Draft Review of: The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism

This review was written by Paul G. King, PhD in response to an article that represents the typical lies and misleading tone of everything published by the mainstream media today. I highly suggest that you take the time to read this and that you urge your friends and loved ones to read this also. WE ARE BEING LIED TO. This review is fantastic and has tons of good sources (see the actual pdf for link to all sources).

The full article can be accessed at: http://dr-king.com/docs/130705_DrftRevu%20TheVeryThickLineBetweenRaisingConcernsAndDenialism_b.pdf

Draft Review of:
“The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism
By Christie Wilcox | June 19, 2013 8:00 am”
The writer’s title is an interesting choice of words because the thickness of the “Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism” and its placement are obviously based on subjective assessments — not objective evaluations.
“The real question is, which side of the line are studies that lack scientific rigor on?”
To this researcher, the answer depends upon the nature of the question being asked and is limited to those questions that science can answer.
For the subjects that this writer discusses, this reviewer finds that there are studies that lack rigor with regard to several aspects of the dispute between those who seek to maintain and enlarge the status quo in a given controversial issue for their direct and indirect benefit and those who seek to ensure that the safety (not the often-substituted “lack of proof of harm”) of any disputed practice has been rigorously proven.
“Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: ‘Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?’ Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. ‘I believe they should be given a voice,’ she concluded, ‘not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.’
Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. ‘The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,’ he wrote. ‘We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.’ While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.
I understand where they are coming from, but the hair on the back of my neck bristled reading those words. I think they’re both getting into very dangerous territory (or, in the case of Chris’ comments later, happily dancing around in it).”
While this reviewer would agree that the writer is entitled to “think” what she chooses, it is not clear that she understands “where they are coming from” or, for that matter, who is “reading those words”.
“The trouble is, it’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it.”
Here, the writer begins by confusing the noticing of “a potential danger and …” that is implicitly associated with “the use of glyphosate” or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” with what the people have a right to do, “to publicize and propagandize” what they perceive as a danger even when there is purportedly “evidence against it”.
Moreover, because this writer makes numerous assertions without providing any citations or footnotes to support or substantiate her views, this reviewer is compelled to discount the writer’s statements when, without any documented proof, they attempt to discredit the views expressed by others.
“The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say.”
Here, the writer attempts to restrict the role of “non-scientists” to that of “raising honest concerns”, when the realities are that:
a. These “non-scientists” are perfectly capable of reading and un-derstanding the published literature and
b. Some who are raising these concerns are scientists who have examined the evidence and/or conducted fundamental studies that have shown serious adverse long-term-ex-posure-related outcomes when “glyphosate” and/or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” have been studied.
Since the writer presents no proof to support her assertion that these individuals have not appropriately examined the evidence, this reviewer must counsel the reader to ignore her caveat about hearing “what the evidence has to say”.
“The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them.”
As a scientist, this reviewer is appalled at the writer’s unqualified claim that “once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them”.
First, unless all of the raw data and supporting information, including models and adjustment factors, used to generate the published results are freely available, no one should listen to the claims made in any study.
Second, unless a truly independent review of the data and supporting documentation or a truly independent rigorous duplication of a given study for which the raw data and all supporting information are available has confirmed a given publication’s findings, the results reported in the initial study should be given no scientific weight in the decision-making process.
Third, the quality of evidence rating (QER) standards1 developed for evaluating the scientific quality of evidence clearly support the skepticism that should accompany any assertion when most all of the studies are not independent2.
Thus, it is not the scientists that should be listened to but rather the results of those truly independent studies of “glyphosate” or “pesticide use or Monsanto GM products” that have an appropriately defined QER rating of “1” or, if the studies are toxicological in nature, an equivalent rating.
“When it was first suggested that vaccines might lead to autism, is” [sic; it] “was a legitimate question to ask. Kids seemed to develop autism around the same age they got their vaccines — and can you imagine if the vaccines were to blame? That would have been huge news! We would have had to revolutionize the vaccine industry, to start from scratch and figure out if we can keep these life-saving shots without screwing up our kids’ brains. One of the core foundations of our children’s public health program would have been forever shaken.”
First, this reviewer finds it odd that the writer abruptly veers away from the agricultural/food issues she has been addressing (“the use of glyphosate” and “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops”) to address an apparently unrelated issue, the putative link between “vaccines” and “autism”, a neurological disorder diagnosed not by some scientifically sound tests but rather by an admittedly somewhat subjective evaluation of the symptoms and the behaviors observed in developing children.
Here, for whatever reason, the writer, Christie Wilcox, begins by laying out an “imagine if” scenario about the established link between the current recommended vaccination program in the USA and the chronic childhood disease epidemics that this ever-growing vaccination program has caused and is causing by focusing on one of these epidemics, the purportedly most-difficult-to-prove epidemic, the epi-demic of “autism”.
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Nonetheless, as one of those truly independent scientists, this reviewer has been continually engaged in the study of the issues surrounding vaccine safety and vaccination effectiveness for about 14 years after having worked in a wide range of capacities in firms that produced biocides (pesticides), brand-name pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements for more than two decades.
The results of this reviewer’s studies have clearly established that today’s FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines have not been proven to be “safe” to the standards required by the law3 and, as such, are adulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B).
Moreover, an ever-growing number of independent scientists from around the world are publishing papers that clearly show that today’s vaccines are not as safe as they are represented to be and/or today’s vaccination programs are not effective in preventing disease and/or are not cost effective, especially in the developed countries4,5.
Finally, based on multiple independent vaccination-related surveys comparing the health of never-vaccinated children to the health of the fully vaccinated children have, from 19776,7, consistently found or, for the current on-going survey study8, are consistently finding that, depending upon the chronic diseases studied, the never-vaccinated children are, as a group, 2 to 5 times healthier than the comparison group of fully vaccinated children.
Clearly, the results from these independent studies and other sim-ilar studies have proven that “the vaccines were” and are “to blame” for the epidemics of chronic childhood diseases that we are now confronting9
Yet, this writer apparently remains in denial about these proven realities.
Given the preceding actualities, let us return to the writer’s state-ments.
“So, like they should, independent scientists investigated the concerns. They checked and double checked the safety testing. They ran and re-ran results, but they kept getting the same answer: whatever causes autism, it isn’t vaccines. A cumulative sigh of relief was uttered by doctors, nurses, scientists, parents and children around the world.”
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, including “autism”, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Yet, as far as this reviewer has been able to ascertain in his investigations into articles that claim to have found “no evidence of harm” or assert that the “benefits of vaccination outweigh their theo-retical risks”, the authors of these articles are often not “independent scientists” and/or the studies themselves are often not independent studies.
In at least one instance, this reviewer has been able to prove that an epidemiological study in which the CDC not only participated but also, after refusal by two major high-stature journals, strongly recom-mended that this knowingly misleading study be published in the journal Pediatrics. The CDC made this recommendation although the assertion made in the article10 (“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism”) was diametrically opposed to the truth, as expressed in internal emails (where, some, if not all, of the authors in the key Danish study cited in this discussion and CDC’s liaison person [Schendel] knew) that “the incidence and prevalence” [of autism] “are still decreasing in 2001”)11.
Moreover, the reality of the decrease in the prevalence and inci-dence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses was confirmed by:
a. The Danish health officials’ not electing to re-introduce any Thimerosal-preserved vaccines into their national childhood vaccination program after this article was published and
b. A 2010 article12 from which the prevalence rate for the incidence of individuals diagnosed with a “Pervasive Devel-opmental Disorder” [“PDD”] (known as an ASD in the USA) was found to be 1 in 1272, when the 2013 estimate in the USA for similar children estimated an ASD diagnosis rate of one child in every 50, 6-to-17-year-old children13.
After reading this review response and verifying its validity, the writer of this article hopefully will listen to the realities that:
a. Vaccination with Thimerosal-preserved vaccines is a casual risk factor for an ASD diagnosis and
b. The current vaccination programs collectively are major causal factors for the current childhood epidemics, at levels in excess of 10% of the vaccinated children in several instances, of many other chronic childhood medical condi-tions, including but not limited to, ADHD, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, epileptic disorders, obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, eczema, food allergies, serious gastrointestinal disorders, solid cancers and lymphomas, and other immune-autoimmune-linked childhood diseases, disorders and syndromes, which were non-existent or vir-tually non-existent in the 1930s through the 1970s.
“Except that some people didn’t listen to the data. They called foul, saying every scientist that disagreed with them was under the thumb of Big Pharma and lying to the public. They released the results of unscientific, pet studies showing how they are right and everyone else is wrong. These anti-vaxers still won’t give up their beliefs, even though scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism.”
Based on the facts presented by this reviewer, the writer appears to be one of those people who “didn’t listen to the data”.
Moreover, the writer fails to provide any factual citations to sup-port her attack on those who have and are critically evaluating:
a. The safety and effectiveness of each FDA-approved vaccine,
b. The validity and data transparency, or lack thereof, for each published vaccine-related study, and/or
c. The effectiveness and cost-effective, or lack thereof, for each of the current CDC universal-inoculation-schedule’s recommendations for these vaccines.
Thus, the writer essentially seems to attack all studies that do not support the vaccination status quo by labeling them as “unscientific, pet studies” even when they were published in peer-reviewed journals and their authors are willing, subject to the constraints imposed by the federal government on data sharing and medical privacy, to share the raw data and ancillary information with those who seek to confirm that the data does support the findings reported by those authors.
In contrast, the datasets and ancillary information for the vaccine studies that “support” vaccination have either been reported as lost (e.g., the datasets for the CDC’s 2003 Verstraeten, et al. study14 and Fombonne’s 2006 study of children in certain Montreal schools15) or access to the data and ancillary information has simply been denied to those seeking to verify that the data does support the reported findings, or not.
Moreover, the writer’s asserting, “scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism” does not make that statement true.
Finally, her attempt to cast the evidence-based concerns of those who question the safety and/or effectiveness of vaccines and/or the cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs as “beliefs” does not reduce the scientific validity of the evidence-based concerns raised.
Again, this time mid-paragraph, the writer changes subjects and begins to speak of “climate change” and of GMO issues.
“We see the same refusal to listen when it comes to climate change. It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists. They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed. They stick their fingers in their ears like children, shouting ‘I can’t hear you!’ — and sadly, the same attitude is found throughout the anti-GMO platform.”
Whenever this reviewer observes a writer attempting to speak for those who are opposed to the position that the writer is trying to sell to the reader, the narrative almost invariably degenerates into an attempt to portray that opposition in a demeaning manner as in the writer’s closing statements here.
Ironically, this reviewer does agree with the writer when she states, “It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists”.
In fact, it is not the number of studies, or the number of consensuses, or even the number of scientists that matter.
What matters are the confirmed, scientific soundness of each study and the scientific validity of the consensus.
After all, at one time, the scientific consensus was that the Sun was the center of the universe; the world was flat; when burned, wood lost a substance called “phlogiston”16; and the universe was governed by Newtonian physics.
Moreover, as the reviewer’s introductory remarks clearly state,
“Finally, should anyone find any significant factual error in this review for which they have independent[a], scientifically sound, peer-reviewed-published-substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise his views and this review
[a] To qualify as an independent document, the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of any product or practice addressed in this review or those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote any product or practice, the development of any product or practice, and/or programs using any product or practice covered in this review.”
he is open to any independent, scientifically sound, peer-reviewed published documents that refute his understanding of the facts.
Thus, to the extent that this reviewer and his colleagues around the world are scientists, the writer’s allegations, “They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed”, are pure nonsense.
“Instead of listening to the evidence, campaign groups conduct unrigorous, unscientific and completely biased studies, dig in their heels, and stand their ground. Just look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies which have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry. The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest. I can’t agree with Kara that such studies deserve equal voice. They don’t.”
Here, the writer begins by stating prejudicial claims concerning the basis and intent of studies conducted by groups or individuals who implicitly have problems with the GMOs in food that not only rats and pigs but also humans consume.
Then, she asks us to “look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies”, which she claims “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
However, the links the writer provides are not to peer-reviewed journal publications establishing the validity of the claimed problems, nor to the articles in question so that we may study them, nor to the studies’ authors’ published rebuttals (if there are any) to the published criticisms of the cited studies.
Instead, the links provided are to a posting in an anonymous blog (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-s%C3%A9ralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html?utm_source=feedly), and a personal web site posting (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/), which respectively attacked a long-term rat feeding study and a pig feeding study.
Unfortunately, the first link is an apparently invalid link as at-tempts to access it returned a “HTTP/1.0 404” error.
However, by accessing the web site, http://skeptico.blogs.com/, this re-viewer quickly found the cited entry,
“June 18, 2013
The Seralini Rule
I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.
If you cite this study as demonstrating any dangers in genetically modified food, you are either (a) so clueless as not to have spent 30 seconds checking to see if there are any reported problems in the study, or (b) so dishonest in citing a blatantly fraudulent study, that you are not worthy of any more serious consideration. You just lost the debate and you’re done. (Obviously you don’t lose the if you cite the study to demonstrate its flaws, only if you claim the study’s conclusions are valid.) …”.
Clearly, this intentionally anonymous blogger has an agenda that is highly biased and subjective even though this anonymous blogger claims to be objective.
From the blog entry, one can access the peer-reviewed, pub-lished article (Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov; 50(11): 4221-4231) at,
While this reviewer agrees that a more-robust study design might have been preferable, this reviewer notes that the designs used seem to be a copy of the “accepted” study designs used by Monsanto scientists in similar studies except that, unlike the short-term Monsanto studies, these studies continued feeding the rats for an extended period of time.
Turning to the provided valid “pig study” link, this reviewer was directly connected to http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/, which presents Mark Lynas’ views on this pig study and also provides a direct link to the peer-reviewed, published study at “http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf” (Carman JA, Vliegers HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Cinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI, Edwards JW. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Organic Sys. 2013; 8(1), 38-54).
Unfortunately, the information Mark Lynas provides about himself does not list any formal degrees, training or experience in the life or agricultural sciences; indicates that his major interests seem to be climatological and environmental in nature; and states that he is a “Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment”.
Further, although the writer’s claim that these studies “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”, the articles to which she links and their comments fail to provide any hard evidence that these comment posters “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
In addition, the writer’s claim, “The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest”, lacks the substantive proof needed to justify the allegations that she has made.
Moreover, since the studies seem to be effects studies, designed to identify and evaluate the effects of feeding high-GMO diets as compared to feeding low/no-GMO diets on the overall health of the animals fed an exclusive diet containing one type of feed or another, the studies were not, per se, designed to determine the safety of the different diets.
Thus, the writer’s negative comments about these two (2) studies are, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, defamatory.
“I’m not sure where Kara stands on the GM issue, but Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument shows in the comments. ‘I don’t need scientists to tell me that GMOs are not a good idea,’ he says. There is an astounding level of cognitive dissonance in his statements. Though Chris brings up climate change, he misses his own point. For example, he calls out deniers, saying that ‘once enough peer-review science had been completed, still maintaining disproven beliefs would not be respectable, like in the case of global warming deniers’, then doesn’t even blink when he says ‘I would dislike GMOs whether the scientific community agreed they were bad or not. Likewise, I think we should not use Roundup, whether the scientific community agrees that it is dangerous or not.’ [emphasis mine]. This is exactly the problem.”
Here, the writer is quick to notice “Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument”, while ignoring her own obvious bias.
However, it is inappropriate to use one person’s biases as if they are representative of all persons who oppose GMO crops because: a) the GMO crops have not been proven to be either safe in the long term or nutritionally equivalent to the non-GMO crops previously grown; b) the use of the GMO seed raises the levels of the pesticides used to treat the crops as the weeds and insect pests develop resistance to the pesticides; c) as, contrary to the claim of rapid breakdown in the environment, the levels of glyphosate and other pesticides continue to increase in our drinking water supply and food; and/or d) of some other GMO-related (e.g., bt-corn) or pesticide-related (e.g., intentional promotion of an off-label use) problem.
“GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing — and passed.”
Here, the writer makes an unsubstantiated claim, “GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing”, which is, at best, deliberately vague, and, at worst, patently false.
Factually, GM crops have mostly only undergone short-term toxi-city, metabolism, and residue studies conducted by, or on behalf of, those firms who are marketing these GM crops.
Moreover, in some instances, the GM-crop candidate has been abandoned when it caused serious adverse effects even in the short-term studies typically conducted.
However, when it comes to long-term toxicity, metabolism, resi-due and environmental-impact studies, few, if any independent studies have been conducted.
Furthermore, the few independent, longer-term, feeding and environmental-impact studies that have been conducted have found evidence of serious adverse effects in rats and “unintended” transfer of pesticide resistance and other genetically inserted traits to other plants, principally “weeds” – making these weeds much harder to kill.
Given the preceding realities, this writer’s views are based on other than sound science and are apparently grounded in the pro-GMO propaganda that permeates the mainstream media and academia today.
“The simple fact is our fear of GM technology is based entirely on emotion. There is no science to support it.When it comes to GMOs, the anti crowd are not ‘raising concerns’—they’re denying scientific consensus.”
Continuing her biased attack on those individuals, groups and peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about the safety of the entire GMO/pesticide paradigm, the writer again makes absolutist claims that, besides being at odds with some of the scientifically sound independent studies, are obviously biased to the extreme.
Further, those who question the Establishment’s GMO and/or pesticide paradigm are not denying any scientific consensus other than that “consensus” bought and paid for by the biotech and pesticide in-dustries and their direct and indirect supporters.
Until there are appropriate, independent, scientifically sound, long-term (greater than half of the life span of the animals studied) studies on the direct and indirect effects on the consumers of the products and their residues at every level – from the microbes, to the plants and the animals, including man – which clearly prove that the GMO/pesticide -containing and -derived products are sufficiently non-toxic17to those non-targeted individuals who are most susceptible to the adverse effects of such products, no one can logically or scientifi-cally assert that such are “safe”.
“There is a plethora of science that supports the safety record of GM foods. As the Skeptico blog pointed out, there are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded) that stand behind the safety record of GM crops.”
Accepting that there “are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded)”, this reviewer notes that the cited blog is admitting that about 80% of these studies are industry-overseen and/or industry-conducted studies – not even “independently funded studies”.
Further, independent funding does not ensure that the study is an independent study.
Given the careful choice of words by the anonymous writer of the cited blog, it would appear that very few of the studies are truly independent studies.
Finally, this reviewer has observed that any study that indicates there may be a problem with the Establishment’s GMO/pesticide paradigm and its authors are attacked by those who are a part of, or favor, the biotech and/or pesticide industries.
Thus, by not stating the number of truly independent studies that address “the safety record of GM crops” and providing a supporting peer- reviewed citation that supports that number, the writer seems to be hiding the scarcity or absence of truly independent safety studies.
“Scientists have been studying GMOs and their potential effects for decades. With every major scientific body saying the exact same thing, I simply don’t know how else to spell it out: there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.”
Here, this reviewer simply reminds the reader that the tobacco industry used similar talking points in its decades-long knowing cover up and suppression of the risks associated with the smoking and/or chewing of its tobacco products, including the use of medical doctors in cigarette advertisements.
Further, making a statement, which is linked to an article that reports “the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion” clearly detracts from the assertion that “scientific consensus”, not propaganda, is being used to prove “GM foods are safe”.
In fact, the writer’s assertion is an implicit admission that the truly independent scientifically sound safety studies on GM foods have not established that they are safe.
Finally, this reviewer notes that one of the prime tactics that propagandists use is the repetition of less-than-truthful statements because such rhetoric eventually leads to increased public acceptance of such statements by those who, for whatever reasons, do not truly study the issues.
“Continuing to act as if the science is mixed or unclear about the safety of genetic modification is not raising a legitimate concern. It’s not even uninformed; it’s denialist. It’s right up there with the claims of anti-vaxers and climate deniers: that is, simply, flat-out, 100%, dead wrong.”
Contrary to the writer’s views, the independent science is clear that the long-term “safety of genetic modification” has not been established just as the “safety” of vaccines has not even been proven to the legal standards for such proofs as required of the manufacturers thereof by the applicable statutes and regulations18.
Moreover, this reviewer does not know of any “climate deniers” – all seem to admit that climate exists.
However, based on the current understanding of the independent sound science, those who have resisted the alarmist claims of “global warming” may have been right.
For a variety of reasons, the local climate is both changing and being actively modified but there is no independent, scientifically sound body of evidence that supports “global warming”.
Further, because most of the energy that warms the Earth comes from the Sun and the Sun’s energy output is currently declining, it would appear that, if anything, we might be entering a global cooling period19
Thus, based on the independent sound science, as he understands it, this reviewer finds that this writer’s assertions here may be, as she put it, “dead wrong”.

my response to a friend who fears vaccination and is unsure what to do.

A friend of mine posted this on my facebook wall tonight.  There is only one reason why I am sharing our conversation. I want to share our conversation because there are many other parents out there who feel the same as my friend. If this is you, and you have stumbled upon this blog for one reason or another.. this is my humble response to you. (forgive any spelling errors..i am copy and pasting this from facebook and its 2 am..this girl is tired 🙂

my friend’s concerns:

Oh help. I am so conflicted. I just got a letter from my Dr listing all the vaccines we have missed. There are 8 vaccines with multiple doses. My head might explode. I don’t want to take her in :/

The best response that I could offer her via a facebook comment box at 2 am :):

so don’t take her in. Is she sick? if she is sick and nutrition, rest and other natural healing methods aren’t making her better then, yes..definitely take her to the doctor. but why take a healthy child to a place where sick people go, if you are not going to the doctor with the intention of getting your childs shots..and since you are still so unsure..ill say what ive been saying to you for a while now 🙂 what ever your decision is..just be confident in your choice don’t do anything until you are at peace with it. now I understand that this is how I make sense of things..i am not you..you might see things differently, so from this point on just keep in mind that I am not trying to tell you what to do..i am just telling you what I would do. let me get back to the point here..if you are wanting to take Valerie in for checkups for progress reports and such..then either find a pedi who respects the fact that you need more time, or find a GP to take your kids to. Lots of people on my page do not even have pediatricians. they just take their kids to a family doctor..and from what ive heard..family doctors are much more willing to work with parents when it comes to vaccinations.

Vvaccines are not the bread and butter of family doctors..pediatricians, on the other hand, base much of their practice around vaccinations so of course its gonna be a bit tougher to find one that respects your parental rights and your ablilty to raise your children as you see fit. As long as a parent researches and is confident in what they decide to do..i say right on. If you dig in and from your digging decide that vaccinations are the road you want to go down..then right on to you..i wish more parents would do this before blindly following the untested 49 dose before the age of 6 cdc schedule..because once you research this stuff it will benefit your family. even if you decide to vaccinate, there are safer ways to vaccinate..there are things a parent can do to minimize risks, just as there are things that parents who do not vaccinate can do to minimize risks.

I would bet that more parents who do not vaccinate are aware of the things they can do to minimize risks..once you  come to the point of making such an important decision….a decision that goes against the “accepted norm,” you have ran yourself into the ground researching every last piece of information that you can find..you start off questioning your thoughts and wondering why you are even taking the time to research this, but then the more you learn, the more you find yourself displeased with the science that is telling you give your baby 8 vaccines in one day..you start to immedietly look at the conflicts of interest disclosures before even reading the article. The sad thing about this all – is that its nearly impossible to find any study that is enthusiastically in support of vaccination that does not have an author that is financially tied to a pharmaceutical company or is not conducted by or funded by an organization that stands to benefit both financially and politically from vaccinations. Studies like these are the ones telling parents that the benefits of the chickenpox vaccine outweigh the risks of actually contracting  chickenpox..or these are the studies that tell a parent its ok to give their children 8 vaccines in one day..ohh wait, my bad dude..i almost forgot..the cdc nor any other government agency has ever taken the time to study the health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. they have never openly considered the cumulative effect that all these multiple immune system activations and toxic ingredients have on a developing infant or child. They have never studied the vaccination schedule  as it is administered. Instead, they publish articles with little integrety and participate, with the help of the biased media, in making sure that everyone knows that people who question vaccines are crazy and have nothing creditable to back up why they are afraid to have their child vaccinated.  Parents are being kept blind to the truth..the truth is that it IS ok to research a potentially life or death medical procedure before consenting to it for your child. It IS ok to ask questions before consenting to the injection of multiple viruses, foreign dna, neurotoxins, and things that have not been proven as safe to be injected into your own child..your own flesh and blood..if you didn’t ask questions before hand, that is what seems more odd to me than a parent asking about the safety of this ballooning, out of control vaccination schedule.

Just an example..im sure that this past month you have heard in the news how the UK is experiencing a measles epidemic and how it is an urgent matter that parents have their children vaccinated with the very safe and effective MMR vaccine so that they will be protected from a life threatening disease. That is the only side presented by the media. Not a word is mentioned about how maybe the measles isn’t such a deadly threat. This  article was written by a doctor and it explains it far better than I can and it is well referenced.

According to the CDC, prior to the introduction of the vaccine, measles was a nearly universal infection occurring most commonly in 5-9 year olds with 90% of U.S. children immune by age 15.  Most kids recovered fully within a few weeks with life-long immunity. Reported complications from data collected between 1985-1992 included pneumonia (6%), encephalitis (.1%), seizures (.6-.7%), and death (.2%). These occurred most frequently in children under 5 and adults over 20. These complications may, in fact, have been exacerbated by allopathic interventions to treat common symptoms such as fever reduction using antipyretics.[15,16]

CDC data appears to indicate that the live-virus vaccine has been very effective at decreasing classic measles incidence in our population, however, it can take little credit for the decreased mortality in the developed world considering the death rate had decreased over 98% prior to the vaccine.[18] Never the less, vaccine advocates hail this as a victory.  The problem is that few of them question whether it was wise to prevent children from acquiring this infection naturally.  Many well-respected doctors and researchers believe that measles is a right of passage that allows a child’s immune systems to develop and strengthen. It has been documented that kids in 3rd world countries who get a wild measles infection are less susceptible to malaria and parasitic infections.[3]  Medical literature from the 1940’s documents children being cured of a kidney disorder known as nephrotic syndrome following measles.[4]

The number of classic measles cases in the US appears to have declined but any protection afforded by the vaccine is limited and often short-lived.[5]  Natural infection with wild measles creates long-lasting viral-specific and viral-neutralizing antibodies that are not acquired following vaccine-introduced infection. There are numerous documented cases of measles occurring in highly vaccinated communities [6-8, 17] which can be attributed primarily to short-term efficacy (secondary vaccine failure).  This has important implications considering the fact that measles has an increased rate of complications in adults when compared to school age children.  In 1973, persons 20 years of age or older accounted for approximately 3% of cases, however, by 2001 that number had increased to 48%.[1]

Not only are measles complications more frequent and severe in adults, but infection during pregnancy increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, premature labor and low-birth weight infants.[1]  Additionally, vaccination appears to have increased infants susceptibility to measles.

“Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33% compared with 12% for infants of older mothers.”[10]

Women of childbearing age, who in the pre-vaccine era acquired measles naturally in childhood, no longer have the robust, life-long viral-specific and viral-neutralizing immune factors to pass to their infants through the placenta and breast milk.  Injecting a measles virus produces antibodies in the serum but not in the mucosa.  Natural measles infection creates mucosal antibodies that are produced in the mammary gland providing passive immunity to the infant during breast-feeding as well as higher levels of vaccine-specific antibodies in the serum.

Measles in infancy is a risk factor for a fatal degenerative central nervous system condition known as Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE).[5]  Could we be setting the stage for disaster if and when measles reignites here in the U.S. due to either imported cases from abroad or a novel mutated strain caused by the vaccine itself?  I can predict, with absolute certainty, the response from our government health officials…more vaccines!

What about the possibility of vaccine-induced disorders not typically associated with a measles infection?  Wild measles exposure occurs through contact with the human respiratory tract. The measles vaccine introduces a lab altered, live-virus through an unnatural route of exposure.  This weakened, man-made virus can bury deep into the tissues and create a slow infection in practically any area of the body including the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract and central nervous system (CNS). The consequences of these vaccine-induced infections may not show up for months, years or decades later.

A vaccine induced form of SSPE known as Measles Inclusion-Body Encephalitis (MIBE) has been documented in children months to years following measles vaccination.[10]  Could the rapid rise in chronic inflammatory bowel and neurological disorders be caused by these slow infections? How many doctors would ever think to investigate the possibility that these illnesses may be with a distant vaccination?  To further complicate the issue, in a phenomenon known as recombination, the measles virus can combine with other live viruses in the vaccine to create a novel virus with unknown effects.[5]

The fear surrounding measles stems from ignorance.  In a well-nourished child with a properly functioning immune system, viral infections are typically subclinical or exceedingly mild.  Certain infections, such as measles, even appear to provide long-term health and immune system benefits.  Malnourishment, in particular vitamin A deficiency, is a primary cause of poor outcomes.[1] One of the most effective ways to ensure that a viral illness runs a mild or benign course is to provide children with adequate stores of vitamin A prior to exposure.

As well, high doses of vitamin A given during an acute measles infection has been shown to prevent mortality.[12]  Vitamin A works by signaling cell-mediated immune cells known as macrophages to produce an anti-viral messenger known as interferon.[13]  Young infants are unable to produce high levels of interferon [14] and, therefore, rely on passive immunity from mom for protection. It should be noted that measles vaccination has been shown to deplete levels of serum vitamin A.[2]

Many fruits and vegetables provide beta-carotene which is converted by the liver into active vitamin A (retinoids), however, the efficiency of uptake and conversion can vary based on a variety of factors.  Particularly during illness, I prefer pre-formed vitamin A from high quality, whole-food sources like cod liver oil and high-vitamin butter oil.


The studies that built the above article are never mentioned..unless parents have the desire to search for it, they will never hear the other side. Ohh yeah..i almost forgot about this. All the reporters who covered the UK measles deadly outbreak have remained pretty silent this week..even though reports where released that show a misdiagnosis rate of 3700% in these UK ‘measles’ cases. Something like 5 cases out of 400 something reported cases actually turned out to be clinically diagnosed as the measles. (to see a report about this see here) But we didn’t hear one thing about that. All we heard about is  how measles is deadly, its  spreading, unvaccinated kids pose a threat to society and how we must get the mmr to be safe. That’s all people will remember becase that’s all people are told about. I didn’t hear one person mention the importance of vitamin A… but anyways..ive said all this just to let you know that you are not crazy for being worried about vaccinations. Listen to what your gut is telling you.

The most important thing is to PRAY ABOUT IT. I honestly believe that God opens the eyes of some people out of love and mercy to prevent them from a negative outcome.  Really pray about it..I did, and I can honestly say that I have never heard the voice of God so loudly and distinctively as I did when praying for guidance regarding vaccinations. And if you do get Valerie caught up on her shots..dear Lord..do not allow her to receive 8 vaccines at one visit. Ive obviously written a book already so I wont go into this..but just take my word for it..there is so much evidence out there that shows this is a terribly dangerous and very foolish thing to do to a child.  And why don’t you like my page already!! You don’t have to be all out anti vaccine to be apart of it.. all are welcome. Me and the other two admins post scientifically sound things for parents to educate themselves with..i am going to repost your question on my page so that you can get some other opinions. Ohh and here is a list I just put together..it is over a years worth of digging.


God did not create us with a vaccine deficiency ..he created us with strong immune systems that- if nourished well and if treated in the manor that God intended – have amazing abilities to protect, heal and to strengthen our bodies.  Gods got his hand on my children no matter what..good or bad..im trusting in him.



Read the back of your toothpaste – fluoride IS poison. if there’s doubt – GET IT OUT!

What is put into our water is not the element that occurs naturally in nature called fluoride. What they put into our water is called fluorosilicic acid, which is actually a toxic waste product produced in the smokestacks of phosphate plants. If they weren’t selling this substance to cities, they would have to pay a lot of money to have it handled as an environmental hazard and buried in EPA-approved landfills. It is illegal to take this fluorosilicic acid and bury it in the ground or dump it in rivers or streams in this country, but it is perfectly legal to sell it to cities that drip this known poison into the water supply with the intended purpose of it being ingested by human beings. I am sick of having no other option other than to bathe my children in poisoned water. I am sick of lugging heavy glass gallons of water home every other day – simply because I have to buy clean water elsewhere..the water that I pay for..the water that pours from my kitchen sink is poisoned.

This awesome review sums it up far better than I can:

They call them “wet scrubbers” – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. 

In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.

Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).

However, the impacts of the industry’s fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people – people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.

That’s because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation.

Don’t believe me? Here is a letter written by former EPA Deputy Administrator  , Rebecca Hamners, that clearly admits where the fluoride that pollutes our water comes from


and just in case you cant read what this letter says..

In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them” – Rebecca Hanmer, EPA, 1983

*ohhh I see..somehow the same stuff that pollutes the environment becomes ok after it is added to the water that we drink and give to our children.

Another EPA official, Dr. J. William Hirzy, the current Senior Vice-President of EPA Headquarters Union, recently expressed a different view on the matter. According to Hirzy:

If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.

Read just a few of these quotes..the following statements are all quotes from the National Research Committees scientific review of EPA standards on water fluoridation.

Cognitive Effects

Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities. Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. 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. Using the combined Raven’s Test for Rural China, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao  (the high fluoride area. if you read the whole study then it will give you specifics..im trying my best to keep this short) 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 low fluoride area). The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure. Pg 205-206

A study conducted by Lu et al. (2000) in a different area of China also compared the IQs of 118 children (ages 10-12) living in two areas with different fluoride concentrations in the water (3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L in one area and 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L in the other). The children were lifelong residents of the villages and had similar social and educational levels. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured at 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L in the high-fluoride area and 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L in the low-fluoride area. IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test, showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among children in the high-fluoride area (92.27 ± 20.45) than in children in the low-fluoride area (103.05 ± 13.86). Of special importance, 21.6% of the children in the high-fluoride village scored 70 or below on the IQ scale. For the children in the low-fluoride village, only 3.4% had such low scores. Urinary fluoride concentrations were inversely correlated with mental performance in the IQ test. [wow..that mean that the more fluoride a child had in their urine..the lower their IQ was..wow..just wow] Qin and Cui (1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water” pg 206

Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14) living in a high-fluoride area (average concentration of 4.12 mg/L) with those of children living in a low-fluoride area (average concentration 0.91 mg/L). Using the Rui Wen Test, the investigators found that the average IQ of children in the high-fluoride area (97.69) was significantly lower than that of children in the low-fluoride area (105.21). The investigators also reported that enamel fluorosis (discoloring of the teeth) was present in 86% of the children in the high-exposure group and in 14% of the children in the low-exposure group and that skeletal fluorosis was found only in the high-exposure group at 9%.” pg 206-207

Another Chinese study evaluated fluoride exposure due to inhalation of soot and smoke from domestic coal fires used for cooking, heating, and drying grain. Many of the children exhibited moderate to severe enamel fluorosis [remember in the last study ^^ how 86% in high fluoride areas had enamel fluorosis compared to 14% in the low fluoride area?]. The average IQ of 900 children (ages 8-13) from an area with severe enamel fluorosis was 9-15 points lower than the average IQ of children from an area with low or no enamel fluorosis. Urinary fluoride concentrations were found to be inversely correlated with IQ, as measured by the China Rui Wen Scale for Rural Areas, and were monotonically related to the degree of enamel fluorosis.” Pg 208

After recording the data, the authors go on to say:

The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain.. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.

Side personal note: this was published in 2006. No studies have been conducted in the US to follow up on this. Does anyone else not think that these findings are important? WHY haven’t they done a follow up study? WHY is the fluoride program more important to our government than our children? Why are people not alarmed that there have been multiple studies completed that had the same the results: the more fluoride – the lower the IQ. Are people not concerned that fluoride could be hindering the future success of entire generations?

They go on to say,

It should be noted that many factors outside of native intelligence influence performance on IQ tests. One factor that might be of relevance to fluoride is impairment of thyroid gland function (see Chapter 8 for more on thyroid issues). For example, hypothyroidism produces tiredness, depression, difficulties in concentration, memory impairments, and impaired hearing. In addition, there is some evidence that impaired thyroid function in pregnant women can lead to children with lower IQ scores (Klein et al. 2001).

Personal side note: great..so we are damaging children’s IQs two different ways now. I will just share this one quote on fluoride and thyroid disease. Is is from chapter 8..there is a lot of reading and studies to look at on this connection.

An effect of fluoride exposure on the thyroid was first reported approximately 150 years ago. In 1923, the director of the Idaho Public Health Service, in a letter to the Surgeon General, reported enlarged thyroids in many children between the ages of 12 and 15 using city water in the village of Oakley, Idaho ); in addition, the children using city water had severe enamel deficiencies in their permanent teeth. The dental problems were eventually attributed to the presence in the city water of 6 mg/L fluoride, and children born after a change in water supply (to water with <0.5 mg/L fluoride) were not so affected..” pg 225 [turn off the fluoride and the problems stop!]

Mental and Physiological Changes

There are numerous reports of mental and physiological changes after exposure to fluoride from various routes (air, food, and water) and for various time periods (Waldbott et al. 1978). A number of the reports are, in fact, experimental studies of one or more individuals who underwent withdrawal from their source of fluoride exposure and subsequent re-exposures under “blind” conditions. In most cases, the symptoms disappeared with the elimination of exposure to fluoride and returned when exposure was reinstated. In some instances, when the fluoride was given in water, this procedure was repeated several times under conditions in which neither the patient nor the provider of the fluoride knew whether the water contained fluoride. Also reported are instances when fluoride-produced symptoms occurred when people moved into a community with fluoridated water but disappeared when the individuals moved to a nonfluoridated community.

Spittle (1994) reviewed surveys and case reports of individuals exposed occupationally or therapeutically to fluoride and concluded there was suggestive evidence that fluoride could be associated with cerebral impairment. A synopsis of 12 case reports of fluoride-exposed people of all ages showed common sequelae of lethargy, weakness, and impaired ability to concentrate regardless of the route of exposure. In half the cases, memory problems were also reported. pg 208-209

the next things documented are truly scary for any mother to think about.

adding sodium silicofluoride  or fluorosilicic acid (this is what is in my public water supply) to drinking water has been reported to increase the accumulation of the neurotoxicant lead in the body (Masters and Coplan 1999; Masters et al. 2000). This association was first attributed to increased uptake of lead (from whatever source) caused by fluoride. However, enhanced lead concentrations were found only when the water treatments were made with a fluorosilicate and in children already in a high-lead exposure group.” Pg 209

Personal side note: I am skipping around a bit here but what I want to show you now, ties in to what is mentioned above..how fluoride increases a childs exposure to toxins. This awesome article explains..

silicofluorides, as obtained from the scrubbers of the phosphate industry, contain a wide variety of impurities present in the process water – particularly arsenic and possibly radionuclides. While these impurities occur at low concentrations, especially after dilution into the water, their purposeful addition to water supplies directly violates EPA public health goals. For instance, the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic, a known human carcinogen, is 0 parts per billion. However, according to the National Sanitation Foundation (see this link for document ), the addition of silicofluorides to the water supply will add, on average, about 0.1 to 0.43 ppb, and as much as 1.6 ppb, arsenic to the water.

Ok getting back to the EPA fluoride document..

Immune System

There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses. The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised? Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4 mg/L is associated with changes in immune function. Nor has any study examined whether a person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water. (no studies done..this was published in 2006)

Epidemiologic studies should be carried out to determine whether there is a higher prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions in areas where there is elevated fluoride in the drinking water. If evidence is found, hypersensitive subjects could then be selected to test, by means of double-blinded randomized clinical trials, which fluoride chemicals can cause hypersensitivity. In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water. More research is needed on the immunotoxic effects of fluoride in animals and humans to determine if fluoride accumulation can influence immune function. It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells. Pg 303(again..no studies have been done)

Reproductive and Developmental

“NaF (sodium fluoride..think toothpaste) caused lessened fertility rate when normal cycling female mice were mated with treated mice.  Significant recovery in sperm count, sperm motility, and fertility rate was observed after withdrawal of treatment for 2 months”. Pg 183

“Sperm maturation process was affected, leading to decline in cauda epididymal sperm motility and viability. Significant reduction in fertility rate and cauda epididymal sperm count.” Pg 183

Structural and metabolic alterations and reduced activity of the enzymes in sperm resulted in a significant decrease in sperm count and poor fertility rate. Cessation of NaF treatment for 30 days did not bring about complete recovery. pg 184

“Implantation sites and viable fetuses were significantly reduced in females mated with males that had ingested NaF” pg 184

“There was inhibition of lactation in rats with chronic fluorosis, as measured by slower rates of body weight gain in pups and lower amount of milk suckled in 30 minutes compared with control pups.” Pg 185

“Significant reductions in body weight, feed consumption, absolute uterine weight, and number of implantations (pregnancies). Significantly higher incidence of skeletal and visceral abnormalities. pg 185

“Significant decline in fertility attributed to decreased sperm motility and count.” Pg 186

“Decline in fertility related to reduced sperm motility and count and changes in morphology and metabolism. No recovery after withdrawal for 30 days from treatment.Pg 189

Human Studies

“In an ecological study of U.S. counties with drinking-water systems reporting fluoride concentrations of at least 3 mg/L (Freni 1994), a decreased fertility rate was associated with increasing fluoride concentrations.” Pg 192

“There is wide variation with some correlation between fluoride concentration in maternal serum and cord blood, indicating that fluoride readily crosses the placenta.. Therefore, potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans.” Pg 193

“In this ecological study, there was an association between decreasing total fertility rate and increasing fluoride concentrations in most regions.” Pg 195

“Two small studies have raised the possibility of an increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis-prone areas in India” pg 196

  • Study 1: “Blood fluoride concentrations of children were 0.9 ppm and 1.1 ppm. Serum fluoride concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 ppm. Of    30 skiagrams of the lumbosacral region, 14 (47%) showed spina bifida occulta” pg 200
  • Study 2: “A total of 22 (44%) of the 50 children in the study group, and 6 (12%) of the children in the control group revealed spina bifida occulta in the lumbosacral region. Proportion of children with spina bifida occulta in fluoride-rich areas was 44%.” Pg 201

“The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure (see Chapter 10) suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure.” Pg 197

Link to epa fluoride summary: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=1

For anyone that has made it to this point..i have a question for you. Even if all of this evidence was wrong…is it still worth the risk just to “prevent cavities?” Most of Europe doesn’t fluoridate their water and tooth decay and cavity rates are the same as in the US. We need to stand up and demand that this poison is taken out of our water. This isn’t a conspiracy. Everything you just read came from a scientific review of the EPA’s standards for fluoride in our drinking water. The government is aware of how toxic this stuff is. GET IT OUT OF OUR WATER. If people want to take fluoride then let them buy it and administer it themselves. STOP FORCE MEDICATING SOCIETY with a substance that is a well known TOXIN. If enough people called city hall tomorrow or went down to city hall things would eventually change. It is time we demand change. It is black and white! Fluoride is poison and if even if it wasn’t..if one study showed that it could hurt our children then it shouldn’t be in our water. I urge you to call city hall tomorrow..call your representative or congressmen. Our voices have got to be heard on this issue…WHEN IN DOUBT – GET IT OUT!

What is really scary is that despite 50 years of water fluoridation, the EPA has no chronic health studies on silicofluorides. All safety studies on fluoride to date have been conducted using pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride, not industrial-grade silicofluorides. Just look at the EPA correspondence below

                          fluoride no studies

Fluoride is a hazardous waste. It is against the law to dump the same chemicals into the ocean or waterways because it will kill the marine life..yet they dump it into the water that we are to consume and give to our children. Some side effects of fluoride exposure are – lowered IQ, thyroid disease, bone disease, cancer, dental fluorosis, a weakened immune system.

Mabye this expains why the following countries have such things to say about fluoride as,

Austria: Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” SOURCE: Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000.

Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” SOURCE: Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999.

Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” SOURCE: Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000.

**for more statements on fluoride from other governments look here 

Well if we take the fluoride out of our water we will all start to get cavities..i can just hear someone saying this now. However..here are some quick facts:

  • Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, for example, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water.
  • While 25 countries have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%
  • ), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%).
  • Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).
  • In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.
  • There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
  • There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.



all it would take is enough people to get angry..and that switch would turn.

regarding tdap and pregnancy..is an autism coverup to blame?

this post is in regards to my previous post on tdap vaccination during pregnancy..

I see no other reason why they are pushing all of these vaccines on pregnant women other than the reason that they are frantically trying to prove to us that autism is a genetic condition that children have had from birth..its criminal!!

seriously though..they “remove” thimerosal from most vaccines but then at the same time as they’re phasing the mercury out, they start to recommend annual flu shots… (most flu shots contain thimerosal..) starting at 6 months of age..and then they say that pregnant women need flu shots (mercury and aluminum do penetrate the placenta..nothing is better for a developing baby than mercury..don’t you know?) and on top of all this they increase the aluminum in vaccines!! now tdap during pregnancy!!? there is just no other explanation (given the history of all this) that would explain why this pregnancy vaccine push along with yearly flu shots for infants and huge increases in aluminum is happening.. lets stroll over to cdc.gov and see what the they have to say about this:

Does thimerosal cause autism? “Research does not show ANY link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. (OHH my lord!! PLEASE see the TACA compilation of over 600 citations that show a thimerosal/autism connection!!!!)

ALTHOUGH thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have gone up, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism.”


please dont allow yourself to be fooled. Please hear the other side of this story and think for yourself.

the CDC boldly proclaims that autism rates didn’t drop after thimerosal was phased out in 2001..
– even though they added 4 doses of the aluminum containing PCV and the aluminum containing Hep A vaccine to the schedule in 2001..

– ohh yeah, 2001 was also the year that the CDC started recommending that flu shots be given either during the 2nd or 3rd trimester to pregnant women and their unborn children.

– and THEN if all that wasn’t enough.. we added the thimerosal containing YEARLY flu shot for children – starting at 6 months – to the schedule in 2002.

– and now they want pregnant women to be injected with even more toxic substances like aluminum and formaldehyde via the tdap vaccine given during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy?!!!

“nope vaccines do not cause autism,” says the CDC.

How stupid do they think we are?

I know this may be a jagged pill for some to swallow..but seriously think about it as you would think about anything else when trying to come to a conclusion. Think about this.. What would the ramifications have been if – all the sudden – autism rates would have started to plummet after the thimerosal was removed from most vaccines? This would have caused fingers to point directly at the CDC and their precious vaccine program..can you image the uproar that would have taken place? The publics confidence in the vaccine schedule and the publics willingness to adhere to it would be badly damaged if a scenario such as this ever played out. Soooo much money would be lost!!

I know that some people may be thinking, “this girl is some conspiracy loving crazy..!” but I am not trying to provoke some panic laden thoughts from you right now..i am simply just stating what I see. Look at almost every scandal or cover up that has taken place in this world..what is at the root of them? what is the common theme that connects almost all atrocities together?

the answer is money. throughout history it has been proven time and time again that money has a higher value than people.

link to cdc on thimerosal: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

see this link to see the changing appearance of the vaccine schedule : https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.351985038232728.76132.326568134107752&type=3

also to see peer reviewed studies on aluminum and how it damages the brain..click this link and scroll down to the section on aluminum: https://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/tdap-and-pregnancy-finding-your-voice-to-say-no/

tdap and pregnancy – finding your voice to say no

One of my best friends sent me a text message today from her doctors office..she was waiting for the doctor to come in and was freaking out because the nurse told her she would be getting a Tdap vaccine. She asked me if she should get the Tdap vaccine or not (she is pregnant with twins).  I told her, “NO!” She told her doctor no for now and that she would research it and come back in if she wanted it. Her doctor flipped out..she even brought the vaccine, ready to go, into the room as a last attempt to push my friend into getting the shot. I told my friend that I would email her some things that I had on the Tdap and pregnancy.

I like to share these kinds of things because we all probably know someone that we could share this stuff with.. so many frightened mothers are searching for the reasons that will back up the answer that their instincts are telling them to give – no.

Knowledge is power.

Knowledge is the power that will give you confidence in your decisions. Why would a mother not want to be confident in one of the most important decisions that she will ever make?

this is what I emailed my friend:

on page 14 of the Adacel Tdap vaccine package insert:

“Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Adacel vaccine. It is also not known whether Adacel vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Adacel vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed”


adacel tdap vaccine package insert

on page 13 of the Boostrix Tdap vaccine package insert:

 “There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, BOOSTRIX should be given  to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”


boostrix tdap vaccine package insert

From a clinical trial that is currently in the recruitment stage and is NOT SET TO BE COMPLETED  until DECEMBER 2013: (and how long have they been recommending Tdap during pregnancy?)

Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccination in Pregnancy
This study is currently recruiting participants.
The main aim of the present study is to measure the influence of an adult pertussis booster in pregnant women, on the titer and duration of maternal antibodies in their infants.

Primary Outcome Measures:

Does vaccination of pregnant women with a combined vaccine Tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap), induce sufficiently high maternal antibody concentration in the newborns infants to possibly protect them until their own vaccination starts [ Time Frame: 16 months ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:

Vaccine associated (Severe) Adverse Events in pregnant women and children during the study time [ Time Frame: 16 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

Estimated Enrollment: 50 [ personal note: 50 HEALTHY WOMEN! THAT’S IT! If you read this whole trial scroll down and read all the criteria that women must meet to be able to participate..yet the vaccine is given to all]

Study Start Date:February 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date:December 2014
Estimated Primary Completion Date:December 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Link to clinical trial information: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01698346?term=DAPTACEL+pregnancy&rank=1

Right from the CDC’s own “MMRV” report on Tdap vaccination during pregnancy they say:

Safety of Tdap in Pregnant Women

In prelicensure evaluations, the safety of administering a booster dose of Tdap to pregnant women was NOT studied. Because information on use of Tdap in pregnant women was lacking, both manufacturers of Tdap established pregnancy registries to collect information and pregnancy outcomes from pregnant women vaccinated with Tdap..

Transplacental Maternal Antibodies

For infants, transplacentally transferred maternal antibodies MIGHT provide protection against pertussis in early life and before beginning the primary DTaP series.

 Link to this on the cdc website: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6041a4.htm?s_cid=mm6041a4_e%0d%0a

The Tdap contains:

Boostrix Tdap: formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), Latham medium derived from bovine casein, Fenton medium containing a bovine extract, Stainer-Scholte liquid medium

Adacel Tpad: aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol, ammonium sulfate, Mueller’s growth medium, Mueller-Miller casamino acid medium (without beef heart infusion)

Cdc table of vaccine ingredients: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

A few things I’ve found all with peer reviewed scientific references:

This is from a blog that I wrote on here a while back that was about 2 phenoxyethanol.  In the studies below, they call it  , ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, but if you look that chemical up..you will find that its another name for 2 phenoxyethanol..which is in the tdap (adacel). My past blog post goes into more detail about this..you can read that here.

“A continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE)(EGPE = vaccine ingredient). continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE).. With respect to EGPE, there was no change in the ability to produce five litters during the continuous breeding period. There was, however, a significant but small (10-15%) decrease in the number of pups/litter and in pup weight in the high-dose group. A crossover mating trial suggested a female component of the reproductive toxicity of EGPE. While fertility was only minimally compromised, severe neonatal toxicity was observed. By Day 21 there were only 8 out of 40 litters in the mid- and high-dose groups which had at least one male and female/litter. Second generation reproductive performance of the mid-dose group (1.25%) was unaffected except for a small decrease in live pup weight. In summary the reproductive toxicity of EGBE and EGPE was only evident in the female and occurred at doses which elicited general toxicity. EGBE was particularly toxic to adult female mice while EGPE was particularly toxic to immature mice of both sexes.” (10)


** I had to read this about ten times just to make sure that I was reading it right. Did that really just say what I thought it did? Does anyone else notice how the authors try their hardest to play down the results in the group that received EGPE? But if you read it a few times..you will quickly realize that the results for the group that received 2-phenoxyethanol are not good.

•there was a slow decline in fertility that caused a drop in the weight and health of the next generation.

• severe neonatal (infants) toxicity was observed.

•the abstract never gave the information needed to know how many in the EGPE group died.. Since it never gave the orginal number of pups/liter there is no way to know how many died.

• the other ether in the study caused deaths and toxic events to happen to the adult female mice. The glysol ether that is in several pediatric vaccines, 2-phenoxyethanol, was particularly toxic and caused death in the baby and children mice of both sexes.

•and these results were what happened after the mice ate 2-phenoxyethanol..infants and children are injected with this substance.

another peer reviewed article that discusses ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, or 2 phenoxyethanol, an ingredient in the Tdap:

In summary, ethylene glycol monophenyl ether produced significant reproductive and developmental toxicity..Ethylene glycol monophenyl  ether caused significant toxicity in growing animals, as evidenced by the reduced body weight in neonates in Tasks 2, 3, and 4, and the large increase in postnatal lethality as the animals grew to the age of mating.


another ingredient in almost every vaccine and the Tdap(there is a lot more out there about formaldehyde as well..) :

Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde have suggested an association between formaldehyde exposure and several cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia.


some peer reviewed literature about aluminum (both Tdap and most other vaccines contain aluminum)

Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure   

“Autism is a condition characterized by impaired cognitive and social skills, associated with compromised immune function. The incidence is alarmingly on the rise, and environmental factors are increasingly suspected to play a role. This paper investigates word frequency patterns in the U.S. CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.”


full text: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/sls/publications/2012/entropy-14-02227.pdf

“Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration.”

“Possible causes of GWS include several of the adjuvants in the anthrax vaccine and others. The most likely culprit appears to be aluminum hydroxide. In an initial series of experiments, we examined the potential toxicity of aluminum hydroxide in male, outbred CD-1 mice injected subcutaneously in two equivalent-to-human doses. After sacrifice, spinal cord and motor cortex samples were examined by immunohistochemistry. Aluminum-treated mice showed significantly increased apoptosis of motor neurons and increases in reactive astrocytes and microglial proliferation within the spinal cord and cortex. Morin stain detected the presence of aluminum in the cytoplasm of motor neurons with some neurons also testing positive for the presence of hyper-phosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark of various neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.”


Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as “small adults” as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248). The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.


Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

 Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly  contentious medical issue.


What is regressive autism and why does it occur? Is it the consequence of multi-systemic dysfunction affecting the elimination of heavy metals and the ability to regulate neural temperature?

Aluminum also shares common mechanisms with mercury e.g. it interferes with cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system. Children given the recommended vaccinations are injected with nearly 5 mg of aluminum by the time they are just 1.5 years old, almost 6 times the safe level. Furthermore the nature of the Aluminium affects the prevailing blood levels and is also increasingly implicated, through their use as vaccine adjuvants, in autism.

Where is the proof that vaccines are safe? The argument has never been that they are completely safe but that the consequences are less than having the disease. Now it is illustrated that the consequences of intensive vaccination schedules pose a greater risk than could ever have been imagined. This leads to the evolution of new viral strains, an unsurprising development when the environment to which it is exposed is being altered by new proteins, structural variants and ALTERED DNA.


“Aluminum overload increases oxidative stress in four functional brain areas of neonatal rats”

Aluminum overload increases oxidative stress (H2O2) in the hippocampus, diencephalon, cerebellum, and brain stem in neonatal rats. (In humans, oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, atherosclerosis, heart failure, myocardial infarction, fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease,lichen planus, vitiligo, autism, and chronic fatigue syndrome) .

The main route of Al excretion is the urine; therefore, subjects with kidney malfunction or immature kidney, such as nephropathy patients or neonates, might experience toxic accumulation of Al in the body [12]. Infants display rapid growth and their brain-blood-barrier, detoxification system (liver), and excretory system (kidney) are not well-developed [13,14]. Aluminum can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in glial and neural cells [15]. Thus, high intake of Al-containing formula [ but they don’t mention the vaccines that are injected.. ] might cause accumulation of Al in the neonatal brain, interfering with appropriate development.

In previous studies, exposure to excess dietary Al during gestation and lactation periods had no toxic effects on the mother, but resulted in persistent neurobehavioral deficits in the pups, such as defects in the sensory motor reflexes, locomotor activity, learning capability, and cognitive behavior [16,17]. These behavioral studies, therefore, suggested that Al exposure might cause developmental changes in neonatal brain. Until recently, a marker with which to effectively detect neonatal brain development was lacking. The group’s previous study with Al treatment in neonatal rat hippocampal neurons at concentrations of 37 μM and 74 μM for 14 days significantly reduced NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor) expression which was used as a marker of brain development. This suggested that Al exposure might influence the development of hippocampal neurons in neonatal rats [12].


Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.

Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs…infants and children should not be viewed as ‘‘small adults’’ with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., ‘‘ASIA’’), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in ‘‘ASIA’’ and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuroimmune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.


**These articles talk about how deep the pharma ties run in the medical and scientific world. you should read both of them in their entirety..once you learn these things – everything that ive typed above will mean a lot more to you.

This first article was written by the former editor and chief executive of the British Medical Journal.. He should know better than anyone the corruption.

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies

about the author:   RS was an editor for the BMJ [british medical journal] for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.

Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.

The most conspicuous example of medical journals’ dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers. [personal note: this only scratches the surface..he goes into so much detail in the full publication.]


conflicts of interests in vaccine safety research

COls  [conflicts of interests]can influence the objectivity of vaccine safety researchers. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article describes the COls faced by various research sponsors. Vaccine manufacturers have financial motives and public health officials have bureaucratic reasons that might lead them to sponsor research that concludes vaccines are safe. Advocacy groups have members with legal and financial reasons to support studies that find adverse effects in vaccines. These conflicts do not mean the research is incorrect, but the research could be selective and biased. Currently, most vaccine safety researchers face conflicts, which contribute to consumer confusion as well as more studies concerned with vaccine safety. Reported injuries from vaccines are not investigated and both the public as well as some health workers question vaccine safety research. Ameliorating the COIs–through bureaucratic restructuring and enforced transparency-could lead to less bias, more investigation into reported injuries and increased trust in vaccine safety research. [personal note: another must read..]


and lastly — watch this awesome video

Everything this video shows comes straight from the vaccine manufactures who make the vaccines and from the CDC and the NIH..you can easily find these things yourself. Watch it till the very end so that you can see the doctor quote. make sure to click the 1080p button next to the fullscreen button at the bottom so you can see the text better.


**you may feel stressed out to the core about all this. but you shouldn’t be. If you would have been pregnant a few years ago.. a doctor would’ve never offered you a Tdap vaccine. Why now? Where are the studies? Why does their own literature state that this vaccine should only be given when clearly needed because its use in pregnant women has never been studied? Please tell me how the benefit of this outweighs the risks for my unborn baby! Why wont they offer a single pertussis vaccine? Offering a single vaccine would at least decrease the burden placed upon my baby. Why give an unnecessary triple shot when they could offer something safer? What is really important here?

The answer to all of this is simple – stand firm and just say no. They cannot force you to have this vaccine. You are not powerless. Stand your ground for the sake of your baby. remember that – KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

“hey, don’t you realize that there’s a baby in here, doctor? “

waiting on vaccine

Hard evidence that vaccines have been used to purposely make women sterile. What has changed?

Many of us have seen the accusations that vaccines are used as population control. Some of you may be hearing about this idea for the first time as you read this. What do you think when you read that this is the sinister reality behind vaccinations? I know the first time that I read this claim..im going to be honest here..i thought that whoever it was out there in cyberspace who wrote it.. was probably a crazy person. Of course, it was before I was awakened to the cold truth that I thought this..but still, the fact that I (being a person that has always questioned things) thought this means that most people probably think these accusations to be far more foolish than I did. How has the state of our society come to think the way that it does about notions that go against the grain? How have we become so programed to automatically brush certain things off as just “crazy” before ever giving any thought to what it is that is being said? It makes perfectly good sense that vaccines could be used as a method to reduce the population. Even after watching the clip of bill gates speaking about this, many people im sure, still just place this idea in the “crazy” category and probably never return to think about it. However, what I write about below.. leaves little room for interpretation – it has been well documented that vaccines HAVE been used to, without consent, end pregnancies, impair fertility and as a population control method.


I remember reading an article back in February that reported the murders of nearly 10 polio vaccinators in Nigeria. The deadly attacks were done by a group that believed that the polio vaccine was a western plot to sterilize Muslim girls. This seems so shocking of an idea to most of us probably. But after learning about this.. it is not such an outlandish thought. (the thought that polio vaccinations could be used as population control is not that outlandish NOT the thought of taking the lives of 9 innocent women who were just doing a job..i am in NO WAY SAYING THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN NIGERIA IS OK.)

I have heard about what happened to many of the poor women and to their unborn children in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the 1990s (and is still probably happening even today..how can we say that it is not happening today? What has changed? What explanation or apology has been issued?) getting back on point here..but until today, I had never really looked into it. what this post discusses has ethical ramifications that mirror even some of the most despicable crimes against humanity that have occurred on this planet. It is a travesty!..and guess what? Few people in this world have ever heard even a whisper about it.

During the early 1990s the World Health Organization (WHO) oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus; These campaigns targeted a number of developing countries.  Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines were three of the countries, among others, that were blessed by the WHO and all of their vaccine glory. Apparently, the thugs at the World Health Organization not only thought these people to be expendable..but they also must have thought that these people were incredibly stupid. It didn’t take long for officials to become suspicious of the vaccinations. Only women between the ages of 15 and 49 were allowed to be vaccinated (why not men and children?) and the vaccination schedule had these women receiving 3 tetanus vaccines within the first 3 months and 5 tetanus vaccines altogether, when it is widely accepted that a single tetanus vaccination will supposedly protect against tetanus for ten years. Because of these suspicions, officials had vials of the vaccine tested. To their surprise, the vaccines contained the pregnancy hormone hCG. The paper that ive learned all of this from explains why this is a negative thing by saying:

“In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman’s body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.

However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)”

The article goes on to say that after this was discovered,

“HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.”

The aforementioned article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8 – see bottom of article for references. also see the additional pubmed article that discusses this in the link I will post below. I will also include one other link for people who would like to read into this further. The article goes on to say:

The Known Facts

Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines: 

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)

The Anti-Fertility Gang

Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)

The WHO began its “Special Programme” in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on “reproductive health” research.(7) It is this “Programme” which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme’s funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed “only” $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.

WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses

When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from “right-to-life and Catholic” sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke’s (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila — and all four vials tested positive for hCG! From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly “insignificant” quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.

But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only “insignificant” quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.

New arguments surfaced: hCG’s apparent presence in the vaccine was due to “false positives” resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.
But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!
Why A Tetanus Toxoid “Carrier”?

Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: “Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG.”(8)

Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau

After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands “did not apply for registration.”(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.

It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO — there they are again! — there was assurance enough that the “vaccines come from reputable manufacturers.”(10) Just how “reputable” one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)


At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. monies.”

**This abstract that I found on PubMed from 1995 was published in Vaccine Weekly and can easily be read at the link below..it goes on to further back this up by saying:

“A priest, president of Human Life International (HLI) based in Maryland, has asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). If it is true, he wants Congress to publicly condemn the mass vaccinations and to cut off funding to UN agencies and other involved organizations. The natural hormone hCG is needed to maintain pregnancy. The hormone would produce antibodies against hCG to prevent pregnancy. In the fall of 1994, the Pro Life Committee of Mexico was suspicious of the protocols for the tetanus toxoid campaign because they excluded all males and children and called for multiple injections of the vaccine in only women of reproductive age. Yet, one injection provides protection for at least 10 years. The Committee had vials of the tetanus vaccine analyzed for hCG. It informed HLI about the tetanus toxoid vaccine. HLI then told its World Council members and HLI affiliates in more than 60 countries. Similar tetanus vaccines laced with hCG have been uncovered in the Philippines and in Nicaragua. In addition to the World Health Organization (WHO), other organizations involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG include the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State universities. The priest objects that, if indeed the purpose of the mass vaccinations is to prevent pregnancies, women are uninformed, unsuspecting, and unconsenting victims.”

Link to pubmed article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346214

Link to the main article mentioned in this post: http://thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm

Additional reading which includes references to other articles that make mention of this:  http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=368716


what excactly is in that?

Below, you will find a link to the cdc table of vaccine ingredients. how many parents have actually looked at this before allowing their kids to be vaccinated? My son Rory received his two month shots, 7 vaccines and 1100 mcg of aluminum at once..i didn’t look before. I am pretty sure that a few things would happen if more parents did:

1. the number of babies receiving 7, 8 or 9 vaccines at one visit would plummet.

2. titer test sells would increase.

3. the number of booster doses administered would fall.

*I could continue with this list for a long, long time.. but i’ll save that for another post. I am just trying to keep this post simple.

**and before anyone tries to add to this list by saying that disease rates would increase, or that infant mortality from disease would increase.. please consider looking into the following things:

– what a titer test is.

– in 1950 (before mass immunization), the US ranked 3rd in the world for having the lowest infant mortality rate.

– in 2012, the US infant mortality rank was 49th.

– today, in a country where pregnant woman are encouraged to receive flu shots that contain mercury and tdap vaccines that contain aluminum and formaldehyde, and starting at birth, children receive 49 vaccines before the age of 6 :

1 in 6 children have learning disabilities
1 in 9 children have asthma
1 in 10 children have ADHD
1 in 12 children have food allergies
3-5 in 100 children are born with Birth Defects
1 in 88 children have Autism
1 in 100 children have Seizures
1 in 450 children have Diabetes
1 in 6,000 children have been diagnosed with Cancer

*** and if anyone would like the sources to the info above.. I can provide them. it will just take me some time to compile them all. but I will do it. just ask for them in the comments


imr 1950-2012

the new normal vax schedule

Pediatricians Receive Regular Requests for Alternative Child Immunization Schedules..really!!?

Today I am writing in response to the study published in Pediatrics (the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) called,  “Washington Pediatricians Receive Regular Requests for Alternative Child Immunization Schedules”
This article clearly states that this study is the first of its kind. I cannot believe that the AAP hasn’t looked at this before. Especially given whats going on currently with how parents view vaccination.. this article states,
 “Currently, however, parental acceptance of childhood immunizations is waning. There was a  17- percentage point increase in the proportion of parents who refused or delayed immunizations for their children in 2008, compared with 2003 (39% vs 22%)”
 So at least they know what’s going on. But why did they not look into what the peds think about this a long time ago..a study like this gives a realistic glimpse into such a cloudy “issue.” Still though..after they finally decided to conduct this needed research, only 209 peds ended up participating..so we still don’t have a lot to look at here. But from what we do have to look at..it doesnt look half bad.
“More than three-fourths of Washington State pediatricians reported that parents regularly requested ACISs, [alternative child immunization schedules] and more than one-half of the pediatricians surveyed were comfortable using ACISs if requested by parents.”
What do the charts below (results from study) say for the hep b vaccine and the chickenpox vaccine? It shows exactly what these vaccines are… junk.

on wisdom, protection, and how the search must go on.

Almost every time that I decline a food or drink for myself or for my children, I am looked at with the same face.. it’s a face that says, Now there’s something else that you think is bad!..really? Something that I hear quite often from a few of my family members is,

Why do you run yourself weary from constantly researching things and placing all these restrictions in your diet and into your lifestyle? Everything is gonna kill us anyways..so why does it really matter? We pray blessing over the food so that God will bless it to our bodies. Dont you think that God will protect your family from the harmful stuff?

I agree that, according to his will for our lives,  God will protect us from the harmful things in our environment, but I do not believe that we should use this as a crutch to avoid learning new things or expanding our minds to ways that we can be healthier. We live in the age of information. Everything that we desire to learn, we can find access to.

I truly believe that God desires for us to choose to live a healthy lifestyle. He gave us wisdom to make the right decisions for ourselves and for our families. Baby steps..that’s all that it takes..just start with one thing at a time.

“I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life so that you and your children my live.” – Deuteronomy 30: 19