Some uses of THUJA as a skin healer

It's worthwhile remembering that Thuja in tincture form applied topically is a very powerful herbal healer for warts or growths or skin lesions of many types, which homeopaths shouldn't be afraid of using, together with the internal use of potentised homeopathic Thuja.

My father in old age grew a few unsightly, hard, scaly nodules on the upper rims of his ears, a few millimeters thick and standing proud of the skin of the ear. The appearance of these nodules or growths can I understand be due to many causes - gout, chondrodermatitis, or something more serious eg a hard area or spur which may overlie skin cancer. He never did anything about them, but when I started getting the same type of thing on the edge of one ear in my late 50s, I determined immediately to do something to get rid of them. The answer I found was Thuja tincture. Put a drop of neat tincture on the tip of a finger and rub it into and just around the hard area. Then put a further drop on it and leave it to dry there. Do that two or three times a day. It isn’t necessary to put a plaster on it. It doesn't make the surrounding skin sore in my experience but the hardened area after a good few weeks (less if you are lucky!) gets to the point where a layer of the hard bit will come off when picked at. The lesion may then 'weep' a bit, but don't worry. Continue to dab the same spot with tincture daily until you feel that the hard area has completely disappeared and new skin has covered the spot.

I found furthermore that Thuja tincture assiduously applied will kill off infection and could heal a ‘suspicious looking’ skin lesion elsewhere on the body. For instance, I spotted on my shin a small area the size of the nail on my little finger which had seemingly appeared overnight. It was a small, slightly discoloured spot; the sort of thing you would go to your dermatologist to check if it was likely to be cancerous or not. The area didn't hurt when pressed but it had grown proud of the surrounding skin by a millimeter or so, and it had obviously grown fast. It may have started from a localised infection from a scratch after I had waded into some brambles while blackberry picking, but the surface of the skin wasn't visibly broken, so that may be a red herring. It looked instead as if a nail-sized mole was just starting to grow there. Neat Thuja tincture massaged in several times a day started it shrinking within 10 days and in due course the lesion shrank to a pinpoint and then disappeared leaving nothing but a tiny localised skin discolouration, but no evidence of any abnormal skin cells. Thuja tincture is well worth trying and costs just pennies.

EU censorship of all health statements for foods and nutritional supplements

Remember the old joke, which is in many respects correct, that
'in Germany everything is forbidden unless it is (expressly) allowed
In Britain everything is allowed unless it is forbidden
In Italy everything is allowed even when it is forbidden
In Russia everything is forbidden even when it is allowed' 

Well, one of the many unacceptable implications of our joining the EU that Ted Heath never pointed out before he signed the UK up was that we would slowly but surely be forced into living under a 'Brussels regime' which was pretty much committed to the German approach -  the first line of the joke. 

This has now happened in regard to health claims for anyone coming within the definition of a 'food business operator'. Basically what has happened is that the Brussels clique have nationalised all statements that suggest that a food or nutrient may have beneficial properties, regardless of the historical position, and there are now only 222 EU authorised health claims that producers of foods and food supplements may use in promoting the benefits of their products. 

Go to http://healthclaimscensored.com/blog/blog-08292013/ to read a fuller explanation. 

Under the guise of pretending it wants to stop consumers being misled, regardless of the fact that the consumer, if asked, would have said there wasn't a meaningful problem to be addressed in the first place - the usual Nanny knows best: Shut up and do as you're told - the European Food Safety Authority, not a court, will ban any product coming onto the market that has on it a statement that isn't on their incredibly restrictive 'permitted list'. And in practical terms supplements suppliers in particular don't stand a chance of getting old or new claims onto that list unless they can produce a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in support. As everyone in the natural healthcare industry knows, RCTs are very expensive to conduct, as well as being by their nature a totally inappropriate way for testing the validity of many natural healthcare products and processes. They have accordingly become the favoured "solution" which the pharmaceutical monopolists have lobbied to introduce into any regulatory mechanism knowing that the small traditional healthcare suppliers will thereby be squeezed out of the game.

Thus - as http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/Newsletter/archive/newsletter_20130906.html says -in its desperation to prevent European citizens from knowing the facts about nutritional therapies and foods, the Brussels EU has resorted to enacting the distinctive hallmark of all political dictatorships – a prohibition on freedom of speech.

Another good reason for UK consumers to vote with their feet when the opportunity arises!

The Real Facts about Vaccination

I expect I posted this a few years ago but .... as a reminder ..... in case you ever want to reach for some real facts to respond to those vaccine protagonists who are inclined to trot out their own (bogus) facts.
And if you are interested in the history of the disease Smallpox, and its mistreatment by conventional medicine, take the time to look at http://rense.com/general31/pox.htm

Important info to circulate. From http://www.naturalnews.com/027203_Chi_vaccination_vaccine.html and www.vaccinationdebate.net

 

(NaturalNews) Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. Mass vaccination programs not only fail to protect the population from infectious disease, they actually accelerate the spread of disease in many cases.

Many websites have cropped up over the last few years to counter the pro-vaccine propaganda put out by drug companies (who profit from vaccines) and health regulators (who serve the drug companies). One of those sites listed the following historical facts about vaccines:

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

• In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/020...)
The Hadwen Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They Love GMOs - Your chance to decide if you want to buy these companies products any longer

They Don’t Want You to Know What You’re Eating

This is the amount these companies donated to defeat California Proposition 37, which would have required labeling GMO’s.

Monsanto $7,100,500.00

Hains Celestial – $500,000.00 (Hains is actually owned by Phillip Morris, Monsanto, Citigroup, Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart and Lockheed Martin)

Campbell’s – $250,000.00, 

Coca Cola – $1,164,400.00,

Nestle – $1,169,400.00, 

Kellogg’s – $632,500.00,

Kraft – $551,148.25, 

PepsiCo $2,249,661.61,

Con-Agra – $1,076,700.00, 

Dean Foods – $253,950.00,

General Mills – $908,200.00, 

Cargill, Inc – $202,229.36

From Occupy Monsanto – http://occupy-monsanto.com/

A HUMAN RIGHTS CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE - long overdue

Why do we need one? I recommend readers have a look at this website

http://www.eu-referendum.org/english/petitions/europe_for_the_people_info.html

and consider signing the petition there, and also reading the article

http://www.eu-referendum.org/english/articles/20080710_joiningthedots.html

EUROPEAN REFERENDUM INITIATIVE

Petition for a Europe for the People – by the People

What does the "Europe for the People, by the People" constitution call for?

To read the full text of the constitution, click here.The focus of this unique document is the protection of the health and lives of European citizens from corporate interests whose multi-billion dollar profits derive from turning the human body into a marketplace. The common denominators of these interests, which primarily include the pharmaceutical industry and the GM (genetically modified) food industry, are patented products that serve the interests of giant investment groups at the expense of the health and lives of millions of people. The constitution therefore calls for the right to health; the right to life; the right to natural food; the right to a healthy environment; respect for human dignity and the protection of social values.

Why is there a need for this initiative?

Europe was supposed to be built on the memory of the past and on the fundamental principle of a Europe for the people, by the people. As things stand, however, this principle is ever more regularly being violated and the world has become increasingly resistant to the Auschwitz survivors' testimony about hunger and misery, about annihilating slave labor, about war and hatred, and other Nazi crimes.The debate over the Lisbon Treaty occurs at a time when the Auschwitz survivors are still giving their testimony as to the consequences of the disregard for human lives and the needs of people.

As is now documented on the Profit-Over-Life website, hundreds of thousands of men and women from across Europe imprisoned in concentration camps lost their lives as slave laborers during WWII in the name of corporate greed. Even more, tens of thousands of them lost their lives in pseudo-medical experiments conducted on prisoners in order to obtain patents for various drugs on behalf of the chemical cartel IG Farben, composed of Bayer, BASF, Hoechst and other companies. However, the historical successors to the IG Farben cartel continue to threaten the lives of millions today – yet by more subtle means.

The political stakeholders of the financial interest groups supporting the pharmaceutical industry, for example, such as George Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, are now telling us to prepare for war and are openly discussingWWIII.

As such, if there was ever a time for European citizens to demand the right to health; the right to life; the right to natural food; the right to a healthy environment; respect for human dignity and the protection of social values – that time is now.

The organisers of this website have a simple Constitution to suggest, to serve as a blueprint defining fundamental human rights across Europe:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE
The most fundamental human rights are the rights to health and life. These rights are not only threatened by military conflicts, but also by corporate interests and their increasing attempts to exploit the
human body and knowledge of it as their exclusive property and source of profits.

WE THEREFORE PROCLAIM AS INALIENABLE RIGHTS FOR EVERY EUROPEAN:
THE RIGHT TO HEALTH
Our health and our bodies are the most valuable goods we have. They must not be exploited as a marketplace for patented drugs or any other form of commercialization. The expansion of diseases as markets for drugs is unconstitutional.
Any healthcare system based on these principles and promoting them should be outlawed.

THE RIGHT TO LIFE
The genome of humans as the blueprint of life and the biological basis of our existence, belongs to all
mankind. Efforts to own this genetic code with the goal to re-build, sell and manipulate the human body
or parts of it for corporate gain is unconstitutional and therefore prohibited.

THE RIGHT TO NATURAL FOOD
The genetic information of all plants and the food that has been growing in our fields and gardens for
millennia belongs to all mankind. Manipulation and alteration of the genetic code of plants with the goal
of patenting them and creating global market monopolies bears the danger that our food supplies are
controlled by corporate interests. As with health and life, the monopolization of food leads to the control of entire societies.

SUCH ACTIVITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The reason why these fundamental human rights are not yet universally accepted and applied is the principle of patenting. Patents are the economic instrument of inflating returns on investments for entire
industries including those industries that directly affect human health and life.

LIFE MUST NOT BE PATENTED
In order to enforce this principle and protect the health and lives of this and future generations of
Europeans, patents in the fields of health, life and food are declared unconstitutional.
We call upon the CITIZENS of Europe who will read this proposed

CONSTITUTION OF THE CITIZENS OF EUROPE
to support it with their signatures.

THE IDEA OF EUROPE FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE
This proposed constitution serves as a blueprint defining fundamental human rights across Europe including the right to healthy environment, respect for human dignity and protection of social values.
We, are passing this call to the citizens of Europe. They have been the true guardians of remembrance preserving the historic memory across generations and will continue the relay of remembrance and relay of life.

Signed
SURVIVORS Together with THE GUARDIANS OF REMEMBRANCE
People and organisations across Europe are called upon to support this proposed Constitution:

'Homeopathy is nonsense' - If our new Chief Scientific Advisor can't stop talking nonsense, boot him out

The Letter below has been sent by Oliver Dowding to Sir Mark Walport - the new Chief Scientific Advisor to our Coalition Government. Chief Scientific Advisor? What a joke! But as presumably he gets a fee for that title (which we taxpayers pay) and is expected by the public to offer sound advice and not just follow arguments peddled by the pharmaceutical and pesticides industry, it is a bad joke. 

He follows a long line of those such as Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, and his predecessor, Sir John Beddington, who publicly displayed their ignorance about homeopathy’s benefits. 

Sir Mark, who took up his post three weeks ago, was formerly head of the Wellcome Trust, the biomedical research charity, and a professor of medicine at Imperial College London. Surprise surprise! Another example of the ‘revolving door’ relationship between government and organisations whose handouts benefit the pharmaceutical industry.

The Wellcome Trust was set up by a pharmaceutical magnate, Sir Henry Wellcome, so you can imagine for whose ultimate benefit its billions are disbursed. It comes number two in size behind the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which spends millions pushing the use of vaccines with nasty side effects. Why is that deplorable? Start by looking at http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/bill-gates-says-global-vaccination.html

Will Sir Mark with his Wellcome Trust background march to the pharmaceutical and pesticide industry’s drum? No doubt about that. See his Twitter at twitdoc.com/1ZV2  . It implicitly or explicitly supports

1. Use of MMR, a vaccine with dangerous side effects, against the disease of measles, which disease in my childhood everyone at school was encouraged to get in order to achieve a lifelong natural immunisation, which is impossible with any vaccine
2. Use of pesticides and herbicides, including neonicotinoids which have been shown to have been killing bees. See eg http://www.beecharmers.org/Pollination2.html
3. Ignoring the “precautionary principle” by the device of delaying tactics eg “where there is uncertainty about neonicotinoids we must reduce this by further fieldwork” - even though many would say the research has already been done.  

All of this is couched in what I call ‘legal language’ to cover the author. 

What we badly need is a long long rest from the ‘advice’ of all those influenced by BigPharma, and a government with the balls to divert the bulk of the public’s ‘Health Revenues’ into the gentle, effective natural remedies, such as homeopathy, herbalism, naturopathy, osteopathy etc which have been shown when responsibly practised to achieve public satisfaction levels way above those that use of suppressive chemicals by allopathy achieves.  Our own health and the health of our environment demands that.

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

To Sir Mark Walport

Government Office for Science

1 Victoria Street 

London 

SW1H 0ET

Dear Sir Mark

I'm writing to you with regard to an article in which you were recently quoted. This was in the Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html but also went out in many other media channels. 

Naturally I'm well aware that homoeopathy is a divisive subject, particularly amongst "health professionals". However, it seems to me that there are many who dismiss its efficacy potential purely on the basis of a lack of understanding of either its mode of action, or ignorance of the huge range of cases where it has demonstrated a great deal of success. Just because we don't understand things and how they work doesn't mean that they don't or that we are right.

I'm aware that coming across examples of a positive outcome can prove challenging when one's mind is already made up. Yours appears to be most definitely made up.

Even more concerning is that you, with your stature and official position to uphold, chose to refer to homoeopaths as "nonsense". Maybe you'd care to explain what you mean? You also suggested it held "absolutely no medical benefit".

I'm not going to get into the debate about the use of homoeopathy for treating such diseases as malaria. That's beyond my level of understanding and competence. That doesn't mean to say I don't understand a little of how it might work. But I don't understand the totality of how it works, and it's possible that nobody does, yet. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

You can argue all you like about homoeopathy being no different to a placebo, but I can tell you if that is your view, then you are assuredly wrong. I appreciate you are referred to as Britain's Chief Scientist, but it doesn't mean that you are right in making such an assertion. You would be right to say that the £4 million which the NHS spends on homoeopathy isn't a lot, given the overall cost of the NHS. In my experience and understanding, homoeopathy delivers phenomenal results from this very small outlay. The cost of homoeopathic remedies is minimal by comparison to conventional pharmaceutical "drugs".

Perhaps you aren't aware about how homoeopathy is delivered by the NHS? 

Perhaps you think that all the doctors offering homoeopathy are only trained in and dealing in this one area? 

Maybe you don't appreciate that many of these doctors have been trained in both conventional allopathic treatments, at the start of their career, and later have added homoeopathic training and qualifications?

Maybe you don't appreciate that this is also the case for veterinary surgeons, the area with which I have much greater understanding due to my being a farmer. 

Perhaps you aren't aware that many of the cases that these dual trained doctors end up treating are those which reached the end of the road and the NHS had given up on? Often the people in this category are those who have been effectively consigned to death, and often these people are rescued. How do you price that?

How did I come to be so passionately supportive of homoeopathy? My experience is with the animal kingdom. Not as a homoeopathic vet, but as a farmer. I've explained my experiences on this is in many different places, as I'm determined to defend what I know is highly efficacious in treating a massive range of ailments. On my farm this was over a long period in a large dairy herd. We also used homoeopathy to treat the same herd's young stock (offspring). 

Please be assured that these animals didn't fake either their illness or their recovery. They were genuinely ill, often with mastitis, and their recovery was frequently quicker than under the normal antibiotic regime. This was all overseen by conventionally minded veterinary surgeons, who were always impressed with our animal welfare, even if they didn't understand how it was that homoeopathy was resolving the problems. 

I also participated in various trials, including one with Bristol University. I'm pleased to be able to tell you that our results stood us in the top half of the performance table. 

For the 15 years in which homoeopathy was the mainstay of our healthcare policy, treating 300 dairy cows and 200 of their offspring, and administered by at least 12 people over that period of time, we saw an effective outcome in well over 90% of all the animals we treated. Furthermore, the results were often achieved much quicker than would be the case using allopathic medication, without antibiotics, and therefore no residues ever found their way into the bulk milk sample. Would you not consider this alone to be a good thing, not least given the worrying upsurge in antibiotic resistance being detected in the general population?

Sometimes the veterinary surgeons were perplexed as to how homoeopathy was achieving these positive results, but sadly they never let their scientific background bring themselves to ask deep questions and to learn why that might be. That always seemed a significant failing to me, as I thought a scientist would want to know why and to explore deeper, rather than dismiss reality of the situation based on their lack of understanding. Furthermore, they were denying their other clients the potential that would and still does exist for their animals to benefit from utilising homoeopathy. 

So, may I suggest that you could, in preference to dismissing something of which it appears that you do not know very much, turn your attention to areas where allopathic medicine is falling short, is overpriced, is causing complications, and also has doctorswho aren't reporting failures or side effects, etc. 

You were quick to dismiss homoeopathy, I hope you will not be similarly quick to ignore the points I make. This is a polarised area of debate, but it is not made any the better for having one side or the other being totally dismissing each other. For the record, I'm am also an ardent fan of conventional allopathic medication, but in the right place, and at the right time.

Should you seek to investigate, rather than dismiss, then I would happily arrange for you to spend time with Homoeopathy at Wellie Level http://www.hawl.co.uk/ who were placed 3rd in the Farmers Weekly Livestock Advisor of the Year awards in 2010. HAWL are run by veterinary surgeons, and homoeopaths.

Oliver Dowding

Taking Antidepressants may kill you (and others)

A week after a prominent rifle manufacturer and gun rights supporter in the USA, John Noveske, posted the following list of antidepressant linked deaths, he mysteriously died in a car accident. His view was that it was not the fact that so many Americans own guns that was the 'cause' of the many incidents listed below, but the conventional antidepressant medication they were on. This was not what the US authorities and the Drug Cartel wanted publicised. All the more reason that you should spread the word wherever you can, particularly to your doctor.

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold's medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic's file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family's Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara's parents said ".... the damn doctor wouldn't take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil...")

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
(Gareth's father could not accept his son's death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family's detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and "other drugs for the conditions."

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
New York high school.

Missing from list... 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds....

What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21...... killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az

What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24..... killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado

What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or

What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven't heard about being on drugs of some kind.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038616_john_noveske_mysterious_death_car_crash.html#ixzz2NhMBiDbT

Statins: You're probably better off without them

A lot of doctors seem to really love statins. A bit ago a local healthfood shop owner posted on the Wincanton Window website that I was holding a free evening's talk on natural i.e homeopathic and herbal home remedies. He was immediately attacked for encouraging people's attendance, in very intemperate terms by the son of a local GP. In the ensuing exchanges on the website on the value, or otherwise, of natural alternative treatments someone tried whacking the ball back into allopathic medicine's court by cheekily suggesting that perhaps another thread on statins should be started so that locals could give their (inconvenient?) views on the value, or otherwise, of this currently much loved conventional remedy for the supposed problem of high cholesterol for those at risk of heart disease. Doctors widespread use of statins was immediately vigorously defended by the doctor's son without any mention of their side effects. We sadly had no time to start the thread on statins on that occasion, but having seen the article below on some of their side effects - how many doctors warn their patients adequately before prescribing? - I thought it was worth putting it on my blog. It might encourage a little more research before you allow your name to be added by your doctor to the list of those taking statins who swell the coffers of conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical companies at the potential risk to their own health.

http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/natural-health-articles/heart-disease/coq10-type-2-diabetes-statin-risk/

Before I begin, I’m going to say two things: CoQ10 depletion and the risk of type 2 diabetes…

So, keeping that in mind, here’s something you can try the next time your doctor recommends that you take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug to help prevent heart disease.

Tell him or her that statin drugs can put your heart at risk in two important ways.

Your doctor might not believe you because it just doesn’t fit with statin mythology. But believe me, these two dangers are real… and perhaps it’s time to convince your doctor of the truth.

Heart skipping a beat

Based on the results of the latest statin study, here’s what lead researcher Dr. Flemming Dela of the Centre for Healthy Ageing in Copenhagen said: “Up to 75 per cent of the physically active patients undergoing treatment for high cholesterol experience pain. This may keep people away from either taking their medicine or from taking exercise — both of which are bad choices.” 

I agree. Not exercising is a bad choice. But when three out of four physically active statin users experience muscle pain, not taking their medicine is NOT a bad choice. It’s a WISE choice.

It may not have been his intention, but Dr. Dela’s statement actually exposes one of the earliest problems identified with statins.

Our regular readers will know that statins deplete coenzyme Q10. This is a fact. It has been proven time and again in one study after another. There is no way around it… and your doctor knows this too. CoQ10, of course, is the powerhouse that’s in every cell of our bodies. It converts nutrients into energy. It’s also an indispensable antioxidant.

Here’s what your doctor may not know yet:

In Dr. Dela’s clinical trial, nearly half of the subjects who used statins experienced muscle pain. Tissue biopsy results showed depleted levels of CoQ10 and three other antioxidants in statin users. Glucose was also elevated in the statin group.

High glucose is a precursor of type 2 diabetes. That’s heart risk number one.

You’ve also got low CoQ10. As any first-year medical student will tell you, CoQ10 is essential for optimal heart health. That’s heart risk number two.

Low CoQ10 is one of the known causes of heart failure.

In heart attack patients, CoQ10 supplements reduce risk of a second heart attack.

CoQ10 supplements also help control blood pressure in hypertension patients.

These are all facts, not fiction. So the next time you and your doctor have a ‘perhaps you should consider taking statins’ conversation, simply say this:

“Thanks doc, but I know that statins will lower my CoQ10 levels, which will put me at a far greater risk than just painful, damaged muscles.”

Bear in mind all the material in this email alert is provided for information purposes only. We are not addressing anyone’s personal situation. Please consult with your own physician before acting on any recommendations contained herein.

Sources:

“Simvastatin Effects on Skeletal Muscle: Relation to Decreased Mitochondrial Function and Glucose Intolerance” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 61, No. 1, January 2013, onlinejacc.org

“Study confirms CoQ10 decline in statin-treated patients” Life Extension Foundation, 1/11/13, lef.org

“FDA to require lower recommended dosages for sleep drugs” Brady Dennis, The Washington Post, 1/10/13, washingtonpost.com

Does medical radiation cause cancer?

The Christopher Wark beats cancer site is well worth reading for anyone who has cancer or is trying to help a friend with cancer.

One of the things I find quite a lot of friends get confused over is whether the dose of radiation one gets from a CAT (CT) scan is more or less than that from an MRI scan.  In fact, CT scans are high-powered X-rays that expose patients to between ten and 100 times more radiation than a normal head or chest X-ray for example, and can potentially damage your DNA. Radiation treatments are apparently in the top five causes of secondary cancers for cancer survivors.

MRI scans on the other hand don’t expose you to radiation.  

Go to    http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/medical-radiation-101/

for more info. 

GM maize and Roundup caused severe organ damage and increased tumour rates, as well as earlier death

Need to know the facts?            Go to http://gmoseralini.org/

When a scientific study was published in September last year showing that a genetically modified maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is designed to be grown with damaged the health of rats, Corinne Lepage MEP called it “a bomb”. The study, by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini’s team at the University of Caen, France, was the first to test the effects of eating a GM food and its associated pesticide over the animals’ lifetime of two years. The study found that GM maize and Roundup caused severe organ damage and increased tumour rates, as well as earlier death.

Lepage knew that if Seralini’s findings were taken seriously, the implications for GM firms and regulators were huge – GM foods are approved on the basis of rat feeding studies that last 90 days at most, equivalent to only seven to nine years in human terms. The tests are done by the same GM companies that want to market the GM seeds. The European Food Safety Authority has argued that even these short tests are not always needed.

Monsanto’s 90-day rat feeding study on this same GM maize had found differences in the GM-fed rats. But the EFSA claimed they were “of no biological significance” and agreed with Monsanto that the maize was as safe as non-GM maize. Séralini’s team obtained Monsanto’s raw data and re-analysed it. They found signs of liver and kidney toxicity in the GM-fed rats, publishing their findings in 2009.

Séralini carried out his recent study to follow up these initial findings of toxicity and to see if they were insignificant, as the EFSA claimed, or if they developed into serious disease. The findings were alarming. The initial signs of toxicity in Monsanto’s 90-day study developed into full-blown liver and kidney damage over the longer two-year period. The first tumours only showed up four to seven months into the study, peaking at 18 months.

The common sense conclusions were clear. The 90-day tests routinely done on GM foods are simply too short to see effects that take time to show up, such as organ damage and cancer. And regulatory agencies like the EFSA may be liable for allowing unsafe GM foods onto the market. But this common sense conclusion was not allowed to gain traction. Within hours of the study’s release, it was shouted down as flawed and meaningless by a chorus of scientist critics.

Many scientists, unconnected with Séralini’s group, are alarmed by what they see as suppression of scientific findings that are inconvenient to commercial or political interests. Some contacted me (Claire Robinson
Public Service Europe) with their concerns and we joined forces to create a website, GMOSeralini.org, to offer the public and journalists a balanced view of Séralini’s findings and what they mean for our health.

At least 50 African children paralyzed after receiving Bill Gates-backed meningitis vaccine

(NaturalNews) Bill and Melinda Gates have been on a crusade for at least the past decade to vaccinate every single child on the planet. And one of their primary geographical targets has been the continent of Africa, where poor sanitations and lack of clean water have created conditions in which diseases like meningitis and malaria run rampant. But rather than try to meet these basic needs, the multi-billionaires and their many allies have instead thrust vaccines on indigenous populations as the solution, which has in turn sparked a wave of paralysis among Africa's younger populations.

As covered by investigative journalist Christina England over at Vactruth.com, the small village of Gouro in northern Chad, for instance, recently fell victim to the dark side of this vaccine agenda after at least 50 youth in the area developed paralysis following vaccination with "MenAfriVac," a new meningitis vaccine developed specifically for Africa. Touted as a preventive cure for meningitis, MenAfriVac reportedly caused each of the children, some of whom were as young as seven, to suffer hallucinations, convulsions, and ultimately paralysis.

According to a cousin of two of the vaccine-injured children, the horrific side effects of MenAfriVac began to appear within 24 hours of its administration. Many of the children affected by it immediately began to experience headaches and vomiting, which later progressed into "uncontrollable convulsions while bent over with saliva coming from their mouths." But when parents and local authorities tried to call on higher-up government officials to take action and help the affected children, their petitions for relief were all but ignored.

Government of Chad attempts to bribe parents into silence

This same cousin, who is referred to by England as "Mr. M.," added that when Chad's Minister of Health and Minister of Social Security finally showed up to Gouro nearly a week after the series of paralyzations first took place, they decided to evacuate the 50 paralyzed children to a hospital more than 300 miles away, as there is only one available doctor in the entire region of Gouro.

But rather than try to get to the bottom of why MenAfriVac caused such a serious reaction in the first place, and immediately halt all further distribution of the vaccine until this could be determined, these same government officials actually tried to bribe suffering parents with money to keep quiet about it. According to Mr. M., these officials were more concerned with covering up the dangers of ManAfriVac than with protecting villagers from harm.

"[T]he government and the media have gone silent about the tragedy, while there are still facts requiring clarification," stated Mr. M. in an email to England about the incident. At this point in time, virtually no media has picked up on this important story. "All this disturbs us and makes us fear the worst effects for the future. [I]t is very sad that (the) entire city is paralyzed."

Gates Foundation, WHO lie about safety of MenAfriVac

Worse is the fact that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO), and The Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP), all of which heavily promote MenAfriVac, have openly lied about the safety of the vaccine by repeatedly claiming it can be transported without refrigeration. The vaccine's package insert clearly states that it must be stored refrigerated and protected from light.

"Why have major organizations spent $571 million on a vaccination project, when wells to provide access to clean drinking water have been constructed for less than $3,000 by the International Committee of the Red Cross?" asks England in a series of important questions regarding this disastrous situation. "Why has this vaccination program not been suspended, (and) what are these organizations going to do about the atrocity that has happened in Gouro?"

Sources for this article include:

http://vactruth.com/2013/01/06/paralyzed-after-meningitis-vaccine/


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038796_meningitis_vaccine_children_paralyzed.html#ixzz2ImeqMKT6

Secret government documents reveal vaccines to be a total hoax

http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.html#ixzz2HtE8DTXg

If you have children, you are more than likely already aware of the official U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Immunization Schedules," which today recommend an astounding 29 vaccines be given between birth and six years of age, including yearly flu shots, as well as another five to 16 vaccines between ages seven and 18 (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). But a recent investigative report compiled by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., uncovers more than 30 years of hidden government documents exposing these vaccine schedules as a complete hoax, not to mention the fraud of the vaccines themselves to provide any real protection against disease.

Though her paper focuses primarily on the British health system's elaborate cover-up of the dirty truth about its own national vaccination program, the tenets of the study's findings still apply to vaccination schedules in general, which are typically designed for the purpose of serving corporate interests rather than public health. Government authorities, it turns out, in an ongoing bid to satisfy the private goals of the vaccine industry, have deliberately covered up pertinent information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines from parents in order to maintain a high rate of vaccination compliance. And in the process, they have put countless millions of children at risk of serious side effects and death.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic's full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Hiding the truth and covering up data to encourage vaccine compliance

Through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Dr. Tomljenovic was able to obtain transcripts of private meetings that were held between the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), a so-called "independent expert advisory committee" that makes recommendations to the government about vaccine policy, and various British health ministers over the years. And after poring through this plethora of information, which had previously been veiled from public view, Dr. Tomljenovic made some disturbing discoveries.

"[T]he JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization) made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for 'herd immunity,' a concept which ... does not rest on solid scientific evidence," explains Dr. Tomljenovic in the introduction to her paper.

"Official documents obtained from the U.K. Department of Health (DH) and the JCVI reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program."

These are some strong accusations, but the information Dr. Tomljenovic gathered speaks for itself. Not only did the JCVI routinely ignore questions of safety as they came up with regards to the ever-expanding vaccination schedule, but the group actively censored unfavorable data that shed a "negative" light on vaccines in order to maintain the illusion that vaccines are safe and effective. Beyond this, the JCVI regularly lied to both the public and government authorities about vaccine safety in order to ensure that people continued to vaccinate their kids.

JCVI was fully aware of MMR vaccine dangers as early as 1989, but covered them up

Beginning on page three of her report, Dr. Tomljenovic begins outlining the sordid details of meetings held as early as 1981 where the JCVI clearly engaged in fraud, cover-up, and lies about vaccines to protect the vaccine industry, not children, from harm. Minutes from these meetings reveal that the JCVI actively tried to cover up severe side effects associated with common vaccines like measles and whooping cough (pertussis), both of which were clearly linked at the time to causing severe brain damage in a substantial percentage of the children that received them.

Of particular concern was how the JCVI handled unfavorable data on the controversial MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. 10 years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his study on MMR in The Lancet, JCVI was already fully aware that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had identified a clear link between MMR and vaccine-induced meningitis and encephalitis. But rather than come forward with this information and call for further safety assessments on the vaccine, the JCVI instead censored this critical information from the public, and blatantly lied about the safety of MMR for years.

"The extent of the JCVI's concerns with the implications of scientific assessment of vaccine safety on vaccine policy explains why they were opposed to any long-term surveillance for severe neurological disorders following vaccination," writes Dr. Tomljenovic. "[I]nstead of re-evaluating the vaccination policy, at least until safety concerns were fully evaluated, the JCVI chose to support the existing policy based on incomplete evidence that was available at that time."

In other words, the JCVI was more concerned with protecting the reputation of the dangerous MMR vaccine, as well as many other questionable vaccines, than with protecting children from sustaining serious injuries as a result of getting the jabs. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, this critical piece of information not only reinforces the legitimacy of Dr. Wakefield's findings from 10 years later, which were illegitimately declared to be fraudulent by the establishment, but also illustrates just how painfully long this scam has been taking place.

Vaccine companies urged to manipulate data sheets, skew safety studies to promote vaccines

If this is not bad enough, Dr. Tomljenovic also drudged up copious amounts of information on the JCVI's longtime habit of encouraging vaccine companies to deliberately alter their data sheets in order to make dangerous and ineffective vaccines appear safe and effective, in accordance with their recommendations. When the JCVI's guidance contraindications for MMR, for instance, did not match those of the vaccine's manufacturer, JCVI apparently instructed the manufacturer to alter its data sheets to avoid "legal problems."

Similarly, the JCVI's official policy was to cherry-pick unreliable studies to support its own opinions on vaccines rather than rely on independent, scientifically-sound studies to make vaccine policy recommendations. Once again, the JCVI's position on the safety and effectiveness of MMR is an excellent example of this, as the group flat out ignored legitimate MMR studies in favor of industry-backed junk studies like the infamous 2005 Cochrane Review, which technically proves nothing about the alleged safety of MMR because the 31 studies it evaluated did not even meet the group's basic methodological criteria.

"Over the years, the JCVI has consistently promoted the MMR vaccine as safe, based on studies that have been proven to be either irrelevant, inconclusive, or methodologically questionable," explains Dr. Tomljenovic, adding that the JCVI routinely chose to rely on flawed epidemiological studies that only identified "association" rather than "causation," a rather ironic inaccuracy in light of how scrutinizing the establishment typically is of studies that contradict its own positions.

The eye-opening, 45-page paper goes on to explain how vaccine schedules were established through the calculated downplaying of vaccine safety concerns and the over-inflating of vaccine benefits; the promotion of dangerous new vaccines into the pediatric schedule through deception; the discouraging of vaccine safety follow-up studies; and the widespread brainwashing of the public through manipulation and scientific sleight-of-hand tricks.