Infant formula manufacturers routinely violate marketing rules in Africa

(NaturalNews) Infant formula companies regularly promote their products in violation international standards adopted to protect infant health, an article on AllAfrica.com charges. So widely accepted are the benefits of breastfeeding that in 1981, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) adopted an international code for the promotion of infant formulas and other breast milk substitutes. The purpose of the guidelines is to promote breastfeeding and the make sure that breast milk substitutes are used only with informed consent and only when absolutely necessary. Breast milk provides important nutrition and disease protection, and plays a critical role in the development of a child’s immune system. “[Breastfeeding] could save 41 percent of newborns who would otherwise die in their first month of life,” writes Andreas Moritz in Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation . “Breastfeeding right away not only increases the likelihood that infants will continue to breastfeed, but also gives them colostrum, a mother’s first milk,” Moritz writes.” As research has demonstrated, colostrum is rich in antibodies and essential nutrients, important for building a strong immune system right from the start. Early breastfeeding also helps mothers through improved lactation and less loss of blood.” Yet UNICEF estimates that 1.4 million children under the age of two die each year due to the improper promotion of infant formula over breast milk, particularly in low-income countries. Improper practices include giving bottles to newborns, which interferes with a mother’s own milk production and can make it difficult for her to resume breastfeeding; giving away formula and related products to health care facilities; advertising formula directly to mothers; offering discounted formula; placing advertisements disguised as “educational materials” in health facilities; and failing to prominently label formula packages in a language easily understood by the mother. “Specified text should be on the packaging, warning that breast feeding is best for babies and that the products should only be used on the advice of a health professional,” the code reads. “There should be no pictures or text that might idealize the use of infant formula.” Sources for this story include: http://allafrica.com/stories/201008050648.html.

Canada passes Codex food law that permits police to trespass, seize private property without warrant

(NaturalNews) The Canadian Parliament recently passed its own form of legislation S. 510, the draconian U.S. “food safety” bill that threatens to eliminate the freedom to grow, sell and buy clean food. Bill C-36, deceitfully branded by the Canadian mainstream media as a “consumer protection” law, is actually part of the larger CODEX Alimentarius food tyranny plan. It eliminates the law of trespass and allows Canadian police to invade private property and confiscate whatever they wish without a warrant. Massive outcry from natural health product companies and consumers killed several previous versions of Bill C-36, including C-52 and C-6. Proponents of the new bill say it will protect consumers by banning the producing, importing, advertising or selling of any products that pose an unreasonable danger to consumers. But in actuality, Bill C-36 is nothing more than the same affront to health freedom that the previous versions were. Passed on December 14 by the Canadian Senate, Bill C-36 allows government authorities and health inspectors to invade personal property and arbitrarily confiscate any items deemed “unsafe”. It completely bypasses all existing privacy and confidentiality laws that protect citizens from such unlawful interference, and restricts citizen access to courts for due process in such matters. And perhaps worst of all is Canadian citizens are now considered guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty as has long been the standard. Several Canadian Senators, including Elaine McCoy, Josephy Day, Celine Hervieux-Payette, George Furey and Tommy Banks all spoke out against the bill as a violation of civil liberties. Banks even told the Natural Health Products Protection Association (NHPPA) that the bill “is undoing 400 years of common law.” In accordance with CODEX Alimentarius guidelines, Bill C-36 will harmonize Canadian law with international law and trade restrictions concerning food. So whatever outside groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN) decide concerning food safety will now hold sway over Canadian law. To read Bill C-36 for yourself, visit: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2330951&Language=e&Mode=1 Sources for this story include: http://www.suite101.com/content/bill-c36—health-canadas-new-powers-put-canadians-at-risk-a321906 http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/draconian-food-legislation-passed-into-law-by-canadian-senate/

Most Canadians, Americans skipped H1N1 vaccine last year

(NaturalNews) Despite all the scare tactics, fear mongering, and pseudoscience about the alleged importance of being vaccinated, a new report from Statistics Canada has revealed that 60 percent of Canadians decided against getting an H1N1 influenza vaccine last year. Even the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration of a stage 6 pandemic was not enough to convince most Canadians to get the shot. According to the report, 74 percent of the people who refused the shot said they “did not think it was necessary,” indicating a high level of distrust among the public towards federal and international authorities, even during supposed health emergencies. Other reasons for not getting the shot included “had not gotten around to it yet” and “fear”. “Many people don’t think that they needed it, and that might help us understand how public health education campaigns could improve in the case of another pandemic,” explained Heather Gilmour, a researcher in the analysis division of Statistics Canada. But government-funded “public health” campaigns are exactly what most people seem to be ignoring these days. After all, the mainstream media continually repeated the mantras of federal health agencies about the dangers of swine flu and the importance of getting vaccinated, and people simply did not believe it. As a case in point, the lowest vaccination rate in Canada was in Ontario, where a universal vaccination campaign has existed for almost a decade. Of all the provinces and cities throughout Canada, health experts believed the H1N1 vaccination campaign would have fared better in Ontario than in most other places. Vaccination rates were even lower in the U.S. where 80 percent of adults refused the H1N1 shot. Sources for this story include: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11443945

Millions of Chinese oppose mass vaccination plan

(NaturalNews) The World Health Organization is at it again trying to push mass vaccinations, this time on the people of China. But its efforts to “eradicate measles” by vaccinating 100 million Chinese children have fueled widespread protest by Chinese citizens who not only distrust their own government’s health recommendations, but also believe that the vaccines are dangerous. According to the Boston Globe , the Chinese government recently announced a ten-day measles immunization drive that sparked an outcry from concerned citizens over the safety of the vaccines. According to reports, internet bulletin boards have been overflowing with chatter about the campaign, and countless text messages continue to be exchanged among citizenry about potential dangers from getting the vaccine. The Chinese government has been working in overdrive to quell the public’s concerns, but efforts have been futile. The totalitarian government already has a poor reputation for lying to and deceiving its citizens over things like the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak back in 2003, and the milk contamination fiasco that sickened roughly 300,000 babies and killed at least six a couple years ago. “The lack of trust toward our food and health products was not formed in one day,” explains a piece in the Global Times . “Repairing the damage and building credibility will take a very long time. The public health departments need to take immediate action on all fronts.” But adjusting rhetoric and designing new public relations campaigns will hardly pull the wool over the eyes of the millions of Chinese who know good and well what their government is up to. Back in March, four children were killed and dozens injured from vaccines for encephalitis, hepatitis B and several other diseases. The Chinese health ministry denied that the illnesses and deaths were related to the vaccines while simultaneously admitting that they were improperly stored. Sources for this story include: http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/09/13/national_measles_vaccination_plan_sparks_outcry_in_china/

Mothers who fail to breastfeed double their risk of type 2 diabetes

(NaturalNews) Choosing not to breastfeed your babies can have significant health consequences. Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh have discovered that mothers who do not breastfeed are twice as likely as mothers who do to get type 2 diabetes. Published in the American Journal of Medicine , the study of over 2,200 women found that more than a quarter of women who do not breastfeed end up developing type 2 diabetes. On the contrary, women who do breastfeed are no more likely to develop the disease than women who have never had children. The connection between type 2 diabetes and not breastfeeding seems to lie in the belly. Women who breastfeed naturally decrease their maternal belly fat through feeding their children, but women who do not breastfeed tend to keep more of this fat around their midsections. “Our study provides another good reason to encourage women to breastfeed their infants, at least for the infant’s first month of life,” explained Dr. Eleanor Schwarz, assistant professor of medicine, epidemiology, and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. “Clinicians need to consider women’s pregnancy and lactation history when advising women about their risk for developing type 2 diabetes.” However, the World Health Organization recommends that mothers breastfeed their babies for at least the first two years in order to provide them with maximum levels of immune-developing nutrition. After all, breast milk is rich in disease-fighting antibodies and contains a rich, perfectly-balanced array of vital nutrients that no formula can match. Breastfeeding also helps prevent mothers from developing other diseases like metabolic syndrome and breast cancer, so it is good for both the baby and the mother. “Along with providing optimal nutrition, breast milk also provides compounds that boost babies’ immune system and help protect them from bacteria, viruses and parasites,” explains the book Bottom Line’s Health Breakthroughs 2007 . “In addition, breast-fed children have lower rates of childhood illnesses and tend to be leaner than their formula-fed counterparts. And research has shown that breast-feeding benefits mothers as well, by helping the body return to normal faster after pregnancy.” Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uops-mwd082510.php

WHO list reveals flu advisors with financial ties to pharma, vaccine manufacturers

(NaturalNews) After months of stalling, the World Health Organization (WHO) has finally revealed the names of key pandemic advisors who influenced its decision to declare a phase six pandemic last year — a decision that resulted in a financial windfall for vaccine manufacturers . As you’ll see here, that list includes at least five expert advisors received money from vaccine companies. Here’s who received money from Big Pharma and then influenced the WHO decision to declare a pandemic: Arnold Monto is a professor from the United States who has received money from virtually all the major vaccine manufacturers: GSK, Novartis, Roche, Baxter and Sanofi Pasteur. He has specifically been given grant money by Sanofi Pasteur to study influenza vaccines. Nancy Cox works for the US Centers for Disease Control, which already maintains a pro-vaccine stance while utterly ignoring the importance of vitamin D in halting infectious disease. Nancy took funds from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) to conduct work on vaccines. John Wood works at Britain’s National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC). They’ve taken money from Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis and several other companies focused on influenza vaccine research. Maria Zambon is a professor at the UK Health Protection Agency Centre for Infection. She has received money from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL, Baxter and GSK. Neil Ferguson is also a professor, and he has accepted money from Roche and GSK Biologicals. There may be more to this story, too: The financial ties explained here are merely the ones that these people chose to publicly disclose to WHO. There may yet be other ties that currently remain a secret and will have to be dug up by some determined reporter… What’s the problem with financial ties, anyway? Why does it matter that WHO advisors took money from vaccine companies? It’s simple: The decision to declare H1N1 swine flu to be a phase 6 pandemic was made by the WHO under advisement from these very people who received money from vaccine companies. And that decision, we now know, resulted in a windfall of profits for the vaccine companies. Those profits, in turn, were burdened by the taxpayers whose expenditures were largely worthless because a huge portion of those vaccines are now expiring and have to be destroyed. The money was wasted, in other words. It all has the makings of a grand global con : The WHO enlists advisors with financial ties to the vaccine industry to decide whether a pandemic is under way and then conveniently follows their advice in making a decision that many health experts around the world have been questioning from the start. It all has the appearance of medical corruption , and it looks like WHO decisions are based more on politics than medical science. It was politically convenient, in other words, to declare a stage six pandemic. And if these WHO advisors have already received money from vaccine manufacturers, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that they would soon be financially rewarded with yet more payoffs. (You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours…) The appearance of corruption The unfortunate upshot of all this is that even if these WHO advisors are completely innocent, their financial ties still create the appearance of corruption . And that means the WHO is losing credibility that may compromise its integrity when a real pandemic comes along. If the world can’t trust the World Health Organization, in other words, then who should countries look to for real answers on pandemics and infectious disease? Sadly, even the CDC in the US has now clearly positioned itself as an “anti-nutrition, pro-vaccine” organization, too. Ignoring the huge importance of vitamin D and the support of the human immune system, many CDC experts have also either been on the payrolls of vaccine manufacturers or are looking to join Big Pharma when offered a job. The former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, was recently offered a position as the president of Merck’s vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_Dr_Julie_Gerberding_Merck.html). The frustrating fact is that modern medicine has been subverted by Big Pharma . The vaccine industry practically runs the CDC and WHO — or at the very least, it heavily influences decisions by these two organizations. As a result, the so-called “scientific” decisions made by these organizations have very little to do with actual science but everything to do with protecting (and expanding) the profits of vaccine manufacturers. And when public health policy is decided based on corporate profits, the people will always suffer. Did you notice that the list of WHO advisors did not include even a single naturopathic physician? Not a single holistic nutritionist? There was nobody on the board that brought a pro-nutrition point of view to the discussions. And you know why nutritionists and naturopaths weren’t invited to join the WHO advisory board? Because the WHO has already pre-decided it doesn’t want to hear those points of view. It has stubbornly decided to entertain only vaccines as the solution to virtually all infectious disease. And if you only invite vaccine pushers to the table, guess what kind of advice you’re going to get? “Push more vaccines!” Asking a bunch of vaccine experts whether you should declare a pandemic is sort of like asking your insurance agent whether you need more insurance. Well of course you do! No wonder the WHO has lost so much credibility. It refuses to look at real solutions that might work for poor nations (such as low-cost vitamin D supplements) while strongly favoring the high-profit operations of the vaccine industry. That’s why the WHO simply can’t be trusted anymore. It has now become a pawn of the pharmaceutical industry that will always make decisions that favor the financial interests of Big Pharma. See the WHO list of advisors here: http://www.who.int/ihr/emerg_comm_members_2009/en/index.html

WHO scandal exposed: Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers

(NaturalNews) A stunning new report reveals that top scientists who convinced the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare H1N1 a global pandemic held close financial ties to the drug companies that profited from the sale of those vaccines. This report, published in the British Medical Journal , exposes the hidden ties that drove WHO to declare a pandemic, resulting in billions of dollars in profits for vaccine manufacturers. Several key advisors who urged WHO to declare a pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very same vaccine manufacturers who received a windfall of profits from the pandemic announcement. During all this, WHO refused to disclose any conflicts of interests between its top advisors and the drug companies who would financially benefit from its decisions. All the kickbacks, in other words, were swept under the table and kept silent, and WHO somehow didn’t think it was important to let the world know that it was receiving policy advice from individuals who stood to make millions of dollars when a pandemic was declared. WHO credibility destroyed The report was authored by Deborah Cohen (BMJ features editor), and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London . In their report, Cohen states, “…our investigation has revealed damaging issues. If these are not addressed, H1N1 may yet claim its biggest victim — the credibility of the WHO and the trust in the global public health system.” In response to the report, WHO secretary-general Dr Margaret Chan defended the secrecy, saying that WHO intentionally kept the financial ties a secret in order to “…protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing this critical work… [and] also to ensure transparency.” Dr Chan apparently does not understand the meaning of the word “transparency.” Then again, WHO has always twisted reality in order to serve its corporate masters, the pharmaceutical giants who profit from disease. To say that they are keeping the financial ties a secret in order to “protect the integrity” of the members is like saying we’re all serving alcohol at tonight’s AA meeting in order to keep everybody off the bottle. It just flat out makes no sense. But since when did making sense have anything to do with WHO’s decision process anyway? Even Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, had harsh words for the WHO, saying, “…its credibility has been badly damaged. WHO must act now to restore its credibility.” Yet more criticism for WHO The BMJ isn’t the only medical publication criticizing WHO for its poor handling of conflicts of interest. Another report from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly also criticized WHO, saying: “Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level.” It went on to explain that WHO’s actions led to “a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.” The funny thing is, NaturalNews and other natural health advocates told you all the same thing a year ago, and we didn’t have to spend millions of dollars on a study to arrive at this conclusion. It was obvious to anyone who knows just how corrupt the sick-care industry really is. They’ll do practically anything to make more money, including bribing WHO scientific advisors and paying them kickbacks once the vaccine sales surge. The vaccine industry and all its drug pushers are, of course, criticizing this investigative report. They say WHO “had no choice” but to declare a pandemic and recommend vaccines, since vaccines are the only treatment option for influenza. That’s a lie, of course: Vitamin D has been scientifically proven to be five times more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections, but WHO never recommended vitamin D to anyone . The entire focus was on pushing more high-profit vaccines, not recommending the things that would actually help people the most. And now we know why: The more vulnerable people were to the pandemic, the more would be killed by H1N1 , thereby “proving” the importance of vaccination programs. People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out. (A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?) How the scam really worked Here’s a summary of how the WHO vaccine scam worked: Step 1) Exaggerate the risk: WHO hypes up the pandemic risk by declaring a phase 6 pandemic even when the mortality rate of the virus was so low that it could be halted with simple vitamin D supplements. Step 2) Urge countries to stockpile: WHO urged nations around the world to stockpile H1N1 vaccines, calling it a “public health emergency.” Step 3) Collect the cash: Countries spend billions of dollars buying and stockpiling H1N1 vaccines while Big Pharma pockets the cash. Step 4) Get your kickbacks: WHO advisors, meanwhile, collected their kickbacks from the vaccine manufacturers. Those kickbacks were intentionally kept secret. Step 5) Keep people afraid: In order to keep demand for the vaccines as high as possible, WHO continued to flame the fears by warning that H1N1 was extremely dangerous and everybody should continue to get vaccinated. (The CDC echoed the same message in the USA.) This is how WHO pulled off one of the greatest vaccine pandemic scams in the last century, and it worked like gangbusters. WHO advisors walked away with loads of cash, the drug companies stockpiled huge profits, and the taxpayers of nations around the world were left saddled with useless vaccines rotting on the shelves that will soon have to be destroyed (at additional taxpayer cost, no doubt) or dumped down the drain (where they will contaminate the waterways). Meanwhile, nobody dared tell the public the truth about vitamin D , thereby ensuring that the next pandemic will give them another opportunity to repeat the exact same scam (for yet more profit). The criminality of the vaccine industry The bottom line is all this is a frightening picture of just how pathetic the vaccine industry has become and how corrupt the WHO and the CDC really are. What took place here is called corruption and bribery , folks. Kickbacks were paid, lies were told and governments were swindled out of billions of dollars. These are felony crimes being committed by our global health leaders. The real question is: Why do governments continue to allow public health organizations to be so easily corrupted by the vaccine industry? And who will stand up to this profit conspiracy that exploits members of the public as if they were profit-generating guinea pigs? The next time you hear the WHO say anything, just remember: Their advisors are on the take from the drug companies, and just about anything you’re likely to hear from the World Health Organization originates with a profit motive rather than a commitment to public health. Oh, and by the way… for the record, there has never been a single scientific study ever published showing that H1N1 vaccines worked. Not only was the H1N1 pandemic a fraud to begin with, but the medicine they claimed treated it was also based on fraud. And now we know the rest of the story of why it was all done: Kickbacks from Big Pharma, paid to advisors who told WHO to declare a pandemic.

WHO Says Cell Phone Use Linked to Brain Tumors

(NaturalNews) A large multinational research effort overseen by the World Health Organization has concluded that heavy mobile phone use significantly increases the risk of brain and salivary gland tumors. The Interphone studies surveyed 12,800 people in 13 countries between 2000 and 2004. Although the final findings have not yet been released, they have been accepted for publication in a scientific journal and will see print before the end of 2009. The conclusions are particularly surprising given that the industry-funded effort has been widely criticized for designing its studies to minimize the apparent risks of cell phone use. The studies examined the relationship between cell phone use and the risk of three different types of brain tumor and one tumor of the salivary gland. They concluded that “use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more” was associated with a “significantly increased risk” of the tumors. Six of eight studies found up to a 39 percent increase in the risk of glioma, the most common type of brain tumor. Gliomas can be either benign or malignant. The risk of acoustic neurinoma, a benign tumor of the nerve between the brain and the ear, was found to increase up to 3.9 times in two of seven studies, but problems with participants’ memories interfered with these findings. Another study found a 50 percent increase in the risk of salivary gland tumors. Some researchers have suggested that the Interphone study probably understates the risks of cell phone use, due to flaws in its methodology. The study has been criticized for including people who made as little as one call per week yet excluding children and young adults (considered the most at-risk population), non-cellular cordless phones (which also emit radiation), several kinds of tumors, and participants who either died before the study concluded or became too sick to answer questions. Some of the Interphone studies found that short-term cell phone use decreased the risk of cancer, further suggesting research flaws. Sources for this story include: www.telegraph.co.uk.

« Previous Page