Ten Things You're Not Supposed to Know about the Swine Flu Vaccine
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) She was deathly afraid of the flu.
So she asked her doc what she should do.
He jabbed her unseen
With a swine flu vaccine
Blurting, "Darling, I haven't a clue."
- by the Health Ranger
Let's not beat around the bush on this issue: The swine flu vaccines now being prepared for mass injection into infants, children, teens and adults have never been tested and won't be tested before the injections begin. In Europe, where flu vaccines are typically tested on hundreds (or thousands) of people before being unleashed on the masses, the European Medicines Agency is allowing companies to skip the testing process entirely.
And yet, amazingly, people are lining up to take the vaccine, absent any safety testing whatsoever. When the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. announced a swine flu vaccine trial beginning in early August, it was inundated with phone calls and emails from people desperate to play the role of human guinea pigs. The power of fear to herd sheeple into vaccine injections is simply amazing...
Back in Europe, of course, everybody gets to be a guinea pig since no testing will be done on the vaccine at all. Even worse, the European vaccines will be using adjuvants -- chemicals used to multiply the potency of the active ingredients in vaccines.
Notably, there is absolutely no safety data on the use of adjuvants in infants and expectant mothers -- the two groups being most aggressively targeted by the swine flu vaccine pushers. The leads us to the disturbing conclusion that the swine flu vaccine could be a modern medical disaster. It's untested and un-tried. Its ingredients are potentially quite dangerous, and the adjuvants being used in the European vaccines are suspected of causing neurological disorders.
Paralyzed by vaccines
I probably don't need to remind you that in 1976, a failed swine flu vaccine caused irreparable damage to the nervous systems of hundreds of people, paralyzing many. Medical doctors gave the problem a name, of course, to make it sound like they knew what they were talking about: Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Notably, they never called it "Toxic Vaccine Syndrome" because that would be too informative.)
But the fact remains that doctors never knew how the vaccines caused these severe problems, and if the same event played out today, all the doctors and vaccine pushers would undoubtedly deny any link between the vaccines and paralysis altogether. (That's what's happening today with the debate over vaccines and autism: Complete denial.)
In fact, there are a whole lot of things you'll never be told by health authorities about the upcoming swine flu vaccine. For your amusement, I've written down the ten most obvious ones and published them below.
Ten things you're not supposed to know about the swine flu vaccine
(At least, not by anyone in authority...)
#1 - The vaccine production was "rushed" and the vaccine has never been tested on humans. Do you like to play guinea pig for Big Pharma? If so, line up for your swine flu vaccine this fall...
#2 - Swine flu vaccines contain dangerous adjuvants that cause an inflammatory response in the body. This is why they are suspected of causing autism and other neurological disorders.
#3 - The swine flu vaccine could actually increase your risk of death from swine flu by altering (or suppressing) your immune system response. There is zero evidence that even seasonal flu shots offer any meaningful protection for people who take the jabs. Vaccines are the snake oil of modern medicine.
#4 - Doctors still don't know why the 1976 swine flu vaccines paralyzed so many people. And that means they really have no clue whether the upcoming vaccine might cause the same devastating side effects. (And they're not testing it, either...)
#5 - Even if the swine flu vaccine kills you, the drug companies aren't responsible. The U.S. government has granted drug companies complete immunity against vaccine product liability. Thanks to that blanket immunity, drug companies have no incentive to make safe vaccines, because they only get paid based on quantity, not safety (zero liability).
#6 - No swine flu vaccine works as well as vitamin D to protect you from influenza. That's an inconvenient scientific fact that the U.S. government, the FDA and Big Pharma hope the people never realize.
#7 - Even if the swine flu vaccine actually works, mathematically speaking if everyone else around you gets the vaccine, you don't need one! (Because it can't spread through the population you hang with.) So even if you believe in the vaccine, all you need to do is encourage your friends to go get vaccinated...
#8 - Drug companies are making billions of dollars from the production of swine flu vaccines. That money comes out of your pocket -- even if you don't get the jab -- because it's all paid by the taxpayers.
#9 - When people start dying in larger numbers from the swine flu, rest assured that many of them will be the very people who got the swine flu vaccine. Doctors will explain this away with their typical Big Pharma logic: "The number saved is far greater than the number lost." Of course, the number "saved" is entirely fictional... imaginary... and exists only in their own warped heads.
#10 - The swine flu vaccine centers that will crop up all over the world in the coming months aren't completely useless: They will provide an easy way to identify large groups of really stupid people. (Too bad there isn't some sort of blue dye that we could tag 'em with for future reference...)
The lottery, they say, is a tax on people who can't do math. Similarly, flu vaccines are a tax on people who don't understand health.
21.12.09
THE BARIUM DEDUCTION
THE BARIUM DEDUCTION
Clifford E Carnicom
May 30 2001
The following is a list of conditions, observations and analyses which focus direct attention on barium and barium compounds within the investigation of the aerosol operations that are occurring without informed consent:
1. Aerosol is a salt crystal; absorbs moisture at low levels of relative humidity, i.e., hygroscopic.
2. Is expected to be soluble.
3. Reactive with water but not explosive.
4. Reacts with cold water.
5. Is alkaline in nature when combined with water.
6. Provides uniques spectrometry signature in the visible light range which are identified with a specific element.
7. Is ionizable as evidenced by particulate imagery.
8. Is colorless or white.
9. Electrolytic in nature; i.e., subject to disassociation of ions in water.
10. Microwave frequencies are subject to disruption with injection of particles into the atmosphere.
11. Has an estimated vapor pressure of approximately .0143torr at -50deg. C.
12.Historical interest and experimentation documented with use of element(s) in ionization and plasma physics.
13. Respiratory distress associated with ingestion into the respiratory tract.
14. Highly probable to involve a product of combustion.
15. Favorable conditions for aerosol dispersion include increased moisture content and higher relative temperature.
Analysis indicates, to my knowledge, that only one element (and associated compounds) satisfies each of the above conditions. That element is barium. In addition, these conditions are strongly identified with the following compounds of barium:
Barium carbonate, Barium Oxide, Barium hydroxide and Barium hydrate.
Barium Titanate is also under review due to the following property:
"...crystals of barium titanate, a material that can capture the pulses of certain electromagnetic frequencies in the way that a radio can pick up certain radio frequencies. When the crystal pulses, or resonates, it produces electric power."
Source: A New Physics for a New Energy Source by Jeanne Manning
The need for chemical review of the properties and reactions of barium titanate remains.
Consideration will be extended equally to any other elements or group of compounds that are known to satisfy the above conditions. Any corrections to this information will be made as is appropriate.
Clifford E Carnicom
May 30 2001
The following is a list of conditions, observations and analyses which focus direct attention on barium and barium compounds within the investigation of the aerosol operations that are occurring without informed consent:
1. Aerosol is a salt crystal; absorbs moisture at low levels of relative humidity, i.e., hygroscopic.
2. Is expected to be soluble.
3. Reactive with water but not explosive.
4. Reacts with cold water.
5. Is alkaline in nature when combined with water.
6. Provides uniques spectrometry signature in the visible light range which are identified with a specific element.
7. Is ionizable as evidenced by particulate imagery.
8. Is colorless or white.
9. Electrolytic in nature; i.e., subject to disassociation of ions in water.
10. Microwave frequencies are subject to disruption with injection of particles into the atmosphere.
11. Has an estimated vapor pressure of approximately .0143torr at -50deg. C.
12.Historical interest and experimentation documented with use of element(s) in ionization and plasma physics.
13. Respiratory distress associated with ingestion into the respiratory tract.
14. Highly probable to involve a product of combustion.
15. Favorable conditions for aerosol dispersion include increased moisture content and higher relative temperature.
Analysis indicates, to my knowledge, that only one element (and associated compounds) satisfies each of the above conditions. That element is barium. In addition, these conditions are strongly identified with the following compounds of barium:
Barium carbonate, Barium Oxide, Barium hydroxide and Barium hydrate.
Barium Titanate is also under review due to the following property:
"...crystals of barium titanate, a material that can capture the pulses of certain electromagnetic frequencies in the way that a radio can pick up certain radio frequencies. When the crystal pulses, or resonates, it produces electric power."
Source: A New Physics for a New Energy Source by Jeanne Manning
The need for chemical review of the properties and reactions of barium titanate remains.
Consideration will be extended equally to any other elements or group of compounds that are known to satisfy the above conditions. Any corrections to this information will be made as is appropriate.
Fabrication of barium titanate nanoparticles-polymethylmethacrylate composite films and their dielectric properties
Fabrication of barium titanate nanoparticles-polymethylmethacrylate composite films and their dielectric properties
Composite films composed of polymer films and dielectric ceramics such as titanates are of high interest in material science fields. The incorporation of titanates is expected to allow the host polymer to have high capacitance and to make it easy to process the films owing to the increased flexibility of the composite.
Various methods for fabricating titanate-polymer composite films have been reported. In most reports, the composite films are fabricated by mixing a dielectric polymer solution and submicron- or micron-sized ferroelectric particles, and evaporating the solvent of the polymer solution (1-6).
However, the use of these particles cannot be applied to production of composite films with high transparency.
In the fabrication of electric devices with high capacitance, practical composite films need to have a thin film thickness of less than one micron. Surface smoothness of the films is another requirement for the fabrication of practical dielectric devices, because films with smooth surface show stable dielectric properties. The use of nanometer-sized titanate particles can help to address these requirements and moreover could allow formation of films with high transparency.
Homogeneous dispersion of particles dispersed into the film could be expected to make the films transparent.
For the homogeneous dispersion, the titanate nanoparticles are required to be colloidally stable in precursor solution, and affinity between the titanate nanoparticles and host polymer has to be strengthened. Many previous researchers have applied surface modification to the dispersion. Ramesh et al. fabricated barium titanate
(BT)-epoxy nanocomposites with the use of BT nanoparticles surface-modified with various silanes
(2).
Among the silanes examined, the silanes with epoxy, thiol, and phenyl amino functionalities resulted in production of homogeneous composite materials and high dielectric constants.
Kim et al. performed surface-modification of BT nanoparticles by phosphonic acids with functional groups, and fabrication of BT-polymer (polycarbonate or poly (vinylidenefluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene)) composite films (7).
The composite films fabricated with the use of surface-modified BT nanoparticles yielded uniform films with homogeneous nanoparticle dispersions. In the work of Li et al.
(8), BT-polyamide (PA)-bismaleimide (BMI) composites were fabricated with the use of phthalocyanine-coated BT nanoparticles.
Addition of Ni nano-particles to the composites and the combination of PA with BMI were confirmed to increase their dielectric constants and to improve the processability of matrix, respectively. Yogo and coworkers
(9) fabricated transparent and self-standing BT-poly(methylmethacrylate)
(PMMA) composite films with polymerization of methylmethacrylatc
(MMA) in the presence of the BT particles with the C=C bonds that were prepared with hydrolysis of complex alkoxide with 2-vinyloxyethanol. They also synthesized BT-polymer nanocomposite films with the use of alkoxide modified with methacryloxyethoxy group(10).
In previous work, we developed techniques for fabricating polymer films containing barium titanate nanoparticles (11-13).
BT nanoparticles prepared in the presence of poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP) are suitable for fabricating BT-polymer films with smooth surface when compared with cases in the absence of PVP (13).
Particle surface-modification is effective for colloidal stability, and consequently for producing composite films of high-quality.
The present work proposes a method for fabrication of BT-PMMA composite films by the application of surface-modification of BT nanoparticles. The BT nanoparticles with a perovskite crystalline structure were prepared from complex alkoxide with a sol-gel method.
To increase affinity between BT particle surface and PMMA host polymer and to stabilize the BT particles colloidally, the BT particles were coated with PMMA by polymerizing MMA monomer on the BT particle surface. Before the polymerization, C=C bonds were introduced onto the BT particle surface with silane coupling agents with the C=C bonds, so that the surface was expected to react with the MMA monomer.
The BT-PMMA composite films were fabricated by spin-coating precursor solution containing PMMA and the PMMA-coated BT particles on glass substrates. Measurements were performed to study the effects of PMMA-coating and BT particle size on surface roughness and dielectric properties of the films
Barium titanate films for improved capacitors.(ELECTRONICS)
Advanced Ceramics Report, June, 2007
Scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), USA, have developed a technique for creating films of barium titanate nanoparticles in a polymer matrix, which could allow fabrication of capacitors able to store twice as much energy as existing devices. The improved capacitors could be used in consumer devices such as cellular telephones, as well as in defence applications requiring both high energy storage and rapid current discharge.
Due to its high dielectric properties, barium titanate has long been of interest for use in capacitors, but until recently materials scientists had been unable to produce good dispersion of the material within a polymer matrix. By using tailored organic phosphonic acids to encapsulate and modify the surface of the...
Composite films composed of polymer films and dielectric ceramics such as titanates are of high interest in material science fields. The incorporation of titanates is expected to allow the host polymer to have high capacitance and to make it easy to process the films owing to the increased flexibility of the composite.
Various methods for fabricating titanate-polymer composite films have been reported. In most reports, the composite films are fabricated by mixing a dielectric polymer solution and submicron- or micron-sized ferroelectric particles, and evaporating the solvent of the polymer solution (1-6).
However, the use of these particles cannot be applied to production of composite films with high transparency.
In the fabrication of electric devices with high capacitance, practical composite films need to have a thin film thickness of less than one micron. Surface smoothness of the films is another requirement for the fabrication of practical dielectric devices, because films with smooth surface show stable dielectric properties. The use of nanometer-sized titanate particles can help to address these requirements and moreover could allow formation of films with high transparency.
Homogeneous dispersion of particles dispersed into the film could be expected to make the films transparent.
For the homogeneous dispersion, the titanate nanoparticles are required to be colloidally stable in precursor solution, and affinity between the titanate nanoparticles and host polymer has to be strengthened. Many previous researchers have applied surface modification to the dispersion. Ramesh et al. fabricated barium titanate
(BT)-epoxy nanocomposites with the use of BT nanoparticles surface-modified with various silanes
(2).
Among the silanes examined, the silanes with epoxy, thiol, and phenyl amino functionalities resulted in production of homogeneous composite materials and high dielectric constants.
Kim et al. performed surface-modification of BT nanoparticles by phosphonic acids with functional groups, and fabrication of BT-polymer (polycarbonate or poly (vinylidenefluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene)) composite films (7).
The composite films fabricated with the use of surface-modified BT nanoparticles yielded uniform films with homogeneous nanoparticle dispersions. In the work of Li et al.
(8), BT-polyamide (PA)-bismaleimide (BMI) composites were fabricated with the use of phthalocyanine-coated BT nanoparticles.
Addition of Ni nano-particles to the composites and the combination of PA with BMI were confirmed to increase their dielectric constants and to improve the processability of matrix, respectively. Yogo and coworkers
(9) fabricated transparent and self-standing BT-poly(methylmethacrylate)
(PMMA) composite films with polymerization of methylmethacrylatc
(MMA) in the presence of the BT particles with the C=C bonds that were prepared with hydrolysis of complex alkoxide with 2-vinyloxyethanol. They also synthesized BT-polymer nanocomposite films with the use of alkoxide modified with methacryloxyethoxy group(10).
In previous work, we developed techniques for fabricating polymer films containing barium titanate nanoparticles (11-13).
BT nanoparticles prepared in the presence of poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP) are suitable for fabricating BT-polymer films with smooth surface when compared with cases in the absence of PVP (13).
Particle surface-modification is effective for colloidal stability, and consequently for producing composite films of high-quality.
The present work proposes a method for fabrication of BT-PMMA composite films by the application of surface-modification of BT nanoparticles. The BT nanoparticles with a perovskite crystalline structure were prepared from complex alkoxide with a sol-gel method.
To increase affinity between BT particle surface and PMMA host polymer and to stabilize the BT particles colloidally, the BT particles were coated with PMMA by polymerizing MMA monomer on the BT particle surface. Before the polymerization, C=C bonds were introduced onto the BT particle surface with silane coupling agents with the C=C bonds, so that the surface was expected to react with the MMA monomer.
The BT-PMMA composite films were fabricated by spin-coating precursor solution containing PMMA and the PMMA-coated BT particles on glass substrates. Measurements were performed to study the effects of PMMA-coating and BT particle size on surface roughness and dielectric properties of the films
Barium titanate films for improved capacitors.(ELECTRONICS)
Advanced Ceramics Report, June, 2007
Scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), USA, have developed a technique for creating films of barium titanate nanoparticles in a polymer matrix, which could allow fabrication of capacitors able to store twice as much energy as existing devices. The improved capacitors could be used in consumer devices such as cellular telephones, as well as in defence applications requiring both high energy storage and rapid current discharge.
Due to its high dielectric properties, barium titanate has long been of interest for use in capacitors, but until recently materials scientists had been unable to produce good dispersion of the material within a polymer matrix. By using tailored organic phosphonic acids to encapsulate and modify the surface of the...
19.12.09
THE WINE - PEROXIDE TEST
"MORGELLONS:"
THE WINE - PEROXIDE TEST
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 09 2008
Last Edit Mar 15 2008
I have no medical expertise and I claim none. I am not offering any medical advice or diagnosis with the presentation of this information. I am acting solely as an independent researcher providing the results of extended observation and analysis of unusual biological conditions that are evident.
The following photographs are not pleasant to view and I would prefer to not have to present them. The magnitude of the issue demands that the information be made available to the general public. A method to remove at least a portion of the pathogenic forms that have been reported extensively on my site has been established. The method involves the use of red wine or a red wine-hydrogen peroxide mixture as an extended rinse for the mouth. Please see additional cautionary notes for the use of hydrogen peroxide within this report. Full and entire credit for the discovery of this method is to be given to Dr. Gwen Scott, N.D. and the public has a call to be grateful for the many unselfish contributions that she has made to the understanding of the "Morgellons" issue (please also see A Natural Medicine Approach).
The use of the term "Morgellons" is a dubious approach as the pathogenic forms first discovered within a purported "Morgellons" subject are showing themselves to exist in equal form within the general public. To date, no human being is excluded from the findings of recent research through this site; hopefully exceptions to this case will soon be found. Thus far, fourteen individuals across numerous state lines have subjected themselves to the test method that is depicted on this paper. All fourteen produce and manifest the same physical forms through the gums of the mouth and only the amount of the material produced varies from individual to individual. The manifestation of skin conditions characteristic of the so-called "Morgellons" condition is not required to produce the result shown.
I state clearly again that the pathogenic forms under investigation are repeatedly showing up in the general population, regardless of whether certain "skin anomalies" are present or not. The pathogenic forms were, however, first discovered as a result of examination of these same skin anomalies. The segregation of only certain individuals as having the "Morgellons" condition is completely and totally false; the general population is involved whether they would like to know of it or not. The pathogens found have now been discovered repeatedly across all major body systems and functions, including skin, blood, hair, saliva, dental(gum), digestive, ear and urinary samples.
Gum-dental samples
Gum-dental samples collected after extended wine-hydrogen peroxide mixture rinses of the mouth (e.g., 5 minutes each) and placed upon a glass slide for observation. Mouth brushed and cleaned to best degree possible prior to the test. Material emanates from the gums of the mouth; this individual produces a greater amount of material relative to other individuals. Foam appearance results from the peroxide. Core material is composed essentially of the four pathogenic forms that have been extensively described on this site(encasing filament, sub-micron filament network, Chlamydia-like structures and the "hybrid form").
Samples have repeatedly observed at extreme visible microscopic examination, i.e.., 7000x and they are generally consistent between various samples. One mixture that is under trial is 1/3 3% hydrogen-peroxide mixed with 2/3 dark red wine (e.g.., merlot). Burgundy color results from stain of red wine. Another alternative under investigation is to limit the exposure to hydrogen peroxide by swabbing the teeth with peroxide prior to an extended rinse with red wine. Hydrogen peroxide is NOT to be taken internally. Sensitivity and reactions to peroxide may be of concern and an issue to consider.
NO THERAPY OF ANY KIND IS BEING RECOMMENDED WITHIN THIS REPORT; OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS ONLY IS BEING PROVIDED.
Identical pathogenic forms have now been found across most body systems and functions. The rinse test has in some cases been ongoing for 1-2 months; there continues to production of some material in most every case. Microscopic examination will be required for any final determination. On occasions, the test has been conducted several times in a row (e.g.., 30-45 minute session of approx. 5 minutes each) with no cessation of material to date, although the amount appears to eventually decrease. It appears that the production of material can be correlated directly with the amount of time devoted to testing. The presence of the material also appears to be associated with a ear-blockage condition in one case. Not all individuals produce this amount of material and the sample may need to be examined very closely to determine if it exists; it usually appears as fibrous or stringy if present. The individual providing this sample does not demonstrate any outwardly visible "Morgellons" symptoms.
fibrous gum-dental sample
A similar gum-dental sample after drying and evaporation of the wine-peroxide mixture. Solid materials remain which form the basis of one of many recent analyses.
fibrous gum-dental sample
One portion of the sample above observed at extreme visible magnification under the microscope. Dental-gum expelled sample. Sample extracted with use of hydrogen peroxide-red wine mix. [please refer to (http://www.carnicom.com/morgobs6.htm)Pathogens & the General Population] Three pathogenic forms visible: bounding filament (black border), sub-micron interior filament network (blue arrows) and Chlamydia-like organisms(red circles).
Magnification approx. 7000x.
Chlamydia-like structures are visible
Microscopic examination of another gum-dental sample expelled from a separate individual using the wine-peroxide mixture. An encasing filament and the Chlamydia-like structures are visible. In this individual the hybrid form is more common within the bounding filament as opposed to the sub-micron filament network.
Magnification approx. 5000x.
This method described above is not provided as a therapy or diagnosis of any kind; the reaction is being described from an observational point of view. Individuals are to consult with their own health practitioner for their health needs.
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 09 2008
Article Source:
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
THE WINE - PEROXIDE TEST
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 09 2008
Last Edit Mar 15 2008
I have no medical expertise and I claim none. I am not offering any medical advice or diagnosis with the presentation of this information. I am acting solely as an independent researcher providing the results of extended observation and analysis of unusual biological conditions that are evident.
The following photographs are not pleasant to view and I would prefer to not have to present them. The magnitude of the issue demands that the information be made available to the general public. A method to remove at least a portion of the pathogenic forms that have been reported extensively on my site has been established. The method involves the use of red wine or a red wine-hydrogen peroxide mixture as an extended rinse for the mouth. Please see additional cautionary notes for the use of hydrogen peroxide within this report. Full and entire credit for the discovery of this method is to be given to Dr. Gwen Scott, N.D. and the public has a call to be grateful for the many unselfish contributions that she has made to the understanding of the "Morgellons" issue (please also see A Natural Medicine Approach).
The use of the term "Morgellons" is a dubious approach as the pathogenic forms first discovered within a purported "Morgellons" subject are showing themselves to exist in equal form within the general public. To date, no human being is excluded from the findings of recent research through this site; hopefully exceptions to this case will soon be found. Thus far, fourteen individuals across numerous state lines have subjected themselves to the test method that is depicted on this paper. All fourteen produce and manifest the same physical forms through the gums of the mouth and only the amount of the material produced varies from individual to individual. The manifestation of skin conditions characteristic of the so-called "Morgellons" condition is not required to produce the result shown.
I state clearly again that the pathogenic forms under investigation are repeatedly showing up in the general population, regardless of whether certain "skin anomalies" are present or not. The pathogenic forms were, however, first discovered as a result of examination of these same skin anomalies. The segregation of only certain individuals as having the "Morgellons" condition is completely and totally false; the general population is involved whether they would like to know of it or not. The pathogens found have now been discovered repeatedly across all major body systems and functions, including skin, blood, hair, saliva, dental(gum), digestive, ear and urinary samples.
Gum-dental samples
Gum-dental samples collected after extended wine-hydrogen peroxide mixture rinses of the mouth (e.g., 5 minutes each) and placed upon a glass slide for observation. Mouth brushed and cleaned to best degree possible prior to the test. Material emanates from the gums of the mouth; this individual produces a greater amount of material relative to other individuals. Foam appearance results from the peroxide. Core material is composed essentially of the four pathogenic forms that have been extensively described on this site(encasing filament, sub-micron filament network, Chlamydia-like structures and the "hybrid form").
Samples have repeatedly observed at extreme visible microscopic examination, i.e.., 7000x and they are generally consistent between various samples. One mixture that is under trial is 1/3 3% hydrogen-peroxide mixed with 2/3 dark red wine (e.g.., merlot). Burgundy color results from stain of red wine. Another alternative under investigation is to limit the exposure to hydrogen peroxide by swabbing the teeth with peroxide prior to an extended rinse with red wine. Hydrogen peroxide is NOT to be taken internally. Sensitivity and reactions to peroxide may be of concern and an issue to consider.
NO THERAPY OF ANY KIND IS BEING RECOMMENDED WITHIN THIS REPORT; OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS ONLY IS BEING PROVIDED.
Identical pathogenic forms have now been found across most body systems and functions. The rinse test has in some cases been ongoing for 1-2 months; there continues to production of some material in most every case. Microscopic examination will be required for any final determination. On occasions, the test has been conducted several times in a row (e.g.., 30-45 minute session of approx. 5 minutes each) with no cessation of material to date, although the amount appears to eventually decrease. It appears that the production of material can be correlated directly with the amount of time devoted to testing. The presence of the material also appears to be associated with a ear-blockage condition in one case. Not all individuals produce this amount of material and the sample may need to be examined very closely to determine if it exists; it usually appears as fibrous or stringy if present. The individual providing this sample does not demonstrate any outwardly visible "Morgellons" symptoms.
fibrous gum-dental sample
A similar gum-dental sample after drying and evaporation of the wine-peroxide mixture. Solid materials remain which form the basis of one of many recent analyses.
fibrous gum-dental sample
One portion of the sample above observed at extreme visible magnification under the microscope. Dental-gum expelled sample. Sample extracted with use of hydrogen peroxide-red wine mix. [please refer to (http://www.carnicom.com/morgobs6.htm)Pathogens & the General Population] Three pathogenic forms visible: bounding filament (black border), sub-micron interior filament network (blue arrows) and Chlamydia-like organisms(red circles).
Magnification approx. 7000x.
Chlamydia-like structures are visible
Microscopic examination of another gum-dental sample expelled from a separate individual using the wine-peroxide mixture. An encasing filament and the Chlamydia-like structures are visible. In this individual the hybrid form is more common within the bounding filament as opposed to the sub-micron filament network.
Magnification approx. 5000x.
This method described above is not provided as a therapy or diagnosis of any kind; the reaction is being described from an observational point of view. Individuals are to consult with their own health practitioner for their health needs.
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 09 2008
Article Source:
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
5.12.09
choosing vaccines
Dr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who, from my view, is actually able to compellingly and convincingly provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases.
Dr. Palevsky says:
“When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it.
Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught.
But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.
… and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.
… It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.
It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.”
So, why is there such a vast difference among intelligent, scientifically oriented, committed and objective scientists and physicians about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals.
But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.
Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it’s injected into your body?
Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?
More and more studies are coming out to show that:
* The proper studies haven’t been done
* Antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
* There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
* There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
* There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain, and
* There are foreign DNA particles that get into your body
For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied.”
What we currently have is a one-sided policy; a one way of thinking that is impossible to really allow for the appropriate debate. Science is truly a field where you ask a question, you find an answer, and you don’t have the biases or the influences that change the way an answer or a conclusion is made. We are not seeing that with vaccines.
On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally.
Dr. Palevsky began his investigation in earnest about 10 years ago because parents came to him with complaints, worries, and concerns that something had happened to their children after they were vaccinated.
Interestingly, this is the same way that I became enlightened about vaccines -- through the concern of a very patient mother whose family I was taking care of. She gently persisted in showing me the evidence and thank God I listened!
Tragically, most doctors are far too arrogant to even consider that there is any possibility that there might be something wrong with vaccines.
Most pediatricians are indoctrinated to simply tell parents that anything related to a bad outcome from a vaccine is a mere coincidence. But how come there are so many of these “coincidences”?
Says Palevsky,
“It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed asthma and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because they’re doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real.
The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age.
The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system.
Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction.
… When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards.
You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.”
When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.”
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) just raised $100,000 and continues to look for donations and sponsors to allow proper safety studies to be done by independent researchers, who aren’t going to influence the outcomes.
One study that looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children does exist.
Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in April 2005, that looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all.
All the investigators asked the parents to do was to report atopic illness. Atopic illness means allergies, asthma, eczema, hay fever. The investigators were blinded, meaning they didn’t know which category the participants belonged to.
When they assessed the data, they found that the largest number of reports by parents of children with atopic illness were in the kids who were fully vaccinated. The second highest reports were in the families who are partially vaccinated. And the lowest number of reports was in the children who were unvaccinated…
The investigators performed a statistical analysis to see if the data was based on chance or on real statistical differences, and found there were statistically significant differences between these groups. They couldn’t understand how this was possible, because the generally accepted consensus is that vaccines are completely safe, and completely effective.
Based on this initial finding, we clearly need to do follow-up studies to ask the same question over and over again; repeat this kind of investigation with different populations across different parts of the country, to unearth the truth!
Dr. Palevsky says:
“Certainly, the issue has been raised about the special interests, the money that’s tied, the policies, how much money the vaccine manufacturers stand to make, the doctors who make decisions on vaccines, and how much money they stand to make. But we need the science and not this conspiracy theory...
If we just stay with the science, and really start to address the need for the science, and look at the fact that there is a lack of science, we will definitely see that more needs to be done.
We have not done due diligence.”
Many may be surprised by Dr. Palevsky’s answer:
“… in my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we’re trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe.”
What most people don’t know is that a virus is not “alive,” per se.
It is simply a piece or strand of either RNA or DNA. And even of itself, a virus can’t “do” anything.
In addition it is so tiny that it can only be seen under an electron microscope. It is much smaller than bacteria, which can only be seen in the regular microscope. So viruses cannot be isolated when you make a viral vaccine. All that can be isolated is the tissue, whether it’s human tissue or animal tissue that is believed to have been infected by that specific virus that you’re trying to isolate.
So when a viral culture or a set of cultures are made including the specific virus, you’re going to have the DNA of people or animals who were already infected. Those cells are then taken and grown on animal cells, whether it's monkey kidney cells or chicken embryo cells.
When mixed together, these cells will splice and recombine, which means that DNA from animal cells are going to mix with DNA from the known infected cells with the virus.
So by definition, a viral vaccine contains foreign animal and, even possibly, foreign human DNA. That’s why if you have an egg allergy, you shouldn’t get certain vaccines because it is known that there’s going to be egg protein in the vaccine.
So the question is, how safe is it to inject viral material that is embedded into the DNA of foreign DNA cells?
What studies have been done to actually test whether foreign DNA is getting into your body; whether it stays in your DNA; whether it gets into your brain; and whether there are foreign animal viruses that are inherently present in animal DNA to begin with?
Adjuvants are used in vaccines in order to create a sufficiently strong immunological response. Adjuvants augment your immunological response.
But there is clear evidence that adjuvants, like aluminum and squalene impair your immune system.
So while you may be getting the antibodies desired, you are, at the same time, damaging your immune system. Particularly in children, this can set them up to develop chronic illness.
So, does that mean you should never vaccinate against anything?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“That’s something that needs to be left up to the individual parent. I am truly a proponent of informed consent, and I’m truly supportive of families who have done their homework and who have been able to make the choice.
What is the possible risk of the illness? What is the possible health outcome if your child gets one of those illnesses?
And how much do you know about those risks versus how much do you know about the risks of the vaccines and the health outcomes of what may happen when children are vaccinated against single, or even multiple, vaccines?
And when parents are given both sides, it is up to them to make that informed choice.
It is no longer my role to tell them that they must do this vaccine but not that vaccine, because each parent has to make an informed choice based on their understanding of how diseases occur or don’t occur, what science we have available, and whether they feel comfortable with the devil that they know (the science and the outcomes of disease) versus the devil that they don’t know (science and the outcomes of the vaccine).”
Echoing many other health professionals, including myself, Dr. Palevsky’s concern is that there haven’t been sufficient amounts of scientific investigation to actually be able to say that the vaccines are safe, or even effective.
He says:
“Now if you read the packaging first of the swine flu vaccine, it specifically states that the swine flu or the H1N1 flu vaccine was manufactured in the same manufacturing process as the flu vaccine. Therefore since we believe that the flu vaccine has been sufficiently tested to be safe, we can then conclude that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.
But the public should know that even though our authorities are standing there and saying that the H1N1 vaccine is safe, the proper studies have not been done.
… And it’s unfair to say to parents or to the public that if you come down with a flu-like illness, it must be H1N1. In studies that have been done, people who did get the flu had their noses swabbed, and they were found to have H1N1.
What’s missing in these data is a population of healthy people who have not had any flu symptoms – to actually see if their noses contained H1N1 – because if someone is sick and has the presence of an H1N1 virus in the nose, it doesn’t mean that the H1N1 is causing the illness.
You really have to take an appropriate control group to see if people are colonized with that virus even when they’re not sick.
So we don’t have that data; we really don’t know. I don’t think we can say with good scientific certainty that people who are getting sick from the flu and who are being diagnosed with H1N1 are actually having H1N1 as the cause.”
Again, there’s clear evidence in the medical literature that shows proper hygiene, proper sleep, proper diet, proper supplementation with things like vitamin D (making sure that you get your vitamin D level done first), and perhaps vitamin C, can actually prevent you from getting the flu.
Many insist that vaccinated individuals “protect” the unvaccinated against the flu virus – in essence, reaping the benefit of the protection they refuse for themselves, while at the same time putting others in danger.
But how does that make sense?
Says Dr. Palevsky:
“How does vaccinating against the flu virus stop you from carrying the flu virus in your nasal passages?”
And yet, this is what many believe.
One of the primary arguments that is being used to justify this insane behavior is “herd immunity.”
The fact is that vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin, or in your body.
But many do not understand the significance of this fact, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses, and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated.
As it turns out, this belief is NOT based on scientific fact.
Dr. Palevsky explains:
“This whole concept of herd immunity is very interesting, because we were taught that herd immunity occurs because a certain percentage of a population gets an active illness. Therefore by a certain percentage of getting the active illness, they impart a protection onto the remaining part of the population that has not gotten the illness yet.
And so the herd that is getting the illness is shedding the illness and protecting those who have not gotten it.
In vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated. And that has NOT been shown to be true, because the true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE DISEASE, and we know that despite what we’re taught, vaccination does not mimic the natural disease.
So we cannot use the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease in the vaccination policy. But unfortunately, we do use it even though it cannot be used because it doesn’t have scientific backing.
What’s most interesting to me is that the entire concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the viruses and the bacteria all on their own, and that what turns them on and off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.
All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn’t infect 70 or 80 percent of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20 or 30 percent that didn’t get the disease.
This is because the virus itself had a life cycle of its own. And so it came and went without any percentage of the population being protected. There wasn’t herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.
We fail to include that viruses have a life cycle, and that they are in relationship to other organisms and to us. Something activates them and something actually stops them, and it has nothing necessarily to do with the percentage of people who would have the illness or who have been vaccinated.
… It is preposterous to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria or the viruses that they have been vaccinated against. If, in fact, children are vaccinated, then why are parents and public health authorities afraid that non-vaccinated children are somehow carrying something that their children are not, when they should feel comfortable that their children are vaccinated?
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.
It just doesn’t make any sense.”
It’s important to understand that the natural illness has greater influence on the health of your body. Says Dr. Palevsky:
“In medical school, the mentors that I had saw children in their practices in the 40s, 50s and all the way up to the 80s getting these flu-like illnesses who were properly treated with rest, fluids and proper supplementation.
Those kids had developmental growth spurts after the illnesses were over.
There is something to say for these viral illnesses that impart a certain boosting of the immune system of your children. And if we’re not letting them have these illnesses, what are we doing to their immune systems? Aren’t we actually hampering their overall health?”
You need to understand that there’s a significant difference between natural immunity and vaccination immunity.
When children are born, they develop natural immunity to hundreds, thousands, millions, and even trillions of microorganisms that they breathe in, eat, and touch through their skin. Their immune systems at the lining of their airways, at the lining of their intestines, and on their skin are actively protecting their body from the outside world.
Those immune systems that are intricately and specifically located in the linings are very important to create memory and protection to the organisms that they continue to breathe, eat, and touch.
That immune system response then has a domino effect on creating other memory and immune responses that give your body antibodies and protection.
That’s a very important step for how the immune system matures in our children. From the linings, the immune system receives information, sends out signals to all other parts of the immune system, and creates an immune response, memory, and antibodies.
On the other hand, when you inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line of defense.
With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural disease.
Some people will argue that this is why we have nasal spray vaccines.
However, again, you’re making the assumption that you have not already been exposed to the virus at some point, and you’re also making the assumption that exposure automatically leads to infection.
Exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot of it has to do with the overall status of your immune system.
One issue that is frequently ignored is the potential harm from the synergy of combinations of vaccines, which have never been studied.
No one knows whether there’s interaction between the bacteria and the viruses in the vaccines administered as part of the childhood vaccination schedule, or if there is interaction in the trace thimerosal (which is still in some of the multi-vials of certain vaccines), or the large amount of aluminum that is in many of them.
Dr. Palevsky says:
“There is a scientist named Boyd Haley, who has actually looked into some of the vaccine ingredients and (1) what happens to nerve cells when you inject them in the lab to specific vaccine ingredients, and (2) what happens to the nerve cells when you keep adding another vaccine ingredient.
He specifically showed that in the presence of thimerosal, there’s a lot of damage to nerve cells. When you add aluminum to the thimerosal, you need less thimerosal to create the damage to the immune and nerve cells in the presence of aluminum.
Then when you add neomycin – an antibiotic in some of the vaccines – it potentiates the potency of nerve cell damage with aluminum and mercury together.
And when you culture the nerve cells and testosterone, versus estrogen, and you expose them to some of the vaccine ingredients like thimerosal, you actually see that the nerve cells that are exposed to testosterone are more damaged in greater amounts than the nerve cells that are bathed in estrogen.
That raises some concern because we do see that children with neurodevelopmental disorders are 4:1, boys to girls.
So you have to question whether testosterone actually makes children more vulnerable to exposure to toxins like mercury, aluminum or their combination?
None of these studies have been done in humans. People say, “We can’t do those studies.” And I say, “Why not?” They say, “It’s unethical.”
I say, “Well, if it’s unethical to do those studies on vaccine ingredients and combining them together, then it’s unethical to give the vaccines in general.”
So we’re missing a lot of important data that we won’t believe, and we’re also missing a lot of important data that we won’t accumulate because most of the studies that are done are by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.”
About Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., F.A.A.P.
Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician who utilizes a holistic approach to children’s wellness and illness. Dr. Palevsky received his medical degree from the NYU School of Medicine in 1987, completed a three-year pediatric residency at The Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC in 1990, and served as a pediatric fellow in the ambulatory care out-patient department at Bellevue Hospital, NYC, from 1990-1991.
Since 1991, his clinical experience includes working in pediatric emergency and intensive care medicine, in-patient and out-patient pediatric medicine, neonatal intensive care medicine, newborn and delivery room medicine, and conventional, holistic and integrative pediatric private practice at the Center for Health & Healing- an integrative and complementary care medical facility affiliated with the Beth Israel Medical Center in NYC. Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association (www.hpakids.org) and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association (www.holisticmedicine.org).
In his current practice in Northport, Long Island and Manhattan, NYC, Dr. Palevsky offers consultations and educational programs to families and practitioners in the areas of preventive and holistic health; childhood development; lifestyle changes; nutrition for adults, infants and children; safe, alternative treatments for common and difficult to treat acute and chronic pediatric and adult conditions; vaccination controversies; mindful parenting; and rethinking the medical paradigm.
Additionally, he teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents, and medical and allied health professionals, both nationally & internationally, and is available for speaking engagements worldwide.
For more information or to contact Dr. Palevsky, please visit www.drpalevsky.com or contact info@drpalevsky.com
Dr. Palevsky says:
“When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it.
Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught.
But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.
… and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.
… It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.
It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.”
So, why is there such a vast difference among intelligent, scientifically oriented, committed and objective scientists and physicians about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals.
But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.
Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it’s injected into your body?
Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?
More and more studies are coming out to show that:
* The proper studies haven’t been done
* Antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
* There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
* There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
* There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain, and
* There are foreign DNA particles that get into your body
For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied.”
What we currently have is a one-sided policy; a one way of thinking that is impossible to really allow for the appropriate debate. Science is truly a field where you ask a question, you find an answer, and you don’t have the biases or the influences that change the way an answer or a conclusion is made. We are not seeing that with vaccines.
On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally.
Dr. Palevsky began his investigation in earnest about 10 years ago because parents came to him with complaints, worries, and concerns that something had happened to their children after they were vaccinated.
Interestingly, this is the same way that I became enlightened about vaccines -- through the concern of a very patient mother whose family I was taking care of. She gently persisted in showing me the evidence and thank God I listened!
Tragically, most doctors are far too arrogant to even consider that there is any possibility that there might be something wrong with vaccines.
Most pediatricians are indoctrinated to simply tell parents that anything related to a bad outcome from a vaccine is a mere coincidence. But how come there are so many of these “coincidences”?
Says Palevsky,
“It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed asthma and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because they’re doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real.
The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age.
The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system.
Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction.
… When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards.
You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.”
When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.”
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) just raised $100,000 and continues to look for donations and sponsors to allow proper safety studies to be done by independent researchers, who aren’t going to influence the outcomes.
One study that looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children does exist.
Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in April 2005, that looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all.
All the investigators asked the parents to do was to report atopic illness. Atopic illness means allergies, asthma, eczema, hay fever. The investigators were blinded, meaning they didn’t know which category the participants belonged to.
When they assessed the data, they found that the largest number of reports by parents of children with atopic illness were in the kids who were fully vaccinated. The second highest reports were in the families who are partially vaccinated. And the lowest number of reports was in the children who were unvaccinated…
The investigators performed a statistical analysis to see if the data was based on chance or on real statistical differences, and found there were statistically significant differences between these groups. They couldn’t understand how this was possible, because the generally accepted consensus is that vaccines are completely safe, and completely effective.
Based on this initial finding, we clearly need to do follow-up studies to ask the same question over and over again; repeat this kind of investigation with different populations across different parts of the country, to unearth the truth!
Dr. Palevsky says:
“Certainly, the issue has been raised about the special interests, the money that’s tied, the policies, how much money the vaccine manufacturers stand to make, the doctors who make decisions on vaccines, and how much money they stand to make. But we need the science and not this conspiracy theory...
If we just stay with the science, and really start to address the need for the science, and look at the fact that there is a lack of science, we will definitely see that more needs to be done.
We have not done due diligence.”
Many may be surprised by Dr. Palevsky’s answer:
“… in my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we’re trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe.”
What most people don’t know is that a virus is not “alive,” per se.
It is simply a piece or strand of either RNA or DNA. And even of itself, a virus can’t “do” anything.
In addition it is so tiny that it can only be seen under an electron microscope. It is much smaller than bacteria, which can only be seen in the regular microscope. So viruses cannot be isolated when you make a viral vaccine. All that can be isolated is the tissue, whether it’s human tissue or animal tissue that is believed to have been infected by that specific virus that you’re trying to isolate.
So when a viral culture or a set of cultures are made including the specific virus, you’re going to have the DNA of people or animals who were already infected. Those cells are then taken and grown on animal cells, whether it's monkey kidney cells or chicken embryo cells.
When mixed together, these cells will splice and recombine, which means that DNA from animal cells are going to mix with DNA from the known infected cells with the virus.
So by definition, a viral vaccine contains foreign animal and, even possibly, foreign human DNA. That’s why if you have an egg allergy, you shouldn’t get certain vaccines because it is known that there’s going to be egg protein in the vaccine.
So the question is, how safe is it to inject viral material that is embedded into the DNA of foreign DNA cells?
What studies have been done to actually test whether foreign DNA is getting into your body; whether it stays in your DNA; whether it gets into your brain; and whether there are foreign animal viruses that are inherently present in animal DNA to begin with?
Adjuvants are used in vaccines in order to create a sufficiently strong immunological response. Adjuvants augment your immunological response.
But there is clear evidence that adjuvants, like aluminum and squalene impair your immune system.
So while you may be getting the antibodies desired, you are, at the same time, damaging your immune system. Particularly in children, this can set them up to develop chronic illness.
So, does that mean you should never vaccinate against anything?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“That’s something that needs to be left up to the individual parent. I am truly a proponent of informed consent, and I’m truly supportive of families who have done their homework and who have been able to make the choice.
What is the possible risk of the illness? What is the possible health outcome if your child gets one of those illnesses?
And how much do you know about those risks versus how much do you know about the risks of the vaccines and the health outcomes of what may happen when children are vaccinated against single, or even multiple, vaccines?
And when parents are given both sides, it is up to them to make that informed choice.
It is no longer my role to tell them that they must do this vaccine but not that vaccine, because each parent has to make an informed choice based on their understanding of how diseases occur or don’t occur, what science we have available, and whether they feel comfortable with the devil that they know (the science and the outcomes of disease) versus the devil that they don’t know (science and the outcomes of the vaccine).”
Echoing many other health professionals, including myself, Dr. Palevsky’s concern is that there haven’t been sufficient amounts of scientific investigation to actually be able to say that the vaccines are safe, or even effective.
He says:
“Now if you read the packaging first of the swine flu vaccine, it specifically states that the swine flu or the H1N1 flu vaccine was manufactured in the same manufacturing process as the flu vaccine. Therefore since we believe that the flu vaccine has been sufficiently tested to be safe, we can then conclude that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.
But the public should know that even though our authorities are standing there and saying that the H1N1 vaccine is safe, the proper studies have not been done.
… And it’s unfair to say to parents or to the public that if you come down with a flu-like illness, it must be H1N1. In studies that have been done, people who did get the flu had their noses swabbed, and they were found to have H1N1.
What’s missing in these data is a population of healthy people who have not had any flu symptoms – to actually see if their noses contained H1N1 – because if someone is sick and has the presence of an H1N1 virus in the nose, it doesn’t mean that the H1N1 is causing the illness.
You really have to take an appropriate control group to see if people are colonized with that virus even when they’re not sick.
So we don’t have that data; we really don’t know. I don’t think we can say with good scientific certainty that people who are getting sick from the flu and who are being diagnosed with H1N1 are actually having H1N1 as the cause.”
Again, there’s clear evidence in the medical literature that shows proper hygiene, proper sleep, proper diet, proper supplementation with things like vitamin D (making sure that you get your vitamin D level done first), and perhaps vitamin C, can actually prevent you from getting the flu.
Many insist that vaccinated individuals “protect” the unvaccinated against the flu virus – in essence, reaping the benefit of the protection they refuse for themselves, while at the same time putting others in danger.
But how does that make sense?
Says Dr. Palevsky:
“How does vaccinating against the flu virus stop you from carrying the flu virus in your nasal passages?”
And yet, this is what many believe.
One of the primary arguments that is being used to justify this insane behavior is “herd immunity.”
The fact is that vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin, or in your body.
But many do not understand the significance of this fact, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses, and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated.
As it turns out, this belief is NOT based on scientific fact.
Dr. Palevsky explains:
“This whole concept of herd immunity is very interesting, because we were taught that herd immunity occurs because a certain percentage of a population gets an active illness. Therefore by a certain percentage of getting the active illness, they impart a protection onto the remaining part of the population that has not gotten the illness yet.
And so the herd that is getting the illness is shedding the illness and protecting those who have not gotten it.
In vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated. And that has NOT been shown to be true, because the true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE DISEASE, and we know that despite what we’re taught, vaccination does not mimic the natural disease.
So we cannot use the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease in the vaccination policy. But unfortunately, we do use it even though it cannot be used because it doesn’t have scientific backing.
What’s most interesting to me is that the entire concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the viruses and the bacteria all on their own, and that what turns them on and off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.
All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn’t infect 70 or 80 percent of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20 or 30 percent that didn’t get the disease.
This is because the virus itself had a life cycle of its own. And so it came and went without any percentage of the population being protected. There wasn’t herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.
We fail to include that viruses have a life cycle, and that they are in relationship to other organisms and to us. Something activates them and something actually stops them, and it has nothing necessarily to do with the percentage of people who would have the illness or who have been vaccinated.
… It is preposterous to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria or the viruses that they have been vaccinated against. If, in fact, children are vaccinated, then why are parents and public health authorities afraid that non-vaccinated children are somehow carrying something that their children are not, when they should feel comfortable that their children are vaccinated?
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.
It just doesn’t make any sense.”
It’s important to understand that the natural illness has greater influence on the health of your body. Says Dr. Palevsky:
“In medical school, the mentors that I had saw children in their practices in the 40s, 50s and all the way up to the 80s getting these flu-like illnesses who were properly treated with rest, fluids and proper supplementation.
Those kids had developmental growth spurts after the illnesses were over.
There is something to say for these viral illnesses that impart a certain boosting of the immune system of your children. And if we’re not letting them have these illnesses, what are we doing to their immune systems? Aren’t we actually hampering their overall health?”
You need to understand that there’s a significant difference between natural immunity and vaccination immunity.
When children are born, they develop natural immunity to hundreds, thousands, millions, and even trillions of microorganisms that they breathe in, eat, and touch through their skin. Their immune systems at the lining of their airways, at the lining of their intestines, and on their skin are actively protecting their body from the outside world.
Those immune systems that are intricately and specifically located in the linings are very important to create memory and protection to the organisms that they continue to breathe, eat, and touch.
That immune system response then has a domino effect on creating other memory and immune responses that give your body antibodies and protection.
That’s a very important step for how the immune system matures in our children. From the linings, the immune system receives information, sends out signals to all other parts of the immune system, and creates an immune response, memory, and antibodies.
On the other hand, when you inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line of defense.
With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural disease.
Some people will argue that this is why we have nasal spray vaccines.
However, again, you’re making the assumption that you have not already been exposed to the virus at some point, and you’re also making the assumption that exposure automatically leads to infection.
Exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot of it has to do with the overall status of your immune system.
One issue that is frequently ignored is the potential harm from the synergy of combinations of vaccines, which have never been studied.
No one knows whether there’s interaction between the bacteria and the viruses in the vaccines administered as part of the childhood vaccination schedule, or if there is interaction in the trace thimerosal (which is still in some of the multi-vials of certain vaccines), or the large amount of aluminum that is in many of them.
Dr. Palevsky says:
“There is a scientist named Boyd Haley, who has actually looked into some of the vaccine ingredients and (1) what happens to nerve cells when you inject them in the lab to specific vaccine ingredients, and (2) what happens to the nerve cells when you keep adding another vaccine ingredient.
He specifically showed that in the presence of thimerosal, there’s a lot of damage to nerve cells. When you add aluminum to the thimerosal, you need less thimerosal to create the damage to the immune and nerve cells in the presence of aluminum.
Then when you add neomycin – an antibiotic in some of the vaccines – it potentiates the potency of nerve cell damage with aluminum and mercury together.
And when you culture the nerve cells and testosterone, versus estrogen, and you expose them to some of the vaccine ingredients like thimerosal, you actually see that the nerve cells that are exposed to testosterone are more damaged in greater amounts than the nerve cells that are bathed in estrogen.
That raises some concern because we do see that children with neurodevelopmental disorders are 4:1, boys to girls.
So you have to question whether testosterone actually makes children more vulnerable to exposure to toxins like mercury, aluminum or their combination?
None of these studies have been done in humans. People say, “We can’t do those studies.” And I say, “Why not?” They say, “It’s unethical.”
I say, “Well, if it’s unethical to do those studies on vaccine ingredients and combining them together, then it’s unethical to give the vaccines in general.”
So we’re missing a lot of important data that we won’t believe, and we’re also missing a lot of important data that we won’t accumulate because most of the studies that are done are by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.”
About Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., F.A.A.P.
Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician who utilizes a holistic approach to children’s wellness and illness. Dr. Palevsky received his medical degree from the NYU School of Medicine in 1987, completed a three-year pediatric residency at The Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC in 1990, and served as a pediatric fellow in the ambulatory care out-patient department at Bellevue Hospital, NYC, from 1990-1991.
Since 1991, his clinical experience includes working in pediatric emergency and intensive care medicine, in-patient and out-patient pediatric medicine, neonatal intensive care medicine, newborn and delivery room medicine, and conventional, holistic and integrative pediatric private practice at the Center for Health & Healing- an integrative and complementary care medical facility affiliated with the Beth Israel Medical Center in NYC. Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association (www.hpakids.org) and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association (www.holisticmedicine.org).
In his current practice in Northport, Long Island and Manhattan, NYC, Dr. Palevsky offers consultations and educational programs to families and practitioners in the areas of preventive and holistic health; childhood development; lifestyle changes; nutrition for adults, infants and children; safe, alternative treatments for common and difficult to treat acute and chronic pediatric and adult conditions; vaccination controversies; mindful parenting; and rethinking the medical paradigm.
Additionally, he teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents, and medical and allied health professionals, both nationally & internationally, and is available for speaking engagements worldwide.
For more information or to contact Dr. Palevsky, please visit www.drpalevsky.com or contact info@drpalevsky.com
2.12.09
SkyWatch Canada
SkyWatch Canada
Infowars
September 15, 2009
Since early March of 2009 the skies over Canada’s Capital City have been littered with chemtrails dispensed by jets that resemble Boeing passenger 747’s. It all started about a week or so before Swine Flu news hit the mainstream. From that point on, the amount of chemtrails being sprayed in to the skies has gradually intensified.
So the question that needs to be asked is what is being sprayed into our skies, and why ? It is known amongst certain groups of people, that chemtrails consist mainly of Barium salts and Aluminum. This cocktail appears as a white spray (similar to a contrail, but lingers in the sky) and once dispersed can easily be mistaken for high altitude clouds. Some have even witnessed planes spraying a brown substance from low altitudes.
This substance which has been observed, lands on the ground as a stringy/sticky gel. This gel has previously been analyzed by the Washington State Department of Heath and AmTest Laboratorie. It appeared to be composed of red blood cells mixed with biological agents. What are the implications of such incidences and what have they become more frequent in recent months ?
In addition to increased chemtrail activity, the skies in the Nation’s Capital have seen a drastic change in flight patterns of what appear to be commercial 747s or look alikes. Planes have been flying lower than they ever have in the last 20 years. These jets make rounds over residential neighborhoods flying at altitudes as low as 500 ft.
Neighborhoods that are a good 40 km away from the Ottawa airport. They seem to leave the airport fly in a circle over the city at extremely low altitudes and go back where they came from. The frequency of this type of occurrence in drastically increasing. The people need to ask why ? How come there are planes are flying low over houses every 5 minutes ? There certainly aren’t that many commercial flights coming in and out of Ottawa. Are the citizens being acclimated for some future event ?
On the topic of Barium, it is known that it is toxic to humans. Not only does it disrupt digestive tract function, but it affects the immune system. The immune system destroys pathogens by producing T-Cells. Barium in known to bind to T-Cell receptors and effectively deactivate them (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1541830). Is it just a coincidence that we are being warned about a deadly re-emergence of A/H1N1 this fall and our immune systems are being assaulted on a daily basis with Barium ? Probably Not.
In regards to low flying jets. Is it possible they are practicing to release a bioweapon over densely populated areas ? It has been said that biological agents must be released at lower altitudes to ensure they aren’t damaged by the low temperatures found at high altitudes. Everybody knows the NWO crowd likes to acclimate the sheep. This sets the stage for a coordinated release of some biowepon as Steve Quayle has previously spoken of.
There are actually reports coming in that such an event may be in the works. Most pieces of evidence are mere eye witness accounts; but such is the world of intelligence. This kind of information would never make it into mainstream news. In March 2009, a youtube video was released of a call someone made to a radio show called the Power Hour.
The caller had been in touch with a truck driver, working on contract for the Department of Homeland Security. He was getting paid $500 USD a load for trucking bird flu vials to various destinations within the US. All of the deliveries were made at night, and the truck(s) were all escorted by armed undercover ex-cops/private security. Many of the loads were either picked up or dropped of at underground missile silos. The personnel receiving the deliveries were often in full Hazmat gear. The truck driver and his family were inoculated for ‘protection’ against bird flu.
This truck driver was paid at a Bank of America branch in a back room. He anonymously gave a number to the bank and was paid in cash on the spot. He was summoned randomly by DHS for meetings at 3am, and examined regularly to make sure he had not contracted the virus. One of his colleagues who owned an especially long flat bed was hired as part of the operation to haul an 80 ton missile across the country. The extremely heavy load blew his breaks and DHS promptly reacted and had them immediately fixed so he could complete the delivery. Many of the truck driver’s deliveries were extremely mysterious in nature. He was often told to drive an empty truck from one location to another and then was stopped at a random site and led down a private road to a dropoff point, (many of which were underground missile silos) so if interrogated he could not divulge sensitive information.
At one of his deliveries, he deliveried clear, refrigerated vials containing white liquid which were then loaded into a military C-130 plane. The driver earned at least a hundred of thousand dollars delivering these loads. He and and his family have since been relocated to safe housing on a military base. The woman who called in this information to the radio show has presented it to the local Police and the FBI. The response from both of them was , “this thing is so big we won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole”. Obviously something big is afoot.
In addition to the truck driver’s story one of Steve Quayle’s credible intelligence sources divulged the following information on August 25th 2009: “One notable report from the Flaming Gorge Recreation Area in Utah, Wyoming, and near Colorado cited large numbers of Italian men in one cabin and large numbers of French men in another all speaking only in Italian and French .
Also this report included excellent detail of some of these getting on Harley Davidson motorcycles after a Chinook Helicopter passed over the lodge. They were seen riding out to meet the Chinook and receiving something from it which then was taken back to the lodge. Noticeable were the large numbers of coolers at these respective cabins….perhaps the type that might keep samples of some Virus or Flu cool enough for preservation until samples were to be distributed?”
(http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/08_Hawk/090825.fraction.wars.html )
With all of the clues available is it possible to conceive that after unsuspecting citizens have consumed excess amounts of Barium which has made It’s way from the clouds into the sewer systems and back into drinking water, that we are caught in a globalist conspiracy to lower our immune systems for the coming “second wave” of the so called swine flu ? Will there be a synchronized aerosol release of weaponized influenza on the masses , or will there be live virus (in addition to deadly amounts of Squalene)inside the H1N1 vaccine, or both ?
In terms of a method to achieve population reduction, bioweapons can theoretically be the most effective (only second to nuclear fallout) because after the initial release it continues to spread and multiply among humans. It’s evident from all of the mainstream propaganda about swine flu these days that we are being prepared for something big, even if the current swine flu outbreak up to this point has been no more than a joke. Time is running out for Obama and the NWO crowd to seize dictatorial control of North America. The masses are awakening at an unprecedented rate. How will the next few months unfold? Who will be victorious ?
God Save The Republic.
Infowars
September 15, 2009
Since early March of 2009 the skies over Canada’s Capital City have been littered with chemtrails dispensed by jets that resemble Boeing passenger 747’s. It all started about a week or so before Swine Flu news hit the mainstream. From that point on, the amount of chemtrails being sprayed in to the skies has gradually intensified.
So the question that needs to be asked is what is being sprayed into our skies, and why ? It is known amongst certain groups of people, that chemtrails consist mainly of Barium salts and Aluminum. This cocktail appears as a white spray (similar to a contrail, but lingers in the sky) and once dispersed can easily be mistaken for high altitude clouds. Some have even witnessed planes spraying a brown substance from low altitudes.
This substance which has been observed, lands on the ground as a stringy/sticky gel. This gel has previously been analyzed by the Washington State Department of Heath and AmTest Laboratorie. It appeared to be composed of red blood cells mixed with biological agents. What are the implications of such incidences and what have they become more frequent in recent months ?
In addition to increased chemtrail activity, the skies in the Nation’s Capital have seen a drastic change in flight patterns of what appear to be commercial 747s or look alikes. Planes have been flying lower than they ever have in the last 20 years. These jets make rounds over residential neighborhoods flying at altitudes as low as 500 ft.
Neighborhoods that are a good 40 km away from the Ottawa airport. They seem to leave the airport fly in a circle over the city at extremely low altitudes and go back where they came from. The frequency of this type of occurrence in drastically increasing. The people need to ask why ? How come there are planes are flying low over houses every 5 minutes ? There certainly aren’t that many commercial flights coming in and out of Ottawa. Are the citizens being acclimated for some future event ?
On the topic of Barium, it is known that it is toxic to humans. Not only does it disrupt digestive tract function, but it affects the immune system. The immune system destroys pathogens by producing T-Cells. Barium in known to bind to T-Cell receptors and effectively deactivate them (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1541830). Is it just a coincidence that we are being warned about a deadly re-emergence of A/H1N1 this fall and our immune systems are being assaulted on a daily basis with Barium ? Probably Not.
In regards to low flying jets. Is it possible they are practicing to release a bioweapon over densely populated areas ? It has been said that biological agents must be released at lower altitudes to ensure they aren’t damaged by the low temperatures found at high altitudes. Everybody knows the NWO crowd likes to acclimate the sheep. This sets the stage for a coordinated release of some biowepon as Steve Quayle has previously spoken of.
There are actually reports coming in that such an event may be in the works. Most pieces of evidence are mere eye witness accounts; but such is the world of intelligence. This kind of information would never make it into mainstream news. In March 2009, a youtube video was released of a call someone made to a radio show called the Power Hour.
The caller had been in touch with a truck driver, working on contract for the Department of Homeland Security. He was getting paid $500 USD a load for trucking bird flu vials to various destinations within the US. All of the deliveries were made at night, and the truck(s) were all escorted by armed undercover ex-cops/private security. Many of the loads were either picked up or dropped of at underground missile silos. The personnel receiving the deliveries were often in full Hazmat gear. The truck driver and his family were inoculated for ‘protection’ against bird flu.
This truck driver was paid at a Bank of America branch in a back room. He anonymously gave a number to the bank and was paid in cash on the spot. He was summoned randomly by DHS for meetings at 3am, and examined regularly to make sure he had not contracted the virus. One of his colleagues who owned an especially long flat bed was hired as part of the operation to haul an 80 ton missile across the country. The extremely heavy load blew his breaks and DHS promptly reacted and had them immediately fixed so he could complete the delivery. Many of the truck driver’s deliveries were extremely mysterious in nature. He was often told to drive an empty truck from one location to another and then was stopped at a random site and led down a private road to a dropoff point, (many of which were underground missile silos) so if interrogated he could not divulge sensitive information.
At one of his deliveries, he deliveried clear, refrigerated vials containing white liquid which were then loaded into a military C-130 plane. The driver earned at least a hundred of thousand dollars delivering these loads. He and and his family have since been relocated to safe housing on a military base. The woman who called in this information to the radio show has presented it to the local Police and the FBI. The response from both of them was , “this thing is so big we won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole”. Obviously something big is afoot.
In addition to the truck driver’s story one of Steve Quayle’s credible intelligence sources divulged the following information on August 25th 2009: “One notable report from the Flaming Gorge Recreation Area in Utah, Wyoming, and near Colorado cited large numbers of Italian men in one cabin and large numbers of French men in another all speaking only in Italian and French .
Also this report included excellent detail of some of these getting on Harley Davidson motorcycles after a Chinook Helicopter passed over the lodge. They were seen riding out to meet the Chinook and receiving something from it which then was taken back to the lodge. Noticeable were the large numbers of coolers at these respective cabins….perhaps the type that might keep samples of some Virus or Flu cool enough for preservation until samples were to be distributed?”
(http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/08_Hawk/090825.fraction.wars.html )
With all of the clues available is it possible to conceive that after unsuspecting citizens have consumed excess amounts of Barium which has made It’s way from the clouds into the sewer systems and back into drinking water, that we are caught in a globalist conspiracy to lower our immune systems for the coming “second wave” of the so called swine flu ? Will there be a synchronized aerosol release of weaponized influenza on the masses , or will there be live virus (in addition to deadly amounts of Squalene)inside the H1N1 vaccine, or both ?
In terms of a method to achieve population reduction, bioweapons can theoretically be the most effective (only second to nuclear fallout) because after the initial release it continues to spread and multiply among humans. It’s evident from all of the mainstream propaganda about swine flu these days that we are being prepared for something big, even if the current swine flu outbreak up to this point has been no more than a joke. Time is running out for Obama and the NWO crowd to seize dictatorial control of North America. The masses are awakening at an unprecedented rate. How will the next few months unfold? Who will be victorious ?
God Save The Republic.
Toxicology of ultrafine and nanoparticles
Research interest
http://itgmv1.fzk.de/www/itg/diabate/diabate.html
The causes of adverse health effects due to inhalation of particles are not well understood. This is especially the case for very small particles unintendedly released by combustion processes (ultrafine particles < 100 nm) or produced for special purposes (nanoparticles < 100 nm). Most of the knowledge is based on recent studies on ambient ultrafine particles which are associated with increased respiratory and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity of the general public at elevated concentrations.
The main objectives of our research programme are:
- to identify the physico-chemical parameters of particles which contribute to the adverse health effects by in vitro studies using well defined nanoparticles (hematite, carbon black) and complex combustion derived particles (fly ash).
- to identify the cellular and molecular mechanisms, which initiate and modulate the adverse heath effects.
- to establish a lung-specific biotest using exposure of cells at the air- liquid interface to screen the toxicologic potential of unknown aerosols.
Particles are taken up by lung cells and induce local effects by oxidative injury and pulmonary inflammation. This can lead to long-term consequences such as chronic bronchitis (COPD), fibrosis and cancer. Our studies with transmission electron microscopy also showed that all nanoparticles under study were taken up by cells. However, the uptake mechanism is still unknown.
Particles with the ability to generate reactive oxygen species due to their surface properties and/or adsorbed transition metals are most critical since induction of intracellular oxidative stress seems to be a key event of the biological effects of particles. We have recently shown that oxidative stress induced the expression of antioxidant proteins such as heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) and increased the cellular glutathione content in alveolar and bronchial epithelial cells as well as macrophages after exposure to combustion generated particles. Expression of these genes protects cells from oxidative damage and can prevent mutagenesis and cancer. The transcription factors Nrf2 and AP-1 are most likely involved in activating genes leading to these responses. Although there are extensive studies on this topic using ambient particles, the exact mechanisms of these processes are still unknown. The results of this study help to understand the lung defence against particulate pollutants.
As an alternative to the well-known submerged exposure to nanoparticles, cells can be exposed to an aerosol via the airliquid interface which more resembles the conditions during inhalation of particles and deposition on the lung surface. For this type of experiments a special exposure device is necessary which is operated by the Institute of Technical Chemistry - Thermal Waste Treatment (ITC-TAB). Recent studies showed, that this exposure can be conducted reproducibly for the sub-micron fraction of fly ash particles with regard to the deposition of particles on the cells as well the cell responses.
The scanning-electron microscopic picture shows a macrophage exposed to hematite particles of 70 nm in diameter. False colors indicate the macrophage in blue and the hematite particles in red.
CULTEX exposure module with three cell culture inserts.
Other research projects within the Weiss Group
* Molecular toxicology of genotoxins and nanomaterials ( Carsten Weiss, Group leader )
http://itgmv1.fzk.de/www/itg/diabate/diabate.html
The causes of adverse health effects due to inhalation of particles are not well understood. This is especially the case for very small particles unintendedly released by combustion processes (ultrafine particles < 100 nm) or produced for special purposes (nanoparticles < 100 nm). Most of the knowledge is based on recent studies on ambient ultrafine particles which are associated with increased respiratory and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity of the general public at elevated concentrations.
The main objectives of our research programme are:
- to identify the physico-chemical parameters of particles which contribute to the adverse health effects by in vitro studies using well defined nanoparticles (hematite, carbon black) and complex combustion derived particles (fly ash).
- to identify the cellular and molecular mechanisms, which initiate and modulate the adverse heath effects.
- to establish a lung-specific biotest using exposure of cells at the air- liquid interface to screen the toxicologic potential of unknown aerosols.
Particles are taken up by lung cells and induce local effects by oxidative injury and pulmonary inflammation. This can lead to long-term consequences such as chronic bronchitis (COPD), fibrosis and cancer. Our studies with transmission electron microscopy also showed that all nanoparticles under study were taken up by cells. However, the uptake mechanism is still unknown.
Particles with the ability to generate reactive oxygen species due to their surface properties and/or adsorbed transition metals are most critical since induction of intracellular oxidative stress seems to be a key event of the biological effects of particles. We have recently shown that oxidative stress induced the expression of antioxidant proteins such as heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) and increased the cellular glutathione content in alveolar and bronchial epithelial cells as well as macrophages after exposure to combustion generated particles. Expression of these genes protects cells from oxidative damage and can prevent mutagenesis and cancer. The transcription factors Nrf2 and AP-1 are most likely involved in activating genes leading to these responses. Although there are extensive studies on this topic using ambient particles, the exact mechanisms of these processes are still unknown. The results of this study help to understand the lung defence against particulate pollutants.
As an alternative to the well-known submerged exposure to nanoparticles, cells can be exposed to an aerosol via the airliquid interface which more resembles the conditions during inhalation of particles and deposition on the lung surface. For this type of experiments a special exposure device is necessary which is operated by the Institute of Technical Chemistry - Thermal Waste Treatment (ITC-TAB). Recent studies showed, that this exposure can be conducted reproducibly for the sub-micron fraction of fly ash particles with regard to the deposition of particles on the cells as well the cell responses.
The scanning-electron microscopic picture shows a macrophage exposed to hematite particles of 70 nm in diameter. False colors indicate the macrophage in blue and the hematite particles in red.
CULTEX exposure module with three cell culture inserts.
Other research projects within the Weiss Group
* Molecular toxicology of genotoxins and nanomaterials ( Carsten Weiss, Group leader )
1.12.09
What International Health Expert Thinks of the Flu Vaccine
What International Health Expert Thinks of the Flu Vaccine
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
November 17 2009 | 271,662 views
obama, administration, flu, influenza, swine flu, flu vaccine, swine flu vaccine, H1N1, hihi, HIHI, A(H1N1)President Obama and his top health officials are engaging in a major public relations effort to divert attention away from whether its swine flu vaccine is effective and safe by focusing attention on whether there is enough of it to go around. And the media is cooperating fully.
Increasing numbers of scientists and doctors are issuing harsh criticisms of the government’s plan to vaccinate virtually the entire U.S. population with a poorly tested vaccine that is not only ineffective against swine flu, but could cripple and even kill many more people than it helps.
The CDC’s public relations campaign has been running “scare” ads that portray swine flu as a full-blown “pandemic” responsible for snuffing out countless lives. But scientists and health officials throughout the world have called the governments claims unjustified and deliberately misleading.
Sources:
Global Research October 29, 2009
The article above, written by Richard Gale, a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries, and Dr. Gary Null, author of Vaccine Nation, highlights one of the latest propaganda techniques used to frighten you into action, namely “scarcity of H1N1 vaccines.”
We’ve seen this tactic used before, with great effect, as people rush to the nearest vaccination facility to make sure they don’t miss the opportunity to be the one to get this rare life sustaining elixir.
It amazes me that despite all the evidence to the contrary, health officials and mass media are still saying the swine flu could kill some 90,000 Americans – if we don’t all get vaccinated.
There is simply NO evidence to support this outlandish projection. The evidence actually points to the exact opposite, that this season will have LESS deaths from flu than last year.
The data is very clear that it’s a milder than normal virus, only a few percent of all cases with the designation “swine flu” are actually the H1N1 virus, and in the Southern Hemisphere, people got over the wave of the flu just fine, before the vaccine was even available.
Government's Claims Unjustified and Deliberately Misleading
Gale and Null mention at least one distinguished health expert who has gone on the record to rebut government scare tactics.
“Dr. Anthony Morris, a distinguished virologist and former Chief Vaccine Office at the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA), states that “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza” and that “The producers of these vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”
So why is it that when it comes to public health decisions, government refuses to hear but one side of the argument?
Why are our health officials ignoring all the experts who have direct involvement with vaccines and claim to know they are neither as safe, nor as effective, as the drug industry insists they are?
What Can You Learn From History?
The last time we trusted industry and their appointed government lackeys about the swine flu vaccine, the vaccine ended up killing 300 times more people than the flu itself! It was 1976, and an outbreak of swine flu supposedly threatened the lives of millions.
But instead of the flu killing millions of people, it claimed ONE life, whereas the vaccine turned out to contain the real danger.
Twenty five people died from severe pulmonary complications after receiving the swine flu vaccine, and about 500 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome were reported after vaccination. Some 300 claims were later filed by families of Guillain-Barre Syndrome victims who died from the disease.
The 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle ended up costing the US government $3.5 billion in damages to some 4,000 vaccine injured Americans -- a direct result of the CDC’s intensive vaccination campaign.
Speeding ahead with our current mass vaccination policy after such a history lesson is plain foolish. Apparently, those in charge have chosen to learn nothing.
I agree with Gale and Null when they say that being anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine is not the most urgent issue here.
The most critical point is to evaluate whether or not there is legitimate, sound science to support either position. They write:
“… in this regard, the vaccine manufacturers and our federal health agencies have failed in the past, and continue to fail today. And they fail dismally.
There is absolutely no evidence for sound-scientific protocol or anything resembling a gold-standard behind the swine flu infection statistics and vaccine efficacy and safety clinical trials to support Obama’s and his health advisors’ claims. Instead, the reports on hospitalizations and deaths due to the H1N1 virus are grossly distorted.”
How Many Swine Flu Cases Actually Involve the H1N1 Virus?
They bring up another critical point that most people are not aware of -- that what is being reported as swine flu is in fact NOT swine flu, or even the regular flu!
As of August 30, 2009, the CDC ceased testing and counting actual H1N1 virus infections. As of that date, any and all cases or deaths of people exhibiting “flu like symptoms” are automatically tallied as an “H1N1 case,” artificially driving up the perceived threat.
The CDC’s public explanation is that they are convinced a pandemic is underway and, therefore, accurate monitoring is unnecessary because it’s so widespread, world-wide.
However, as I’ll show you in just a moment, this is simply not true! Yes, the H1N1 virus has appeared world-wide, but it is not the CAUSE of most flu like illness and death. In fact, the H1N1 virus is a tiny player, causing very little trouble.
Gale and Null explain:
“The truth is that we move annually into periods where there are dramatic increases in flu-like causing pathogens, however, the majority of these are unrelated to any strain of influenza virus.
There can between 150 and 200 different infectious pathogens—adenovirus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza, the very common coronavirus and, of course, pneumonia—that produce flu-like symptoms, and worse, during a “flu season.”
For example, how many people have heard of bocavirus, which is responsible for bronchitis and pneumonia in young children, or metapneumovirus, responsible for more than 5 percent of all flu-related illnesses? This is true during every flu season and this year is no different.
Furthermore, all flu vaccinations, including the swine flu, are useless for protecting people from these many prevalent infectious organisms.”
CBS News, after conducting a three-month investigation into the swine flu statistics, uncovered a number of very sobering facts that clearly show this swine flu pandemic for the cruel hoax it really is.
To be more precise, it was Sharyl Attkisson, an investigative correspondent for CBS News, who single-handedly uncovered this.
Sharyl has agreed to allow me to interview her about her ground breaking efforts in exposing this massive misinformation campaign, and I will feature her interview shortly.
Before beginning their investigation, Sharyl Attkisson asked the CDC for state-by-state test results prior to their halting of testing and tracking. The CDC did not initially respond, so she went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July.
What did they find? Sharyl reported:
"The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico."
As you can see from this CBS News graphic, not only are most cases of suspected flu-like illnesses not H1N1, they're not even the flu but more likely some type of cold or upper respiratory infection!
(Image from CBS News)
The interesting part of this is that a lot of these facts are not really hidden from you. Simply looking through the CDC’s own website with a critical eye and a rational mind, you can discover the truth for yourself.
Here’s just one example that contradicts what they’re saying in their official missives.
According to their own data, far fewer people have died from H1N1 than any seasonal flu in the past, world-wide!
For the US, this graph from the CDC, showing the "Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality for 122 US Cities" also shows that, so far, this year's flu mortality is FAR below that of 2008.
Were you panicking last year?
If not, why should you panic now when the risks are at a near all-time LOW?
Really, sit down somewhere and seriously think about this for a moment...
In light of all the facts, the question that begs to be asked is “Why is the government and their handmaidens, the media, fueling this panic mentality?”
Why are we once again talking about vaccination for every man woman and child in the nation, or, in fact, the world?
Why are Vaccine Safety Advocates Equated to Anti-Vaccine Fringe Lunatics?
Do you, or do you not, want the products injected into your body to be safe and reasonably effective?
If you do, you’ll need to seriously consider who is actually looking out for your health and safety, because the drug industry is not, and health officials with industry ties are not, and the FDA, which has a revolving door to the drug industry, isn’t doing it either.
Everyone wants safety. No one wants to get hurt by a drug or a vaccine, or have their child adversely affected . But few want to do what’s necessary to ensure such safety exists. Those who insist on it are branded as quacks and lunatics.
It’s an interesting dilemma… But it explains why many health care professionals stay mum on the subject, for fear of hurting their professional status.
Others, for whatever reason, are convinced vaccines offer the best protection against viruses, completely ignoring how your body and immune system actually works; how real immunity is achieved; and how your lifestyle affects your risk for complications.
For example, in session 1 of a Council On Foreign Relations Symposium on Pandemic Influenza: Science, Economics and Foreign Policy, held on October 16, 2009, an attendee identified as Tom Wilson (ph) from Cornell Medical School made the following statement to the panel:
“Sir, I think we're all aware that the anti-vaccine movement is having a field day on the Internet and on media outlooks like Fox News and so on, causing productions in vaccine uptake, and it appears to be a pretty unholy alliance of the ultra right and the ultra left working together to sort of hit with strong anti-tactics.
I'm not sure we're countering these people very well, and one of the things I do in my spare time is counter the AIDS denial, as to people believe (who) HIV is harmless or doesn't exist, and which led to the deaths of over 350,000 people in South Africa over the past decade.
And you have to take these people on in a different style than scientists are used to. We have to develop better sound bites. We have to develop better discussion. You don't really -- you can't really debate these people, but you have to develop the counter methods.
For example, you hear that we shouldn't take flu vaccines because the mercury will kill us. Well, Paul Offit in the New York Times last week pointed out that there is less mercury in a flu shot than there is in a tuna fish sandwich, and that's a powerful sound bite to use against the crazy people who think that vaccines will kill you. That's just one example.
We need to develop anti-tactics to get across the message that vaccines are safe and beneficial to society, and we need to learn to deal with the crazy people who would try and stop us doing that.”
(For the full transcript, see this link.)
The kind of sound bites this man recommends are just the type of dangerous misinformation we’re trying to teach you about. Because to think that the mercury you’d ingest from fish would affect you in the same way as mercury being injected straight into your body, bypassing all of your body’s natural defenses and detoxing mechanisms is simply false.
Why H1N1 Likely Will NEVER Be a True Pandemic Threat
To finish up, I’d like to quote Peter Palese, Professor and Chair, Microbiology and Professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Mount Sinai School of Medicine – one of the panel members of the Council On Foreign Relations Symposium on Pandemic Influenza:
“ … So, clearly, when I say this 2009 virus is like another seasonal virus, I don't mean this is a harmless virus which we should ignore. No. The regular flu is bad enough and this 2009 virus is also bad enough. Having said that, it lacks certain signatures, certain molecular signs which are associated with the 1918 pandemic and then explained in 1957 and in 1968, and that is one of the genes.
… It has a technical name, PB1F2, and that is missing in the 2009 virus. And it could acquire this by exchanging that mini-chromosome and getting one which carries that PB1F2 or by point mutation, however, and that would make it more virulent.
However, it is sort of like if I put a more powerful engine into a VW, if I put a Lamborghini engine into a VW or a little Fiat or some car, it may not be better. It may not fit. It may not mesh and that, I think, may also be happening with the 2009.
By accumulating and getting mutations or getting this other gene, more virulent gene, it may not end up as something which is really a sports car which runs 200 miles an hour, so there is a lot which has to sort of fit and mesh in order to make a virus really a 1918 or 1957.”
Folks, from every which angle, the swine flu pandemic is NOT what it’s being made out to be. Perhaps it’s all about greed and POWER - the government and corporations controlling what gets into your body and what goes into their bank accounts; about making a few bucks in a suffering economy when people can’t afford their regular medications and sales are down.
Perhaps it’s about saving face. They over-reacted, they hyped it up, and no one wants to admit they cried wolf – especially since billions of dollars were spent on vaccines that no one really needs.
But, like Gale and Dr. Null said, “The lie is too large for them to not expose themselves if you simply look.”
It’s true.
Remember, as tragic as any death is, the greater tragedy is using the few deaths that have occurred -- which were in most cases not directly caused by the H1N1 virus – as fuel to get rid of useless vaccines that may do more harm than good.
There are signs that the public across the world is starting to “get” it, however.
France, for example, has only been able to convince 0.1 percent of their population to get vaccinated. As of November 5, only 50,000 Frenchmen had lined up for the shot since the beginning of their campaign, out of a population of 65 million. And only 10 percent of health care workers have received the vaccine.
The French Health minister called the mass vaccination campaign “timid.”
Let’s keep it that way, everywhere, for everyone’s safety.
Related Links:
Latest H1N1 Swine Flu Alerts
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
November 17 2009 | 271,662 views
obama, administration, flu, influenza, swine flu, flu vaccine, swine flu vaccine, H1N1, hihi, HIHI, A(H1N1)President Obama and his top health officials are engaging in a major public relations effort to divert attention away from whether its swine flu vaccine is effective and safe by focusing attention on whether there is enough of it to go around. And the media is cooperating fully.
Increasing numbers of scientists and doctors are issuing harsh criticisms of the government’s plan to vaccinate virtually the entire U.S. population with a poorly tested vaccine that is not only ineffective against swine flu, but could cripple and even kill many more people than it helps.
The CDC’s public relations campaign has been running “scare” ads that portray swine flu as a full-blown “pandemic” responsible for snuffing out countless lives. But scientists and health officials throughout the world have called the governments claims unjustified and deliberately misleading.
Sources:
Global Research October 29, 2009
The article above, written by Richard Gale, a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries, and Dr. Gary Null, author of Vaccine Nation, highlights one of the latest propaganda techniques used to frighten you into action, namely “scarcity of H1N1 vaccines.”
We’ve seen this tactic used before, with great effect, as people rush to the nearest vaccination facility to make sure they don’t miss the opportunity to be the one to get this rare life sustaining elixir.
It amazes me that despite all the evidence to the contrary, health officials and mass media are still saying the swine flu could kill some 90,000 Americans – if we don’t all get vaccinated.
There is simply NO evidence to support this outlandish projection. The evidence actually points to the exact opposite, that this season will have LESS deaths from flu than last year.
The data is very clear that it’s a milder than normal virus, only a few percent of all cases with the designation “swine flu” are actually the H1N1 virus, and in the Southern Hemisphere, people got over the wave of the flu just fine, before the vaccine was even available.
Government's Claims Unjustified and Deliberately Misleading
Gale and Null mention at least one distinguished health expert who has gone on the record to rebut government scare tactics.
“Dr. Anthony Morris, a distinguished virologist and former Chief Vaccine Office at the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA), states that “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza” and that “The producers of these vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”
So why is it that when it comes to public health decisions, government refuses to hear but one side of the argument?
Why are our health officials ignoring all the experts who have direct involvement with vaccines and claim to know they are neither as safe, nor as effective, as the drug industry insists they are?
What Can You Learn From History?
The last time we trusted industry and their appointed government lackeys about the swine flu vaccine, the vaccine ended up killing 300 times more people than the flu itself! It was 1976, and an outbreak of swine flu supposedly threatened the lives of millions.
But instead of the flu killing millions of people, it claimed ONE life, whereas the vaccine turned out to contain the real danger.
Twenty five people died from severe pulmonary complications after receiving the swine flu vaccine, and about 500 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome were reported after vaccination. Some 300 claims were later filed by families of Guillain-Barre Syndrome victims who died from the disease.
The 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle ended up costing the US government $3.5 billion in damages to some 4,000 vaccine injured Americans -- a direct result of the CDC’s intensive vaccination campaign.
Speeding ahead with our current mass vaccination policy after such a history lesson is plain foolish. Apparently, those in charge have chosen to learn nothing.
I agree with Gale and Null when they say that being anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine is not the most urgent issue here.
The most critical point is to evaluate whether or not there is legitimate, sound science to support either position. They write:
“… in this regard, the vaccine manufacturers and our federal health agencies have failed in the past, and continue to fail today. And they fail dismally.
There is absolutely no evidence for sound-scientific protocol or anything resembling a gold-standard behind the swine flu infection statistics and vaccine efficacy and safety clinical trials to support Obama’s and his health advisors’ claims. Instead, the reports on hospitalizations and deaths due to the H1N1 virus are grossly distorted.”
How Many Swine Flu Cases Actually Involve the H1N1 Virus?
They bring up another critical point that most people are not aware of -- that what is being reported as swine flu is in fact NOT swine flu, or even the regular flu!
As of August 30, 2009, the CDC ceased testing and counting actual H1N1 virus infections. As of that date, any and all cases or deaths of people exhibiting “flu like symptoms” are automatically tallied as an “H1N1 case,” artificially driving up the perceived threat.
The CDC’s public explanation is that they are convinced a pandemic is underway and, therefore, accurate monitoring is unnecessary because it’s so widespread, world-wide.
However, as I’ll show you in just a moment, this is simply not true! Yes, the H1N1 virus has appeared world-wide, but it is not the CAUSE of most flu like illness and death. In fact, the H1N1 virus is a tiny player, causing very little trouble.
Gale and Null explain:
“The truth is that we move annually into periods where there are dramatic increases in flu-like causing pathogens, however, the majority of these are unrelated to any strain of influenza virus.
There can between 150 and 200 different infectious pathogens—adenovirus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza, the very common coronavirus and, of course, pneumonia—that produce flu-like symptoms, and worse, during a “flu season.”
For example, how many people have heard of bocavirus, which is responsible for bronchitis and pneumonia in young children, or metapneumovirus, responsible for more than 5 percent of all flu-related illnesses? This is true during every flu season and this year is no different.
Furthermore, all flu vaccinations, including the swine flu, are useless for protecting people from these many prevalent infectious organisms.”
CBS News, after conducting a three-month investigation into the swine flu statistics, uncovered a number of very sobering facts that clearly show this swine flu pandemic for the cruel hoax it really is.
To be more precise, it was Sharyl Attkisson, an investigative correspondent for CBS News, who single-handedly uncovered this.
Sharyl has agreed to allow me to interview her about her ground breaking efforts in exposing this massive misinformation campaign, and I will feature her interview shortly.
Before beginning their investigation, Sharyl Attkisson asked the CDC for state-by-state test results prior to their halting of testing and tracking. The CDC did not initially respond, so she went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July.
What did they find? Sharyl reported:
"The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico."
As you can see from this CBS News graphic, not only are most cases of suspected flu-like illnesses not H1N1, they're not even the flu but more likely some type of cold or upper respiratory infection!
(Image from CBS News)
The interesting part of this is that a lot of these facts are not really hidden from you. Simply looking through the CDC’s own website with a critical eye and a rational mind, you can discover the truth for yourself.
Here’s just one example that contradicts what they’re saying in their official missives.
According to their own data, far fewer people have died from H1N1 than any seasonal flu in the past, world-wide!
For the US, this graph from the CDC, showing the "Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality for 122 US Cities" also shows that, so far, this year's flu mortality is FAR below that of 2008.
Were you panicking last year?
If not, why should you panic now when the risks are at a near all-time LOW?
Really, sit down somewhere and seriously think about this for a moment...
In light of all the facts, the question that begs to be asked is “Why is the government and their handmaidens, the media, fueling this panic mentality?”
Why are we once again talking about vaccination for every man woman and child in the nation, or, in fact, the world?
Why are Vaccine Safety Advocates Equated to Anti-Vaccine Fringe Lunatics?
Do you, or do you not, want the products injected into your body to be safe and reasonably effective?
If you do, you’ll need to seriously consider who is actually looking out for your health and safety, because the drug industry is not, and health officials with industry ties are not, and the FDA, which has a revolving door to the drug industry, isn’t doing it either.
Everyone wants safety. No one wants to get hurt by a drug or a vaccine, or have their child adversely affected . But few want to do what’s necessary to ensure such safety exists. Those who insist on it are branded as quacks and lunatics.
It’s an interesting dilemma… But it explains why many health care professionals stay mum on the subject, for fear of hurting their professional status.
Others, for whatever reason, are convinced vaccines offer the best protection against viruses, completely ignoring how your body and immune system actually works; how real immunity is achieved; and how your lifestyle affects your risk for complications.
For example, in session 1 of a Council On Foreign Relations Symposium on Pandemic Influenza: Science, Economics and Foreign Policy, held on October 16, 2009, an attendee identified as Tom Wilson (ph) from Cornell Medical School made the following statement to the panel:
“Sir, I think we're all aware that the anti-vaccine movement is having a field day on the Internet and on media outlooks like Fox News and so on, causing productions in vaccine uptake, and it appears to be a pretty unholy alliance of the ultra right and the ultra left working together to sort of hit with strong anti-tactics.
I'm not sure we're countering these people very well, and one of the things I do in my spare time is counter the AIDS denial, as to people believe (who) HIV is harmless or doesn't exist, and which led to the deaths of over 350,000 people in South Africa over the past decade.
And you have to take these people on in a different style than scientists are used to. We have to develop better sound bites. We have to develop better discussion. You don't really -- you can't really debate these people, but you have to develop the counter methods.
For example, you hear that we shouldn't take flu vaccines because the mercury will kill us. Well, Paul Offit in the New York Times last week pointed out that there is less mercury in a flu shot than there is in a tuna fish sandwich, and that's a powerful sound bite to use against the crazy people who think that vaccines will kill you. That's just one example.
We need to develop anti-tactics to get across the message that vaccines are safe and beneficial to society, and we need to learn to deal with the crazy people who would try and stop us doing that.”
(For the full transcript, see this link.)
The kind of sound bites this man recommends are just the type of dangerous misinformation we’re trying to teach you about. Because to think that the mercury you’d ingest from fish would affect you in the same way as mercury being injected straight into your body, bypassing all of your body’s natural defenses and detoxing mechanisms is simply false.
Why H1N1 Likely Will NEVER Be a True Pandemic Threat
To finish up, I’d like to quote Peter Palese, Professor and Chair, Microbiology and Professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Mount Sinai School of Medicine – one of the panel members of the Council On Foreign Relations Symposium on Pandemic Influenza:
“ … So, clearly, when I say this 2009 virus is like another seasonal virus, I don't mean this is a harmless virus which we should ignore. No. The regular flu is bad enough and this 2009 virus is also bad enough. Having said that, it lacks certain signatures, certain molecular signs which are associated with the 1918 pandemic and then explained in 1957 and in 1968, and that is one of the genes.
… It has a technical name, PB1F2, and that is missing in the 2009 virus. And it could acquire this by exchanging that mini-chromosome and getting one which carries that PB1F2 or by point mutation, however, and that would make it more virulent.
However, it is sort of like if I put a more powerful engine into a VW, if I put a Lamborghini engine into a VW or a little Fiat or some car, it may not be better. It may not fit. It may not mesh and that, I think, may also be happening with the 2009.
By accumulating and getting mutations or getting this other gene, more virulent gene, it may not end up as something which is really a sports car which runs 200 miles an hour, so there is a lot which has to sort of fit and mesh in order to make a virus really a 1918 or 1957.”
Folks, from every which angle, the swine flu pandemic is NOT what it’s being made out to be. Perhaps it’s all about greed and POWER - the government and corporations controlling what gets into your body and what goes into their bank accounts; about making a few bucks in a suffering economy when people can’t afford their regular medications and sales are down.
Perhaps it’s about saving face. They over-reacted, they hyped it up, and no one wants to admit they cried wolf – especially since billions of dollars were spent on vaccines that no one really needs.
But, like Gale and Dr. Null said, “The lie is too large for them to not expose themselves if you simply look.”
It’s true.
Remember, as tragic as any death is, the greater tragedy is using the few deaths that have occurred -- which were in most cases not directly caused by the H1N1 virus – as fuel to get rid of useless vaccines that may do more harm than good.
There are signs that the public across the world is starting to “get” it, however.
France, for example, has only been able to convince 0.1 percent of their population to get vaccinated. As of November 5, only 50,000 Frenchmen had lined up for the shot since the beginning of their campaign, out of a population of 65 million. And only 10 percent of health care workers have received the vaccine.
The French Health minister called the mass vaccination campaign “timid.”
Let’s keep it that way, everywhere, for everyone’s safety.
Related Links:
Latest H1N1 Swine Flu Alerts
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)