by S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) While the talking heads on TV have recently reported that thousands of people in the U.S. are now infected with the new "swine flu", or H1N1, there's another infectious disease problem brewing that has received little attention. The over-use and abuse of antibiotics has produced antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the National Institutes of Health, over the past forty years, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus has changed from a usually controllable nuisance into a serious public health problem.

Now a paper just published in the June edition of The Lancet Infectious Diseases discusses an emerging and potentially deadly threat from community acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) — necrotizing, i.e. "flesh eating", pneumonia. And according to previous research published in Nature News, this type of pneumonia is fatal in 75 percent of cases.

Doctors at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta write in The Lancet Infectious Diseases article that CA-MRSA has become well known for causing skin and soft-tissue infections that are transmitted by person-to-person contact or contact with contaminated objects. However, now there are increasing cases of CA-MRSA caused pneumonia that kills lung tissue. And those becoming sick with the disease aren't necessarily the old and/or physically weak. In fact, according to the report from the Emory team led by Alicia Hidron, MD, an infectious diseases fellow and Henry Blumberg, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Emory, CA-MRSA pneumonia appears to most commonly affect young and previously healthy patients.

Dr. Hidron and Dr. Blumberg also noted in their paper that, besides causing a high fever, CA-MRSA pneumonia can sometimes cause low blood pressure that progresses to septic shock and requires patients to be placed on mechanical respirators in order to breathe. Another important point discussed in the article may turn out to have special relevance due to the emergence of H1N1 influenza, especially by the time flu season rolls around this fall: potentially deadly CA-MRSA pneumonia appears to occur most commonly following a flu-type illness.

Serious MRSA disease can strike anyone, regardless of age, health or where they live. Outbreaks have occurred among young athletes who play contact sports and among people living in close quarters, such as nursing homes, military facilities, nursing homes, and childcare centers.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases advises using these precautions to help prevent CA-MRSA infections:

• Practice good hygiene.
• Keep cuts and scrapes clean and bandage until healed.
• Avoid contact with other people's wounds or bandages.
• Don't share soiled or used personal items, such as towels, washcloths, razors, or clothes.
• Use hot water and bleach to wash soiled sheets, towels and clothes.

Reference:
A.I. Hidron, C.E. Low, E.G. Honig, and H.M. Blumberg
Emergence of community-acquired meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain USA300 as a cause of necrotizing community-onset pneumonia. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 9, (2009)

I don’t know where it started but someone found a datasheet about a vaccine called Prepandrix that’s made by GlaxoSmithKline.

This thing contains the following entries:

Regulatory/Status Index:

biodefense stockpile (U.S.)
biodefense stockpile, European countries controlled/gov’t distribution in European counties controlled/gov’t distribution in U.S.
EU200 Currently Approved in EU
EU666 Biodefense stockpile
UM100 Controlled/Gov’t Distribution in US
US666 Biodefense stockpile
EM160 Controlled/Gov’t Distribution in EU

Now, I’m not taking any vaccine regardless of what number sequences are associated with it, but let’s clear something up:

PREPANDRIX IS A BIRD FLU VACCINE. Bird flu. H5N1.

Not swine flu, H1N1.

The EU666 and US666 status codes are also associated with a smallpox vaccine, and on a more individual basis, about two dozen other substances.

Maybe it’s interesting that vaccines that are stockpiled for “biodefense” purposes carry the 666 designation, but for purposes of the swine flue H1N1 vaccination that will be coming out in a few months, this US666 and EU666 wouldn’t apply because it hasn’t been stockpiled; it’s new.

Out of curiosity, I tried to determine what EU666 and US666 mean beyond the phrase “Biodefense stockpile” that appears next to the entries.

This is the reference for the Regulatory/Status index codes.

Here are the entries for biodefense stockpiles for the U.S. and European countries:

biodefense stockpile (U.S.) — 104; 105; 321; 392; 393; 394; 395; 396; 446; 447; 448; 450; 451; 452; 573; 574; 575; 618; 619; 650

biodefense stockpile, European countries — 312; 392; 393; 449; 452

There’s no reference for 666 listed. I don’t know why the 666 code isn’t listed here, but when you click on any of those codes above and then look down, though the text, it says US666 Biodefense stockpile, or EU666 Biodefense stockpile or both on all of those.

I don’t know what the implications of all of that are, but there you have it.

This info came from www.cryptagon.com

Also check out www.prepandrix.com

SPREAD THE WORD!!!

Advanced Colloidal Silver

by Sherri Tenpenny, DO

What’s in the regular flu shot?

    * Egg proteins: including avian contaminant viruses
    * Gelatin: known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis are usually associated with sensitivity to egg or gelatin
    * Polysorbate 80 (Tween80™): can cause severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis
    * Formaldehyde: known carcinogen
    * Triton X100: a strong detergent
    * Sucrose: table sugar
    * Resin: known to cause allergic reactions
    * Gentamycin: an antibiotic
    * Thimerosal: mercury is still in multidose flu shot vials

Do flu shots work?

Not in babies

In a review of more than 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children it was found there was "no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shotwas any more effective than placebo. In children over 2 yrs, it was only effective 33% of the time in preventing the flu. Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2 (2008).

Not in children with asthma

A study 800 children with asthma, where one half were vaccinated and the other half did not receive the influenza vaccine. The two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. CONCLUSION: This study failed to provide evidence that the influenza vaccine prevents pediatric asthma exacerbations.  Reference: "Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations." Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Aug;89(8):734-5.

Not in children with asthma (2)

"The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine." Reference: The American Thoracic Society’s 105th International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego.

Not in adults

In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000 adults, "Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6% and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16) days. It did not change the number of people needing to go to hospital or take time off work." Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (2006).

Not in the Elderly

In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, For elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not (significantly) effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia.

Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3(2006).

What about the new Swine Flu shot?

A new report from a WHO advisory group predicts that global production of vaccine for the novel H1N1 influenza virus could be as much as 4.9 billon doses a year, far higher than previous estimates. The report says that vaccine makers are expected to produce about 780 million doses of seasonal flu vaccine for the northern hemisphere's 2008-09 flu season for the

June 12 Announcement: The new H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine is going to be made by Novartis. It will probably be made in PER.C6 cells (human retina cells) and contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant.  MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of squalene, Tween 80 and Span85. All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found toxic. All rats developed an MS-like disease that left them crippled, dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages.

Squalene caused severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4). Squalene in humans at 10-20 ppb (parts per billion) lead to severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus. Reference: Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants." Expert Review of Vaccines. 2 (2003) p171. Reference: Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine. New York: Basic Books. p5

Federal health officials will probably recommend that most Americans get three flu shots this fall: one regular flu shot and two doses of any vaccine made against the new swine flu strain. Reference: Washington Post, Wednesday, May 6, 2009

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is talking to school superintendents around the country, urging them to spend the summer planning what to do if the government decides it needs their buildings for mass vaccinations and vaccinating kids first. Reference: CBS News, June 12, 2009.

Is Mandatory Vaccination Possible?

1946: US Public Health Service was established and EO 9708 (Executive Order) was signed, listing the communicable diseases where quarantines could be used. 1946 and 2003, cholera, diphtheria, TB, typhoid, smallpox, yellow fever, & viral hemorrhagic fevers were added.

April 4, 2003: EO 13295 added SARS to the list.

April 1, 2005: EO 13295 added "Influenza caused by novel or re-emergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic." EO 13295 also: The president gave the Sec. of HHS the power to quarantine, his or her discretion. Sec of HHS has the power to arrange for the "apprehension and examination of persons reasonably thought to be infected." A cough or a fever could put a person at risk for being quarantined for an extended period of time without recourse.

January 28, 2003: Project BioShield was introduced during Bush’s State of the Union Address. This created permanent and indefinite funding authority to develop "medical countermeasures."

The NIH was given authority to speed approval of drugs and vaccines. Emergency approval of a "fast tracked" drug and vaccine can be given without the regular course of safety testing.

December 17, 2006: Division E: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act was added as an addendum to Defense Appropriations Bill HR 2863 at 11:20p on Saturday night, long after House Committee members had signed off on the bill and gone home for the holidays. Section (b)(1) states:

The Sec of HHS can make a determination that a "disease, health condition or threat" constitutes a public health emergency. He or she may then recommend "the manufacture, testing, development, administration, or use of one or more covered counter measures…" A covered countermeasure defined as a "pandemic product, vaccine or drug."

Division E also provides complete liability protection for all drugs, vaccines or biological products deemed a "covered countermeasure" and used for an outbreak of any kind.

Complete liability protection has been given to drug companies for any product used for any public health emergency declared by Sec of HHS.

Pharma is now protected from all accountability, unless "criminal intent to do harm" can be proven by the injured party. They are protected from liability even if they know the drug will be harmful.

    "By 1853, Parliament began passing laws to make the untested vaccine compulsory throughout the British Empire. Other countries of Europe followed suit. Once the economic implications of compulsory vaccinations were realized, few dared to disagree. Then, as now, the media were controlled by the vaccine manufacturers and the government, who stood to make huge money from the sale of these spurious vaccines."… Tim O'Shea, D.C.

What can I do?

These are just a few suggestions; please come up with more of your own! Add to this list and spread the word.

    *
      Give this information to everyone you know and love.
    * Contact local first responders (EMTs, Paramedics, Fireman, etc). Tell them what is will be in the flu shots and that *they* will be the first ones to get it.
    * Contact local police and discuss concerns about mandatory vaccination. You go to church and to the grocery store with these folks and their kids play with your kids. They are not "scary" people. Take them coffee and a treat to get in the door… ☺
    * Contact local city council members about your liberties. You need their support to maintain your right to refuse.
    * Write a small article for LOCAL, community newspapers. Watch for samples on http://www.drtenpenny.com
    * Have at least 3 weeks of food and water at your house and be prepared to voluntarily self-quarantine of given no other options.
    * Stock up on Vitamin D3 (3000 IU per person), Vitamin A, Vitamin C, etc and homeopathics for the flu
    * Check out http://www.oathkeepers.org and http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com. A pdf of their oath for easy printing is on www.DrTenpenny.com I am sharing this with local military recruitment office, reservists and retired military people we know.
    * Connect with other activist organizations – those who support 2nd amendment issues, the environmental and animal rights. Help spread the word about their passion and get them involved with yours.

      You can't do it all, but you can do something!

      * As stated years ago by Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

Advanced Colloidal Silver

by David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Seventy percent of whites and 97 percent of blacks in the United States have insufficient blood levels of vitamin D, according to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Colorado, and published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

Researchers used data gathered by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics to examine the vitamin D blood levels of 18,863 U.S. residents between 2001 and 2004. They found that approximately 75 percent of teenagers and adults had levels below 30 nanograms per milliliter, on the low end of what is currently considered adequate for good health. Broken down by ethnicity, this translated into 70 percent of whites, 90 percent of Hispanics and 97 percent of blacks.

Deficiency is defined as any level below 20 nanograms per milliliter, based on guidelines adopted at the 13th Workshop Consensus for Vitamin D Nutritional Guidelines in 2007. Previously, deficiency was defined as less than 11 nanograms per milliliter, but the value was upgraded based on more recent research.

Scientists have known for a long time that insufficient levels of vitamin D can lead to the bone-softening disease rickets in children and can increase the risk of fractures and osteoporosis in adults. More recent research has strongly suggested, however, that even levels that are adequate for bone health may still be too low to protect against heart disease, cancer and autoimmune disorders.

The researchers found that the proportion of people with adequate vitamin D blood levels had dropped 50 percent since the time period between 1988 and 1994. They attributed this effect to people spending more time indoors than ever before, and going out only when protected by high-SPF sunscreen.

Because the body synthesizes vitamin D upon exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, excessive use of sunscreen can lead to deficiency. Light-skinned people can produce all the vitamin D they need from just 15 minutes of sun on the face and hands per day, while darker skinned people (depending on skin tone) may need up to five times as much sun exposure.

Vitamin D3

by Sherry Baker

(NaturalNews) Having an operation under general anesthesia is a scary and worrisome prospect for a child and his or her parents, too. But even a successful surgery can end with another, terrifying problem. Called emergence delirium, it is marked by acute behavioral changes experienced when a child wakes up from anesthesia. And it doesn't always simply go away during recovery, either. Unfortunately, emergence delirium is associated with the development of problems later down the road, too — including bed wetting, separation anxiety and new nightmares.

While anxiety is normal before an operation, children who experience extreme anxiety before surgery are more at risk for emergence delirium. In all, about 20 percent of children who undergo surgery experience a period of severe delirium in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) that includes crying, thrashing, screaming and even needing to be put into restraints.

Now a new study just published in the July issue of the journal Anesthesiology reports that giving youngsters oral treatment with melatonin before an operation significantly reduces the occurrence of emergence delirium after the operation. Melatonin is a naturally occurring, light dependent hormone secreted by the pineal gland that is involved in the regulation of moods, sleep and reproductive cycles.

"Studies conducted in adults have revealed that oral administration of melatonin before surgery beneficially reduced anxiety levels, but relevant similar treatment data for children undergoing anesthesia and surgery are limited," said study lead author Zeev N. Kain, M.D., MBA, Chair of UC Irvine Anesthesiology and Associate Dean for Clinical Research at the UC Irvine School of Medicine, in a statement to the media.

So Kain and his research team set out to determine if melatonin could decrease anxiety levels in children when it was compared to midazolam, a sedative widely given to ease preoperative anxiety. They looked at a group of 148 children between the ages of two and eight who were undergoing outpatient surgery under general anesthesia. The youngsters were randomly assigned to receive either the drug midazolam or the hormone melatonin before their surgery.

Then the researchers measured the research subjects' anxiety and emergence behavior as their anesthesia wore off. To measure behaviors, the scientists used the Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPass), the Induction Compliance Checklist and the Keegan scale.

The results showed that giving melatonin before the operation didn't seem to reduce anxiety levels in the youngsters. However, it did dramatically reduce the incidence of emergence delirium in these children — in higher doses, it reduced the risk from 20 to 5 percent. "As three million children undergo surgery in the U.S. each year, these findings reveal noteworthy health care and treatment implications," Dr. Kain stated.

Melatonin

by Elizabeth Walling

(NaturalNews) When experts discovered that Parkinson`s patients have a defect involving the production of energy in the mitochondria, eyes turned to Co-Enzyme Q10, which is a key nutrient for producing energy in the mitochondria. While studies from the last decade are far from conclusive, many still hope that CoQ10 holds an answer for a cure for Parkinson`s.

However, many experts have hope based on a 2002 study that examined the use of CoQ10 to treat Parkinson`s disease. This study included 80 participants who were in the early stages of Parkinson`s, before any medication treatment was required. Participants randomly received a placebo or a daily dose of 300 mg, 600 mg, or 1200 mg of CoQ10 for a total of 16 months.

Participants were monitored using the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, which determines the severity of the disease. At the end of the study, participants taking a placebo had worsened by 49.8 percent. In the CoQ10 group, those taking 1200 mg per day showed the least progression: on average, this group worsened by 29.6 percent.

The positive results from this study gave CoQ10 one more merit to add to its growing reputation, but not all experts were so sure of these benefits. Another study published in the Archives of Neurology in July 2007 included 131 Parkinson`s patients who were given 300 mg of CoQ10 or a placebo each day. At the end of three months, plasma levels of CoQ10 improved in those taking the supplement, but symptoms showed no improvement. Study authors say these results do not support the idea that CoQ10 can provide benefits for Parkinson`s patients, but more research needs to be done regarding higher doses of CoQ10.

To be sure, the patients in the study had more advanced cases of Parkinson`s that required medication; the study was much shorter in duration than the 2002 study, and the dose of CoQ10 was much lower than the dose that showed a significant difference in the 2002 study. These factors make it difficult to compare the two studies directly.

One result that showed up in both studies was the safety of taking CoQ10 in Parkinson`s patients. Long-term use of CoQ10 produced no negative side effects, and was even well tolerated by those who were taking medications for their condition. So it appears that adding a daily dose of CoQ10 is safe for Parkinson`s patients.

With no known side effects and evidence leaning in a positive direction, it seems that CoQ10 may be a valuable supplement for those with Parkinson`s disease. Modern science has made higher doses of this nutrient more affordable than ever before, making it a more viable treatment across the board. If you want to boost the effectiveness of a CoQ10 regimen, add vitamin C and vitamin E. Based on earlier researcher, some experts theorize that taking these three supplements together would provide a synergistic weapon against the progression of Parkinson`s.

CoQ10

Now, under the new Obama health care reform bill, you'll have to pay an additional eight percent of your payroll as a new tax to cover the costs of Big Government running its new sick-care system where nobody gets healthy, but everybody gets hammered with new taxes.

As a small business owner myself, I can tell you what this will cause in America: A massive shift of jobs out of the U.S. to other countries where health care costs are more reasonable (and the workers are healthier).

Taiwan, for example, is able to provide very high quality health care services to its entire population for roughly $30 a month, and that covers everything: Prenatal care, dental care, vision, surgeries, routine checkups, and so on. No one is denied coverage.

How is Taiwan able to provide first-world health care to its entire population at such affordable rates? Its government does not kow-tow to the pharmaceutical crooks that dominate American medicine. Taiwan runs a single payer system with no insurance companies mucking around with the paperwork or denying coverage to patients. On top of that, its population is far healthier than the U.S. population due to the fact that the traditional Taiwan diet is rich with real foods rather than processed foods. (This is changing, of course, as Taiwan adopts American fast food habits. The country will face increasing health care costs in the future if it continues to pursue American dietary habits…)

At the same time, doctors and medical staff in Taiwan don't make million-dollar salaries, either. They're paid well, but not the ridiculously high wages collected by medical specialists in the U.S. (Of course, they also don't have the burden of six-figure debt from medical schools hanging around their necks…)

The Taiwan government doesn't buy brand-name pharmaceuticals, either. It buys generics, and it scours the world markets to find the most cost-effective generic drugs possible. Even its hospitals are run very efficiently: There's no mountain of paperwork required to visit a doctor, and the wait time is very short — usually you can get in to see a specialist the same day, and often in less than an hour from the time you make an appointment.

Of course, they're still pushing western meds, surgery and chemotherapy, but at least they do it far more affordably than America.

America, on the other hand, runs a disastrously inefficient health care quagmire. The drug companies are paid monopoly prices on their drugs (enforced by the hopelessly corrupt FDA and FTC), doctors and hospitals are paid ridiculously high fees for services that cost a fraction of the price in other countries, the medical malpractice insurance companies collect a huge premium on everything (driving medical service costs ever higher), and the health insurance companies collect their profits on top of the whole cesspool, employing a literal army of paper pushers who sit in busy rooms, thinking of clever ways to deny payment to health care providers who have spent countless hours attempting to comply with complex billing rules.

And in the end, the whole system fails anyway: Fraud is rampant, the people aren't getting any healthier, and many doctors are so fed up with the complexity of it all that they're heading for the exits.

By my estimates, roughly forty percent of the cost of today's health care system is caused by the idiotic paper shuffling that goes on between governments, private insurers, patients, malpractice attorneys and health care providers. Another thirty percent can be attributed to the monopoly profits of drug companies who routinely engage in price fixing fraud as a way to extract more money from state and national governments. And finally, at least another twenty percent is lost in the simple fact that the American people pursue dietary habits that directly cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other expensive-to-treat diseases.

Want to slash health care costs by 90 percent? Start by arresting the crooks running the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. Ban dangerous ingredients from the food supply. End the mass advertising of drugs and junk foods. Stop the censorship of nutritional supplements and end the oppression and tyranny currently being leveled against natural health products and naturopathic practitioners.

The formula for saving literally hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs is actually quite simple. I've outlined one solution in my Health Revolution Petition (www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org), which I hope you'll sign online. There are other solutions that will work, too. But Obama's solution isn't one of them.

The Obama solution is little more than a new tax on sickness and disease. Paying more money while the American people stay sick is no health care solution. It's actually a huge gift to the pharmaceutical industry because it forces people to pay into the Big Pharma system of "treatments" that never makes you well, but always leaves you broke. There's nothing in the Obama plan that protects health freedom, or provides consumers with more choice, or teaches people a single strategy for preventing disease through nutrition, sunlight, exercise and informed self-care.

Obama is right about one thing, though: The current health care system is a total failure, and it's destroying America's economy. His solution, however, is bad medicine: It would cause a massive loss of jobs in America (which is already reeling from widespread unemployment) and it would cause tens of thousands of employers to either close their businesses or move them offshore.

As one internet commentator rightly said, America is about to become the new Mexico.

Soon reality will demonstrate why this is true: No nation can economically survive if its people are not healthy. You can't run a nation on pharmaceuticals and chemo. You can't expect to have a future if your workers are drugged up on SSRIs and statins. Your economy is only as good as the people who run it, and if they're obese, diabetic, demented and chronically diseased, they aren't going to be very productive contributors to the economy. (Nor are they able to vote with any kind of rationality or forethought…)

I can say this with great certainty: America's days are numbered. The country will not survive this combination of health care failures, high taxes, stratospheric debt and health freedom tyranny. America will fall into shambles, and when it does, it will leave behind a legacy of debt, disease and despair. It's all very clear in the words of our pathetic leaders, such as Vice President Joe Biden who said this week, "We have to spend more money to keep from going broke!" (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conte…)

What you're witnessing right now is not an effort to save America, it is an effort to extract the most profits from the people before the collapse of America. Think about it: What does a mandatory health care system really accomplish? A windfall of profits for Big Pharma, of course. What do mandatory vaccines accomplish? Yet more profits for Big Pharma (and the mass poisoning of the people). What do higher taxes accomplish? The transfer of yet more wealth from the hands of individuals who have earned it into the hands of government bureaucrats who will waste it.

It is all so sadly predictable and pathetic. And there is seemingly nothing we (you and I) can do about it. That's because you and I — the aware, free-thinking, informed individuals of our world — are in such a minority that our voices are barely heard over the din of the dim-witted. The chorus of idiocy in Washington, in the media and in the words of the mainstream people has become so loud and cluttered that no voice of reason stands a chance of being heard. Common sense was abandoned so long ago that nobody even remembers what it looks like, and those who propose it are considered kooks or radicals.

Meanwhile, America is being lost, one person at a time, one idea at a time, one dollar at a time…

It is dissolving into a cesspool of corporate greed and political power. The People have been not merely abandoned, they have been viciously betrayed. And now, with this health care reform bill, they are being led to the final slaughter where they will be forced to pay for their foolish acquiescence with not only their wallets, but their lives.

And once this sad, decrepit march into a health care apocalypse begins, it will not be reversible. The American people will lose everything: Their money, their health and ultimately their country. America will fall under the weight of junk food, pharmaceuticals and corporate influence in Washington. Its people will one day wake up and discover they have nothing — no savings, no currency, no health, no nourishing food and no freedoms. They will discover that they are enslaved in prisons of their own making, and they will have no way to get out.

They will say "No one could have predicted this." And yet I am predicting it right now. It is not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone with a little knowledge of world history and a decent sense of observation of the present will reach the same conclusion: The American sick-care economy is not sustainable. Even the Congressional Budget Office now echoes precisely these same words. (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328)

Unless a sharp alteration in course is immediately undertaken, America will fall within a generation, smothered under the suffocating weight of a sick nation run by sick people who mandate a sick-care system that promotes only death, not life.

And now you know why the symbol of western medicine is two serpents encircling a staff. This is a symbol of great evil, and you'll find it adorning the medical school graduation documents of virtually every conventional doctor in America today. Learn more about the dark symbolism of western medicine here: http://www.naturalnews.com/026504_m…

Once you understand the symbol, you will understand the real agenda behind Obama's sick care bankruptcy plan, and why the people in charge of America are trying so desperately to destroy it.

by Terence P. Jeffrey

There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.
 

“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”
 
“And your four-year-old still needs the chicken-pox vaccine,” says the woman.
 
“He will not be allowed to start kindergarten unless he gets that shot, you know,” says the man—smiling from ear to ear.
 
“So, can we please come in?” asks the woman. “We have the vaccines right here,” she says, lifting up a black medical bag. “We can give your kids the shots right now.”
 
“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”
 
Is this a scene from the over-heated imagination of an addlepated conspiracy theorist? Or is it something akin to what is actually envisioned by the health-care reform bill approved this week by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee.
 
The committee’s official summary of the bill says: “Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”
 
Home visits? What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children”?
 
The draft of the bill posted on the committee Web site provides more details.
 
Title III of the bill is entitled, “Improving the Health of the American People.” It includes four subtitles. They are: “Subtitle A: Modernizing Disease Prevention of Public Health Systems,” “Subtitle B: Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services,” “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities,” and “Subtitle D: Support for Prevention and Public Health Information.”
 
The program authorizing home “interventions” to promote immunizations falls under “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities.”  This subtitle directs the secretary of health and human services to “establish a demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.”
 
The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting “interventions.” Method “E” calls for “home visits” which can include “provision of immunizations.”
 
Says the draft bill: “Funds received under a  grant under this subsection shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including—“(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers; (B) educating targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;(E) providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers;(G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph.”
 
Many vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States are utterly uncontroversial. But in recent years there have been controversies about the chicken pox vaccine and the vaccine for HPV, which causes genital warts, which can cause cervical cancer.
 
On March 15, 2007, Bloomberg news summarized a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discovered that the chicken pox vaccine does not provide permanent protection against chicken pox, leaving children who have been immunized vulnerable to getting ill with the virus later in life when it can cause a more serious bout of the disease.
 
“Merck & Co.'s chickenpox vaccine weakens as children age, possibly leaving them vulnerable to a more serious infection as adults, a U.S.-sponsored study in California found,” reported Bloomberg. “The power of the vaccine, Varivax, the only one available in the United States against chickenpox, starts to fade after five years, according to the study in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The results suggest that children should get a second dose, which advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended in June.”
 
Bloomberg quoted the study as saying, "Waning immunity is of particular public health interest because it may result in increased susceptibility later in life, when the risk of severe complications may be greater than that in childhood.”
 
In March of this year, the Washington Post reported about the controversy sparked when the Merck pharmaceutical company campaigned to have states mandate that school girls receive Gardasil, its vaccine against HPV.
 
“Merck also began an ambitious marketing campaign and lobbying push to persuade states to add the vaccine to the list of those required for children to attend school,” reported the Post. “But the company eventually abandoned the strategy in the face of an intense backlash from critics who argued that the decision should be left to parents. Although many states considered such mandates, so far only Virginia and the District have imposed one, and [a Merck official] said the company has no plans to pursue that strategy again."
 
The Post's report noted that at least some experts questioned the wisdom of promoting use of the vaccine when its long term impact is still unknown.

“Federal health officials, Merck and others say they are confident that the vaccine is safe," reported the Post. "But some experts said they are concerned that there is insufficient evidence about how long Gardasil's protection will last, whether serious side effects will emerge and whether the relatively modest benefits for boys are worth even the small risks associated with any vaccine."

by David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Stimulant drugs such as Ritalin provide no long-term benefit in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), according to the latest findings of the ongoing Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA), published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

According to previous analysis of MTA data, stimulant drugs do improve the social functioning and reduce symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity in children with ADHD for the first year of treatment. In the current analysis, however, researchers followed 485 children for eight years and found that children who remained on medication for that entire time showed no improvement in symptoms over those who had stopped taking the drugs.

"If you put a child on medication, he or she is far better right at that time. The question for parents is: Is this going to make a benefit for my child long term?" said researcher William Pelham, of the University of Buffalo. "The answer is no. Behavioral treatments are going to have much better benefit in the long term."

Another analysis of MTA data, published in the same journal, found that use of ADHD drugs appeared to stunt children's growth. Children who had never taken stimulant drugs were an average of six pounds heavier and 0.75 inches taller than children of the same age who had taken the drugs for three years. This height and weight difference was permanent.

According to Pelham, behavioral treatments for ADHD can be harder to find than drugs, and often insurers will not cover them. Nevertheless, such treatments are available and have been proven to work without the side effect risk of pharmaceuticals.

"It's wrong for a doctor to say to a parent, this treatment is harder to find, so instead we're going to put your child on a drug that will have no long-term benefit," he said.