The HPV vaccine – what do you really know about it?

(NaturalNews) If you are considering vaccinating your child with an HPV vaccine, what information have you read, and what questions have you asked?What do you KNOW about the human papillomaviruses (HPV) which the medical profession says causes cervical cancer? If you are going to vaccinate your child on the word of the medical profession, and don’t want any further information, then stop right here. But be aware that ignorance is not bliss. And that the medical system has deliberately not told you everything you need to know about either the viruses, or the vaccine. If you want to take responsibility for your own decisions, rather than hand over responsibility to the medical profession, then you might be interested in some of the following questions and answers, which deserve truthful answers that the vaccine industry doesn’t want to give you: Question: Publicity for Gardasil says that girls should have this HPV vaccine before sexual intercourse, because they don’t catch this virus until they are sexually active. Is this correct? No, this is not correct. Over the last 20 years, the medical profession has documented that human papillomaviruses can be transmitted during pregnancy, after pregnancy, from child to child, and adult to child. Question: Why then are we told that these human papillomaviruses can only be contracted after sex? Because adolescents are the market Merck was targeting, and to admit that the viruses can be acquired naturally before sex, doesn’t suit Merck. The medical literature for the last 20 years has also stated that to ignore the fact that HPV viruses can cause silent infection at any age ‘has implications for any vaccination programme,’ though those ‘implications’ have never been spelled out. However, they expect parents to naively believe that intelligent human papillomaviruses know they aren’t allowed to let themselves loose, until the first act of sexual intercourse. And for some reason, most parents believe this sort of nonsense statement. Question: Are these viruses implicated in cervical cancers, and other cancers? Yes they are – but primarily in people, whose innate immune system is struggling because they eat rubbish, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, don’t get enough sleep, and burn the candle at 12 ends. Much more than a virus is required for a woman to get cervical cancer. Question: Doesn’t everyone get human papillomavirus infections? Yes. Not only has ‘everyone’ but just about any species that breathes gets papillomavirus infections – even lizards. The medical literature shows that a good diet, correct mineral and vitamin intake, and living a healthy lifestyle, normally results in the recipient throwing off HP infections easier than a cold, and all they have to show for it, is lifelong natural immunity. Healthy lifestyles don’t fill Big Pharma bank balances, so you won’t be told about that. Question: But I’ve been told this vaccine is so important! Is that wrong This vaccine is very important for Merck’s accountants – vitally important. It’s ‘the’ product that is supposed to dig Merck out of its current financial woes. But is it important for your child? No. The cervical smear programme stopped people dying of cervical cancer long before ‘fear-no-longer’ Gardasil came along. And because the vaccine only covers two types out of at least 20 supposedly carcinogenic HP virus types (amongst at least 300 different strains), people who have cancer phobia will still want to have smears anyway. Today, 90% of all deaths from cervical cancer occur in the third world countries which don’t have such a programme, or the ability to deal with abnormal smears even if they had a smear programme. The primary drivers of cervical cancer in third world countries are chronic malnutrition, and fundamentally atrocious living conditions, which happens to create the most susceptible population with the least resources. Question: So why have I been recommended to inject my child with three Gardasil vaccines? Because if a vaccine is available the medical system tries to scare everyone into using it. After all, it’s much easier to ‘believe’ their assumption that antibodies from Gardasil will still be around 40 years from now. It’s much easier not to have to pay attention to diet, and all the other things which would make sure most people never got cancer in the first place. But the bottom line is that Merck developed Gardasil in the hope that it would be a ‘block-buster’ vaccine which would help pay for all the litigation Merck faces as the result of another Merck drug, called Vioxx, which maimed and killed lots of people, whose families then turned around and sued Merck for millions of dollars. Obviously, Merck isn’t going to make any money from the third world -the countries that really need it, according to Dr Frazer who co-patented the vaccine. So Merck decided to target all the rich countries that do not need Gardasil. By charging wealthy countries lots of money, then maybe someday about forty years from now…, they might get around to providing it to people in the third world, if they are still around. Which is a bit farcical, when in those countries, what the people could really do with, is decent food, clean water, getting rid of nepotistic dictators and warring tribes, being provided with basic healthcare, and the means of growing their own food… but all that’s much too hard. Particularly when Merck’s main aim is making money and staying in business. Question: What is in Gardasil? According to the data sheet, the vaccine supposedly contains ‘no viral DNA 1 ‘ and each 0.5 mL dose of the vaccine contains: 20 mcg of HPV 6 L1 protein 40 mcg of HPV 11 L1 protein 40 mcg of HPV 16 L1 protein 20 mcg of HPV 18 L1 protein 225 mcg aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant2) 9.56 mg of sodium chloride 0.78 mg of L-histidine 50 mcg of polysorbate 80 (shown to induce infertility in mice, which is why it’s the main ingredient in depo-provera, and which also makes the brain blood barrier easier to penetrate) 35 mcg of sodium borate water for injection Question: What do you mean,’Supposedly’? Contrary to the manufacturers’ documents, the vaccine does actually contain Viral DNA. According to documents filed with Medsafe New Zealand, each vaccine also has a much higher amount of HPV protein than stated on the product insert, in order to ensure that as the vaccine degrades over time, at the END of the shelf life, the vaccine will actually contain the stated dose on the vial. Question: What do you mean, this vaccine has recombinant HPV viral DNA! What is recombinant HPV viral DNA? This is where small lengths of genes from two different sources, are combined to make a single recombined length of genes which will perform a specific function. Question: The New Zealand Government, the manufacturers and all the health authorities not only assured us that there is no DNA, but they say SANE Vax Inc.’s allegations of contamination with DNA are a load of smelly porkies! Explain yourself please? No-one from the Government, FDA, EMA, or Health Departments have at any time, asked to see the test results of the vaccine, which SANE Vax Inc. commissioned. So, on what basis do they think that the test results are incorrect? Gardasil was made by taking a DNA sequence (which makes the virus “envelope”) from different types of papillomaviruses found in cancerous cervical cells. This viral genetic sequence was then spliced into a plasmid 3 – a circular piece of bacterial DNA (which helps divide the bacterial chromosomes) and allows the HPV DNA to be cloned into yeast. Plasmid DNA also encourages quick manufacture of the ‘balls,’ by the HPV genes. The genetically engineered mix then makes lots of little empty balls, or ‘virus like particles’ as seen in photo 4 of the Gardasil vaccine. Then according to Merck’s patent 5 , they have a highly sophisticated process which is supposed to filter out and remove ‘contaminating biomolecules, including DNA, lipids and proteins.’ What the test results found, was that some recombinant DNA sequences originating from different types of the virus DNA used to make the vaccine, are still in the vaccine. Question: What are all those other bits in that photo? Aluminium, and presumably more mashed up virus like particles. But according to the tests commissioned by SANE Vax Inc., viral DNA used to make those little balls and mashed up pieces, are not removed from Gardasil. Question: But FDA says that these recombinant DNA are “expected” when using this process. Isn’t that true? No. If those DNA fragments were “expected” components of Gardasil, they would have been listed in the ingredients of the vaccine, and documentation should exist showing why they are a safe and ‘essential’ ingredient in the vaccine. Question: How does this fancy patented purification process tell the difference between culture medium DNA, yeast DNA and HPV DNA? You tell me and we’ll both know. Question: If SANE-vax’s tests ARE actually correct, why did a purification process which is supposed to remove DNA lipids, proteins, and biomolecules not work? I think Merck would like to know the answer to that as well. In the meantime, FDA are covering Merck’s butt for them. Question: But isn’t there a final product purity test for Gardasil? In New Zealand, according to paper work submitted to Medsafe, there are no final purity tests, because Merck believes their filtration process is good enough without them. Question: But aren’t there filtration tests designed to make sure the process is good enough? According to paper work submitted to Medsafe, there are no filtration “adequacy” tests because Merck believes their process is good enough without them. Question: Isn’t Gardasil made the same way as the Hepatitis B vaccine? Yes, and according to FDA 6 documentation, “Assays for cesium, polysaccharides, DNA, pyrogens and sterility are performed” on the Hepatitis B bulk product. You’d think the same would be done for Gardasil, wouldn’t you? Question: Does the Hepatitis B vaccine also contain genetically engineered, recombinant DNA? It would appear that the Hepatitis B vaccine could ALSO contain a similar kind of genetically manipulated DNA (in spite of tests to ensure DNA removal). Such recombinant DNA in the Hepatitis B vaccines is also not mentioned in its data sheet or constituent list. FDA, in its reply to SANE Vax Inc., intimated that Hepatitis B vaccine also contains recombinant DNA, and that such unstated DNA was quite “acceptable”. So they are covering Merck’s butt for that as well. Question: FDA says these particles are no big deal because they can’t cause infection. Is that true? No it’s not. The point of a vaccine is to form antibodies to various substances called “antigens” in the vaccine. DNA doesn’t have to cause infection to spell trouble. Because the recombinant DNA is tightly bound to the aluminium, the aluminium turns the DNA into an ‘antigen,’ something the immune system has to react to. But an abnormal immune response, especially to an aluminium-bound DNA, could result in antibodies which cross react and turn against healthy DNA. That could cause autoimmune disease, brain inflammation, joint inflammation, and major disruption to energy pathways, hormone functions and a vast array of other biological pathways, which normally keep an adolescent healthy, physically and mentally. Question: But FDA says that Gardasil is very safe and doesn’t cause anything more than a sore arm. Isn’t that true? No. America’s FDA and all medical authorities say that all vaccines are safe apart from sore arms, and that everything else that happens after a vaccine is a coincidence…, and anyone who says otherwise, needs their head looked at. FDA monitors all vaccines by using a system called VAERS, short for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is known to only collect 10% of reactions at most, and reporting is voluntary, not mandatory. On the one hand, they ‘consult’ this system, but on the other, they consider that all reactions sent to this system have nothing to do with the vaccine at all. So in terms of a monitoring system, they might as well not have one at all. In fact, they might as well do away with it altogether, since to them, the fact that Gardasil reports comprise 20% of all reported reactions appears to them to be some fabricated nuisance. It doesn’t seem to occur to the FDA, that perhaps there is something badly wrong with this ‘lovely safe’ vaccine, which their crystal ball says will prevent your child from having cervical cancer, by the (average) age of 54. Question: Are you telling me, I shouldn’t trust the FDA, health authorities and governmental agencies? Why would you want to trust anyone who tells you something ludicrous like, “Human papillomaviruses have a label on their foreheads saying ‘No entry until sex’” when that is patently, proveably untrue? If FDA can spread such ridiculous comments world-wide, without corrective advice from the scientists who know that isn’t true, why would the FDA (or silent scientists) bother with the’truth’ when it came to anything else? Question: So what do I do now? I don’t know. It’s your choice. You could vaccinate your child, and see what happens. Does that sound like a good idea? If it doesn’t, you better tell your child, because in some countries, they can be vaccinated without your consent! By Hilary Butler, Contributing Author SANE Vax Inc. Sources: http://sanevax.org/ 1 DNA are genes from the virus – some of which cause infections, and others of which have other functions. The L1 gene strand used to make the vaccine, is specific in that it makes the round ball (envelope) that surrounds the DNA. 2 A toxin which sends a red alert danger message to the immune system which says, ‘Oi you, there is danger in that locker, go and deal with it.’ Without it, the immune system would just yawn and go back to sleep. 3 http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/RecombinantDNA.html 4 http://www.nanoimagingservices.com/emailblasts/110209_landingpageHPVadjuvant.jpg 5 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,602,697.PN.&OS=PN/6,602,697&RS=PN/6,602,697 6 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm110155.pdf

GSI Quality Exercise Monitor Wrist Watch With Data Memory – Measures Distance, Time, Steps, Fat And Calories Burned – For Running, Jogging and Walking, Chronograph Stopwatch And Alarm Functions

GSI Quality Exercise Monitor Wrist Watch With Data Memory – Measures Distance, Time, Steps, Fat And Calories Burned – For Running, Jogging and Walking, Chronograph Stopwatch And Alarm Functions Multi Function Training and Exercise Tool – Calorimeter, Pedometer and Odometer All In One!Dual 3D Sensor Detects Walking Or Running – Stores And Recalls 15 Chronograph [...]

Breast cancer drugs may stop cancer, but they also cut life short due to toxicity

(NaturalNews) Here’s another case of a so-called “wonder drug” heavily promoted by Big Pharma having a darker side than anyone knew. It turns out aromatase inhibitors (sold under the names Femara, Aromasin, and Arimidex), widely prescribed to huge numbers of women who’ve been diagnosed with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, could be so toxic in the body they do nothing to prolong life — and might even shorten it. Based on the findings of several studies, most doctors now recommend one of the aromatase inhibitor (AIs) after women with estrogen-positive breast cancer have initial treatment with surgery and often chemotherapy and radiation therapy. An AI medication has been considered a better choice than the other anti-estrogen treatment, tamoxifen, because AIs have been thought to have more benefits and fewer serious side effects. However, research just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concludes that the toxic impact of aromatase inhibitors apparently explains why breast cancer patients taking AIs don’t live any longer than women taking tamoxifen. Bottom line: the study suggests that even if AIs slow down or halt the growth of estrogen driven breast cancer, women may lose their lives not to a malignancy — but to the negative impact the drugs have on their bodies. AIs block the enzyme aromatase, which turns the hormone androgen into small amounts of estrogen in the body. So they reduce the amount of estrogen available that can stimulate the growth of estrogen-driven breast cancer cells. This class of drugs doesn’t halt ovaries from making estrogen, so AIs are only used in post-menopausal women. The medications are normally prescribed as an alternative to tamoxifen or after earlier treatment with tamoxifen (which often has intolerable side effects). Overall, AI therapy alone is associated with a reduction in breast cancer recurrence — but doesn’t result in women living any longer. What’s more, the drugs have been found to produce a host of concerning adverse toxic effects on the body. And it’s this toxicity that may explain the lack of overall survival benefit in postmenopausal breast cancer patients, according to researchers Eitan Amir, of the Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, and colleagues. The research team conducted a systematic review of all randomized trials which compared AIs and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women. Using results from seven trials involving 30,023 breast cancer patients, the scientists performed a meta-analysis of the data. The results showed that, compared to tamoxifen, longer use of AIs was associated with more heart disease and bone fractures. However, tamoxifen users had higher rates of blood clots and cancer of the womb. There were no differences in the risk of stroke or other types of cancer. Overall there was no survival benefit to AIs, even though the drugs seem to have a positive effect on breast cancer recurrence. The researchers concluded that the toxicity of AIs was most likely behind the drugs failure to prolong life. Using tamoxifen first and then switching to AIs for 2 to 3 years was associated with a lower risk of death unrelated to breast cancer compared to the use of either AIs or tamoxifen alone. The scientists speculate that this is because switching between the two drugs lowers the toxicity of AIs in the body. In an accompanying editorial, Nancy E. Davidson, M.D., Shannon Puhalla, M.D., and Rachel C. Jankowitz, M.D., of the UPMC Cancer Center at Magee-Womens Hospital, concluded that doctors should “..choose initial endocrine therapy for the individual patient with careful attention to the risk of breast cancer recurrence, the risk of toxicity, and comorbidities.” As NaturalNews has reported extensively, a host of research is pointing to far safer and even non-toxic natural therapies than mainstream medicine’s current standard breast cancer treatment strategies. For example, there is evidence parsley and other plants may contain phytochemicals that help stop breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/032410_parsley_tumors.html). Vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/032222_breast_cancer_vitamin_D.html) appears to hold great promise in the fight against breast malignancies, too. For more information: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/breast_cancer.html

Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

(NaturalNews) Images of periled polar bears sinking into arctic seas because of melting polar ice caps have become an iconic symbol of the devastating consequences of so-called global warming. But a new government investigation into the supposed science surrounding this now-infamous urban legend has revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudoscientific hoax propagated by faulty math and perfunctory observations. According to a recent report by Human Events , special investigators from the US government’s Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific paper published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions about four specific polar bear deaths — and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight against global warming. But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and everything to do with a simple windstorm. It all stems from an unusual air observation of what appeared to be four dead polar bears floating in the sea. From 1,500 feet (457 meters) in the air, observers reported to study author and biologist Charles Monnett, as well as contributor Jeffrey Gleason, that dead polar bears had been observed, which the duo later used to make various statements, including that “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.” According to investigators, Monnett’s calculations concerning polar bears’ rate of survival, however, are flawed because he not only failed to verify that the four dead polar bears he witnessed were the same ones that he saw a week prior, but he also allegedly used faulty percentages in the process. As a result, polar bears ended up getting listed as a protected species under the Endangered Species Act, even though they are likely not endangered, and are not dying at the rates to which Monnett had implied. Worse, the observed polar bear carcasses were never actually recovered and properly examined to determine their cause of death. So paper statements implying that ice caps were to blame are grounded in baseless assumption, not scientific observation. Gleason denies that his and Monnett’s paper intended to link the deaths to global warming, having told investigators that they were likely caused by a simple windstorm rather. However, Eric May, an ID investigator, responded by saying that the link to global warming was “inferred” in the paper, which tends to make logical sense in light of the paper’s strong verbiage concerning ice packs and complete lack of reference to a potential windstorm. Peer review process for polar bear paper may have been skewed; study data was not even aimed at polar bears Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett’s “personal relationships and preparation of scope of work,” is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well. According to Human Events , Monnett’s wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett’s polar bear study. Having one’s wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well. After vehemently defending his work, Monnett eventually admitted that miscalculations and other errors were likely made in his paper, but he referred to such controversy as “sloppy” rather than “scientific misconduct.” He also admitted that he and Gleason did not have any proper documentation to back up claims made about observed polar bear trends — instead, they simply made the “best case” they could with the data they had obtained. Another important fact is that the duo assembled their paper using data acquired for the purpose of bowhead whale observation and study, not for polar bears. Consequently, the quality of such data for polar bear research is cursory at best, and careless pseudoscience at worst. “The paper gives the appearance that rigorous surveying was done for polar bears, when it was not. They did not know if the polar bears actually drowned — they assumed that they had drowned,” said Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a biologist who specializes in endangered species scientific issues for Wildlife Science International, Inc., to Human Events . “There were no statistical tests, just extrapolations made with no accounting for measurement error.” Besides achieving for Monnett and his research endeavors a significant gain in “power, money, authority and recognition,” according to Ramey, the acceptance of Monnett’s paper and subsequent listing of polar bears as an endangered species due to global warming has, at least until now, represented a foundational pillar of so-called evidence in global warming hysterics. The crumbling of this scientific facade, though, just might spur the much-needed shift in climate change science towards actual evidence-based based research rather than mere scientific semblance. Sources for this story include: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

Monsanto preys on popularity of omega-3s by developing GMO soybean that produces fake fish oil

(NaturalNews) Leave it to Monsanto to take a good thing and corrupt it for financial gain. According to a recent report in Forbes , the multinational biotechnology-slash-agriculture-manipulating monolith has developed a new genetically-modified (GM) soybean that artificially produces stearidonic acid, a type of omega-3 fatty acid — and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to approve the “frankenbean” sometime this year. Monsanto appears to be introducing the omega-3 enhanced GM soybean oil, called Soymega or “stearidonic acid soybean oil” (SDA oil), at a craftily strategic time when much of the world is still reeling from the Fukushima Daiichi mega-disaster, which left ocean waters ridden with radioactive isotopes. And since omega-3s just happen to be most readily found in fatty ocean fish, the perpetual fear over radioactive and other poisons that may be lurking in such fish could drive many to embrace Monsanto’s fake fish oil instead. According to an FDA letter responding to Monsanto’s request to have SDA oil approved for use as a food additive and acknowledged as being “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), the FDA noted that Monsanto intends to use its omega-3-enhanced oil in a variety of food applications. These include baked goods, breakfast cereals, fish products, frozen dairy desserts, cheeses, grains and pastas, gravies, nuts, poultry, fruit juices, processed vegetable products, and soups — yes, basically every processed food product in existence. Monsanto created its GM soybean oil by injecting two specific enzymes into soybean genes. One came from Primula juliae , a type of flower, and the other from Neurospora crass , a type of red mold that grows on bread. As a result, the beans produce SDA oil and gamma-linolenic acid, two compounds not normally found in soybeans. In its original request letter, Monsanto claims that its company-funded trials prove that SDA oil is safe for animal and human consumption, and that “no toxicologically significant effects were observed.” However, the data does not specifically highlight the long-term effects of the oil in animals or in humans — it merely alleges that nothing bad was observed during the 16-week trial period, which is hardly enough reassurance that the product is undeniably safe for consumption. Nevertheless, the FDA has already granted Soymega GRAS status, which means that the agency acknowledges Monsanto’s safety claims, and essentially has no problems with or objections to them. And if the FDA grants full approval for Soymega, you can expect to see it turning up in all sorts of consumer food products. Have all the ocean disasters in recent years been a catalyst for forcing people over to artificial, patented varieties of omega-3s? Between BP’s “Deepwater Horizon” oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, and the earthquake and tsunami that ravaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in March 2011, many of the world’s oceans, and corresponding fish stocks, have been severely tainted. Add in perpetual mercury poisoning and other pollution that has been afflicting ocean life for many decades, and seafood appears less and less enticing as a safe and healthy source of omega-3s. Enter Monsanto. By positing its omega-3 GM soybean variety as a safer, healthier alternative to natural seafood and sea-based fish oils, the company stands to gain an incredible amount of profit while ultimately steering public preference away from natural sources of omega-3s, and towards its own patented varieties of omega-3s. The same Forbes article that announced the advent of Monsanto’s Soymega also mentions that sea-based fish oils can be contaminated with toxins, and also suggests that fish-derived omega-3s are responsible for depleting fish stocks and damaging the environment. Do you see where this is all going? It is all too convenient that as omega-3s become more popular than ever, Monsanto, in conjunction with the FDA and the mainstream media, is coordinating a leveraged attack against natural sources of omega-3s in order to brainwash the public into accepting its “safer” variety. And by getting SDA oil laced throughout the food supply, the public will ultimately have little choice in avoiding it., and will probably just accept it as beneficial. Monsanto is clearly dead set on capturing the omega-3 market through its new soybean oil. After all, soybean oil has become a staple in most American processed foods, and by “enriching” everything from breads and cereals to vegetable dishes and quick dinners with Soymega, the general public will be less prone to purchase fish for its health benefits. And the end result will be more control of the food supply handed over to Monsanto, and less availability of natural omega-3s on the market. Sources for this story include: http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/11/monsanto-modifies-soy-beans-to-grow-fish-oil/ http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/GenerallyRecognizedasSafeGRAS/GRASListings/ucm185688.htm

Murdoch’s media malpractice and the genetic altering of human beings through DNA vaccines

(NaturalNews) Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corp., which represents the second largest media conglomerate in the world behind the Walt Disney Company, is taking a severe beating as Murdoch himself is having to address various criminal allegations, including that his News of the World tabloid illegally hacked private phone lines and committed various other crimes (http://www.naturalnews.com/033034_News_of_the_World_scandal.html). But Murdoch’s media malpractice runs even deeper as his strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry also fueled his media machine’s fabrication of lies against Dr. Andrew Wakefield, as well as hid from the public the true dangers of DNA vaccines that permanently corrupt human genes and cause autism. Murdoch has built quite a reputation for himself as a scoundrel of sorts, as many Americans who identify with the “left” side of the political spectrum have accused him of pandering to the “right” by skewing the news to appeal to “conservatives” (Murdoch owns FOX News, after all). But what Murdoch’s organization is actually doing on all fronts with its various media outlets, including FOX, is pushing much bigger agendas that supersede any alleged “right vs. left” paradigm. One such agenda is News Corp.’s routine censorship of the dangerous truth about drugs and vaccines, which include smear campaigns like those levied against Dr. Wakefield who conduct legitimate research that contradicts mainstream medical thought. News Corp. systematically destroyed the reputation of Dr. Wakefield, lied about his work If you are unfamiliar with the Dr. Wakefield story, you can read more about it in previous NaturalNews articles (http://www.naturalnews.com/Andrew_Wakefield.html). But as a quick recap, Dr. Wakefield basically discovered through credible research that the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine was linked to mental and physiological health problems, and that the individual measles vaccine should be given to children instead until further research on the safety of MMR could be conducted. The findings were credible, responsibly-derived, and honest in their assessment — but they resulted in a tirade of lies and slander against Dr. Wakefield. The statements included false accusations that he is opposed to all vaccinations, that he had manipulated his data, and that he is basically unfit to be a doctor, despite the fact that he is arguably one of the most well-respected and highly-educated gastroenterologists in the world. In the end, though, Dr. Wakefield ended up having his study pulled from the esteemed UK journal Lancet , and his UK medical license was revoked. And just who was responsible for the annihilation campaign against Dr. Wakefield? None other than Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which literally fabricated lies about Dr. Wakefield and disseminated them around the world via its multinational media network. News Corp.’s London Times , for instance, falsely accused Dr. Wakefield of being “callous, unethical and dishonest,” and published numerous articles saying he was a fraud, and that he “abused his position of trust.” And why, exactly, did News Corp. feel the need to destroy the life and reputation of a man that had done so much to help children with autism and other neurological disorders? Because Dr. Wakefield’s findings were incongruent with the multi-billion-dollar profit ring of multinational pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Merck Inc., both of which produce and market MMR vaccines. Murdoch media empire, judicial system closely knit with drug companies Did you know that Rupert Murdoch’s son James Murdoch, who manages the UK paper Sunday Times , is on the board of GSK? Or how about Sir Nigel Davis, the High Court judge that denied parents of children treated by Dr. Wakefield the right to have their claims against vaccine manufacturers heard in a real court? Davis’ brother, who is an executive board member of Elsevier, the group that publishes the Lancet , is also on the board of GSK. An article in the COTO Report also explains that the head of the popular Reuters news service serves on the board of Merck, while a prominent writer at the UK’s Daily Mirror is married to the former chairman of GSK. And the list goes on and on. With all of these strong connections to drug companies, it is no wonder that the media at large wholly participated in the Dr. Wakefield slander campaign — after all, Dr. Wakefield’s work caused millions of people to wake up and begin questioning the safety not only of the MMR vaccine, but also of vaccines in general. And this continued awakening is taking its toll on Big Pharma’s profits. MMR and dozens of other DNA’ vaccines essentially create genetically-modified humans Dr. Wakefield’s work uncovered a crucial detail about certain vaccines that ultimately exposes those in this particular category as highly-dangerous, life-altering poisons. Third-generation DNA vaccines like MMR contain genetically-engineered (GE) materials that are injected directly into the body, sort of like how genetically-modified (GM) crop seeds have been injected with altered DNA that changes their genetic makeup — and these GE traits can permanently alter proper human development. As far as DNA vaccines are concerned, the GE material they contain is included as part of an overall effort to induce “DNA uptake,” a term that is very vaguely defined, but one that appears to infer a literal adoption of altered DNA into the human genetic structure. If this is the case, then DNA vaccines like MMR are overriding normal DNA with altered DNA, which causes the untold changes in human development and health that have been observed. Based on Dr. Wakefield’s findings, this is exactly what appears to occur with MMR vaccines in particular, and it is why he urged the public to skip the MMR vaccine and get the individual vaccines instead. His findings showed that the MMR vaccine is linked to mitochondria dysfunction caused by DNA mutations. And since no proper review of MMR has ever taken place to prove its safety, his professional conclusion was that it was best to stop using it for childrens safety. Mitochondria, of course, are what power cells and convert energy into forms that are usable by the body. When these do not work properly, the entire human body becomes compromised. Individuals with autism demonstrate mitochondria dysfunction as well as various other problems, which may or may not be possible to cure — and this, again, is precisely why Dr. Wakefield urged the public to beware of the MMR vaccine. According to the same COTO Report article mentioned earlier, DNA vaccines like MMR were actually derived from failed gene therapy experiments. In other words, they appear to be a type of genetic experiment that is permanently altering human gene expression and proper DNA development, which in turn lands its victims with permanent, life-altering developmental disorders like autism. But none of this will ever be addressed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., or by most other mainstream news outlets for that matter, because of their close alliance with the drug industry. It is in their best interests to hide the truth from the public, and to continue pushing the lie that all vaccines are safe, and have never been implicated in causing any long-term health problems. CBS News, however, did recently report on a new review published in the Journal of Immunotoxicology that addresses the issue of third-generation DNA vaccines and autism. That review, entitled Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes — A review , admits that “[d]ocumented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination.” Sources for this story include: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/

How to protect your mobile phone and computer from illegal police searches

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Constitution is clear about the issue of privacy. In fact, the Fourth Amendment states, in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” With that in mind, it’s safe to say it’s more than just a little disturbing to know that, in certain circumstances, police can search your cell phone and computer(s), even if you don’t want them to and even if they don’t yet have a warrant to do so. The good news is, someone out there has recognized the problem and has taken steps to help you protect that vast amount of data you have stored on your smart phone or laptop. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long defenders of electronic rights, has written a legal guide designed to help you better understand your rights and, more importantly, when police can – and cannot – legally confiscate and search your personal electronic devices. “In the heat of the moment, it can be hard to remember what your rights are and how to exercise them,” says EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “Sometimes police can search your computer whether you like it or not, but sometimes they can’t. We wrote this guide to help you tell the difference and to empower you to assert your rights when the police come knocking.” Adds EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury, “With smart phones, tablet computers, and laptops, we carry around with us an unprecedented amount of sensitive personal information. “That smart phone in your pocket right now could contain email from your doctor or your kid’s teacher, not to mention detailed contact information for all of your friends and family members,” Fakhoury continued. “Your laptop probably holds even more data — your Internet browsing history, family photo albums, and maybe even things like an electronic copy of your taxes or your employment agreement. This is sensitive data that’s worth protecting from prying eyes.” According to a summary of full EFF legal guide : Always say “no” when police ask if they can search your server, personal computer or cell phone because if you give them permission to search, they don’t need a warrant – even to enter your home; If police tell you they have a search warrant, ask to see it because you have a right to; Make sure police are only searching the areas outlined in the warrant; Be silent – you don’t have to help the police or answer their questions, and that means you don’t have to give them your encryption keys or passwords; If you do decide to talk, don’t lie because lying to the police is a crime; Finally, if you can consult with a lawyer before police conduct a search or even just talk to you, that’s ideal. This guide is extremely helpful in this digital age when being secure in our “papers” and effects now includes our data-filled electronic devices. Know your rights; that is your best protection.

Cold fusion devices produce far more energy than they use; quickly approaching commercial viability

(NaturalNews) Cold fusion is real, but mass American news sources are not covering it. Experiments are currently being duplicated across the world, to add further verification to the body of scientific proof. It is now possible to create energy with commonplace resources at no cost to the environment. Power plants using cold fusion will be constructed before 2012. Natural News has been covering the developments of cold fusion for quite some time, as controlled experiments in Russia, California, Italy, and Japan have consistently proven that cold fusion is real. (Read one of the original articles here (http://www.naturalnews.com/013281.html).) One of these successful experiments was conducted by Professor emeritus of Osaka University, Japan – Yoshiaki Arata. Dr. Arata performed a demonstration of cold fusion at Osaka. A colleague of his wrote, afterward: “Arata’s demonstration was successfully done it demonstrated live data looked just similar to the data they reported in [the] papers. This showed the method highly reproducible.” Read the original article for more details at (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/157573-Cold-fusion-demonstration-a-success-). In addition, Andrea Rossi’s Fusion Energy Catalyzer was tested in a number of different scenarios this year, resulting in a stronger belief that cold fusion may be ready for public use by the end of 2011. On January 14, Focardi and Rossi held a press conference, discussing their 10-kW generator. Another experiment, which took place roughly a month later at the University of Bologna, reported the model generated 15 kW for 18 hours. There are currently plans to hook up roughly 200 of these smaller units, in order to construct two 1 megawatt-producing power plants before the end of the year. If these plants perform up to their potential, then we can hope for the construction of industrial-sized power plants within another year or two. But how does it work? Cold fusion is not really magical, even though it could very well have a miraculous effect on our future. It is a relatively simple chemical reaction that produces excess heat, meaning that if the reaction occurs in water, it will increase the temperature of the water. Powdered nickel fuels the reaction. You put in nickel (one of the most plentiful metals on the planet), and you get heated water. After that point, almost every mechanic in the world would be able to take it from there. Steam engines heat water with coal, then using the expansive properties of the steam to power turbines. A cold fusion device would use the same basic mechanical devices, but it would heat the water through the consumption of nickel rather than combustion. But why has news of cold fusion not yet reached mass media in the United States? Why is there no story in the New York Times that showcases all of this excitement and buzz? The media has been burnt by the dream of cold fusion before. In 1989, Fleishman and Pons first conducted a series of experiments on cold fusion and produced some truly exciting results. In their excitement, they let their findings slip a little too early, before they had been able to thoroughly study the discovery, or realize consistently positive results. They released their miraculous findings, with claims of having discovered the dream machine of the millennium, and they caused a lot of excitement in the scientific community, at least at first. But they had fallen prey to their own unbridled enthusiasm. Confronted with the potential of what they had discovered – a future resplendent with clean, free energy – they jumped the gun a little prematurely. Their method was reproduced across the globe, but many experiments fell flat. In fact, their method was shown to be effective only 30% of the time. And in the world of empirical fact, 30% is an error, not a discovery. It was supposed that the 30% of experiments that did corroborate Fleishman and Pons’ findings were more likely the result of bribes or ‘friendships,’ not cold fusion. Consequently, it was presumed that Fleishman and Pons were frauds, just a couple of jingoists desperately attempting to gain fame and attention. Cold fusion was thought to have been revealed as a hoax, and the scientists became notorious. All but excommunicated, Fleishman and Pons went underground, where they continued to hone their method and make the process easily replicable and consistent. They checked and double-checked their findings, and they spread their idea to other scientists willing to conduct more thorough investigations, such as Andrea Rossi, whose device has, so far, produced the consistency that Fleishman and Pons’ lacked. This discovery could not come at a better time for the world, when oil resources are quickly becoming scarce, and greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to spike, despite the damage they are causing. So, given the reason for optimism in this period in which energy is particularly expensive, why is the mass media refraining from mentioning cold fusion. Why is it not on the front pages of every newspaper? There are a number of possible explanations. First, the scientific community’s pause could very well be a consequence of the unbridled enthusiasm given by the initial experiments conducted in 1989. After such a humiliation, it is easy to see why scientists would remain skeptical, at least on the surface. Meanwhile, Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer is being slated for reproduction in large-scale, cold fusion reactors later this year. If you compare the pace of Rossi’s tests to the scientific norm, then it is clear that scientists are, indeed, excited. As for the press, there are more insidious explanations to be considered. For one, it is a distinct possibility that a number of enormous businesses, such as oil and coal companies are leaning on mass media sources to keep quiet. Cold fusion power plants would drop the price of energy, thereby putting energy companies out of commission. It is in their best interest to slow down the process of integrating cold fusion. But whatever the reason for mass media silence, you can expect to start hearing about cold fusion by the end of the year. By then, it will be impossible to keep quiet a discovery of this magnitude. Sources: (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html) (http://pesn.com/2011/02 /22/9501770_Rossi_cold_fusion_reactor_achieves_15_kW_for_18_hours/) (http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/)

New reoprt: Regulators knew Roundup caused birth defects

(NaturalNews) Regulators have known since 1980 that Roundup, the herbicide manufactured by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, and have done nothing to make the information public, according to a new report released June 7 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html). The report, “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” by Earth Open Source, found that regulators knew the chemical on which Roundup is based, glyphosate, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals. Earth Open Source is an organization that aims to use open source collaboration to engage people in programs that help nourish humanity, increase equity, support food security, and preserve the Earth. Regulators also misled the public about the safety of the chemical, according to the report. In one instance, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body handling the glyphosate review, told the European Commission there was no evidence the chemical causes birth defects. This is not the first instance of accusations against the world’s best-selling herbicide. Earlier this year, researchers found that genetically modified crops used in conjunction with Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack regarding the newly discovered pathogen, in which he requested a moratorium on deregulation of crops that are genetically modified to withstand heavy applications of Roundup, commonly called Roundup Ready crops. “It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases,” Huber said in the letter, adding that the pathogen is implicated in spontaneous abortions in cattle at rates as high as 45 percent. The situation could be catastrophic according to Huber’s letter: “A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn — suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science! This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of U.S. soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm … Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then [approval of RR alfalfa] could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation … For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and man-made biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.” Appropriate legislation unlikely Although originally set to be reviewed in 2012, the European Commission decided to delay the glyphosate review until 2015. It will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030. “Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable,” according to the Earth Open Source report. “What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual,” the report continued. “They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so. This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards.” Sources for this article include: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4523/researcher-glyphosate-roundup-or-roundup-ready-crops-may-cause-animal-miscarriages http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

Do cell phones cause cancer?

(NaturalNews) This week the World Health Organizations officially classified cellphones as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This statement was made from a team of 31 scientists from 14 countries who made this decision after reviewing the data from previous peer-reviewed studies. The team looked for links between cancer and the type of radiation found in cellphones. Their conclusion was to classify cellphones in category 2B which means cellphones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other compounds in the 2B category include lead, nickel, DDT, chloroform and gasoline exhaust. Dr. Christopher Wild, director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said this new WHO report is important “first and foremost just because of the large number of users worldwide that have access now to this technology.” Globally, it’s estimated there are 5 billion cell phones being used, that’s three fourths of the population on earth. However, because cellphone usage habits have changed since the early studies, it’s difficult to know whether the conclusions from previous studies are still relevant today. Also, the current studies haven’t looked at usage longer than 10 years. So, there is a lot more research to be conducted to get a clear sense of whether cell phones actually cause cancer. In the meantime, if you are concerned about any potential health risks of cellphones the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have suggested some steps to take including: – Use of cell phones mainly for shorter conversations, or for times when a landline phone is not available. – Switch to a cell phone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the phone and your head. Sources: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/cellular.html http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116293.htm

« Previous Page — Next Page »