What if the foods you’re likely eating every day are to blame for your breast cancer’s spread? A preliminary study says that some heavy metals, cadmium in particular, may contribute to the increase in breast cancer growth.

The research has only just begun and is being conducted at the Dominican University of California in San Rafael. It’s a lifetime exposure study looking at breast cancer patients and their exposures to cadmium over their lifetimes, rather than in high bursts as previous studies have done.

The single largest source of prolonged exposure to cadmium are root crops and vegetables as well as breads and cereal products. Cadmium is found in many farm fertilizers and is often transferred into many types of produce and animal feed.

Early research has indicated that cadmium can mimic estrogen (the female hormone) and may increase breast cancer’s spread.

Preliminary findings from the research were presented by study author Maggie Louie, an associate professor of biochemistry at DUC, at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology meeting early this month in San Diego.

Not only are doctors being advised to reject chelation therapy—they’re being asked to report on their colleagues who practice it.

The American College of Medical Toxicology held a conference at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this past February about the “use and misuse” of chelation therapy—a misleading title suggesting some semblance of scientific objectivity, which was nowhere in evidence. The conference was more like a Salem witch hunt in which chelators played the role of the accused witches and warlocks.

Why is chelation so threatening to mainstream medicine? There is no disputing that heavy metals are extremely toxic. The human body is engineered to remove small amounts daily, but not the large amounts we often pick up from modern sources. One of those sources has of course been vaccines, which have used mercury as a preservative (it is still used in the US flu shot). Another source has been dental “silver” amalgam, which also contains mercury. This may be part of the reason for the hostility to chelation.

How does the therapy work? One method involves injecting into the patient’s bloodstream organic chemicals, which can bind and remove the heavy metals in the bloodstream (metals which are toxic to humans and interfere with various physiological functions). There are also oral or suppository supplements for chelation, and some foods are natural chelators (e.g., cilantro and chlorella).

Read the rest here.

This Friday, May 4, affiliates of the International Academy for Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) will encourage the U.S. government to join worldwide efforts against mercury/silver fillings, the predominant source of human exposure to mercury, at an integral Department of State (DOS) mercury stakeholders meeting.

The DOS meeting (11 A.M., 2201 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.) is being held in preparation for a United Nations conference in June to negotiate a 2013 global treaty with the purpose of phasing-down mercury use in a variety of industries, including dentistry.

Although U.S. agencies have thus far avoided taking a definitive stance on dental amalgam, other countries have taken bold measures against the toxic dental filling material.  Norway, Sweden, and Denmark banned mercury fillings, a number of countries placed limitations on their use for pregnant women and children, and the Council of Europe called for their restriction and prohibition.

Meanwhile, it has been openly acknowledged that corporations profiting from the mercury industry sponsor the same dental groups who defend mercury fillings.

IAOMT, a non-profit organization representing dental, medical, and scientific professionals worldwide, challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to protect the American public from a medical device containing 50% mercury, a material known by FDA to damage the kidneys, nervous system, and brain, particularly in unborn and young children.

James Love, legal counsel to IAOMT, explains, “We’ve repeatedly brought the hazards of mercury fillings to FDA’s attention, as documented by our testimony at their Dental Products Panel Hearing in 2010, our petition filed in 2009, and our 2002 publication of over 1,000 adverse reaction reports due to dental amalgam.”

A major study used to claim safety of mercury fillings in children was found to be erroneous after more careful analysis that showed kidney damage. The “Casa Pia Children’s Amalgam Trial,” part of an $11 million experiment on children, was fundedby the U.S. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).

IAOMT has established a mercury safety protocol for patients and personnel, especially women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age because fetuses are known to be extremely sensitive to mercury.

Karen Palmer, a former dental assistant of 25 years diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and mercury toxicity, will share her experiences at Friday’s DOS meeting: “Studies show female dental assistants working with amalgam tend to have increased menstrual disturbances, reduced fertility, and lower probability of conception.  Many of my colleagues experienced spontaneous miscarriages, but at the time, I was unaware that working with mercury fillings could have been the cause.  The U.S. clearly lags behind other countries in upholding standards to protect people from dental mercury exposure.”

Palmer’s statement is supported by recent news that the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service officially recognized mercury injury as an occupational disease after a dental assistant there proved that working with amalgam caused her to become seriously ill.

In the U.S. employee exposure to mercury has been strictly regulated since 1970 by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), but the vast majority of dental workers have no idea this legislation applies to them, and few dental offices are in complete compliance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has yet to state its position on amalgam separators designed to limit dental office mercury waste. Likewise, IAOMT notes the FDA has not taken measures to warn consumers of the potential harm from daily exposure to mercury in their mouths.

via Jo Nova

Exposure among amphibians and other vertebrate animals to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide has been shown, for the very first time, to actually induce physical changes to the shapes of these animals’ bodies. Published in the journalEcological Applications, the new study reveals once again the incredible hormone-altering power of Roundup, and how even minute exposure to this highly-toxic chemical brew can have disastrous health consequences.

In their natural environment, tadpoles, which are just amphibians in the larval stage of their life cycle, have a natural ability to detect the presence of predators and respond accordingly. In order to avoid insect predators, for instance, tadpoles can actually develop deeper or longer tails in order to swim away from them faster, which helps ensure their survival (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10862727).

But it appears as though Roundup, which has already been shown in other studies to be highly pervasive throughout the environment (http://www.naturalnews.com/033699_Roundup_pollution.html), induces these very same physical changes. And when exposed to both Roundup and natural predators, tadpoles will develop grossly large tails that are much larger than normal, which is likely the result of both the tadpoles’ detection of Roundup, and Roundup’s ability to chemically-induce hormonal changes.

“What shocked us was that the Roundup induced the same changes,” said Rick Relyea, a professor of biological sciences at theUniversity of Pittsburgh‘s (Pitt)Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciencesand director of Pitt’sPymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, referring to changes in the tadpoles’ tails that caused them to actually become twice as large as normal.

“This discovery highlights the fact that pesticides [...] can have unintended consequences for species that are not the pesticides’ target. [W]e are learning that [pesticides and herbicides] can have a wide range of surprising effects by altering how hormones work in the bodies of animals.”

For his study, Relyea examined how tadpoles living in water tanks respond to varying exposures of Roundup, as well as to predators. And his findings revealed that Roundup visibly alters tadpoles’ stress hormones, which appears to coincide with an earlier study that revealed Roundup-induced hormonal changes in humans (http://www.naturalnews.com/035135_Roundup_herbicide_testosterone.html).

Meanwhile, more than a dozen Argentinian farmers have filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, creator of Roundup, and several tobacco companies for allegedly knowingly poisoning them with Roundup and other pesticide and herbicide chemicals. According to the filing, Monsanto’s pesticides and herbicides caused the farmers’ children to be born with “devastating birth defects” (http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/10/45469.htm).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.news.pitt.edu/Pesticides_MOrph

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035533_Roundup_amphibians_deformities.html#ixzz1rrP3rtyc

Lung cancer is particularly virulent and noted as having one of the poorest outcomes. Two recent scientific studies, though, have shown that Polygala senega may be able to prevent the disease or limit its virulence.

Polygala senega  is a common and easy to grow weed that is occasionally grown domestically. It carries several common names, including snakeroot, seneca (for the Seneca indians, from whom the name is derived), sneka, milkwort, mountain flax, and rattlesnake root. It’s a perennial in all but the coldest climates—and seeds can be purchased readily from internet sources.

The Studies

The two studies were done by a team in the Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory in the Department of Zoology of the University of Kalyani in India. The lead author, Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh, thanks Boiron Laboratories of France for grants to produce the studies. (Please note that these were not experiments in homeopathy and Boiron did not supply materials.)

Read more here.

The government of Switzerland has a long history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. Further, when one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a governmentand was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government’s “Health Technology Assessment”

The Swiss government’s “Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. This report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, plus they also evaluated the “real world effectiveness” as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called “internal validity”) and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called “external validity”). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients).

When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not “work,” the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy… or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhoft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of upper respiratory tract infections and respiratory allergies. The report cited 29 studies in “Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions,” of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government’s report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 “high quality” homeopathic studies but only nine “high quality” conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Ludtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in “evidence based medicine,” has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were “unscientific” or “unproven” because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

For a treatment to be determined to be “effective” or “scientifically proven,” a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn’t is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care.

REFERENCES:

Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011.http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1(This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)

Bornhoft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementarmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077

Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009.http://www.swissinfo.ch

Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6.http://download.thelancet.com

Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract

Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementarmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevolkerungstimmt uber Verfassungsartikel ?Zukunft mit Komplementarmedizin? ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073.
(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article “The future with complementary medicine”
http://www.ayurveda-association.eu

*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.

About the author:
America’s leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author ofThe Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy(Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana’s work athttp://www.Homeopathic.comor watch Dana’s videos athttp://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?memberid=6958

Dana has authored 9 other books, includingHomeopathy A-Z,Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants,Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling)Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035499_homeopathic_medicine_Swiss_report.html#ixzz1rrOkOhV2

Earlier international studies have reported that a large amount of surgical patients use it prior to and after surgery. Recent publications indicate a weak knowledge about CAM among health care workers.

However the current situation in Sweden is unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to explore perceived knowledge about CAM among registered healthcare professions in surgical departments at Swedish university hospitals.MethodA questionnaire was distributed to 1757 registered physicians, nurses and physiotherapists in surgical wards at the seven university hospitals in Sweden from spring 2010 to spring 2011.

The questionnaire included classification of 21 therapies into conventional, complementary, alternative and integrative, and whether patients were recommended these therapies. Questions concerning knowledge, research, and patient communication about CAM were also included.ResultA total of 737 (42.0%) questionnaires were returned.

Therapies classified as complementary; were massage, manual therapies, yoga and acupuncture. Alternative therapies; were herbal medicine, dietary supplements, homeopathy and healing.

Classification to integrative therapy was low, and unfamiliar therapies were Bowen therapy, iridology and Rosen method. Therapies recommended by >40% off the participants were massage and acupuncture.

Knowledge and research about CAM was valued as minor or none at all by 95.7% respectively 99.2%. Importance of possessing knowledge about it was valued as important by 80.9%.

It was believed by 61.2% that more research funding should be addressed to CAM research, 72.8% were interested in reading CAM-research results, and 27.8% would consider taking part in such research. Half of the participants (55.8%) were positive to learning such therapy.

Communication about CAM between patients and the health care professions was found to be rare.

Conclusion: There is a lack of knowledge about CAM and research about it among registered health care professions in Swedish surgical care. However, in contrast to previous studies the results revealed that the majority perceived it as important to gain knowledge in this field.

Author: Kristofer BjersaElisabet Stener VictorinMonika Fagevik Olsen

For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actuallycause measles. And flu shot vaccines actuallyincreasesusceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)

Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.

New research reported byReutersreveals thatwhooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated childrencompared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at theKaiser Permanente Medical Centerin San Rafael, California.

As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…)

In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough — the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. “We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention.”

This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:

“GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine’s protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it’s still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough.”

Huh? So let me get this straight:

• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.

• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.

• Doctors openly admit the vaccine “doesn’t provide lasting protection” against the disease.

• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!

That’s essentially like saying, “We know these vaccines don’t really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway.”

Whooping cough outbreak? Demand everybody be vaccinated!

Despite the fact that the whooping cough vaccines actually cause anincreasein the risk of being infected with whooping cough, every time a whooping cough outbreak occurs, there’s a mad rush of everybody screaming, “Vaccinate! Vaccinate! Vaccinate!”

For example, this mindless article inThe Seattle Timestypifies the kind of brain-dead journalism observed across the mainstream media: “Whooping cough spreading fast in state; vaccinations urged.” (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017902210_whoopingco…)

This mindless, irrational cry for vaccinations utterly contradicts scientific truth, but it get published over and over again withzero skepticism and no intelligent questioningby anyone in the (whored-out) mainstream media.

Whooping cough vaccines, it turns out, do nothing to reduce the rate of whooping cough infections. But they do accomplish something else that’s even more important for Big Pharma. Care to guess what that is?

You guessed it:Whooping cough vaccines keep whooping cough in circulation!The vaccinescausethe very disease they claim to treat, so the more kids get vaccinated, the more outbreaks occur! This then results in more people calling for more vaccines, which causes even more whooping cough outbreaks to occur, and this sick profiteering cycle of vaccine quackery repeats itself over and over until children are pumped full of useless vaccines while the drug companies bank on record profits and all the parents are living in fear.

The drug companies figured it out a long time ago, see? The best way to SELL a vaccine that claims to treat a disease is to make sure the vaccinecontainsthe disease! Thus, the vaccination itself becomes the pathway to re-infection andrepeat business!

Want to make money in the cancer industry? Put cancer viruses into the vaccines! Oops, Merck already did that, didn’t they? Here’s an admission by a Merck scientist of exactly this point:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html

How the media is trying to spin these shocking revelations about the failure of vaccines

The media is trying to spin this revelation, of course, claiming that the whooping cough vaccine merely “wears out” or “fades over time.” While that alone is an admission of total vaccine failure, it’s actually much worse: The findings show thatvaccines make children MORE vulnerable to infection than the unvaccinated children.

Virtually nowhere in the lamestream media will you see any real admission thatwhooping cough vaccines are based entirely on scientific fraudbecause they simply don’t work. That simple truth is just not allowed to be printed anywhere except places like NaturalNews, where we haven’t sold out to Big Pharma’s corporate interests. The fact that even a hint of this has appeared in Reuters is astonishing, and I suspect they will pull their story as quickly as possible before it starts getting too much attention.

If vaccines “fade out” then they don’t work!

The bedrock ofvaccination theoryis that when your body is exposed to a weakened virus, it will build up its supply ofantibodiesthat will forever recognize that virus and defend your body against it. Sound familiar? That’s the fairy tale told to every parent and child by a vaccine-wielding brainwashed doctor.

The key element of the story is that your body is supposed to keep those antibodiesforever, right? Just like if you get the chicken pox one time, you won’t ever get it again because your body is immune to the chicken pox, right?

But wait: Now they’re sayingvaccines fade out over time. Somehow your body “forgets” the antibodies, they now admit, so you need a booster shot, what else? (Repeat sales, anyone?)

So then, vaccines don’t really invoke lifetime antibodies at all, do they? And if that’s the case, thenthe entire vaccine mythology crumbles. No lifetime antibodies means the vaccines aren’t really working like real infections (such as the chicken pox). Something doesn’t add up here, especially when you figure that vaccines make children MORE susceptible to future infections.

Healthy kids are not vaccinated kids

Want to find the healthiest children in America? Find families who follow these rules:
#1) They live on small farms and their children play in the dirt (they have contact with nature).
#2) Their children are all home schooled.
#3) None of their children are vaccinated.
#4) They drink raw milk and eat farm fresh foods.

As you will readily find,these are the healthiest, smartest kids in America!They don’t have problems with autism, allergies, cancer or ADHD. They are bright, healthy, and easily capable of surviving an infection of chicken pox.

Theleast healthychildren in America are vaccinated children who eat public school food (GMOs) and never spend time in nature. These are the asthmatics, the diabetics, the ADHD cases, the suicidal psych drug takers. They’re vaccine damaged and nutritionally depleted, and they catch every cold every winter, it seems, you know what I mean?

Media lies about vaccine effectiveness (written by brain-dead journalists)

The media, you see, is so steeped in lies about vaccines that they are now utterly unable to recognize the truth. In the Seattle Times article mentioned above, for example, you’ll find this mysterious sentence in the story: “Pertussis vaccines are about 85 percent effective overall…”

And yet I’ll bet you twenty bucks there’s not a single journalist on the entire Seattle Times staff who even understands what that number means and where it came from. They probably think it means that for every 100 people vaccinated with the whooping cough vaccine, 85 percent of them will be completely protected against the disease even if they are exposed to it. (Insert laughter here…)

But it’s nothing like that at all. This number is simplymade up. It is invented from fabricatedrelative statisticscherry-picked out of distorted clinical trials funded by drug companies. It’s sort of like the CDC’s completely fabricated number of “35,000 people die each year from the flu” — a bald-faced conjuration of pure fiction that’s repeated as if it were fact across every paper in the country. And even if you believe the 85 percent number, it was probably derived from something more like this: For every 1,000 children in America, only 1 catches the whooping cough, but if those 1,000 children are vaccinated (says the corporate-funded study), then only 0.15 children out of 1,000 will catch the whooping cough.

Thus, in other words, using these numbers you’d have to vaccinate 1,000 children in order to prevent less than one child from getting the whooping cough — and meanwhile, out of those 1,000 children perhaps 10 – 20 of them suffervaccine damagein other ways that are far serious, including autism.

Lamestream media journalists who work for these rag papers just don’t have any real ability to exercise critical thinking anymore. They don’t know how to read scientific studies. They don’t understand numbers. And you know why? Because they’ve been over-vaccinated! And vaccines cause neurological damage, which is why the most brain-dead people you’ll find in the country are the ones who line up every year to receive annual flu shots.

When it comes to vaccines, the only thing mainstream newspapers know how to do isrephrase corporate press releasesand spout vaccine propaganda that ends up harming, maiming and often killing more innocent children.

That’s why NaturalNews continues to tell the truth aboutvaccine fraud– because it saves lives by protecting children against bad science and stupid journalism.

Sources include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html#ixzz1rKrrDN00

From the abstract:

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an organic cannabis extract on ?-cell secretory function in an in vivo diet-induced obese rat model and determine the associated molecular changes within pancreatic tissue. Diet-induced obese Wistar rats and rats fed on standard pellets were subcutaneously injected with an organic cannabis extract or the vehicle over a 28-day period. The effect of diet and treatment was evaluated using the intraperitoneal glucose tolerance tests (IPGTTs) and qPCR analysis on rat pancreata harvested upon termination of the experiment.

The cafeteria diet induced an average weight difference of 32 g and an overall increase in body weight in the experimental groups occurred at a significantly slower rate than the control groups, irrespective of diet. Area under the curve for glucose (AUC_g) in the obese group was significantly lower compared to the lean group (p < 0.001), with cannabis treatment significantly reducing the AUC_g in the lean group (p < 0.05), and remained unchanged in the obese group, relative to the obese control group. qPCR analysis showed that the cafeteria diet induced down-regulation of the following genes in the obese control group, relative to lean controls: UCP2, c-MYC and FLIP. Cannabis treatment in the obese group resulted in up-regulation of CB1, GLUT2, UCP2 and PKB, relative to the obese control group, while c-MYC levels were down-regulated, relative to the lean control group. Treatment did not significantly change gene expression in the lean group. These results suggest that the cannabis extract protects pancreatic islets against the negative effects of obesity.

The study was conducted by R-A Levendal, D. Schumann, M. Donath, and CL Frost of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa and at the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland.  Find out more about it here.