How To Legally Say "NO" To All Vaccines!

By: Crusador Interviews Book Author & Acclaimed International Vaccine Expert Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

http://www.healthtruthrevealed.com

March 20, 2009

Millions of Americans have come to distrust vaccines and mainstream medicine’s vaccine agenda. There is a growing movement in this country and around the world that questions the safety and effectiveness of all vaccines for obvious reasons. Many childhood disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, SIDS and others have been linked to vaccines. Thousands of soldiers who served in the military have been severely disabled or in some cases even died after receiving their mandated shots. Vaccines are the most controversial subject in all of medicine.

The standard line heard from most parents once their eyes are open to the risks of vaccines is, “How will I get my child into day care or in school without their shots.” Those working in the healthcare field or soldiers in the military are faced with similar questions.

To help educate the people further about how to legally avoid all vaccines, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has put together a brand new book that is absolutely necessary to have in your possession if you (or a loved one) don’t want to vaccinate but are not sure how to get around it. As Dr. Tenpenny says on the back cover of her book, “Saying No To Vaccines is not intended to be a balanced view of vaccination literature. Pro-vaccine information is readily accessible through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, healthcare and government-sponsored organizations. This book balances the debate.”

Below is a copy of an interview Crusador editor Greg Ciola conducted with Dr. Tenpenny shortly after the release of her new book.

Crusador: What was the impetus for writing your new book “Saying NO To Vaccines”?

Parents needed a tool that did their homework for them. The evidence is there to support their decision to not vaccinate; you just have to do a little work to find it. Everyone seems to be so afraid of “bugs” and their potential ability to make us sick. But the reality is that we swim in “bugs” every day and we are not dropping over like flies. The only “bugs” we seem to obsess over are associated with vaccines. Only two generations ago, measles, mumps and chickenpox were normal experiences of childhood. Why we have complete fear of these infections is media and money driven and unfounded.

If the focus of Public Health was on sleep, exercise, clean water and safe, non-GMO food, we would have a healthy society without vaccines…but we would not have billion dollar industries employing millions of people to keep us “healthy.” The fact is, we are a very UNhealthy society with vaccines, so the Public health and argument that we must vaccinate ‘for greater good’ is a failure.

I put a large body of research into my first book, FOWL! and my two DVDS, documenting the dangers of vaccination. “Saying No To Vaccines” was the next logical step. It answers the question, “I’ve decided not to vaccinate, now what do I do?”

Crusador: What are some of the issues you cover in the book that aren’t covered in your two DVD’s “Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices” and “Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal”?

There is very little overlap between Saying No to Vaccines and the DVDs. The foundational premise of the book is to give answers refuting the 25 most common arguments used to promote vaccination. For example, parents are often told the vaccine-preventable diseases of childhood can be serious and if their child is not vaccinated, their child could die. I tell them how to refute that argument and give documentation from the medical literature to demonstrate that statement is nothing more than fear mongering. Parents are told by pediatricians there is “no evidence that vaccination harms the immune system” and there is “no evidence that vaccination can lead to chronic disease.” I used the medical literature to prove the opposite is true.

Crusador: What are the most common questions you get about vaccines?

The most frequently-asked question I get is about vaccination exemption, meaning, “How do I refuse the vaccine and still get my kids into school or keep my job,” so by design a large part of the book covers exemptions. I included a lot of detail on how to avoid vaccinations for school situations, including college, professional situations where a job may require certain vaccines, if you are in a nursing home, foreign adoption, the military, even if you are incarcerated. I have also included a chapter on frequently- asked questions about vaccination. Saying No To Vaccines has an entire section on “most frequently asked questions.”

Crusador: There is a huge divide in this country between those who think you should vaccinate versus those who feel you shouldn’t. The majority is still on the side of thinking that vaccines are THE answer to long-term immunity. When you do speaking engagements or radio interviews or simply talk to a pregnant woman about the need to question the safety of vaccines further, how do you present your information to make someone think twice?

Even though I strongly believe that vaccines cause more harm than the “good” they supposedly do, it is important for people to see the evidence of harm – from a scientific perspective – and not just take my word for it. All of my information, every slide and every paragraph in my book, is referenced from a highly reputable medical journal or from the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC. People can see for themselves the one-sided, biased view of the vaccine industry, promoting that vaccines are “safe” and “protective.” Almost 100% of the time, once people pull back the veil and see the rest of the story, they know that vaccination is not what the drug companies claim it to be.

Crusador: Do you feel that there is such a thing as a “safe” vaccine? If there isn’t, how do you counter the mainstream medical mentality that vaccines may not be entirely without risks, but those risks are far less than the risks we would face without vaccines at all?

I really felt that parents needed strong answers for when they decided to not vaccinate. Very few people are willing to say something. The risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease. The “Green Our Vaccines” movement was partially behind the reason I wrote this book. Many activists, people with very good intentions, hedge and put their support behind “safer” vaccines which are a chemical impossibility. People just need to SAY NO.

Crusador: Tell our readers a little more about the exemption clauses you discuss in your book. The medical establishment has done a terrific job of intimidating people into thinking they have to take vaccines and yet, rarely if ever will you hear about the ways to exempt yourself and family from taking vaccines.

A medical exemption is available in all 50 states but must be recommended by a doctor. The exemption can be difficult to obtain and often, it only excuses future vaccination with a shot that has already caused a severe reaction.

There are three exemptions available in this country – medical, religious and philosophical. As of now, 19 states accept a philosophical exemption. It is the easiest of the three to use. You request a form from the school nurse, state the reasons you don’t want to vaccinate your child, sign it and give it to the school. Generally, that’s it. However, different school systems have different rules. Some require the form annually, some require both parents to sign the exemption form, some require it to be notarized and so forth. You can find links to your state laws and more information by going to www.DrTenpenny.com .

Religious exemptions are available in all other states except West Virginia and Mississippi (which only have medical exemptions). Religious exemptions can be tricky and in some states, very difficult to obtain and defend. I often recommend that people consult an attorney for this type of exemption. Some states, such as New York and New Jersey, are difficult. New York has been known to use something called a “sincerity test.” Parents are literally interrogated by an attorney representing the school district regarding how sincere their religious assertions are for refusing a vaccine. A panel then decides if you are sincere enough in your beliefs to allow you to refuse vaccination on religious ground. I find these tactics absolutely appalling and akin to Inquisitioners of the Middle Ages.

Crusador: Where do you see the whole pro-vaccine movement going and what threats to our Constitutional freedoms do you see coming down the pike?

The dogged determination of those who oppose vaccines, and in particular mandatory vaccination, has gained traction at a grass roots level and garnered a lot of attention from the media. I feel that we have the pro-vaccinators on the ropes. Our arguments are hard to deny and the global autism epidemic can no longer be ignored. Pro-vaccinators are using manipulation, threats and fear tactics, trying to convince everyone that vaccines are not only safe but absolutely necessary. I see the vaccine industry like a wounded Tyrannosaurus Rex, gnashing its teeth and flailing its ugly head. It won’t die quickly and it will probably get worse before it gets better.

Crusador: There are many people in this country, myself included, who are concerned that there is an evil agenda to mass vaccinate the entire planet in the event of a health emergency. Do you feel that there are genuine reasons to be concerned and what might we expect to see unfold in an emergency?

Executive orders and recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been written that stop just short of allowing government-enforced mandatory vaccination for anthrax, smallpox and bird flu. The only way to change these policies is by standing together and boldly saying no.

Crusador: Are you still confident that with enough knowledge about the risks and dangers of vaccines enough people will wake up and say NO before Big Pharma forces its will upon the populace?

I’m not sure. People tend to be sheep – Americans in particular. Look what we have allowed a small number in the White House and 545 people in Congress to do to our country. And even those people who want to effect a change have little time and few resources to do so. No one wants to stand out, speak up and challenge authority. Whatever happened to those bra-burning activists of the 1960s? However, people really are involved now, more than ever. It only takes a small, vocal minority to really make a difference. As stated years ago by Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

Crusador: Thank you for your time, Sherri. These are excellent answers. I encourage everyone reading this interview to make every effort they can to get a copy of your new book and share it with their friends and loved ones because it is a great tool to give the average person confidence to “SAY NO TO VACCINES”.

Thank you, Greg for helping me get this message out to more people.

Cooking Broccoli Destroys 90+ Percent of Anti-Cancer Compound Sulforaphane

NaturalNews.com

Levels of the beneficial, cancer-fighting compound sulforaphane in broccoli are reduced by 90 percent when the vegetable is cooked, according to a study conducted by researchers from TNO Quality of Life in the Netherlands, and published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

"Consumption of raw broccoli resulted in faster absorption, higher bioavailability, and higher peak plasma amounts of sulforaphane, compared to cooked broccoli," the researchers wrote.

Eight male participants were fed 200 grams of crushed raw or crushed cooked broccoli as part of a warm meal; researchers then measured the men's blood and urine levels of sulforaphane. Based on these measurements, the researchers calculated that while the sulforaphane in raw broccoli had a bioavailability of 37 percent, this dropped to only 3.4 percent when the vegetable was cooked.

Furthermore, it took longer for the sulforaphane from cooked broccoli to be absorbed by the body. Optimal levels of sulforaphane were observed in the blood and urine of participants 1.6 hours after eating raw broccoli, but these levels were not reached among consumers of cooked broccoli for six hours.

The cruciferous vegetables, also known as Brassicaceae, include broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, arugula, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, daikon, garden cress, horseradish, kale, kohlrabi, mustard, radish, rape (canola), rapini, rutabaga , tatsoi, turnip, wasabi and watercress. Numerous studies have linked higher intake of these vegetables to lower rates of cancer and other health problems, particularly when the vegetables are consumed raw.

One of the plant compounds identified as partially responsible for this protective effect is sulforaphane, the main member of the isothiocyanate family that is found in broccoli. All cruciferous vegetables contain plant compounds known as glucosinolates, which are metabolized by the body into cancer-fighting isothiocyanates.

Studies have suggested that sulforaphane may help activate genes that produce antioxidants to clear dangerous free radicals from the body. This effect is believed to be partially responsible for the observed lower rates in breast, bladder, cervix, colon, endometrium, liver and lung cancers among those who eat large quantities of cruciferous vegetables. It is also believed to help protect the immune and other bodily systems from age-related decline.

Sulforaphane is also believed to reduce inflammation, which can transform precancerous cells into tumors and has also been linked to other chronic health problems such as heart disease and diabetes. At least one study has suggested that the chemical can even prevent the blood vessels of diabetics against the damage caused by high blood sugar.

The current study is not the first to suggest that most of broccoli's health benefits are destroyed by cooking. Recent research from the International Agency for Cancer Research found lower cancer rates among those who consumed at least three servings of raw cruciferous vegetables per month. This mirrors the results of an earlier study by researchers from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., who found a 40 percent lower risk of bladder cancer among those who ate that many raw cruciferous vegetables.

There was no protective effect observed, however, among those who ate cooked vegetables.

The researchers in the current study noted that other forms of processing besides cooking might also lead to the degradation of sulforaphane or its chemical precursors.

"The sulforaphane content of cooked broccoli was lower than the glucoraphanin content of raw broccoli, 9.92 and 61.4 micromoles, respectively," the researchers noted. "It seems that the conversion from glucosinolate to isothiocyanate was incomplete or that another reaction occurred."

Glucoraphanin (a glucosinolate) is the chemical precursor to sulforaphane (an isothiocyanate).

"In future research," they said, "care should be taken that glucoraphanin is not hydrolyzed into other metabolites when broccoli is crushed."

Big Pharma Funded Activist Groups Behind the EPA Petition to Regulate Silver

by Tony Isaacs


Recently it was revealed that a handful of the activist agencies behind the petition to the EPA to regulate nano-silver as a pesticide have received funding from pharmaceutical giant Merck, which annually has hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from patented antibiotics which many believe are less effective, less safe and far more expensive than colloidal nano-silver products. Now, further investigation has discovered that the initial revelations may just be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Merck and other pharmaceutical companies' funding of the groups who support the EPA petition.

The actual source of the funding that was first revealed in emails and colloidal silver blogsites was the John Merck Fund which was set up in 1970 by Serena Merck, the widow of Merck Pharmaceuticals CEO George W. Merck, in honor of their short-lived son John. The recipients of funding who are signees on the petition to the EPA were identified as:


Funding To Activist Groups-----------------Total Donated---Time Frame
Center for Food Safety $1,305,000.00 1999 – 2005
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy $490,000.00 1992 – 2003
International Center for Technology Assessment $247,500.00 1999 – 1999
Consumers Union of the United States $90,000.00 2000 – 2001
Greenpeace $80,000.00 2000 – 2002
Friends of the Earth $45,000.00 1992 – 2000


The Center for Food Safety (CFS) which along with its sister organization the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), initiated the EPA petition and enlisted the other groups which signed off on the petition, received the second largest amount of funding of any group from the John Merck Fund - second only to the huge total of the Tides Center/Tides Foundation, whose total funding of almost $2.7 Million dwarfs the combined total of $1.75 Million given to the CFS and the ICTA and CFS.

Tides Foundation & Tides Center $2,693,000.00 1989 – 2005

http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=138

As it turns out, the top funding recipient Tides Foundation and Tides Center are also actively involved in the petition to regulate silver, as well as the source of funding and support to several of the other groups who signed the EPA petition. When one goes to the Tides Center website, their position is apparent to one and all with the posting of a press release urging support of the EPA petition:

http://www.tidescenter.org/news-resources/news-releases/single-press-release/article/epa-petitioned-to-stop-sale-of-260-products-containing-nanosilver/index.html

Information on Tides Center's website and other web searches found the following Tides Center/Tides Foundation connections to groups not listed as Merck funding recipients:

* Center for Environmental Health (a project of the Tides Center)
* Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (previous funding and connections with the Tides Foundation)
* Clean Production Action (a Tides Center project)
* Food and Water Watch (receives donations from the Tides Foundation)
* The Loka Institute (has no current offices but was previously provided office space and a mailbox in Washington. DC by the International Center for Technology Assessment in their offices)

In addition, a $200,000 grant for 2006-2007 from a second Merck Foundation, the Merck Family Fund to another petitioner, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, was discovered.

A quick internet search reveals that Merck is not the only pharmaceutical company which provides funding to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center, as this listing of the top funding recipient from the Pfizer Foundation demonstrates:

Funding To Activist Groups----------Total Donated------Time Frame
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $300,000.00 2003 – 2004


The Tides Foundation is described by Activistcash.com as quickly becoming "the 800 pound gorilla for activist funding." As reported on ActivistCash:

The Tides foundation was established in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.

In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”

Although determining the scope of funding for the Tides group as well as the individual activist groups would be difficult due to the efforts of many of them to insure anonymity, a quick web search turned up the following information for the Pfizer Foundation:

One can only wonder what other pharmaceutical funding is linked to these groups and shudder to think of how many activist groups have been corrupted by funding from Big Pharma and other companies with agendas that are anything but in the public interest.

It is easy to see how such subterfuge can corrupt decision making, the same as can paid lobbyists and political funding. Obviously it would be in the distinct public interest to require full disclosure of funding sources for every organization which petitions a government agency or legislative body to see where there might be funding sources who would stand to benefit as a result of the desired action or legislation.

Similarly, it would also be in the public interest to require full details of all the activities and efforts of lobbyists, including expenses and the details of each meeting held by lobbyists with government officials. While we are at it, we would also be a better informed and better served citizenry if every elected officials vote on any measure included donations and links to any companies or other entities affected by such legislation.

Granted, such reforms are a tall order, but until we see such altruistic change all the talk about true transparency in government is merely lip service - and the words from our own lips will continue to have little chance of reaching those whose ears are captured by the special interests who have bought off and otherwise rigged the process in their favor.


See Also:

"Action Alert: Stop EPA from Eliminating Access to Colloidal Silver"


Notes:

The complete list of groups who signed the petition to the EPA is: The International Center for Technology Assessment, the Center for Food Safety (the sister organization of the CTA), Beyond Pesticides, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, ETC Group, Center for Environmental Health, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition , Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Clean Production Action, Food and Water Watch, the Loka Institute, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, and Consumers Union.


Sources included:

http://www.silvermedicine.org/nano-silver.html

http://www.activistcash.com/

http://www.tidescenter.org/

Vaccines as Biological Weapons? Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

There's a popular medical thriller novel in which a global pandemic is intentionally set off by an evil plot designed to reduce the human population. In the book, a nefarious drug company inserts live avian flu viruses into vaccine materials that are distributed to countries around the world to be injected into patients as "flu shots." Those patients then become carriers for these highly-virulent strains of avian flu which go on to infect the world population and cause widespread death.

There's only one problem with this story: It's not fiction. Or, at least, the part about live avian flu viruses being inserted into vaccine materials isn't fiction. It's happening right now.

Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc. has just been caught shipping live avian flu viruses mixed with vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries. The "mistake" (if you can call it that, see below...) was discovered by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. The World Health Organization was alerted and panic spread throughout the vaccine community as health experts asked the obvious question: How could this have happened?

As published on LifeGen.de (http://www.lifegen.de/newsip/showne...), serious questions like this are being raised:

"Baxter International Inc. in Austria 'unintentionally contaminated samples with the bird flu virus that were used in laboratories in 3 neighbouring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease'. Austria, Germany, Slovenia and the Czech Republic - these are the countries in which labs were hit with dangerous viruses. Not by bioterrorist commandos, but by Baxter. In other words: One of the major global pharmaceutical players seems to have lost control over a virus which is considered by many virologists to be one of the components leading some day to a new pandemic."

Or, put another way, Baxter is acting a whole lot like a biological terrorism organization these days, sending deadly viral samples around the world. If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter -- which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world -- getting away with saying, essentially, "Oops"?

But there's a bigger question in all this: How could this company have accidentally mixed LIVE avian flu viruses (both H5N1 and H3N2, the human form) in this vaccine material?

Was the viral contamination intentional?

The shocking answer is that this couldn't have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) - a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.

As explained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosaf...):

"Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features."

Under the BSL3 code of conduct, it is impossible for live avian flu viruses to contaminate production vaccine materials that are shipped out to vendors around the world.

This leaves only two possibilities that explain these events:

Possibility #1: Baxter isn't following BSL3 safety guidelines or is so sloppy in following them that it can make monumental mistakes that threaten the safety of the entire human race. And if that's the case, then why are we injecting our children with vaccines made from Baxter's materials?

Possibility #2: A rogue employee (or an evil plot from the top management) is present at Baxter, whereby live avian flu viruses were intentionally placed into the vaccine materials in the hope that such materials might be injected into humans and set off a global bird flu pandemic.

It just so happens that a global bird flu pandemic would sell a LOT of bird flu vaccines. Although some naive people have a hard time believing that corporations would endanger human beings to make money, this is precisely the way corporations now behave in America's ethically-challenged free-market environment. (Remember Enron? Exxon? Merck? DuPont? Monsanto? Need I go on?)

Make no mistake: Spreading bird flu is a clever way to create demand for bird flu vaccines, and we've all seen very clearly how drug companies first market the problem and then "leap to the rescue" by selling the solution. (Disease mongering of ADHD, bipolar disorder, etc.)

Why it all suddenly makes sense

Until today, I would not have personally believed such a story. I personally thought talk of bird flu vaccines being "weaponized" was just alarmist hype. But now, in light of the fact that LIVE bird flu viruses are being openly found in vaccine materials that are distributed around the world, I must admit the evidence is increasingly compelling that something extremely dangerous is afoot.

Baxter, through either its mistakes or its evil intentions, just put the safety of the entire human race at risk. Given all the laboratory protocols put in place to prevent this kind of thing, it is difficult to believe this was just a mistake.

There is some speculation, in fact, that the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people worldwide (http://images.google.com/images?hl=...), was intentionally started by injecting servicemen with "experimental" flu vaccines that actually contained live, "weaponized" flu material just like the material being distributed by Baxter today.

Examine the historical record. You'll find that the 1918 flu originated with servicemen. Even more interestingly, it began in multiple cities, simultaneously! There is no single point of origin with the 1918 flu. It appears to have "spontaneously" sprung up across multiple cities all at once, including a military base in Kansas. (Kansas? Yep. So how did it get to Kansas in an era when air traffic was virtually non-existent? Vaccines, of course!)

All those cities and servicemen have one thing in common: Flu shot vaccinations given to them by the military.

If you put the pieces together on this, it's not too difficult to suspect that influenza could potentially be used as a tool of control by governments or drug companies to catalyze outrageous profit-taking or power grabbing agendas. A desperate, infected population will gladly give up anything or pay anything for the promise of being cured.

Or was it just an innocent mistake? Oops!

But for the skeptics who dismiss any such talk of conspiracy theories, let's examine the other possibility: That a global avian flu pandemic was nearly unleashed unintentionally due to the outrageous incompetence of the companies handling these viral strains.

As we just saw, this is a very real possibility. Had this live bird flu virus not been detected, it could have very easily found its way into vaccines that were injected into human beings. And this, in turn, could have unleashed a global avian flu pandemic.

If the drug companies making and handling these materials are so careless, then it seems like it's only a matter of time before something slips through the safety precautions again and gets unleashed into the wild. And that leads to essentially the same scenario: A global pandemic, widespread death, health care failures and a desperate population begging for vaccines.

So either way -- whether it's intentional or not -- you essentially get the same result.

Why a global pandemic is only a matter of time

I am on the record stating that a global pandemic is only a matter of time. The living conditions under which humans have placed themselves (crowded cities, suppressed immune systems, etc.) are ideal for the spread of infectious disease. But I never dreamed drug companies could actually be accelerating the pandemic timeline by contaminating vaccine materials with live avian flu viruses known to be highly infectious to humans. This, it seems, is a whole new cause for concern.

You can believe what you will. Maybe you agree with the nefarious plot theory and you agree that corporations are capable of great evils in their quest for profits. Or perhaps you can't accept that, so you go with the "accidental contamination" theory, in which your beliefs describe a very dangerous world where biohazard safety protocols are insufficient to protect us from all the crazy viral strains being toyed with at drug companies and government labs all across the world.

In either case, the world is not a very safe place when deadly viral strains are placed in the hands of the inept.

We are like children playing God with Mother Nature, rolling the dice in a global game of Viral Roulette where the odds are not in our favor. With companies like Baxter engaged in behaviors that are just begging to see the human race devastated by a global pandemic wipeout, it might be a good time to question the sanity of using viral strains in vaccines in the first place.

Vaccine-pushing scientists are so proud of their vaccines. They think they've conquered Mother Nature. Imagine their surprise when one day they learn they have actually killed 100 million human beings by unleashing a global pandemic.

We came close to it this week. A global pandemic may have just been averted by the thinnest of margins. Yet people go on with their lives, oblivious to what nearly happened.

What's inescapable at this point is the fact that the threat of a pandemic that looms for all of human civilization, and that drug companies may, themselves, be the source of that threat.


Important Resources

Read my book How to Beat the Bird Flu here: http://www.truthpublishing.com/bird...

See a remarkable collection of quotes and accounts from authors writing about the 1918 influenza pandemic here: www.NaturalNews.com/025759.html


Stories about Baxter International, Inc. and its avian influenza "oops" moment:

The Canadian Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ca...

Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...

LifeGen.de: http://www.lifegen.de/newsip/showne...

A Listing of the Twenty-One Fabricated Studies by Dr. Scott Reuben

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

The health community is up in arms over the discovery that a highly-respected and influential clinical researcher, Dr. Scott Reuben, fabricated the data used in over twenty pharmaceutical studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Read the full NaturalNews report on this topic here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html

These studies promoted the safety and "benefits" of drugs like Bextra (Pfizer), Vioxx (Merck), Lyrica, Celebrex and Effexor. The lead researcher on these studies, Dr. Scott Reuben, was being paid by Pfizer and Merck, so there's a verified financial connection between this clinical researcher and at least two of the drug companies that benefitted from his fabricated findings. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/h...)

Note carefully the names of the medical journals that published Dr. Reuben's fabricated data (see below). These so-called "science journals" claim to be peer-reviewed, which means these studies were approved by multiple scientists who agreed with the findings.

What this scandal reveals is that even peer-reviewed medical journals cannot be trusted to publish truthful, accurate information about pharmaceuticals. In fact, they are just as much a part of the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy as the pill-pushing researchers who fabricate these studies, in my opinion.

The only honest medical science journal I've found is PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org). Everything else I've seen is just tabloid medicalized fiction sandwiched in between pages of false advertising.

And conventional doctors, for all their self-proclaimed intelligence and scientific skepticism, were universally hoodwinked by this faked data! Apparently the best way to convince doctors that a drug is safe and effective is to just invent whatever story you want and submit it to a medical journal, which then gladly publishes it.

If you're looking for a career as a fiction writer, the heck with authoring books sold in the "fiction" section of the local bookstore... just write for medical journals and drug companies! Their pay is better and the fiction is even more outrageous!

Speaking of fiction and false advertising, here's a list of studies authored or co-authored by Dr. Scott Reuben who admittedly fabricated at least twenty-one of these studies. Dr. Reuben was recently a faculty member at Tufts Medical School and co-founder of the Orthopedic Anesthesia, Pain and Rehabilitation Society, by the way. You can read more about his fraud in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id...).

Click here for the medical studies authored/fabricated by Dr. Scott Reuben

Dispel the Myths: The True Function of Cholesterol in the Body

NaturalNews.com

by Elizabeth Walling, citizen journalist

If you've been religiously counting cholesterol grams in an attempt to eliminate it from your diet, you may be startled to hear the main function of cholesterol in the body is not to clog your arteries. The media has propagated cholesterol as a vile substance akin to trans fat, but in reality, it's not so simple. Cholesterol is not all bad - in fact, it has important functions in a variety of vital processes in your body.

First it should be noted that cholesterol is not a type of fat; it is a high-molecular-weight alcohol made in the liver and other cells in the body. It is not water-soluble and cannot actually be transported freely in the blood. Instead, it is carried in lipoprotein throughout the body so it performs essential duties.

Here are just some of the many tasks cholesterol accomplishes in your body each day:

- Cholesterol is a crucial building material in the body. It helps maintain the structure of cells and vessels, improving overall health and function in the body.

- Cholesterol is a precursor to important sex hormones like testosterone, estrogen, androgen and progesterone. It is also a precursor to corticosteroids, hormones whose primary function is to protect the body against stress and disease. This includes the crucial hormones, cortisol and DHEA.

- Used as an insulator around nerves, cholesterol promotes healthy nervous system function and helps to prevent diseases associated with the nervous system. It is absolutely essential for brain function.

- Since bile salts are made from cholesterol, adequate cholesterol is needed for proper digestion. In addition, cholesterol aids the digestive system by strengthening the intestinal walls.

- Cholesterol is a precursor to vitamin D, an important nutrient which supports a healthy immune and nervous system, reproduction, insulin production and the metabolism of minerals. Recently the suggested daily allowance for vitamin D has been significantly raised in light of how important it is for good health.

- Serotonin receptors in the brain require cholesterol in order to function properly. Serotonin is an important neurotransmitter that promotes a natural feeling of well-being. Low levels of serotonin are linked to depression, violence and suicide.

Understanding this information can help to clear up the fog surrounding the truth about cholesterol's function in the body. Cholesterol itself is not a substance that should be feared as one would fear the bubonic plague. It is a naturally occurring alcohol, manufactured by the body for very specific and necessary reasons. Without it, our quality of life would be severely reduced and our health would ultimately fail.


Sources:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articl...

Fallon, Sally and Enig, Mary. (1999) Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats.

Schwarzbein, Diana. (1999) The Schwarzbein Principle: The Truth About Losing Weight, Being Healthy and Feeling Younger.

The Most Destructive Industrial Venture on Earth: The Canadian Oil Sands Pose Great Danger

NaturalNews.com

by Dave Gabriele, citizen journalist

Common belief is that the Middle East is America's largest supplier of oil. In truth, Canada supplies more oil to the US than any other country, providing 19% of US foreign oil. About half of that oil comes from the single largest industrial project on Earth--the Canadian Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada. The Oil Sands, comprised of the Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake sites, contains approximately 170 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves. This makes Canada the world's second largest source of oil, after Saudi Arabia.

As of 2006, the Oil Sands were producing over 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, or about 42% of Canada's total crude output. As the industry steadily grows, it is anticipated that production will reach 3 million barrels per day by 2020 and possibly even 5 million barrels per day by 2030.

This deposit of oil represents a great source of wealth for Canada, and especially for the United States, which prefers a stable source closer to home. However, this massive project, which encompasses operations from 49 companies, is literally the largest and most environmentally destructive endeavor of all time.

What are Oil Sands?

Geologists speculate that the oil sands formed millions of years ago from the remains of tiny creatures buried in the seabed of an ancient ocean that covered Alberta. Warm temperatures, combined with the slow accumulation of thick layers of silt, sand and pressure, continuously heated these remains and gradually converted them into the oil sands. The sands consist of a mixture of silica sand, minerals, clay, water and bitumen. Bitumen, a tar-like substance, is a super-heavy form of petroleum.

Environmental Concerns

The enormous process of extracting oil from the oil sands begins with cutting down large areas of boreal forest. So far, the industry has flattened about 389 square kilometers or 150 square miles. Concerns over rapid deforestation have environmentalists troubled.

Because bitumen is too thick and heavy to be pumped like conventional oil, it must be dug out of the ground in what closely resembles an open-pit mining operation. In order to get just one barrel of bitumen, workers need to first scoop about two tons of earth to get to the sand, and then about two tons of the sand itself. To make this process as efficient as possible, the industry uses $15 million 495HF Bucyrus electric shovels that stand five-storeys high to dig out sand and drop 400-ton loads onto 1.5-storey 797B Caterpillar dump trucks. Every day, about one million tons of the sand is dug and transported to be washed with about 200,000 tons of water. The water is then heated in order to extract the bitumen from the sand. This method costs roughly 10 times more than it costs the Saudis to pump their light oil.

But this process is only an option for the shallow bitumen that is closest to the surface. An estimated 80% of the reserves are too deep to be dug so instead the bitumen is steamed straight from the ground using enormously intricate systems of pipes and pumps. This is called "in situ thermal recovery" and it uses about twice the energy of the digging method.

Only when the bitumen has been extracted from the sand can usable oil be upgraded from the bitumen. The raw bitumen is sent to upgrader plants which process the black tar under high heat and pressure. The entire process uses an incredibly large amount of energy which is mostly supplied by natural gas. Critics of the industry note that the cleanest of the fossil fuels is being depleted to produce one of the dirtiest.

The Oil Sands operation releases at least three times the CO2 emissions as regular oil production and is the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

But deforestation, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only problems. It takes an average of three barrels of fresh water from the Athabasca River to produce just one barrel of oil. The Oil Sands uses more water per year than the entire city of Calgary, the largest city in Alberta and the fifth largest in Canada. In return, one barrel of oil produces about two barrels of toxic water. The waste is pumped into dozens of holding basins known as "tailings ponds." Although they are known as ponds, some of these massive man-made lakes are dozens of kilometers across. They are clearly visible on Google Earth. (Satellite image: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k...)

In April 2008, the problems of the toxic tailings ponds entered Canadian consciousness when the media disseminated a story in which 500 ducks lost their lives by mistaking a tailings pond for a natural lake. Although the Alberta government denies it, environmental groups maintain that the tailings ponds leak contaminated water into local soil and water ways causing severe ecological harm.

For further reading:
http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/...
http://www.ualberta.ca/ERSC/water.pdf
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Las...

Surprise Supreme Court Decision Ends Big Pharma's Pre-Emption Bid for Legal Immunity

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against Wyeth in the Diana Levine case, setting a crucial precedent in the battle against Big Pharma. The ruling ends an important part of the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy racket that sought to market extremely dangerous (and even deadly) drugs while providing full legal immunity to drug companies, even when those companies actively lied about the safety of their drugs by hiding negative drug studies from the public and the FDA.

The decision has hit Big Pharma hard. The industry, already reeling from layoffs and a loss of innovation, is now facing a wave of lawsuits from potentially hundreds of thousands of people who have been harmed by dangerous prescription medications. The legal path for such lawsuits has now been cleared, and drug companies can no longer claim legal immunity just because they managed to deceive the FDA into declaring their dangerous chemicals were "approved."

The FDA regime

Three Supreme Court Judges disagreed with the decision, siding with the granting of legal immunity to drug companies: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who called the decision a "frontal assault on the FDA's regulatory regime for drug labeling."

"Regime," of course, is exactly the right word to describe the FDA's campaign of medical tyranny against the American People. That even three Supreme Court Justices would vote to enforce this dangerous, corrupt regulatory regime is more than a bit disturbing. Fortunately for the American People, the opinions of these three did not prevail.

Big Pharma has long conspired with the FDA to approve knowingly dangerous (and deadly) drugs that are then marketed to the public through a process known as "disease mongering," in which drug companies scare up new health conditions in order to convince people they need to be medicated. Practically the entire pharmaceutical industry is based on this unholy alliance between the corrupt FDA (http://www.naturalnews.com/the_fda.html) and a profit-seeking drug industry (http://www.naturalnews.com/big_phar...), and if the Supreme Court had granted Big Pharma immunity on any drug approved by the FDA, it could have unleashed a treacherous era of Big Pharma arrogance and the virtual abandonment of any remaining safety measures by the industry.

With full legal immunity, Big Pharma would have been able to market practically any poison as a "drug," regardless of how many people were killed. Even many of its current drugs are, admittedly, little more than poison. For example, the most popular blood thinning drug sold today -- coumadin -- is literally made out of the same chemical used in rat poison (http://www.naturalnews.com/021434.html). Many psychiatric drugs given to children today are just re-branded amphetamine street drugs like "speed."

To the great benefit of the American People (and the lawyers who represent them against drug companies), the Supreme Court has now nailed the coffin shut on Big Pharma pre-emption. Sadly, this decision still cannot raise from the grave all the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already been killed by dangerous, FDA-approved prescription medications, but perhaps from this point forward, enough lawsuits can proceed that drug companies will either be put out of business or be forced to calculate the economic cost of killing patients while facing a wave of resulting litigation.

We've won this battle, but Big Pharma's war machine rages on

This is a good day for justice in America, and it's bad day for Big Pharma. The drug industry must now face the financial consequences of the death and destruction it has unleashed upon the American people. It may not be long before even drug companies are begging for bailout money.

This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a significant victory in the battle over health care in America, but by no means does it resolve the war. Major action still needs to be taken to reign in the monopolistic practices of Big Pharma and the tyrannical regime of the FDA. We must pass new legislation to hold drug company CEOs accountable for deceiving the American public through false television advertisements, and we must demand the return of honest science to FDA decision panels.

To affect these changes, NaturalNews has launched the Health Revolution Petition (www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org). Already signed by nearly 10,000 people, this petition calls for real, revolutionary reform that would end the tyranny and oppression of the FDA while greatly reducing Big Pharma's influence over the media, medical schools, doctors and lawmakers. Read the full petition yourself and then sign it to lend your support to this important grassroots project.

When we reach 100,000 signatures, we will be delivering this petition to every lawmaker in Washington D.C., demonstrating to them the urgent need for real health care reform that replaces the drugs-and-surgery system of "sick care" dominating America today with a more holistic, nutrition-oriented disease prevention approach.

If you believe in natural medicine, honest science and the Hippocratic motto of "first do no harm," then please consider supporting this important petition: www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org

Today we saw a victory for health care justice in America. Tomorrow, with your help, we can create many new victories that restore health freedom and basic human dignity to the American people. Stay tuned to NaturalNews for more stories on this important issue.

Broccoli Protects Against Asthma, Rhinitis and Lung Disease

NaturalNews.com

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

If you don't already eat broccoli regularly, you could be putting your ability to breathe easily at risk. The reason? Research by University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) scientists concludes sulforaphane, a natural compound found in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables (like Brussels sprouts and cauliflower), appears to protect against respiratory inflammation that causes asthma, allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other conditions that make it hard to breathe.

Free radicals have long been known to cause oxidative tissue damage -- and that can lead to inflammation and respiratory disorders such as COPD and asthma. The new study, just published in the March edition of the journal Clinical Immunology, documents that sulforaphane found in broccoli triggers an increase of antioxidant enzymes which protects the airways against free radicals that most people breathe daily every time they are in polluted air, pollen, diesel exhaust and tobacco smoke.

"A major advantage of sulforaphane is that it appears to increase a broad array of antioxidant enzymes, which may help the compound's effectiveness in blocking the harmful effects of air pollution," Dr. Marc Riedl, the study's principal investigator and an assistant professor of clinical immunology and allergy at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said in a statement to the media.

Over a period of three days, the UCLA researchers gave 65 volunteers varying oral doses of either (raw) broccoli or alfalfa sprouts (which do not contain sulforaphane, so the alfalfa served as a control for the test). Nasal passages of the research subjects were rinsed at the beginning and end of the study to measure the gene expression of antioxidant enzymes in cells in the volunteers' upper airways. "We found a two to three-fold increase in antioxidant enzymes in the nasal airway cells of study participants who had eaten a preparation of broccoli sprouts," Dr. Riedl explained in the media statement.

Overall, the scientists found significant increases of antioxidant enzymes in the group taking the broccoli sprout preparation at doses of 100 grams and higher. When the broccoli sprout dosage was increased to 200 grams, it resulted in an especially dramatic increase in airway protective enzymes -- a 101 percent increase of an antioxidant enzyme called GSTP1 and a 199-percent increase of another key enzyme called NQO1.

"This is one of the first studies showing that broccoli sprouts -- a readily available food source -- offered potent biologic effects in stimulating an antioxidant response in humans," Dr. Riedl stated in the press release. "This strategy may offer protection against inflammatory processes and could lead to potential treatments for a variety of respiratory conditions."

Although Dr. Riedl said it is too early to recommend a specific dosage of broccoli to protect the airways, he does recommend including broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables as part of a healthy diet.

For more information:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal...