Exclusive interview with Dr. Blaylock on chemicals (excitotoxins) in your food

There’s a 10 page conversation that’s well worth reading between Mike Adams of NaturalNews www.NaturalNews.com and Dr Blaylock at http://downloads.truthpublishing.com/Aspartame_Truth.pdf.

It’ll make you understand what can go wrong inside you when you eat too much food containing glutamate, and how this may be leading to heart arythmia and sudden (“unexplained”) cardiac death, to autism, Alzheimers, Parkinsons and other problems. So as well as actively avoiding eating aspartame and Monosodiumglutamate (MSG), you should be looking at avoiding soy products, “hydrolysed protein” and probably a good few other things that you aren’t aware of that contain too much glutamate.

Pig virus contaminates rotavirus vaccines

Take a look at this report. Still happy to have the vaccine and rely on the manufacturer or your health authority to estimate the risks on your behalf?

http://www.naturalnews.com/028832_rotavirus_vaccines_contamination.html
(NaturalNews) Rotavirus vaccines are commonly given to children, and this year's batch of vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are contaminated with a pig virus, the FDA recently discovered. So the FDA called a meeting to determine whether injecting a pig virus into the bodies of young children might be some sort of problem requiring a recall of the vaccines.

Can you guess what conclusion the agency reached? As reported by Reuters, the FDA concluded "...it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo's Rotarix and continue using Merck's Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm..."

In other words, as long as they can bury the evidence and deny any link between vaccines and health problems -- which has been the standard excuse of the FDA for decades -- they can continue to claim the vaccines are safe enough to inject into little children.

Never mind the fact that the pig virus found in the vaccines actually causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, giving them intense diarrhea and causing them to rapidly lose weight. DNA from these viruses was detected in the "master cells" used to make the vaccines.
Suppressing the evidence of harm
An FDA advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only "theoretical." But of course it's easy to claim anything is "theoretical" if you suppress the evidence that it's real. By simply ignoring any reports of neurological side effects from the vaccine, the FDA can always claim there is "no evidence" of harm. Well, no evidence they're willing to accept as real, anyway.

And that's how vaccine science works these days: Suppress any evidence of harm, deny any links between vaccines and neurological problems, then okay practically any viral contamination from any animal and declare it's all safe to be injected directly into the bodies of infants and children.

So much for science, huh? The vaccine industry operates more like a cult than a scientific organization, and anyone who questions the beliefs of their cult is immediately branded a heretic and publicly condemned.

By the way, even though these rotavirus vaccines are contaminated with a pig virus, the companies that make them claim there is "no manufacturing or safety issue" with the vaccines. In other words, this is normal!

Think about that for a moment: The discovery that a vaccine being injected into children is contaminated with a virus from a pig doesn't even result in a product recall! It doesn't raise any red flags! It's just business as usual in the vaccine industry, where DNA from any number of diseased animals is often used in the vaccine formulas.

Last year, rotavirus vaccines earned nearly a billion dollars in revenues for Big Pharma. The risk of a child in the United States actually dying from a rotavirus infection is ridiculously small. What these kids need is good nutrition and vitamin D, not an injection of a questionable vaccine made with pig virus DNA

Report by President Obama's Cancer Panel on cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicine, personal care products and the environment

http://www.naturalnews.com/028765_environmental_chemicals_cancer.html
(NaturalNews) When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it's an event so rare that it becomes newsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are "bombarded" with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.

In a directive to President Obama, the report states, "The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."

When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby -- all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.

ACS attacks the report
The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a "cancer chemical cover-up" with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A...) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing...)

Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don't exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.

So it's no surprise that the ACS doesn't like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! "The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures," the report writes.

The great chemical denial
Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!

Don't worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There's nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.

That's their message, you see, and it's a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don't prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they'll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.

The radiation threat from medical imaging
The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, "People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors."

I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m...) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers...)

The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals
Here at NaturalNews, I've been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the "dirty little secret" of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system... they just pretend it doesn't exist.

Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: "Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."

It's about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn't contaminated with pharmaceuticals.

But don't expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).

What the report really says
The President's Cancer Panel is headed by:

LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059

Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030

These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.

The report is entitled, "REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK - What We Can Do Now"

Here are some of the highlights from the report:


• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.

• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.

• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.

• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data -- and the exposure limits extrapolated from them -- fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.

• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.

• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.

• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.

• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.

• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.

• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.

• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.

• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.

• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born "pre-polluted." There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children's health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children's environmental health.

• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.

• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.

• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor's note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We've been doing this for years!]
Sources
Read the report yourself right here:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory...

How Safe are the Drugs that our medical profession uses?

For those interested in checking on how safe, or otherwise, conventional drugs are take a look at some of the articles on http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly.com/index.html e.g.


Cancer Vaccine Programme Suspended After Four Girls Die

Prescription Drug Deaths Increase Dramatically

Confidential report reveals: Big Pharma trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Concerta) A confidential document, now made public by a Swedish court, tells how pharmaceutical companies (calling themselves the “Consortium”) are trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Concerta)

and many more

In Defence of Homeopathy - Studies Roundup

Robert Medhurst in his article "In Defence of Homeopathy" cites scores of helpful studies and statistics. These can be read in the March edition of the ezine Homeopathy for Everyone at http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/in-defense-of-homeopathy/

For me, however, the bottom line is that people have been being cured gently by homeopathic treatment for over 200 years. Like herbal treatment, it has never gone away - because it works. And if something works, you should use it. Sometimes the disease treated is too advanced for homeopathics to restore the body to health, but often even in such cases it can palliate the symptoms. One thing one can say: no homeopathic remedy has ever had to be withdrawn because of its side effects.

The unavoidable demise of the "chemical" medicine model

I make no apologies for continuing to bleat on about how important it is for everyone not to abdicate responsibility for health to their doctor, or even to their natural healthcare practitioner. The problem of course is that even with the amazing facility of the worldwide web it takes a little time. But I have learned that everyone must come in their own time – often very slowly - to that point where they get so browned off by the rubbish assurances, and often outright lies, they get from “officialdom” that (maybe with someone they trust at their elbow) they get stuck in themselves and research their own best route back to health. Some, of course, never get to that point.

But it’s not just they themselves who are to blame for the outcome. It’s also the official healthcare system in this country, which largely depends upon a cupboard full of toxic chemicals, and processes, and expensive ones at that, to try and help their patients. I can see that if you are a professional who has spent many years getting qualified and needs to earn a living like everyone else, then even if you realise that the train you are on has frequently been steaming down tracks which will never truly get you and your patient to the destination you both desire and may even steam you over a precipice, it can be well nigh impossible for you to grab the driver to stop the train and find one that is going to, or nearer to, the right destination. But sooner or later, it is the only solution if you are not to find yourself at the bottom of the gulch.

The medical “chemical” paradigm is currently staggering and floundering about like a sick man on his last legs. Anyone standing on the sidelines with a modicum of medical knowledge, and no vested interest in the current system, has seen that clearly for years now. The untold billions of taxpayers’ money that have been misguidedly spent in the last 100 years in dead-end “chemical” and other toxic processes has all been wasted, and as usual there will be no accountability, though there are plenty of selfserving bureaucrats, politicians and medical professionals who thoroughly deserve the red hot poker treatment.

The fact is that, as physics showed many years ago, a humanbeing, is not just a chemistry experiment. At our core – or at least the core that we can currently observe with the most sophisticated instruments scientists have been able to devise – we are each a whirling mass of energy; a universe of fundamental particles and charges which, in ways we have no grasp over whatsoever, comes together in each of us to create and animate the conscious, living, physical creature that we can experience on this planet with our 5 senses. So the sensitives who through the ages have suggested this, maybe using strange language and words like chakra which failed to resonate with ordinary people, have been at least more right all along than their fellows.

The corollary, however unpalatable it may be to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the “chemistry experiment” level of modern medicine, is that many natural healthcare disciplines have developed along lines which, in many situations, are much more likely to help their patients back to optimum health from their ailments than conventional medicine. Homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, naturopathy are just a few of those where patient cure and satisfaction is way above that which can honestly be claimed using conventional medical practices.

I have no illusions about what is going to happen, sooner or later, because I have seen it happen from the inside when I worked in industry, and I have also read a bit about “catastrophe theory”. It is not pretty, and a lot of people and their families get hurt.

In a large company with a successful product but many competitors one eventually reaches a point where, unless one is able to reinvent the business one is in and evolve, it is not possible annually to sell more of that product in your marketplace than you did the year before. However, the ego of the Chief Executive, whose position and rewards ultimately depend upon the stock markets’ analysis of whether the company is moving forward or stagnating, which analysis in turn is derived from the quarter’s and yearly Net Sales and profitability figures and a few other inputs, does not allow him to accept that reality. Instead, he issues orders to his subordinates that each quarter’s Net Sales figures have to be, say, 10% higher than that quarter in the preceding year, or the Sales Manager will be replaced. He and his Financial Officer then see what they can do to massage the profitability figures without alarming their auditors, to ensure that all on the surface continues to look good to outsiders.

Meanwhile the Sales Manager is forced to approach his suppliers and do deals with them, something that is termed “loading” the trade before the end of each quarter. Eventually, and sometimes it can take years for the crunch point to come, the trade is so saturated with product, that it rebels. The company then takes a bath on that quarter’s figures, and the truth comes out into the public domain. Everyone inside the company (and by analogy – you can see where I am heading - everyone inside the conventional medical profession) already knew that the train was headed for the precipice, but it needed the shareholders to get together and say Enough is Enough and fire the Chief Executive. The company is then broken up and sold, liquidated, or if lucky reshaped under new management. Many innocent insiders get hurt because of the ego of one or a few people at the top. It happens every day in business.

Catastrophe theory predicts that when the tipping point comes, it hits like a tornado. Afterwards one finds oneself at the bottom of the gulch, not like in the cartoons somehow saved in midair by a shrub growing ten feet below the precipice.

Catastrophe can only be averted by the business or profession evolving sufficiently before the tipping point is reached. And in a profession, to do that, it needs the hierarchy, or generally, a subset of younger members, to have the integrity and honesty to publicly get together with its stakeholders and other professions involved in the direction where the new paradigm is likely to lie. In our case, stakeholders would mean, non-partisan representatives of the general public and the natural healthcare disciplines which already treat humanbeings holistically as energetic bodies. Conventional medicine can learn from them, and in the long run the nation’s health and pocket will benefit immeasurably.

Herd Immunity Myth (cont)

My labelling of the “herd immunity” from vaccination concept as a MYTH has been noticed by the opposition. A blogger has written in asserting

“The concept of herd immunity makes perfect sense. If enough people get vaccinated in a community, the less chance the virus spreads to those who are not immunized.

There is also the benefit that higher rates of immunization mean less chance that the virus will mutate.”

This perfectly illustrates the mentality of the “denialists”, the give-a-vaccine-for-everything brigade. Even where they have had their noses rubbed in the facts (vaccinated communities can still contract the disease - see my last post), they continue on auto assertion mode. In fact in relation, for example, to measles according to the World Health Organisation the odds are about 15 times greater that measles will strike those vaccinated against the disease than those who are left alone [1].

It’s for this reason that I heavily moderate comments to my blog because I didn’t start it to give the oxygen of publicity to those who will argue black is white till the cows come home, regardless of the counter-evidence given them, or who just want to propagate pernicious views that, for example, the health of the nation is dependent on everyone being forcefed, or injected, with xyz vaccine or that all drinking water should be fluoridated “for your own good” (as if they knew!). Many of them clearly delight in wasting the good guys’ (holistic therapists) time requesting “explanations” though they are not interested in the answer, and they seem to come in one of two categories: either “useful idiots” doing Big Pharma’s job for them, or criminals (in my book) who are intentionally spreading misinformation, and maybe getting paid for it.

As for the second assertion, “higher rates of immunization mean less chance that the virus will mutate”, that is not, I’m afraid, true. It is known now that when vaccines attack only some strains of a disease, other strains gain prominence. The disease becomes more virulent and people who are not normally susceptible to the ailment are infected. Thus a pneumococcal vaccine designed to protect against several strains of the disease has resulted in more dangerous non-vaccine strains of pneumococcal disease replacing strains targeted by the vaccine. Over-use of any vaccine, or drug as even lay people are aware in the case of antibiotics, tends to have a significant and unforeseen downside.

Finally, let’s remind ourselves again

1. no vaccination ever achieves immunisation, by which I mean 100% protection, forever. Instead, it may result in an unknown level of what we might call semi-protection ranging from 0% to, maybe, 50 % (there’s no way of measuring the latter figure) for just a limited time [2].
2. Whatever limited semi-protection the vaccine may give against a particular virus strain you may never even meet in the rest of your life has to be weighed against the potential for possibly severe adverse effects which may appear many years down the road in a compromised immune system. Your vaccine virus will have been incubated in an “unnatural” medium, often a chicken’s embryo (which itself can never be guaranteed sterile), then supposedly inactivated (100%? You can never be sure [3]) with a poison, formaldehyde, then preserved with Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury (a neurological toxin), and finally has further poisons or “nasties” added – possibly polyethylene glycol, polysorbate 80, hydrocortisone, neomycin, polymyxin (antibiotics), etc. If millions of such artificially doctored pathogens, which may or may not be totally inactive, are produced and shot into people, you are going by that very process to increase significantly the risk of creating additional mutations which would never have occurred in nature.

The much safer alternative is to work on boosting your immune system by natural means and not run risks you don’t have to. Google Vitamin D and C especially, which have a very important role to play here. And homeopathic remedies taken as prophylactics will probably give you as good a level of protection as you should need without risking filling your body up with poisons.


[1] Vaccine Safety Manual, Neil Miller p.120
[2] Between 0- 5 years possibly, which depends on the vaccine and the reaction of the particular patient: sometimes antibodies produced in response to the vaccination disappear very rapidly from the body. The pharmaceutical companies' only answer to this is to repeat the vaccination ie “booster” jabs.
[3] See, for example, Jonas Salk’s supposedly “inactivated” polio vaccine which was actually quite virulent. It paralysed and killed many children. Many viruses are incubated in mediums eg monkey parts which already have other infectious agents in them which simply cannot all be detected by currently available scientific methods.