Tag Archives: who

WHO African Region Plagued By Dangerously Timed Vaccinations


An alarming study published in the prestigious journal Vaccine finds that children in Africa are receiving inappropriately timed and spaced vaccines at epidemic rates.

A highly concerning study published in Vaccine titled “Evaluation of invalid vaccine doses in 31 countries of the WHO African Region,” reveals that infants within the countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region are routinely being given inappropriately timed and spaced vaccine doses, presumably putting them at far greater risk of vaccine associated adverse health effects.  Remarkably, this is the first study of its kind to systematically evaluate invalid vaccine doses in the African Region.

screen shot

The study used data from a decade’s worth of vaccine records from 31 African region countries representing a population of 134,442 individuals, and determined invalidly timed and spaced vaccinations for three vaccines (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis [DTP1, DTP3] and measles-containing vaccine (MCV)) using WHO criteria.

The study found the median percentages of invalid DTP1, DTP3 and MCV vaccinations across all countries were 12.1% (interquartile range, 9.4–15.2%), 5.7% (5.0–7.6%), and 15.5% (10.0–18.1%), respectively.  Moreover, they found:

  • That of the invalid DTP1 vaccinations, 7.4% and 5.5% were administered at child’s age of less than one and two weeks, respectively.
  • In 12 countries, the proportion of invalid DTP3 vaccinations administered with an interval of less than two weeks before the preceding dose varied between 30% and 50%.
  • In 13 countries, the proportion of MCV doses administered at child’s age of less than six months varied between 20% and 45%.

The study found,”a substantial proportion of children in this region were vaccinated earlier than recommended or received vaccine doses spaced inappropriately close to each other.”

The study also acknowledged that presently the criteria with which the success of the immunization campaign in Africa are evaluated is based solely on coverage levels but does not take into account whether these vaccines are being administered properly, i.e. their so-called “validity.”


The study has a number of disturbing implications. First, it is known that vaccination timing can profoundly affect both the risk of adverse effects and its claimed effectiveness. Generally, the earlier that vaccines are administered, and the shorter the interval between them, the more likely they will cause harm, including sudden infant death, which we have reported previously here. Also, the recent CDC whistleblower scandal revealed that the agency knew that the sooner African-American boys were vaccinated with MMR the higher their risk of autism (3.4 fold increased risk). Clearly this link between vaccine timeliness and adverse effects is so well known that even the CDC and the mainstream media has chosen to cover it up.

Second, because early or poorly spaced vaccinations are classified as invalid by the WHO some countries recommend repeating them at the appropriate age, this further increases the risk additive or synergistic adverse health effects from over-vaccination.

Like so many studies published in journals like Vaccine that assume a priori the benefits of vaccination outweigh their risks, the authors concluded that while invalid vaccinations are surprisingly common in African countries, the real risk is in the failure to optimally protect against vaccine-preventable infections and not the health risks of the inappropriately administered vaccines themselves:

“Timing of childhood vaccinations should be improved to ensure an optimal protection against vaccine-preventable infections and to avoid unnecessary wastage in these economically deprived countries.”

This is all the more disingenuous considering that research already exists revealing that certain vaccine campaigns in Africa have resulted in increased risk of death, as well as the accumulating body of research showing over a hundred adverse health effects linked to vaccination signaled by the peer-reviewed published literature itself. There are also highly concerning reports that African children have been enrolled in dangerous vaccine experiments without their parent’s consent.

Studies like this demonstrate just how illusory is the concept that global vaccine agendas such as occurring in Africa are actually working.  We should expect that at the very least the vaccines should be administered appropriately, presumably as the scientific evidence itself dictates, for there to be any assurance that they will produce safe and effective outcomes. Sadly, however, the evidence itself increasingly points to the dramatic disconnect between vaccine policy and their real-world effects.

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.

Shocking: WHO Urges More Vaccinations

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.

Millions Of Girls Given Vaccines Secretly Spiked With Sterilization Drugs

By: Kimberly Paxton | The Daily Sheeple –

Although some might call it a conspiracy theory, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the United Nations have been accused for decades of trying to secretly reduce the world’s population by hiding contraceptives in vaccines that are purported to be for other purposes.

In 1992, during a meeting at the UN headquarters in Geneva, scientists and “women’s health advocates” discussed the use of “fertility regulating vaccines, particularly the anti-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin vaccine. (source)

If you had any doubt in your mind that this was true, doctors at a Catholic hospital in Kenya are out to prove that millions of girls have been tricked into receiving an injection that will render them sterile for years.

Independent laboratory testing has confirmed that a tetanus vaccine given to over 2.3 million young women in Kenya contained the HCG antigen.

HCG was developed by the WHO as a long-term contraceptive. It causes the body to attack a fetus through an antibody response, and can cause spontaneous abortions for 3 years after the woman is injected with the drug.

Dr. Muhame Ngare of Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi said:

We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen. They were all laced with HCG.

This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored. (source)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Kenyan health ministry has denied that this is the case, offering up claims that many women who received the vaccine became pregnant afterwards. But Dr. Ngare (who, incidentally, is pro-vaccine, just not pro-secret-sterilizing-additive) stands firm in his assertion and provides a convincing argument.

Either we are lying or the government is lying. But ask yourself, ‘What reason do the Catholic doctors have for lying?’ The Catholic Church has been here in Kenya providing health care and vaccinating for 100 years for longer than Kenya has existed as a country.

Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children. If this is intended to inoculate children in the womb, why give it to girls starting at 15 years? You cannot get married till you are 18.” The usual way to vaccinate children is to wait till they are six weeks old.

The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992. (source)

Hmmm…so why would this vaccine only be given to young, fertile women? Since tetanus is a type of bacterial infection that occurs after a person is wounded with a rusty or dirty object, wouldn’t it stand to reason that this vaccine, if given in the interest of protecting patients from the infection, be given to both genders, and people of a variety of ages? Are girls at the height of fertility somehow more likely to injure themselves in such a way?

The Kenyan government has a glib answer. Apparently, they wish to proactively inoculate babies in the womb against tetanus, which causes 550 deaths per year.

Catholic priests across Kenya are advising their congregants to refuse these vaccinations.

Kimberly Paxton, a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple, is based out of upstate New York. You can follow Kimberly on Facebook and Twitter.

World Health Organization: Monsanto’s Roundup “Probably” Causes Cancer

monsanto roundup cancer

The WHO has issued a damning pronouncement about the world’s largest seed company:

Glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Round-up herbicide, is “probably carcinogenic.”

The announcement comes after a report was published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in a British medical journal.  The agency cited numerous studies in which occupational exposure to glyphosate was linked to “increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma”.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

“The assessment followed a meeting this month among 17 experts representing 11 countries, who evaluated the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and four other pesticides. The research agency, which hasn’t previously classified glyphosate, monitors global cancer cases while trying to identify causes and responses.”

Monsanto, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the assessment.  Phillip Miller, the Vice President of what is possibly the most hated company in the world, responded to the WHO’s announcement:

“We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

Other studies concur that Round-up is deadly

Actually, it isn’t just the IARC that has reached such a conclusion. I guess VP Miller missed it, but last year, two major, peer-reviewed studies offered proof that glyphosate is deadly.

The first study found that glyphosate increases the breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.

An alarming new study, accepted for publication in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology last month, indicates that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide due to its widespread use in genetically engineered agriculture, is capable of driving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cell proliferation within the infinitesimal parts per trillion concentration range.

The study, titled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,” compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as “low and environmentally relevant concentrations.”

Another study found that consumption of glyphosate causes intestinal and gut damage, which opens the door to numerous human diseases, such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

However, another classification of allergy-type food is emerging and getting recognized for adverse effects on the human intestinal tract and gut. Those foods are genetically modified organisms known as GMOs or GEs. There is scientific research indicating intestinal damage from GMO food and the article “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Disease” discusses how the inordinate amount of pesticides sprayed on GMOs leaves residues in GMO crops that, in turn, are being traced to modern diseases.  (source)

Monsanto’s stocks are falling

Monsanto’s stock has fallen more than 3% since the WHO’s announcement. Let’s spread this information far and wide and hope that stocks continue to fall for the company.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor who lives in a small village in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. She is the author of The Pantry Primer: How to Build a One Year Food Supply in Three Months. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. Daisy is a co-founder of the website Nutritional Anarchy, which focuses on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Daisy’s articles are widely republished throughout alternative media. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm


20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck’s own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?

The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, “Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients,” researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR vaccinated 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:

  • Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
  • In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
  • Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.

The authors of this study used a relatively new technology at that time, namely, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which they believed could help resolve growing challenges associated with measles detection in the shifting post-mass immunization epidemiological and clinical landscape. These challenges include:

  • A changing clinical presentation towards ‘milder’ or asymptomatic measles in previously vaccinated individuals.
  • A changing epidemiological distribution of measles (a shift toward children younger than 15 months, teenagers, and young adults)
  • Increasing difficulty distinguishing measles-like symptoms (exanthema) caused by a range of other pathogens from those caused by measles virus.
  • An increase in sporadic measles outbreaks in previously vaccinated individuals.

Twenty years later, PCR testing is widely acknowledged as highly sensitive and specific, and the only efficient way to distinguish vaccine-strain and wild-type measles infection, as their clinical presentation are indistinguishable.

Did the CDC Use PCR Testing On The Disneyland Measles Cases?

The latest measles outbreak at Disney is a perfect example of where PCR testing could be used to ascertain the true origins of the outbreak. The a priori assumption that the non-vaccinated are carriers and transmitters of a disease the vaccinated are immune to has not been scientifically validated. Since vaccine strain measles has almost entirely supplanted wild-type, communally acquired measles, it is statistically unlikely that PCR tests will reveal the media’s hysterical storyline — “non-vaxxers brought back an eradicated disease!” —  to be true. Until such studies are performed and exposed, we will never know for certain.

Laura Hayes, of Age of Autism, recently addressed this key question in her insightful article “Disney, Measles, and the Fantasyland of Vaccine Perfection“:

“Has there been any laboratory confirmation of even one case of the supposed measles related to Disneyland?  If yes, was the confirmed case tested to determine whether it was wild-type measles or vaccine-strain measles?  If not, why not?  These are important questions to ask. Is it measles or not? If yes, what kind, because if it’s vaccine-strain measles, then that means it is the vaccinated who are contagious and spreading measles resulting in what the media likes to label “outbreaks” to create panic (a panic more appropriately triggered by our 25 year history of epidemic autism).

It would be what one might call vaccine fallout.  People who receive live-virus vaccines, such as the MMR, can then shed that live virus, for up to many weeks and can infect others.  Other live-virus vaccines include the nasal flu vaccine, shingles vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, chicken pox vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine.”

Additional Evidence That the Vaccinated Are Not Immune, Spread Disease

The National Vaccine Information Center has published an important document relevant to this topic titled “The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission.” Pages 34-36 in the section on “Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses and Live Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses” discuss evidence that the MMR vaccine can lead to measles infection and transmission.

Cases highlighted include:

  • In 2010, Eurosurveillance published a report about excretion of vaccine strain measles virus in urine and pharyngeal secretions of a Croatian child with vaccine-associated rash illness.[1] A healthy 14-month old child was given MMR vaccine and eight days later developed macular rash and fever. Lab testing of throat and urine samples between two and four weeks after vaccination tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus. Authors of the report pointed out that when children experience a fever and rash after MMR vaccination, only molecular lab testing can determine whether the symptoms are due to vaccine strain measles virus infection. They stated: “According to WHO guidelines for measles and rubella elimination, routine discrimination between aetiologies of febrile rash disease is done by virus detection. However, in a patient recently MMR-vaccinated, only molecular techniques can differentiate between wild type measles or rubella infection or vaccine-associated disease. This case report demonstrates that excretion of Schwartz measles virus occurs in vaccinees.”
  • In 2012, Pediatric Child Health published a report describing a healthy 15-month old child in Canada, who developed irritability, fever, cough, conjunctivitis and rash within seven days of an MMR shot.[2] Blood, urine and throat swab tests were positive for vaccine strain measles virus infection 12 days after vaccination. Addressing the potential for measles vaccine strain virus transmission to others, the authors stated, “While the attenuated virus can be detected in clinical specimens following immunization, it is understood that administration of the MMR vaccine to immunocompetent individuals does not carry the risk of secondary transmission to susceptible hosts.
  • In 2013, Eurosurveillance published a report of vaccine strain measles occurring weeks after MMR vaccination in Canada. Authors stated, “We describe a case of measlesmumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine-associated measles illness that was positive by both PCR and IgM, five weeks after administration of the MMR vaccine.” The case involved a two-year-old child, who developed runny nose, fever, cough, macular rash and conjunctivitis after vaccination and tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus infection in throat swab and blood tests.[3] Canadian health officials authoring the report raised the question of whether there are unidentified cases of vaccine strain measles infections and the need to know more about how long measles vaccine strain shedding lasts. They concluded that the case they reported “likely represents the existence of additional, but unidentified, exceptions to the typical timeframe for measles vaccine virus shedding and illness.” They added that “further investigation is needed on the upper limit of measles vaccine virus shedding based on increased sensitivity of the RT-PCR-based detection technologies and immunological factors associated with vaccine-associated measles illness and virus shedding.”

In addition to this evidence for the disease-promoting nature of the measles vaccine, we recently reported on a case of a twice vaccinated adult in NYC becoming infected with measles and then spreading it to two secondary contacts, both of which were vaccinated twice and found to have presumably protective IgM antibodies.

This double failure of the MMR vaccine renders highly suspicious the unsubstantiated claims that when an outbreak of measles occurs the non- or minimally vaccinated are responsible. The assumption that vaccination equals bona fide immunity has never been supported by the evidence itself. We have previously reported on a growing body of evidence that even when a vaccine is mandated, and 99% of a population receive the measles vaccines, outbreaks not only happen, but as compliance increases vaccine resistance sporadic outbreaks also increase — a clear indication of vaccine failure.

There is also the concerning fact that according to the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer Merck’s own product insert, the MMR can cause measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), a rare but potentially lethal form of brain infection with measles.  For more information you can review a case report on MIBE caused by vaccine strain measles published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in 1999 titled “Measles inclusion-body encephalitis caused by the vaccine strain of measles virus.

Global Measles Vaccine Failures Increasingly Reported

China is not the only country dealing with outbreaks in near universally vaccinated populations. Between 2008-2011, France reported over 20,000 cases of measles, with adolescents and young adults accounting for more than half of cases.[4] Remarkably, these outbreaks began when France was experiencing some of their highest coverage rates in history. For instance, in 2008, the MMR1 coverage reached 96.6% in children 11 years of age. For a more extensive review of measles outbreaks in vaccinated populations read our article The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not A Failure to Vaccinate.

Given that clinical evidence, case reports, epidemiological studies, and even the vaccine manufacturer’s own product warnings, all show directly or indirectly that MMR can spread measles infection, how can we continue to stand by and let the media, government and medical establishment blame the non-vaccinated on these outbreaks without any concrete evidence?


[1]  Kaic B, Gjenero-Margan I, Aleraj B. Spotlight on Measles 2010: Excretion of Vaccine Strain Measles Virus in Urine and Pharyngeal Secretions of a Child with Vaccine Associated Febrile Rash Illness, Croatia, March 2010. Eurosurveillance 2010 15(35).

[2] Nestibo L, Lee BE, Fonesca K et al. Differentiating the wild from the attenuated during a measles outbreak. Paediatr Child Health Apr. 2012; 17(4).

[3] Murti M, Krajden M, Petric M et al. Case of Vaccine Associated Measles Five Weeks Post-Immunisation, British Columbia, Canada, October 2013. Eurosurveillance Dec. 5, 2013; 18(49).

[4] Antona D, Lévy-Bruhl D, Baudon C, Freymuth F, Lamy M, Maine C, Floret D, Parent du Chatelet I. Measles elimination efforts and 2008-2011 outbreak, France. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;19(3):357-64. doi: 10.3201/eid1903.121360. PubMed PMID: 23618523; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3647670. Free full text Related citations

Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of www.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.


‘A Mass Sterilization Exercise’: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent In UN Tetanus Vaccine


By: Steve Weatherbe | lifesitenews.com

Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, “This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.”

But the government says the vaccine is safe. Health Minister James Macharia even told the BBC, “I would recommend my own daughter and wife to take it because I entirely 100% agree with it and have confidence it has no adverse health effects.”

And Dr. Collins Tabu, head of the Health Ministry’s immunization branch, told the Kenyan Nation, that “there is no other additive in the vaccine other than the tetanus antigen.”

Tabu said the same vaccine has been used for 30 years in Kenya. Moreover, “there are women who were vaccinated in October 2013 and March this year who are expectant. Therefore we deny that the vaccines are laced with contraceptives.”

Newspaper stories also report women getting pregnant after being vaccinated.

Responds Dr. Ngare: “Either we are lying or the government is lying. But ask yourself, ‘What reason do the Catholic doctors have for lying?’” Dr. Ngare added: “The Catholic Church has been here in Kenya providing health care and vaccinating for 100 years for longer than Kenya has existed as a country.”

Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.

Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of child-bearing years, and why is it not being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?

“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare. “If this is intended to inoculate children in the womb, why give it to girls starting at 15 years? You cannot get married till you are 18.” The usual way to vaccinate children is to wait till they are six weeks old.”

But it is the five-vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.”

It is HCG that has been found in all six samples sent to the University of Nairobi medical laboratory and another in South Africa. The bishops and doctors warn that injecting women with HCG , which mimics a natural hormone produced by pregnant women, causes them to develop antibodies against it. When they do get pregnant, and produce their own version of HCG, it triggers the production of antibodies that cause a miscarriage.

“We knew that the last time this vaccination with five injections has been used was in Mexico in 1993 and Nicaragua and the Philippines in 1994,” said Dr. Ngare. “It didn’t cause miscarriages till three years later,” which is why, he added, the counterclaims that women who got the vaccination recently and then got pregnant are meaningless.

Ngare said WHO tried to bring the same anti-fertility program into Kenya in the 1990s. “We alerted the government and it stopped the vaccination. But this time they haven’t done so.”

Ngare also contrasted the secrecy of this campaign with the usual fanfare accompanying national vaccination efforts. “They usually bring all the stakeholders together three months before the campaign, like they did with polio a little while ago. And they use staff in all the centres to give out the vaccine.” But with this anti-tetanus campaign, “only a few operatives from the government are allowed to give it out. They come with a police escort. They take it away with them when they are finished. Why not leave it with the local medical staff to administer?”

Brian Clowes of Human Life International in Virginia told LifeSite News that WHO was not involved in the Nicaragua, Mexican and Philippines campaigns. “They try to maintain a spotless record. They let organizations like United Nations Population Fund and USAID do the dirty work.”

In the previous cases, said Clowes, the vaccinators insisted their product was pure until it was shown not to be. Then they claimed the positive tests for HCG were isolated, accidental contaminations in the manufacturing process.

LifeSiteNews has obtained a UN report on an August 1992 meeting at its world headquarters in Geneva of 10 scientists from “Australia, Europe, India and the U.S.A” and 10 “women’s health advocates” from around the world, to discuss the use of “fertility regulating vaccines.” It describes the “anti-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin vaccine” as the most advanced.

One million Kenyan women and girls have been vaccinated so far with another 1.3 million to go. The vaccination is targeting women, according to the government, in order to inoculate their children in the womb against tetanus as well. The government says 550 children die of tetanus yearly.

In covering the contest of words the pro-government Nation found plenty of women who had been vaccinated and were now pregnant, even one who was the wife of a former Catholic priest who left the Church to marry. The paper ignored Kenya’s reliance on the Catholic medical system, while setting the bishops’ stand in a questionable historical context of irrational responses “largely based on religious beliefs,” the more recent murder of vaccination teams in Nigeria, and even of CIA conspiracy theories.

Why would the UN want to suppress the population in developing countries? “Racism,” is Brian Clowes’ first explanation.  “Also, the developed countries want to get hold of their natural resources. And lately, there is the whole bogus global warming thing.”

Dr. Ngare said it was the Catholic Church’s hope that the government could have resolved the matter quietly by testing the vaccine. “But the government has chosen to be combative,” forcing Kenya’s bishops and Catholic doctors to go public.

WHO’s Kenyan office and several WHO media contacts in Washington, D.C. failed to respond to LifeSiteNews enquiries over a 24-hour period.

World Health Organization Doublespeak About Ebola


“Ebola is a genetically modified organism (GMO),” declared Dr. Cyril Broderick, Professor of Plant Pathology, in a front-page story published in the Liberian Observer.

We have come to know the World Health Organization as a pet of the multinational pharmaceutical complex, and in the case of Ebola, it has not disappointed anyone. The WHO did its job as fear-monger in chief during the manufactured H1N1 ‘crisis’ and is doing its part to make Ebola another doomsday episode.

According to the WHO, Ebola is in full geographic expansion in the three most affected countries: Liberia, Guinea Conakry and Sierra Leone, and the threat looms over border nations due to the lack of local and international staff to deal with the outbreak. While the WHO scares the populations in places where Ebola has allegedly appeared, it has launched the usual psychological game where it assures the world that it is still possible to halt theepidemic’.

That is the hope expressed today by the Deputy Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Bruce Aylward, coordinator of the operational response in the fight against Ebola.

In a press conference, the head of the WHO highlighted two aspects, the situation is serious and will be even worse, so that not only we must not lower our guard but intensify and multiply exponentially every effort He said that if everything is implemented correctly and promptly, the world will be able to control the epidemic.

Today the number of infected persons is, according to the WHO, 8,914, so this week will overcome the 9,000 cases“. The organization says it can account for 4,447 deaths; and that the mortality rate continues at an average of 70 percent.

Let’s remember that it was the WHO that said that H1N1 was a threat to global health and that only a massive vaccinations campaign could prevent a global pandemic. Not only was the WHO wrong about the global threat warning, but also about the need for mass vaccinations.

When everything was said and done, a large number of supposed cases of H1N1 ended up being something else, and many of the deaths registered by the WHO as a result of H1N1 were later dismissed.

At present, the WHO says there are a thousand new cases of Ebola per week, but the expectation is that in early December this figure will increase to a range of between 5,000 and 10,000 cases every seven days. Expectation, either for the best and for the worst is never a good parameter to attempt to predict how a disease may spread, is it?

Additionally, it is safe to say that it is contradictory that the WHO is warning about a massive increase in Ebola cases while it does nothing to prevent such a spread.

The countries that have seen the most cases of Ebola still have ‘porous’ borders and those that have seen one or two cases can’t even keep up with the minimum conditions. Most of them remain incapable of dealing with the conditions needed to treat one single patient.

Mr. Aylward has also said that if the WHO’s predictions come true, Ebola cases will peak soon, and that moment will mark the start of a gradual reduction in cases, which should eventually lead to a controlled epidemic.

See the contradiction?

Either Ebola does not pose such a serious threat to the people of the world or the health authorities are extremely complacent.

The ​​WHO believes that the growth curve will begin to decrease from early December and will start to see a clear decline before the year ends.

For this to happen, Ebola must have previously achieved the goal 70-70-60″, established by the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response.

The objective 70-70-60″ is to get seventy percent of those infected into isolation and that seventy percent of burials are made in a dignified but sure way. This means that health authorities will be able to tackle two of the main vectors of infection.

The idea is that in two months authorities will be able to detect all transmission chains. “This will obviously depend on how fast we implement all our goals, and how effective they are,” he said.

Aylward added that for now, the task is more difficult, since there is a constant geographic spread of the virus.

“We found that Ebola is present in more counties than a week ago. And this happens in the three countriesmost affected, said Aylward, adding that the same situation exists in the three capitals, where more and more cases are reported.

The assistant general manager was concerned about the possibility that the virus “crosses bordersand cases begin arising in neighboring countries like Guinea Bissau, Mali, Senegal and especially, Ivory Coast.

The question is why hasn’t the WHO or the health authorities in the countries themselves sealed their borders to avoid the unnecessary spread of the virus from one country to another? The movement of people is undoubtedly the best form of contagion, yet nothing is being done to stop it.

“We have a clear problem of recruitment of international staff, and this is a big challenge,” confessed Aylward. On this matter, the question is, why have some countries like the United States have waster resources and time sending their military instead of doctors, nurses and the necessary equipment to treat the sick and prevent more Ebola cases?

Despite being massively occupied by foreign armies, it is only now that the WHO announces that the United Kingdom and the United States will begin to build treatment centers in Africa to deal with Ebola patients.

He explained that the decision to build such centers has been adopted to try to attract the largest possible number of international experts.

Many experts are still hesitant to move to the most affected countries since they doubt about the treatment they would receive if contagion occurred, and, above all, the speed with which they would have access to such treatment if they cannot return home promptly.

“There are only a few companies that want to fly to the affected countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea and sometimes many days go by between the moment infection is detected and the  repatriation of the patient.”

Aylward denied these centers are built to prevent the virus from spreading in industrialized countries that may intend to repatriate people infected with Ebola.

Spain and the United States are currently dealing with individual cases of two health workers who have been infected after treating Ebola patients who became ill in Africa and who were let into the countries without the proper health precautions.

In the United States, for example, the government has refused to take care of its southern border despite multiple warnings about the possibility that Ebola infected people cross into Texas, Arizona or California. The US has also refused to ban flights from countries that have large numbers of people infected with the virus.

Where is the urgency, then?

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

The WHO Predicts That Ebola Vaccine Will Arrive In January 2015


Ebola Researchers Have A Radical Idea: Rush A Vaccine Into The Field. Image credit: www.thisissierraleone.com

In a move that potentially violate all scientific principles, the World Health Organization (WHO) reached out to some pharmaceutical corporations to “accelerate” the creation and manufacture of a vaccine that would supposedly help fight Ebola.

According to the WHO, such a vaccine would be available by January 2015, which in scientific terms is a record. In normal conditions when science and not profit or urgency drive research and development of pharmaceutical products, it takes years or even decades to properly develop, test and approve a vaccine. However, the fear campaign initiated by health authorities and echoed by the media have propelled a call to fast-track the production of a new vaccine to fight Ebola.

As we have reported recently, the plan of the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies is to begin mass vaccinating people in Western Africa, where the first outbreak took place.

The Real Agenda News has learned that world health authorities intend to mandate the vaccination of whole countries as a way to end the current Ebola spread.

It is conceivable that this epidemic will not end even if we pour all resources into it. You may only continue and may require a vaccine,” said Dr. Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the United States.

“As the epidemic becomes more and more formidable, sometimes out of control, it is quite conceivable, if not likely, that we need to deploy the vaccine across the whole country to end the epidemic. This is clearly a possibility,” added Fauci.

With this, Dr. Fauci tells us two things: First, that vaccines that need to be tested for their efficacy and safety before being used in humans, may be used on people without following the proper process of clinical trials; and second, that governments will use force, if need be, to have citizens vaccinated.

The first vaccines against Ebola, will begin to be tested in the countries affected by the disease in West Africa, according to information provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). Traditionally, Africa has been the testing ground for many pharmaceutical products, especially vaccine.

Some people see the African continent as an open air laboratory that is always available to the large pharmaceutical corporations to test their newest products.

The WHO is now working intensively” with pharmaceutical companies and regulators in order to speed up the application of a range of possible treatments for Ebola. This fact was confirmed by the  Spanish Vaccinations Association.

The WHO has warned that, in any event, it will not be able to mass vaccinate people due to the limited amount of medication available. This has prompted some countries to demand more action in order to develop a vaccine faster, which is exactly what the medical mafia wants to hear. In most countries, pharmaceutical companies enjoy complete immunity against lawsuits that stem from health complications derived from vaccines.

The meeting of experts from the WHO on September 5 boosted the priority development of two vaccines: the chimpanzee adenovirus type 3 and the vesicular stomatitis.

None of them has yet been tested in humans to see if it is effective against Ebola, but the one known as ChAd3, itself has been used with other diseases and is apparently “safe”.

Studies to implement the use of a vaccine are already underway in the USA and they will also start in Europe and Africa, so the experts expect the first results on safety this coming November.

So far, the virus has no specific treatment or effective vaccine. Ebola has allegedly killed 3,338 people which has prompted scientists to consider it “the deadliest outbreakin its history. Most people who supposedly were victims of Ebola lived in Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria and, in recent weeks, also in Spain and the United States.

Evidence of the hysteria that governs over scientific evidence was seen last August, when the WHO allowed the use of experimental treatments on the victims of Ebola.

The drug administered to humans is known as ZMapp, from Mapp Pharmaceuticals an American Company that is said to still be studying the effectiveness of the vaccine to later consider the challenge of high volume production.

This serum was applied successfully in the case of two Americans infected while visiting Liberia. However, the drug did not work in the case of a Spanish priest who was infected in the same country.

Another drug that is thought of as a possible option is TKM-Ebola, from the Canadian Tekmira Company. This drug received funding from the US Department of Defense. Its makers claim it has successfully” completed the first phase of clinical trials.

The Public Health Agency of Canada, meanwhile, has developed an experimental vaccine, VSV-EBOV, which offers promising” results in animals.

There are many more vaccines in development, as a variant of the rabies driven by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Thomas Jefferson University in the United States. This is perhaps the most concerning of all for the public. The National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided an exclusive license to Exxell BIO, Inc. in Minnesota to produce a Rabid Ebola vaccine against Ebola virus by using a modified form of rabies.

The director of the Jefferson Vaccine Center and professor of immunology and microbiology at the university, Matthias Schnell, recently claimed that the best way to end this epidemic is precisely the vaccine, although he also advocates for antibody-based therapies to treat patients who are already infected .

Another strong advocate of vaccination is the director of this department at WHO, Jean-Marie Okwo Bele, who has expressed his confidence that the implementation of “emergency procedureswill provide a definite product for next year.

His favorite project is that of the British company GlaxoSmithKline, as he says that animal testing have obtained excellent results”.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Ebola Among Health Workers: More Than 240 Sick, More Than 120 Dead


If hundreds of doctors and nurses are becoming infected with Ebola, what chance is the general public going to have?  This is not just a question that many of us are asking.  As you will see below, this is a question that the World Health Organization is asking.  When dozens of health workers started getting Ebola, nobody could explain how it was happening.  More precautions were taken and health workers were even more careful than before.  Then the number of sick health workers rose to 170.  Even more measures were taken to keep doctors and nurses from getting the disease, but now just a couple of weeks later we have learned that a total of 240 health workers have contracted the virus and more than 120 of them have died.  Overall, more than 2,600 people have been infected with Ebola since this outbreak began and more than 1,400 people have died.  This virus continues to spread at an exponential rate, and now we have learned that there are confirmed cases of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  When are people in the western world going to wake up and start taking this disease seriously?

The mainstream media has told us over and over again that Ebola “does not spread easily” and that we have nothing to be concerned about in the United States and Europe.

But if that is true, then how in the world have hundreds of doctors and nurses gotten sick?  They go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting the virus.  The following is from an official World Health Organization statement that was released on Monday

The outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa is unprecedented in many ways, including the high proportion of doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who have been infected.

To date, more than 240 health care workers have developed the disease in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, and more than 120 have died.

During past outbreaks, a few health workers have contracted the virus.  But once the virus was identified and proper safety measures were put into place, “cases among medical staff dropped dramatically”.  Unfortunately, the WHO says that this outbreak is “different” and the virus continues to spread among medical personnel

In the past, some Ebola outbreaks became visible only after transmission was amplified in a health care setting and doctors and nurses fell ill. However, once the Ebola virus was identified and proper protective measures were put in place, cases among medical staff dropped dramatically.

Moreover, many of the most recent Ebola outbreaks have occurred in remote areas, in a part of Africa that is more familiar with this disease, and with chains of transmission that were easier to track and break.

The current outbreak is different. Capital cities as well as remote rural areas are affected, vastly increasing opportunities for undiagnosed cases to have contact with hospital staff. Neither doctors nor the public are familiar with the disease. Intense fear rules entire villages and cities.

Needless to say, the fact that so many doctors and nurses are getting sick has created a tremendous amount of panic in areas of Africa were Ebola is spreading.  Here is more from the WHO statement

The fact that so many medical staff have developed the disease increases the level of anxiety: if doctors and nurses are getting infected, what chance does the general public have? In some areas, hospitals are regarded as incubators of infection and are shunned by patients with any kind of ailment, again reducing access to general health care.

The loss of so many doctors and nurses has made it difficult for WHO to secure support from sufficient numbers of foreign medical staff.

I think that the WHO has brought up a legitimate question.

If hundreds of doctors and nurses are getting the virus even after using protective equipment, what chance is the general public going to have?

Of course one of the big problems is the misinformation that is being spread through the mainstream media.  We have been told over and over that Ebola can only be spread “through direct contact with infected body fluids”, but scientific studies have shown that this is simply not accurate.  Dr. Ronald R. Cherry believes that this bad information could be contributing to the spread of Ebola among medical personnel…

We know that airborne transmission of Ebola occurs from pigs to monkeys in experimental settings. We also know that healthcare workers like Dr. Kent Brantly are contracting Ebola in West Africa despite CDC-level barrier protection measures against physical contact with the bodies and body fluids of Ebola victims, so it only makes sense to conclude that some — possibly many — of these doctors, nurses, and ancillary healthcare workers are being infected via airborne transmission. It makes perfect sense that sick humans, as they vomit, have diarrhea, cough, and expectorate sputum, and as medical procedures are performed on them, have the ability to shed infectious Ebola particles into the air at a similar or higher level compared to Sus scrofa (wild boar) in the pig-to-monkey study.

There had been hope that a “miracle drug” known as ZMapp could be used to save the lives of at least some of these doctors and nurses, but there is a problem.  It turns out that some of the people that have gotten this drug have died anyway.  The following is from a news report about one of these individuals…

A Liberian doctor treated with experimental American anti-Ebola serum ZMapp has died, a minister in the west African nation said on Monday.

Abraham Borbor had been improving but died on Sunday night, Liberian Information Minister Lewis Brown told AFP.

“He was showing signs of progress but he finally died. The government regrets this loss and extends its condolences to the bereaved family,” Brown said.

Meanwhile, Ebola continues to spread.  As I mentioned above, cases of the disease have now been confirmed in Congo.  Not only that, it turns out that two different strains of Ebola were discovered by the medical tests…

Numbi said that one of the two cases that tested positive was for the Sudanese strain of the disease, while the other was a mixture between the Sudanese and the Zaire strain — the most lethal variety. The outbreak in West Africa that has killed at least 1,427 people in West Africa since March is the Zaire strain.

So now we have multiple strains of Ebola being spread around out there.

And the truth of the matter is that even the authorities admit that they have absolutely no idea how many people actually have Ebola.  As CNN recently reported, the WHO says that the official numbers “vastly underestimate” the scope of this pandemic…

“The outbreak is expected to continue for some time,” the WHO said in a statement Thursday. “Staff at the outbreak sites see evidence that the numbers of reported cases and deaths vastly underestimate the magnitude of the outbreak.”

We could potentially be on the verge of the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen.

But in the western world there is very little concern about this disease right now.  Most people seem to believe that it poses absolutely no threat to those of us living in the United States and Europe.

Hopefully they are right.

But what if they aren’t?

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.

Be Sociable, Share!

WHO Secrecy Over Ebola Exposed By Email Exchange








The secrecy of WHO surrounding the new Ebola epidemic was underlined when WHO spokesperson Gregory Härtl refused to reveal the names of the people who sit on WHO’s new key Emergency Committee, sparking concerns that the UN health body is once more concealing pharmaceutical conflicts of interests.

In an astonishing email exchange on Friday, Hartl not only refused to reveal the names of key advisors; he also refused to answer simple, factual questions about the Ebola epidemic unfolding in Guinea.

He even denied there were any plans to declare an epidemic – and trigger “contractual agreements” presumably for pandemic vaccines under new more elastic “interim” guidelines which apply to pandemics and epidemics. This, in spite of the media hype about Ebola’s rapid spread and danger, the French government putting a plane under quarantine and the UK government putting hospitals on alert.

Read full article

What Is The World Health Organization?

The World Health Organization, or WHO, was officially established in 1948 by the United Nations. It was created with the goal of standardizing international health policies and practices to achieve “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.”

WHO is the organization behind the curtain (or one of such) that pushes flouridation around the world as a means of eugenics. Since the organization is so large and has public support around the world, they have been very successful.


The WHO is very corrupt – the global mother of USA’s AMA. You see, big pharma, FDA, CDC, USDA, DHS (Department of Human Services) are becoming entwined and somewhat merged, causing a complete breakdown of our medical, health and human services systems.

I speculate that the deterioration of all of these organizations from the top down, is due to the WHO’s influence and control in round-about ways. The WHO is just another moving part of the New World Order (NWO); a branch of it, if you will – of which I am sure many will come to me and call me a conspirator for saying such ‘nonsense’. Any organization that seeks global dominance in any way is a dangerous organization, which we should all scrutinize. Not only does WHO wish to control our healthcare, they also wish to control our food supply. This is one avenue where Monsanto comes in. Monsanto is much bigger than most people think and the history goes way back.

As every nation in the world marches forward to a completely integrated and globalized society, the control of food is an absolute necessity for those who seek to accelerate amalgamation. It is for this reason that we see an increase in domestic legislation that mirrors the guidelines and demands of international standard-setting organizations. These attempts at harmonization of national laws, specifically those regarding food, are coming in daily from all sides of the globe.

Whether it’s the GMO fight in the United States, as well as other countries, or the question of the level of vitamins and minerals in supplements, the Biotech Corporations are continually winning most of their battles with the help of mass ignorance, national governments, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and similar entities.

Indeed, when one begins to examine many of the debates regarding food and food regulation, one name appears over and over – Codex Alimentarius.

For those who may be unaware of what Codex Alimentarius is, I refer you to a book called  Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom, or you can read it, via this website. Briefly speaking, however, Codex Alimentarius is an agency created under the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the WHO, and thereby functions under direction of the United Nations (UN).

Codex Alimentarius sets the standards by which the World Trade Organization implements its dispute settlements and international trade policies. Codex Guidelines, once agreed upon, are enforced by the WTO and other related treaties. Essentially, Codex Alimentarius sets the standards for the world regarding food, vitamins and minerals, GMO’s, and almost everything else that humans consume.

Although the influence of Codex Alimentarius can be seen the world over, New Zealanders were targets of the international standard-setting organization via a food bill titled Food Bill 160-2 in 2011.

Similar to legislation passed in the United States, the New Zealand Food Bill essentially turns the right to grow food and share it with others into a regulated and controlled privilege. Food Bill 160-2 would also allow for the control of seeds (specifically heirloom seeds), and the creation of Food Safety Officers that would serve to police the newly designated and loosely termed “food producers.” It would also effectively end the ability of individuals to become and remain self-sufficient. “Control the food supply; control the people”.

For instance, the bill defines food so as to include any plant or animal (living or dead by the definitions set forth in the bill) intended for human consumption, as well as: any ingredient or nutrient or other constituent of any food or drink, whether that ingredient or nutrient or other constituent is consumed or represented for consumption on its own by humans, or is used in the preparation of, or mixed with or added to, any food or drink; and anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink.

Furthermore, giving broad and alarming levels of power to the Governor-General, “anything that is declared by the Governor-General, by Order in Council made under section 355, to be food for the purposes of this Act” will also fall under the jurisdiction of Bill 160-2.

So much is included in just the “Definitions” section of the bill one could almost write a twenty-page article just on the connotations provided by Section 8 alone. Regardless, as one can clearly see from reading the small portion of the bill quoted above, the terms of the bill are all-encompassing.

Herein, food is defined literally as anything that can be consumed by humans and it retains this definition at whatever the stage of its development.

Therefore, corn may be considered food whenever it is being sold at a market. It may be considered food when it is being shucked, and it may be considered food when it is being grown. It is also considered food before being grown — in seed form.

Not only that, but because many seeds themselves are consumed by humans, seeds naturally fall under this tyrannical legislation as much as anything else.

As a result of the new policies to be implemented as a result of Food Bill 160-2, anyone then engaged in producing and distributing food would be subject to the regulation and monitoring of the new authorization program. Of course, the classification of “food producer,” applies to individuals who grow two or three tomato plants for their own consumption as much as it does to major Agri-businesses.

That being said, there are clearly financial concerns with the new bill, as well. Obviously, Big-Agra would easily be able to pay the monitoring fees for the new Soviet program while small farmers, where they still exist, could not. In addition, individuals would certainly no longer be able to continue selling their food at the local farmers market, local restaurants, or even to other individuals.

True to form, the questions regarding the new legislation are being brushed off by the New Zealand government, particularly those individuals in the New Zealand government who have been pushing the bill from the start.

For instance, Kate Wilkinson, New Zealand Minister of Food Safety stated that concerns over the Food Bill were part of some kind of “conspiracy theory” and that she didn’t understand where all this “conspiracy theory” was coming from.

Before I continue, I must ask if all this doesn’t sound eerily familiar. It certainly does to me. (That phrase is getting so played out by now)

In 2010 when the United States Congress was busy passing S.510, a bill that was very similar if not identical in scope to the New Zealand Food Bill, we heard the same cat calls of “conspiracy theory” launched at anyone who criticized the impending legislation. Now, after the U.S. government is constantly publicly raiding organic food shops, raw milk distributors, the Amish, small farmers, nutrition supplement shops, etc. etc. with guns drawn by clownish looking SWAT teams, the name-calling is a bit harder to justify.

The similarities between the law in the United States and New Zealand are quite striking, so much in fact that they can scarcely be considered a coincidence — especially when both of these bills are themselves disturbingly similar to Codex Alimentarius Guidelines and recommendations. Indeed, upon closer examination it appears that there is more of a pattern than some members of national governments would have us believe. No doubt this is almost always the case.

But, back to Miss “Conspiracy Theory” Kate Wilkinson for a moment. To answer her question as to where all the “conspiracy theories” have come from, perhaps she should look at her own statements.

In a letter to Green MP, Sue Kedgley, who has expressed some attenuated level of criticism toward the bill, Wilkinson wrote:

“The barter or selling of propagation food seeds and food seedlings is in scope [of the Bill] . . . However the sale or exchange of seeds for propagation, and seedlings (whether this occurs in the context of a garden center, a market, or between those in a community of interest), is not intended to be captured.”

Wilkinson openly admits that seeds can and will be controlled under the new food bill. Hardly a conspiracy theory when the antagonist actually admits it to be true.

Of course, before one gets their hopes up in regards to the Green Party, one should bear in mind that politics are politics and the theater of public opinion is much the same in New Zealand as it is in the United States. The Green Party itself initially voted for this bill. The organization states, “Ignore the Green Party dog-and-pony show propaganda. The Greens, who voted for the Bill at first reading, know the truth is coming out now and are dissembling for extra election votes).” Obviously, the political climate is exactly the same in every country with exactly the same result.

In the end, there should be no mistake as to the goal of these new laws, whether they be in the United States, New Zealand, or anywhere else for that matter. As the world marches faster and faster toward totalitarianism, the ability of individuals to become self-sufficient must be destroyed before the control system can fully assert itself. This, in fact, is an integral part of the system in the first place. This is causing manufactured famines in areas and thus leading people to believe we are running out of resources, due to overpopulation. Just what the green parties and our governments want you to believe, to condone the eugenics programs.

The UN’s Agenda 21 is already making its way into every city, under the guise of “sustainable development”, also being pushed by the green parties, eco-friendly organizations and the Centers for biodiversity. Next, we will lose our rights to own property and procreate – it will be left to those with certain bloodlines. These organizations are merely the domestic ground-level implementation of international policy handed down from Codex Alimentarius, the WTO, WHO, and the United Nations, entities that are themselves nothing more than tools in the Great Work known as the New World Order.

Osteoporosis Myth: The Dangers Of High Bone Mineral Density

The present-day definitions of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis were arbitrarily conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90’s and then projected upon millions of women’s bodies seemingly in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable, though symptomless, disease.


Osteopenia (1992)[i] and Osteoporosis (1994)[ii] were formally identified as skeletal diseases by the WHO as bone mineral densities (BMD) 1 and 2.5 standard deviations, respectively, below the peak bone mass of an average young adult Caucasian female, as measured by an x-ray device known as Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, or DEXA). This technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

A ‘standard deviation’ is simply a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole, i.e. within any natural population there will be folks with higher and lower biological values, e.g. height, weight, bone mineral density, cholesterol levels. The choice of an average young adult female (approximately 30-year old) at peak bone mass in the human lifecycle as the new standard of normality for all women 30 or older, was, of course, not only completely arbitrary but also highly illogical. After all, why should a 80-year old’s bones be defined as “abnormal” if they are less dense than a 30-year old’s?

Within the WHO’s new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a “disease” that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by “treating” menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO’s new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another “health condition,” serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density by any means necessary.

One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of “low bone mineral density,” into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.bonesWHO Are They Kidding?

Osteopenia is, in fact, a medical and diagnostic non-entity.  The term itself describes nothing more than a statistical deviation from an arbitrarily determined numerical value or norm.  According to the osteoporosis epidemiologist Dr. L. Joseph Melton at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the original WHO criteria in 1992, “[osteopenia] was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem,” and noted that “It didn’t have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk.”[iii] Another expert, Michael McClung, director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, criticized the newly adopted disease category osteopenia by saying ”We have medicalized a nonproblem.”[iv]

In reality, the WHO definitions violate both commonsense and fundamental facts of biological science (sadly, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon within drug company-funded science).  After all, anyone over 30 years of age should have lower bone density than a 30 year old, as this is consistent with the normal and natural healthy aging process.  And yet, according to the WHO definition of osteopenia, the eons-old programming of our bodies to gradually shed bone density as we age, is to be considered a faulty design and/or pathology in need of medical intervention.

How the WHO, or any other organization which purports to be a science-based “medical authority,” can make an ostensibly educated public believe that the natural thinning of the bones is not normal, or more absurdly: a disease, is astounding. In defense of the public, the cryptic manner in which these definitions and diagnoses have been cloaked in obscure mathematical and clinical language makes it rather difficult for the layperson to discern just how outright insane the logic they are employing really is.

So, let’s look closer at the definitions now, which are brilliantly elucidated by Washington.edu’s  published online course on Bone Densitometry, which can viewed in its entirety here.

The Manufacture of a Disease through Categorical Sleight-of-Hand


The image above shows the natural decrease in hip bone density occurring with age, with variations in race and gender depicted.  Observe that loss of bone mineral density with age is a normal process.


Next, is the classical bell-shaped curve, from which T- and Z-scores are based.  T-sores are based on the young adult standard (30-year old) bone density as being normal for everyone, irregardless of age, whereas the much more logical Z-score compares your bone mineral density to that of your age group, as well as sex and ethnic background.  Now here’s where it gets disturbingly clear how ridiculous the T-score really system is….


Above is an image showing how within the population of women used to determine “normal” bone mineral density, e.g. 30-year olds, 16% of them already “have” osteopenia” according to the WHO definitions, and 3% already “have” osteoporosis! According to Washington.edu’s online course “One standard deviation is at the 16th percentile, so by definition 16% of young women have osteopenia! As shown below, by the time women reach age 80, very few are considered normal.”

(click to enlarge)


Above you will see what happens when the WHO definitions of “normal bone density” are applied to aging populations. Whereas at age 25, 15% of the population will “have” osteopenia, by age 50 the number grows to 33%. And by age 65, 60% will be told they have either osteopenia (40%) or osteoporosis (20%).

On the other hand, if one uses the Z-score, which compares your bones to that of your age group, something remarkable happens: a huge burden of “disease” disappears!  In a review on the topic published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 30-39% of the subjects who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis with two different DXA machine models were reclassified as either normal or “osteopenic” when the Z- score was used instead of the T-score. The table therefore can be turned on the magician-like sleight-of-hand used to convert healthy people into diseased ones, as long as an age-appropriate standard of measurement is applied, which presently it is not.

Bone Mineral Density is NOT Equivalent to Bone Strength

As you can see there are a number of insurmountable problems with the WHO’s definitions, but perhaps the most fatal flaw is the fact that the Dual energy X-ray absorpitometry device (DXA) is only capable of revealing the mineral density of the bone, and this is not the same thing as bone quality/strength.

While there is a correlation between bone mineral density and bone quality/strength – that is to say, they overlap in places — they are not equivalent.  In other words, density, while an excellent indicator of compressive strength (resisting breaking when being crushed by a static weight), is not an accurate indicator of tensile strength (resisting breaking when being pulled or stretched).

Indeed, in some cases having higher bone density indicates that the bone is actually weaker. Glass, for instance, has high density and compressive strength, but it is extremely brittle and lacks the tensile strength required to withstand easily shattering in a fall. Wood, on the other hand, which is closer in nature to human bone than glass or stone is less dense relative to these materials, but also extremely strong relative to them, capable of bending and stretching to withstand the very same forces which the bone is faced with during a fall.  Or, take spider web. It is has infinitely greater strength and virtually no density. Given these facts, having “high” bone density (and thereby not having osteoporosis) may actually increase the risk of fracture in a real-life scenario like a fall.

Essentially, the WHO definitions distract from key issues surrounding bone quality and real world bone fracture risks, such as gait and vision disorders.[v] In other words, if you are able to see and move correctly in our body, you are less likely to fall, which means you are less prone to fracture. Keep in mind also that the quality of human bone depends entirely on dietary and lifestyle patterns and choices, and unlike x-ray-based measurements, bone quality is not decomposable to strictly numerical values, e.g. mineral density scores.  Vitamin K2 and soy isoflavones, for instance, significantly reduce bone fracture rates without increasing bone density.  Scoring high on bone density tests may save a woman from being intimidated into taking dangerous drugs or swallowing massive doses of elemetal calcium, but it may not translate into preventing “osteoporosis,” which to the layperson means the risk of breaking a bone.  But high bone mineral density may result in far worse problems….

breast cancer

High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

One of the most important facts about bone mineral density, conspicuously absent from discussion, is that having higher-than-normal bone density in middle-aged and older women actually INCREASES their risk of breast cancer by 200-300%, and this is according to research published in some of the world’s most well-respected and authoritative journals, e.g. Lancet, JAMA, NCI. (see citations below).

While it has been known for at least fifteen years that high bone density profoundly increases the risk of breast cancer  — and particularly malignant breast cancer — the issue has been given little to no attention, likely because it contradicts the propaganda expounded by mainstream woman’s health advocacy organizations. Breast cancer awareness programs focus on x-ray based breast screenings as a form of “early detection,” and the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s entire platform is based on expounding the belief that increasing bone mineral density for osteoporosis prevention translates into improved quality and length of life for women.

The research, however, is not going away, and eventually these organizations will have to acknowledge it, or risk losing credibility.

Journal of the American Medical Association (1996): Women with bone mineral density above the 25th percentile have 2.0 to 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer compared with women below the 25th percentile.

Journal of Nutrition Reviews (1997): Postmenopausal women in the highest quartile for metacarpal bone mass were found to have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, after adjusting for age and other variables known to influence breast cancer risk.

American Journal of Epidemiology (1998): Women with a positive family history of breast cancer and who are in the highest tertile bone mineral density are at a 3.41-fold increased risk compared with women in the lowest tertile.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2001): Elderly women with high bone mineral density (BMD) have up to 2.7 times greater risk of breast cancer, especially advanced cancer, compared with women with low BMD.

Journal Breast (2001): Women in the lowest quartile of bone mass appear to be protected against breast cancer.

Journal Bone (2003): Higher bone density (upper 33%) is associated with a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer.

European Journal of Epidemiology (2004): Women with highest tertile bone mineral density (BMD) measured at the Ward’s triangle and at the femoral neck are respectively at 2.2-and 3.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with women at the lowest tertile of BMD.

View additional citations on the breast cancer-bone density link.

High Bone Density: More Harm Than Good

The present-day fixation within the global medical community on “osteoporosis prevention” as a top women’s health concern, is simply not supported by the facts. The #1 cause of death in women today is heart disease, and the #2 cause of death is cancer, particularly breast cancer, and not death from complications associated with a bone fracture or break.  In fact, in the grand scheme of things osteoporosis or low bone mineral density does not even make the CDC’s top ten list of causes of female mortality. So, why is it given such a high place within the hierarchy of women’s health concerns? Is it a business decision or a medical one?

Regardless of the reason or motive, the obsessive fixation on bone mineral density is severely undermining the overall health of women. For example, the mega-dose calcium supplements being taken by millions of women to “increase bone mineral density” are known to increase the risk of heart attack by between 24-27%, according to two 2011 meta-analyses published in Lancet, and 86% according to a more recent meta-analysis published in the journal Heart. Given the overwhelming evidence, the 1200+ mgs of elemental calcium the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends women 50 and older take to “protect their bones,” may very well be inducing coronary artery spasms, heart attacks and calcified arterial plaque in millions of women. Considering that the NOF name calcium supplement manufacturers Citrical and Oscal as corporate sponsors, it is unlikely their message will change anytime soon.

Now, when we consider the case of increased breast cancer risk linked to high bone mineral density, being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis would actually indicate a significantly reduced risk of developing the disease. What is more concerning to women: breaking a bone (from which one can heal), or developing breast cancer? If it is the latter, a low BMD reading could be considered cause for celebration and not depression, fear and the continued ingestion of inappropriate medications or supplements, which is usually the case following a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis.

We hope this article will put to rest any doubts that the WHO’s fixation on high bone density was designed not to protect or improve the health of women, but rather to convert the natural aging process into a blockbuster disease, capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue.

[i] WHO Scientific Group on the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis (2000 : Geneva, Switzerland) (2003). “Prevention and management of osteoporosis : report of a WHO scientific group” (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.

[ii] WHO (1994). “Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group”. World Health Organization technical report series 843: 1–129. PMID 7941614.

[iii] Kolata, Gina (September 28, 2003). “Bone Diagnosis Gives New Data But No Answers”New York Times.

[iv] Ibid

[v] P Dargent-Molina, F Favier, H Grandjean, C Baudoin, A M Schott, E Hausherr, P J Meunier, G Bréart Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996 Jul 20;348(9021):145-9. PMID: 8684153

Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of www.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.



Antibiotic Resistant Bugs Become A Serious Threat To Humans


It was a forecast for the future, but it has become reality sooner than expected. Antibiotics are no longer a tool to fight infection. The World Health Organization (WHO ), which has done nothing to prevent what is now imminent, warns that there is a growing number of antibiotic resistant bugs that are spreading infection all over the world. The WHO warns that these infections can now “affect anyone of any age in any country.”

Bacteria and other bugs have changed and become resistant to these drugs, which become ineffective when fighting infections. It is “a major threat to public health,” says the WHO in a report entitled Antimicrobial Resistance: A global Report on Surveillance.

“In the absence of urgent and coordinated efforts by many stakeholders, the world is doomed to experience what the WHO calls a “post antibiotic era” where common infections and minor injuries that have been treatable for decades can now be potentially fatal”.

According to Keiji Fukuda, deputy for health and Security at the WHO, the consequences could be “devastating” because until now the efficacy of antibiotics have contributed to extend the life of the people. The doctor called for change in the way physicians prescribe antibiotics.

The report notes that resistance affects many infectious agents, but focuses on antibiotic resistance in seven common bacteria responsible for serious infections such as septicemia, diarrhea, pneumonia, urinary tract infections and gonorrhea.

The report specifically warns about resistance to carbapenem antibiotics, which is used to treat severe infections such as the ones caused by intestinal bacteria, K. Pneumoniae, which is an important cause of nosocomial infections, such as pneumonia, sepsis or infections of newborns and patients admitted to intensive care units and others. The resistance to this antibiotic makes some antibiotics ineffective in many countries.

Resistance to fluoroquinolones, a class of antibacterial drugs commonly used in the treatment of urinary tract infections, caused by E. coli, is widespread. In the eighties, resistance to these drugs was virtually nonexistent. Today, there are many countries around the world in which the treatment is ineffective in more than half of patients.

In Austria, Australia, Canada, Slovenia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK, South Africa and Sweden, authorities have confirmed treatment failure of gonorrhea with third-generation cephalosporins, the treatment of last resort in these cases. Millions of people get infected with this disease every year.

The antibiotic resistance prolongs the duration of disease and increases the risk of death. For example, it is estimated that people infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus have a 64% chance of dying that people who are affected by strains that are not resistant. Resistance also increases the cost of health care, as it lengthens hospital stays and require more intensive care.

The report reveals that there are more and more countries that lack basic tools to deal with resistance to antibiotics, such as basic monitoring of the problem, and that many others present major deficiencies in treatment of infectious disease.

Some countries have taken important measures to solve the problem, the report says, but more input is needed from all countries and all people. Other important measures include prevention of infections through better hygiene, access to safe water, infection control in health facilities and other measures.

WHO also calls attention to the need to develop new diagnostic products, antibiotics and other tools to enable health professionals to take advantage of emerging resistance.

Since the World Health Organization knew about this reality and had previously predicted the possibility of having a ‘post antibiotic era’ but did nothing to change the situation, this new alert seem nothing else than a publicity stunt to push for more massive use of pharmaceuticals as a solution for what older drugs are not capable of doing. The WHO has also called for more vaccines as a supposed tool to prevent infections. Surprised? Not at all.

As history shows, the best tool against disease is education, not pharmaceutical drugs.


Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Tetanus Vaccines Sterilizing Women In Kenya? Catholic Church There Raises Suspicions

A concerning new report from the head cardinal of the Catholic Church in Kenya alleges that a WHO/UNICEF sponsored tetanus vaccination campaign may conceal an agenda of forced contraception for over 2 million Kenyan women.

tetanus vaccine

In a move that is garnering international attention, the head of the Catholic Church in Kenya has raised suspicions about the World Health Organization and UNICEF’s tetanus vaccine campaign in their country, which is exclusively targeting over two million Kenyan women of children bearing age (14-49), to the exclusion of males and those younger who may be at higher risk from lethal harm from the tetanus infection.[i]

The vaccination campaign began in September of last year, is in the second of a planned three phases, and now covers 60 districts in that country. The final round is slated to begin in September of this year.

As reported on March 27th in the StandardDigital, John Cardinal Njue is alleged the WHO/UNICEF tetanus campaign has been uncharacteristically shrouded from public awareness relative to other national health initiatives that are preceded by a public launch where the public has an opportunity to ask questions. A Citizennews.co.ke news story filmed testimony of John Cardinal Njue voicing his concerns, which can be viewed here.

According to the StandardDigital report, the Catholic Health Commission of Kenya sent a statement to newsrooms on March the 26th alleging that there has not been adequate stakeholder engagement both in the preparation and implementation of the campaign.  The main questions the Church raised for discussion were:

1 – Is there a tetanus crisis on women of child-bearing age in Kenya? If this is so, why has it not been declared?
2- Why does the campaign target women of 14 – 49 years?
3- Why has the campaign left out young girls, boys and men even if they are all prone to tetanus?
4- In the midst of so many life-threatening diseases in Kenya, why has tetanus been prioritized?

Additionally, the statement read:

“Information in the public domain indicates that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit has been used in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy. Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy”

The Church’s concerns are not without legitimate basis in vaccine fact and history, with previous suspicions being raised over tetanus immunization campaigns in the underdeveloped world concealing a forced ‘family planning’ agenda.

Not only has a birth control vaccine been known to exist for over twenty years using tetanus toxoid as a carrier,[ii] but it was heralded in the mid-90’s as “A new family planning tool to slow population growth.” The development of a tetanus-based contraceptive vaccine began in 1975 by Dr. Gursaran Talwar, Director of India’s National Institute of Immunology, and after $4.5 million of funding and 17 years later a working vaccine was created, whose mechanism of action has been described as follows:

“The vaccine works by “convincing” a woman’s body that a11 is unchanged when, in fact, an egg has been fertilized.  After conception occurs, a woman produces a hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) that helps to prepare the uterus for pregnancy. The prototype vaccine, made from hCG coupled to a biochemical carrier, neutralizes hCG by stimulating antibodies against the hormone. Without hCG the embryo can’t anchor in the uterus, making pregnancy impossible. The biochemical carrier makes the hCG immunologically visible to women’s immune system.” [Source]

Additionally, in 1995, a report published in Vaccine Weekly described the case of a priest, president of Human Life International based in Maryland, who petitioned Congress to investigate reports of women in developing countries, such as Mexico, the Philippines and in Nicaragua, receiving contraceptive tetanus vaccines laced with chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG). The report stated that the anti-fertility vaccine was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), and other organizations including “UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State universities.”

While sparse safety research has been published on tetanus toxoid vaccines effectiveness and safety, especially when administered to pregnant women, the tetanus vaccine, when administered through the multi-antigen DTwP, which contains diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis antigens together, has been linked to a wide range of adverse health effects, including SIDS,[iii] increased infant mortality,[iv] [v] Gulliain-Barre Syndrome,[vi] and several dozen others health conditions. View the primary citations here: DTwP Vaccine Adverse Effects.

At this time, allegations that the tetanus toxoid vaccine used in Kenya may contain an anti-fertility substance has not resulted in the launch of an official investigation, nor even basic testing of suspect batches of vaccine. To the contrary, there is widespread denial of the relevance of the concern, which is often the case when the known adverse health effects of vaccines are discussed within the mainstream media or health organizations, the latter of have predicated their entire mission statements and policy-making decisions on the assumption that they are highly safe and effective a priori.

At the very least, given the established dangers and ongoing controversy associated with vaccinating pregnant women, and the well-know abortive properties associated with vaccines, especially in veterinary vaccines, a red flag of caution should be raised and critical inquiry as to what the real risks and benefits of this campaign in Kenyan women of child-bearing age really are.

[i] Talwar GP, Singh OM, Gupta SK, Hasnain SE, Pal R, Majumbar SS, Vrati S, Mukhopadhay A, Srinivasan J, Deshmukh U, et al. The HSD-hCG vaccine prevents pregnancy in women: feasibility study of a reversible safe contraceptive vaccine. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1997 Feb;37(2):153-60. PubMed PMID: 9083611.

[ii] G P Talwar, O Singh, R Pal, N Chatterjee, S N Upadhyay, C Kaushic, S Garg, R Kaur, M Singh, S Chandrasekhar. A birth control vaccine is on the horizon for family planning. Ann Med. 1993 Apr ;25(2):207-12. PMID: 7683889

[iii] GreenMedInfo.com, Multiple Infant Vaccines Linked to Dramatically Increased Mortality, Dec. 2013

[iv] GreenMedInfo.com, DTwP and Infant to Mortality

[v] Mogens Helweg Claesson. Immunological Links to Nonspecific Effects of DTwP and BCG Vaccines on Infant Mortality. J Trop Med. 2011 ;2011:706304. Epub 2011 May 5. PMID:21760811

[vi] GreenMedInfo.com, DTwp and Guillain-Barre Syndrome


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo

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.

Agenda 21 For Your Own Good: Global Health Security Initiative

agenda 21

The genocidal maniacs are at it again. The usual suspects (WHO, UN, IMF, World Bank, US, Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, etc.) have concocted a new scheme which is, quite literally, nothing short of Agenda 21 at the end of a gun, for your own good, of course. It has lovely, soothing and safe-sounding name: the Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI).[1]

Reading about this monstrous intrusion on our life and health, I channeled the new verse that I am sure they are singing soulfully when they give throat to the Kill The Useless Eaters Rag hit(man) tune (perhaps at Bohemian Grove?). This may be the most ingenious genocidal ploy so far – it certainly had the potential to become easily the deadliest!

Here’s the chorus (which, oddly enough, seems to work equally well in just about every language):

We need ‘em dead
Don’t want ‘em fed
Useless eaters’ human forces
Consume OUR non-renewable natural resources!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!And the newest verse:

People are sources of infection,
Vectors of disease in every direction.
Making sure that they are dead
Mean’s there’s nothing they can spread
They cannot reproduce:
So diseases are reduced.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!

The Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI) is an audacious new plan to “control” infectious disease and antibiotic resistance [2] which, in 9 dryly worded, reasonable sounding points, neatly wipes out your freedom, your movement, your health choice including your right to refuse vaccines or other “treatment” and, in fact, your very right to be alive[3]. In other words, Agenda 21 arrives in a white coat with an army of enforcers enabled, transnationally, to do whatever it takes to protect you, including relocation, deportation, and termination.

They are confronting a serious security problem, though: If you are alive, after all, you are a potential site of, and source for, infection. But their pet scientists-on-a-leash solved that one rather neatly:Make sure you are dead. Then, you can’t provide the protectors with the problems of infection, transmission, and you have no descendants who can become infected and transmit disease. Knowing that, don’t you feel safer already?

The UN Secretary General has a couple of red-hot protégés[4], who have come up with this devastatingly crazy solution to the problem: Reducing population means fewer people to get infections and to spread it. It also means they cannot reproduce so their children will not be born, meaning THEY cannot get or spread infection.[5],[6] VOILA! Abracadabra! Shazam! The world just became safer because there are now fewer infected people and their progeny!

But that’s not enough! The GHSI has set its site on eliminating antibiotic resistance, too[7]. Never mind that captive, corporatist regulators created the problem of antibiotic resistance, which, according to the CDC sickens and kills huge numbers of people per year[8], created the problem by allowing inhumane and unwholesome factory farm practices using antibiotics to keep stressed and sick animals alive[9],[10] and permitting genetic markers of antibiotic resistant genes to be used, and spread in a totally uncontrolled fashion, in patented GMO life and “food” forms.[11],[12],[13] These genes create antibiotic resistance in the environment, the food chain and – in us.

Such industry-friendly, consumer-dangerous practices were long predicted to create the antibiotic resistance problem which we have now[14],[15] but regulators have their salaries paid by the government but their futures assured by the industries that they supposedly regulate. The lure to deep corruption and betrayal of the public trust is irresistible for most. The cost is life and health for all, to say nothing of the total loss of regulatory authority and responsibility.

By the way, about 90% of the world’s antibiotic trade is in factory farms. The highly profitable business model is to make sick animals sicker, get us to eat them and then make us even sicker so we use drugs (or, better yet, use drugs and then die).

Of course, if the initiators of GHSI actually wanted to solve these problems, they would abandon the ineffective and dangerous vaccine route, give up on antibiotics which are expensive, toxic and not particularly good for long-term solutions, as we have seen, and concentrate on safe, inexpensive, deployable and available natural solutions to the global health problems.

Unless, of course, the global health problems are the solution to another problem! Such as alleged over-population, perhaps?

If the agenda were really to eliminate and control infectious disease, not population and freedom, GSHI would be vigorously developing and recommending the deployment of Nano silver, which is effective against every known disease-causing organism and which has zero toxicity for any person in any condition.[16] They would be building up stocks of IV Vitamin C, Zinc, selenium and other powerful immune boosting nutrients.

They would also be using their immense resources for the deployment of the technologies which have been shown over and over to eliminate infectious disease: clean and abundant food and water, clean air, improved hygiene. These are the strategies that reduced diseases in the 20th century, not dangerous vaccines or even antibiotics.

Of course, there is another way to halt the global infectious disease threat: stop creating it.

Laboratories of private companies like Monsanto create monstrosities and then skip free of any consequences. For example, it appears that MSRA was created in a laboratory in France and flushed down the drain by lab personnel.[17] MSRA kills hundreds of thousands of people or more each year.[18]

New genetic monstrosities like the avian flu (H1N1) apparently intentionally re-crafted with the genetic sequence that made the 1918 flu so deadly woven into it and, evidence suggests, SARS[19],[20],[21] and Swine Flu (H5N1)[22],[23] may well all be lab creations: all gifts that keep on giving, via the vaccines that are so strongly correlated with their spread[24],[25],[26].

The hybrid Avian Flu came out of a Mount Sinai School of Medicine 6 year project sponsored not by Osama Bin Laden, but by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)[27]. Swine Flu appears to have originated in a WHO lab.[28],[29]

To stop the spread of infection, the globalist “health” community could stop producing deadly organisms. That would help a lot, it seems to me.

But GHSI has another idea. Instead, they propose to centralize the dangerous organisms for both research and storage. Hmmmm. Good idea. Make the facilities, which are inherently vulnerable, fewer in number so they can be penetrated, seized, used by the already demonstrably insane genocidalists or other terrorists.

“Mistakes” like the one that Baxter made (when it had an exclusive contract with 18 European countries to supply vaccines in the event of a flu pandemic) when it sent vast amounts of vaccine contaminated with live, infective H1N1 virus to those 18 countries won’t happen again, right?[30]

The vial of similarly infective H1N1 viruses which “mysteriously” exploded in a passenger compartment on a crowded train in Switzerland[31] would never happen again, right? What a great plan.

Clearly, the lunatic and lethal Global Health Security Initiative must be halted. You can help make that happen. Visit http://TinyURL.com/EndGHSI NOW to tell your legislators and decision makers not to fund or support GHSI immediately. Then send the link to everyone you can reach.

Don’t forget to LIKE, Share and Tweet the Action Item, http://TinyURL.com/EndGHSI .

Friend us at FB: /NaturalSolutionsFoundation. Friend us in Spanish at FB: /NaturalSolutionsChile

Act as if your life depends upon it. It does.

Sources and Notes:

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/security/
[2] http://unchronicle.un.org/article/national-security-and-pandemics/
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/13/making-world-safer-pandemic-threats-new-agenda-global-health-security
[4] http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~rohani/paperpdfs/Bonds_etal2009.pdf
[5] Bonds, M.H. & Rohani, P., Reducing Fertility More Effective than Vaccinating for Global Health and Economic Development; A Simple Ecological Framework. J.Roy. Soc.Interface 7:541-547.
[6] Bonds, M.H. 2006. “Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with
Implications for Human Ecology,” Ph.D. Dissertation (Ecology), University of Georgia, Athens, GA
[7] http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
[8] At least sickening hundreds of thousands and killing at least 23,000 annually in the US alone. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
[9] Levy, Stuart B. (March 1998). “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance”. Scientific American: 46–53.
[10] Wegener, H. C. (2003). “Antibiotics in animal feed and their role in resistance development”. Current Opinion in Microbiology 6 (5): 439–445.doi:10.1016/j.mib.2003.09.009
[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/264119.stm
[12] http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-the-superbugs/
[13] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/opinion_gmo_05_en1.pdf
[14] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_03
[15] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19001196
[16] There is a significant difference between colloidal silver, which I do not recommend unless there is no other option, and nano silver which I do recommend. To enhance its effectiveness further, nano silver should be frequency enhanced like Silver Sol, www.DrRimaKnows.com, but whatever nano silver is accessed, it should be stored in reasonable quantity since it has a long shelf life and may become unavailable.
[17] http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1062773
[18] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/opinion_gmo_05_en1.pdf
[19] Alexander Batalin (29 April 2003). “SARS Pneumonia Virus, Synthetic Manmade, according to Russian Scientist”. Centre for Research on Globalisation. Retrieved 2007-08-16. (reporting on a news conference in Irkutsk (Siberia) on 10 April 2003)
[20] “SARS could be biological weapon: experts”. ABC News. April 12, 2003.
[21] “Sars biological weapon?”. www.news24.com. 11 April 2003
[22] http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-253790
[23] http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cdc-admits-the-a-h1n1-flu-was-created-in-a-government-lab/blog-67587/
[24] http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/did-you-know-that-nasal-flu-vax-recipients-can-pass-the-flu-to-everyone-around-them-for-up-to-21-days-01032014
[25] http://andrewmaniotis.wordpress.com/vaccines-how-to-predict-epidemics-3/
[26] Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine; Clinical Infectious Diseases; Benjamin J. Cowling, Vicky J. Fang, Hiroshi Nishiura,
Kwok-Hung Chan, Sophia Ng, Dennis K. M.lp, Susan S. Chiu, Gabriel M. Leung} and J. S. Malik Peir; DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis307
[27] http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23462/title/Flu-genome-sequenced/
[28] http://dalje.com/en-world/swine-flu-created-in-lab-as-bio-weapon/254118
[29] http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/27/proof-that-the-swine-flu-epidemic-was-man-made-and-intentional/
[30] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aTo3LbhcA75I&pid=newsarchive
[31] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/virus-alarm-in-switzerland-swine-flu-container-explodes-on-train-a-621598.html


Rima E. Laibow, MD, who is licensed to practice medicine in 3 states, has practiced drug free medicine and psychiatry for nearly 45 years. She is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.DrRimaTruthReports.com, the world’s largest Health Freedom organization. Her email is [email protected]

World Health Organization Warns A ‘Tidal Wave’ Of Cancer Will Sweep The Globe Over The Next 20 Years


Officials from the World Health Organization are warning that countries around the globe must take immediate action to prevent an impending “tidal wave” of cancer. In a new report, WHO estimates that the number of cancer cases will increase by 70 percent over the next two decades, and could reach 24 million per year by 2035.

Read full article

Deadly 5-in-1 Vaccine Kills At Least Eight Infants


Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding vaccination program

In a press release issued on November 12, 2013, the human rights organization Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) stated that between September and October 2013, eight infants had died and many more had been seriously injured after they had received the pentavalent (5-in-1) vaccination.

PUDR reported that the pentavalent vaccine, given to infants to protect them from diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus, pneumonia-meningitis (Hib) and hepatitis B, had been introduced to Jammu and Kashmir, in India, as part of the Universal Immunization Program (UIP) in February 2013.

Why This Vaccine Should Have Never Been Administered

Their press release stated that immediately following the children’s deaths, a team from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in Delhi, headed by Dr. N. K. Arora of INCLEN (International Clinical Epidemiology Network), had visited the village of Srinagar to investigate what had happened. PUDR said that:

While the final report of this team is awaited, their preliminary report has already stated that the children have died from causes like septicemia and pneumonia, and are unrelated to the vaccine. This conclusion fails to explain why or how the babies were administered the vaccine in the first place if they were seriously ill at the time of immunization.”

In other words, PUDR had uncovered that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had given their conclusions as to how these children had died before the final reports had even been issued.

Disgusted by their discoveries, PUDR decided to investigate for themselves exactly what had happened to these infants. They described with horror what they had uncovered:

“It was in this context that the PUDR, Delhi (People’s Union for Democratic Rights), put together a team comprising public health experts, including clinicians, to look into these incidents. The team which was in Srinagar between 8th to 10th November, visited some of the affected families and conducted a verbal autopsy of the infant deaths to look for antecedent illnesses as well as enquire about other adverse events (as per the Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI ) guidelines.

This team came across infants who had developed serious adverse events after the immunization and had been admitted in the children’s hospital in Srinagar. It was found that the FIR (First Information Report by a doctor or health worker for reporting AEFI) had been recorded only in the cases of death and not in cases of those infants who survived; in other words FIR was prepared after death of the child and not on admission.” (emphasis added)

During their investigations, they discovered that it had taken one family over two hours to reach the hospital and by the time the exhausted family had arrived, their baby had died en route. However, instead of reporting this case as another possible vaccine death, the hospital reported that child had been ‘dead on arrival.’

PUDR learned that although the FDA does not license the pentavalent vaccine for use in the USA, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), and the Gates Foundation heavily promotes its use in the developing world. [1]

Ties Discovered to Gates Foundation

So, why is WHO promoting a dangerous vaccine that is killing children? Maybe it is because the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are funding them to do so.

The Gates Foundation recently announced that they will be giving the sum of $750 million over five years to help ensure that children in developing countries are immunized against major killer diseases in the new millennium.

They said in a press release:

“The fund will work closely with a new international coalition called the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), a partnership of international development and finance organizations, philanthropic groups, the pharmaceutical industry and others.

The GAVI partners, which include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, The World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program will use the money for a sustained global vaccination effort to address the challenges facing vaccine development and delivery in developing countries.” [2]

Are These Vaccines Saving Children Or Killing Them?

For many years our governments and mainstream media have led us to believe that organizations such as WHO, GAVI and the Gates Foundation promote vaccines such as the pentavalent vaccine for use in developing countries to save the lives of millions of children. But are they?

Apparently not, according to Truthstream Media, who has recently written an article tiled Pediatrician Says 5-in-1 Vaccine Pushed by Bill Gates’ GAVI, WHO Will Kill 3,125 Babies. The 5-in-1 vaccine, promoted by the Gates Foundation, GAVI, the WHO and UNICEF, has already killed at least 70 children across five developing nations and is on target to kill thousands more. They wrote that:

“According to a recently published editorial in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics by St. Stephens Hospital Head Pediatrician Dr. Jacob Puliyel, thousands more babies are expected to perish for what will be a negligible impact in the supposed campaign to stop disease.”

They stated in their report that Dr. Puliyel had accused WHO of promoting the 5-in-1 vaccination by FALSELY stating that NO adverse event following immunization had ever been reported. [3]

Vaccine Death is Not SIDS

I decided to find out exactly what else Dr. Puliyel had written in his report.

I found that his report revealed that several infants had died, soon after vaccination, in every area where the vaccine had been introduced. To cover up this fact, WHO had come up with various elaborate excuses.

However, Dr. Jacob Puliyel had written that none of their excuses were ‘sufficient alternative causes’ and revealed that whenever a child’s death could not be explained, WHO diagnosed the child as having died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

He wrote:

“All sudden deaths in infancy are not cases of SIDS. SIDS by definition is the death of an infant that is not predicted by the medical history, and which is unexplained after a thorough forensic autopsy and detailed investigation of the death scene. There are certain features common to all the deaths discussed in this editorial: the children had received the pentavalent vaccine which in most cases, was followed by a high fever and excessive crying and in some, convulsions before the child died. The use of the term SIDS in a generic manor to describe deaths following vaccination, when the autopsy has suggested hypersensitivity and shock, is misleading and unfortunate.” [4]

This is true and it will be very interesting to see how WHO tries to wriggle out of this factual information.


Again, we have strong evidence to suggest that an unlicensed and unsafe vaccination is being given to millions of children in the developing world. Rather than saving their lives, as we have been led to believe that they are, WHO, GAVI and the Gates Foundation have killed possibly hundreds if not thousands of these vulnerable children with dangerous and unnecessary vaccination programs.

Many of these children are already weak and ill. What they need is a clean and safe water supply, better nutrition and a better environment. Why are the Gates Foundation, WHO and GAVI spending billions of dollars on vaccination programs, when they could provide them with what they really need at a fraction of the cost?

– See more at: http://vactruth.com/2013/11/19/killer-vaccine-promoted/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ba03c59f45-11_19_2013_eight&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce7860ee83-ba03c59f45-408301461#sthash.rEz0ng5V.dpuf