If Car Companies Operated Like Vaccine Companies.....

Have a laugh and get educated at the same time by copying and pasting this into your browser and watching the animation

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=204ADF9E10E6F405F4E6B1EDC294D2D8

This animation reveals the absurdity of the vaccine industry's legacy of harmful products and absolute legal immunity from liability.

Re-education on vaccines - a must-see video and some scary reminders

http://tv.greenmedinfo.com/vaccine-risks-and-facts/  (I hour 30 mins)

This is a very measured and well researched presentation by Dr Ray Obomsawin on the failures of vaccines. Very informative. He's done an excellent job of showing vaccination was not the reason smallpox, polio etc were eradicated or reduced to very low levels, and in overviewing the available evidence for linking vaccination with the rise of diabetes and other diseases. All doctors should be asked to watch it.

A few snippets out of it:

BCG and Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine have led to diabetes increase. The Japanese authorities stopped making BCG mandatory and the diabetes rate fell by 50% in a very short time.

Even horses (!) feeding on nothing but grass are now getting diabetes - clearly due to the increased vaccination schedules.

(At 1:05:41) the shocking rise in infant death rates after flu jabs for infants was introduced.

The increase in dementia which may be due to the flu vaccine - people think that mercury has largely been removed from vaccines but in fact it is still in flu vaccines. And of course aluminium adjuvant is still in most vaccines. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A recent article from the NaturalNews website. Statements about laws are referring to US law) 

"Vaccinating a child or not is an important decision that every parent must make. But not all parents understand the true risks involved, risks that could leave a child debilitated for life, or even kill him. The pro-vaccine mafia is quick to sweep all cases of vaccine-related injury and death under the rug as extremely rare anomalies, but many a parent of a vaccine-injured child will be the first to tell you that, if she could do it all over again, she wouldn't have let her kid get jabbed.

If your doctor, your child's school administrator, or a friend or family member is pressuring you to inject your child with genetically modified (GM) viruses, heavy metals and preservatives, and you're not sure how to make the best and most informed choice in the matter -- or even how to respond back to these people intelligently in order to shut them up -- consider the following 10 reasons not to go the vaccination route^[1]:

1) Vaccines don't work. When printed on a poster or repeated ad nauseam by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the embedded claim that vaccines prevent communicable disease and impart lasting immunity might sound nice to the low-information masses. But the science simply doesn't reinforce it, with outbreak after outbreak proving that vaccinated people are the most immunocompromised, and are always the ones contracting the diseases against which they were vaccinated.

Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych addresses this and many other vaccine facts in her powerful book Vaccine Illusion, which destroys many modern myths surrounding vaccination. Not only do vaccines not impart lasting immunity, but they actually destroy the body's natural immune capacity, leaving many vaccinated individuals immuno-debilitated throughout their lives.^[2]

2) Vaccines have never been proven safe or effective. Every single study used as "evidence" that vaccines are safe erroneously compares side effects from one vaccine to side effects from another vaccine, effectively canceling them out. None of them compare the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals, which would be the true test of vaccine safety.

"True, scientific, double-blind placebo studies have never been conducted on vaccines to determine their safety," explains VacTruth.com.

3) The first vaccine was a complete failure, which the industry tried to cover up. Little do most people know that the first vaccine ever produced, for smallpox, was a complete disaster. The health consequences in those who received it included syphilis and death, though a concerted effort was made at the time to cover up these outcomes and push vaccines anyway because they're highly profitable.^[3]

4) Vaccines are highly profitable for drug companies, which aren't held liable for damages. Let's face it -- vaccines are a major cash cow for the drug industry. Not only are vaccine companies completely shielded from liability when their vaccines injure or kill children, but they are typically "sponsored" by government agencies that push them on families and children using outrageous and unfounded scare tactics.^[4]

5) All vaccines contain deadly chemical additives. The average pediatrician would be hard-pressed to provide package inserts outlining vaccine ingredients to their clients prior to pushing vaccines. But parents need to know that all vaccines contain deadly, neurodamaging chemicals like aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde. Many vaccines are also loaded with monosodium glutamate (MSG), antibiotics and even genetically modified organisms (GMOs).^[5]

6) Unvaccinated children are generally healthier. International studies looking at the health outcomes of unvaccinated children compared to their vaccinated peers have repeatedly shown that the unjabbed are generally less afflicted with allergies, autism, behavioral disorders, autoimmune dysfunction and respiratory ailments.

Concerning the flu vaccine, for instance, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that individuals jabbed for influenza are 550 percent more likely to have respiratory problems.^[6]

7) Vaccines cause lifelong, incurable diseases in some children. It's one thing to have localized swelling or temporary fever symptoms following vaccinations. But if your child is one of the unfortunate ones who develops permanent nerve damage in the form of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, for instance, he or she could require lifelong care and treatment for vaccine damage. If you choose to vaccinate, are you prepared to potentially have to reorient your life in the event of autism or brain damage?^[7]

8) Vaccines kill children and adults. Though young children and babies are most prone to incurring permanent harm from vaccines, adults are also at risk. One prevalent example of this is the infamous Gardasil vaccine for HPV, which to date has injured and killed tens of thousands of adolescents and teenagers.^[8]

"US children are given far more vaccines at younger ages compared to other countries," explains VacTruth.com, noting that vaccines are also linked to the fatal condition SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), which the medical establishment blames on genetics or child abuse in order to protect the vaccine sham.

9) Vaccine companies can't be sued if you or your child is harmed by vaccines. If vaccines really are as safe as the jab-pushers constantly claim they are, then why was the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986, exempting vaccine and drug companies, as well as health practitioners, from liability in the event of injury or death?

In 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed that injured parties can't sue vaccine companies for injury or death related to vaccines [9]. Is this really a risk that you want to take with your child?

10) Natural exposure to disease is the best vaccine. Truth be told, the only way to truly develop vibrant, lifelong immunity is to live your life as you normally would, but without injecting dead (and in some cases live) viruses and chemical adjuvants into your muscle tissue. Natural exposure to whatever diseases are lurking in the world is the only way for the body to develop permanent antibodies that will forever protect against disease.^[10] Eating fresh, nutrient-dense organic food and living a healthy lifestyle also helps boost your immune system, allowing you to overcome and develop resistance to diseases naturally.

For a more thorough explanation of vaccination versus natural immunity, visit:
Sites.Google.com.

Sources:

[1] http://vactruth.com

[2] http://www.naturalnews.com

[3] http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

[4] http://www.nvic.org

[5] http://vaxtruth.org

[6] http://healthimpactnews.com

[7] http://www.nvic.org

[8] http://sanevax.org

[9] http://www.csmonitor.com

[10] https://sites.google.com"

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048151_vaccination_dangers_children_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3NQ9SZwGL

Ebola - Guess What? Ozone therapy plus Colloidal Silver and Vitamin C and Glutathione may be the cure

An article out today by NaturalNews informs us of a "natural" cure for Ebola which has saved a doctor in Sierra Leone and is starting to be used there more widely now.

Those in the natural healthcare world have long believed that, given that there was no medical cure for the disease using conventional drugs, then instead of sticking their heads in the sand ('Oh, a lot of sand down here!') or running around like headless chickens, to mix metaphors, mainstream medicine should immediately have tried using natural 'standbys' like colloidal silver, Vitamin C in high dose, MMS solution or even homeopathics. It turns out ozone therapy should also have been on that list.

But old prejudices die hard and the dead hand of the pharmaceutical corporates and their fellow travellers in WHO and elsewhere put a stop to that; there is even evidence that a shipment of nano colloidal silver by the Natural Solutions Foundation to Africa was obstructed by 'dirty tricks'. The pharmaceutical fellas know all about those.

Anyway, if you read the article

IV ozone Ebola cure documented by Dr. Rowen, then systematically suppressed by government

at this link

http://www.naturalnews.com/047997_Ebola_cure_ozone_therapy_Dr_Rowen.html

you'll be able to see the combination of natural remedies which are being used to cure Ebola.

Vaccines is just a Business like Cigarettes

There is a good short, new video on Youtube done in cartoon fashion explaining the bureaucracy and protective (for the manufacturers) laws behind the Business of Vaccination in the USA which result in redress for those damaged to be very hard to come by. Is that intended? You betcha.

In a Youtube Search window type "do vaccines cause autism rob schneider". You'll understand by the end of it that it's a "Business" that should be dismantled. At the moment of course this Business is doing its best to censor the grisly truth about its 'products' - see http://www.naturalnews.com/046629_scientific_censorship_Brian_Hooker_science_journals.html

The fish rots from the head down - the ignorance or prejudice of Wikipedia on certain subjects

[Update] Since I posted the link to the article below by Fran Sheffield there has been a very detailed article by Dana Ullman 10/10/14 which can be found at this link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html?utm_source=midNovember2014AMA&utm_campaign=2014Oct-Wikipedia&utm_medium=email

I suggest that anyone asked by an anti-homeopath troll for evidence of homeopathy's effectiveness just tell them to go and read Dana's article. It will save them a lot of time.

Homeopath Fran Sheffield shows how Wikipedia co- founder Jimmy Wales disparages Homeopathy.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/wikipedia-co-founder-wants-stop-homeopathy/

Reprinted from http://homeopathyplus.com.au/

After a pharmacy recommended a potentised remedy for his sore throat, Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, vented his thoughts on homeopathy – and his desire to stop it – in a Quora post.

In a surprisingly ill-informed and slanderous manner, Jimmy said:

“..homeopathy is a proven fraud.”

“…makes me ill.”

“Homeopathic remedies of no value whatsoever are legally marketed…”

“Who should I talk to about this in order to encourage the creation of a campaign to stop this? This is not my primary area of interest and so I am not the right person to lead it myself. But I would like to help.”

“It’s a scandal in the modern world”

“We know with full rational certainty that they do not work at all. They are nothing more than placebo sold fraudulently.”

“…the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, relative to placebos, is 0%. Not effective at all. A useless fraud.”

“This is nothing more than fraud.”

“There have been no properly conducted large scale studies which suggest in the least that homeopathic remedies are any different from sugar water.”

“This is false.”

“Homeopathy does not work at all. It has been shown in an extremely thorough way to be no better than a placebo.”

When someone speaks their mind, there’s a risk that any ignorance or prejudice will shine through. That’s exactly what happened to Jimmy.

When I first reported his comments from the Quora post back on the 6th of February, 2013, they were quickly removed. Fortunately, I had the foresight to save them before that happened. You can still read them in our screen capture below, under More Information.

Wikipedia is a valuable source of information for many, but to retain its integrity it has to be impartial – and this certainly has not been the case with homeopathy.

Since Jimmy spoke his mind all those months ago, Wikipedia’s misleading and inaccurate information on homeopathy has only worsened.

Those who are knowledgeable and qualified to write about homeopathy have repeatedly tried to correct it, but all attempts have been thwarted by anti-homeopathy “squatters” who sit on the page to control its information.

Could Jimmy’s prejudice be responsible?

When Jimmy Wales gave a TED talk in 2009, he said:

“So the biggest and the most important thing is our neutral point-of-view policy. This is something that I set down from the very beginning, as a core principle of the community that’s completely not debatable. It’s a social concept of cooperation, so we don’t talk a lot about truth and objectivity. The reason for this is if we say we’re only going to write the “truth” about some topic, that doesn’t do us a damn bit of good of figuring out what to write, because I don’t agree with you about what’s the truth. But we have this jargon term of neutrality, which has its own long history within the community, which basically says, any time there’s a controversial issue, Wikipedia itself should not take a stand on the issue. We should merely report on what reputable parties have said about it. So this neutrality policy is really important for us, because it empowers a community that is very diverse to come together and actually get some work done.”

What a shame Wikipedians, and Jimmy himself, have not honoured these noble intentions. Instead of neutrality, Wikipedia has been allowed to take an ugly stand on homeopathy that misleads many.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, left the organization several years ago due to concerns about its integrity. He said: [This quote is my expansion of what Fran Sheffield wrote and is taken from http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=286]
"We do not think that Wikipedia is “good enough.” We think humanity can do better: Wikipedia is full of serious problems. Many of the articles are written amateurishly. Too often they are mere disconnected grab-bags of factoids, not made coherent by any sort of narrative. In some fields and some topics, there are groups who “squat” on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acts as a law unto himself, not subject to a written constitution, with no official position, but wielding considerable authority in the community. Wales and other Wikipedia leaders have either been directly involved in, or have not adequately responded to, a whole string of very public scandals. The community takes its dictum, “Ignore All Rules,” seriously; it is part anarchy, part mob rule. The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands—not necessarily the most knowledgable—and who manipulate Wikipedia’s eminently gameable system."    

When this happens, as it has with homeopathy, we are all the poorer for it.

An old proverb says, “The fish rots from the head down.” Is this what we have seen with Wikipedia? Homeopathy, and those who look to Wikipedia for their information, deserve much better.

Homeopathic remedies success as prophylactic alternatives to vaccines

The background to the story about how the protagonists of the currently conventional medical approach (allopathy) have for so long successfully suppressed the truth about the historic success of homeopathic remedies in treating epidemics and their use as prophylactics against disease has yet to be told by a partial and disinterested media. But the ingenuity of monopolists with millions of dollars at their disposal when their monopoly is threatened knows no bounds.

For a quick summary you should take a look at the article at

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/taken-court-part-1/

It is written by Fran Sheffield, a battling homeopath in Australia, who like many homeopaths across the world has had to waste her precious time defending the truths about homeopathy's successes in a court of law. Truths which have been recorded for hundreds of years in many instances. And time which could have been better spent treating her patients.

As she says, "It is my firm belief that it had nothing to do with “deceptive and misleading information” or “trade and commerce” but was the culmination of an 8-year struggle by certain groups to remove information on homeoprophylaxis (homeopathy’s ability to protect against epidemic disease) from our website and newsletters and out of the public eye."

The Beginning of the End for Statins

On 17th February 2013 I posted a note emtitled “Statins. You’re probably better off without them”. 

Earlier this year - in March - I switched on Radio 4 in my car and heard an interview in which someone called Rory Collins was attacking Dr Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) for publishing an article critical of statins, which drug we all know is a BIG MONEY-MAKING MACHINE for the pharmaceutical manufacturers (industry estimates $22bn worldwide). Now I don’t hold a candle for Dr Fiona Godlee, or her brother who you may like to know is a GP who believes that “homeopathic remedies are like Smarties” (yes, he was being sarcastic), but at least in the interview Fiona Godlee stuck to her guns and defended the articles, saying some (statins) research understated the risks of side-effects.

Now the plot thickens. Who is Rory Collins? or should I say Prof. Sir Rory Collins? And why did he attack Fiona Godlee? Well, I suspect that the splendid What The Doctors Don’t Tell You magazine, who everyone should be subscribed to, has the answer.

“A research unit that influenced wider statin use in the UK was all the time being funded by drug companies, including £217m from Merck, one of the largest producers of the cholesterol-lowering drug. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration (CTT), based at Oxford University and headed by Sir Rory Collins, has been very influential in shifting UK health policy, which this year started to recommend statin use for all over-60s.

The new guidelines, issued by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), followed the publication of ‘independent’ studies from CTT that maintained that statins had few side effects but many major benefits.  Sir Rory was also highly critical of studies published in the British Medical Journal that claimed the drugs caused side effects in 22 per cent of users.  He demanded that the papers were retracted, which an independent review panel refused to do. 

All along, Sir Rory claimed that he and the CTT were independent, and that any funding came from charitable sources such as the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK.  Even as recently as last March, Sir Rory repeated in an email to the BMJ that the British Heart Foundation was a major funder, and demanded to know who had funded the critical research he wanted withdrawn. But these have been minor funders of CTT and its parent body, the Clinical Trial Service Unit (CTSU).  Over the past 20 years, the two research bodies have received £268m donations, including £217m from Merck, a major manufacturer of statins.

The true picture came to light only after nutritionist and wholefood campaigner Zoe Harcombe uncovered the original documents that outline the CTSU’s funders.”

So it seems the old adage “Follow the Money” is once again very sage advice!

Reflect on the following: Merck’s name crops up again in this post as it did in my last post. As the company that paid a fine of $950m for illegally promoting the drug Vioxx that was later withdrawn when studies found it increased the risk of heart attacks -  http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma  - and which reserved another $4.85bn to resolve the claims by affected consumers, it must be wondering how long it will be before the misselling of the benefits of statins is going to be the next crisis point.

The annual NHS spend on statins is around £450m (£769 in 2004) according to the BBC News (22nd March 2014 - ‘Fears over Statins use are ‘misleading’). That is a collossal amount when compared with the pathetic £4m p.a. which is all that the NHS spends on homeopathics. Especially given that prescribing statins, the object of which is to reduce cholesterol, is almost certainly a bad medical practice and results in a significant percentage of patients getting such agonising muscular pains that they quit in disgust, and other longer term problems (see below) that laymen if given the true facts in advance of treatment would probably say that the potential risks far outweigh any benefits. 

As Zoe Harcombe states at 

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/

“ Statins stop the body from producing the cholesterol that it is designed to produce. They literally stop one of our fundamental body processes from being able to function. The intelligent view on statins is that in the very limited arena where they appear to have some ‘benefit’ (men over 50 who have already had a heart attack), they ‘work’ by having anti-inflammatory properties and that the fact that they lower cholesterol (by stopping the body from being able to produce this vital substance) is a very unfortunate side effect.”

When someone in our village was put on statins, then developed dementia in short order and subsequently died, I started reading more about the side effects of statins. There is evidence (though you won’t find it highlighted on page 1 of a search using Google - I wonder why!) that in some people statins can cause cancer, diabetes, acute renal failure, dementia, and many other very nasty or even fatal, ‘side effects’ e.g. “The reduction in cardiac events was compensated for by a more than doubling of (the risk of) fatal stroke” - http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The_Cholesterol_Times-Issue-3.html

As the author of the latter remarks, “One must wonder how many patients would accept statin treatment if it were described as a way to die of stroke rather than heart disease.”

When there are so many natural substances with no discernible long term side effects known to nutritionists and natural healthcare therapists which have anti-inflammatory properties, the logic of the NHS continuing to spend $450m or more annually on statins just doesn’t make sense. If you are however not yet willing to take the enormous step of thinking in terms of Natural Healthcare after a lifetime's addiction to the chemistry set approach of Twentieth century medicine, take a look at Aspirin http://www.nobellabs.com/images/StatinsVsAspirin.pdf