Flu Shots Weaken Immune Response

Flu shots weaken immune system response in subsequent years, according to the latest research.  People hoodwinked into taking flu shots every year by their doctors, along with heavy advertising campaigns from Big Pharma and the CDC may want to take heed. That flu shot taken this year will weaken the immune system for next year’s “flu season.”

(And just coincidentally, what many think is the “flu” taking hold of them may not be an influenza virus at all. Another recent flu shot study showed that only 18% of people who reported that they had the flu actually had the virus in them.)

Related: More than 100 Seniors Die after Flu Shot from Pharmacies

The latest eye-opening medical study on the flu vaccine was conducted at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. The study found women who submitted to flu vaccines displayed a weakened immune system response in subsequent years.

Head Researcher: Lower Antibody Responses
The head researcher in the study, Dr. Lisa Christian, said, “Growing evidence shows that those who received a flu shot in the prior year have lower antibody responses in the current year.”

This latest flu shot study demonstrates once again that the official story we hear every year from the vaccine industry, the CDC, and the mainstream media, is not to be trusted.  Sadly, it seems one must be a scientist today to determine whether or not to submit to a particular vaccine.

Flu Shot and VAERS Database
In addition to this latest bombshell, there are plenty of other reasons to question the safety and efficacy of the flu shot.  Far from even being as safe as advertised, the flu shot is responsible for more adverse events reported to VAERS – the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System – than any other vaccine.

Need a Flu Shot? Need a Hole in the Head?
What possible sense could it make to take any sort of vaccine that makes one more susceptible to that sickness than less susceptible? Given the facts, one needs a flu shot like one needs a hole in the head. And even if it’s all about fear for those promoting the flu shot (and it is), then how about facing the real, proven fear that one is more susceptible to a sickness the more one is exposed to the so-called “flu vaccine”?  Ludicrous is not a strong enough adjective to explain the behavior of anyone taking a flu shot given these latest facts.  Insane is the only word that applies.  And what of all those poor nurses and others who work in the hospital systems who are forced by terms of their employment to take the less-than-worthless flu shot?  Do we live in a sane world that operates on reason?  Or does money really do most the talking where the “healthcare” field is concerned?

Remember those absurd arguments from parents who tell the parents of unvaccinated children to keep their kids away from the vaccinated darlings?  Well, here’s something to consider along the same line of reasoning.  When someone takes a flu shot, we now know that they are not only raising their own risk of getting the flu, they are walking around with an activated flu virus potentially infecting everyone with whom they come in contact.  So not only are those taking the less-than-worthless flu shot lowering their own immunity and endangering themselves, they are endangering others with their ignorance of the facts.

More Flu Shots = Less Protection from Flu
Here’s the score then:  The more flu shots one takes, the more susceptible one is to acquiring the full-blown flu.  Yes, incredibly, the flu shots themselves are leading to an increase in influenza infections.  This is a self-defeating spiral of insanity that enriches drug companies and the CDC (which owns some 57 vaccine patents) while making us all sicker.  The flu vaccine only helps perpetuate the myth that flu vaccines are needed by ensuring influenza spreads more rapidly than it would otherwise.  As Mike Adams of Natural News writes: “Flu vaccines spread the very infections that generate more demand for flu vaccines.”

Mr. Adams (who has been censored by Google) also gives us these gems re: the flu shot:

  • People who submitted to a 2008 flu shot suffered a 250% increase in influenza infections in subsequent years.
  • A study published in Human & Environmental Toxicology found that mercury-laced flu vaccines caused a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths during the 2009 flu season.
  • The flu shot narrative pushed by the vaccine industry is a medical hoax that’s easily disproved by fact-based evidence.
  • People who take flu shots will be the first to go in an actual global pandemic because they have been made vulnerable to infections.

Mainstream Media Pushes Flu Shots
Indeed, all is not as it appears in reports from the mainstream media.  If the powers that run the media really cared about the health of all of us on earth, they would give us honest reporting about the flu vaccine.  You will not see this latest research honestly reported in the MSM.   And the flu vaccine is hardly the only dubious “vaccine” on the market.

Shingles Vaccine Problems
The shingles vaccine has been shown to give people shingles, or to damage a person’s eyesight.  It too, is a dubious vaccine which a person would be wise to research before blindly submitting to (pun intended).  Our law firm has heard from more than one person who reported going blind, or nearly blind in one eye, shortly after submitting to the shingles vaccine.

Related

Share

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

Monsanto is trying to dismiss more than 250 Roundup lawsuits in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The suits were filed by people who allege exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The suits all charge that Monsanto covered up Roundup risks. The cases have been combined in a multi-district litigation action under Judge Vince Chhabria.  The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.

In addition, at least 1,100 plaintiffs have made similar claims against Monsanto in state courts across the country. The first trial in the Roundup litigation is scheduled for June 18, 2018 in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.

On March 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that certain documents obtained by plaintiffs through discovery could be unsealed, over Monsanto’s attorneys’ objections.

U.S. Right to Know has reported the documents listed below will include discovery materials, transcripts of court proceedings, depositions and other case-related items.

The schedule for adjudication of the MDL litigation as of July 2017:
•  Close of Expert Discovery due by 9/22/2017.
•  Defendant’s Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions due by 10/6/2017.
•  Plaintiffs’ Cross Motions and opposition due by 10/27/2017.
•  Live testimony from witnesses set for 12/11/2017 through 12/14/2017 09:00 AM.
•  Summary Judgment and Daubert Hearing set for 12/15/2017 09:00 AM.

Meanwhile, a joint committee of the European Parliament is holding a hearing into the revelations contained in the discovery documents obtained through the MDL litigation on Oct. 11, 2017.

Discovery Documents show Monsanto EPA Collusion
Discovery documents in the litigation have revealed Monsanto colluding with EPA officials to sidestep regulatory agency reviews of Roundup. They show EPA officials working secretly with Monsanto to help the company portray Roundup as safe. They also reveal Monsanto executives discussing the ghostwriting of research literature in the name of academics like Stanford’s Henry Miller.

Monsanto manufactured Outrage at IARC
When the International Agency on Cancer Research declared in 2015 that glyphosate – in Roundup and other Monsanto pesticides – is a probable carcinogen, Monsanto went to work behind the scenes to manufacture outrage with astroturf organizations that it controlled. Documents released in the litigation show just how Monsanto called in scientists to protect its flagship product after it had been shown in dozens of studies to be a probable carcinogen. The scientists presented themselves as “independent,” while paper and email trails now show that nothing could be further from the truth. Most were former Monsanto employees or else had other financial ties or mutual interests with Monsanto.

Monsanto was terrified at the IARC’s review of glypohosate.  Internal Monsanto emails included: “It is possible that IARC’s decision will impact future regulatory decision making.”

Monsanto knew the timing was vital. In 2015, both the U.S. EPA and the European Commission were evaluating re-authorizations of Monsanto’s Roundup. Following the IARC’s classification, both the EU and the EPA delayed final decisions on glyphosate.

Whitewash
Carey Gillam just-released an eye-opening book called Whitewash (2017), which details Monsanto’s corruption of, and collusion with, government regulators.  Ms.Gillam notes just how important Monsanto knew it was to discredit the IARC.  She quotes Peter Infante, an epidemiologist who worked for more than 24 years for the U.S. government studying cancer risks from toxic exposures.

Mr. Infante spoke of Monsanto’s falsely manufacturing outrage at the IARC: “What this indicates to me is that it was obvious to Monsanto that there was evidence of carcinogenicity.  It would seem to me that Monsanto does not like the public to be informed of the cancer hazard.”

After the IARC ruled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, some Monsanto-connected scientists questioned the wisdom of U.S. funding for IARC.   Monsanto has since perpetuated a false story that the chairman of the IARC working group withheld critical information from the team.

Monsanto’s Manufactured Dissent
Monsanto’s telling document trail includes internal emails, memos and other communications obtained by plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto in the U.S.. That trail makes clear that the challenge to IARC’s classification did not come organically from a variety of voices.  The “outrage” was manufactured by Monsanto prior to IARC’s decision, and it continued afterward. The goal was, and is, to bully regulators into discounting the findings of the team of independent scientific experts who made up the IARC team that reviewed glyphosate.

Monsanto’s Decades-Long Subterfuge
The internal records obtained through Roundup cancer lawsuits, combined with documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state records requests, also show that the actions employed to discredit IARC were part of a decades-long pattern of deceptive tactics by Monsanto.  The company has spent millions in working behind the scenes to manipulate regulators, lawmakers and members of the press and public into believing glyphosate and Roundup are safe.  Monsanto has used these tactics over the years to attack and discredit several scientists whose research has found glyphosate and Roundup harmful.

Monsanto:  “Orchestrate Outcry”
Monsanto’s IARC attack plan was laid out in an internal February 2015 memo.  It involved not only Monsanto’s internal PR people, scientists and marketing experts, but many outside industry players. Various individuals were assigned tasks.  The “strategies and tactics” evidenced from Monsanto’s own files included:

“Orchestrate Outcry” with IARC Decision – Industry conducts robust media/social media outreach on process and outcome.

“Identify/request third-party experts to blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet, etc.”  The documents reveal one such paid shill, so-called “expert,” academic Henry Miller.  He was provided a draft article to submit to Forbes for publication under his name, sans any mention of Monsanto’s heavy hand.  Forbes learned of the deceit in October 2017, and said it severed ties with Mr. Miller.

“Inform/Inoculate/Engage Industry Partners” – Notably the industry partners listed included three organizations that purport to be independent of Monsanto but have long been seen by critics as front groups for the company – Monsanto named ‘Academics Review’ and the ‘Genetic Literacy Project.’ Both are Monsanto PR companies based in the U.S.. Monsanto also named ‘Sense About Science,’ which has run operations for Monsanto in the United Kingdom and the U.S.  ‘Sense About Science’ was the astroturf group named by Monsanto to lead the industry response and “provide a platform for IARC observers.”  The groups did as Monsanto planned, posting scathing attacks on IARC on their websites.

Engagement with Regulatory Agencies – Monsanto planned for grower associations / growers to “write regulators with an appeal that they remain focused on the science, not the politically charged decision by IARC.”

“Push opinion leader letter to key daily newspaper on day of IARC ruling” with assistance of the Potomac Group marketing firm.

Monsanto’s “preparedness plan” against the IARC also called for supporting “the development of three new papers on glyphosate focused on epidemiology and toxicology.” As planned, shortly after the IARC decision hit the news, Monsanto arranged for several scientists – many of them former employees or paid consultants – to author and publish research papers supporting glyphosate safety.

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

There is little Monsanto won’t do to protect its flagship chemical, glyphosate, which stands as the cornerstone of its poison products’ business model.  Meanwhile the much greater danger is Roundup, of which glyphosate is only the main active ingredient. Roundup is many times more dangerous than glyphosate.  In keeping the argument narrowed to glyphosate, Monsanto is keeping regulators farther away from the much larger problem of Roundup. We will hope and pray that Judge Vince Chhabria sees through the subterfuge and allows Monsanto to stand trial.

Related

Share

The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate Hazardous to Crops, Soils, Animals, People

The truth about Monsanto is almost completely censored by the mainstream media.  In Washington, a majority of both parties backed the heinous Monsanto Protection Act.  The DARK Act signed by President Obama made things even worse.  And when small farmers and other U.S. citizens manage to work around Monsanto’s own Congress –  Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO) and others – and air their grievances before the nation’s Supreme Court, a former Monsanto lawyer – Judge Clarence Thomas – is there to slam the courthouse door on them.  (Thomas has done so more than once.)  In Europe, however, Monsanto has had a tougher time forcing its poison practices on people.  Junk science and disinformation from Monsanto don’t sell  as well in Europe and elsewhere as they do in America.

Monsanto’s cancerous bovine growth hormone (rBGH), for one example, is banned in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.  Most of those countries have also fought hard to keep Monsanto’s Roundup out of their food.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

In Europe, politicians will even listen to an American scientist who can’t get heard in his own country.  Don Huber, a USDA senior scientist and professor emeritus at Purdue University, delivered to the UK Houses of Parliament the truth about Monsanto, Roundup, and glyphosate. Back in 2012, Huber gave UK’s Parliament a damning indictment of Monsanto products and methods.  He explained just why Monsanto is such a serious threat to crops, soils, animals, and people.

Crop Disease Sparks Scientist’s Interest
Mr. Huber has been a plant physiologist and pathologist for more than 40 years.  His academic career began with eight years as a cereal pathologist at the University of Idaho.  He spent 35 years at Purdue University, specializing in soil-borne disease control, physiology of disease, and microbial ecology. For the last 20 years, he has conducted extensive research into the effects of glyphosate on crops. His interest followed the huge increase in crop diseases on fields sprayed with glyphosate.

Letter to US Secretary of State Ignored
Mr. Huber wrote a letter to the US Secretary of State Tom Vilsak in February 2011. It was ignored by mainstream media and the American government. In the letter, Mr. Huber described a pathogen “new to science” that is everywhere in glyphosate-tolerant GM crops. He concluded in his letter: “We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem”.

Glyphosate Reduces Nutrient Availability
Mr. Huber’s Parliament talk also linked glyphosate to reduced nutrient availability in plants, and to increasing plant diseases. He also referenced the emergence of a new pathogen causing animal illness that can possibly affect human health, since humans eat animals.

Pathogen New to Science
The conversion of U.S. agriculture to monochemical herbicide practice has resulted in the heavy use of glyphosate herbicides, Mr. Huber explained.  Farmers have coincidentally seen deterioration in the health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops.  They’ve also seen epidemics of diseases in small grain crops. All this deterioration and disease are linked with the heavy use of glyphosate, which has increased further since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready (RR) crops.

The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate kills by immobilizing nutrients that plants need for health and disease resistance.  (It also immobilizes human gut flora; so it is likely the cause, or a leading cause, of the huge increase in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.)  This weakening of plants’ defenses could explain the infestation of GM crops with the new pathogen.  It has now been found in horse, sheep, pigs, cows, chicken, multiple animal tissues including reproductive parts (semen, amniotic fluid), manure, soil, eggs, milk, as well as the common fungal pathogen now infesting RR crops, Fusarium solani fsp glycines mycelium.  All come in contact with glyphosate through direct exposure or animal feed consumption.  The pathogen is also highly abundant in crops suffering from plant Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome.

The pathogen can be cultured in the lab, Mr. Huber explained to Parliament.  It has been isolated from livestock foetal tissue, replicated in the lab and re-introduced back into the animals.  It appears to be very common and may well be interacting with the effects of glyphosate on both plants and animals. The result is that it exacerbates disease and causes reproductive failure in livestock.

Money Matters Limit Good Science
People who care about clean food and a cancer-free life want Mr. Huber to publish his findings. The problem is that he insists that before he can publish, he needs more resources (ie. money) to be able to characterize the ‘entity’ and identify what type of species it is, including sequencing of its genome. Such research is very expensive. The problem is who would pay for such research? This is largely how we got into the mess with Monsanto in the first place. Monsanto’s own studies (and political connections) were used to push Roundup past the US FDA and EPA. Those agencies simply took Monsanto’s word that Roundup was safe. They never required the necessary safety testing. Mr. Huber wants eventually to publish his work in a peer-reviewed journal, which is the only way such work could get into evidence to help stop Monsanto from continuing to devastate the world with its poison practices.

Government Must Sponsor Sound Research
It’s well past time that the National Institutes of Health, paid for by our tax dollars, performs long-term testing on Roundup as well as Monsanto’s monochemical practices.  Besides the fact that evidence shows Roundup to be linked with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Hairy Cell Leukemia and other cancers, Roundup is killing pollinator bees, depleting soils, and devastating biodiversity.  It’s time for adults to take charge in Washington and do the work that only government can afford to do.  Our tax dollars should be spent in protecting us from criminal organizations like Monsanto, not being used against us to rubber stamp all of Monsanto’s poison practices.

Related

 

Share

Glyphosate devastates Brain Development

Besides being a probable carcinogen triggering thousands of Roundup Lawsuits, glyphosate devastates brain development.  That is the conclusion of several researchers who have examined the full impact of Monsanto’s best-known poison in Roundup.  Glyphosate has been found in Cheerios,  crackers, many processed snacks and other popular foods, as well as in most rainwater in the U.S., in California wine, in orange juice, in vaccines, in nearly everything we all eat and drink.

Restore Literate America – Documentary
Concerned citizens and scientists have produced a documentary titled, “Restore Literate America,” which shows the problem of glyphosate’s ubiquitous presence in our bodies, brains, and physical environment.  The documentary covers what ordinary people as well as healthcare professionals with scientific training are saying about glyphosate and brain development.

Mothers seek Healthy Food for their Children
This national effort from Julie Bjornson, DC, brings awareness to the problem of delayed brain development. Ms. Bjornson says that children are no longer ready to enter school at their chronological age, because their brains have not developed enough to control eye movement in order to learn to read or to learn from reading.

Brain-Eye Muscle Connection
Ms. Bjornson explains that the brain must be able to control and coordinate the 12 eye muscles needed to function at the normal reading distance of 8-12 inches. Unfortunately, this is not happening when children’s brains are handicapped by glyphosate.

Ms. Bjornson says that recognizing the BIG “E” at 20 feet does not mean the two eyes can converge at 8 inches, and then hold that gaze while reading across a sentence. This function must now be specially trained in preschool, but that crucial training is not occurring.

Brain Development needs Chemical-Free Food
Development starts with nutrient-dense, chemical-free food, which is the opposite of all the GMO foods now tainting most of our food supply.

1/27 Boys Now Suffer Autism
Studies have shown autism in boys has reached a staggering one in 27 (1:27). Ms. Bjornson and others attribute that figure to the greater and greater levels of glypohosate increasingly allowed and found in the nation’s food supply.

Hypospadia, Glyphosate in Mother’s Milk
The prevalence of hypospadia, boys born with this genital malformation, has also markedly increased in proportion to the unleashing of glyphosate into the food supply. Placental malformation is now occurring. Glyphosate passes from the mother into the womb and into the developing fetus. Glyphosate is now found in mother’s milk. Glyphosate weakens the blood brain barrier, allowing toxins into the brain and causing behavioral and health issues, “and so much more,” according to Dr. Bjornson. She hopes we all take the time to educate ourselves on glyphosate’s effect on our children.

Related

Share

Actemra Deaths, Injuries Unreported

Actemra was introduced to the public with all the usual glowing recommendations from people paid to promote it. Actemra ads called it a “unique” breakthrough that would “transform expectations” for patients and doctors. A young woman happily boating crowed in one blurb: “If I knew then what I know now about rheumatoid arthritis, I would have been more proactive.”

Actemra Falsely Promoted?

Treatments for an estimated 1.5 million Americans afflicted with arthritis can have terrible side effects. Therefore, doctors and patients were understandably excited when Actemra hit the U.S. market in 2010. Actemra was promoted as not being linked with heart attacks, heart failure, or life-threatening lung complications, unlike competing arthritis drugs.  Was Actemra falsely promoted?

Hundreds Dead after taking Actemra
Despite the promises that it was safer than competitors’ similar drugs, hundreds of people who took Actemra died from the very same problems.  Many others have suffered harm. STAT (statnews.com) analyzed more than 500,000 side-effect reports on rheumatoid arthritis drugs. It found clear evidence that the risks of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure, and other conditions were as high or higher for Actemra patients than for patients taking competing drugs.

No Warning for Actemra
Most of those other arthritis medications warn about those risks on their labels. Actemra does not warn about those risks.

What is Actemra?
Taken by injection or intravenously, Actemra is primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease that causes pain, swelling, and stiffness in joints. Doctors also prescribe Actemra “off-label” for about 60 other conditions for which it has not completed testing for safety and efficacy. Actemra has been given to more than 760,000 patients worldwide. It generated sales of $1.7 billion in 2016 for Roche, becoming the company’s fifth highest-grossing drug.

1,128 Deaths Follow Actemra Use
People are peppered every day with drug ads tailed by laundry lists of so-called “side effects.” (They’re REAL effects all right, despite the euphemism.) Nevertheless, STAT’s investigation shows that risks to patients may be greater than they are led to believe. The FDA has received reports on 1,128 people who died after taking Actemra. Considering that it is a well-known fact that just 1-10% of adverse events are ever reported to FDA, the real Actemra death toll could easily top 10,000. Curiously, FDA has reviewed Actemra’s safety profile several times since the drug was approved, and has never proposed a label change. Sadly, the agency doesn’t have the tools to determine whether Actemra was the cause of, or a mere coincidence in, all those (reported) deaths.

FDA Limitations
The FDA is charged with monitoring the safety of prescription drugs, but the agency does not verify the side-effects’ reports it receives. The documents often lack crucial information. In the case of Actemra, they don’t prove the drug caused the deaths. But close inspection of some reports can allow one to reasonably determine the cause of a death or injury.

Two Deaths Causally Linked with Actemra
In one striking example – found through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Charles Piller for STAT – the reporting doctor said, “[N]o factor other than the drug could have explained a 73-year-old man’s fatal brain bleed two days after he received an intravenous Actemra treatment.”  Another reported on a 62-year-old German woman’s heart attack in 2014: “The company assessed fatal myocardial infarction as related to (Actemra).”  That company was Roche, Actemra’s maker.

Despite these and other reports, neither Roche nor the FDA has ascted to change Actemra’s label to alert patients and doctors that potential risks have turned up, along with clinical studies completed after Actemra hit the market in 2010.

Actemra and Heart Failure, Pancreatitis
Experts who examined the data at STAT’s request said the FDA should immediately consider warnings for heart failure and pancreatitis – an inflammation of the pancreas that in its acute form can kill up to half of patients. They said the evidence that Actemra might increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and interstitial lung disease – a potentially fatal scarring of lung tissue – is less convincing, but it warrants further review.

The failure to warn the public, experts say, highlights the FDA’s inability to adequately scrutinize the safety of drugs after they have been approved, and to act promptly when potential danger signs appear.

“The system is broken, and all the financial incentives are linked up to keep it broken.”   – Dr. Vinay Prasad, Oncologist, Medical Ethicist.

Actemra Deaths, Injuries Unreported

“We’ve done a very good job of making it easier to approve drugs, often based on very preliminary evidence. But we haven’t ramped up the standards of post-marketing surveillance to make sure that what’s been out there for several years is safe and effective,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad.  The  oncologist and medical ethicist at the Oregon Health and Science University added:  “The system is broken, and all the financial incentives are lined up to keep it broken.”

Related

Share

Editor on Monsanto’s Payroll Retracted Roundup Cancer Study

A journal editor was secretly on Monsanto’s payroll when he retracted a damning Roundup cancer study.  A. Wallace Hayes was being surreptitiously paid by Monsanto when he retracted the now famous Gilles Seralini rat cancer study.  That groundbreaking research showed that rats fed corn grown with glyphosate developed hideous tumors and also died quicker than (more fortunate) rats who drank untainted water and ate non-GMO corn.

Monsanto Threatened by Cancer Study
The Seralini study was, and is, so dangerous for Monsanto, because it threatens the company’s entire business model.  Monsanto’s herbicide (pesticide) products earned the company $1.9 billion in gross profits in 2015.  Consequently, Monsanto acted quickly when the Seralini study began to pull back the dark GMO curtain that hides the awful truth.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

The Seralini study gives the lie to the notion that GMO foods are safe.  This is why Monsanto went immediately into overdrive to discredit and destroy it.  Monsanto also dispatched its minions in the press (like Stanford academic Henry I. Miller) and blogosphere to destroy the messenger.  It was the same ploy the nasty biotech industry had pulled with Italian researcher Dr. Arpad Pustzai and any others who have found serious health problems linked with GMO foods.

GMO Foods are the New Cigarettes
In the book, Seeds of Deception, Jeffrey M. Smith records these alarming quotes from Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who was roundly attacked and discredited (by biotech minions) after he tested GMO foods and began telling the truth about them.  Dr. Pusztai compares the current GMO food deception with the tobacco industry deception that dragged on for decades. That subterfuge was largely made possible with the help of medical doctors (along with hucksters like Morris Fishbein and propaganda promoter Edward Bernays).  The Journal of the American Medical Association even used AMA doctors to promote cigarettes.

Dr. Pustzai: GM Problems may be Irreversible
“The problems with GM foods may be irreversible and the true effects may only be seen well in the future,” said Dr. Pusztai.  “The situation is like the tobacco industry.  They knew about it but they suppressed that information. They created misleading evidence that showed that the problem wasn’t so serious.  And all the time they knew how bad it was.  Tobacco is bad enough. But genetic modification, if it is going to be problematic, if it is going to cause us real health problems, then tobacco will be nothing in comparison with this.  The size of genetic modification and problems it may cause us are tremendous.”

GMO Freak Show
Dr. Pustzai also blew the whistle on early GMO experiments which continue on us all today:
“In 1985 pigs were engineered with a human gene that produces human growth hormone. The scientists’ goal was to produce a faster-growing pig. What they got was a freak show… In one of the first litters born with the growth hormone genes, a female piglet had no anus or genitals. Some of the pigs were too lethargic to stand. Others had arthritis, ulcers, enlarged hearts, dermatitis, vision problems, or renal disease.”

GMO foods are a hydra-headed monster that undoubtedly contribute substantially to all those maladies in humans today.  Several studies have already linked Roundup with kidney and liver problems. The World Health Organization has announced that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, triggering thousands of Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

Editor on Monsanto’s Payroll Retracted Roundup Cancer Study
Prior to Gilles Seralini’s study on GMO-fed rats, as well as other studies which are beginning to leak out, Monsanto had been the world’s biggest winner in the suicidal pesticide-based farming methods in vogue since the end of WWII.  The ever-growing problem is that runaway chemical farming dumps greater and greater amounts of cancer-causing pesticides on the earth and into the groundwater. In addition, Monsanto’s pesticide-based farming methods, along with the company’s toxic seeds, deplete soils of necessary nutrients.  Meanwhile, farmers around the world have sadly dumped greater and greater amounts of Roundup and glyphosate into the earth, as pesticide-based farming has given rise to bigger and bigger “superweeds” that have overwhelmed thousands of acres of once-rich farm land.

Editor in Chief a Monsanto Shill
And now recently released court documents reveal what many people have long suspected: Monsanto reverse engineered the retraction of Dr. Seralini’s groundbreaking study on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate.

The Editor in Chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology was being secretly paid by Monsanto when he oversaw Seralini’s damning study’s retraction.  Monsanto may have gotten away with this subterfuge had their lawyers succeeded in preventing internal company documents from being released.  Monsanto lawyers tried to stop the documents’ release in a lawsuit filed against Monsanto by people who claim they were stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers as a result of using Roundup.

Mainstream News Misinformation
Bill Gates, a heavy Monsanto shareholder, was one of the first to point to the Monsanto-engineered retraction as proof that GMOs are safe and its detractors are misinformed.  Mr. Gates failed to mention (perhaps he didn’t know) that the retraction was engineered by Monsanto. A google search of the subject will show google’s own corporate agenda in line with biotech’s.  Google search engine results coyly downplay Monsanto collusion and promote the phony story that the Seralini study retraction was somehow legitimate.

Editor paid $400 per hour by Monsanto
The documents disclosed in a Roundup cancer lawsuit show that the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes, had been involved in a consulting agreement with Monsanto prior to his involvement in the Seralini study’s retraction.  Mr. Hayes was paid $400 an hour by Monsanto for his “services.” The documents show that he was contracted to help establish a network of “experts,” participate in meetings, and deliver a seminar about regional issues in Latin America related to glyphosate toxicology.

Mr. Hayes hid his Monsanto ties. He failed to recuse himself from involvement in the Seralini study. Instead, he oversaw a “review” of the study that was carried out by unnamed parties who also failed to disclose whether or not they, too, were paid by Monsanto, or had some vested interest in helping the company. Mr. Hayes then used the findings of these unnamed parties to retract the Seralini study.

Monsanto.News.com
Monsanto.News.com reported that in a letter to Seralini, Hayes, the journal’s Editor in Chief at the time, wrote that although the study’s results were not fraudulent, he felt they were “inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication.”  His conclusion came despite the fact that the study had passed a thorough peer review process prior to being published in the first place.

Monsanto Fears Long-term Glyphosate Studies
Further emails show Monsanto felt the Seralini study’s publication would leave Monsanto vulnerable to the possibility of other scientists and regulators calling for long-term studies on the effects of GM crops and the pesticides used to proliferate them.

Monsanto employee Dan Goldstein expressed concern that a third party would set out to verify the Seralini study’s red flags.  Why would that be a concern to Mr. Goldstein unless he felt that further studies could further damage Monsanto?  If the Seralini study really were as flawed as Monsanto minions claimed, why would the company not welcome other parties to perform further studies that could disprove it, or show the Seralini study to be an aberration?

Mr. Hayes’ relationship with the journal was not tarnished, however.  The publication now names him an “emeritus editor”.  Monsanto money for hungry writers, like its glyphosate gift to the world, is something that just keeps on giving, apparently.

Monsanto MO: lie, bribe, bully, deny, deceive
The truth revealed in the Monsanto Roundup lawsuit documents show a systematic effort by the corporation to deceive people into believing Roundup is not carcinogenic. Monsanto has and will use any means possible to defend its flagship product.  Monsanto will pay off scientific journal authors (like the unconscionable shill Henry I. Miller), editors (like A. Wallace Hayes), and so-called expert panel members. Monsanto will counter negative comments on social media with fake science.  Monsanto will smear the reputation of real journalists (like Mike Adams and many others), and it will smear real researchers (like Dr. Armed Putszai and Dr. Gilles Seralini).  There is almost nothing Monsanto won’t do to anyone who threatens the company’s bottom line, which depends on the continued poisoning of the land, people, and civil discourse.

Monsanto’s maneuvering is helping show more and more people that Roundup is indeed toxic and terrible for the earth and for us all.  If Roundup were as safe as Monsanto claims, the company wouldn’t need to lie, bribe, bully, deny and deceive the public.  And farmers and homeowners stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers would not need to take the pesticide king to court.

Related

Share

Sixth Talcum Powder Trial set in Missouri

A Missouri court will convene its sixth talcum powder trial on October 16, 2017. A September 18 hearing in the 22nd Circuit Court for St. Louis set the date.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed was brought by a Missouri man on behalf of his deceased wife. Michael Blaes claims that his wife’s death from ovarian cancer was a direct result of her using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products.  Mrs. Blaes used J&J talc products for decades as part of her feminine hygiene routine.

Related: Talcum Powder Cancer Attorney

Mrs. Blaes’ case was one of three that went before a Missouri jury in July 2017.  The judge in that action declared a mistrial after five days of testimony.  The legal move came in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California. That case held (in an 8-1 vote) that state courts lack jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants when plaintiffs allege injuries which did not occur in the state.

Mrs. Blaes was the only Missouri resident in that aborted trial.  During the Sept. 18 hearing, the Court indicated Mr. Blaes’ case would proceed to trial October 16th; but the judge has yet to rule on certain jurisdictional issues that could affect the trial setting.

5,000 Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits
Johnson & Johnson faces nearly 5,000 talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits nationwide. Plaintiffs pursuing these claims cite numerous studies dating back to the 1970s. The studies suggest the regular and repeated application of talc-based powders to a woman’s genitals may increase her risk of developing ovarian cancer. They also highlight internal documents that show Johnson company executives had prior knowledge of this research, but placed profits over safety. The lawsuits charge that J&J selfishly decided against adding warning labels to its Baby Powder or Shower-to-Shower talcum powder products.

Missouri Verdicts top $400 Million
Missouri has already concluded five talcum powder ovarian cancer trials. Four juries awarded plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages that ranged from $55 million to $100 million. Only one of five Missouri juries has returned a verdict for Johnson & Johnson.

California Talc Cancer Verdict – $417 Million
At least 300 similar cases are pending against Johnson & Johnson in California’s Los Angeles Superior Court. In August 2017, a jury that heard evidence in the state’s first talcum powder trial ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to a woman diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer. That verdict included $300 million in punitive damages. That trial included much of the evidence presented during earlier talcum powder trials in Missouri. It also marked the first time a jury saw evidence that some of Johnson’s competitors were now including ovarian cancer warnings on their talcum powder labels.

Sixth Talcum Powder Trial set in Missouri

Besides the sixth talcum powder trial set in Missouri, talcum powder litigation involving J&J  products is also underway in New Jersey and Delaware state courts, as well as in New Jersey federal court.

RELATED

Share

Flu vaccines don’t work for elderly, says latest science

Flu vaccines don’t work for elderly people, says the latest science.   Tracey Watson reported on Sept. 19, 2017 that there has been a total media blackout over this news.  One can only wonder why.  Don’t the elderly deserve to know this information?  There has also been a near total  blackout on the troubling shingles vaccine that fails 98-99% of the elderly.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  decides the national vaccination schedule “recommended” for children.  The CDC notes that those most at risk of complications from the flu virus are children younger than 5, and especially those under 2; pregnant women; people in nursing homes; and adults over 65.  The elderly are therefore among the most vulnerable members of society to influenza. The problem is that the flu shot last year was again determined to be ineffective for the elderly.

Public Health England (PHE) released a recent report that says, even though the flu shot seems to have been slightly more effective at preventing influenza among children than in the past, last year’s flu shot was totally ineffective for the elderly.

Flu Vaccine fails to thwart most common Strain

Vaccine “experts” believe the shot was ineffective because it failed to protect against the H3 strain, the most common circulating flu strain.  The flu shot is at best a game of chance each year.  “Experts” must attempt to predict which of three strains of the flu virus will be in circulation the next winter.  Even in a good year, their strike rate is a woeful 50 percent.

But that doesn’t mean CDC officials ever admit when a vaccine is ineffective or even useless.  In the case of the elderly, vaccine health professionals blame the elderly themselves.  A representative of PHE told BBC News: “As people age, their immune systems are often weaker and therefore their bodies may not respond as well to a vaccine as younger people’s bodies.”

Doubling Down on a Failed Flu Vaccine
Instead of admitting defeat, then, and encouraging seniors to pursue proven natural flu prevention paths, health officials just continue to push the flu shot.  Yes, despite the flu vaccine’s failure to help the elderly, vaccine “experts” still recommend older people take the flu jab again and again.

Mr. Watson points out that this is like saying, “The flu shot is useless for you and we know it, but you need to have it anyway.”  The so-called medical “experts” have even decided to double down on the insanity.  They have introduced “high-dose jabs that work to boost the body’s immune response to receiving the vaccine.”

Doubly Useless Flu Shots for Elderly
It’s hard to follow the logic, because there’s no logic to follow.  This is like saying, “The flu jab is useless for you and we know it, so we’re going to make it twice as useless.  Just keep quiet and take the jab.”  Meanwhile, thanks in part to the levels of mercury and/or aluminum and other “adjuvants” in flu shots, one’s risk of suffering from Alzheimer’s tends to rise with the number of flu shots one has taken over the years.

Flu vaccines don’t work for elderly, says latest science

Tracy Watson does offer some helpful news, “at least four easy, natural and effective ways to work with your body to build up your immune system and prevent the flu”: 1.) sunlight (Vitamin D3); 2.) Astragalus (a staple of ancient Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine); 3.) Echinacea and golden seal (powerful immune boosters); 4.) lifestyle and dietary changes (exercise, clean water, good sleep, controlled stress, fresh, organic fruits and vegetables).

RELATED

Share

20 Vaccine Documentaries that show the Big Picture

Scientists, doctors, researchers, writers and parents have produced at least 20 vaccine documentaries that show the big picture of this troubling controversy.  More and more parents are starting to figure out the anomalies and the contradictions and the outright lies of vaccination promoters as they watch their vaccinated children descend into chronic sickness. Recent studies show unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones; but you won’t find that story in mainstream “news.”

Related:  Vaccine Lottery:  Sacrifice the Children

More and more people who take the time to study the issue are figuring out that the CDC has lied to them. They have figured out that many of their doctors have unwittingly lied to them, mostly because their doctors don’t know anything about the history of vaccination or what is actually contained IN the vaccinations.  Talking television heads have lied to them.  Local newscasters have lied to them.

Vaccines are not the panacea they’ve been painted to be in the mainstream press controlled by drug company profits. The only way anyone can find the truth about vaccines is to see the injuries in their own children, which thousands and thousands of parents have done.  Or else they can research the web, study the history of vaccination, and look to see if anyone has ever done a legitimate double-blind study that proves the safety and effectiveness of even one single vaccine.

Related:  Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

The vaccination blitz may not have begun as a cash cow making test monkeys out of most of its citizens.  The initial putsch for vaccination seems to have started with good intentions.  But do good intentions translate to positive results?  If only it were so!

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” ― T.S. Eliot

Drug company executives extorted Congress back in the 1980s to give vaccine makers immunity from criminal prosecution or civil liability when they make vaccines that injure or kill children. Congress blinked and gave the vaccine profiteers virtual blanket immunity from liability, passing the so-called 1986 National Childhood Immunization Act.  Like the infamous “Citizen’s United,” or the notorious “Clean Skies” initiative, or “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (changed from the too-coy “Operation Iraqi Liberation” or OIL), the nomenclature is a duplicitous shield hiding a more troubling agenda.

Related:  Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

The so-called National Childhood Immunization Act shields drug companies from liability when their vaccines injure or kill children forced to take vaccines.  One dollar of profit from every vaccine goes into a fund, supposedly to help the children injured by vaccines.  This already creates an immediate problem for vaccine pushers an profiteers like Paul Offit, who endlessy tell us vaccines are completely safe and that autism is not caused by vaccines.  This big lie obtains today despite the fact that more than $3 billion has been paid from this fund to vaccine-injured children and their families.  Sadly, the fund recompenses only a tiny percentage of  parents and children injured or killed by vaccines.  The government realized early on that the fund didn’t collect enough money to compensate all the vaccine victims ; so it quickly moved to disallow Legal Discovery in vaccine cases and to simply deny some 80% of the claims in the secret and demonstrably undemocratic “Vaccine Court.”

Vaccine injuries are wiping out more and more families, crippling them emotionally and financially by autism and other vaccine-related injuries.  But those unfortunates do have one advantage over many.  They have seen the light.  They KNOW what caused their children’s injuries. Their eyes have been opened to how the world works (or doesn’t).  The rest of us need to open our own eyes before it’s too late for us and for our children, or our neighbor’s children.  We will all continue to pay as the rate of autism and vaccine injuries increases exponentially every year, in direct proportion to CDC mandates that require more and more childhood vaccinations be forced into our pin-cushion kids.  Rather than work as a watchdog for taxpayers, the CDC works as a partner with vaccine makers to promote vaccine policy and continue to raise the number of vaccines it requires children to take.

At least 20 must-see vaccine documentaries have been noted by Natural News, a web site that  Google and Facebook are trying to silence as Fake News.  Wise people will decide for themselves what fake news is, instead of getting censored search engine results.

20 Vaccine Documentaries that show the Big Picture

Please watch these documentaries and decide for yourself.

1. Vaccination – The Silent Epidemic

2. The Greater Good

3. Shots In The Dark

4. Vaccination The Hidden Truth

5. Vaccine Nation

6. Vaccination – The Truth About Vaccines

7. Lethal Injection

8. Bought

9. Deadly Immunity – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

10. Autism – Made in the USA

11. Beyond Treason

12. Trace Amounts

13. Why We Don’t Vaccinate

14. Autism Yesterday

15. Denmark Documentary on HPV Vaccine

16. Vaxxed

17. Man Made Epidemic

18. 50 Cents A Dose

19. Direct Orders

20. Dtap – Vaccine Roulette

21. Truthstream News: About All Those Vaccines

RELATED

Share

Fake Vaccine News, Fake Studies, Fake Advocates

Fake vaccine news, fake studies, fake advocates dominate so-called real news.  First and most pointedly, in California.  The golden state is ground zero for the mandatory (Read: forced) vaccination of schoolchildren.  The state was the first to kill informed consent for parents and their children.  Led by Merck Pharmaceutical darling Senator Richard Pan, the state decided to do away with the first rule of medicine.  This is more than a little ironic, seeing as how Mr. Pan is also a medical doctor.  Unless one can afford to home school one’s children in California, they are, for all intents and purposes, forced to take a huge dose of vaccinations, of whatever type and dose the state – as directed by drug companies and the CDC – decide that they “need.”

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

It is easy to spot pro-vaccine politicians and how they got that way.  All one needs do is look at their campaign contributions. Even in the insane age of Citizen’s United, one can still follow the money trail, most of the time.

Follow the Money Trail

It can be harder to follow the money for vaccine advocates working in academia.  Sometimes they  write such prolific trash supporting drug companies, it is almost impossible NOT to spot them.  When an academic like Dorit Reiss of UC Hastings College of Law and Kaiser Permanente, posts 1,000 (or so) blogs to attack parents of children injured by vaccines and promotes mass vaccination, it is not so difficult.  She repeats, ad nauseam, that thousands of vaccine safety studies have been done to prove vaccine safety and efficacy, and it simply is not true.  Who or what is paying Ms. Reiss to support industry and attack vaccine-injured children’s parents and other critical thinkers?  How does she possibly find the time if she has a real job?  In this case, one need look no further than her stated employers, and the money behind UC Hastings and Kaiser.

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

Monsanto Money earns UW-Madison Seal of Approval

It is also instructive to learn just how industry captures some academic institutions in order to do its bidding.  The University of Wisconsin, for one example, fairly rolled over for Monsanto when the company “donated” a $10 million commercial biotech plant laboratory that helped develop genetically modified plants.  That “donation” has made UW-Madison “the hub of a new crop research center,” gushed the Wisconsin State Journal on Jan. 31, 2017.  Gee, I wonder if the UW will continue to support GMO foods as they have so dutifully in the past after receiving multi-milllon-dollar “gifts” from Monsanto.  Is the UW aware that hundreds of Roundup Lymphoma lawsuits are being filed against its great benefactor, Monsanto?  (Maybe all that dough will buy some helpful studies “proving” the safety of Roundup.)

The UW-Madison also got nicely behind Monsanto’s  awful bovine growth hormone (rBST) after Monsanto donated a couple million to the UW just as it also gifted the world with rBST.  Not to pick on the Badger state’s flagship school.  Most land-grand universities are hot for donations, and  will do almost anything to keep them coming.

Sometimes the payments for those supporting corporate profits at the expense of people are harder to spot, at least until one looks closer.

Professor Dorit Reiss of Hastings Law School in San Francisco seems to have gotten her start in the blogging business after Katie Couric had the temerity to question the safety of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine.  It seems several girls were dying after their Gardasil injections, or catching auto-immune diseases; so Ms. Couric investigated.  Ms. Reiss was then keen to demonstrate her loyalties to her state’s Draconian vaccination policy, and to her university and its Big Pharma backers.  She even had the gall to write in defense of the “advantages” of a school’s being captured by industry, or a regulatory agency’s working closely and “cooperatively” with industry.  (You can’t make this stuff up.)  The word “capture,” she wrote, has negative connotations, and therefore should not be used.  Put lipstick on a pig, she might have added, and it might look beautiful, at least to Ms. Reiss.

With Professor Reiss’ considerable help, Katie Couric was wildly attacked when she ran a nationally televised story covering Gardasil dangers.  Robert De Niro – the father of an autistic son whose Black mother says he was made that way by vaccination – was likewise savaged for questioning American children’s massive vaccination schedule.  Jim Carey (who said he was not anti vaccine) was also attacked, as was Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, and anyone else who has had the temerity to question America’s increasingly heavy childhood vaccine schedule, and the forced vaccination of school children.

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

Vaccine Comedy Dutifully Promotes Vaccination

Comedy Central’s John Oliver has devoted more and more of his time to savaging anyone who questions the “prevailing wisdom” of vaccination.  Mr. Oliver’s audience guffaws as dutifully as a laugh track as he pretends to have all the answers, to know that all vaccinations are safe and effective and necessary.  His dismissive views are oddly solidly backed by the likes of strange bedfellows, Republican stalwarts such as The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.   This is quite curious, considering that Mr. Oliver’s show is decidedly slanted to the liberal side of the aisle.  (One might be wise to pay special attention when the entire mainstream media is all behind something, or all uniformly against it.)

Why is no adult discussion about vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

The fact that President Donald Trump has questioned the prevailing wisdom of shooting as many vaccines into children as Merck and the CDC say they need is used to further marginalize vaccine skeptics.  The fact that Mr. Trump is (by many critical accounts from close observers) a sociopathic narcissist, is used by mandatory vaccine supporters as one more reason that ALL and ANY discussion of vaccination should not even be allowed.  What if Mr. Trump were right about something?  Is it possible?

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

Fake Vaccine News, Fake Studies, Fake Advocates

Do those who so viciously attack “anti-vaxxers” really think or believe that every vaccine is safe and effective, and that every vaccine should be used any time Merck or the CDC say so?  What if they are wrong?  What if every vaccine is not safe and effective?  What if every vaccination batch needs a careful inventory of chemical components and a field trial?  What if they should all be monitored for safety and effectiveness?  What if that vaccine they want to put directly into your kid’s bloodstream, bypassing her immune system, is made in China, where the FDA is not allowed inside the plants to investigate?  What if the shingles vaccine has blinded several people and given them repeat cases of shingles?  Is that something you would like to know? What if the flu vaccine doesn’t work this year, or isn’t worth the risk?  What if more people died of the flu after taking the flu shot last year than unvaccinated people who got the flu?  Is that something you’d like to know? What if vaccine makers don’t lose sleep over safety issues because they know that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects them from liability; so that they have very little incentive to make safe vaccines?  Why do vaccine makers or their shills – like Professor Dorit Reiss of Hastings Law School in San Francisco, or Comedy Central’s John Oliver, or vaccine-profiteer Paul Offit (aptly named) – think the 1986 Act was necessary if vaccine injuries don’t occur?

What gives? Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?

All one needs do is follow the money.

RELATED

Share