Category Archives: Medical & Health

Obamacare “Doctors Should Warn Global Warming Could Make Patients’ Health Worse”

doctor-obama
By: Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com –

If having your doctor quiz you about owning a gun isn’t enough to raise your blood pressure, then this new Obamacare policy surely will.

Obama’s White House is once again politicizing health care, even as the net/noose tightens, now asking medical professionals to advise patients on the effects that global warming/climate change will supposedly have on their health.

The Daily Caller reported:

Americans trust their doctors, so the White House wants these medical professionals to be a mouthpiece for President Obama’s global warming agenda.

[…]

The Obama administration has been hard at work trying to draw a link between global warming and public health issues. The summit included the U.S. Surgeon General, top administration officials, and public health experts from around the country telling doctors, nurses and other conference goers how to talk about global warming with their patients.

The central message: doctors should warn their patients that global warming could make their health worse.

It’s not clear what the details of that politically correct advice will be, but here’s a prediction – for increased stress from economic fines and penalties for using resources, meeting new codes, as well as symptoms of indigestion from swallowing or being force fed repeated propaganda.

It is not unlikely that poor health profiles – such as being overweight, obese, a smoker, having preexisting condition – could someday add penalties to individuals for failing to comply with climate change remedies or disqualify them from inclusion in the same way that insurance weighs these factors for coverage.

After all, the assumption of AGW is that people are what’s making the planet worse, and people like Al Gore have advocated making laws to “punish” climate change deniers.

Critics are concerned that these politically-loaded doctor’s visit questions could be a means of classifying patients and flagging them in databases for their extremist views. President Obama’s barrage of 23 gun control executive orders, issued in the wake of Sandy Hook, included a “clarification” (read: nudge) that “the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” Many commenters have noted their experiences with doctors popping the question.

Guns, like political attitudes about climate change and other issues, are legal and constitutionally-guaranteed rights now, but may be increasingly challenged by bureaucracy and eroded by legal interpretations, database threat scores and quasi-private corporate policies.

Whatever you do, don’t suggest that global warming could just be a placebo for greater government control.

The American Medical Association Wants To Limit Your Health Freedom (Again)

Health-Freedom-and-AAP

The conventional medical paradigm was established to remedy symptoms of disease, causing most people to be unaware that conditions have a root cause. Medical authorities in most countries are leading a crusade against all forms of natural health modalities, and their continuation of these efforts is suppressing crucial scientific-based evidence supporting the efficacy of natural complementary health approaches. The American Medical Association (AMA), in response to the recent backlash against MDs like Dr. Oz, are spearheading a campaign to quell the voices of many reputable natural doctors. Fortunately, their attempts are being counteracted by those in the natural health community, and even your voice can help reduce the AMA’s actions.

The AMA and the Repression of Health Freedom

There’s a great deal of dissent among medical professionals when it comes to natural health, and many refuse to entertain the idea that healing involves more than pharmaceutical chemicals. The American Medical Association has recently set forth new guidelines that will: “create ethical guidelines for physicians in the media, write a report on how doctors may be disciplined for violating medical ethics through their press involvement, and release a public statement denouncing the dissemination of dubious medical information through the radio, TV, newspapers, or websites.”

With this, the AMA will have the right to do everything in their power to silence integrative medical practitioners against voicing their opinions in the media. While trying to reduce the accumulation of misinformation in the public is noble, it is widely misguided, particularly when it groups all natural health practitioners into the single “quack” category. The terms “quack” and “pseudoscience” are terms that the AMA uses to describe any medical professional who diverts from their own view of the medical paradigm in an attempt to reduce their credibility and silence their voice.

How to Take Action

The AMA wants to limit your choices when it comes to health education. Ultimately, they would like to be the sole source of health information for the public. Don’t let this dictator-style organization rule your life. You can take action against the AMA now by sending a simple message through Citizens for Health Freedom to the AMA. Read more about the recent AMA gag order and send your message today!


Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

The Silent Vaccine Epidemic: Experts Explain Why Vaccines Are Not Life Savers (VIDEO)

Documentary-The-Untold-Story-of-Vaccines

(The Real Agenda) Aluminum, insect repellent, formaldehyde, mercury, fetal tissue, and in some cases attenuated or live viruses are some of the ingredients present in vaccines today, yet, we are told they are the reason why humanity’s overall health and well-being has improved dramatically.

Traditional medicine cooked up by pharmaceutical companies dictates that vaccines are life savers, but there is a growing movement in the medical field that includes doctors and nurses -supported by scientists and evidence- who not only warn about the potential risks on vaccines, but also about its lack of effectiveness..

The conclusion reached by this group of concerned professionals is simple: There isn’t strong evidence to support the claim that vaccines are capable of doing what the medical industry says they do. That is why governments at the local, regional and national levels, supported by alleged international health agencies are tightening the grip on vaccination policies, making vaccines mandatory, even though there is no law that mandates vaccinations.

Despite the heavy use of vaccines since a child is born, it is not difficult to learn about the efficacy of vaccines -or the lack of it- because doctors, nurses and parents have had a front row seat to witnessing the appearance of the unhealthiest population of children in the history of humanity.

Parallel to the appearance of diseases that were thought to be extinct such as asthma, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, chicken pox, eczema and many others, health issues that were supposedly treated and eradicated with vaccines are also reappearing despite so-called medical advances in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Vaccine pushers like to blame those who decide not to vaccinate themselves and their children as the culprits of the reappearance of disease, but in truth, that which is to blame is unscientific postulates, such as herd immunity, the bedrock over which mass vaccination has been supported on for ages.

While parents and doctors who ask questions about the effectiveness of vaccines are ostracized, label as heretics and often verbally and physically abused by the system, children continue to get sick after being injected cocktails of chemicals known as vaccines. Many of these children remain damaged for life, while others die as a result of side effects.

It is impossible not to be suspicious about vaccines and pharmaceutical companies regarding the safety and effectiveness of their products. One of the aspects that makes people question these products is the fact that vaccine makers legally exempted from lawsuits regarding potential damage that result from vaccines.

Another point that many people raise is the existence of a special vaccine court created by the medical industry and government agencies, where people damaged by vaccines take their cases, as supposed to a traditional court. Then, there is the fact that should a vaccine manufacturer be found liable for the negative medical consequences of their vaccines, it is the government, not the vaccine maker that compensates people for vaccine side effects.

Tens of millions of dollars have been granted to parentes and children whose lives were damaged by vaccines. Of course, this fact is kept as quiet as possible by the mainstream media, as they receive billions of dollars in advertising money from the pharmacetical industry every year.

These and other issues about vaccines are addressed in the documentary produced by Gary Null, titled “Silent Epidemic; The Untold Story of Vaccines“, in which medical experts, not journalists or ‘kooks’ explain why vaccines are one of the biggest hoaxes in history.

We encourage everyone to watch the documentary below and critically analyze the arguments posed by these experts before making a decision on whether it is necessary to vaccinate and if they can trust their health to vaccine makers.


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Leaked TPP Trade Bill Healthcare Annex

wikileaks-tpp-healthcare-annex.si

Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade legislation and its companion Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)  are anti-consumer stealth corporate coup d’etat freedom and ecosystem-destroying measures – nightmarish by any standard.

They let corporate predators establish unrestricted supranational global trade rules overriding national sovereignty and domestic laws.

They serve investor rights at the expense of public ones. They permit anything goes for profit. They create a world more unfit to live in than already.

On June 10, WikiLeaks published the draft TPP Healthcare Annex (so-called Annex on Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices).

It establishes pharmaceutical and medical device procurement and reimbursement rules government healthcare authorities must follow.

Vague language creates opportunities for drug and medical device companies to challenge Medicare and healthcare program procedures of the 12 TPP-bloc countries.

Consumer friendly policy reforms would be constrained – including the ability of governments to contain rising prices making them unaffordable for millions.

Big Pharma wants profits protected over public health, said WikiLeaks. It wants them maximized.

An earlier Healthcare Annex was released in 2011. Some harmful provisions were removed in the latest version. Global Trade Watch (GTW) says serious questions remain unanswered – vital for people to know, including:

“What guarantees are there that the TPP’s requirements would not override existing procedures for Medicare?”

The US Trade Representative’s Office (USTR) claims Medicare fully complies with TPP provisions.

“Yet (their) ambiguous language…leaves our domestic healthcare policies vulnerable to attack by drug and (medical) device manufacturers,” said GTW.

Could companies use Healthcare Annex provisions to cover expensive products “without a corresponding benefit to public health,” GTW asked?

Medicare reimburses for “reasonable and necessary” products and treatment. TPP “recognize(s) the value (of drugs and medical devices through the) operation of competitive markets (or their) objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance” – regardless of effectiveness or affordability.

Medicare permits limited reimbursement appeals only. Companies might argue TPP rules permit unrestricted reviews.

“Would the TPP constrain pharmaceutical reform efforts in the US,” asked GTW? Healthcare Annex provisions apply to future coverage determinations as well as current ones.

Healthcare reform advocates want soaring drug prices curtailed by establishing a “national formulary” enabling the government to get substantial discounts passed on to consumers. TPP won’t allow it.

“Could the inclusion of this Annex in the TPP bolster the case of a pharmaceutical company that is suing the United States,” asked GTW?

Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures have been included in US trade agreements since the 1990s. Foreign companies may challenge government policies – claiming they potentially curtail future profits. In return, they demand “unlimited sums in taxpayer compensation.”

GTW asked if the Healthcare Annex boosts their case – at the expense of the public interest. Companies could claim government policies compromised their profit expectations and demand compensating reimbursement at taxpayers’ expense.

Much about TPP remains secret – vital information people have a right to know. If enacted, Washington wants it extended to all Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) members – about 40% of the world’s population.

Attorney Judit Rius Sanjuan for Doctors Without Borders says TPP “will increase the cost of medicines worldwide, starting with the 12 countries that are negotiating” TPP.

Hugely profitable drug companies want unconstrained rights to charge whatever the market will bear. They claim high prices are needed to compensate for billions of dollars spent for research – without acknowledging how much governments in America and elsewhere pay for, passing on scientific research information to drug companies cost-free.

GTW director Lori Wallach calls the Healthcare Annex leak “the latest example of why fast-tracking the TPP would undermine the health of Americans and the other countries and cost our government more, all to the benefit of pharma’s profits.”


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Hospitals Are Blatantly Ripping Us Off

medical bills

Most Americans are deathly afraid to go to the hospital these days – and it is because of the immense pain that it will cause to their wallets.  If you want to get on a path that will lead you to bankruptcy, just start going to the hospital a lot.  In America today, hospitals and doctors are blatantly ripping us off and they aren’t making any apologies for it.  As you will read about below, some hospitals mark up treatments by 1,000 percent.  In other instances, basic medical supplies are being billed out at hundreds of times what they cost providers.  For example, it has been reported that some hospitals are charging up to 30 dollars for a single aspirin pill.  It would be difficult to argue that the extreme greed that we see in the medical system is even matched by the crooks on Wall Street.  These medical predators get their hands on us when we are at our most vulnerable.  They know that in our lowest moments we are willing to pay just about anything to get better or to make the pain go away.  And so they very quietly have us sign a bunch of forms without ever telling us how much everything is going to cost.  Eventually when the bills come in the mail, it is too late to do anything about it.

How would you feel if someone sold you something for ten times the amount that it was worth?

Would you feel ripped off?

Well, that is what hospitals all over the country are doing every single day.  Just check out what one brand new study has discovered

Some hospitals are marking up treatments by as much as 1,000 percent, a new study finds, and the average U.S. hospital charges uninsured patients three times what Medicare allows.

Twenty of the hospitals in the top 50 when it comes to marking up charges are in Florida, the researchers write in the journal Health Affairs. And three-quarters of them are operated by two Tennessee-based for-profit hospital systems: Community Health Systems and Hospital Corporation of America.

“We just want to raise public awareness of the problem,” said Ge Bai of Washington & Lee University in Virginia, an accounting professor who wrote the study along with Gerard Anderson of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Does reading that make you angry?

It should.

They are greedily taking advantage of all of us.

Other studies have come up with similar results.  Here is one example

According to National Nurses United, U.S. hospital charges continue to soar with a handful of them, such as Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in Secaucus, N.J., going as far as charging more than ten times the total cost — or almost $1,200 per $100 of the cost of care. Meanwhile, the hundred priciest hospitals in the nation were found to have this cost ratio begin at 765 percent, which is more than twice the national average of 331 percent.

Much of the time, we are being overcharged for tests, services and procedures that we don’t even need.

It has been estimated that the amount of truly wasteful spending in the U.S. medical system comes to a grand total of about $600 billion to $700 billion annually.  That means that wasteful medical spending in the U.S. each year is greater than the GDP of the entire country of Sweden.

And of course almost everyone has a story about an absolutely ridiculous medical bill that they have received.  In fact, if you have one that you would like to share, please feel free to share it at the end of this article.  The following are just a few examples that were shared in an editorial in a local newspaper

Have you heard about the little girl who required three stitches over her right eye? The emergency room sent her parents a bill for $1,500 — $500 per stitch (NY Times, Dec. 3). My neighbor recently spent six hours in the emergency room with bleeding from the mouth. He was on a blood thinner, needed several blood tests, and his heart was monitored. His hospital bill came to $22,000. A California man diagnosed with lung cancer chose to fight his cancer aggressively. Eleven months later his widow received a bill exceeding $900,000.

One of the most disturbing trends that we are witnessing all over the nation is something called “drive by doctoring”.  That is where an extra doctor that isn’t even necessary “pops in” to visit patients that are not his or “assists” with a surgery in order to stick the patient with a big, fat extra bill.  The following is from a New York Times article about this disgusting practice…

Before his three-hour neck surgery for herniated disks in December, Peter Drier, 37, signed a pile of consent forms. A bank technology manager who had researched his insurance coverage, Mr. Drier was prepared when the bills started arriving: $56,000 from Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, $4,300 from the anesthesiologist and even $133,000 from his orthopedist, who he knew would accept a fraction of that fee.

He was blindsided, though, by a bill of about $117,000 from an “assistant surgeon,” a Queens-based neurosurgeon whom Mr. Drier did not recall meeting.

How would you like to receive a bill for $117,000 from a doctor that you had never met and that you did not know would be at your surgery?

This is how broken our medical system has become.

And of course this type of abuse is not just happening in New York.  It is literally happening all over the nation

In operating rooms and on hospital wards across the country, physicians and other health providers typically help one another in patient care. But in an increasingly common practice that some medical experts call drive-by doctoring, assistants, consultants and other hospital employees are charging patients or their insurers hefty fees. They may be called in when the need for them is questionable. And patients usually do not realize they have been involved or are charging until the bill arrives.

If you or a close family member has been to the hospital recently, you probably know how astronomical some of these bills can be.

And if you have a chronic, life threatening disease, you can very rapidly end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

If you doubt this, just check out the following excerpt from an article that appeared in Time Magazine.  One cancer patient out in California ran up nearly a million dollars in hospital bills before he finally died…

By the time Steven D. died at his home in Northern California the following November, he had lived for an additional 11 months. And Alice had collected bills totaling $902,452. The family’s first bill — for $348,000 — which arrived when Steven got home from the Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., was full of all the usual chargemaster profit grabs: $18 each for 88 diabetes-test strips that Amazon sells in boxes of 50 for $27.85; $24 each for 19 niacin pills that are sold in drugstores for about a nickel apiece. There were also four boxes of sterile gauze pads for $77 each. None of that was considered part of what was provided in return for Seton’s facility charge for the intensive-care unit for two days at $13,225 a day, 12 days in the critical unit at $7,315 a day and one day in a standard room (all of which totaled $120,116 over 15 days). There was also $20,886 for CT scans and $24,251 for lab work.

The sad truth is that the U.S. health care system has become all about the money.

A select few are becoming exceedingly wealthy while millions go broke.  One very disturbing study discovered that approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.  And collection agencies seek to collect unpaid medical bills from approximately 30 million Americans every single year.

Once upon a time, going into the medical profession was a sacrifice and you did it because you wanted to help people.

Today, it is considered to be a path to riches.

If the U.S. health care system was a separate country, it would actually be the 6th largest economy on the entire planet.  Even though our system is deeply broken, nobody wants to rock the boat because trillions of dollars are at stake.  If it was up to me, I would tear the entire thing down and rebuild it from scratch.

So what about you?  How would you fix our broken health care system?  Please feel free to share your ideas by posting a comment below…


Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

Chinese Surgeon Who Has Performed 1,000 Head Transplants On MIce Wants To Create The First Head-Transplanted Monkey That Can Live ‘At Least For A Little While’

micewsj

Not content with having created over 1,000 hybrid mice with different heads, some a different colour from their bodies, controversial doctor Xiaoping Ren next wants to perform pioneering transplants on primates.

Shadowing him during a 10-hour operation, the Wall Street Journal witnessed a mouse with a new head move and breathe on its own following the procedure, even opening its eyes and drinking.

That being said, none of Dr Ren’s transplanted mice have as yet lived longer than a few minutes.

(Picture: Dr. Xiaoping Ren/WSJ)

(Picture: Dr. Xiaoping Ren/WSJ)

 (Picture: Dr Xiaoping Ren/WSJ)

(Picture: Dr Xiaoping Ren/WSJ)

He claims to be perfecting the procedure however, using tiny tubes to carry oxygenated blood from the brains to their new bodies, and will next try it out on primates (there are already plans for it up on his wall).

According to WSJ, he is hoping the primates will live, ‘at least for a little while.’

Dr Ren claims his work isn’t frivolous, likened it to previous concerns about now more commonplace hand transplants, and claimed his research might one day be able to help human patients who have healthy heads but have suffered spinal-cord injuries or muscle-wasting diseases.

Head transplants are hugely controversial however, raising ethical concerns and challenging the very idea of consciousness.

Read more

“Diabolical Mad Scientist” Who Trained U.S. Troops Suspended For Macabre Techniques

U.S. Army Medical Corps retired Lt. Colonel John Hagmann (L) is seen being presented the William P. Clements, Jr. Outstanding Uniformed Educator Award by Dr. Sam Nixon (R) during the U.S. Military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences  1989 Commencement Exercises in this USUHS handout file photo taken in Washington May 20, 1989.  REUTERS/Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Handout via Reuters

U.S. Army Medical Corps retired Lt. Colonel John Hagmann (L) is seen being presented the William P. Clements, Jr. Outstanding Uniformed Educator Award by Dr. Sam Nixon (R) during the U.S. Military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 1989 Commencement Exercises in this USUHS handout file photo taken in Washington May 20, 1989. REUTERS/Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Handout via Reuters

By: John Shiffman |

(Reuters) – Since retiring from the U.S. Army in 2000, Dr. John Henry Hagmann has helped train thousands of soldiers and medical personnel in how to treat battlefield wounds. His company, Deployment Medicine International, has received more than $10.5 million in business from the federal government.

The taxpayer-funded training has long troubled animal rights activists, who contend that Hagmann’s use of live, wounded pigs to simulate combat injuries is unnecessarily cruel.

But an investigation by Virginia medical authorities alleges that pigs weren’t the doctor’s only training subjects.

During instructional sessions in 2012 and 2013 for military personnel, Hagmann gave trainees drugs and liquor, and directed them to perform macabre medical procedures on one another, according to a report issued by the Virginia Board of Medicine, the state agency that oversees the conduct of doctors.

Hagmann, 59, is accused of inappropriately providing at least 10 students with the hypnotic drug ketamine. The report alleges Hagmann told students to insert catheters into the genitals of other trainees and that two intoxicated student were subjected to penile nerve block procedures. Hagmann also is accused of conducting “shock labs,” a process in which he withdrew blood from the students, monitored them for shock, and then transfused the blood back into their systems.

The report alleges that Hagmann also “exploited, for personal gain and sexual gratification” two participants who attended a July 2013 course at his Virginia farm.

The allegations against Hagmann have not been previously reported. They are administrative in nature, detailed in a 15-page dossier compiled by two assistant attorneys general for the board. The group temporarily suspended Hagmann’s license in March. A hearing is set for June 19 before the full medical board, which could revoke Hagmann’s medical license. During the hearing, Hagmann and state lawyers are expected to present their respective cases, which may include testimony from students or other witnesses.

In a statement Hagmann provided on Friday to Reuters, he said: “The mechanisms and protocols utilized in the training all comply with standard practices for training medical students and are, in fact, utilized in medical schools in Virginia.”

Hagmann said the “claims of sexual misconduct cause me the most anguish. Absolutely no ‘sexual gratification’ was involved and there is no evidence of such.”

Hagmann said “the courses and procedures in question were all reviewed and approved” by officials at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, a government-run medical school that trains and prepares health professionals to support the military.

The university disputes that. “The procedures used during the training were not authorized by USU faculty,” said Sharon Holland, a spokeswoman for the Uniformed Services University.

Holland said a student there raised concerns about Hagmann’s training in July 2013. “The moment the department and USU leadership were informed that these events occurred, the institution immediately suspended the relationship with Dr. Hagmann, his course, and his company,” Holland said. “We launched an investigation and those findings prompted a report to the Virginia Medical Board.”

Holland said the university also alerted the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, a law enforcement agency that oversees the Department of Defense. A spokesman for the service was not immediately available for comment Monday.

Cynthia Smith, a U.S. Army spokeswoman, said she could not comment on the case because the records were not readily accessible. But, she added, “We certainly don’t condone that type of behavior.”

“DIABOLICAL MAD SCIENTIST”

Medical health professionals familiar with trauma training say they were stunned to hear about Hagmann’s techniques. Virginia state lawyers, investigating complaints by some students who attended the sessions, wrote in the report to the state’s medical board that “these procedures were not undertaken or provided in good faith for medicinal or therapeutic purposes.”

One doctor who offers trauma training, Harvard Medical School professor David King, said that “some of what is described in these allegations is wildly unheard of and perhaps unsafe.”

Dr. Howard Mell, a spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, said he could not comment on any specific case. But speaking generally about “shock labs,” Mell said subjecting students to such problems during training would be absurd.

“I treat people in the ER everyday for things I have never experienced,” said Mell, a Cleveland doctor who trains emergency medical workers and police officers. “I certainly don’t need to experience shock to know how to treat it. If that logic was true, men couldn’t be obstetricians.”

Hagmann said that the Virginia board is applying the wrong standard in assessing his conduct: He said that his trainees are “students,” not “patients” as the board calls them, and therefore he may have them perform procedures on one another as part of the educational process.

He told Reuters the allegations are amplified by “animal rights advocates or those with an anti-military agenda.”

Hagmann has drawn fire from animal rights groups for years because he is a leading practitioner of “live-tissue training,” which involves teaching students by using wounded live animals as patients. Often, pigs are the subjects.

Under pressure from animal rights groups, the U.S. military has reduced live-tissue training. But groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have called for an outright ban, long complaining to the Pentagon about DMI’s “senseless shooting and stabbing of live animals,” said Justin Goodman, PETA’s laboratory investigations director.

“We are absolutely disgusted to learn that the company’s cruel, violent and abusive behavior apparently targets service members as well,” Goodman said.

Earlier today, PETA sent to U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter a summary of an undercover video it says it took during a 2013 training session by Hagmann’s company. The group also asked the Pentagon to cease contracting with DMI. Goodman said the video depicts gratuitous violence against the wounded pigs, and racist and sexist jokes by course instructors.

PETA posted the video, which includes graphic violence, at http://youtu.be/qXwN8ItF3fE

U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, an Armed Services Committee member who has introduced legislation to ban live-tissue training, said he was disturbed by the video and charges leveled against Hagmann by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

“It seems like this is a renegade contractor visiting abuse on military personnel and live animals,” said Johnson, a Georgia Democrat. “It’s mind-boggling. It’s like a diabolical mad scientist at work in a horror movie.”

AMONG PIONEERS IN TRAUMA

In the Army, Hagmann practiced emergency medicine for two decades. He rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and co-authored an influential combat treatment manual.

After retiring, Hagmann founded DMI – also known as Deployment Medicine Consultants. It is based in Gig Harbor, Washington.  Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, demand for his courses grew and DMI emerged as a preeminent trauma-response trainer. The majority of DMI’s government contracts are with the U.S. military – in particular, Army and Navy special operation units.

“The mission of DMI is to train you to save lives in the combat environment, no one matches our ability to do this,” the company says on its website. “We are the single largest trainer of US military forces in operational medicine throughout world, and our record for excellence stands unchallenged.”

To demonstrate the positive impact of his training, Hagmann provided to Reuters testimonial emails from two former students. One, deployed in North Africa, wrote last month: “You forever changed my approach to combat medicine… Please know you have made a tremendous impact in countless lives.” Reuters could not immediately reach the former students for comment.

Such testimonials stand in stark contrast with the board of medicine’s report.

In one case detailed by investigators, Virginia authorities allege that Hagmann boasted to a student “about his proficiency with rectal exams” and took the student to a warehouse on his property. There, the report claims, the two “continued to consume beer” and Hagmann asked the student “about the effect (the student’s) uncircumcised penis had on masturbation and sexual intercourse.” The student told investigators “that he was inebriated and felt that he could not refuse Dr. Hagmann’s request … to examine, manipulate and photograph his penis.”

In his statement to Reuters, Hagmann connected his comments on circumcision to his live-tissue trauma training course this way: “The debate on the value and impact of circumcision is a current medical and social issue. The historical link between circumcision and masturbation is a fact dating since Victorian England and is still a current topic subject to scientific research.”

The Virginia medical board report also says Hagmann conducted what board investigators described as “ketamine labs,” “alcohol labs,” and “cognition labs.” The labs, officials wrote, “involved the dosing of ketamine and consumption of alcohol, at times in combination or in quick succession, so that he (Hagmann) could assess the effects of these substances on their cognition.”

During a July 2013 course in North Carolina, authorities say, participants were provided eight shots of rum in 10 minutes. About an hour later, they were allegedly injected with ketamine. Officials allege that one intoxicated participant received a penile nerve block, a type of anesthesia. When other students stepped in to prevent a second intoxicated student from receiving the procedure, the report says, Hagmann volunteered himself, and students performed a penile nerve block on him.

“I have been working in trauma centers for 30 years and I have never done a penile nerve block,” said Dr. Mark Brown, an emergency room physician in Lancaster, California. “And why would you ever mix alcohol and drugs? It’s very puzzling.”

Hagmann told Reuters the medications were all dispensed properly. He also said that procedures performed by students on other students are acceptable.

“For a future or current medical care provider,” Hagmann said, “having practice in a safe, controlled, voluntary setting has a huge value and benefit in improving self confidence and self image.”

UN “Death Targets” Will Mean Reduced Healthcare For Elderly

elderly patient in hospital
By: Alex Newman | The New American

Elderly people in the United Kingdom and potentially worldwide are likely to be treated as “second-class citizens” and even denied life-saving medical treatment under proposed “highly unethical” United Nations “death targets,” healthcare and aging experts declared in an open letter last week. The radical UN “Sustainable Development Goals,” which would put virtually every realm of human activity in the crosshairs, include, among other controversial provisions, proposed global “targets” for reducing premature deaths from various causes. To meet those targets, the experts said, government-run healthcare systems such as the U.K. “National Health Service” (NHS) are likely to focus more resources on easier-to-save younger people — at the expense of the elderly whose deaths would not be counted as “premature.” Some critics are even saying the plan heralds the advent of “death panels.”

Officially dubbed the UN “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals,” the plot being pushed by the UN and its member regimes represents a brazen attack on liberty, self-government, markets, national sovereignty, and more — all under the guise of “solving” all of the world’s real and imagined problems. The death targets are merely one tiny component that includes everything from “education” and values to food and health. The specific “Sustainable Development Goals,” set to replace the “Millennium Development Goals” established in 2000, are still being hammered out by UN bureaucrats and UN member regimes. Everything from “ending poverty” and “ending hunger” to “achieving gender equality” and “reducing income equality within and between countries” over 15 years is on the agenda. Imagine the coercive powers and the massive amount of resources required to even attempt such scheming.

Now, at least one component of the agenda — the age discrimination in healthcare — is coming under heavy criticism in the United Kingdom. In the open letter published by the prominent medical journal The Lancet and widely reported in the British press, the international coalition of experts lambasted the sought-after UN goal and demanded that it be scrapped or revised. Blasting the ideas as “agist” — discrimination against individuals based on their age — the signatories argued that the concept of “premature mortality” has the potential to “undermine the cherished, fundamental principle of health as a universal right for all.” The letter specifically criticizes a previous article on the subject that it says is based on “ethical principles” that “are deeply troubling” — namely, “that people aged 70 years and above do not matter.”

The signatories also argue that agist discrimination is already strong in areas such as cancer treatment even in high-income countries, and the situation is worse still in poorer nations. In the U.K., as The New American and many other sources have been documenting for years, the government-run healthcare monopoly known as NHS is already infamous for killing off the elderly and denying necessary care to patients. Last year, the U.K. Royal College of Surgeons, stating what was already well known, declared that elderly patients were being denied crucial treatment and operations due to such discrimination, according to British media reports. A few years before that, a British doctor warned that the socialist-style NHS was euthanizing as many as 130,000 patients each year through a controversial end-of-life “care” method called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).

According to the letter in The Lancet, even if it is not the intent of those promoting the premature death targets, the inclusion of such goals in the UN “Sustainable Development Goals,” set to be adopted in September, “will inevitably reinforce the ageist bias that pervades many aspects of health-care decision making.” “A chronologically exclusive premature mortality target sends out a strong signal that years lived beyond a given age, such as 60 years or 70 years, are intrinsically less valuable than those of a younger person,” the letter states. “This misconception builds on a flawed tradition in health-care priority setting, which includes an explicit bias against older people (as opposed to people of so-called economically and socially productive ages).”

The experts on aging who signed the letter — associated with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Institute for Ageing and Health at Newcastle University, the Alzheimer’s Society, Age UK, and HelpAge — were led by Peter Lloyd-Sherlock. Speaking to the U.K. Telegraph, the professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.” He also noted that there is already age discrimination in cancer care and surgery, but that the UN targets would give the agism the “stamp of approval.” However, the targets are “not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.” If that does not happen, he warned ominously, “people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”

Lost amid the whole debate over the UN death targets and agism in healthcare, though, are several crucial overarching questions that must be addressed and are more important even than the discrimination debate. First of all, why is the UN — widely and properly ridiculed as the “dictators club” for its autocratic membership roster — setting “targets” and making 15-year “agendas” that will influence or even dictate national policy to begin with? Are the British and their elected representatives incapable of governing themselves without UN “targets” to guide their decisions? As the British struggle to free themselves from the European Union super-state, why is it accepted as inevitable that the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals” will guide U.K. policy on healthcare or anything else? Allowing Third World dictators to tell the once proud British people how to run their affairs should be seen as a disgrace — and it should be firmly rejected.

Second of all, why is the government involved in healthcare to begin with? Are citizens incapable of making their own medical decisions and looking after their own health without the nanny state? Considering the atrocious track record of the socialist-style NHS regime, it is way past time for the United Kingdom to abolish socialized medicine and allow the free market to work its magic. Allowing government to ration and control medical care — whether based on UN death targets or the whims of homegrown politicians and bureaucrats — has been shown conclusively to be a disaster, not to mention immoral. From euthanizing the elderly and urging them to sign “do not resuscitate” directives, to being consistently unable to meet the needs of patients, it is time for the NHS and similar socialized medicine regimes to be tossed on the ash heap of failed ideas with devastating and deadly consequences.

Finally, with the ongoing disaster that is the deeply unpopular “ObamaCare,” are Americans traveling down the same dark road as the British? Absolutely. As the outlandish and impossibly expensive “Affordable Care” system implodes in on itself, and costs continue to spiral out of control thanks to government intervention, calls are growing for a full-blown socialized system to take its place. Even without a so-called “single payer system,” though, ObamaCare represents a de facto nationalization of healthcare in America. And with the tacit support from the GOP majority in Congress, which continues to fund ObamaCare despite deceitful promises to voters and harsh rhetoric, Americans can look forward to a nightmarish healthcare future of rationing, discrimination against the elderly, no more privacy, and more — at least if nothing changes.

To solve many of the most urgent healthcare problems would be relatively simple — dismantle socialized medical systems, withdraw from the UN, and return to the eternal principles of liberty, responsibility, and national independence. However, for that to happen, the British and American publics must get educated, organized, and active, all in the face of a massive propaganda campaign by the UN. The alternative to stopping it — UN death targets, death panels, government rationing, “sustainable” tyranny, and more — must be crushed for the benefit of all.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at [email protected]

America The Obese: Is There A Multibillion Dollar Conspiracy To Make Sure Americans Stay Overweight?

processed_food

According to Gallup, America is now fatter than it has ever been before.  But how can this possibly be?  After all, Americans spend an astounding 60 billion dollars a year on weight loss programs and products.  After putting so much time, effort and energy into losing weight, shouldn’t we be some of the healthiest people on the entire planet?  Sadly, the truth is that obesity has become a national epidemic, and we are known around the globe for our huge size.  The term “fat Americans” has become synonymous with overweight tourists, and other cultures mock us for our apparent sloth.  But could there be more to this than just the fact that we eat too much?  Could it be possible that we have been fattened up by design?

Before we get to that, let’s take a look at some of the cold, hard numbers.  The following are some of the statistics from the Gallup survey that I mentioned above…

-The national rate of obesity has risen to an all-time high of 27.7 percent. That is up from 27.1 percent in 2013, and it is much higher than the 25.5 percent number that we were sitting at in 2008.

-At 19.0 percent, Hawaii has the lowest rate of obesity in the entire country.

-At 35.2 percent, Mississippi has the highest rate of obesity in the entire country.

-The rest of the top 10 includes West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri.

And remember, those numbers just cover obesity.  You can definitely be overweight without meeting the official criteria for being “obese”.  According to CNN, 70 percent of all Americans are overweight at this point.  To say that we have a national crisis on our hands is a huge understatement.

One of the primary reasons why most of us are overweight is due to how our food is made.  The American diet is highly processed and it is absolutely packed with obesity-causing ingredients such as sugar and high fructose corn syrup.  And it is well documented that some of the additives that they put into our food are highly addictive and actually make you want to eat more.  In fact, it has been reported that some of the additives are about as addictive as “opiates“, “heroin” and “cocaine“.  The big food corporations want us to eat as much as possible, because when we eat more of their food they make more money.

Unfortunately, being overweight is not just an issue of not looking as good as we could.  As Gallup explained, a whole host of health problems are related to obesity…

The national obesity rate in 2014 was the highest that Gallup and Healthways have measured since starting to track this measure in 2008. In a handful of states, more than a third of the population is obese. Residents in these areas are less likely to eat healthily and exercise, and are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, diabetes, cancer and heart attacks. Obesity-related health problems could drive up healthcare costs and potentially have larger economic implications for states that suffer most.

The strong relationship between obesity and overall well-being suggests that interventions geared toward encouraging exercise and healthy eating, while important, may not be enough to reverse the upward trend in obesity. Gallup has found that Americans’ desire to lose weight is not matched by their efforts. The mismatch between desired weight loss and weight loss efforts may stem from deficits in other areas of well-being. For instance, if residents don’t have a strong sense of purpose, struggle financially or lack supportive relationships, it will be much more difficult for them to buy healthy food, exercise regularly and achieve their weight loss goals.

Cancer, heart disease and diabetes are all huge money makers for the medical establishment.  If you can believe it, 100 billion dollars was spent on cancer drugs last year alone.  So there are people out there that are becoming exceedingly wealthy from all of our misery.

In addition, it is a fact that being overweight shaves years off of our lives.  Just consider the following information that was shared by Natural News

Published in the journal The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, a study comparing young men and women of healthy weights to young obese individuals found that those who were overweight lost about 8.4 years off of their lives if they were men and 6.1 years off of their lives if they were women.

Similarly, the young obese men suffered 18.8 more years of poor health leading up to their early deaths compared to men of healthy weight, while young obese women suffered 19.1 years of poor health. Even when obesity emerged just in old age, both men and women were found to lose years off of their lives: for men, an average of 3.7 years and for women about 5.3 years.

So why doesn’t the medical establishment do more to help us lose weight and keep it off?

Well, if we were all at a healthy weight they would lose a tremendous amount of money.  Right now, if the U.S. health care system was a separate country, it would be the 6th largest economy on the entire planet.  The sicker that all of us are, the more money the medical establishment makes.

And then of course there is the massively bloated weight loss industry.  As I mentioned above, 60 billion dollars a year is spent on weight loss programs and products in the United States.  If we were all at a healthy weight, we wouldn’t need to spend all of that money.

Tragically, most of those programs don’t work in the long run anyway.  At least that is what one scientific study discovered

In the end, the advice and products offer virtually no long-term return on investment—measured, of course, in pounds permanently lost. According to a 2006 study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, most people who participate in weight-loss programs “regain about one-third of the weight lost during the next year and are typically back to baseline in three to five years.”

So what is the solution?

The key is to make healthy choices a lifestyle and not just a one time event.

If you “go on a diet” or you “do a cleanse”, but then you just go back and do the same things that you did before, you are going to end up at the exact same place you started.

If we want to be healthy, what we need to do is to design our lives so that we are doing the right things consistently.  We need to be physically active, we need to eat healthy (lots of fruits and vegetables), and we need to avoid the things that we know will make us fat.

In the end, it isn’t that complicated.  Thanks to the Internet, there is lots and lots of great health information out there that you can access for free.  But you have got to be willing to make the right choices and to do the right things consistently.

So what do you think?  Is there anything that you would like to add to this discussion about obesity?  Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…


Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

Shocking: WHO Urges More Vaccinations

vaccines
By: The Real Agenda |

The WHO is calling on countries to demand more vaccinations at lower prices.

The World Health Organization (WHO), through its executive body, The World Health Assembly, has approved a resolution that calls for more affordable vaccines and greater transparency in the pricing of vaccines.

Despite historically abundant data regarding vaccine ineffectiveness and proven dangers, especially in children, the WHO insists on calling for an increased use of vaccines to “fight disease” worldwide.

The text approved by the WHO indicates the “concern” that has been generated regarding its global immunization coverage, which according to the text has increased only “slightly” from the end of the first decade of the century.

Although it has been proven that increases in disease are strongly related to lifestyle changes, environmental pollution and lack of nutrition, to cite three factors, the medical establishment insists in pushing dangerously contaminated vaccines whose effectiveness is far from being proven.

“In 2013 more than 21 million children under one year did not complete all three doses of DTP (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus),” recalls the resolution adopted at the 68th meeting, held until Tuesday in Geneva. The WHO forgot to point out in its report, that DTP vaccines can cause brain damage and death.

The text voted late Monday afternoon added that many countries each year, “expressed concern about the unaffordable cost of new vaccines and call on the international community to support strategies to reduce prices.”

This is a very effective strategy by health authorities, both at the national and international levels. They launch campaigns claiming that access to certain pharmaceutical products are unaffordable or scarce to have people react in fear and demand more vaccines, even though vaccines never helped prevent or cure disease.

Examples of this practice include the H1N1 fake scare and the resurgence of once eradicated diseases, which according to the WHO are making a comeback because of lack of vaccination, when in reality the reasons are lack of sanitation and proper nutrition.

WHO is also warning of “inequality” between countries, because there are some who have no income to bring universal vaccination for everyone. Inequality is a very effective propaganda weapon used by the elite to push for changes that are beneficial to them.

Politicians and philanthropists spend more time talking about inequality than poverty, for example. That is because inequality immediately activates people’s radar for what they may think is living in unfair, less advantageous conditions; as if having they are being robbed of something they are entitled to, such as access to more vaccinations.

That is why we hear more politicians and philanthropists, who have a stake in Big Pharma and other corporations, talk about all kinds of inequality: social inequality, environmental inequality and now vaccination inequality. It is a con game. The catch in each of those arguments is that members of the elite seek to sway public opinion in the direction that is favorable to them, not to the large masses, however, most people are not sophisticated enough to understand it.

Another problem is the “shortage” of some traditional vaccines such as that for measles and rubella. This statement again goes against scientific observation on the field, which concludes that increases in disease incidence have nothing to do with lack of vaccination, but with drinking contaminated water, breathing polluted air and eating pesticide infested foods.

The General Assembly recalls that at times immunizations do not arrive on time, so immunization schedules are not respected, and calls for the improvement of production and distribution systems.

“The resolution breaks the schemes on this issue as it is one of the first occasions on which 60 countries are publicly positioned against the high cost of vaccines and the lack of transparency on prices,” said Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in a note.

WHO recommends greater price transparency of the vaccine as a key step towards improving accessibility. “Publicly available information on prices of vaccines is limited,” he says. “And that data availability is important to facilitate the efforts of Member States to introduce new vaccines,” says the text.

The WHO is calling on countries to demand more vaccinations at lower prices because most third world nations have no economic means to sustain traditional vaccination campaigns, yet it does not talk about improving living conditions in those countries so people can have access to clean water, pesticide and GMO free food, housing and other basic needs.

“This resolution also reflects the sad reality of some vaccines that are too expensive for many of the world’s population,” said Manica Balasegaram, executive director of the Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines at MSF.

“If governments do not take concrete steps to deal with vaccine prices, they will be forced to make difficult decisions against which diseases they can afford to protect their children.” As many people are aware, no independent study has ever tested any vaccine for its efficiency in preventing disease. In fact, in the last few years fully vaccinated populations are victims of disease outbreaks against which they have already been vaccinated.

As we have explained in previous articles that describe how to promote health and what kinds of foods and products people should stay away from to prevent disease, it is clear that the world’s health authorities do not want to accept that good health begins from the inside and that it cannot be achieved from the outside.

Eating nutritious food and supplementing our diets with vitamines and minerals are key to having a strong immune system that can undoubtedly deal with most disease. Instead, the WHO and many doctors out there still promote vaccines loaded with syntetic chemicals as the solution to supposedly prevent and cure disease.


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

‘Germs’ Beat Vaccines At Their Own Game: Anti-Malarial Probiotics Show Promise

vaccines

A groundbreaking new study finds probiotic ‘germs’ may provide an alternative to vaccination for malaria – a finding that challenges fundamental tenets of both vaccinology and germ theory. 

The development of a malaria vaccine has been a persistent and heavily funded goal now for over half a century,[1] but to date not a single effective solution has been produced.

This is all the more surprising when you consider the roster of powerful organizations presently invested in finding one:

  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (particularly through PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative)
  • The US National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease
  • The European Union DG
  • The United States Agency for International Development
  • The Wellcome Trust
  • The Medical Research Council UK
  • The European Vaccine Initiative (formerly EMVI)
  • The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership
  • The World Health Organization [2]

Today, anti-malarial chemotherapy and so-called “vector control methods,” e.g. pesticides, are the primary prevention techniques, all of which carry serious unintended adverse health effects – some at least as serious a health threat as malaria itself. Ostensibly, a malaria vaccine would reduce the need for these ‘external’ measures by educating the body’s own immune system to fight a disease which accounts for over 207 million cases and 627,000 deaths annually, according to the World Health Organization’s “World Malaria Report” (2009). [3]

The scientific justification for the development of vaccines in general and the malaria vaccine in particular is based on the observation that surviving natural exposures to pathogens often results in lasting immunity. In the case of malaria, survival from initial infection and frequent re-exposures can result in the absence of clinical symptoms of infection. Also, when gamma-globulin fractions are transferred from semi-immune to naïve humans malaria disease severity is mitigated.[4] [5]

So why, given the feasibility of a vaccine and the virtually limitless financial, scientific and technological resources available to developing an effective solution, has none yet been produced?

This question could be raised for any number of vaccines either in development or already in present day ‘immunization’ schedules. HIV vaccines, for instance, have been a notorious failure, even increasing death rates in a recent clinical trial. And then there are the vaccines for mostly benign childhood infections, e.g. chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc., which now require multiple ‘boosters’ because the synthetic immunity they produce have a dismally short if not non-existence effectiveness.  Given the growing tide of vaccine failures in highly vaccine compliant populations, including: chickenpoxshingles, measlesmumpswhooping cough (pertussis)influenzaHPV (Gardasil)hepatitis B, the problem may not lie in the virulence or resistance of a particular pathogen — be it Ebola or malaria — rather, the problem may lie with the fundamental tenets of vaccinology itself, including germ theory, which our discovery of the microbiome and even the viral nature of key elements of our own genome has effectively obliterated.  In other words, vaccines cannot and do not replace the type of immunity produced through natural processes and natural exposures, and surprisingly, some ‘germs’ are actually required to fend off infection.

Illustrating exactly this point, a recent study published in the journal Cell titled “Gut Microbiota Elicits a Protective Immune Response against Malaria Transmission,” [6]  reveals that the human gut bacteria Escherichia coli 086:B7, normally considered a microbe of pathogenic potential within the host, may help us fend off malaria infection. This was the first study of its kind to demonstrate a beneficial effect of what is normally considered a pathogenic ‘germ’ on malaria infection.

(click image to enlarge)

Screen%20Shot%202015-05-30%20at%2011_34_19%20AM

Click to view the entire PDF

In the new study, Yilmaz and colleagues found that both the E. coli and malaria parasite (Plasmodium sporozites) exhibit the sugar-containing molecule glycan  Gala1-3Galb1-4GlcNAc-R (a-gal) on their surface, which is not present in humans due to the inactivation of the gene (a1,3GT ) which has been estimated to have occurred in our pre-human ancestors about 28 million years ago.[7]  This genetic deletion prevents the body from unintentionally forming autoantibodies against itself, as human are no longer capable of expressing this glycan on cell surfaces. In fact, because of this mutation the human immune system is capable of producing up to 5% of all of its circulating immunoglobulin IgM and IgG against this particular glycan.[8]

Why is this important?

Yilmaz et al observed several important phenomena that together indicate this E. coli strain (and by implication perhaps other commensal bacteria) in our gut may prime the immune system to produce anti-glycan antibodies that protect against malaria. They came to this conclusion through the following observations, summarized by a recent review of their work titled, “Coming soon: probiotics-based malaria vaccines“:

  • Higher anti-a-gal antibodies are correlated to lower incidence of malaria infection: “As Yilmaz et al. [7] demonstrated in their study, individuals in malaria-endemic Mali exhibit twice the levels of anti-a-gal IgM antibodies compared to adults with no previous malaria exposure. Levels were in general higher in non-infected individuals, indicating that the high titers of a-gal antibodies protect these individuals from being infected by the malaria parasite.”
  • Mice engineered to be deficient in the glycan-producing 1,3 GT gene (like humans) produce protective anti-a-gal antibodies following exposure to E. coli 086:B7 or vaccination with a-gal antigen: “The most interesting discovery of the authors was the demonstration that ‘human-like’ a1,3GT-deficient mice produce anti-a-gal antibodies following enteric exposures to E. coli O86:B7 or immunization with a-gal antigen and that these antibodies protected the mice against Plasmodium berghei infection by Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes.”
  • Anti-a-gal antibodies bind to the parasite surface and activate classical complement pathway of the immune system within the skin: “Yilmaz and colleagues then dissected the mode of action of the anti-a-gal antibodies during malaria transmission from the mosquito to the human. The antibodies were shown to bind to the sporozoite surface and here induced the classical pathway of complement, resulting in lysis of the sporozoites. Due to the fact that following the mosquito bite sporozoite RNA was detectable in the mouse skin, but not the liver, the initial deposition of the parasites in the skin appears to be the target for complement-mediated destruction.”
  • A-gal antibodies produced as a result of gut microbe exposure are able to protect against malarial infection of the skin: “[E]xisting a-gal antibodies, originally generated by the host in response to a-gal-presenting gut microbes, are able to target Plasmodium sporozoites once the mosquito injects them into the skin, resulting in complement-mediated destruction of the parasite (Figure 1).”

While Yilmaz et al focused on the a-gal glycan as a potential vaccine target to protect against malaria infection and transmission, the review pointed out another implication: “the most innovative aspect of the study is the potential use of human gut bacteria as probiotics to protect humans from contracting malaria.” The review proposed:

 “In regard to malaria prevention measures this can be achieved by the use of probiotics containing a-gal producing bacteria as dietary supplements to protect from malaria infection, particularly children who are the most vulnerable group. Antimalarial probiotics in theory would have the advantages of long-term efficacy and low production costs. However, much effort is needed to determine composition and administrative doses of such probiotics as well as the antimalarial effect and tolerance of probiotic vaccines for humans.”

Antimalarial Probiotics?

A probiotic vaccine? In other words, certain commensal bacteria formerly believed to be either harmless or pathogenic may induce protective antibodies in a manner that is far more effective than conventional vaccines, the latter of which cannot effectively reproduce or replace immunological processes that have taken millions of years to evolve within the metaorganism that we are (our cells + the trillions of microbes that together constitute us). In the case of malaria, this is all the more compelling, since no such vaccine has been found after six decades of investigation; a time span within which millions of people have died or been severely debilitated because of a lack of available conventional treatments.

Incidentally, this is not the first study to find probiotic bacteria may help fight malaria. A 2006 study titled, “Lactobacillus casei ssp. rhamnosus enhances non specific protection against Plasmodium chabaudiAS in mice“, found that the  well-known probiotic strain Lactobacillus casei exhibited potent anti-malarial activity in the mouse experimental model of infection, indicating that there are a variety of bacterial strains in the gut that could be utilized to support produce probiotic-mediated immunization alternatives to vaccination.

Moreover, considering that the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in finding drug and vaccine solutions to malaria have yet to produce compelling results, it should be noted that probiotics are not the only ‘natural alternatives’ that show promise. Others include:

1.     Lime Juice: A 2011 human study found that lime juice greatly increased malarial clearance when combined with standard drug therapy. [9]They concluded: “lime juice when used with the appropriate antimalarial may enhance malaria parasite clearance especially in those with uncomplicated malaria.” Lime juice, in fact, may help combat a wide range of life-threatening diseases.

2.     Turmeric (Curcumin): There are at least 8 studies in the medical literature demonstrating the value of the primary polyphenol in turmeric known as curcumin in combatting malaria and/or reducing the adverse effects of conventional antimalarial drugs. View the studies here.

3.     Breastmilk: Natural’s original, first source of immunization is breast milk. A 2000 study found vitro growth inhibition of P. falciparum by maternal and infant sera, suggesting “a protective in vivo role for breastmilk in the possible modulation of malaria frequency, severity and complications.”[10]

For more research on natural/integrative anti-malarial interventions, take a look at our research page on the topic which includes preliminary research on over two dozen natural substances of potential value in the cause to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with malaria infection.

References

[1] http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1579/2806

[2] Moran M, Guzman J, Ropars A, Jorgensen M, McDonald A, Potter S, Haile-Selassie H. The malaria product pipeline: planning for the future. London, UK: The George Institute for International Health; 2007.

[3] World Health Organization (2013) World Malaria Report. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_ report_2013/wmr2013_no_profiles.pdf

[4] Gamma-globulin and acquired immunity to human malaria. COHEN S, McGREGOR IA, CARRINGTON S Nature. 1961 Nov 25; 192():733-7.

[5] Antibodies that protect humans against Plasmodium falciparum blood stages do not on their own inhibit parasite growth and invasion in vitro, but act in cooperation with monocytes. Bouharoun-Tayoun H, Attanath P, Sabchareon A, Chongsuphajaisiddhi T, Druilhe PJ Exp Med. 1990 Dec 1; 172(6):1633-41.

[6] Yilmaz, B. et al. (2014) Gut microbiota elicits a protective immune response against malaria transmission. Cell 159, 1277–1289 8 Galili, U. and Swanson, K. (1991) Gene sequences suggest inacti

[7] Galili, U. and Swanson, K. (1991) Gene sequences suggest inactivation of alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase in catarrhines after the divergence of apes from monkeys. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88, 7401–7404

[8] Macher, B.A. and Galili, U. (2008) The Galalpha1,3Galbeta1,4GlcNAcR (alpha-Gal) epitope: a carbohydrate of unique evolution and clinical relevance. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1780, 75–8

[9] S A Adegoke, O A Oyelami, O S Olatunya, L A Adeyemi. Effects of lime juice on malaria parasite clearance. Phytother Res. 2011 Oct ;25(10):1547-50. Epub 2011 Mar 17. PMID:21413089

[10] O O Kassim, K A Ako-Anai, S E Torimiro, G P Hollowell, V C Okoye, S K Martin. Inhibitory factors in breastmilk, maternal and infant sera against in vitro growth of Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasite. J Trop Pediatr. 2000 Apr;46(2):92-6. PMID: 10822935


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

No One Is Safe In A Post-Antibiotic World

freeimages.co.uk medical images

Antibiotics are one of modern day’s greatest discoveries, but it’s failing us. By our own hand, we have abused this medical achievement by using it as a “fix-all”, and it has caused antibiotic resistance issues that spans across the globe. In fact, antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest health threats of the 21st century. Superbugs, Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), drug resistant Typhoid, and multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are increasing throughout the world and have the capacity to cause worldwide health issues. Moreover, no one wants to even walk into a hospital for fear of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, that have been reported at hospitals around the country.

According to the CDC, each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections. Last year, Keiji Fukuda, Director-General for Health Health Security at WHO warned, “Without urgent, coordinated action by many stakeholders, the world is headed for a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries which have been treatable for decades can once again kill.”

In a recent article on the subject, Fukuda once again stressed to the world:

“Common infections that have been easily treatable for decades could become deadly if the current growth of antimicrobial resistance continues.

‘Globally this is a really big issue,” says Keiji Fukuda, assistant director-general for health security at the World Health Organization. ‘We are seeing the same patterns of resistance basically occur everywhere.’

In Europe alone, 25,000 people now die each year from infections that used to be treatable with antibiotics, Fukuda says. Some Staphylococcus infections acquired in hospitals have become almost impossible to cure. The pathogens behind malaria and tuberculosis are evolving to elude even the best treatments.”

The Reality of it All – No One is Safe

The most important factor to keep in mind is when drug resistance develops in one part of the world, it quickly spreads to other areas. To that end – no one is safe. Folks, the not-so-distant future of a post-antibiotic world is already here. In fact, an epidemic is quietly raging in parts of India where an epidemic of antibiotic resistant “superbugs” are killing the country’s newborns by the tens of thousands:

“Five years ago, we almost never saw these kinds of infections,” said Dr. Neelam Kler, chairwoman of the department of neonatology at New Delhi’s Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, one of India’s most prestigious private hospitals. “Now, close to 100 percent of the babies referred to us have multidrug resistant infections. It’s scary.”

… Researchers say the evidence is now overwhelming that a significant share of the bacteria present in India — in its water, sewage, animals, soil and even its mothers — are immune to nearly all antibiotics. Source

This is the beginning of a new era – an antibiotic-free era. This is a doomsday scenario that means that our current medical safety nets will be much smaller. In the future, even the smallest cuts could pose a danger to our health. Moreover,we won’t be able to treat cancer or diabetes, people will die earlier, and there won’t be elective surgeries or organ transplants. As well, the cost of medical care will sharply increase and dealing with infections will be a very serious process.

You should also consider the reality that our food sources will also be affected. Most of the food we eat in the industrialized world: beef, chicken, fish and seafood, as well as certain food crops are raised with the routine use of antibiotics. Raising these food sources without the dependence on antibiotics would become much more expensive and may cause exacerbated illnesses in animals, or farmers would have to change their raising practices, spending more money when their margins are already spread thin.

Last Ditch Efforts Are Being Made By the Medical Community

Doctors are beginning to make preparations for a time when the world is no longer using antibiotics. Consequently, the situation has become so dire that representatives from 194 countries are meeting at the WHO’s annual meeting in Geneva and have approved a new global plan to counter antimicrobial resistance. Plans are being made for every country to have a monitoring system in place by 2017 for drug resistance.

This system will also make a last ditch attempt to reduce the use and misuse of antibiotics in health care settings and agriculture, as well as invest in new drugs. Regrettably, these new, stronger antibiotics could cause more harm to the body and have the potential to attack more than just the offending bacterial cells. Scientists are also exploring the possibility of fighting fire with fire by turning to viruses to kill off bacteria.

“These specialized viruses, called bacteriophages, infect bacteria. Once in control, the phages use the bacterium’s own internal machinery to replicate until the bacterial cell is full and then bursts like a balloon…

Another promising alternative therapy that may take center stage in the post-antibiotic world is the use of cationic or antimicrobial peptides. Peptides are like mini-proteins, and these antimicrobial ones have the ability to both break up bacterial clusters by disrupting communication between the organisms and to kill them off [Sources: Borel; Izadpanah and Gallo]. The bonus is that they may also stimulate our own immune systems to fight harder to wipe out the infection.”

Source

 Natural Body Defenses

Our bodies are equipped to fight infection on their own, yet most of us no longer trust in natural ways of achieving this – especially in the Western world. Giving our bodies a chance to fight the infection before resorting to taking a course of antibiotics is a good start. If we don’t expose the bacteria to the antibiotics, they can’t develop resistance. Instead, we can take steps to develop and maintain our body’s natural defenses by getting enough rest, exercise, drinking lots of water and eating the right types of foods. The following are ten foods you should make a habit of eating in order to build up your body’s immune system.

10 Antibiotic Rich Foods to Build the Body’s Defenses

  1. Colloidal Silver
  2. Nigella Sativa
  3. Honey
  4. Cinnamon
  5. Ginger
  6. Oil of Oregano
  7. Tea Tree Oil
  8. Garlic
  9. Echinacea
  10. Goldenseal

Modern day antibiotics are failing us and we must open our eyes to the fact we are in the beginnings of a post-antibiotic world. The signs are there, the superbugs are raging on and we are losing the fight. The world has a choice: either the medical world makes drastic changes to stave off overuse of antibiotics or they resort to other alternative methods of eliminating bacteria.


Tess Pennington is the editor for ReadyNutrition.com. After joining the Dallas chapter of the American Red Cross in 1999, Tess worked as an Armed Forces Emergency Services Center specialist and is well versed in emergency and disaster management and response. Tess is the author of The Prepper’s Cookbook: 300 Recipes to Turn Your Emergency Food into Nutritious, Delicious, Life-Saving Meals. When a catastrophic collapse cripples society, grocery store shelves will empty within days. But by following Tess’s tips for stocking, organizing, and maintaining a proper emergency food supply, your family will have plenty to eat for weeks, months, or even years.

California Democrats Obliterate Patients’ Rights, Vote To Eliminate Informed Consent

California’s-SB277-Eliminates-Vaccine-Exemptions-And-Destroys-Personal-Beliefs
By: Justice Gazette |

Amidst a weekend of protests from concerned parents demanding Democrats revert to their claimed values of freedom and human rights, the California Democratic Central Committee took a long fall from human rights, voting for a resolution eliminating a patient’s right of informed consent to a medical procedure.

Under the pretense of protecting children from a non-existent health crisis, the California Democratic Party voted to mandate an unspecified number of vaccines and to eliminate the right of personal exemptions, which in the case of vaccines is synonymous with informed consent.  The resolution was part of a top-down orchestrated strategy to get party insiders to provide the appearance of popular support for California State Senator Richard Pan’s SB 277, eliminating personal and religious exemptions for vaccines for school children.  The resolution, which was not age-related, did not name the mandated vaccines but referenced a legally-required list that could change with the whim of the legislature. With over 270 new vaccines approaching approval, this resolution could easily promote a mandate of over 300 vaccines that all students (of all ages) in the jurisdiction of California or California students in other jurisdictions would be forced to be injected with — no information nor consent necessary.  Since Big Pharma has been completely exempted from liability for deaths or injuries their vaccines cause, there is no incentive for them to make a safe vaccine.

If SB 277 matched the resolution in its incusion of all students, then adult students taking even a single class anywhere in the State of California (or Californian’s taking an out-of-state class) would have to roll up their sleeves and submit to an extensive number of vaccines  with no option to refuse.  Some professions require continuing education.   Attorneys are required to take 24 hours of continuing educaition every three years. The fact that Pan showed up to speak for this resolution may be an indication of where his future legislation will lead.  Lawsuits over the current version of SB 277 are already in the planning stages.  So perhaps the approximately 183,000 active members of the legal profession who don’t want to become human pin cushions have already seen the handwriting on Dr. Pan’s wall.

Parents of hundreds of vaccine injured or killed children showed up to the convention May 15th and 16th, only to be greeted by insults and verbal attacks from delegates who treated concerned Democratic parents as the enemy.  In reaction to these parents, the party put up a showing of being cold, callous and uncaring about harm caused by its removal of informed consent.  Tens of millions of dollars have been poured into this legislation and Democrats have a lot of money riding on pushing through this removal of informed consent.  To those pushing the resolution and legislation, sick or dead kids appeared to be an inconvenience to be denied out of existence.  Democrats flatly refused to look at evidence of the serious harm caused by the vaccines. Many spouted mantras about studies that had already been declared false by Dr. William Thompson, the lead scientist who was part of the team that reportedly was forced to falsify those very studies.

John Hanna

John Hanna

John Hanna, the resolutions chairman and a Wall Street proponent, ran the resolutions portion of the convention meeting.  Eleven resolutions had been prioritized for the Convention calendar.  Resolution 15-05.15, “Resolution in Support of Repealing California’s Personal Beliefs Exemption to Mandatory Vaccinations,” which seeks to eliminate the right of informed consent with respect to this medical procedure,  was pulled from the approval calendar for the purpose of opposing it by delegates Ruth Hull and Noelle Foster.  Noelle Foster had immune-compromised children whose very lives were in danger if they were forced to receive the vaccine.  So for Noelle, the resolution took away not only her children’s right to refuse medical treatment but also their very right to live since schooling is mandated and the resolution had no exception for homeschooling.  The resolution was seconded by Democratic delegate/Registered Nurse Donna Macris, a longtime advocate for a patient’s right of informed consent.

Senator Pan

Senator Pan

California Democratic Party Controller Hillary Crosby and SB 277 author State Senator Richard Pan spoke for the resolution. Delegates cannot recall any past resolution ever failing when a Democratic elected official spoke for that resolution. In most past instances, only a few delegates have dared stand up against resolutions personally promoted by legislators. The Pharmaceutical lobbyists had a booth in the convention hall.  There was a lot of money on the line.  According to Robert Kennedy, the Pharmaceutical lobby spends more money promoting their bills than any other lobby, including oil and gas and defense.  According to Kennedy, this bill is very important to the Pharmaceutical Lobby and the legislators they sponsor as passage of SB 277 will dramatically increase the net assets of Pharmaceutical corporations.  So passage of the resolution by a unanimous or near-unanimous majority was viewed as a certainty.

In opposing the resolution, Ruth Hull stated that she stood with Robert F. Kennedy, Dr. William Thompson and millions of voting Democratic activists for patients’ rights who were now fighting to retain the right of informed consent. After speaking of the importance of the right of informed consent with respect to medical procedures, she noted that Hepatitis B, which is on the SB 277 mandated list, is a condition resulting from sex.   Note, this Gazette has covered cases of courts knowingly turning over young children to pedophiles.  Forcing babies and young children to receive a sex vaccine fits with the failure of California leaders to take action to protect the state’s children from sexual abuse.

R.N. Donna Macris, spoke to the Democratic value of freedom and how removing the right to informed consent was counter to the fundamental principles of the Democratic Party.  She spoke of the vaccine injured children and told of the medical realities of the harm that vaccines cause to children.  What the speakers did was to give a voice to the concerns of parents and opponents that was otherwise lacking in Democratic insider circles.

The opposition was much stronger than expected.  Instead of just a few daring to vote against Senator Pan, roughly 30 to 40% of the delegates joined with the opponents in voting “Nay” to the resolution.  Though this was an unprecedented and significant showing against a resolution pushed by an elected official on the floor of the convention, the result was still tragic for Democratic delegate Noelle Foster, who like many other parents has to worry about whether the state is mandating a procedure that could take away the life of her children.  A couple of delegates remarked, “How can the party be so heartless.”  Several Democrats spoke of plans to leave the party as a direct result of what they considered a callous disregard for children’s lives with respect to SB 277 and this resolution.

There have been predictions that SB 277 could end the reign of Democrats in California.  Grass roots Democrats are largely disgusted with their Party’s failure to stand for human values over money from lobbyists.   A low turnout of Democrats in 2016, coupled with a high turnout of angry voters backing a referendum to repeal SB 277, should it become law, could result in a Republican take-over of California, according to several political analysts.  SB 277 is not yet law.  In the end, Jerry Brown could save his party by vetoing the bill or adding  a provision for informed consent in the form of a personal and religious exemption back into the law.

Original article: http://www.justicegazette.org/democrats-eliminate-informed-consent.html

Is CPS Kidnapping Children For Pharma Drug Trial Experiments?

CPS-kidnapped
By John P. Thomas | Medical Kidnap

The U.S. federal government has mandated drug research with children. The need for children to participate in drug company research is high, and the temptation to overstep parental rights to force children to participate is great. Researchers publicly admit using money and other rewards to obtain participation of children in their drug trials.

Organizations that advocate for the rights of parents to make decisions regarding their children’s healthcare are finding that foster children in CPS custody are being enrolled in drug experiments without parental approval. State Child Protective Services are enrolling children in drug experiments without parental approval or court orders. However, those who conduct these drug experiments for pharmaceutical companies, and those who are charged with monitoring such research, do not see a problem with their recruitment methods.

kayla-hannah-diegel1

[Picture above] Kayla and Hannah Diegel suffer from a rare form of mitochondrial disease, and were removed from the custody of their parents in 2014 for allegedly disagreeing with their doctors. Are they a subject of a drug trial? Original Story.In a 2011 article in the Journal Pediatrics, researchers discussed the problem of recruiting children for participation in clinical trials for drug testing. Researchers from Ohio State University (Columbus) and Case Western Reserve University, confirm that the US federal government is mandating that children be included in clinical research studies.Dr. Tishler, PhD, and Dr. Staats Reiss, PhD stated:

Since 1994, federal guidelines have called for the inclusion of children in clinical studies. Related federal incentives and laws such as the “pediatric rule” (the Pediatric Research Equity Act) and the pediatric exclusivity provision have also been passed to increase the number of pediatric clinical trials launched by pharmaceutical companies. Despite these mandates, the allocations to pediatric clinical trials in federal and private research and development budgets have remained limited. In addition, pediatric researchers continue to experience difficulty locating children and families who are willing to enroll in clinical trials.

Recruitment for pediatric studies is hampered by several factors including ethical concerns with using children as subjects, regulatory oversight that is significantly more restrictive for child trials than for adult trials, a lack of research infrastructure, the need to obtain consent from parents, and the challenge of determining appropriate payments for participation that are not coercive. [1]

These researchers were struggling with ethical considerations concerning the use of money to entice parents to enroll their children in research studies. These researchers didn’t think that parents should see the enrollment of their children in drug experiments as a money-making proposition. On the other hand, they realized that money and gifts were very useful for bringing more children into pharmaceutical drug research.

They also noted that the number of pediatric research participants has been increasing. In 2006, they found that there were approximately 45,000 children participating in experiments. There has also been an increase in the number of Phase I studies with normal healthy children. In their review, only 9,817 of the 39,628 studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov included children.

The researchers indicated that one of the most pressing challenges in doing pediatric clinical research is the limited number of participants. Researchers often must network across sites or countries to gain adequate numbers of participants. They often must expend significant energy and resources locating potential subjects.

Dr. Tishler, and Dr. Staats Reiss discussed how money is often given in exchange for voluntary participation. They stated:

One review of the Centerwatch.com clinical trials listing service published in 2002 revealed that nearly 25% of pediatric trials offered payments to participants that ranged from $25 for an investigation of influenza medications to $1500 for a psoriasis-medication study. In another study, [researchers] sent surveys to the IRB chairs [institutional review boards] at member institutions of the National Association of Children’s Hospitals and the Office for Protection From Research Risks.

Sixty-six percent of these institutions used paid participants, and there was wide variation in payment practices across the sites (ranging from $1 to $1000 in cash and $500 in savings bonds). Many of the institutions in the Weise et al study (42%) used a combination of incentives and/or payments for both the children and parents. [2]

CPS Violates Parental Consent and Freedom of Speech.

Isaiah-hospital2
Isaiah Rider suffers from a rare condition called neurofibromatosis. When his mother took him to a hospital in Chicago that specializes in his condition, they ended up taking custody of him over the objections of his mother. Is Isaiah part of a drug trial? More on Isaiah Rider.There are two factors that normally limit child participation in medical and drug company research. The first is the requirement for parental consent. Children normally cannot participate unless a parent gives written consent. The second is the normal right that people have to publically speak out in situations where parents and their children are being coerced and compelled to participate in drug company experiments.We would expect that these two constraining factors would keep children safe from becoming unwilling participants in drug research. However, there are situations in which state agencies are able to avoid both of these constraints and force children to become human guinea pigs.

The network of state operated child protective service agencies (CPS) routinely circumvent the rights of parents and children, and give permission for physicians/researchers to force children to participate in drug company experiments.

Children who are in the foster care system and who are under the control of Child Protective Services are easily targeted for involuntary inclusion in drug experimentation. Ideally, even if children are under CPS control, their natural parents should retain the right to give consent for medical treatment for their children whether it is routine or experimental.

In practice, however, once CPS steps into a family’s private life and takes children out of the home and places them in foster care, then parental oversight regarding the healthcare of their children is routinely violated. Because these cases are involved in State Juvenile or Family Courts (as opposed to Civil Courts), records are sealed and kept secret, supposedly to protect the children.

CPS Collects Federal Funds for Trafficking ChildrenRead the rest of this special report at Medical Kidnap here: http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/05/16/medical-kidnapping-in-the-u-s-kidnapping-children-for-drug-trials/#sthash.5ZhEZCPa.22us4meT.dpuf

The Feds New Mandatory Vaccination Bill Before Congress

Congresswoman Frederica S Wilson (D-FL-24) introduced HR2232, The Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015
By: Catherine J. Frompovich | Activist Post

Vaccines are called shots, and some kill.

Here’s where vaccine/vaccination issues and problems in the USA become ratcheted up to a fever pitch. May 1st, 2015 Congresswoman Frederica S Wilson (D-FL-24) introduced HR2232, The Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015

To amend the Public Health Service Act to condition receipt by States (and political subdivisions and public entities of States) of preventive health services grants on the establishment of a State requirement for students in public elementary and secondary schools to be vaccinated in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and for other purposes. [1]

It’s been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill’s language basically does away with all exemptions except a medical exemption using this language:

(A) certifying that the physician has personally examined the student during the preceding 12 months; and

(B) certifying that, in the physician’s opinion, the physical condition of the student is such that the student’s health would be endangered by the vaccination involved; and

(C) demonstrating (to the satisfaction of the individual in charge of the health program at the student’s school) that the physician’s opinion conforms to the accepted standard of medical care.

Note that “C” indicates students’ schools will be the determining ‘authority’ as [“to the satisfaction of the individual in charge of the health program at the student’s school”] regarding a child’s health / vaccine status, not the child’s parents! Parents, what do you have to say about that?

Since HR2232 basically provides funding to public schools based – and dependent – upon vaccination records, schools, in essence, will be the “keeper of the keys” regarding children. That, no doubt, is tantamount to forfeiture of children over to the state education system—something that reminds one of what happened in Russia under Stalin and the infamous “Children’s World.” [2]

Members of Congress and all parents need to wonder if such proposed legislation as HR2232 could become a prelude to what happened under Stalin:

Of course, millions could not escape Stalin’s Great Terror. Included among those affected by the purges were hundreds of thousands of children whose parents disappeared into the bowels of Lubyanka. Made orphans by the state, these children of “enemies of the people” became wards of the state. The lucky were taken in by brave relatives or merely dispatched to “children’s homes” (detdomy / детдомы); the less fortunate were swept up into the network of children’s prison labor camps that had emerged in the the mid 1930s. [2]

I offer that HR2232 is the slipperiest of all slopes heading in the direction of everything un-American, un-Constitutional and definitely posturing drumbeats of totalitarianism, which is defined as

a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. [3]

[CJF emphasis added]

Either Congresswoman Wilson’s American dream has turned into a nightmare affecting everyone or she’s been visited by too many Big Pharma lobbyists. If ever there were a proposed piece of legislation that needs to be opposed, HR2232 is it!

Instead of HR2232, there is legislation that definitely needs to be introduced:

  1. Make the U.S. CDC/FDA responsible for performing safety tests, independent of Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers, confirming all vaccines are guaranteed not to cause cancer or birth defects or impede fertility and prevent reproduction.
  2. Prohibit vaccines from containing Thimerosal [49.6% ethylmercury], aluminum in any of 4 formulations, formaldehyde, plus other toxic and cancer-causing chemicals or neurotoxins during any stage of vaccine manufacture.
  3. Prohibit Big Pharma from gifting members of Congress political campaigns.

Just in case readers need a reminder about what’s at stake with vaccines, and forced vaccinations, the folks at Vaccine Liberation Army created a public service PowerPoint presentation that drives home serious issues that federal and state health agencies constantly push under a “consensus rug” or as coincidental.

vaccines lie
Slide 30 points out something very interesting—and even factual about vaccines; the information is taken from none other than St Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital “Inpatient Visiting Guidelines.” [4] Here’s what St Jude’s has to say:

For an immune-suppressed child, the risk of infection from a live, attenuated virus vaccine is small compared to the risk of infection from exposure to someone with a vaccine-preventable disease. It is still recommended for your immune suppressed child:

  • To avoid contact with a person who has a rash after recently receiving the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine.

  • To avoid contact with a person who has received an intranasal flu vaccine within one week. This applies only if your child is severely immune suppressed, such as in the hospital after a recent bone marrow transplant. There is no similar risk with the inactivated, injectable flu vaccine.

  • If a household contact (infant) has recently received rotavirus vaccination, all family members should wash their hands thoroughly and frequently after contact with the vaccinated infant, especially when changing diapers.

  •           Household contacts should not receive the oral polio vaccine. Note that the oral polio vaccine is not used in the United States. [4]

What does that tell you? It says unequivocally that recently vaccinated individuals can spread the very diseases they have been vaccinated against! So, if vaccines were so ‘safe’ and ‘fool-proof’, why should parents be concerned about unvaccinated children? It’s the vaccinated who are spreading diseases and also contracting the very diseases for which they have been vaccinated. Here’s some interesting spin about whooping cough, which readers may find somewhat amusing for its apparent attempt at ‘circular’ logic. Wikipedia defines circular logic as “a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.”

On slide 11 we see every parent’s worst nightmare: a vaccine-induced adverse event. The photograph below is that of Ian Gromowski. This poor child died at 47 days old, never having left the hospital after a severe reaction to his Hepatitis B shot—a vaccine that is medically unnecessary unless the birth mother tested positive for Hepatitis B, in my opinion. Hepatitis B is contracted via dirty street drugs needles and sexual activity!

vaccine damage
The USA has now reached what Dr. Benjamin Rush, MD, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, feared when he said, “The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille [famous French prison in 1700s] of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.”

Congresswoman Wilson’s HR2232 seems to fit that definition.

References:

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2232/text
[2] http://scottwpalmer.com/stalinism/blog/childrens-world
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
[4] http://www.stjude.org/stjude

Resource:

As whooping cough grows, study finds vaccine wanes
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/as-whooping-cough-grows-study-finds-vaccine-wanes/

originally appeared at Activist Post

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

The Big Business Of Cancer: 100 BILLION Dollars Was Spent On Cancer Drugs Last Year Alone

cancer profits

If you are an American, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you will get cancer during your lifetime.  If you are a man, the odds are closer to 1 in 2.  And almost everyone in America either knows someone who currently has cancer or who has already died from cancer.  But it wasn’t always this way.  Back in the 1940s, only one out of every sixteen Americans would develop cancer.  Something has happened that has caused the cancer rate in this nation to absolutely explode, and it is being projected that cancer will soon surpass heart disease and become the leading cause of death in the United States.  Overall, the World Health Organization says that approximately 14 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed around the globe each year, and the number of new cases is expected to increase by about 70 percent over the next 2 decades.  There are very few words in the English language that cause more fear than the word “cancer”, but despite billions spent on research and all of the technological progress we have made over the years this plague just continues to spiral wildly out of control.  Why is that?

In America today, more money is spent to treat cancer than to treat any other disease by far.  In fact, according to NBC News, 100 BILLION dollars was spent on cancer drugs just last year alone…

As drug prices continue to fall under ever-increasing scrutiny, spending on cancer medicines has hit a new milestone: $100 billion in 2014.

That’s up more than 10 percent from 2013, and up from $75 billion five years earlier, according to a report published Tuesday from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

100 million dollars would be an astounding amount of money to spend on these drugs.  But 100 billion dollars is 1,000 times as much money as 100 million dollars.  And the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics is projecting that the amount of money spent on cancer drugs will continue to grow at a rate of 6 to 8 percent a year.

Needless to say, there are a lot of people out there that are becoming exceedingly wealthy treating this disease.

And the cost of some these drugs is absolutely absurd.  According to NBC News, two of the latest cancer drugs to be developed “are priced at $12,500 a month“…

Forty-five new drugs for cancer hit the market between 2010 and 2014, including 10 last year alone, IMS said. Two of those are so-called immunotherapies, a hot new class that harnesses the immune system to fight cancer. They are Opdivo from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Keytruda from Merck. Both are priced at $12,500 a month.

Yes, I understand that drug companies are in business to make a profit.

But how can anyone possibly justify charging cancer patients that much for their medicine?

If you are diagnosed with cancer in America today and you choose to trust the medical system with your treatment, you can say goodbye to your financial future.  Even if you have health insurance, you will probably end up flat broke one way or the other.  Either you will survive and be flat broke, or you will die flat broke.

And despite all of our ultra-expensive treatments, the survival rate for cancer is still not very good.  At this point, the five year survival rate for those diagnosed with cancer is just 65 percent.  That means that 35 percent of those diagnosed with cancer are going to end up dead within five years, and for certain forms of cancer that percentage is much, much higher.

Sadly, as I mentioned at the top of this article, the percentage of the population getting cancer just continues to go up

We have lost the war on cancer. At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life.

We live in a society that is highly toxic, and it is getting worse with each passing day.

And once you do develop cancer, doctors are not allowed to prescribe any “alternative treatments” for you.  They are only permitted to offer you the treatments that the system tells them that they must offer.

One of these is chemotherapy.  It is an absolutely nightmarish treatment that often kills the patient before it kills the cancer.  The following is how one woman described her experience with chemo

This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn’t help asking myself “If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, what is it doing to me on the inside?” From 7 pm that evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs.

Many patients go through round after hellish round, hoping that it will do something about their cancer.  Have you ever known someone who has gone through this ordeal?  It can be absolutely heartbreaking.

But in the end, there is a tremendous amount of doubt regarding whether chemo does much good at all.  Just consider the words of Dr. Ralph Moss, the author of a book entitled “The Cancer Industry“…

In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life in the vast majority of cases, and this is the great lie about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of a patient.

So why do oncologists push chemo so hard?

Well, it is because they make a tremendous amount of money doing it

According to the research of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics fame, “Oncologists are some of the highest paid doctors, their average income is increasing faster than any other specialist  in the medical field, and more than half their income comes from selling and administering chemotherapy.”

Yes you read that right.  Oncologists make a huge profit, as much as two-thirds of their income in some cases, from chemotherapy drugs.

Their business model is very different from other doctors because you can’t buy chemotherapy drugs at your local pharmacy.

Oncologists buy these drugs direct at wholesale prices, then they mark them up and bill the insurance companies. This legal profiting on drugs by doctors is unique to the cancer treatment world. They’re making money off the drugs that they insist you take to save your life. That’s a HUGE conflict of interest. They’re selling you the drugs, and charging you for the privilege of putting them in your body. No other doctor can do that.

Our system is deeply corrupt and deeply broken.

But nothing is going to change any time soon because hundreds of billions of dollars are being made.

So what do you think?  Do you have an experience with the cancer industry that you would like to share?  Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…


Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

The Most Dangerous Vaccine (VIDEO)

hpv-vaccine

On this week’s Real Politik James speaks with Norma Erickson, president of Sanevax Inc. Founded in 2010, Sanevax is an international clearinghouse of information and advocacy concerning one of big pharma’s most corrupt and dangerous profit-generating schemes: the HPV vaccine. Amazingly, the HPV vaccine is recommended by several governments as a preventative to cervical cancer. Yet there is no evidence that HPV is in any way related to such cancer. At the same time the pharmaceutical company’s own studies indicate that 2.5% of women who receive the vaccine–that’s 2,500 for every 100,000–will have one or more adverse reactions. Such figures are corroborated by the number of adverse reactions reported to the Centers for Disease Control since the mid-2000s when Gardasil hit the market.

Sanevax presently has affiliates in over 30 countries, and has been especially influential in educating the public on the HPV vaccine’s dangers while acting as a conduit for medical professionals and policy makers to challenge the pharmaceutical industry’s increased control over official vaccination programs.

Interview Highlights

Norma Erickson began to research the HPV vaccine as an investigative writer. Her findings led her to the establishment of Sanevax. “The Sanevax team and all of the people that we work with strongly believe that vaccines should scientifically proven to meet four common sense criteria: They should be scientifically proven safe, affordable, necessary and effective prior to their inclusion in any mass vaccination program. We work with doctors, attorneys, scientists, health advocates, injured girls and their families, and handle most anything having to do with the HPV vaccine controversy.”

Sanevax has succeeded in prompting or facilitating policy reforms in several countries concerning the HPV vaccine, yet United States regulators are among the most impervious to information contradicting data they are fed by major pharmaceutical companies. “Probably the first thing we started working on was the discovery of contamination in the Gardasil vaccine,” she notes.

Dr. Sing Hang Lee agreed to test a vial of Gardasil for us because an individual in Canada reported that her daughter had tested positive for HPV in her blood two years after innoculation. This same girl had been diagnosed with rhematoid arthritis 24 hours after her second injection. I knew from my research and speaking with experts that HPV did not remain in the bloodstream for more than 48 hours–at least natural HPV viruses didn’t. The immune system took care of them within that period of time.

We kept researching and researching, talked to Dr. Lee, and we came to the conclusion that we had to rule out the Gardasil vaccine because it had been advertised, promoted, and approved in every country around the world based on the fact that it had no viral DNA in it. So, we felt obligated to rule it out for this parent. [Dr. Lee] tested that first vial, and sure enough there it was: recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil. We immediately informed the FDA. They brushed it off, changed their website, and indicated that it was no health problem whatsoever. It was a natural part of the manufacturing process.

Merck is releasing a new HPV vaccine despite the fact that the number of vaccine injuries attributable to Gardasil and reported to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Reaction Reporting System have skyrocketed since its introduction in 2006. “As a kind of indication of what one can expect, Merck just got Gardasil 9 approved. During the clinical trials for Gardasil 9 they used Gardasil as the control solution. Normal people would say placebo. (A placebo is an inactive solution.) They used Gardasil during that time and because they had not conducted the safety trials for any great length on Gardasil the FDA required that they follow these girls throughout the course of the study, which was three years. Their new package insert indicates that the serious adverse event rate was 2.5% for Gardasil and 2.3% for Gardasil 9. Now that doesn’t sound like a whole lot until you translate that in to per 100,000 recipients.”

With the above in mind, among Sanevax’s most disturbing observations is the fact that the cervical cancer rate per 100,000 females is far surpassed by the rate of adverse reactions attributable to the HPV vaccine–as evidenced in the manufacturers’ own studies. “When you look at cervical cancer statistics they’re always quoted as x number per 100,000. In the United States there are approximately 12 diagnoses of cervical cancer per year per 100,000 people. If you innoculate that same 100,000 with Gardasil, for instance, you can expect 2,500 adverse events. I can’t see how anyone in their right mind would say that’s a logical tradeoff to avoid 12 cervical cancer diagnoses.”

Further, there is no confirmed link between HPV and cancer. “HPV is associated with cervical cancer. It has never been proven to cause cervical cancer or any other kind of cancer in and of itself,” Erickson explains. “In fact, there’s some very good scientific evidence that’s just been released recently that indicates it may not cause cancer at all.”

Sanevax has produced and participated in the creation of several documentaries highlighting the dangers of the HPV vaccine, many of which highlight how young lives can be destroyed after administration of the HPV vaccine. For example, it brought US high schooler Gabi Swank to the attention of The Greater Good‘s producers following Swank’s extreme adverse reaction linked to Gardasil. Such stories are especially tragic because they involve adolescent girls  stricken with terminally debilitating mental, emotional and physical conditions just as they are about to enter womanhood.

I’m working on a story now that’s going to be published on our website where a girl in Ireland was administered the vaccine in a school program … This was according to her father. She had an adverse reaction straight away. For over an hour she was left lying on a mat on the floor while the rest of the girls were being vaccinated. During this time she had seizure-like jerking, rolling eyes, blurred vision, headache, nausea, etc. That was only the beginning of their journey. The parents were called to the school to pick her up and they were told that they were overreacting when they asked why an ambulance wasn’t called, and that all of these symptoms would wear off. Now, six months later, the little girl is still suffering those symptoms and more.

We have had reports of spontaneous abortions, still births, miscarriages, adrenal failure, severe anxiety and panic attacks, autistic-like symptoms, the whole gamut of auto-immune disorders. There are 70 or 80 recognized autoimmune disorders, and these girls are coming up with any and all of them.


Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.