Wednesday, September 26, 2012


"A new documentary video produced by an amateur climate researcher has the online world buzzing with a new debate: Do human-made clouds affect the climate more than greenhouse gases like CO2?

The 25-minute presentation explains that humans are dispersing cloud-making chemicals, silver iodide in particular, into the atmosphere globally at high altitudes for the purpose of increasing precipitation.

According to Dave Dahl, the writer and producer, cloud seeding programs have proliferated across the US and around the world since the invention of silver iodide by Dr. Bernard Vonnegut (brother of the famous author Kurt Vonnegut) in the 1960s.

"We started cloud seeding in the 1940s using dry ice," says Dahl. "But in the 1960s we started using silver iodide, and its use has grown exponentially every decade since then. Now the majority of states in the US use silver iodide for weather modification to increase precipitation."

Dahl says he recently became aware of several facts that compelled him to produce the movie.

"I had been studying artificial clouds for over six years before discovering that we spray silver iodide at high altitudes around the entire Earth, and we do that in many states before every single rain or snow storm. Counties in dry states like California believe they can get 10-15% more water cheaply by expanding storm clouds in their area. But what happens when every state is doing it? There's only so much water in the atmosphere, and every state wants it."

Dahl also says that the spraying of silver iodide before storms causes jet aircraft to form icy clouds with their exhaust steam, which explains a lot of the persistent tracks in the sky from jet condensation trails.

Other factors like forest fires can also cause persistent contrails, he notes. But he also reports that when he has seen persistent contrails, or "chemtrails" as they are often called, there happens to be a cloud seeding program nearby in every case, including in other countries. "If you see persistent contrails, chances are there have been cloud-seeding activities near you." He says that fact can easily be verified through local government documentation.

"The combustion of jet fuel produces water," says Dahl, "and the water is emitted as steam that instantly freezes and bonds with the silver iodide particles. We're increasing cloud cover through our precipitation enhancement programs. And our most knowledgeable scientists say that clouds affect the climate more than the expected effects of greenhouse gases like CO2."

According to Dahl, ice clouds formed by aircraft impose a greenhouse effect, or "igloo effect" by preventing heat from escaping. He also reports that cloud-seeding programs across the US and in over 50 countries use incendiary flares to disperse the silver iodide, which Dahl says include strontium, aluminum and magnesium. The complete documentary is posted at"
Source Article:
Researcher Offers Alternative Explanation for Global Warming

The Most Shocking Climate Change Video of 2012: Skywatcher


It’s not every day that we learn about a victory for Mother Earth. But thanks to a 47-year old farmer and a French court there has been a victory against U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto. And, I’d say that’s a triumph for Mother Earth as well. The company lost a court battle earlier this year and was charged as guilty of chemical poisoning. This judgment could lend credence to other health claims against Monsanto and pesticides in general.

Paul Francois, a French farmer sued Monsanto after he suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches, and stammering after inhaling the company’s Lasso weedkiller in 2004. He cited insufficient product label warnings as part of the problem.

“It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,” François Lafforgue, Paul Francois’s lawyer said in an interview with Reuters. In the same interview, Monsanto’s lawyer Jean-Philippe Delsart states: “Monsanto always considered that there were not sufficient elements to establish a causal relationship between Paul Francois’s symptoms and a potential poisoning.”

But the court in Lyon, in southeast France disagreed. It clearly saw the cause of Francois’ health problems as linked to Monsanto’s pesticide use and subsequently ordered an expert assessment to determine Francois’ financial losses and awarded him accordingly.

According to the Reuters news report, the agricultural branch of the French social security system says that it has gathered about 200 reports of sickness linked to pesticides a year since 1996. Prior to this landmark case, farmers have had difficulty proving causal effect or have simply not tried to sue the corporate giant known for its bullying tactics on farmers worldwide.

Francois, along with other farmers set up an association to help establish the link between pesticides and neurological problems suffered by farmers. While the farmer was victorious against Monsanto, he is no longer able to perform his farming responsibilities due to the damage he suffered from pesticide use.

In my blog, “Is Your Body Roundup Ready?” I discussed some of the health dangers of Monsanto’s pesticide known as RoundUp. In research conducted on frogs and chicken embryos, glyphosate—the primary ingredient in RoundUp—was found to cause birth defects. The same study found that glyphosate affects the skull, face, parts of the brain and spinal cord.

Another study out of Germany found RoundUp in all human urine samples tested. The amount found in urine was 5 to 20 times the established upper limit for drinking water.

Monsanto’s pesticides are not just used in food production but are also sprayed on school playgrounds, private lawns, railway lines, urban pavement, golf courses, community roadsides and public land.

Monsanto has been named as one of the “World’s 10 Most Innovative Companies” by Forbes Magazine while Natural Society has awarded Monsanto the Worst Company of 2011 award for its ongoing work to threaten human health and the environment.

If you type “Monsanto” into Google, you’ll quickly find that the most common search term for the company is “Monsanto evil.” After years of following Monsanto’s path of destruction, I’d say Monsanto warrants the Worst Company of 2012 as well. What do you think? I’d love to know."
Source Article:
Monsanto Charged with Chemical Poisoning


Remember - when you look at that pregnancy stick and think "Oh shit, I'm pregnant. Now what am I gonna do?" Your baby feels your feelings and knows it is unloved and unwanted. After 6, 8, 10 or more weeks of being completely alone and ignored, upon discovery, the child is imprinted with a belief that it is not lovable.

It would much easier and kinder to just keep our pants zippered and to educate our youth about the severe spiritual ramifications of haphazard sex and unwanted pregnancies.

Is a few minutes of fleeting physical pleasure really worth destroying the life of a child?
"On the tenth anniversary of this extraordinary publication about unwanted pregnancies, many people are still not familiar with the definitive scientific information it contains. Surely the most comprehensive longitudinal study ever made of the effects of being born unwanted, the findings by collaborators in three countries may be unique. Research on such an ambitious scale is unlikely to be repeated anywhere, making it all the more urgent to acquire in depth understanding the evidence. As few other works can do, this study goes beyond opinion and speculation to illuminate the formative realities of the prenatal period.

Psychologists thoroughly analyzed cohorts in Goteborg, Sweden for 25 years in Prague (now the capital of The Czech Republic) from birth to early adulthood, and in Northern Finland to the age of sixteen. Then* findings reveal the pervasive consequences of rejection starting long before birth. The children, conceived and born under this cloud, found themselves on a Trail of Sorrows.

In Goteborg, 120 unwanted children were matched with 120 controls of the same sex. Individuals unwanted at conception, unwanted during gestation, and delivered after refusal of applications for abortion were at greater risk than control subjects for psychosocial problems. The unwanted children received more psychiatric attention, were more often delinquent, and did more poorly in school.

In northern Finland (Oulu and Lapland), where 12% of almost 12,000 women said the pregnancy "should not have occurred at all," many comparisons were made over time with the children of mothers who had accepted the pregnancy. At 28 days after birth, measurements revealed that unwanted babies were smaller in weight and length, and a greater proportion of them had been born prematurely. These children had a significantly higher infant mortality rate (24 deaths per 1000 births) and had higher incidences of all types of handicaps including cerebral palsy and mental retardation. At age eight, the researchers initiated a matched-pair study to compare the wanted and unwanted babies after the first year of school, and again at age 14 and 16, the last year of compulsory education in Finland. From the start, unwanted babies had a harder time in school, needed more help from teachers, and were rated poorer in verbal performance.

Follow-up at age fourteen showed the unwanted children had more than double the number of low IQ scores (under 86) as their matched pairs. Physical growth was poorer and school performance significantly lower. Finally, at sixteen years of age, unwanted children were more often reluctant to go to school, wanted to leave at the earliest possible age, and found little purpose in continuing their education. Relationships with teachers and fellow classmates were more troubled. At home, the unwanted girls felt their fathers had been less interested in them, behaved more inconsistently, and had been less involved in their upbringing, compared to their matched pairs.

In Prague, studies used a double-blind method, matched-pair controls, periodic psychological assessments, and public records. By age nine, the children born to mothers twice refused for abortion ended up requiring more medical care for acute and long-term illnesses. Mothers rated them as more stubborn, naughty, and bad-tempered. Teachers rated them lower in academic achievement. Schoolmates rejected them as friends more often than their peers. Born to ambivalent mothers, these children were more deviant, received less empathy and attention to their communications, had less warm interchanges with each other, and suffered psychological deprivation.

At age 14, school performance was worse, many opting not to continue to secondary school. Teachers rated them more hyperactive and less sociable. They felt more rejected by their mothers than did the matched-pairs; and relationships with parents deteriorated over time.

By age 23 these unwanted children showed a greater proneness to social problems, criminal activity, and had triple the amount of serious repeated offenses requiring custodial prison sentences. When questioned about their happiness and life-style they reported far more dissatisfaction, unhappiness, problems, and worries than the control children. They mentioned having poor relationships with their parents and knew that their parents were dissatisfied with them. Unwanted children reported repeated disappointments with love relationships and agreed with the statement: "love brings more trouble than pleasure."

The unwanted children of Prague, themselves breastfed for a significantly shorter time, gave the opinion that a child should be breastfed for no longer than a month at most. Unwanted children drank more black coffee, smoked more heavily, and drank larger quantities of beer than their matched pairs born at the same hospital to parents who wanted them. More of the rejected children were in psychiatric treatment. They coped less well with even minor stress than their counterparts.

The circular effect of early trauma was illuminated as the unwanted entered marriage and parenthood. Those who had married reported their marriages less satisfying, their pregnancies less often welcome, and required more time to develop a close relationship with the developing fetus they were carrying in their wombs. When asked how long they planned to stay at home with their child, most of these mothers said until the end of paid maternity leave (2 years) while their matched-pair mothers said they expected to stay home until the child went to school.

The significance of this three-country longitudinal study and the importance of its findings for public policy everywhere earned the support of the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and the Ford Foundation. The findings form a key chapter in the unfolding drama of prenatal psychology, proving how very early rejection became a template for life.

(This book was later published by Springer in New York and by EDAMEX in Mexico City.) A summary by Henry P. David, first author, can be found in the Journal of Social Issues, 48, 163-181, 1992."
Source Article:
Born Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion


By David Chamberlain
" David Edwin Mason and Robert Alton Harris spent their final years on Death Row before they were gassed by the Slate of California in 1991 and 1993 for heinous crimes of violence. Their biographies expose the primal roots of violence.

The dossier on Mason reveals him to have been a sad and lonely child whose mother tried to induce a miscarriage to avoid having him in the first place - and who never was allowed to forget that he was unwanted. Older sisters describe a household where hugging or laughter were prohibited, and in which young David was beaten almost daily with his father's belt or, in the hands of his mother, "a switch or pancake turner."

When only five, the child attempted suicide by swallowing a bottle of pills and set his clothing on fire. At eight, he was taking out his hostility by setting fires at church and at school. The parents took to locking him away in a room they called "the dungeon" - a bedroom with the windows nailed shut. Persistent bedwetting, and worse, were countered by parading David with the soiled clothes wrapped around his head.

At age 23, Mason went on a nine-month killing spree in the neighborhood where he had grown up, strangling four elderly men and women. He later confessed that it was "something I have always wanted to do."

Robert's beginnings were strikingly similar. He was born three months premature after his mother was kicked so brutally in the abdomen by an angry husband, that she began hemorrhaging.

As in the Mason family, both parents inflicted frequent beatings the father with his fists, causing a broken jaw when Robert was not yet two. Sitting at the table, if Robert reached out for something without his tather's permission, he would end up with a fork in the back of his hand.

For sport, father would load his gun and tell the children they had 30 minutes to hide outside the house, after which he would hunt them like animals, threatening to shoot anyone he found.

Like Mason, young Harris soon began showing anger toward animals and people. The senior Harris was jailed for sexually molesting his daughters, while the mother smoked and drank herself to death.

Harris was twenty five years old when he shot two San Diego teenagers to death. Prosecutors told the jury that Harris taunted the viclims before they died, laughed at them after he pulled the trigger, then calmly ate the hamburgers they had bought for lunch.

Pain and rejection were the foundation stones on which these angry young men tried to build their lives. Violence was a legacy from their parents.

In an editorial on the occasion on Mason's execution, former U.S. Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin of San Diego concluded: "Such persons must be put away, of course. But can society feel comfortable when providing the final touch to a pattern of violence which may literally have begun in the mother's womb?"

Congressman Van Deerlin shows rare insight in connecting events widely separated in time: womb violence and criminal violence. As a society, we have naively viewed the earliest period of human development as a "free period" when rules are suspended and there are no consequences for torturous mental and emotional events. This is wishful thinking.

The latest research on fetal and neonatal behavior indicates that all babies are keenly aware of their environment, are fully able to feel pain, and are constantly learning from their experiences. These scientific findings support what the biographies of Mason and Harris reveal so well: violence during pregnancy and birth is the seedbed of a violent society.

Vulnerability to hostility during the primal period continues through a range of flashpoints including discovery of pregnancy, chronic warfare between parents, physical and psychic attacks on the fetus, the multiple traumas of premature birth, the routine traumas of medical birth including heel lancing for blood samples, needle injections of vitamin K, rough handling in a too-cold, too bright environment, and finally, more often than not, exile and isolation from mother and father. Crown these insults and injuries with rejection after birth and you have the formula for personal misery, smoldering resentments, and social explosions.

What can parents do about violence in society? Briefly, they can turn things in a different direction at all the chronological flashpoints: Start with a planned conception, get help to resolve interpersonal problems at the earliest possible time, send lots of loving messages to the baby in the womb, organize for health and fitness to support full-term gestation in utero, and arrange for a non-violent, natural birth in a context of reassuring touch, where mother's milk is always available and family solidarity is unbroken."
Source Article:
The Primal Roots of Violence: A Tale of Two Criminals


This should be a no-brainer but our species -- as disconnected as it can possibly be from source intelligence -- still has to do research to find out that being connected to mom or dad's body 24/7 is better for premature babies than being isolated in an incubator!

"ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Kangaroo Mother Care -- a technique in which a breastfed premature infant remains in skin-to-skin contact with the parent's chest rather than being placed in an incubator -- has lasting positive impact on brain development, revealed Université Laval researchers in the October issue of Acta Paediatrica. Very premature infants who benefited from this technique had better brain functioning in adolescence -- comparable to that of adolescents born at term -- than did premature infants placed in incubators.

Earlier research showed that infants born prior to the 33rd week of pregnancy experienced more cognitive and behavioral problems during childhood and adolescence. Université Laval researchers Cyril Schneider and Réjean Tessier, of the Department of Rehabilitation in the Faculty of Medicine and of the School of Psychology, respectively, and their Colombian colleagues Nathalie Charpak (Kangaroo Foundation) and Juan Ruiz-Peláez (Universidad Javeriana) wanted to determine if Kangaroo Mother Care could prevent these problems. To that end they compared, at age 15, 18 premature infants kept in incubators, 21 premature infants held in Kangaroo contact for an average of 29 days, and 9 term infants.

To assess participants' brain functions, the researchers used transcranial magnetic stimulation. With this non-invasive and painless technique they could activate brain cells in targeted areas, namely the primary motor cortex that controls muscles. By measuring muscle responses to the stimulation, they were able to assess brain functions such as the level of brain excitability and inhibition, cell synchronization, neural conduction speed, and coordination between the two cerebral hemispheres.

The data collected by the researchers indicate that all brain functions of the adolescent Kangaroo group were comparable to those of the term infant group. On the other hand, premature infants placed in incubators significantly deviated from the other two groups 15 years after their birth.

"Thanks to Kangaroo Mother Care, infants benefited from nervous system stimulation -- the sound of the parent's heart and the warmth of their body -- during a critical period for the development of neural connections between the cerebral hemispheres. This promoted immediate and future brain development," suggests neurophysiologist Cyril Schneider.

Psychology researcher Réjean Tessier notes that "infants in incubators also receive a lot of stimulation, but often the stimulation is too intense and stressful for the brain capacity of the very premature. The Kangaroo Mother Care reproduces the natural conditions of the intrauterine environment in which the infants would have developed had they not been born premature. These beneficial effects on the brain are in evidence at least until adolescence and perhaps beyond."

The two researchers, who are also associated with the Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, will have the opportunity to shed more light on this subject. The Government of Canada, through its Grand Challenges Canada program, Saving Brains, just awarded their research team a $1 million grant to measure the neurological, cognitive, and psychosocial benefits of Kangaroo Mother Care in a group of 400 young adults, aged 18 to 20, who were born premature."
Source Article:
Preemies' Brains Reap Long-Term Benefits from Kangaroo Mother Care


Great article outlining various research studies showing ultrasound to be dangerous for our babies.
"Ultrasound, sonograms, and dopplers use high frequency sound waves to produce an image of the baby on a viewing screen or amplify the baby's heartbeat so it can be heard more easily. NO STUDIES have been done which prove the safety of these devices, and the American Medical Association recommends AGAINST unnecessary exposure.

"Unnecessary Exposure" includes the use of ultrasound to:

1. Confirm the sex of the baby.

2. Assess gestational age (how many weeks old the baby is).

3. Assess fetal size and growth.

4. Confirm multiple pregnancy.

5. Determine fetal presentation (the position of the baby in the womb).

Many health care professionals still use ultrasound for these purposes anyway, even though the American Medical Association has not approved its use for these purposes. With the exception of confirming the sex of the baby, all these pieces of information can be obtained with hands-on skills. A fetoscope or stethoscope can detect the baby's heartbeat without the dangers of ultrasound.

According to the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, "It is not clear at this time whether ultrasound fetal monitoring is beneficial to the mother or fetus in terms of pregnancy outcome...If there is no generally acknowledged benefit to the monitoring, there is no reason to expose patients to increased cost and risk. The question of benefit has not yet been resolved...and the potential for delayed effects has been virtually ignored."

In other words, Ultrasound technology carries potential risks that have not yet been evaluated, yet many doctors are telling women that there is no risk.

Having an ultrasound is NOT essential to a healthy pregnancy. However, most doctors are trained to use expensive technology and NOT trained to use hands-on skills.

Before you allow an ultrasound to be done on you, do some research, thoroughly question your healthcare provider about safety as well as the value of the information that would be received. Don't be afraid to refuse the test if you are not comfortable with the information you have discovered. It is your constitutional right to refuse any tests you do not want.

To give you some means of comparison, I offer this analogy. Have you seen a woman with an extremely high voice break a glass by singing an extremely high pitched note? That is an example of what just ONE relatively slow sound wave can do. Ultrasound technology is based upon ultra high-frequency sound waves, which bombard the child in the womb at an extremely high rate of speed. If one slow sound wave from a woman's voice can break a glass, what can super high frequency sound waves do to your child? Ultrasound waves in laboratory experiments have been known to damage chromosomes, produce internal cellular heat which damages cells, retard the normal development of cells, and many other phenomenon.

Research That Has Been Done On Ultrasound Technology

"Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006 103: 12903-12910.

There is evidence that the exposure of pregnant mice and nonhuman primates to ultrasound waves may affect the behavior of their exposed offspring. Additionally, studies have shown that the frequent exposure of the human fetus to ultrasound waves is associated with a decrease in newborn body weight, an increase in the frequency of left-handedness, and delayed speech.

Because ultrasound energy is a high-frequency mechanical vibration, researchers hypothesized that it might influence the migration of neurons in a developing fetus. Neurons in mammals multiply early in fetal development and then migrate to their final destinations. Any interference or disruption in the process could result in abnormal brain function.

In the study, researchers injected more than 335 fetal mice at embryonic day 16 with special markers to track neuronal development. Exposure to ultrasound waves for 30 minutes or longer caused a small but statistically significant number of neurons to remain scattered within inappropriate cortical layers and in the adjacent white matter. The magnitude of dispersion of labeled neurons was highly variable but increased with duration of exposure to ultrasound waves.

Newnham, J.P., Evans, S.F., Michael, C.A., Stanley, F.J., & Landau, L. I. (1993). Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Lancet, 342(Oct.9), 887-891.

A study of over 1400 women in Perth, Western Australia compared pregnant mothers who had ultrasound only once during gestation with mothers who had five monthly ultrasounds from 18 weeks to 38 weeks. They found significantly higher intrauterine growth restriction in the intensive ultrasound group. These mothers gave birth to lower weight babies.

The researchers concluded that prenatal ultrasound imaging and Doppler flow exams should be restricted to clinically necessary situations. This recommendation comes at a time when ultrasound during prenatal visits has become increasingly popular and serves as a kind of entertainment feature of office check-up visits.

Campbell, J.D., Elford, R.W. & Brant, R.F. (1993). Case-Controlled Study of Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure in Children with Delayed Speech. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 149(10), 1435-1440.

Delayed speech is not a pathological or organic syndrome but developmentally defined symptom complex. Clinicians have noted an increased incidence of delayed speech in pediatric patients.

This is a matched-case control study of 72 children 2 to 8 years old presenting with delayed speech of unknown cause. The children were measured for articulation, language comprehension, language production, meta-linguisticskills, and verbal memory. When checked for ultrasound exposure, the speech-delayed children were about twice as likely to have been exposed to ultrasound than the matched controls.

The authors believe that delayed speech is a sensitive measure reflecting sub-optimal conditions for development. If ultrasound can cause developmental delays, the authors are concerned about the routine use of ultrasound and they warn against it.

Devi, P.U., Suresh, R., & Hande, M.P. (1995). Effect of fetal exposure to ultrasound on the behavior of the adult mouse. Radiat Res (QMP), 141(3), 314-7.

Pregnant Swiss albino mice were exposed to diagnostic ultrasound. There were significant alterations in behavior in all three exposed groups as revealed by the decreased locomotor and exploratory activity and the increase in the number of trials needed for learning. These results indicate that ultrasound exposure during the early fetal period can impair brain function in the adult mouse.

Hande, M.P., & Devi, P.U. (1995). Teratogenic effects of repeated exposures to X-rays and/or ultrasound in mice. Neurotoxicol Teratol (NAT), 17(2), 179-88.

Pregnant Swiss mice were exposed to ultrasound, x-rays, and combinations of the two. Effects on prenatal development, postnatal growth and adult behavior were studied. U + U group showed an increase in percent growth retarded fetuses. The postnatal mortality was significantly higher only in the U + U group. In the X + U group, the exploratory activity was affected at 6 months of age. There was a significant change in the locomotor activity with a reduction in the total activity as 3 and 6 months of age in the U + U group. Latency in learning capacity was also noticed in this group. The results indicate that repeated exposures to ultrasound or its combination with X-rays could be detrimental to the embryonic development and can impair adult brain function when administered at certain stages of organogenesis.

There are many other studies that have been done, but no one seems to be paying attention to them.

Don't allow yourself to be the next guinea pig.

All the studies above address the issue of physical safety of ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound also has some very serious emotional and psychosocial side effects.

When an ultrasound is done, and the results are questionable, it can be an emotional rollarcoaster. Ultrasound technicians are wrong as often as they are right, and when a family is told that their unborn baby has some kind of defect, they will spend the rest of the pregnancy worrying, crying, and in some cases, may abort the baby because they are assured it has an abnormality.

Click Here to read an article called "Mother Rails Against Ultrasound" which chronicles one family's terrible experience with the inaccuracy of this test. In 1993, the results of the largest study ever done on ultrasound were published. It was called the RADIUS study. The original results were reported in these publications if you would like to get a copy of the study and read it for yourself.

Ewigman, B., Crane, J.P., Frigoletto, F.D., et al. Impact of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1993 Sept 16;329:821-7.

LeFevre, M., Bain, R., Ewigman, B., et al. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasound screening: Impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993 Sept 15;169:483-9.

Basically, the study, the largest of its kind to date, states that routine ultrasound does not benefit mothers or babies in terms of pregnancy outcome. It did not reduce the number of infant or maternal deaths, and it did not lead to better care for the newborn. The only thing it did was expose the families to increased cost and risk.

One thing that is irritating are the statements commentators have made about these studies. Particularly after the 2006 publication by the National Academy of Science.. Websites like the American Academy of Radiologic Technologists stated that

It was emphasized that the study does not mean that ultrasound use on human fetuses for appropriate diagnostic and medical purposes should be abandoned.
"On the contrary: ultrasound has been shown to be very beneficial in the medical context. Instead, our study warns against its non-medical use."

Do they think we are stupid? There is no difference between medical and non-medical exposure. In the hands of a doctor, it is no more safe than when done for recreational purposes.

I encourage you to do your own research, and don't listen to people's opinions, but look at the actual research that has been done. Then look deep inside yourself and consult your own inner wisdom. After reading my other article about the safety issues involved with ultrasound exposure, what does your inner wisdom tell you? Listen for that little voice to answer. Does the whole concept of ultrasound seem safe, effective, necessary, and helpful? I wish you luck in your pregnancy and birth."
Source Article:
The Dangers of Prenatal Ultrasound


"What does it feel like to have postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety? What are the symptoms? How do you know when you have it?

We’re going to talk about the signs of postpartum depression and anxiety, but in “plain mama English,” We won’t use words like hypomania or dysthymia or psychomotor agitation — the kind of terms you might see elsewhere. We will use the words moms hear in their heads when they think about what the heck is happening to them. Words that make sense.

When you read the two lists below, one for postpartum depression and the one after it for postpartum anxiety and OCD, keep in mind a few very important things:

You may not be experiencing all of the symptoms listed below or even most of them. Postpartum depression and anxiety are not “one-size-fits-all” illnesses. Your experience may be focused on just a few of the symptoms and you may not have others at all.

Many people have a feeling like the ones listed below every now and then, for a day or two. We all have bad days. Postpartum depression and anxiety are not just bad days. Women with PPD or anxiety have symptoms like these most of the time, for a period of at least 2 weeks or longer, and these symptoms interfere with their ability to function on a daily basis.

Postpartum depression and anxiety are sometimes “comorbid.” This means you can have a bit of both, or all of both. If you have symptoms on both lists, that’s not out of the ordinary.

Okay. Here we go. You may have postpartum depression if you have had a baby within the last 12 months and are experiencing some of these symptoms:

You feel overwhelmed. Not like “hey, this new mom thing is hard.” More like “I can’t do this and I’m never going to be able to do this.” You feel like you just can’t handle being a mother. In fact, you may be wondering whether you should have become a mother in the first place.

You feel guilty because you believe you should be handling new motherhood better than this. You feel like your baby deserves better. You worry whether your baby can tell that you feel so bad, or that you are crying so much, or that you don’t feel the happiness or connection that you thought you would. You may wonder whether your baby would be better off without you.

You don’t feel bonded to your baby. You’re not having that mythical mommy bliss that you see on TV or read about in magazines. Not everyone with PPD feels this way, but many do.

You can’t understand why this is happening. You are very confused and scared.

You feel irritated or angry. You have no patience. Everything annoys you. You feel resentment toward your baby, or your partner, or your friends who don’t have babies. You feel out-of-control rage.

You feel nothing. Emptiness and numbness. You are just going through the motions.

You feel sadness to the depths of your soul. You can’t stop crying, even when there’s no real reason to be crying.

You feel hopeless, like this situation will never ever get better. You feel weak and defective, like a failure.

You can’t bring yourself to eat, or perhaps the only thing that makes you feel better is eating.

You can’t sleep when the baby sleeps, nor can you sleep at any other time. Or maybe you can fall asleep, but you wake up in the middle of the night and can’t go back to sleep no matter how tired you are. Or maybe all you can do is sleep and you can’t seem to stay awake to get the most basic things done. Whichever it is, your sleeping is completely screwed up and it’s not just because you have a newborn.

You can’t concentrate. You can’t focus. You can’t think of the words you want to say. You can’t remember what you were supposed to do. You can’t make a decision. You feel like you’re in a fog.

You feel disconnected. You feel strangely apart from everyone for some reason, like there’s an invisible wall between you and the rest of the world.

Maybe you’re doing everything right. You are exercising. You are taking your vitamins. You have a healthy spirituality. You do yoga. You’re thinking “Why can’t I just get over this?” You feel like you should be able to snap out of it, but you can’t.

You might be having thoughts of running away and leaving your family behind. Or you’ve thought of driving off the road, or taking too many pills, or finding some other way to end this misery.

You know something is wrong. You may not know you have a perinatal mood or anxiety disorder, but you know the way you are feeling is NOT right. You think you’ve “gone crazy”.

You are afraid that this is your new reality and that you’ve lost the “old you” forever.

You are afraid that if you reach out for help people will judge you. Or that your baby will be taken away.

You may have postpartum anxiety or postpartum OCD if you have had a baby within the last 12 months and are experiencing some of these symptoms:

Your thoughts are racing. You can’t quiet your mind. You can’t settle down. You can’t relax.

You feel like you have to be doing something at all times. Cleaning bottles. Cleaning baby clothes. Cleaning the house. Doing work. Entertaining the baby. Checking on the baby.

You are worried. Really worried. All. The. Time. Am I doing this right? Will my husband come home from his trip? Will the baby wake up? Is the baby eating enough? Is there something wrong with my baby that I’m missing? No matter what anyone says to reassure you it doesn’t help.

You may be having disturbing thoughts. Thoughts that you’ve never had before. Scary thoughts that make you wonder whether you aren’t the person you thought you were. They fly into your head unwanted and you know they aren’t right, that this isn’t the real you, but they terrify you and they won’t go away. These thoughts may start with the words “What if …”

You are afraid to be alone with your baby because of scary thoughts or worries. You are also afraid of things in your house that could potentially cause harm, like kitchen knives or stairs, and you avoid them like the plague.

You may feel the need to check things constantly. Did I lock the door? Did I lock the car? Did I turn off the oven? Is the baby breathing?

You may be having physical symptoms like stomach cramps or headaches, shakiness or nausea. You might even have panic attacks.

You feel like a captive animal, pacing back and forth in a cage. Restless. On edge.

You can’t eat. You have no appetite.

You’re having trouble sleeping. You are so, so tired, but you can’t sleep.

You feel a sense of dread, like something terrible is going to happen.

You know something is wrong. You may not know you have a perinatal mood or anxiety disorder, but you know the way you are feeling is NOT right. You think you’ve “gone crazy”.

You are afraid that this is your new reality and that you’ve lost the “old you” forever.

You are afraid that if you reach out for help people will judge you. Or that your baby will be taken away.

Now that you’ve gone through these lists are you thinking “How the heck does this lady know me? Is there a hidden camera in here?” Nope. What this should tell you is that you are not alone and you are not a freak and you are not highly unusual. If you are having these feelings and symptoms then it is possible you are experiencing common illnesses that 15 to 20% of new mothers have, and they are completely treatable.

We’re happy to be here to support you. Here are some of our resources for moms with postpartum depression and related illnesses:

Our list of postpartum depression treatment specialists and programs

Our list of postpartum depression support groups

Our description of the six stages of postpartum depression

A list of some of our top postpartum depression stories, organized in categories so you can find read stories about moms just like you.

Other Things You Should Know

If you are pregnant and are having symptoms similar to those listed above, you should know that you aren’t unusual either. You may have antenatal depression or anxiety, which are just as common but occur during the nine months of pregnancy.

If you are having the symptoms listed above, call your doctor. There is no need to suffer alone. Don’t try to wait this out. Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders are temporary and treatable with professional help.

One last but very important thing: If you are having moments where it seems like you can see or hear things no one else does, if you are feeling paranoid as if others are out to get you, if you are feeling that you or your baby are somehow related to the devil or God in some way, or if you are having thoughts of harming yourself or others, it’s important to reach out for help right now. These symptoms require immediate attention as they could be signs of postpartum psychosis. If you have these symptoms, your illness has the potential to take over and lead you to do things that you wouldn’t normally do. In order to avoid that it is important to reach out for help right away so that trained professionals can help you get stabilized and healthy."
Source Article:
The Symptoms of Postpartum Depression & Anxiety (in Plain Mama English)


"...The mother's emotional state impacts the physical development of her baby's brain... The mother's emotional state determines pre-frontal brain development." (You know - that part of our brain that allows us to communicate with the divine mind)!

"Failed initial bond with mother affects all subsequent bonds... Failed early bonding has life-long impacts... Teen and adult pathologies can be traced to the first 18 months..."

Mother-Infant Bonding & The Intelligence of the Heart


"(NaturalNews) New information has emerged concerning the Great Swine Flu Hoax of 2009 and the mass vaccination hysteria that accompanied it. As it turns out, the seasonal influenza vaccine that was pushed on everyone as an added preventive measure against H1N1 appears to have been responsible for actually inducing more cases of H1N1 infection, this according to shocking new data procured by an influenza expert at Canada's B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

Dr. Danuta Skowronski from the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently observed as part of a comprehensive analysis that individuals who received an annual flu shot during the 2008-09 winter season had a disproportionately higher risk of developing H1N1 infection than individuals who were not vaccinated. Confirming earlier suspicions, Dr. Skowronski and her colleagues observed after recreating the phenomenon in a group of ferrets that the annual flu shot from that year was definitively linked to higher rates of H1N1 infection.

Presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in San Francisco, the study included evaluating 32 ferrets, half of who received the 2008-09 seasonal flu shot, and the other half of who received a placebo shot. The researchers did not know which ferrets received which vaccine until the end of the study.

Upon conclusion, all the ferrets ended up developing H1N1, but the ferrets from the vaccinated group were the first to get it. The vaccinated group also became much sicker than the unvaccinated group, and appears to have very likely infected the unvaccinated group. These findings match up with those of five other Canadian studies conducted in other provinces outside British Columbia where elevated rates of H1N1 infection were also observed among individuals who had received their annual flu shot.

"The findings are consistent with the increased risk that we saw in the human studies," said Dr. Skowronski to the Vancouver Sun.

What this all goes to show, of course, is that not only was the seasonal flu shot a failure at preventing H1N1, but it was also apparently a cause of H1N1 infection. If the seasonal flu shot had been properly tested, which it most definitely was not, it would have become apparent that the shot was not only ineffective at preventing H1N1, but also a definitive cause of H1N1 infection.

Sources for this article include:"
Source Article:
Receivers of flu vaccine more likely to catch H1N1 virus, new study finds


Be aware that most of the corn (and soy) in the United States is genetically modified. If you are feeding this frankenphud to your children, you are guaranteeing that they will become severely ill in the not-too-distant future. Please read all ingredients, and if they include corn or soy that is not organic (or any corn and soy by-products like high fructose corn syrup, cornstarch, soy lechitin, etc.), put the phud down and walk away.

Who purposefully wants to poison their families?

The truth is, we didn't need to hurt these rats in order to figure this out. Wake up America!!!!
"In an alarming new study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, researchers from The Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) reported on the results of a 2 year feeding study in rats given either NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone, at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the United States.

The authors of the study pointed out that currently, no regulatory authority requires mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides, and the only 90 day feeding trials were conducted by the biotech industry.

This study, therefore, was performed in light of this need, and the results were an unprecedented confirmation of the cancer-causing effects of GM food and agrichemicals, reported as follows:

In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences. [emphasis added]

The results of this new study are doubly concerning. Not only has the consumption of a genetically modified food crop (NK603 maize, which is approved in the US for human consumption) now been shown to cause tumor growth and accelerated mortality, but so has the primary herbicide these plants have been engineered to withstand exposure to: Roundup. GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves, with the herbicide residues and their metabolites persisting there, making dual exposure to transgenes and herbicide inevitable, and the synergistic amplification of their toxicities likely. Keep in mind, the study used levels of glyphosate "well below officially set safety limits," which nonetheless induced "severe hormone-dependnet mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances."

It is a shameful fact of history that Roundup herbicide was once marketed by its creator and original patent holder, Monsanto, as being "safe as table salt." Now, an accumulating body of research shows that glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, is genotoxic and endocrine disrupting -- both hallmark characteristic of many carcinogens -- at concentrations several orders of magnitude concentration lower than agricultural application. In fact, Monsanto has gone to great lengths to deny the emerging Roundup-Cancer link by pouring money into contract research companies like Exponent, who deny its well established harms.

This newest study provides clear and convincing evidence that GMO agriculture is contributing to cancer in exposed populations. The timing of this new study -- two weeks before Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) -- is all the more fitting, considering that in female animals, 93% of the tumors found were in the mammary glands. They also "...observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R[oundup] alone...even at the very lowest dose administered." The annual pinkwashing campaign focuses on equating "prevention" with "early detection" by exposing women's bodies to breast cancer-causing x-rays, rather than to identify and remove the preventable causes, e.g. chemical exposure, carcinogenic foods, of breast cancer.

The precautionary principle requires that if there is indication in a non-human study that a substance is toxic to those who are forced to ingest it, inhale it, or otherwise be exposed to it, the burden of proving it safe must be on those manufacturing, marketing it and/or releasing it into the environment.

For too long has America -- albeit, unbeknownst to most of the population -- been engaged in a mass chemical and feeding experiment, without the protection of informed consent, or even the right to know what it is eating through truthful labeling of GMOs. Please help to spread this information far and wide, and to further garnish support for California's Proposition 37 (Just Label It), which could turn the tide against GM agriculture's systemic destruction of the biosphere, and by implication, our health."
Source Article:
New Study Finds GM Corn and Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats


What a lying piece-of-shit Obama is. This does not mean that the other douchebag running for president is any better (what was his name again?). It means the whole damn system is rigged and corrupt to the core. Don't legitimize it by voting. Your votes are a complete waste of time.
"(NaturalNews) During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren't just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: "Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they're buying."

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn't do business in "the old way." He would be "responsive to people's needs."

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama's term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn't simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn't just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn't just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let's see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto's GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don't attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama's campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem coincidental that two of the Obama's biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Because this is an election season, people will say, "But what about Romney? Is he any better?" I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto's man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up."
Source Article:
Meet Monsanto's number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

Saturday, September 8, 2012


Pitocin is a drug that is given regularly to laboring mothers during hospital birth. It is undermining the potential for human love.

I am certain this is intentional. The people who create the protocols of hospital birth are the same people who create vaccines and GMO foods. They know what they are doing, and they know that when you inject artificial oxytocin into the body of a laboring woman, her body will have a hard time producing the real thing. This will undermine her ability to love and bond with her baby. And it will undermine her baby's ability to experience authentic love throughout its life.

The people behind this are evil to the core and hospital birth is one of the many ways they are deliberately trying to alter the human race.

"...we know that when artificial oxytocin is put into the maternal blood stream during labour so to it enters the babies and can have profound and lasting consequences on the neurophysiology of the baby for the rest of their life.

Michel goes on to say “we now have scientific evidence that explains how the capacity to love develops through a complex interaction of hormones, hormones that are secreted during many experiences of love and close human interaction including sexual intercourse and conception, birth, lactation, and even sharing a meal with loved ones. The role of oxytocin, the “love hormone,” is particularly important. Natural oxytocin delivered by human touch, but not synthetic oxytocin delivered by an intravenous drip, has important effects on many organs in the body, including the brain. “ Those important effects, Odent theorises, can cause the baby to grow with damaged oxytocin receptors which he links to raising levels of autism, anxiety, stress and disturbed ”self loving” – including higher levels of anorexia, drug and alcohol dependency...

We know that the blood brain barrier prevents artificial oxytocin from entering the brain – this may not seem important when you are told that you need an oxytocin drip to “speed up” or even start your labour – or when you are told it’s best you have an injection to deliver your placenta and prevent blood loss (all of which contain synthesised oxytocin) – but when you understand that this results in a direct lack of oxytocin circulating the maternal brain we begin to realise quite what catastrophic effects the usage off these supposedly “safe” chemicals can have upon the bonding of mother and child and the initiation (and even long term succcess) of breastfeeding. We know oxytocin is the hormone of love and if we are depriving mothers of this in their brain it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out how we may be damaging the love process between mother and baby. So often I work with new mothers ashamed to admit that they still dont know if they really love their babies or that it took them a long time, that there was no instant “rush of love”..."
Read full article here:
5 reasons why your birth can affect your baby & parenting


"MB comment: Here is a clear measure of medical insanity and the threat it represents to the health and life of your children: UK authorities are considering giving the pertussis vaccine to newborns, even though there are no safety studies to support vaccination of newborns.

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and autism are listed on the pertussis vaccine package insert (filed with the FDA) under serious adverse events reported during post-approval use. ‘Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.’

Vaccine zealots would kill your newborn child or cause permanent neurological damage (as defined in a medical textbook) using the ineffective and dangerous pertussis vaccine – and dismiss it as a coincidence. It wouldn’t even be a footnote in their war on germs.

Wake up people, vaccine adverse reactions are a threat to your children – and the beancounters who decide vaccine policy don’t read the package inserts or count the victims of their lunatic vaccine recommendations.
Source Article:
UK to give pertussis vaccine to newborns? Autism and SIDS are on the package insert


Nice! Screwing things into the soft spot of a baby's head would indicate extreme violence against children in any normal context. But during a hospital birth, it's considered "normal and necessary."

Physical pain and torture are only necessary in the minds of the diabolically insane.


Via Carla Hartley

"Did you know that the internal fetal monitor is actually a little spiral sharp pointy thing that SCREWS into the baby's scalp ---or eyelid in my baby's case

Besides the risk of an unnecessary cesarean section , other risks posed to the mother by EFM include her immobilization in bed. Immobilization simultaneously limits changing positions for comfort and causes changes in blood circulation, which
decreases the oxygen supply to the fetus and can lead to abnormal changes in the FHR on the EFM that was applied to detect these changes. Another problem with the use of the EFM is that practitioners have a tendency to focus on it instead of the laboring woman. For these and other reasons, the United States Preventive Services Task Force states that there is some evidence that using EFM on low-risk women in labor might not be indicated. EFM, however, has become an accepted standard of care in many settings in the United States for management of labor. Interestingly, there has not been a reported reduction in perinatal morbidity in the United States with the use of EFM. There is a benefit to using EFM in women with complicated labors, such as those induced or augmented with oxytocin, prolonged labors, vaginal birth after having a cesarean section, abnormal presentation, and twin pregnancy.

Generally the insertion of a fetal scalp electrode is a safe procedure, but it may occasionally cause umbilical cord prolapse or infection due to early amniotomy. Problems could also occur if the electrode or IUPC causes trauma to the eye, fetal vessels, umbilical cord, or placenta. Scalp infections with the herpes virus or group B streptococcus are possible, and concern has been raised regarding the potential for enhancing transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). As with any procedure, the potential benefit of EFM must be weighed against the potential risks.
Nine randomized controlled trials showed that Electronic Foetal Monitoring does not make births safer. Babies are just as safe when someone listens to the foetal heart just after contractions has finished and in the interim between contractions with a Pinard’s stethoscope or a handheld Doppler machine.
– Obstetrics and Gynecological Journal Nelson MD 1996."

Thursday, September 6, 2012


The headline should read "DOZENS OF INFANTS FALL DEAD AFTER MEASLES VACCINES" - but you get the picture!
By Dr. Mercola

Four infants between nine and 14 months of age recently died within 24 hours of receiving their measles and DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccines in the Doti area of Nepal, a small country between India and China.

The children allegedly began vomiting profusely just hours after the vaccination, and "developed a deathly pallor." Two more children were hospitalized following their shots.

According to a recent report in The Himalayan1, the Doti District Public Health Office (DPHO) has stated the primary investigation suggests the measles vaccine was the cause of death. Other infants who received other vaccines, but not the measles vaccine, have not developed any life-threatening side effects.

"The vaccines that were administered to infants were not expired though, said DPHO, adding that the vials of measles vaccines had labels showing expiry date of September 2013," The Himalayan reports. "...Kadamandau locals ...staged a sit-in in front of the hospital demanding a thorough investigation and punishment to the guilty. Doti-based human rights organizations also demanded that a probe be launched immediately."

In response, the Child Health Division under the Ministry of Health and Population has formed a committee to investigate the deaths. This case is reminiscent of a story from 2010, when nine-month-old twin girls in Ghaziabad, India died approximately 15 minutes after receiving a measles vaccine. Similar deaths in two other regions in the country were also reported at the time.

Vaccine-Related Deaths are Not Limited to Third-World Countries

A quick search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)2 reveals nearly 5,100 vaccine-related deaths have been reported in the U.S between 1990 and August 2012, as of this writing. The vast majority of deaths – nearly 60 percent – occurred in children under the age of three. Just over 360 of the reported vaccine-associated deaths in the US have been related to any of the measles-containing vaccines.

With adverse event information on over 70 vaccines included in the VAERS database, it is a phenomenal tool that can help you easily identify which vaccines are significantly associated with specific side effects. It is important to know, though, that what is included in VAERS is only a tiny fraction of the vaccine-related serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that have actually occurred in the U.S.

Studies have estimated that less than 10 percent, to as little as ONE percent, of vaccine side effects are ever reported, so the true side effects and deaths are easily FAR higher than the reported statistics represent. This means there may have been anywhere from 3600 to 36,000 deaths that have occurred in the US alone after children or adults received measles containing vaccines.

The truth is that, while vaccines may be touted as safe, ALL vaccines and other pharmaceutical products carry a risk of injury or death. This is something that the media or nearly every health professional fails to make clear. Most take the position that everyone should be forced to have mandatory vaccines to help eliminate disease, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support this one-size-fits-all strategy.

Last month, I interviewed Dr. Larry Palevsky, a former fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and trained at the New York University School of Medicine, about childhood vaccinations, in which he shares the dire truth about the lack of safety of many childhood vaccines. There are so many unanswered questions that it really boils down to a roll of the dice as to whether the vaccine will ultimately protect you or harm you...

According to Dr. Palevsky:

"I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals. But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.

Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?

Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it's injected into your body?

Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? And is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?

More and more studies are coming out to show that:

The proper studies haven't been done and antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected

There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection

There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system

There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain and there are foreign DNA particles that get into your body

For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied... [I]n my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we're trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe."

MMR Vaccine has Long History of Being More Reactive than Other Vaccines

There are vaccines that historically have been associated with more side effects than others, and the combination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine – MMR shot – is one of those.

The health risks associated with the MMR vaccine has been in the news for about 15 years, and questions about the safety of the vaccine recently re-emerged – at least in Europe – when the Italian health ministry conceded that the MMR vaccine caused autism in Valentino Bocca, a now nine-year-old boy, who suffered brain inflammation and permanent brain damage after he was vaccinated.

According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. While his parents immediately suspected the vaccination, they were told this was "impossible." Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later. In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was indeed at fault.

It's well worth noting that this story was completely ignored by US media, and serves as a potent example of how health information is censored. Is it any wonder so many Americans are still in the dark about vaccine hazards? Whether hearing about this case in the US media would sway you to believe vaccines are risky or not, the fact is that you were not even allowed to learn about it in the first place.

Get Informed Before You Vaccinate

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you. Unfortunately, the partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is getting closer and closer. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.

We cannot allow that happen!

It's vitally important to know your legal rights and understand your options when it comes to using vaccines and prescription drugs.

For example, your doctor is legally obligated to provide you with the CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) sheet and discuss the potential symptoms of side effects of the vaccination(s) you or your child receive BEFORE vaccination takes place. If someone giving a vaccine does not do this, it is a violation of federal law. Furthermore, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors and other vaccine providers to:

Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer's name and lot number

Write down serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination in the patient's permanent medical record

File an official report of all serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

If a vaccine provider fails to inform, record or report, it is a violation of federal law. It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that you have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you do not want you or your child to receive. At present, 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 17 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination. But vaccine exemptions are under attack in a number of states, and it's in everyone's best interest to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions.

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 your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, 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 will have the greatest impact.

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.

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

Internet Resources

I also 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.

Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns

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 punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

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 and connect with a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child."

Measles Vaccine Likely Caused Death of Four Infants in Nepal, Authorities Say


Hello people! Please wake up! Your baby is not just crying because of the needle. He/she is crying because he/she is BEING SYSTEMATICALLY POISONED, from the very first moments of life, and he/she CAN FEEL THE TRUTH OF THE EVIL THAT LIES BEHIND THE NEEDLE!

PLEASE PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN!!! Do not allow strangers to inject them with toxic poisons. Ever!!!
"(NaturalNews) Jabbing our newborns with vitamin K injections significantly increases our children's chances of developing childhood cancer. In a study of two hospitals, researchers found almost a two-fold risk of leukemia for children who had received intramuscular vitamin K given universally at one hospital compared to the other hospital that did not promote the jab.

The poisoning and destruction of the infants immune system starts in the first hours of life, even before they clobber the newborn with the dangerous hepatitis B vaccine.

The role of vitamin K

Vitamin K was discovered and recorded in German medical journals in the 1920's as a very important blood coagulation factor, therefore, "K" for koagulation. Vitamin K's other job is to put calcium in the right places (bones and blood) and keep it from being deposited in the wrong places (calcification of the blood vessels, bone spurs and calcification of soft tissues).

Vitamin K1 (phylloquinone) is found in green leafy plants like broccoli, lettuce and spinach, and makes up about 90 percent of our dietary intake. vitamins K2 (menaquinones) are in animal sources, fermented products and bacteria, including our intestinal bacteria, and make up the other 10 percent. Our bodies store about a 1 month supply of vitamin K, but vitamin K is not stored in any significant quantity in the liver.

Then there is the Big Pharma counterfeit - vitamin K (menadione) - which is more potent than natural vitamin K, resulting in toxicity. It is not found anywhere naturally. Because menadione is toxic, the Food and Drug Administration has banned its use as an over-the-counter supplement. So let's pump it into our newborns!

Newborn shots

Vitamin K injections started in the dark days of unnatural childbirth with the introduction of forceps deliveries (because the mothers were drugged out of their gourds and couldn't push the baby out on their own). Forceps cause heavy trauma to the baby's head and face, crushing and bruising. Insanely, the umbilical was then and is now routinely clamped and cut immediately after birth, which can deprive the baby of up to 40 percent of its blood (and clotting factors). This bad combination shorts babies of clotting factors to cope with the head trauma, leading to bleeding on the brain.

Because of "hemorrhagic disease" occurring in the occasional newborn, the powers that be decided to give vitamin K3 shots to ALL babies, regardless of whether there was birth trauma or forceps used. They just assumed that somehow babies don't naturally produce enough vitamin K. While giving the toxic shot did lower the incidence of bleeds, it raised a whole new problem of jaundice and other complications.

What's in the shot?

Menadione is manmade and is generally regarded as toxic. Roche's vitamin K drug, Konakion, contains hydrochloric acid (highly corrosive acid injected into the muscle), phospholipon 100 (hydrogenated fatty acid composition made from soy-GMO) and sodium hydroxide (lye - caustic soda injected into the muscle).

Side effects of synthetic vitamin K (not just linked to large doses) include: cytotoxicity in liver cells, formation of radicals from enzymes of leukocytes, weakens the immune system, mutagenic effects, damage to the natural vitamin K cycle, hemolytic anemia and hyperbilirubinemia, disturbs levels of calcium ions, vomiting, albuminuria, irritation of skin and mucous membranes, allergic reactions, eczema and unlike natural vitamin K - it builds up in tissue.

Side effects of natural vitamin K: Your doctor makes less money.

Simple solutions

Childbirth is not a procedure! Take back childbirth from the unnatural practices that we use now. Find a great naturopathic midwife to help you enjoy the event of childbirth. Vitamin K for a newborn is a great idea but let's use the natural forms for our babies.

Sources for this article:

Bassler, K.-H. et al. (1997): Vitamin-Lexikon fur Arzte, Apotheker und Ernahrungswissenschaftler. ISBN: 3437211404"
Source Article:
The deadly effects of synthetic vitamin K


This man is ON IT!!! Please listen re: circumcision, brain damage, and an inability to love and bond with women.

"…So why was it that the foreskin was chosen? If you really want to look at it, you need to examine what was lost in the removal of millions of foreskins over time and what was lost has to also be examined both individually (what was lost to those individual males) and what was lost to … their family and their mates, and then what has been lost to the gender of the female of the western world…

It is my opinion that the choice of the foreskin was deliberate. It was craftily chosen and with a great understanding of human physiology and the way that physiology relates to the community as a whole and the way that physiology can affect the mind of the individual. This betrays a staggering level of understanding of our physiology…

Here’s what’s going on. The male foreskin serves a purpose. It’s not just useless skin. In fact, it is highly sophisticated adaptive skin that serves multiple purposes…

The foreskin of the male is a different type of skin… because it can expand so much, it is of a different nature of skin and it has an entirely different set of receptors within it than other parts of the skin on the human body. Also, unlike other kinds of skin, it serves a different function… The foreskin of the penis has receptors on it that the rest of your body does not. These receptors are acutely attuned to the extraction and transmission of the intelligence from hormones… And the number of hormones that the foreskin is able to receive and decode is potentially in the thousands…

Wow! You could not have picked a better spot in the body!... If you had chosen as your act of obedience to your god… to remove your eye, you would not have affected the community, the individual, and the female half of the species as greatly as this choice of nipping off this little bit of skin off these small babies. Because here’s what happens. Those receptors are intended to pick up not hormones that are out and about in the air, because you shouldn’t be out waving your penis in the air as a hormone receptor. They are intended to pick up vaginal secretions. These vaginal secretions then trigger a reaction – not in the penis itself although there are many that occur there. The ones I’m speaking of are actually in the brain of the male…”

It’s my contention that the removal of the foreskin removes an aspect of love from the individual male that they can never experience without that foreskin. Further, it is my contention that the removal of the foreskin removes an act of love that the community - the family that that male participates in – can never experience without that male having that foreskin. And again, it goes up one further step in the fractal – the community as a whole , the social order, the nation, is of a type that is different because those foreskins are gone…

Those foreskins bind the male to that female at an alchemical level – an alchemical component of love that is absent with that foreskin gone…

There is a further component to this that the individual males suffer that is, beyond merely the absence of those chemicals in the system and the triggering of that particular type of love reaction by the hormones within the foreskin of the penis. Actually, the foreskin receives the hormones and it triggers an electrical reaction that literally races up to the brain… [The removal of the foreskin] removes this type of brain development that does not occur in the male without it. And so, those males that don’t have foreskins have brains that are not maturing the way nature intended…

It affects the social order as a whole. Men without foreskins cannot bond to women and will not sacrifice themselves for women the way that men with foreskins will do. Period. Men with foreskins will bond with women from the vaginal secretions triggering a reaction within the sensory apparatus of the male foreskin that triggers a growth pattern within the male mind that will not exist without it. These men will bond with women in a way that men without foreskins will not. That affects that individual. That affects the woman involved. That affects the community..."

Clif's Wuju: The Pen Island Conspiracy