Saturday, December 31, 2011


Happy New Year Everybody. I want to end this year with a heartfelt prayer -- that humanity remember and return to its pristine origins.

May we feel the bond of love that exists between humans and animals and know that when we express our love for these animals, they benefit tremendously.

May we treat all animals with love and kindness - refusing to harm them and reaching out to help them whenever possible.

May the energy of human love and human intention heal all the evil that exists in this dimension so that it is banished forever, never to return.

May we all KNOW and fully experience the power and magnificence of human love.


"Simple Green, a hugely popular household cleaner, is marketed to the consumer as a “non-toxic,” “biodegradable,” and “non-hazardous” alternative to presumably more toxic products. And yet, the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for Simple Green, which is federally mandated to be made available to the consumer by the product manufacturer (in this case Sunshine Makers, Inc.), tells a radically different story.

The MSDS for Simple Green states that the formula contains up to 4% 2-Butoxyethanol by volume. 2-Butoxyethanol is a petrochemical solvent which gives Simple Green, and products like Windex, their characteristic odor.

It is classified, according to the Dangerous Substance Directive (one of the main European Union laws concerning chemical safety), as “Harmful (Xn)," and has recently been recommended by Environment and Health Canada to be added to the Schedule 1 toxic substances list of the Canadian Environment Protection Act (CEPA). It is also listed by the state of California as a “hazardous substance” and a "toxic air contaminant." Hmm? Non-Toxic, really?

The MSDS for 2-butoxyethanol indicates the following:

Its Domestic and International Proper Shipping Name is: "TOXIC LIQUIDS, ORGANIC, N.O.S. (2-BUTOXYETHANOL)."

Exposure Controls/Personal Protection: "Confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to human."

Potential Health Effects: Inhalation: "Causes irritation to the respiratory tract. Symptoms may include sore throat, coughing, headache, nausea and shortness of breath. High concentrations have a narcotic effect."

Potential Health Effects: Ingestion: "Causes irritation to the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Toxic! May cause systemic poisoning with symptoms paralleling those of inhalation."

Potential Health Effects: Skin Contact: "May cause irritation with redness and pain. May be absorbed through the skin with possible systemic effects."

Potential Health Effects: Eye Contact: "Vapors are irritating and may produce immediate pain, redness and tearing. Splashes can cause severe pain, stinging, swelling."

Chronic Exposure: "Prolonged or repeated exposures can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, lymphoid system, blood and blood-forming organs."

Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions: "Persons with pre-existing skin disorders, eye problems, impaired liver, kidney, blood, respiratory or lymphoid system function may be more susceptible to the effects of the substance."

Have we had enough? Do we need any more evidence that Simple Green's active ingredient - and therefore Simple Green itself - is toxic? If so, here are some additional research links:

View the Material Data Safety Sheet for 2-Butoxyethanol here.

View the page on 2-Butoxyethanol here

Also, back in 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle did a piece on products containing 2-butoxyethanol, and found that they likely present a health hazard, especially to women, children and the elderly. Moreover, it was found that "people using some common products containing EGBE could be exposed to levels 12 times greater than California's one-hour exposure guideline." [View entire article].

Addendum: Simply Green Washing In the BP Gulf Oil Disaster

Corexit 9527- now do your remember where you first heard about 2-butoxyethanol?

The active and so-called "non-toxic" ingredient in Simple Green was the very reason why the 9527 Corexit dispersant formula was eventually forbidden for use by the EPA in the BP oil disaster cleanup efforts. It was the absence of the highly toxic and controversial 2-butoxyethanol in the 9500 Corexit formula that made it a "safer" alternative. It is believed that 2-butoxyethanol contributed to the significantly shorter lifespan of Exxon Valdez clean-up workers and is why Corexit 9527 was banned in the United Kingdom.

Would you believe Simple Green is actually marketing their 2-butoxyethanol-containing products as safe clean-up solutions in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil Disaster?"

Simply Green Washing: Are You Using This Toxic Cleaner?


"Parents, if biological material was used to create a vaccine and it caused cancer when injected into hamsters, would you want that vaccine injected into your child?

Of course not!

But, that is exactly what happened to over 98 million Americans – and likely many more! Let me explain.

In the 1950s the poliovirus was cultured on monkey kidney cells to produce polio and adenovirus vaccines. A cancer-causing virus called SV40 was discovered, however, that fact was covered up and silenced.

That is important because, to my knowledge, that congressional information hasn’t been made available to the general public until now. I’m making available some snippets of the cover-up and its relevance to you, especially if you received a polio vaccine during the 1950s and ‘60s. Before that information is revealed, you must know…

Filthy Truth #1 – Vaccines are NOT Tested for Cancer-Causing Capabilities

Parents want peace of mind. They want to know their children are safe, and they want to trust their doctors. But, more parents are doing the opposite. Why?

I suspect that many parents are getting savvy to the potential inherent problems in vaccines. They’re educating themselves more on vaccine adverse reactions. Most parents know a child or have a friend with a child on the autistic spectrum. Here’s a relevant example.

We’ve all gone grocery shopping.

You know if you look at the product label, you get a general idea of what is contained in the product. That is how you find most of the nasty ingredients in processed foods. Vaccines are not quite the same, plus there’s a deceptive catch.

By law, doctors only have to give parents the vaccine information sheets. Parents, you want to request, read, and keep the vaccine product inserts! You can find them located here:

Do a search for the term “carcinogenesis,” literally ‘cancer creation’, on the product insert for any vaccine. You’ll see the following common phrase regarding most vaccines, “This vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.” (Emphasis mine)

Personally, this should be the legal loophole at law for parents exempting their children from vaccinations. If a product manufacturer cannot guarantee that a product won’t make a person infertile, cause cancer or malformations, then parents have every right to protect themselves and their children from such life-long risks.

Can you imagine the horrified look on parents’ faces when they discover vaccines haven’t been tested for cancer causing capabilities? Maybe parents would ask more demanding questions and require better explanations from their pediatricians.

Filthy Truth #2 – Cancer Virus Contaminates Vaccine

Vaccines were never as safe as moms and dads were—or are—led to believe!

Here’s why.

In order to make the vaccine in the 1950s, the poliovirus was cultured on monkey kidney cells. Researchers discovered the cells were contaminated with a virus called SV40.

Contamination of vaccines became so well known in scientific circles, ‘radical vaccine enthusiast’ and vaccine patent holder Dr. Paul Offit reluctantly admits,

“The polio vaccine used in the late 1950s and early 1960s was contaminated with a monkey virus called simian virus 40 (SV40) present in monkey kidney cells used to grow the vaccine. Recently, investigators found SV40 DNA in biopsy specimens obtained from patients with cancers such as mesothelioma (lung), osteosarcoma (bone) and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (lymph nodes)… Taken together, these findings do not support the hypothesis that SV40 virus contained in polio vaccines administered before 1963 cause cancers. In addition, available evidence suggests that SV40 virus is likely be transmitted to people by a mechanism other than vaccines.”

Dr. Offit also forgot to mention SV40 infections also are found in the brain of autistic children. Hmmmm. Read about it here:

There is very good reason for people like Dr. Paul Offit to downplay the contamination of vaccines.

Bernice Eddy, who at the time was a scientist at the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS), discovered a major problem. Page 500 of the Executive Reorganization and Government Research of the Committee on Government Operations United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session. April 20, 21; and May 3, 4, 1972, states,

“The next and only serious vaccine crisis that has occurred since the polio episode was the realization in mid-1961 that a monkey virus later shown to cause tumors in hamsters was contaminating both polio and adenovirus vaccines. The virus, known as SV40, was entering the vaccines and, just as in the polio case was surviving the formalin [form of formaldehyde] treatment.

There were several states by which the full extent of the SV40 problem became known. First was the discovery in 1959-1960 by a DBS [Division of Biologics Standards] scientist, once again Bernice Eddy, that an unknown agent in the monkey kidney cells used to produce polio and adenovirus vaccines would cause tumors when the cells were injected into hamsters.”
(Emphasis mine)

How does the above information play with your—or anyone’s—sense of integrity? What about trusting federal health agencies, their research, and data? What will be revealed next is shocking.

Filthy Truth #3 – Contamination is Hidden from Parents

In my opinion what happened next is borderline criminal: The information was suppressed.

Rather than admitting to the problem and taking measures to correct it, those in high places of science and trust allowed contaminated vaccines to be injected into millions of unwitting and helpless women and children.

Page 502 of the same congressional document states,

“In 1954 Eddy, as a polio control officer, found live virus in supposedly killed polio vaccine; in 1955 she was relieved of her duties as polio control officer…After her discoveries concerning the SV40 virus, her staff and animal space were reduced and she was demoted from head of a section to head of a unit.”

Page 505,

“…even when the contaminating virus was found to be oncogenic [cancer causing] in hamsters, the DBS [Division of Biologics Standards] and its expert advisory committee decided to leave existing stocks on the market rather than risk eroding public confidence by a recall.” (Emphasis mine)


“There has been a tendency on the part of certain higher government circles to play down any open discussion of problems associated with vaccines…”

Government officials knew parents definitely would reconsider injecting biological agents, especially vaccines, into their children so they perpetrated a BIG lie that became buried in the annals of vaccine history, which they probably thought they could hide forever. Unfortunately, the SV40 cover-up may not be the only ‘sleeping dog’ story in vaccinology. There just may be some interesting factual stories regarding how some influenza strains either came into being or became so potent.


I think parents want one thing: Assurance of scientific information to have peace of mind. They want to know their children are safe—and they want to trust their doctors, especially pediatricians. But, more parents are doing the opposite. Why? I suspect many parents not only are getting savvy to the potential problems with vaccines, but also know of serious health problems from children of neighbors and friends who suffer adverse vaccine reactions, which scares them.

Parents definitely ought to look at vaccines with a skeptical eye. They must read and keep the vaccine product inserts. If you’re not comfortable getting your child vaccinated, exempt your child. You have every legal right to do that.

Given the unethical happenings surrounding some of the above information, I suspect that it just may be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all vaccines and carcinogenicity."

3 Filthy Truths About Vaccines and Cancer

Friday, December 30, 2011


Funny thing is -- they put mercury in our dental fillings and infant vaccines are typically loaded with it. You don't suppose their DELIBERATELY trying to create a brain-damaged species, do you?

Nah! That would be a "conspiracy theory."

Thursday, December 29, 2011


"There is no dispute that millions of Americans received polio vaccines that were contaminated with the virus called Simian Virus 40, or SV–40. There also is no dispute that SV–40 is capable of causing cancer, but there is a major dispute as to how many Americans may have received the contaminated vaccine, with estimates ranging from 4 million to 100 million people. There is also a major dispute as to when the polio vaccine supply got cleaned up. In addition, nobody knows how many people got sick or died because of the contaminated vaccines."

The ‘Unknown’ About Polio Vaccine: SV40 and Cancer


Are we really surprised that when we strap an infant down to a board so that he cannot move, and methodically clamp his penis, and then slice off a part of it -- without anesthesia -- that he would then suffer long-term brain and neurological deficits due to the trauma?

Are we really surprised that that same infant boy grows into an adult man that has difficulty trusting, that does not feel safe with intimacy, and that often suffers from a myriad of sexual dysfunctions later in life such as erectile dysfunction, difficulty with sexual pleasure, premature ejaculation, and even sexually violent tendencies?

Let's wake up people. Circumcision is ritual sexual torture. It is done for the express purpose of creating trauma in the infant so as to cut off that baby from its conscious connection to Source consciousness. It is blatant evil.

If you doubt this, please watch this video of an infant being genitally mutilated and tortured (oops, I meant "circumcised").


From Peaceful Parenting Blog
"Two of my physics professors at Queen's University (Dr. Stewart & Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen's physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of fMRI for observing metabolic activity within the human body.

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumrestraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell ("Plastibell") with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anaesthetic was used.

The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

A neurologist who saw the results to postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature.

Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.
Pacific Institute for Advanced Study"

MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision

More on Circumcision and Neurological/Brain Impact Studies:

Circumcision Pain Studies End Early Due to Infant Trauma

Infant Pain Impacts Adult Sensitivity and Perception

Study: A Bicultural Analysis of Circumcision catalog of peer reviewed research on circumcision and brain damage.

Additional information (books, websites, articles) cataloged at: Are You Fully Informed?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011


Jeanice Barcelo interviewed on Red Ice Radio about hospital birth protocols and their connection to trauma-based mind-control.

Red Ice Radio - Jeanice Barcelo - Hour 1 - Hospital Birth Trauma & Baby Mutilation

Jeanice Barcelo, M.A., is a birth doula and independent childbirth educator, specializing in the prevention and healing of birth trauma. She is an international speaker, TV and radio show host, and founder of the forthcoming "Birth of a New Earth Preparatory School for Conscious Procreation." Jeanice has been an independent childbirth educator for the past 7 years, offering educational seminars and teacher trainings. During the first hour we discuss the disturbing aspects of standard baby delivery protocols and procedures within the hospital. Jeanice will talk about the pain and torture that a baby endures during the birthing process as well as the interference that occurs between baby/parent bonding. Many unnecessary and insane procedures are now commonly acceptable during the birthing process. Where did this begin and why? Later, Jeanice talks about satanic occult rituals that require the blood of infants and the mysterious discarding of "medical waste" of umbilical cord blood and placenta.


Anonymous Message to NATO

"...The responsibility for that content can be placed solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be exposed. Alot of government and corporate content has been dedicated to how we can avoid a similar leak in the future. Such advice ranges from better security to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple. Do not lie to the people. Do not make corrupt deals and you won't have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules which you enforce upon the people. You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy.

Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great things. Perhaps what you truly fear in us is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, have become outdated.

Finally, do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do not make the mistake of believing you can stop us. If you cut down one Anon, 10 more will join us, purely out of anger at your trampling of human rights. Your only chance of defeating the movement which binds all of us is to accept it. This is no longer your world. It is our world... the people's world..."


"Japan's nuclear power industry, which once ignored opposition, now finds its existence threatened by women angered by official opaqueness on radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was struck by an earthquake-driven tsunami in March.

"Mothers are at the forefront of various grassroots movements that are working together to stop the operation of all nuclear plants in Japan from 2012," Aileen Miyoko Smith, head of Green Action, a non- governmental organisation (NGO) that promotes renewable energy told IPS.

More than 100 anti-nuclear demonstrators, most of them women, met with officials of the Nuclear Safety Commission this week and handed over a statement calling for a transparent investigation into the accident and a permanent shutdown of all nuclear power plants.

Currently six of Japan's 56 nuclear plants are closed, some for stress tests after the Fukushima accident exposed serious breaches of safety precautions in the nuclear power industry.

More than 150,000 people remain unable to return home because of high levels of radiation in the Fukushima vicinity. There is now evidence that contamination has spread to rice and vegetables grown in nearby farming areas, and found its way into baby food products on supermarket shelves.

Japanese authorities announced last week that the devastated Fukushima Daiichi complex has been brought down to a state of cold shutdown.

"The first stage of controlling the terrible accident has been achieved. The government will follow a road map which in 30–40 years will make Fukushima safe again," said Goshi Hosono, minister of state for nuclear power policy and administration.

Speaking to the press, he explained that there is now no nuclear activity in the Fukushima nuclear reactors emitting radiation.

Power companies and government officials have also pledged to enforce safety regulations strictly and to ensure transparency.

Smith views the latest announcements as a warning. "We are stepping up our activism to ensure that the government and power industries, now eager to create a notion of security, will not restart nuclear plants," she said.

Indeed, groups of women, braving a cold winter, have been setting up tents since last week preparing for a new sit-in campaign in front of the ministry of economic affairs.

The women have pledged to continue their demonstration for 10 months and 10 days, traditionally reckoned in Japan as a full term that covers a pregnancy.

"Our protests are aimed at achieving a rebirth in Japanese society," said Chieko Shina, a participant, and a grandmother from Fukushima. "There is a need to change the way the authorities have run the country by putting economic growth ahead of protecting the lives of people."

Experts view the ongoing protests as a landmark in Japan's fledgling social movements long consigned to the sidelines of a prosperous and hardworking society that puts a premium on achievement and success.

"The ongoing demonstrations symbolise the determination of ordinary people who do not want nuclear power because it is dangerous. There is also the bigger message that we do not trust the government any more," said Takanobu Kobayashi, who manages the Matsudo network of citizens' movements.

Distrust stems primarily from the fact that the meltdown of the Fukushima reactors was not reported to the public immediately, causing huge health risks to the local population from radiation leaks.

Internet sites have recorded hundreds of thousands of comments by people expressing disbelief over assurances put out by the government or officials from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), operator of the Fukushima plant, on nuclear safety.

The accident also broke the myth of safety of nuclear power plants that authorities had maintained for decades to gain public support as the country embarked on massive nuclear power programmes.

Faced with public anger, the government and TEPCO have acknowledged mismanagement and promised major reforms.

Prof. Hideo Nakazawa, a sociologist at Chuo University, describes the ongoing protests as both a display of resentment against authority as well the use of nuclear power.

"Demonstrations have reached cities, taking the nuclear issue to the forefront of civil movements in Japan," he told IPS. He added that the lack of involvement of political parties in the anti-nuclear movement contrasts with the older pattern that had strong leftist leanings.

The leadership of women in civic movements is also unprecedented. Mothers have been leading the demonstrations, with many of them coming out for the first time to gain sympathy and support for their campaign to prevent exposing children to the dangers of radiation.

"Japanese civic movements have languished on the margins mostly because of the cold shoulder treatment they have received in society. These barriers are being broken now," explained Nakazawa.

Parliamentarian Mizuho Fukushima, one of Japan's leading female politicians and an active participant in the anti-nuclear demonstrations, told IPS that the protests against nuclear power are not going to die down.

"Forcing changes to stop nuclear power in Japan is very possible," said Fukushima, chair of the Social Democratic Party of Japan since 2003."

Japanese mothers rise up against nuclear power


By Dr. Mercola
"In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the legal authority of state governments to pass laws requiring citizens residing in the state to use smallpox vaccine (or other vaccines) if the state considers mass use of the vaccine necessary to protect the "public health".

As of 2011, all 50 states have enacted vaccine laws that require proof children have received certain vaccines in order to attend daycare, middle school, high school and college.

However, in most states citizens currently have the legal right to opt out of using vaccines.

All 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

However, also be aware that vaccine exemptions are currently under attack in every state because the wealthy and powerful Pharma/Medical Industry lobby is trying to take them away, especially the religious and philosophical or conscientious belief exemptions.

All Americans need to know options for legally opting-out of vaccinations, but also need to know why it's so important to protect this legal option, whether or not you choose to use every government recommended vaccine for yourself and your children.

Interested in Using the Religious Exemption to Vaccination?

The religious exemption to vaccination is one way you can protect your religious freedom and human right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to medical risk-taking. The right to life and liberty is what the United States was founded on, after all, and the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to protect your right to worship freely.

All but two states (West Virginia and Mississippi) allow religious exemption to vaccination. The legal language defining religious exemptions are worded differently in different state laws and there are different kinds of written documentation that must be submitted to state governments when filing this vaccine exemption.

Many mistakenly believe that in order to claim a religious exemption to vaccination, you must belong to an organized religion or be a member of a church that "officially" opposes vaccination. -- but this is not the case! If you belong to a church or an organized religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc) that does not take an official position opposing vaccination, this does not prevent you from following your spiritual beliefs and filing a religious exemption to vaccination.

In America, there is a constitutional right to worship freely and follow individual spiritual beliefs and conscience.

In fact, many organized religions, such as Catholicism, do emphasize the "duty to obey the certain judgement of conscience" and act in ways that do not violate conscience. However, U.S. law prohibits discrimination against citizens based on religious belief and so you can also hold personal spiritual beliefs about vaccination that allow you to claim a religious exemption.

As long as your beliefs about vaccination are religious/spiritual in nature; are sincerely and truly held; and you are able to define and attest to your beliefs in a state court, if necessary, you should be able to file and receive a religious exemption to vaccination for yourself or your child. Remember that the religious and concientious belief exemptions to vaccination are being threatened in many states so you need to be prepared to defend your spiritual beliefs about vaccination to school, health or other state officials. In some cases this may even progress further to include your being questioned by state attorneys.

However, if your religious beliefs about vaccination are deeply and sincerely held, do not let this sway you from standing up for your right to worship freely and exercise religious belief exemption to vaccination.

As James Filenbaum, attorney at law, explains:

"A parent's religious "beliefs" are sufficient to qualify for the religious exemption. The "belief" is defined as a faith that occupies a place in their lives parallel to that held by the orthodox belief in God or any sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being to which all else is subordinate and on which all else is ultimately dependent

They qualify if they believe that not giving the vaccines is what they must do to follow God's will for them in fulfilling their role as responsible parents. Their child's immune system is a creation of God and that God has given their child and that to vaccinate would violate their faith in what God created.

The parents do NOT have to be part of a recognized religious organization. You don't have to join any church, you can be any religion at all. But if they are a part of an established religion (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, etc.) they can still have their own perceptions of what it means to follow God's will which may be counter to what that organization states.

The case is established with legal precedent at the US Supreme Court level. (United States Supreme Court in Sharon Levy vs. Northcourt cases)

The important rule here is that if a school district denies religious exemption they are violating your federally protected civil rights under the first amendment by what is called state action and under federal law you are entitled to money damages."

Unfortunately, the religious exemption is being targeted for elimination by lobbyists working for pharmaceutical corporations and medical trade associations funded by Pharma. In some states, like New York, parents are being grilled about the sincerity of their religious beliefs by state officials and denied religious exemptions to vaccination for the purpose of barring their partially vaccinated or unvaccinated chidlren from attending public schools.

Your Spiritual Advisor Can Support Your Religious Exemption

Some states require a notarized affidavit or letter from a spiritual advisor attesting to the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs about vaccination.

Even if your state does not require a notarized affadavit from a spiritual advisor in order to file a religious exemption to vaccination, you may want to obtain added support by sitting down and talking with your minister, pastor, priest, rabbi or another trusted spiritual counselor. Explain to him or her why you have deeply held spiritual and conscientioiusly held beliefs on the matter of vaccination and ask for a letter that attests to the sincerity of your beliefs. If you are ever questioned,you will have a letter from your spiritual advisor to provide to whomever is questioning you.

Two Other Types of Vaccine Exemptions: Medical and Conscientious Belief

All 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination if you or your child has a verifiable medical reason to defer or avoid use of one or more vaccines.

Unfortunately, since 1986 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have eliminated most officially recognized medical reasons for withholding vaccination (contraindications) so that almost no medical condition qualifies for a medical exemption to vaccination. In most states, a medical exemption to vaccination written by a medical doctor can be denied if the medical reason given does not strictly conform to CDC and AAP contraindication guidelines.

Medical exemptions to vaccination must be written by a medical doctor (M.D.) or doctor of osteopathy (D.O.) and are usually reviewed annually by school or state health officials.

Depending on where you live, you may have the option of using a philosophical or conscientious belief exemption. This exemption, like the religious exemption, is under attack by forced vaccination proponents who want to eliminate non-medical exemptions to vaccination in America. Eighteen states allow conscientious, personal or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination. These states come the closest to protecting a citizen's right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America.

They are:

New Mexico
North Dakota
Rhode Island

If you don't like the vaccine laws in your state and want to change them, the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has an online Advocacy Portal ( that you can join and work in your state to protect or expand vaccine exemptions. There is no time to waste so take action now. Together, we can educate the public and reform vaccine laws in America to protect the right for citizens to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions.

If Forced Vaccination Becomes a Reality, You are no Longer Free

The issue of protecting your right to make an informed, voluntary vaccination choice for yourself or your child in the United States is about defending human rights. As Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, states:

"While the State may have the legal authority to mandate use of vaccines, nobody has the moral authority to FORCE you to get vaccinated or vaccinate your child without your voluntary, informed consent."

This -- the right to choose what is injected into your body or your child's -- is a decision that is a matter of life and death for some individuals, as the current one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination does not take into account differences among children's genetic profiles or immune responses based on factors such as age, weight, personal and family medical history and overall health status.

Each and every vaccine carries an inherent risk of causing a reaction, injury or death that can be greater for some individuals than others -- and many do not know they are at increased risk until it is too late. This is why I often remind readers that, ultimately, it is your responsibility to exercise due diligence and do your own research to decide for yourself which vaccines you do or do not want your child to receive.

It's important that you do an independent analysis by getting information from many sources, including organizations dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths, rather than only getting information from entities that are defending or making billions of dollars from promoting one-size-fits all forced vaccination policies.

You see, Big Pharma does NOT want you to have vaccine freedom of choice!

Barbara Loe Fisher explains:

"The only barrier left to unlimited vaccine profit-making is the freedom for Americans to choose whether or not to use every new vaccine Pharma creates and wants mandated. Freedom of choice is something Big Pharma and the medical lobby does not want you to have.

They know that many educated consumers in America and around the world are dissatisfied with the old pharmaceutical-based health care paradigm … And we are questioning why we and our children should be required to get a long list of expensive vaccines that carry serious risks and sometimes don't work at all.

… So Pharma is funding medical organizations profiting from mass vaccination policies to press politicians into quickly passing laws that force Americans to buy and use dozens of doses of vaccines. The goal is to demand that everyone salute smartly and obey doctors' orders to get vaccinated or be barred from getting an education, health insurance, medical care or a job. The goal is to, in effect, brand unvaccinated citizens as enemies of the state, so they can be fined or imprisoned.

Can this really be happening in America? Yes, it can."

And for the record, there is no system of "checks and balances" when it comes to vaccine safety. Vaccines have not been adequately tested for safety before they are licensed using methodologically sound scientific studies, so their long-term health effects are unknown. Moreover, the effects of multiple vaccines given together have not been adequately tested. And pharmaceutical companies have financed nearly all vaccine research to date, which introduces enormous bias.

Not to mention, vaccine manufacturers are totally shielded from liability and accountability in civil court for vaccine injuries and deaths. In February 2011, unbelievably the U.S. Supreme Court gave the drug companies total immunity from lawsuits -- even if they could have made a vaccine less harmful!

Barbara Loe Fisher continues:

"So if your child is brain injured by a vaccine that you may not have wanted your child to get in the first place, all you can do is file a claim in the federal vaccine injury compensation program. Even though the program has awarded more than $2 billion dollars to vaccine victims, two out of three plaintiffs are turned away empty handed."

If You Need Support for Strengthening Your Convictions

If you or your child have experienced a vaccine-related reaction, injury or death, you will likely need no help explaining exactly why you are seeking a religious exemption to vaccination. However, if you are solely making your decision based on an intellectual review of the research, you should not file a religioius exemption to vaccination unless you do, truly, have religious or spiritual convictions opposing the use of vaccines.

If you believe in a higher power and have strong convictions that compel you to follow the dictates of your deeply held spiritual and conscientious beliefs, you may want to consider asking yourself whether those beliefs are strong enough to file a religious exemption to vaccination. If that is the case, the Internet, using sites like YouTube, is an excellent way to become more informed about individuals who have suffered injury or even died after vaccine reactions. They are poignant reminders of why, ultimately, we should all have the human right to follow our religious, spiritual or conscientious beliefs about medical risk-taking.

Likewise, if you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please share your experience with others. If we don't share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

You will need to have courage when you seek to exercise your religious exemption because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Well-intentioned but vaccine-safety-ignorant individuals mistakenly believe they are "protecting" themselves and others by forcing you to or your children to get vaccinated . In most cases, they have never carefully examined the evidenceand are convinced vaccines are only beneficial and pose no danger to themselves or others.

Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

It is not easy to stand up for the right to make informed, voluntary choices about vaccination when public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry and many medical doctors are putting pressure on all Americans to use every government-recommended vaccine.

The fact that the numbers of doses of government recommended and mandated vaccines for children have tripled in the past quarter century, while the numbers of chronically ill and disabled children have also tripled, offers an opportunity to have a long overdue public conversation about the effects of vaccination on individual and public health.

Remember, freedom of thought and exercise of free speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution.

You have the right to talk privately and publicly about any concerns you have about vaccine necessity, safety and effectiveness, and to work with your elected officials to modify the vaccine laws in your state.

Together We Can Change this Assault on Your Health Freedom

The religious exemption to vaccination is necessary because the fundamental problem that has yet to be effectively addressed is vaccine mandates. Ultimately, our goal is to change the health paradigm so that everyone has the unobstructed right to make informed, voluntary choices about medical procedures and pharmaceutical product use.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.


Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

NVIC will help educate you about how to write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. You might even want to call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don't let them forget you!

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at

NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.

If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.

Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or your child are threatened.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child."

Using the First Amendment to Opt Out of This Potentially Damaging Procedure

Monday, December 26, 2011


New Study Exposes the "60% Effective" Flu Shot as 98.5% Useless

By Dr. Mercola

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a yearly flu vaccine as "the first and most important step in protecting against flu viruses."

This advice applies to everyone 6 months of age and older, and the CDC stresses that you "should get a flu vaccine as soon as [they] are available."

With a promotion this strong, you might assume that getting a flu shot is a "sure thing" to protect you from all flu-like illness this year, but actually it's not.

Not even close.

Most Flu-Like Illness is NOT Influenza

During the "flu season," doctors and patients alike often attribute respiratory illness to "the flu" or influenza viruses when they most of the time flu-like symtpoms are actually associated with other types of viruses and bacteria.

The only way to know for sure what type of virus or bacteria is causing flu-ike symptoms is to have it lab confirmed.

The seasonal influenza vaccine only contains three strains of type A or type B influenza, which U.S. and WHO health officials select each year as the most likely influenza strains that will circulate around the world.

There are many influenza strains and most cases of flu-like illness that occur in the U.S. during a typical flu season are not associated with type A or type B influenza strains.

So, it is important to remember that, when you feel like you have the "flu," you can't automatically assume that your flu symptoms are caused by type A or type B influenza strains included in the seasonal flu vaccine. Also, people who do get a flu shot every year cannot automatically assume they will not get sick with either type A or type B influenza or another respiratory iillness that looks and feels like influenza.

Flu Vaccines Prevent the Flu in Only 1.5% of Adults

A new study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases reveals that the flu vaccine prevents lab confirmed type A or type B influenza in only 1.5 out of every 100 vaccinated adults … but the media is reporting this to mean "60 percent effective."

It is estimated that, annually, only about 2.7% of adults get type A or type B influenza in the first place. The study showed that the use of flu vaccines appear to drop this down to about 1.2%. This is a roughly 60% drop, but that ignores the fact that the vaccine has no protective health benefit for 97.5% of adults.

The researchers' own conclusions are also somewhat more lackluster in their tone than the media would have you believe:

"Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking."

So where is the 60% effectiveness claim coming from? This number is based on relative risk, and it does not mean that 59 out of 100 people who get the flu shot will be protected against the flu … allow me to explain.

Why You Need to Understand Basic Statistics Before Getting a Flu Shot

Some clinical trials are only able to show a meaningful benefit because they focus on relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction. What's the difference? You can find a very simple explanation of relative risk vs. absolute risk at the Annie Appleseed Project web site, but let me sum it up here.

Relative risk reduction is calculated by dividing the absolute risk reduction by the control event rate

Absolute risk reduction is the decrease in risk of a treatment in relation to a control treatment

In plain English, here's what that means: let's say you have a study of 200 women, half of whom take a drug and half take a placebo, to examine the effect on breast cancer risk. After five years, two women in the drug group develop breast cancer, compared to four who took the placebo. This data could lead to either of the following headlines, and both would be correct:

"New Miracle Drug Cuts Breast Cancer Risk by 50%!"

"New Drug Results in 2% Drop in Breast Cancer Risk!"

How can this be?

The Annie Appleseed Project explains:

"The headlines represent two different ways to express the same data. The first headline expresses the relative risk reduction — the two women who took the drug (subjects) and developed breast cancer equal half the number (50%) of the four women who took the placebo (controls) and developed breast cancer.

The second headline expresses the absolute risk reduction — 2% of the subjects (2 out of 100) who took the drug developed breast cancer and 4% of the controls (4 out of 100) who took the placebo developed breast cancer — an absolute difference of 2% (4% minus 2%).

You can now see why clinical trials, especially those funded by drug companies, will cite relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions, and as a patient you need to be aware that statistics can be easily manipulated.

As STATS at George Mason University explains:

"An important feature of relative risk is that it tells you nothing about the actual risk."

Flu Shot Protects Against Only Three Flu Viruses …

As stated previsously, each year the flu shot contains three influenza viruses -- one influenza A (H3N2) virus, one seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus, and one influenza B virus. It only has a chance of preventing you from getting a flu-like respiratory illness during the flu season IF you so happen to be infected with one of these three specific influenza viruses.

In the United States, federal health officials at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are in charge of selecting which viruses to include in seasonal flu vaccine, a process that is based on international "surveillance-based forecasts about what viruses are most likely to cause illness in the coming season." U.S. health officials works with World Health Organization (WHO) health officials to come up with projectons about which three type A or type B infuenza viruses should be included in seasonal influenza vaccine each year.

In other words, it's an educated guess.

As you might suspect, getting a "good match" between the chosen vaccine virus strains and the actual influenza viruses that do end up circulating and causing most of the type A or type B influenza in the U.S. and around the world is challenging.

As the CDC notes:

"There are a number of factors that can make getting a good vaccine virus strain for vaccine production challenging, including both scientific issues and issues of timing. Currently, only viruses grown in eggs can be used as vaccine virus strains. If specimens have been grown in other cell lines, they cannot be used for vaccine strains.

However, more and more laboratories do not use eggs to grow influenza viruses, making it difficult to obtain potential vaccine strains. In addition, some influenza viruses, like H3N2 viruses, grow poorly in eggs, making it even more difficult to obtain possible vaccine strains.

In terms of timing, in some years certain influenza viruses may not circulate until later in the influenza season, or a virus can change late in the season or from one season to the next. This can make it difficult to forecast which viruses will predominate the following season, but it can also make it difficult to identify a vaccine virus strain in time for the production process to begin."

When you add to this gamble, the little-known fact that, according to the CDC, only about 20 percent of flu-like illnesses are actually caused by influenza type A or B, you realize how limited an effect the flu vaccine has on keeping people well during the flu season. Too many people assume that all flu-like illness is caused by influenza viruses when the truth is that about 80 percent of flu-like illness is NOT caused by type A or type B influenza. Most flu-like symptoms are actually associated with more than 200 other bugs that can make you feel just as sick -- respiratory syncytial virus, bocavirus, coronavirus, and rhinovirus, to name a few.

What this means is that if you think you have the flu, odds are five to one that you actually don't have the flu but a flu-like virus, against which the flu shot is absolutely worthless!

Is the Small Purported Flu Shot Benefit Actually due to the "Healthy User" Effect?

Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center in Seattle, found that healthy people tend to choose flu vaccination, while the "frail elderly" didn't or couldn't. Her research suggested that flu vaccine itself does not reduce mortality at all.

Healthy (and health-conscious) people tend to get the vaccine AND come down with influenza less often, not because of the vaccine itself but because they are healthier to start with.

Jackson concluded:

"The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors... the magnitude of the bias demonstrated by the associations before the influenza season was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed during influenza season."

Unfortunately, Jackson's papers were turned down for publication in the leading medical journals, even though her hypothesis makes perfect sense.

Every day you're around viruses and bacteria and, when you're healthy, you usually don't get sick. But even if you do get sick, most healthy adults and children will not have serious problems moving through and recovering from influenza or other flu-like illnesses. If you do come down with influenza and have a good immune response, you will likely recover quickly without serious complications, as well as obtain natural immunity to that strain of influenza and to similar ones.

As an aside, this is one more health benefit to achieving immunity naturally by experiencing and recovering from normal infectious diseases, such as influenza.

Vaccine-acquired immunity is temporary, which is why even though the viruses in this season's flu vaccine are the same viruses that were selected for the 2010-2011 influenza vaccine, the CDC is still recommending you get vaccinated again, even if you got the vaccine last year. The immunity that healthy individuals get by recovering from influenza naturally is usually much longer lasting.

Why Are Vaccinated Kids Getting the Measles?

Vaccine effectiveness simply cannot be taken at face value, and this applies not only to the flu vaccine but also to other diseases, like measles. Measles cases have greatly increased in parts of Canada and the United States this year. Although unvaccinated children and teens are often blamed for driving the high numbers, a recent investigation into a measles outbreak in a high school found that about half of the cases were in teens who had received the recommended two doses of vaccine in childhood.

In other words, many of the cases were among those whom health authorities would have expected to have been protected from the measles virus. Conventional medical wisdom states that the measles vaccine should protect against measles infection about 99 percent of the time.

CBC News reported:

"So the discovery that 52 of the 98 teens who caught measles were fully vaccinated came as a shock to the researchers who conducted the investigation ... If other groups confirm what the Quebec investigation found, it could mean there is a lot more susceptibility to measles in the vaccinated population than is currently being assumed."

In the United States, the minimum age for the first dose of measles vaccine is recommended as 12 months, but this may actually render the vaccine ineffective. If a breastfed child is given a measles vaccine too early, their mother's antibodies transferred to the baby via breast milk (which also protect the baby from measles disease naturally), canl interfere with the baby obtaining measles vaccine strain virus induced antibodies. It was, in fact, due to a high rate of measles vaccine failure that a second dose of MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1991.

As noted by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC):

"An MMR vaccine manufacturer states that in a study of 279 children 11 months to 7 years of age, MMR vaccine was shown to be 95 to 99 percent effective. Protection is estimated to persist for up to 11 years. In a measles outbreak in the U.S. in the late 1980's and early 1990's, it was found that there were a significant number of vaccine failures in older children, teenagers and adults, when the disease can be more severe. The government proceeded to recommend that a second MMR shot be given to boost immunity either before entrance to kindergarten or before entrance to junior high school.

In the national outbreak of measles during the late 1980's and early 1990's, it also became apparent that children who had been vaccinated before 15 months of age were also at risk for vaccine failure, especially if their mothers had recovered naturally from measles disease as children.

An MMR vaccine manufacturer states "Infants who are less than 15 months of age may fail to respond to the measles component of the vaccine due to presence in the circulation of residual measles antibody of maternal origin, the younger the infant, the lower the likelihood of seroconversion." The manufacturer goes on to advise that infants vaccinated at less than 12 months of age will have to be revaccinated after 15 months of age even though "there is some evidence to suggest that infants immunized at less than one year of age may not develop sustained antibody levels when later immunized.""

Quite simply, vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that exposure to the actual disease does …

Why the Herd Immunity Concept is Flawed

Typically, vaccine promoters will stress the importance of compliance with the vaccine schedule that requires multiple doses of a vaccine in order to create and maintain vaccine induced "herd immunity," because a vaccine is never 100 percent effective. However, they never quite seem to be able to explain why the majority of outbreaks occur in areas that are thought to HAVE herd immunity status, i.e. where the majority of people are vaccinated and "should" therefore never get the disease.

The problem is that there is, in fact, such a thing as natural herd immunity. But what has happened is that public health officials have taken this natural phenomenon and assumed that vaccine induced herd immunity is the same as disease induced herd immunity and it is not the same. The science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally developed herd immunity and vaccine-induced herd immunity in a population.

To learn more, I urge you to listen to the video above, in which Barbara Loe Fisher and I discuss the concept of herd immunity.

"The original concept of herd immunity is that when a population experiences the natural disease… natural immunity would be achieved – a robust, qualitatively superior natural herd immunity within the population, which would then protect other people from getting the disease in other age groups. It's the way infectious diseases work…" Barbara explains. "But the vaccinologists have adopted this idea of vaccine induced herd immunity.

The problem with it is that all vaccines only confer temporary protection… Pertussis vaccine is one the best examples… Pertussis vaccines have been used for about 50 to 60 years, and the organism has started to evolve to become vaccine resistant. I think this is not something that's really understood generally by the public: Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does."

Vaccine professionals would like you to believe they are the same, but they're qualitatively two entirely different types of immune responses.

"In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting, more robust, qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity," Barbara explains. "Humoral is the antibody production. The way you measure vaccine-induced immunity is by how high the antibody titers are. (How many antibodies you have, basically.)

But the problem is that cell mediated immunity is very important as well. Most vaccines evade cell mediated immunity and go straight for the antibodies, which is only one part of immunity. That's been the big problem with the production of vaccines."

Are You Willing to Accept the Risks for a 1.5% Benefit?

The latest study showing the incredibly minimal benefit of the flu vaccine is in line with past research that has also concluded that flu vaccines appear to have very limited measurable benefits for children, adults or seniors.

The Cochrane Database Review—which is the gold standard for assessing the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of commonly used medical interventions -- published the following telling statistics:

"Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness, which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10 percent of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.

Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.

In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.

Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome [GBS] (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations."

Is it really worth risking the health and well-being of 100 people in order to prevent ONE case of the flu, which may or may not result in serious illness or death in that one individual to begin with?

While infants and young children are at greatest risk, no one is exempt from the potential serious complications of vaccination, one of which is GBS.

In the video profile of vaccine injury above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of NVIC, interviews a Connecticut artist and her mother, a former professor of nursing, who developed Guillaine-Barre syndrome after getting a seasonal flu shot in 2008 and today is permanently disabled with total body paralysis. This family has chosen to share their heartbreaking story to help those who have had the same experience feel less alone, and to educate others about what it means to be vaccine injured.

What happened to this family is a potent reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.

The Best Way to Prevent the Flu Has Little to do With a Vaccine

Avoiding influenza and flu-like illness during the flu season or any season doesn't require a flu vaccine. By following the simple guidelines below, you can help keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you're far less likely to get sick or, if you do get sick, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.

Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I've previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency is likely the TRUE culprit behind the seasonality of the flu -- not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.

Ideally, you'll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (, adults need about 8,000 IU's a day.

Avoid Sugar, Fructose and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.

Get Enough Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night's Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.

Have Effective Tools to Address Stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness. If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.

Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads.

Take a Good Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also crucial to avoid excessive and/or oxidized omega-6 fatty acids, as well as trans fatty acids commonly found in processed foods, as they will seriously damage your immune response.

Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this -- antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.

Use Natural Antibiotics. Examples include colloidal silver, oil of oregano, and garlic. These work like broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.

Avoid Hospitals. I'd recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you're having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infectious microorganisms of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life-threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home."


David Versus Monsanto - 52min Documentary

By Dr. Mercola

"Monsanto has long been trying to establish control over the seeds of the plants that produce food for the world.

They have already patented a number of genetically altered food crops, which can only be grown with proper license, and the seeds for which must be purchased anew each year.

But genetically engineered crops cannot be contained.

And rather than being found guilty of contaminating farmers' property, Monsanto has successfully sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement.

Many farmers have subsequently, quite literally, lost their farms.

Percy Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, Canada, was also a victim of Monsanto's vile ways.

Schmeiser worked on farming and developing his own seeds for 50 years, and when his fields were contaminated, Monsanto threatened him, intimidated him, and tried to take his land away.

But Schmeiser refused to give in, and eventually beat them in court.

David versus Goliath

Percy's story is a classic case of David versus Goliath, and his victory is no doubt momentous.

It all began in 1998, at which time Schmeiser had grown canola on his farm for 40 years. Like any other traditional farmer, he used his own seeds, saved from the previous harvest. But, like hundreds of other North American farmers, Schmeiser ended up being sued by Monsanto for 'patent infringement.'

More than 320 hectares were found to be contaminated with Roundup Ready canola—the biotech giant's patented canola, genetically engineered to tolerate otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate. The company sought damages totaling $400,000.

Most farmers end up settling, but Schmeiser was angry enough to fight back. In a 1999 interview, Schmeiser stated:

"I never put those plants on my land. The question is, where do Monsanto's rights end and mine begin?"

The case eventually went before the Federal Court of Canada. Schmeiser in turn accused Monsanto of:

Libel, by publicly accusing him of committing illegal acts


Improperly obtaining samples of his seed from a local seed plant

Callous disregard for the environment by introducing genetically modified crops without proper controls and containment

Contamination of his crops with unwanted GM plants

After 10 Years, Monsanto Agrees to Pay for Cleanup

After a decade-long battle, Schmeiser won when, in March 2008, Monsanto settled out of court, agreeing to pay for all cleanup costs. The agreement also specified that Schmeiser would not be under gag-order, and that Monsanto can be sued for recontamination.

This was a much-needed win not just for Schmeiser, but for farmers everywhere. It set the precedence that farmers may be entitled to reimbursement when their fields are contaminated with unwanted GM crops (as indeed they should!). On Schmeiser's website,, he states:

"If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away."

However, that's not to say that farmers have nothing to fear anymore… The Federal Court of Canada did uphold the validity of Monsanto's patent, dismissing Schmeiser's challenge to the patent based on the fact that Monsanto cannot control its spread. Worse yet, while the judge agreed that a farmer can generally claim ownership of crops growing in his fields when they're inadvertently carried there by pollen or wind, this does not hold true when it comes to patented, genetically modified seed. Schmeiser was deeply upset about this particular part of the ruling, as the implications are huge.

Still, in this case, while Monsanto's patent was still deemed valid and enforceable, Schmeiser was not forced to pay for the 'privilege' of having his fields contaminated…

This landmark case is now featured in the documentary film "David versus Monsanto." (See the trailer above.)

The Riceland Foods Lawsuit—Another Successful Strike-Back against GM Contamination

More recently, Riceland Foods, the largest rice cooperative in the U.S. won its lawsuit against the Bayer Corporation after its natural long-grain rice was contaminated with Bayer's unapproved genetically engineered rice. It was just one of about 3,000 similar lawsuits filed against Bayer in recent years. In April of last year, Bayer CropScience was also ordered to pay a dozen Arkansas farmers nearly $50 million "for allowing a genetically altered strain of rice to escape into the commercial market, damaging rice prices in 2006," a Bloomberg Law article reported.

As a result of the contamination with Bayer's unapproved experimental GM rice, countries within the European Union refused to purchase U.S. long grain rice, and American rice farmers and cooperatives lost $389 million in projected sales, not to mention the clean-up costs.

The jury determined that Bayer caused "tremendous harm to Riceland and the entire industry," awarding Riceland $11.8 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages.

In this case, the genetically engineered rice, known as LibertyLink, was never actually approved for commercial planting. It's an experimental crop, meant to be sown for research purposes only. However, it's a perfect example of just how impossible it is to contain genetically engineered crops once they're in the ground.

Biotech corporations have tried to convince everyone that their genetically altered crops pose no danger to the environment and other nearby crops, and that the issue of contamination is an insignificant one. Clearly, the reality is very different from what they've projected. There's simply NO way to avoid contamination! Genetically modified (GM) seed crops can, and most certainly do, spread beyond their designated fields.

GM Contamination Spreading Like Uncontained Wildfire

Contamination can occur in a number of different ways. Pollen drift from field to field via insects and wind is just the beginning.

In August of last year, the Food Freedom blog reported that the Irish government discovered they'd accidentally planted banned GM maize, originating from Monsanto. In this case, the contamination originated from the seed supplier, Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe, a subsidiary of DuPont. Random tests by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF), discovered that three out of 1,000 plants were contaminated by Monsanto's illegal GM maize, NK603. The crop was subsequently destroyed to protect organic farms in the area.

But the full extent of the contamination is uncertain, as it was only discovered through random testing. The seed had already been verified as "GM-free" by Pioneer Hi-Bred itself.

Other recent cases of widespread contamination include:

2010: Monsanto's GM corn was discovered across 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) in seven German states. Since Germany doesn't allow GM corn to be planted, the farmers had to destroy their crops. These farmers had to "eat" their losses, as the seed companies refused to accept liability for the contamination.
2007: Pollen drift from GM maize (MON810) fields were found to have contaminated hundreds of conventional and organic farmers in Spain, the only country in the EU that allows GM maize to be cultivated.

In the latter case, a 2009 Greenpeace report documents the profound socioeconomic and human impacts the contamination has had. Part of the summary reads:

"The farmers' stories tell of an alarming reduction in the amount of organic maize being grown and the direct negative impacts that genetically modified organisms have on the population. These organic producers have voluntarily opted out of the conventional or GM farming model, many out of dedication to the principles of sustainability.

Now, they face contamination from neighboring GM crops, even when they take measures to try to avoid cross pollination of the plants. For an organic farmer, genetic contamination is an unmitigated disaster. This report tells the stories of real people who have experienced losses not of their own making. Adding insult to injury, they often have to pay for testing or other protection measures themselves.

… There are no safeguards for MON 810 cultivation, and co-existence of GM and non-modified crops is impossible." [Emphasis mine.]

That's the reality of the situation, and this is precisely why we must fight against the approval of each and every new genetically engineered crop. They simply cannot be contained. And the same will be true for other genetically engineered foods, such as salmon. All genetically engineered foods absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts, and destroy diversity.

This is also what makes the recent approval of GM alfalfa in the U.S. so incredibly dangerous. The release of GM alfalfa quite literally threatens the entire organic industry, including organic meat, as alfalfa is the fourth most grown crop in the US, and is used to produce forage seed and hay to feed cows and other livestock.

Protecting Our Food Supply is Everyone's Business!

It's quite clear that genetically engineered foods threaten not only biodiversity and the environment, it can also pose potentially serious threats to animal and human health when consumed. Unfortunately, the revolving door between the biotech industry and the agencies in charge of industry legislation makes it very difficult to stop the ongoing madness.

That does not mean it's impossible, however. But it does require your active participation.

First and foremost, avoid buying GM foods! Since the industry has successfully squelched every attempt at getting genetically engineered foods labeled, avoiding them requires you to be an educated consumer.

Print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Better yet, always buy USDA 100% Organic products when possible as these do not permit GM ingredients, or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients.

When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients.

For ongoing updates, follow our Non-GMO’s page on Facebook.

We CAN shift the balance by simply voting with our pocketbooks. Europe successfully did this over a decade ago, without any government assistance, and Americans can drive GMO's out of our food supply as well, but it requires educating the public about what GM foods are."

Finally... Solo Farmer Fights Monsanto and Wins


Death of baby from Lebanon MO is linked to rare bacteria sometimes found in commercial formula,0,93964.story

"LEBANON, Mo. – In the midst of the holiday season, one family here is dealing with heartbreak. Their infant son died Sundy night after contracting an extremely rare bacterial disease. Now federal researchers are testing the formula eaten by the baby as his family searches for answers.

After just 10 days with their newborn, a young couple is dealing with the greatest loss that any parents could imagine.

"He was good. He didn't cry a lot. He was what everybody hopes for when they have a newborn." said his father, Derek Cornett.

Healthy and happy at 6 pounds, 9 ounces, baby Avery Cornett's birth was a Christmas season blessing. Then, at a week old, Avery suddenly became sick. He was rushed to a hospital in Springfield, where he died just two days later.

Avery's parents are trying to make sense of what happened.

"I’m angry that they didn't catch it. They should’ve," said Cornett.

All they know so far is that their baby somehow contracted a rare bacterial infection known as cronobacter sakazakii. The bacteria can lead to meningitis, even death.

"The powdered formula has been known to possibly have this type of bacteria,” said Charla Baker, administrator of the Laclede County Health Department.

Staff members at the Laclede County Health Department sent off samples of the two types of formula that the baby ingested for governmental testing. Both formulas were made by Enfamil. They're also sending samples of the water used with the formula.

There's a chance the bacteria came from somewhere else, however.

“It could be something that happened during the feedings or during the processing of the formula when it was being prepared for feeding," said Baker.

It could take a week or more for researchers to get the test results.

"Our goal is try to find what that was,” said Baker.

In the meantime, the Cornett family is left with just a memory of a life that never really had the chance to begin.

“I wish we got more than ten days with him," said Cornett.

Both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control are working on this case to determine the source of the bacteria. They say, right now, no one using the product should be alarmed but the Walmart store in Lebanon did pull the Enfamil formula off its shelves. That's where the product was purchased.

A fund to help the family has been set up at the Holman Howe Funeral Home in Lebanon."