Month: October 2011

Among the key points in ANH's rebuttal to the study is the fact that its data had to be "massaged" in order to arrive at the results it did. In truth, the study team actually found that vitamins and supplements help to prolong life, not reduce it. But by adjusting the data to fit their preconceived goal of finding a link between vitamins and increased mortality, the research team was able to successfully arrive at (very loose) anti-vitamin results.

According to ANH, author Dr. Jaakko Mursu deliberately excluded lifestyle factors from their data equation, which ultimately skewed the results. Lifestyle factors play a hugely significant role in mortality rates, of course, but this information was conveniently omitted.

The research team also admits in the final comment portion of its study that it failed to gather data about supplements taken as part of a specific medical regimen. The team says it did not have any data "regarding nutritional status or detailed information of supplements used," which is a significant deficiency that proves the illegitimacy of the study.

And yet the mainstream media responded by lambasting vitamins and supplements, and urging people to basically stop using them for their own safety. And ANH has correctly identified the whole scenario as a "class example of scientific reductionism being used to fulfill a particular need," which in this case appears to be the "protection of Big Pharma's profit margins."

The Feds and Merck would love for everyone to believe that papillomavirus is an epidemic so they can vaccinate the whole country of kids and make a small fortune. Several CDC officials already admitted that the push for boys to get the vaccine is mainly because of the very low numbers of girls that have participated thus far.

Plus, the lead developer of the vaccine, Dr. Diane Harper, warned that much more research is needed, saying, "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer." The Gardasil Safety Review Board itself is still assessing what they refer to as "events" (critical side effects) occurring after the injections, which include over 12,000 varying cases of the following: the onset of Guillain-Barre syndrome, motor neuron disease, pancreatitis, autoimmune disorders, blood clots, and more than 50 deaths.

This vaccine push is nothing but fear tactics put in place to make money. Besides papillomavirus, no other forms of cancer are contagious, but the word cancer alone is so intimidating that playing off public's "fear" may be just enough to convince the conforming, zombie-like masses to go ahead and get in line to get injected with polysorbate 80 and aluminum. There's safety in numbers right? Wrong. If you remember, it was the Bush Administration's fear tactics that gained the public support for the unnecessary, unwarranted war in Iraq.

Watch for misleading information regarding statistics as the push of the HPV vaccine continues. Anne Schuchat, who headed up the whole H1N1 scare, over-estimated the swine flu cases by the tens of millions, and after the CDC and FDA obstructed the release of statistics and data after several Freedom of Information Act requests by CBS, state tests revealed that the vast majority of the H1N1 cases tested negative!

There are two vaccines for HPV, but last week's CDC recommendation applies only to Merck's Gardasil, which raises more suspicion. The other vaccine wasn't even tested for males. The vaccine industry appears desperate, and that's highly evident by all the hokey promotions going on for the flu vaccine.

Remember, Rick Perry is tied to Merck, and there's a presidential campaign ensuing, so expect lobbying to take on all forms, including forced childhood vaccinations for STD's. You may start wondering what's next. Will all little boys and girls be forced to carry a Merck condom in their book bags and wear an S.T.D. campaign button on their shirts as identification before entering the schools? Or maybe we'll see mandatory STD vaccinations for dogs, cats, and "good looking" animals.

Other studies show that just the stress of surgery and poor conditions of hospitals is adding to mortality rates, including post surgery pneumonia and heart attacks. To throw salt in the wound, the nation's 175 lowest quality hospitals are actually the highest cost institutions.

Doctors simply are not having conversations with patients about what they want out of their last days, and probably don't care because of the guaranteed revenue increases they receive from surgery. Most of the unnecessary surgery is a distraction from what is really important to patients, like being able to spend time with their loved ones and have some "quality of life."

The Medicare website for reporting unnecessary and inappropriate surgery describes it as being an operation for a condition that could effectively be treated with medication or physical therapy. Unfortunately, there is nothing listed about nutrition, vitamins, or supplements of any kind. In fact, there is no doctor in the country who can mention natural remedies without endangering his or her license to practice medicine. The FDA outlaws any natural remedy from claiming it can cure a disease, so the general public still believes surgery and chemotherapy are their only options.

Doctors in the United States are trained to do mainly three general procedures for the sick and dying; operate to surgically remove the problem, administer chemotherapy, and prescribe pharmaceuticals to mask or relieve symptoms and pain. The effort to remove cancer that surrounds or invades organs is one of the most popular surgical procedures. Unfortunately, clipping off the "tops of weeds" doesn't change the fact that they'll grow back, and since the chemicals in food and overall bad nutrition fuel the issues, most of these cases return as life-threatening situations within a few years, if not a few months.

In one case where an elderly man had pancreatic cancer, the doctors did an endoscopy and a colonoscopy because they said they were, "Trying desperately to find something we could fix." But surgery can be painful and debilitating, and pancreatic tumors are rarely discovered early enough to save the patient, so the surgery was a complete waste.

The most popular chemotherapy drug is Gemcitabine, which claims to only help about 25% of patients. So the rest either undergo useless surgery or are sent home to die with no nutritional advice.

Cancer is a chemically driven disease, and chemotherapy is a chemical which deprives all cells of oxygen, not just the area of concern. Often surgery also causes internal bleeding which spreads the cancer. Simply put, interventions should extend life and reduce suffering. As far as cancer patients are concerned, they should be juicing organic vegetables, taking supplements, and living out their last month, year or years happily at home, not in a hospital getting "juiced up" with chemicals. Maybe then recovery itself would actually be an option.

Has any contemporary write up of the famous playwright included this quote? Of course not. That could open up a can of public relation worms for the vaccine industry.

Media control is highly valued by Big Pharma and other monopolistic cartels. Since the 1970s, centralized media ownership, CIA intervention, and federally sanctioned pharmaceutical advertising have made owning the media easier for Big Pharma.

The first episode of ownership control to exclude vaccination horror stories was accomplished by the JP Morgan/Rockefeller syndicate circa 1900. They purchased Encyclopedia Britannica and had all negative vaccination reportage removed.

Prior to that, there were four major health disasters from smallpox vaccinations during the late 1800s, ranging from large leprosy outbreaks to hundreds of deaths.

The Rockefellers have been the major impetus for the monolithic monopoly of allopathic medicine and Big Pharma, starting with funding medical schools, the AMA, and replacing herbal remedies with petrochemical based pharmaceuticals.

Muzzle and marginalize
The most recent outrage of media slander to protect the vaccine industry concerned Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Two UK medical journals and the London Sunday Times were involved with that. All three publications had conflicts of financial interest with vaccine manufacturers.

The Wakefield incident was carried out with the successful strategy of attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the science questioned. This influences the general public's capacity for the comforting illusion of establishing authority and focus on gossip.

While under attack, defending oneself just seems to make it worse if the media excludes the essential facts. And that is just where the media excels, excluding factual data. From 1900 to now, several reports have been buried that demonstrated vaccination dangers with little or no vaccine efficacy. (vactruth, source below)

If the bearers of uncomfortable truth are MDs or dentists, first muzzle them with medical or dental board harassment and remove their licenses to practice. This puts them off limits as accessible media experts, and makes it easier to marginalize them now that they have been considered unqualified practitioners or quacks.

Meanwhile, the truth suffers, and so do millions of vaccinated believers of medical authority. Another recent victim of muzzle and marginalize the messenger without taking up the issue presented, is Canadian medical scientist Andrew Moulden, PhD.

Essentially, Moulden's message is, even without toxic additives, vaccinations are dangerous, period. The intentionally created immune system's overreaction from vaccinations result in normally imperceptible mini-strokes, which incur greater or lesser degrees of brain damage that accumulate as vaccinations are increased.

According to Moulden, some adverse reactions are large and immediate. But long term gradual damage from vaccinations is inevitable unless intense natural remedies or life style changes are undertaken.

What totally removed this author's slight but nagging doubt of Moulden's authenticity was the fact that he was posted as "Quack of the Day" on a site that had also included doctors Russell Blaylock, Sherry Tenpenny, and Andrew Wakefield.

Thanks for removing all doubts, Quackbusters. You included Moulden in this author's pedestal of praiseworthy MDs who dare speak out from within.

"The whole purpose (of the research) is better nutrition to promote warfighter resilience and optimal cognitive performance," said Jennifer Rood, principal investigator of the project entitled "Collaborative Research to Optimize Warfighter Nutrition," to Navy Times.

Wait, did Rood just link nutrition to recovery and brain function? What does the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have to say about this implication that nutrients play a role in boosting health and warding off disease?

It appears as though the same government that denies any link between food or nutritional supplement intake and health promotion and disease prevention among the public is now saying the opposite as it concerns soldiers' performance in the military.

Though such research positively benefits soldiers that serve in the armed forces, it also represents a double standard. The government apparently has no interest in keeping the average American healthy or in devoting a single taxpayer dollar towards nutrition research for the public interest — but when military performance is affected by bad nutrition, the cash starts flowing.

In spite of the positive findings, Larsson cautions against eating too much chocolate. She advises that it be consumed in moderation, due to its high content of calories, fat and sugar. Larsson also states that dark chocolate is superior to milk chocolate because it has more cocoa and less sugar.

The researchers at Karolinska Institute studied 33,000 women between the ages of 49 and 83 over a 10-year period. Scientists compared data from the participants' questionnaires about their chocolate consumption with their stroke risk to determine if a correlation existed. Results revealed the more chocolate the women consumed, the less stroke incidence they incurred. The findings were significant because those who ate 2.3 ounces of chocolate per week had a 20 percent reduced stroke incidence compared to those who seldom ate chocolate.

Although the study does not prove chocolate was responsible for the reduced incidence, after controlling for other stroke risk factors, the results persisted: Larsson relayed to CBS News. Additionally, she expects the results to apply to men also. Regardless of the suggested benefit, experts are advising people to keep the results in perspective and not substitute chocolate for vegetables.

High levels of iron are linked to more than just heart attack risk:

– One study showed that iron supplementation disrupted the balance of gut flora in children. Children who were given iron supplements showed an increase in harmful bacteria and a decrease in beneficial bacteria.

– Research indicates that lower levels of iron can actually be protective against infectious disease, leukemia and lymphatic cancers.

– Other studies demonstrate that iron produces free radicals which accelerate the aging process.

It is easy to see why high iron is a common problem these days, when you consider that the modern diet is heavy in muscle meats and countless foods which contain added iron. Typical staples in the American diet – such as breads, pastas and cereals – are required by federal law to be enriched with added iron. In addition, iron is also present in many multivitamin and mineral supplements.

A common misconception is that anemia is directly linked to iron deficiency, so iron supplements are often the first line of defense when anemia is suspected. However, anemia can be caused by other factors as well, such as reduced thyroid function and vitamin B12 deficiency. Supplementing iron in these cases is unnecessary and can exacerbate the problem by not treating the true underlying issue.

It is far more logical to recommend iron supplementation only when tests show an actual deficiency in iron. Using hemoglobin or red blood cell tests to determine iron deficiency may not only be inaccurate, but could be harmful if iron supplementation is given when it is not needed. Even when a true iron deficiency exists, it is safer to eat foods naturally high in iron than rely on supplements.