immune system can have rippling effects through the whole body. Here is an article I found recently examining the effects of such modern medicine in man's best friend (another mammal, like you and me):

by Catherine O'Driscoll 

The Institute of Medicine is supposed to be an unbiased source of medical information to improve health. This article (read the entirety of the article) shows that the funding of the IoM comes from biased sources. The involvement of military and weapons manufacturing brings in dangerous possibilities of the intent of such IoM policy recommendations. If the military and weapons manufactures are involved then there must be an aspect of weaponization involved.


NaturalNews exposes secret vaccine industry ties and military involvement with Institute of Medicine, reveals fatal conflicts of interest at IoM

(NaturalNews) The Institute of Medicine is suddenly in the news following the release of its vaccine "adverse events" research which found that MMR vaccines actually cause measles, seizures and anaphylactic shock. The old media predictably distorted the story and used it to deceptively announce that "vaccines are not linked to autism!"

In falsely reporting this study from the IoM, however, the old media reporters never bothered to even read the adverse reactions report. Nor did they ask a few simple questions such as "Who is funding the Institute of Medicine? And what is the agenda of the IoM?"

Today, NaturalNews publishes a stunning story about the IoM which reveals this government-created non-profit to be a key player in the military medical complex involving a shady network of weapons manufacturers, the Department of Homeland Security, top pharmaceutical companies and population control globalists such as Bill Gates. Here, we expose who's giving the IoM money and why the actual sources of funding behind the IoM destroy any credibility it once claimed to have on the subject of public health.

We've already published the first honest assessment of the IoM's report in a news item posted yesterday:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_I...

That story takes an honest investigative look at the IoM and what its report really says. The old "dinosaur" media, as usual, has predictably twisted this story around and falsely claimed that it gives vaccines a clean bill of health. Only NaturalNews (and other alternative media organizations) dares tell the truth while questioning the IoM's financial ties and funding sources. The entire mainstream media blindly accepts the IoM's "authority" as beyond reproach, neglecting to conduct basic journalism and follow the money as NaturalNews is doing.

By the way, you can view the IoM's full report for yourself at:
http://naturalnews.com/files/Advers...

Why does the truth about the Institute of Medicine really matter?

Because the IoM is positioned by the federal government as an independent, "prestigious" organization whose decisions are based on scientific facts. When the U.S. government rolls out its upcoming mandatory vaccination requirements, it will cite the Institute of Medicine as the source that said vaccines were safe (even though that's a lie).

The FDA, for example, cites the Institute of Medicine is setting its own vaccine policies (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...). The USDA also turns to the IoM for its recommendations on things like school lunch programs (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/pressre...).

Even more to the point, President Obama's recent demand that health insurance companies pay for birth control medication was based on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/01/...). It was the IoM that put forth the guidelines to "require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services" including "FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling."

Even the CDC commissioned the IoM to study the control of viral hepatitis infections, after which the CDC quickly advised that all infants should be injected with multiple hepatitis vaccines "...as soon as they are stable and washed." In this same set of recommendations, the IoM advised that students who are not vaccinated against hepatitis B should not be allowed to attend school. (http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/IOMnew...)

The IoM, in other words, is the go-to organization for the setting of government health policy. Never mind the fact that the IoM is two-thirds funded by government itself and also takes money from the world's top vaccine manufacturers. The conflicts of interest within the IoM are not merely notable, but severe conflicts of interest. They are so prominent, in fact, that no person in their right mind should believe a word the IoM says about vaccines, yet both the government and the mainstream media is positioning the IoM as (somehow) being a trustworthy independent non-profit that tells the truth about vaccines.

Even the Washington Legal Foundation (http://www.wlf.org), a group that advocates free choice in health care (and personal freedom in general), charged that the FDA could not legally accept recommendations from the Institute of Medicine because the committee members put forth by the IoM did not meet the lawful requirement of being "fairly balanced."

"Using advice from a committee that lacks fair balance encroaches upon Congress' mandate that each Advisory Committee should be representative of a broad range of viewpoints and should include affected individuals," said WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp after filing WLF's Citizen Petition. (http://www.policymed.com/2011/07/in...)

This is where the danger really lies. Everybody else in government listens to the IoM and usually adopts its recommendations as public health policy. And yet the IoM is actually run and financed by a complex network of globalists and vaccine promoters, as you'll see below.

Because of the IoM's unchallenged influence in setting public health policy, we are all being set up for a military-run mass vaccination campaign funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and relying on vaccine-tracking information technology from companies like Northrup Grumman, a weapons manufacturer with a history of illegal international arms trafficking. (More details below.)

This is what vaccines have become in America today: A military agenda against the People. And the IoM sits at the hub of influence for this diabolical command center. This is all explained in more detail in the rest of this story, as well as in upcoming stories about the IoM slated for publication here on NaturalNews.

Please share this story far and wide so that your friends and colleagues can learn the truth about the IoM and where its money really comes from.

I wish to thank the NaturalNews Facebook fans who conducted much of this research to help us find the truth behind the Institute of Medicine (www.Facebook.com/HealthRanger)

The IoM's secret ties to the military and weapons manufacturers

The Institute of Medicine was created by Congress in 1970. On its website, the IoM claims "we do not receive direct federal funding for our work," which as you will soon see is a highly misleading statement, given that 64.9% of the IoM's funds actually come from the federal government.

NaturalNews learned that the IoM is funded by the Who's Who of the most evil corporations, non-profits and government organizations involved in things like secret medical experiments on humans, global population control agendas, the spread of degenerative disease, international arms trafficking and crimes against humanity (see list below).

The IoM is also blatantly deceptive about where its funding comes from. While its website claims it does not receive federal funding for its work, an investigation by Senator Coburn's office reveals that 55% of the IOM's funding comes from the government (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ind...). This number varies year to year, of course, and we've found documentation showing this number to be as high as 64.9%.

The real question that I have is if this information is available than why is there not a crisis situation in this country? Who decides what is worthy of attention? It is you if you spread the word. Pass ait along, and get this toxin out of our water!

Study Proves: This Everyday Drink Lowers Your IQ

Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 12 2011

By Drs. Paul and Ellen Connett

Paul Connett, co-author of the book, The Case Against Fluoride, is joined by his wife, Ellen, webmaster of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Tara Blank, PhD, Science Liason Officer for FAN, in authoring this article on fluoride and the brain. Together they have recently provided an extensive commentary to the EPA's Office of Drinking water in response to its proposed safe reference dose for fluoride¹.
In an ongoing effort to determine which chemicals may damage the developing brain, scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently conducted an extensive literature review of over 400 chemicals, including fluoride.

Fluoride is Classified as a Neurotoxin

While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would have us all believe that fluoride is perfectly innocuous and safe, scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity".² Consistent with the EPA's conclusion, a continually growing body of human and animal research strongly suggests that fluoride can damage the developing brain.
Consider for example:

• 24 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children
• Three studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired neurobehavioral development
• Three studies have reported damage to the brain of aborted fetuses in high fluoride areas, and
• Over 100 laboratory studies have reported damage to the brain and/or cognitive function among fluoride-exposed animals³.

Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the methodologies of some of these studies, they have been remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer from some form of neurological impairment.

Your Brain Under Attack

Statistics tell us that our brains are under attack. For example:

• Autism Spectrum Disorders: The rates in the U.S. are now 1 in 110 children and are "4 to 5 times more likely to occur in boys than in girls," or as many as 1 in 60 boys.
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: According to a November 2010 CDC report, nearly 1 in 10 U.S. children have ADHD - an increase of about 22 percent from 2003.
• Alzheimer's Disease: According to the Alzheimer's Association, 5.4 million Americans are living with it and every 69 seconds an American is diagnosed with it. By 2050, it is estimated that as many as 16 million Americans will have the disease.

We do not know the causes for the alarming increases in these diseases but we do know that wherever possible, everything must be done by regulatory agencies and caregivers to protect the brain from known neurotoxins. Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and it is time to stop adding it to public drinking water systems. However, convincing U.S. regulatory authorities of this urgent necessity is proving very difficult.

Developmental Neurotoxicity

In 2007 Choi and Grandjean⁴ stated:

"In humans, only five substances have so far been documented as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. From this evidence, including our own studies on some of these substances, parallels may be drawn that suggest that fluoride could well belong to the same class of toxins, but uncertainties remain…"

Health Agencies are Ignoring Fluoride-Brain Studies

Even though health agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have recognized that children are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride (41 percent of American children aged 12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis⁵), they are unwilling to concede that fluoride may be impacting the brain. Their approach has been either to ignore these studies completely or to challenge the relevance and the methodology of the fluoride-brain studies. They have thus far failed to conduct any IQ studies of their own.

Bottle-Fed Babies at Risk

The level of fluoride in mothers' milk is remarkably low; only about0.004 ppm⁶. In the view of many critics of fluoridation, including Arvid Carlsson, Nobel laureate in medicine/physiology, it is reckless to expose infants to levels of fluoride orders of magnitude higher than that found in breast milk.
In the U.S., infants who are fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water receive the highest levels of fluoride (per kilogram bodyweight) in the human population. Specifically, infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water at the current level of 1 part-per-million (1 ppm = 1 mg/liter) fluoride will receive a dose up to 250 times more than the breastfed infant.
Even with the proposal by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to lower fluoride to 0.7 ppm in fluoridation schemes, bottle-fed infants will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than the breastfed infant.
In addition to bottle-fed infants, others at heightened risk include those with poor nutrition and both African American and Mexican-American children.
Recent studies indicate that African American and Mexican-American children have higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis than white children⁷. As dental fluorosis provides a visual indication that fluoride has exerted a toxic effect on your body, it is reasonable to assume that these same children will also be more vulnerable to other toxic effects of fluoride including damage to the brain.

EPA Protecting Fluoridation Program, Not Public Health

On January 7, 2011, the EPA's Office of Water (OW), while pursuing its mandate to set a new safe drinking water standard for fluoride, made it clear that it would do so without jeopardizing the water fluoridation program. According to Peter Silva, EPA Assistant Administrator for the OW:

"EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride"⁸.

Silva was referring to severe dental fluorosis, broken bones, and skeletal fluorosis as the unwanted health effects. These were the three health effects that the National Research Council of the National Academies in its 2006 report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards singled out. The report recommended that the EPA perform a new health risk assessment to determine a safe drinking water standard for fluoride because they found the current level of 4 ppm was not protective of health.
In its first draft risk assessment, EPA claimed that the most sensitive health effect of fluoride was severe dental fluorosis⁹. Brain effects were ignored by EPA even though many more studies have been published since the NRC made its recommendation. Science does not stand still.
The NRC examined five IQ studies; there have now been nearly five times more at 24!
Making matters worse, the EPA's Office of Water risk assessment excluded the fetus and infants under 6 months of age, as the EPA does not expect them to get dental fluorosis! Whether fluoride impacts the growing tooth enamel during this period or not, this is a very important period for brain development. As noted above, an infant fed formula made with fluoridated water at the proposed lower level of 0.7 ppm will receive 175 times more fluoride than the breast-fed infant.

EPA Research Laboratory Takes Different View

Fortunately, the EPA does not speak with a single voice on fluoride's neurotoxicity. While the EPA's Office of Water ignored any brain effect in its 2011 risk assessment, the Neurotoxicology Division at the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory included fluoride in its list of "Chemicals with Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity", for a new project expected to be launched this year¹⁰.
Ultimately, therefore, the EPA administrator will have to resolve the following question: Is it more important to protect our children's brains or the fluoridation experiment?

Fluoridation Proponents' False Claim

Proponents of fluoridation have dismissed the fluoride-IQ studies on the basis of the claim that the children in these studies were drinking water containing fluoride at much higher levels than used for water fluoridation (approximately 1 ppm).
However, such claims do not bear close scrutiny, Xiang¹¹ estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering was 1.9 ppm and more recently Ding et al. (2011) found a lowering of IQ in the range of 0.3 to 3 ppm. These findings reveal that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect ALL American children drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and ingesting fluoride from other sources (e.g. toothpaste).
While we will discuss this crucial margin of safety argument in more detail below, suffice it to say here that when harm is found in a small human study a safety factor of 10 to 100 is typically applied in order to extrapolate to a level designed to protect a whole population from harm.

The NRC (2006) Review of Fluoride

The NRC panel devoted a whole chapter on the brain in its 507-page 2006 review and concluded:

"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means."

Of the five IQ studies reviewed by the NRC the panel drew special attention to the study by Xiang et al.¹², which they indicated had the strongest design. The panel described this study:

"This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family educational levels, and other factors.
The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water… the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128).
The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure."

The shift in the IQ curves for both males and females are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Distribution of IQ scores from males in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-2, p. 207).

Figure 2. Distribution of IQ scores from females in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-1, p. 207).
According to the NRC (p. 206):

"A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of children¹³."

Xiang extrapolating from the whole set of data estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering would be 1.9 ppm. Below we use this estimate in a margin of safety analysis to calculate a level that would be sufficient to protect all children drinking fluoridated water.
The NRC panel's overall conclusion based on its review of these five IQ studies was:

"A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence."

Incredibly, no fluoridating country has followed up on this. We continue to fly blind on this critical issue. One of the animal studies reviewed by the NRC was the study by Julie A. Varner and co-workers¹⁴ from the State University of New York at Binghamton. These authors fed rats for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water. One group received sodium fluoride, the other aluminum fluoride.
In the rats treated with either fluoride compound, Varner et al. discovered the following:

• Morphological changes in the kidney and the brain
• An increased uptake of aluminum into the brain
• The formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which are a hallmark for Alzheimer's disease

More Brain Studies Published Since NRC 2006 Review

Since the NRC panel wrote its report in 2006 many more animal studies have been published and another 14 IQ studies have either been published or translated. Five more IQ studies wait translation from the original Chinese. This brings the total to 24 IQ studies that have found exposure to fluoride associated with lowered IQ¹⁵.
At least 16 studies on animals have shown that fluoride has an effect upon the hippocampus and nine of these have been published since the NRC's 2006 review. Damage in this area of your brain usually results in difficulties in forming new memories and recalling events that occurred prior to the damage¹⁶.

Xiang Updates His Work¹⁷

An updated version of Xiang et al.'s (2003a) work¹⁸, which included new information about the relationship between the level of fluoride in the children's plasma and IQ was accepted for publication in Environmental Health Perspectives (the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and made available online on December 17, 2010.
This article was later withdrawn when it was found that some of the material had been previously published. However, for those who have used criticisms of the methodologies of some of the 24 IQ studies to justify ignoring the issue completely, it is important to note that the Xiang et al. paper successfully passed the peer-review process of this important journal.

Another Important Fluoride IQ Study

An IQ study published in 2011 by Ding et al.¹⁹ investigated the effects of low levels of fluoride on IQ. Children were exposed to 0.3 to 3 mg F/L fluoride via drinking water. The authors found a very significant linear correlation (p <0.0001) between fluoride levels in the children's urine and lowered IQ (Figure 3). They calculated that there will be a lowering of IQ by 0.59 points for each increase of 1 mg/L urinary fluoride.

Figure 3. The relationship between IQ differences and urine fluoride concentrations. Multiple linear regression model was carried out to confirm the association with urine fluoride exposure and IQ scores (F=9.85, p < 0.0001) (Figure 2, Ding et al., 2011)

Margin of Safety: The Safety Factors Used in Toxicological Assessments

Promoters of fluoridation, either through ignorance or design, betray little understanding of the concept of margin of safety. This is revealed when they dismiss studies carried out at levels higher than 1 ppm as being irrelevant for assessing the risks posed by water fluoridation.
This indicates that they have no appreciation of the difference between concentration and dose.
Someone drinking three liters of water with 1 ppm fluoride would get a higher dose (3 mg) than someone drinking one liter of water with 2 ppm fluoride (2 mg). In other words, it is the dose that hurts people, and thus finding harm at levels as high as 4 ppm are still relevant to a high water consumer drinking water at 1 ppm.
Toxicologists usually have to work from high dose animal experiments to extrapolate to a safe level for humans.
This typically requires the application of a safety factor of 10, when extrapolating from the dose that causes harm in animals to predict a safe dose for humans (in order to account for the potential variation between species). Then a second safety factor of 10 is commonly applied to take into account the full range of sensitivity to any toxic substance that is to be expected in any large population. In other words some individuals are likely to be 10 times more sensitive to fluoride than others.
In the case of fluoride we are in the unusual situation of having quite a large amount of human data to work with, especially in the case of its neurotoxic effects, so it is only necessary to address the variation in sensitivity expected in a large population.
In its January 7, 2011, draft risk assessment the EPA Office of Water took the most unusual tack of not using any safety factor at all when extrapolating from the dose that causes severe dental fluorosis²⁰.
In other words they believed that they had enough data to state – with no uncertainty—that no one consuming less than 0.08 mg of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight per day would develop severe dental fluorosis. For them to legitimately forego any safety factor they need to demonstrate that this purported "threshold" dose is based on sufficiently large numbers of subjects to represent the full range of different vulnerabilities and sensitivities in the U.S. population.
Such variations include: age, income levels, nutritional status, genetic and ethnic variability.
It is notable therefore, that the study on which the EPA's calculations were based²¹ did not include African American or Mexican-American children, or children from a full range of family income levels.
Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network believes that the EPA Office of Water was forced to choose this "uncertainty factor" of 1 in order to produce a "safe reference dose" that was higher than the dose deemed necessary to protect teeth against decay. In other words, this was a political decision made to protect the water fluoridation program. Even more political was the EPA's willingness to ignore the studies that indicate that fluoride lowers IQ.

No Margin of Safety for Fluoride

The level at which Ding et al. (2011) researchers found a lowering of IQ (0.3-3 ppm) overlaps the range at which fluoride is added to water in the US (0.7 – 1.2 ppm). Even without applying a safety margin to this finding, it would suggest that there is no safe level that would protect ALL of America's children from potential interference with mental development from fluoride exposure via the water supply.
However, Ding et al. state that this is a preliminary finding, and more work should be done to control for possible confounding factors. Meanwhile, it is possible to use the findings of Xiang et al.²² to estimate a safe reference dose to protect all American children from this effect.
This is the task that the EPA Office of Water should have undertaken.
However, as indicated above, their preliminary calculations for the safe reference dose published on January 7, 2011, failed to consider fluoride's potential to lower IQ. The EPA defended its decision to only consider severe dental fluorosis, by claiming that this is the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride's toxicity. The EPA made this claim despite the fact that, in both the Ding and Xiang studies, reductions in IQ were observed among children without severe dental fluorosis. This clearly challenges the EPA's claim that severe dental fluorosis is the most sensitive adverse effect of fluoride.

Other Human Brain Studies

Three other studies from China²³ indicate that aborted fetuses in endemic areas for fluorosis show signs of brain changes compared to aborted fetuses in non-endemic areas.
Moreover, in a study from Mexico²⁴, Rocha-Amador et al found that children exposed to moderate levels of fluoride had impaired visual-spatial recognition abilities. Such impairments could affect a child's development. In 2009 the Rocha-Amador team performed tests²⁵ on children exposed to various neurotoxicants (Fluoride, Arsenic, Lead, DDT, DDE or PCBs). Fluoride exposed children were selected if they had dental fluorosis (a bio-marker for fluoride over-exposure).
All the children exposed to the various neurotoxicants "had very poor performance in Copy and Immediate Recall tests and in general they recalled less information on the Construction/Memory score."
As the authors of these studies note, fluoride's impact on the brain may be evident in the absence of crude reductions in IQ. Indeed, the authors note that IQ tests may well fail to detect fluoride's more subtle effects on cognitive function.
Consistent with Rocha-Amador's research on non-IQ effects, Li et al.²⁶ reported that infants born in areas with high fluoride levels had "significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction" compared to infants born in areas with low fluoride levels.

Why does anyone need to keep track of who gets vaccines? We are so used to the idea of officials needing know everything about everything with statistics on everything, that we don't realize that this is so unnecessary. Why would you want to track these people? A person that is vaccinated should be safe from the flu. No need to come rescue them. No need to track. Unless you believe it may harm them and they would need treatment or medical monitoring. Maybe? We have already seen all the nasty things that are going into this swine flu vaccine. 

Now there is another group of people that you might want to single out by doing this; the un-vaccinated. Why would you want to do that? One thought might be to give them immediate medical care in case the epidemic sweeps through rapidly. Well, the sick will seek help when and from whom they desire to get treatment from in a free country. 

It could also be to identify the un-vaccinated as threats to the healthy. If we are going to draw the line at who has been vaccinated and those who haven't, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE VACCINATED WILL BE SAFE FROM ALL THOSE WHO ARE POTENTIALLY SICK FROM THE DISEASE THEY ARE VACCINATED AGAINST? Here in lies that problem with the possibility of mandatory to get a vaccination. The disease is only a possibility. The vaccine is experimental and untested thoroughly. Why should you make anyone take this risk they are not willing to take if all those who do will be safe? What is it about this vaccine or any they make mandatory. 

If this plan comes here and I refuse to get the vaccine, I guess I won't be getting my bracelet. Maybe I will be getting a yellow Star of David patch to wear instead. Then maybe the trains will come to take all us brave people to a nice country retreat. Oh wait......that story sounds so familiar.......

Maybe not today or even tomorrow, but the tools of tyranny and genocide are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the same.

Boston launches flu shot tracking

City to pinpoint areas of low rates of vaccination

Using technology originally developed for mass disasters, Boston disease trackers are embarking on a novel experiment - one of the first in the country - aimed at eventually creating a citywide registry of everyone who has had a flu vaccination.
The resulting vaccination map would allow swift intervention in neighborhoods left vulnerable to the fast-moving respiratory illness.
The trial starts this afternoon, when several hundred people are expected to queue up for immunizations at the headquarters of the Boston Public Health Commission. Each of them will get a bracelet printed with a unique identifier code. Information about the vaccine's recipients, and the shot, will be entered into handheld devices similar to those used by delivery truck drivers.
Infectious disease specialists in Boston and elsewhere predicted that the registry approach could prove even more useful if something more sinister strikes: a bioterrorism attack or the long-feared arrival of a global flu epidemic. In such crises, the registry could be used to track who received a special vaccine or antidote to a deadly germ.
"Anything you can do to better pinpoint who's vaccinated and who's not, that's absolutely vital," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy at the University of Minnesota
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