Doctors oppose Forced Vaccinations

Many ethical vaccine-dangerdoctors oppose forced vaccinations, but you won’t find that news in any mainstream media reports. Funneling millions of dollars of lobbying money into the coffers of both politicians and media outlets (it’s the advertising, Dummy), Big Pharma has worked hard to demonize anyone who questions the safety or efficacy of any vaccine. Money buys a lot of “loyalty” from politicians and media moguls who work together to keep themselves and Big Pharma in the chips.

Vaccine “Ethics”
Few people understand that there has never been a single study to verify the safety and efficacy of any vaccine. Not one! No reliable study has ever proved that any vaccination has ever worked on any population. Random controlled clinical trials, the gold standard required of any drug released on the market, have never been done on any vaccine. The reason, vaccine profiteers, pushers and their media shills tell us, is because it would be unethical to have a control group of folks not vaccinated to test that group against the group that is. Unfortunately for these shills, we have something like a control group, the Amish who refuse to vaccinate and who have virtually no autism in their communities, save among those vaccinated children they have adopted. Read Sheryl Attkisson’s “Where are the Autistic Amish?” Pro vaxxer shills call it “anecdotal” and therefore irrelevant. They also call the thousands of parents who report their child regressing into autism after vaccination “anecdotal.” You look at all the evidence and decide for yourself.

Pro-Vax Profiteers – Media Darlings

Of course mainstream media darling Paul Offit  – a pro-vax profiteer – and others making millions of dollars from vaccines will point out that the Amish also live with less pollution, fewer foods poisoned with Monsanto pesticides, and other environmental insults visited upon most non-Amish Americans; so they can’t be considered a “true” control group. Sure, some epidemiologist testifying for Big Pharma at a rate of $500 an hour could make a solid Sophist argument against the Amish as a control group. Sure, a well-paid “expert” (Read: lackey) could shoot ink from his pen like a cuttlefish shooting ink from its ass to cloud the facts. Such a well-paid person could try to disprove any such notion that the Amish could be considered a control group compared with vaccinated people. Some people will say anything if you pay them enough.

Vaccine Propaganda Assault muddies Issues
No matter how much most of us lay people are buried in the propaganda assault from some doctors who would demonize all those who wish to choose for their children for themselves whether or not they will vaccinate, there are still doctors who believe in their Hippocratic oath: first do no harm. (There is no question whatsoever that vaccines can and do cause grievous harm.) There are doctors who believe that informed consent is the first rule of medicine. A failure to offer their patients/victims informed consent is the crime that got some Nazi doctors hanged at the hands of a Nuremberg court that followed WWII. Have we really fallen so far as to have forgotten the lessons of that war, of the horrors visited upon people whom the Nazis felt they were smarter than and were thereby ordained (by the devil, clearly) to lord it over and force to take their “therapy”?

First, do no harm
There are, thankfully, several doctors who have not allowed the medical mafia that runs the healthcare system in our country to overwhelm their humanity and moral code. Without that code, we are lower than any animal or being in the universe. Our moral code, or at least the possibility of applying a moral code to all our actions, is the only thing, finally, that makes us superior to any animal in the world. No animal but man tortures another unmercifully, or drops incendiary bombs on others and wipes out entire families or races of people. No animal but man is even capable of the kinds of cruelty man has visited upon his fellow man and other creatures in this world, and nothing has changed under the sun in all the time our kind has been on this earth.

Doctors oppose Forced Vaccinations

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations: Should Their Views be Silenced? is the name of a 51-page book available on Kindle edition. You can read Amazon reviews from nurses, pediatricians and other doctors to give some idea of its content and sensibility. It is a fair primer on vaccination and its safety or lack thereof.

Book Reviews
One nurse says she has seen firsthand how doctors ignore the reality of horrible vaccination “side effects.” Another says he can no longer participate in giving vaccinations to anyone, though that risks losing his job. He says he “simply cannot do it any longer and look myself in the mirror.”

A pediatrician says, “I’m so glad to read about other docs who are not blindly pushing a flawed vaccine product and schedule on patients. There must be accountability for vaccine injuries and they must not be mandatory,” in order to preserve informed consent.

Another reviewer says, “I am humble to be in the range of these upstanding people who speak in the old American tradition, speak your true mind. ‘Iat justitia ruat caelum’ is a Latin legal phrase, meaning ‘Let justice be done though the heavens fall.’  The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.”

Dr. Russell Blaylock
One reviewer notes a neurosurgeon referenced in the book: “[Dr.] Blaylock’s work is amazing – and for anyone who is truly looking for answers, his expertise as a neurosurgeon will probably put you on the side of waiting until 2 for any childhood vaccines. There are some truly amazing people fighting the good fight, and having watched this for years, their commitment to families and children is now making a difference.”

Making a Difference
The decision to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate, or to at least delay vaccination, may be the most important one people may ever make for themselves and their children. It’s well past time for all thinking Americans to do their own research into the history of vaccination and decide for themselves whether or not vaccination is a good idea grounded in empirical science.




Vaccines Unavoidably Unsafe and Safe

Only in a world where war BayerGascriminals like Henry Kissinger can “earn” Nobel Peace prizes. Only in a world where corporate criminals like Bayer that bankrolled Hitler and used Jews for slave labor can continue to “earn” so much profit that they can buy up criminal enterprises like Monsanto. Only in such a cockeyed world can this statement be “true”: Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and safe.

Supreme Court: Vaccines Unavoidably Unsafe

It took a great actor-salesman like Ronald Reagan to sign away the legal rights of the vaccine-injured and make it seem somehow palatable, at least to millions of people not paying attention. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” – Bruesewitz v.Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2011).  At the same time (the hand quicker than the eye), the same high court also affirmed that drug companies should be vaccinated against state civil liability lawsuits filed by vaccine-injured children or the survivors of those children killed or injured by vaccines. The so-called “vaccine court” remains a possible avenue of compensation, but 80% of the cases filed there are turned back by the court, which is not really a court at all but a shadowy government tribunal unaccountable to the light of constitutional law.


Following the corporate-friendly reign of Reagan, vaccine profiteers like Paul Offit are endlessly trotted out by mainstream media (the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in Doublespeak) to tell us vaccines are “safe and effective,” that vaccine injuries don’t happen at all, or that vaccine injuries are worth it for the health of the herd. (Artificial herd immunity is a myth; please do some research.) Mr. Offit and others of his ilk always fail to mention that more than $3 billion of government money has been paid out to hundreds of children (and their “lucky” parents) injured by MMR vaccines and other “unavoidably dangerous” vaccines.  There is obviously a GIANT disconnect. How does a reasonable human being fill this gap?

Would that this were some very large conspiracy theory. This is history, simple history, and “he who controls the past controls the present.”

George Orwell – 1984

In George Orwell’s masterwork of a future nightmare, 1984 (published in 1949), the populace is completely controlled by the Fascist marriage of government and industry, just as it is increasingly controlled today with ploys such as the forced vaccination CDC is working to unleash on us all. In Orwell’s “fiction,” as in our “reality,” one must acquire the “skill” of Doublethink to make sense of events. In 1984, Love is Hate, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery.


“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.” (

The Ministry of Peace promotes War; the Ministry of Truth, Lies; the Ministry of Love, Torture; the Ministry of Plenty, Starvation. Today Orwell could add the Centers for Disease Control – the CDC – which promotes poor health via forced vaccination, fluoridated water, polluted air, etc.

World Upside Down

If none of this makes, sense, welcome to the New World Order, which is all upside down, like modern-day politics. Most Democrats despise Hillary Clinton because they know what she really is, a consummate politician who will say one thing but do another, who enriches herself with the sleazy Clinton Foundation, who will say or do anything to get ahead. Meanwhile, many or even most Republicans despise their “choice,” Donald Trump, largely for similar reasons, and for his sociopathological narcissism that certainly rivals and perhaps even “trumps” that of Mrs. Clinton.

But in this upside down world that old Ronald Reagan helped turn on its head, that fails to protect children from dirty or dangerous or lethal vaccines, adults still have some types of tort law protection, such as vaccine injury via the worthless shingles vaccine. At least some avenues of justice still remain open in our broken world.



Merck not Vaccinated against Shingles Vaccine Lawsuits

Vaccine makers Zostovaxare vaccinated against liability for useless, unnecessary or dangerous vaccines “recommended” (read: forced) on children. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 shields vaccine makers from being pursued in civil court by survivors of children killed or injured by vaccines, such as Merk’s dubious MMR vaccine or its ill-fated Gardasil vaccine. Adult vaccines, however, are another story; so Merck is not vaccinated against shingles vaccine lawsuits.

Protect Adults, Suffer the Children

For adults, Congress had the brains to encourage vaccine profiteers to make adult vaccines safer by leaving 200 years of tort law in place; vaccine-injured adults therefore retain the right to sue vaccine makers for personal injuries. For children, Congress lacked the brains (and heart) to encourage that same due diligence.

National Childhood Vaccine Injury act of 1986

National Vaccine Information Center co-founders worked with Congress to produce the dubious 1986 Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34). This Act acknowledges vaccine injuries and deaths are real. It also acknowledges vaccine-injured kids and their families deserve financial help, if only to pay for the horrors of vaccine deaths or injuries. But therein lies the problem.

Government Remedy Woeful

The “help” offered by the 1986 Act is most disingenuous and woeful. It sets up a highly questionable “vaccine court,” which is not really a “court” at all. It is instead a secret tribunal in which some 80% of hapless victims (fools guilty of trusting their government and the drug companies that partner with it) are turned away with no compensation whatsoever. The tiny percentage of those who “win” at this esoteric kangaroo court are “compensated” by the federal government through our tax dollars. The vaccine “court” has grudgingly awarded a total of more than $3 billion to several hundreds of injured parties, but don’t expect to find a peep about that from your favorite MSM outlet, which counts Big Pharma as its No. 1 advertiser (read: employer). Conspiracy Theory? No, Friend; these are facts. Look them up. Connect the dots. Big Pharma spends more advertising money than any other entity in the world. Do you bite the hand that feeds you? (If so, you’re probably homeless. God bless you.)

The number of injuries brought before the vaccine court so overwhelmed the money allotted to compensate victims that the court just arbitrarily (because it could) decided it would not pay some 80% of the vaccination victims seeking redress.

Nowhere is the absurdity of the 1986 Act and the so-called vaccine court more on display than in a tale of two fathers who contracted polio through the useless polio vaccine.

Polio Vaccine Dangerous, Defective
Most of the entire vaccination facade has been built on the myth of polio’s being wiped out by vaccination. Dr. Jonas Salk himself admitted in 1977 that every case of polio in the U.S. diagnosed after 1961 was a result of vaccination. You read that right.

Polio incidence rose dramatically in several places after the introduction of the polio vaccine in 1953. Polio also dropped as much among people who avoided the polio vaccination as much as it did in those who took it.

Six New England states reported increases in polio one year after the Salk vaccine was introduced, ranging from more than doubling in Vermont to Massachusetts’ astounding increase of 642%. In Wisconsin polio cases increased by a factor of five. Idaho and Utah halted vaccination due to the increased incidence and death rate. In 1959 in Massachusetts, 77.5% of paralytic cases had received 3 doses of IPV (injected polio vaccine).

In 1962 U.S. Congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Dept. of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified that not only did the cases of polio increase substantially after mandatory vaccinations – a 50% increase from 1957 to 1958, and an 80% increase from 1958 to 1959 – but the statistics were deliberately manipulated by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression. The polio vaccine “miracle” was not universally swallowed. In Europe, countries that refused mass vaccination dropped their polio rates just as well as those that employed it.

Polio from vaccinated kids

Many, many people contracted polio via vaccination. The only difference was that those who got polio from the vaccination could be compensated prior to 1986, while those who contracted polio from vaccination after 1986 were completely out of luck, unless they could find a lawyer (poorly compensated by vaccine court rules) willing to take a long chance for them at the secretive “vaccine court.”

Two American fathers contracted polio from their infant daughters who received oral polio vaccines. Both men were likely infected by changing their daughters’ diapers. Neither man took the oral polio vaccines; but their infant daughters did.

$22.5 Million Vaccine Injury Verdict

In 1971, a Wall Street executive from Long Island, Dominick Tenuto, became paralyzed. He sued vaccine maker Lederle Laboratories. It took 30 years of legal wrangling and appeals. The jury reached a $22.5 million verdict that was later upheld. New York’s Daily News reported that Mr. Tenuto, who now needs a wheelchair, lost his job and sued in 1981.

Mr. Tenuto said, “Little did I know I would be paralyzed for the rest of my life.” He spent months on a respirator in intensive care. “I was on death’s door,” Mr. Tenuto said. “We called a priest.”

After months of rehabilitation, he recovered somewhat, but remained partially paralyzed. He was lucky to have gotten polio before 1986.

Post ’86 Cases 86’d from Courts and Justice

In 1998, Gregory Clifford checked himself into his local emergency room with leg weakness and severe back pain. Mr. Clifford had changed his daughter’s diaper a few months prior. Mr. Clifford was moved to ER, given a tracheotomy, and put on a ventilator. He suffered respiratory failure. He had polio.

Mr. Clifford was hospitalized in different places for more than a year, before he died of pneumonia that was secondary to his polio infection.

But unlike Mr. Tenuto, the Clifford family’s legal options were limited by the 1986 Act that gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction in vaccine injury claims. His grieving family was out of luck.

A Vaccinated Industry?

It is a tragic miscarriage of justice that still obtains today. It should make anyone with a pulse think twice about the safety of vaccines. Name one other industry that brings in profits of some $42 billion dollar yet is completely insulated from liability. If vaccines are so safe and effective, why aren’t their victims allowed a REAL day in a REAL courtroom?

The answer is as easy as anything in this world: they could NEVER stand up to the scrutiny of Discovery, of Depositions of all the Profiteers and paid-for scientists, researchers and lobbyists making a living in the vaccine industry, romancing congressmen, buying influence, contributing millions to both political parties in our broken two-party system.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

False in one, false in all. Nietzsche said, “It doesn’t bother me that you lied to me. What bothers is that I know longer believe you now.”  The government, Merck, and their minions have lied forever about the polio vaccine myth. What makes them trustworthy now?  Why be the next victim of an unnecessary or worthless vaccine?




Mumps Vaccine Lawsuit says Merck Stonewalling

A mumps vaccine Former Merck Employee speaks against Vaccinationlawsuit says Merck is stonewalling, refusing to give evidence which the suit has demanded be produced.  In response, Merck cannot or will not give proof that its mumps vaccine works as advertised. The drug giant is being sued by former employees who charge that the company faked data to keep  U.S. government money coming to Merck for the mumps vaccine. Merck makes $1 billion a year in liability-free vaccine sales to the U.S. government.

Related Story: Merk Shingles Vaccine? Really?

Merck Scientists sue Merck

Two former Merck & Co Inc scientists have accused Merck of falsifying tests of its exclusive mumps vaccine.  The former employees charged in a court filing last summer that Merck refused to respond to questions about the vaccine’s efficacy.

Attorneys for the scientists asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to make Merck respond to their discovery request. The request demands Merck give efficacy of the vaccine as a percentage. Merck is evidently unable or unwilling (or perhaps both) to do so.

Merck gives 50 Year Old Data

Merck has refused to answer the question, the plaintiffs’ letter said, and has been consistently evasive. Merck has instead used “cut-and-paste” answers, claiming that it cannot run a new clinical trial to determine the vaccine’s current efficacy. In lieu of meaningful evidence, Merck gave the petitioners’ data from 50 years ago.

Merck fails to offer proof of Vaccine’s Efficacy
The letter stated: “Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which [Merck claims] is accurately represented on the product’s label, but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is.”

Reuters reported that a representative of Merck could not immediately be reached for comment on the story.

Merck Whistleblower Lawsuit
Two former Merck scientists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, filed their whistleblower lawsuit in 2010. Their suit claims Merck, the only company licensed by FDA to sell a mumps vaccine in the U.S., skewed tests of the vaccine by adding animal antibodies to blood samples.

Merck used the skewed results, the scientists said, to fake test results that showed the vaccine 95 percent effective. More accurate tests would have shown a lesser success rate, said the lawsuit. The scientist plaintiffs said Merck’s falsified results also kept potential competitors out of the lucrative mumps vaccine market, because competitors could not match the inflated success rate Merck claimed.

Merck Mumps Vaccine Class Action Lawsuit

Based on the Merck whistleblowers’ lawsuit, others who bought the Merck mumps vaccine filed a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit in 2012 – Chatom Primary Care, based in Alabama, and two individual doctors. The two suits have been coordinated before U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones and Magistrate Judge Sitarski.

The case is United States ex rel Krahling et al v. Merck & Co Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 10-4374.




The Vaccine Lottery – Sacrifice the Children

“The Lottery” is Vaccine Pushersa powerful short story written by Shirley Jackson. The people of an unnamed town meet somewhere on its outskirts. Dramatic tension builds as we are not told the meeting’s purpose.  (Spoiler Alert: ‘The Vaccine Lottery – Sacrifice the Children’ is not a feel good story.)

The children play as children will, but the adults in the tableaux are uneasy. Some huddle in small groups and whisper quietly among themselves. Anxiety pervades the air, a sense of doom made worse by our total uncertainty of  what will happen next. A certain weird optimism runs through some people, while others seem more and more unsettled.

A beat-up black box soon appears, and the people are told their family names will be called alphabetically. One by one, each called person draws out a single small piece of paper. Each in turn holds up the paper to the eyes of the crowd, then joyfully proclaims and shows the drawn little piece of paper is blank. Each person who draws a blank is overcome with joy. Some scream and cry with pleasure and apparent relief at their good fortune. (Or what the reader comes to think is their good fortune.)

And then one person finds her piece of paper is marked with a black spot. She screams, but her scream is horrible, terrifying. She pleads with the crowd, “It isn’t fair! It isn’t right!”

The mob of townspeople quickly fan out into a circle around the woman. They have each gathered a small pile of rocks. And then they are upon her.

The Meaning of The Lottery

Forced to read the story in school, some apparently dense students have no idea what it means and don’t care to find out or discuss it. They just think the whole thing is crazy; but maybe they’re not that dense. It clearly IS crazy. Other students like to guess at the meaning or discuss the possible meanings of this parable. One thing is certain: The woman is killed senselessly, horribly, even joyfully by the people around her.  Even her own family joins in on her stoning. Why? Because it is a tradition. It must be done.

Some point to the story as dramatizing a ritual dating back to the Druids or other tribes, cabals, or primitive peoples who believed sacrificing one of their own to the Gods was necessary. Sacrifice was “needed” in order to produce abundant crops, deliverance from sins, fecundity for the race, or whatever else the people valued and believed they had to pay God(s) in blood for.

Sacrifice and Superstition

Some primitive societies flung children into fiery pits or bogs. Others selected full-grown adults or even their own Kings or other leaders. According to The Golden Bough, sacrificial victims were often honored to be chosen and went willingly to their deaths. Merck’s dubious Shingles vaccine gives some older folks the same chance at sacrifice they may have missed as children, when the autism rate was one in 10,000, compared to 1/50 today, as Big Pharma and its government minions have  turned kids into cash-cow pin cushions for every conceivable vaccination.

Sacrifice and Superstition ruled the days then just as they do now. More than $3 billion of our tax dollars have been spent on vaccine-related injuries, including deaths from vaccines; so there is no argument that vaccines cause harm, or that they can kill people outright. Vaccines can and do cause great harm. Vaccines have killed people, period; but the arguments, of course, continue. Most people believe, despite a complete absence of evidence, that vaccination works as its promoters say it does.

Forced Vaccination for All

The argument for forced vaccination for all (which is already here) can only be this: Oh sure, a few people are killed or maimed by vaccines; that’s an indisputable fact.  A few people draw the black mark, so we have no choice but to sacrifice them.  Our vaccination programs are for the good of the whole tribe. We can’t be concerned about the injuries or deaths of a few with the existence of the whole society at stake. So let’s just go ahead and accept the injuries or deaths of these unlucky people who draw the mark. And never mind that herd immunity through vaccination is a deadly impossibility. (Read the humane, intelligent, scientific work of Dr. Russell Blaylock.)

The Vaccine Lottery – Sacrifice the Children
The problem, of course, is maybe you don’t want you or one of yours to draw the mark. Or maybe you don’t want to think about this subject at all unless and until you or one of yours draws the mark?

Meanwhile, current vaccine discussions mostly miss this eerie parallel, that our vaccination policy today – especially for children who are forced to take as many jabs as the CDC, Merck, vaccine-profiteer Paul Offit and their lackeys in Congress decide to give them – would likely shock even Shirley Jackson. Ms. Jackson seemed to be making a pretty compelling comment regarding our human capacity for superstition and cruelty. The groupmind, as Edward Bernays reveals in his 1928 Opus Propaganda, is different from the individual one, and must be manipulated in a different way.

How many more children and others should be sacrificed via vaccination to satisfy our alleged insurance policy of artificial immunity?

So Long

Line up for the vaccine lottery and keep your mouth shut. Sacrificing some citizens for the benefit of all is a tried and true method practiced for centuries. Why should our current age be any different? Why should we stop and think about things when our superstitions have served us so well for so long?



EPA claims Glyphosate Unlikely To Cause Cancer

The U.S. EPAmonsanto-logo1 now claims glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans. The agency didn’t bother to evaluate the product that much of the world uses – Roundup, which has been linked to kidney and liver damage in numerous studies.  EPA chose only to examine one active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate.

The EPA announced on September 16, 2016 that it did a scientific review of glyphosate. The Environmental Protection Agency claimed it compiled the available scientific studies on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. The agency concluded that the most suitable classification it could assign would be “‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.”

Doses Relevant to Human Health Risk?

The larger question, of course, is exactly what glyphosate doses did the Monsanto-friendly agency decided to assess? And more importantly, did EPA assess the entire chemical makeup of Roundup, which is the real “dose” that people and their food get. Glyphosate is only the main active ingredient in Roundup. No toxicology or cancer study could be relevant without assessing the entire chemical batch now sprayed on most of the country’s corn and soybeans. So finding that glyhphosate is unlikely to cause cancer is essentially a non issue, though it may help Monsanto throw up a smoke screen to ward off litigation in Roundup Cancer Lawsuits. Glyphosate alone was never the problem. The problem is the entire formulation of Roundup, and the EPA knows that as well as Monsanto does.

EPA claims Glyphosate Unlikely To Cause Cancer

EPA conducted the review as glyphosate undergoes its mandated 15-year review under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. EPA’s proposed conclusions are now up for review by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, which will meet in October 2016 to review the EPA findings.

The agency wrote: “Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential.”

The EPA charged the advisory panel with commenting on the EPA’s review and analysis of the studies. After giving the panel a chance to make any necessary changes, the regulator will open the panel’s findings up to a 60-day public comment period.

Cancer Risk Analysis Only

The risk analysis published Sept. 16, 2016 by the EPA studies only the herbicide’s cancer potential. The agency said a full review of the risks to humans, which will also include non-cancer risks, should come out in 2017. (Probably just in time to dispute another pronouncement from some other agency – such as the WHO, which famously announced last year that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” to humans).

Glyphosate a Probably Carcinogen – WHO

The EPA did note, however – dutifully reported Law 360 – that other agencies have reached conflicting conclusions on a glyphosate cancer link, including a “probable carcinogen” designation in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, along with the California EPA’s designation of Roundup as a “probable carcinogen.”

Monsanto is currently facing lawsuits by people who claim glyphosate caused their cancer.

Last week, a Delaware state judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three people who claim they were hurt by exposure to Roundup while employed as migrant workers. They also lived in migrant worker housing, or were employed by a horticultural products company.

Monsanto is also fighting a federal lawsuit brought by a California consumer claiming the use of Roundup lawn spray gave her non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Gluyphosate Non-Hodgkin’s Lymophoma Link Inconclusive

In its report Friday, the EPA noted that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was one area where the data was inconclusive. Authors of the EPA study dispatched this quote re: NHL:

“In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes; however, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma], a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL cannot be determined based on the available data.”

World Overloaded with Glyphosate Poison

The EPA’s study also indicated that the total use of glyphosate in the country has grown enormous, from 1.4 million pounds in 1974 when it was first registered, to almost 300 million pounds in 2014.

EPA Dissapears 1980s Glyphosate Cancer Comment
When glyphosate use was exploding in the mid-80s, the EPA classified it as a “possible human carcinogen.” Since then, glyphosate was recommended to be classified as Group D in 1986 (not enough data to tell if it’s a carcinogen or not) and then by magic moved by EPA to Group E in 1991 (evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans).

Elephant in the Room

The elephant in the room in the EPA’s proclamation is that glyphosate is the main active ingredient in Roundup, and the so-called inert ingredients are not inert. Taken together, Roundup packs a powerful poison punch that can kill not only insects but people. Many Indian farmers have killed themselves by drinking it after their  Monsanto GMO cotton crops have failed and left them in impossible debt. Nearly 300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide after being “helped” by Monsanto. A Japanese study from 2016 has also shown just how lethal glyphosate can be. People have suffered organ failure and died from glyphosate exposure.

To be continued. . .



Viagra Melanoma Risks Not Disclosed, says Lawsuit

Viagra melanomaviagra2 risks were not disclosed by Pfizer, says a lawsuit brought in California. The Big Pharma giant failed to warn men that using the erection enhancement drug could substantially raise their risk of developing the potentially deadly cancer.

The lawsuit filed September 9, 2016 charges that Pfizer knew of the melanoma risks of Viagra, yet failed to disclose them. The company’s motivation, says the petition, was to increase profits, despite the dangers to men’s health. The lawsuit charges Pfizer with aggressively promoting Viagra without admitting that the company’s own research had linked it to an increased risk of developing melanoma.

The consumers’ complaint alleges Pfizer knew or should have known about health risks associated with Viagra and Revatio. The latter is the same substance as Viagra, though Revatio, used for treating a lung condition, is sold under a different name. Pfizer failed to disclose this information on its labels or in its advertisements, says the petition.

Melanoma can be deadly
Melanoma – the most dangerous lethal form of skin cancer, according to – kills an estimated 10,130 people in the US yearly. It is a tumor of melanin-forming cells, typically a malignant tumor associated with skin cancer. Melanoma(s) can appear anywhere on the body.

Melanomas are cancerous growths that can develop when unrepaired DNA damage to skin cells (usually caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun or tanning beds) triggers mutations. These mutations are genetic defects that can lead the skin cells to rapidly multiply and form malignant tumors, which originate in the pigment-producing melanocytes in the basal layer of the skin (epidermis).

Melanomas can resemble moles, and some moles develop into melanomas. While most melanomas are black or brown, they can also appear skin-colored, pink, red, purple, blue, or white.

Melanoma is caused mainly by intense, occasional UV exposure (frequently leading to sunburn), especially in people genetically predisposed.

Melanoma is nearly always curable when it is recognized and treated early. If undetected, the cancer can mutate and spread to other parts of the body, where it becomes harder to treat. Left untreated, it can be fatal. In 2016, an estimated 76,380 of diagnosed melanomas will be invasive, affecting some 46,870 men and 29,510 women.

Viagra Marketing Deceptive

Viagra marketing was deceptive, says the lawsuit. The master complaint reads, in part:
“Pfizer purposefully downplayed, understated and outright ignored the melanoma-related health hazards and risks associated with using Viagra. Pfizer also deceived potential Viagra users by relaying positive information through the press, including testimonials from retired, popular United States politicians, while downplaying known adverse and serious health effects.”

Melanoma victims dropped from studies

The master complaint charge that Pfizer should have known by the late 1990s of the connection between Viagra and melanoma. Pfizer knew as early as 1998 that people taking Viagra had dropped out of clinical studies because they had developed cancers that started in the skin or in the tissue lining organs. The complaint cites a Center for Drug Evaluation and Research joint clinical review.

Several Studies show Viagra Melanoma Risks

The master complaint also says that several studies have since found links between the manner in which Viagra works and the development of melanoma cells.

Viagra inhibits the secretion of a specific enzyme that can prevent erection, says the complaint; however, studies over the last few years have found that blocking this enzyme can also trigger the creation of melanoma cells.

84% Increased Risk of Melanoma

A 2014 study, for example, reported that those of the nearly 25,850 participants who had recently used the medication showed an 84 percent increase in the risk of developing or worsening melanoma. That risk was even higher for those who had used Viagra at any time in the past, says the complaint.

Pfizer nevertheless has engaged in a “continuous, expensive and aggressive” advertising campaign – charges the complaint – to promote Viagra since the FDA approved it in 1998. The company made more than $1.8 billion from Viagra sales in 2013, according to the company’s annual report.

The master complaint reads: “As a direct, proximate and legal result of Pfizer’s negligence and wrongful conduct, and the unreasonably dangerous and defective characteristics of the drug Viagra, individual plaintiffs suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries. (These) physical injuries have included melanoma as well as the resulting treatment and surgeries necessitated by the skin cancer diagnosis.”

The master complaint also makes several other allegations that include negligence, unfair and deceptive trade practices, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation and concealment.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated several Viagra lawsuits that bring similar claims.

The suit is In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation, suit number 3:16-md-02691, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District.



Ovarian Cancer Screening not reliable – FDA

FDA recommends Pelvic Mesh not approved by FDA – The 510(k) Bluesagainst using screening tests for ovarian cancer

While power morcellators can spread undetected uterine cancer when used for fibroid removal or hysterectomies, word comes from the FDA that current ovarian cancer screening is not reliable. Morcellators can spread undetected cancer during hysterectomy or fibroid removal and lead to more serious forms of uterine and ovarian cancer.

FDA issued a safety communication September 7, 2016 to women and physicians, including those working in Primary Care, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oncology, Gynecologic Oncology, and Genetic Counseling.

Morcellator Safety Questions Abound
The FDA said it was especially concerned about delaying preventive treatments for symptomless women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. But at the same time, the FDA recommends against using currently offered ovarian cancer screening tests.

That announcement begs the question of whether it is safe or reasonable to use a morcellator for any woman’s hysterectomy or fibroid removal procedure. Though morcellators appear to be a safe option for women who do not have cancerous fibroids or ovarian cancer, if ovarian cancer screening is not reliable, how can it be considered safe to use a morcellator on any woman?

Ovarian Cancer Genesis
The National Cancer Institute estimates that more than 22,000 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2016. Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among American women.

Abnormal cells in or near the ovaries can grow into a malignant tumor that can turn cancerous. Women who have reached menopause or who have a family history of ovarian cancer, and women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutations are most at risk for developing ovarian cancer.

Summary of Problem and Scope

Despite research and published studies, no current ovarian cancer screening tests are sensitive enough to “reliably screen for ovarian cancer without a high number of inaccurate results,” wrote the FDA. That dearth of results comes despite several companies marketing tests which claim to screen for ovarian cancer and detect it.

Abcodia Incorporated
The FDA referenced Abcodia Incorporated in its safety alert. That company began marketing its Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) test in the United States. It claimed ROCA could screen for and detect ovarian cancer before symptoms appeared. The company claimed its test could increase the chance for survival. But the data failed to support the company’s claims.

Women and Doctors misled by False Claims

FDA voiced its concern that women and their physicians could be misled by claims of ovarian cancer screeners that can’t reliably screen. The agency said it doesn’t want women to “rely on inaccurate results to make treatment decisions.”

FDA wrote:
“Based on the FDA’s review of available clinical data from ovarian cancer screening trials and recommendations from healthcare professional societies and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, available data do not demonstrate that currently available ovarian cancer screening tests are accurate and reliable in screening asymptomatic women for early ovarian cancer.”

False Positive, False Negative

FDA also said some ovarian screening tests could present a false positive reading. Such women might undergo more medical tests and even unnecessary surgery. They might then experience complications related to both. In addition, test results might not show ovarian cancer even though cancer is present (a false-negative). That could lead women to delay or not seek surgery or other treatments for ovarian cancer.

“At this time (Sept. 7, 2016), the FDA is not aware of any valid scientific data to support the use of any test, including using a test cleared or approved by FDA for other uses, as a screening tool for ovarian cancer.”

Morcellator Use Questionable at Best

With such a powerful statement from the FDA, it is fair to ask whether power morcellators for hysterectomy should be used on any woman at this time.  When power morcellators are used on undetected cancer tissue, they can spread the disease and even make it much more lethal.



Forced Vaccination for You

In an unprecedented docmanpower grab that would effectively end democracy and the rule of law as we know it, the CDC has proposed a law that will remove whatever vestiges are left of our inalienable human rights. See it here and comment to take action. Forced vaccination is no longer just a dream of the future for pharmaceutical companies and the military police state that increasingly runs the country. Forced vaccination for you is here now.

Send Comments to CDC

The same agency which has committed fraud to deny parents compensation for vaccine-related injuries, the same agency that helps perpetuate the Zika Virus Misinfo Campaign, is giving us all until October 15, 2016  to comment on its little proposal to take “extra-Constitutional” powers. This thing is beyond breathtaking in its sweep and scope.  They don’t even do this in China or Russia. If the government has its way, anyone judged to be at a “precommunicable” stage can be apprehended, detained indefinitely, and injected with whatever little gift the CDC chooses to give them.

Syphilis, Anyone?

Yes, forced vaccination will be the new normal if the CDC has its way. The Centers for Disease Control, the same outfit that helped murder black men in the Tuskegee Airmen Syphilis “Experiment,” now proposes that the federal government give it the right to vaccinate anyone, at any time, for any reason, with anything it likes. It’s a dream law for pharmaceutical companies who continue to reap billions in profits from untested, unproven vaccines like the shingles vaccine, gardasil vaccine (nightmare) and many others.

Whether you believe everything the government tells you or not doesn’t matter. Whether you believe vaccination in whatever form for whatever reason is good for you doesn’t matter. This new law would take all the thinking and decision making about vaccination and your own health choices out of your hands.

“Precommunicable”:  Unchecked, Unconstitutional Powers

This law would give CDC thugs the power to stop anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason, and detain them indefinitely for “quarantine” purposes.

CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent.”

Note:  CDC does NOT need to give a medical exam to declare you or your city “precommunicable”.

Did you get that?  It means that anyone suspected of being precommunicable is subject to indefinite detention. No need to arrest you for thought crime, as in Orwell’s 1984; they can now “detain” you for being “precommunicable,” and “vaccinate” and educate you accordingly.

Real Target not “Those People”

Defenders of this monstrosity will point to swarthy foreigners whom they imagine – with the help of mainstream media whores and traitors – coming to pollute the homeland with all manner of infectious diseases.  But the real target is not “those people” (as General Robert E. Lee famously called the Yankee invaders).  Make no mistake: The real targets are you and yours, and your constitutional rights.  All you need do is just lie down and take it, and pretend you never had any human rights at all.

Red Flag News

Red flag news breaks this story that you won’t find on any mainstream outlet anywhere. Recent propaganda movies about killer virus outbreaks and measles outbreaks and endless mainstream media attacks against “anti-vaxxers” have helped usher in this monster. Read it and weep. It’s your life.

Forced Vaccination for You

In further maneuvers to set us up for this draconian move, Big Pharma shills in California politics like Democrat Senator Richard Pan and others have helped pass legislation to destroy informed consent for vaccinations. Similar moves are afoot in several other states.

Pay attention. Protect yourself. Call your representative if you care about informed consent, if you care about making your own health choices, if you think you have the right to do so. Remember, this law is not about “others,” regardless of how they trot it out to make it seem not only palatable but like a good and necessary idea.

This law is about you and yours, and it is a matter of life and death. I mean, raise your hand if you think this government is acting with your best interests in mind.



FDA Invokana Reviewers’ Tepid Approval

FDA reviewers  Invokana Lawsuitexpressed concern over the safety and efficacy of Invokana before voting to approve it for sale. In fact, just 67% of them decided that letting Invokana hit the market was a good thing. An FDA committee met on January 10, 2013 to assess Invokana and determine whether it made sense to let Johnson & Johnson’s Jannsen Pharmaceuticals market it for help with diabetes.

FDA Reviewers Vote 8-7 and 10-5

An FDA committee of 15 people discussed new drug application (NDA) 204042 for canagliflozin tablets, or Invokana. It was submitted by Janssen Research and Development, LLC. A member of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, Canagliflozin was, said FDA, developed to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The FDA report of the January 10, 2013 meeting says, “The committee members generally agreed that the benefit-risk profile of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment should be considered differently from the general population. The committee members expressed concern about usage in these patients, owing to a decreased efficacy, especially when combined with an increased incidence of side effects. The committee members further discussed a discomfort with the relatively small volume of data to support use in this population (emphasis ours). (One) committee member also mentioned a concern over the cardiovascular risks of the drug, given an existing elevated cardiovascular risk in patients with renal impairment.”

The 15 committee members were asked to vote on two important questions to determine whether Invokana were worthy of market approval.

Tiny Approval Margin

The first question J&J fails its Credo with Pelvic Meshput before the committee was: “Based on the data submitted and considering the points of discussion in question 3 [which involved Invokana cardiovascular risk], do you have any concern regarding a conclusion that a risk margin of 1.8 has been excluded for canagliflozin?”

The 15 members voted 8-7 to say that the drug passed an acceptable risk measure. That razor-thin margin can hardly be called a vote of confidence in the drug’s safety profile.

The next question put before the committee was all important: “Based on the information included in the briefing materials and presentations today, has the applicant provided sufficient efficacy and safety data to support marketing of canagliflozin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus? The committee voted 10-5 on that question, better than 8-7 but once again hardly a ringing vote of confidence in the new drug.

Unknown Cardiovascular Risks
The FDA reviewer taking the minutes of the meeting cautioned that, “The committee members who voted ‘no’ cited similar concerns over unknown cardiovascular risk and usage in moderate renal impairment, which were frequently stated as overriding concerns (emphasis ours). One committee member who voted ‘no’ expressed comfort with the benefit-risk profile in combination therapy, but described a lack of comfort with usage as monotherapy since the drug had not been compared against metformin, which is the standard initial therapy in Type 2 diabetes. An additional committee member voiced concerns over the potential for renal damage, (emphasis ours) and suggested a possibility of prolonging hypoglycemia in the elderly.”

FDA Invokana Reviewers’ Tepid Approval

With such tepid Janssen_logo-JnJapproval, and now with the risk of ketoacidosis made much more clear with strengthened FDA Warnings for Invokana and Ketoacidosis, it is difficult to see why such a drug ever made it to the market in the first place. Not surprisingly, problems with Invokana and its link with ketoacidosis began to show up almost immediately after the drug’s approval.