1

Lawsuit by 44 States Accuses Pharma Giants of ‘Multi-Year Conspiracy’ to Hike Drug Prices by Over 1,000%

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

A far-reaching lawsuit filed Friday by the attorneys general of more than 40 states accused some of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers of conspiring to inflate prices, in some cases by over 1,000 percent.

“We have hard evidence that shows the generic drug industry perpetrated a multi-billion dollar fraud on the American people,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, whose state led the probe into the companies’ practices, said in a statement.

“Teva and its co-conspirators embarked on one of the most egregious and damaging price-fixing conspiracies in the history of the United States.” —Lawsuit

“We have emails, text messages, telephone records, and former company insiders that we believe will prove a multi-year conspiracy to fix prices and divide market share for huge numbers of generic drugs,” said Tong.

The suit names 20 major drug manufacturers—including Pfizer, Teva, Novartis, and Mylan—as well as more than a dozen senior executives, who the complaint accuses of deleting evidence after the states began their investigation in 2014.

“The industrywide scheme affected the prices of more than 100 generic drugs,” the New York Times reported Saturday, “including lamivudine-zidovudine, which treats H.I.V.; budesonide, an asthma medication; fenofibrate, which treats high cholesterol; amphetamine-dextroamphetamine for ADHD.; oral antibiotics; blood thinners; cancer drugs; contraceptives; and antidepressants.”

Americans pay far more for prescription drugs than the people of any other industrialized nation. Alluding to this fact, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser—who joined the multi-state lawsuit—tweeted on Saturday: “If you are angry about rising drug prices, you should be. Particularly because a major cause of price increases is illegal collusion by generic drug companies.”

As the Washington Post reported, the 465-page lawsuit accuses drug company executives of “coordinating consistently to obstruct” government investigations into drug prices, including after Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) launched a probe into generic drug pricing in 2014.

“Apparently unsatisfied with the status quo of ‘fair share’ and the mere avoidance of price erosion, Teva and its co-conspirators embarked on one of the most egregious and damaging price-fixing conspiracies in the history of the United States,” states the complaint.

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.




Childhood Shingles Resulting from Chickenpox Vaccination: Is it “Rare” or Predictable?

By Children’s Health Defense | * Collective Evolution

From the inception of mass vaccination, childhood vaccines have produced a raft of unintended consequences. One of the biggest problems—gaining steam over the past several decades—involves the vaccine-induced creation of brand-new risks and vulnerabilities that can be more serious than the condition a given vaccine might be intended to address.

… the incidence of shingles in the U.S. rose by 63% among 10- to 19-year-olds as of the mid-2000s.

Predictions and case reports

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) added first one and then two doses of chickenpox vaccine to the U.S. vaccine schedule (in 1996 and 2006, respectively), numerous scientists predicted—accurately as things have turned out—that there would be a chickenpox-shingles tradeoff. In fact, the United Kingdom does not include the varicella vaccine in its childhood schedule to this day precisely because researchers there recognized the potential for routine chickenpox vaccination to “drive up the age at which those who are non immune get the illness” and increase the incidence of shingles in all age groups. Confirming the initial predictions, the incidence of shingles in the U.S. rose by 63% among 10- to 19-year-olds as of the mid-2000s.

Ordinarily, clinicians do not expect to encounter shingles in children unless the children are seriously immunocompromised. Perhaps this is why—in one case report after another describing shingles in otherwise healthy vaccinated children—researchers characterize the situation as “rare” or “unique.” Even so, young shingles patients’ often dramatic clinical symptoms have forced researchers to acknowledge that shingles is definitely “possible” in children vaccinated against varicella, and when they use appropriate molecular analyses, they find that the vaccine-strain virus is the causative agent.

Across studies, the average age of shingles infection in children was 5.3 years, and the infection surfaced, on average, about three years after chickenpox vaccination.

In 2017, clinicians encountered shingles in a healthy 19-month-old who had received a chickenpox vaccine six months previously, and they decided to put their findings in context by searching the English-language literature for similar cases. They identified roughly two dozen published cases of vaccine-strain shingles in “immunocompetent” children and adolescents who had received a chickenpox vaccine but otherwise had “no history of varicella or exposure to varicella during gestation.” A number of the studies reported shingles in very young children—such as a 15-month-old vaccinated three months previously, a 2-year-old “vaccinated for varicella at 17 months,” another vaccinated 2-year-old, and a 3.5-year-old girl who had received the chickenpox vaccine around age 2.  Across studies, the average age of shingles infection in children was 5.3 years, and the infection surfaced, on average, about three years after chickenpox vaccination.

[Read more here]

*Originally entitled: “Childhood Shingles Resulting from Chickenpox Vaccination: “Rare” or Predictable?”

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




Lawsuit Accuses JUUL of Violating Federal Law by Marketing to Teens

Image Credit: Natural Society

By Julie Fidler | Natural Society

 

A new lawsuit alleges that JUUL Labs Inc. illegally underplays the dangers of its product to make it more appealing to kids.

A Little Background First

Experts have warned in recent years that e-cigarettes are a gateway to tobacco use for teens. The problem has become so dire that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now says there is an “epidemic” of youth smoking. One of the most popular vaping devices among young people is JUUL, a small device that looks like a USB device, which includes a pod for liquid nicotine. [1]

The Lawsuit

Filed April 15, the lawsuit names Juul, it’s parent company Altria Group Inc., and Philip Morris USA Inc. as defendants. It was brought by the parents of a 15-year-old girl from Sarasota, Florida, who they say became addicted to nicotine through her JUUL use. The companies are accused in the suit of fraud and deceptive trade practices, among other things.

A lawyer for the girl’s parents said his clients filed the lawsuit as a putative class action on behalf of other children and parents facing similar circumstances. He pointed out that data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that nearly 5 million middle and high school students were current users of a tobacco product in 2018. Much of the problem can be attributed to the popularity of JUUL among younger vapers, “creating an entirely new generation of nicotine addiction.”

JUUL e-cigarettes contain high levels of nicotine and its pods have as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes. [2]

“It really is tragic. For decades the public health community worked against the powerful tobacco industry to reduce youth smoking. … That entire trend is now being reversed. … For the first time in decades, youth smoking of regular combustive cigarettes is up.” [1]

The lawsuit notes that Altria, which owns tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, recently purchased a 35% stake in JUUL after the e-cigarette maker vowed not to market its products to young people. But the agreement instead provides more shelf space for JUUL products and places them in predominant areas of retailers where teens can see them. [2]

Another lawyer for the girl’s parents said:

“JUUL has captured a broad segment of the adolescent and teenage market by applying the same techniques historically used by cigarette makers.

The companies tell regulators they are not marketing to that vulnerable age group while they simultaneously and knowingly created a massive increase in youth nicotine addiction.”

Sources:

[1] Law.com

[2] UPI




BioAcoustic Biology and Soundhealth Answers Tough Questions: Focus on 5G

By Robert G. O’Leary | Nexus News

In this new series of articles, I seek to analyze a particular subject, technology, medicine, or nutrient from a sound analysis perspective. In order to do so, I will be using techniques and knowledge I have learned from the amazing Institute of BioAcoustic Biology and Sound Health, located in Albany, OH. There are many practitioners, of this integrative type of medicine, in the United States and in numerous other areas of the world. For more information, you can check out the website at www.soundhealthoptions.com.

For this first article, I will be taking a look at the important new technology, called 5G, a technology which is being installed as we speak around the world. One cannot typically hear about 5G without hearing about some of the grave concerns about the safety and lack of testing of this technology.

I felt impelled to write this article after watching an eye-opening YouTube video, about 5G. It was a very simple video production, one without the editing and gloss typical of YouTube videos today. Yet I was transfixed by the charisma and conviction of the speaker in the video. He spoke so earnestly and intelligently from the alcove of his home, about this subject. His video was called “Urgent! Forbidden Information, a must watch! 5G is a kill grid that will lead to forced vaccinations.” (Imbriano, 2018)

The man in the video is named Joe Imbriano. He is a scientist and activist. He has taken a particular interest in the effects, of WiFi, generally, and 5G technology, specifically. His pseudonym on YouTube is “The Fullerton Informer,” and he has numerous videos on YouTube under that name.

In this video, Imbriano provided information about the frequency at which 5G will reportedly be emitted: 60 GHz.  He informed the viewer that this frequency is at the beginning of a range of frequencies which happen to disrupt the ability of the element iron to bond with oxygen.[1] His video can be watched below.

This postulation intrigued me as a bioacoustic biology and soundhealth practitioner, and I thought I would explore this information further.[2] That exploration inspired the writing of this article. As a practitioner, I look at how resonant frequencies in our environment can affect us. As such, this article will provide important information about how, and why, 5G may influence our body’s form and function.

As I analyzed this subject bioacoustically, I first found that the Frequency Equivalent (FE) of 60 GHz, which is equal to 60,000,000,000 Hz, is further equivalent (albeit at a far lower frequency) to a common mineral which is indispensable to our survival on this planet. I will be using this particular frequency equivalent to further analyze 5G’s effects.

Before we go further, I will define the term, “Frequency Equivalent.” By way of background, everything in our bodies, and what we put into them (i.e., foods, vitamins, minerals, medicines, poisons, or toxins, et al) has a numeric frequency, which the Institute of BioAcoustic Biology and Sound Health calls a Frequency Equivalent (TM), or FE, for short). The body is incredibly system-redundant, as for example shown by how a pressure point can address symptoms in different body parts & systems. Likewise, a single FE can correspond to a muscle & biochemical simultaneously. For example, an inability to open a pickle jar tends to indicate a weak lower thumb muscle & also correlates to the mineral zinc. Presenting that particular FE to the body, through headphones or a speaker, can improve the performance of both.

What is BioAcoustic Biology?

Here is a description of “bioacoustic biology” from the website of the Institute of BioAcoustic Biology and Sound Health, which is found at www.soundhealthoptions.com:

As a bridge between ancient ideas of sound healing and the futuristic, Star Trek, protocols that the institute provides, it is now possible to reverse diseases and traumas previously thought to be incurable, to reveal the secrets of our true nature, to enhance our lives, to predict what may be our fate through the frequencies of our voice?

Knowing your own voice takes on new meaning if you begin to consider the possibility that the sounds of your voice may be a holographic representation of all that you are, all that you can be. Imagine a future in which our individual vocal frequencies represent our identification; where the use of frequency based biomarkers contained within our voice can be used to keep us healthy and emotionally balanced.

From birth to death, we use sounds to express our needs and emotions, but there are additional layers of information hidden within our words. As man evolved, language became levels of intricate harmony nestled within structures of great elegance that carried meaning and allowed understanding of ourselves and others. See  (Edwards, Undated)

What can BioAcoustic Biology tell us about 5G’s Emission Frequency?

My bioacoustic biological analysis reveals that this frequency equates to such things as chlorophyll and glutathione, to name a few. It also equates with the Frequency Equivalent of elemental/mineral Iron.

My understanding is that anytime you add energy to an atom or molecule, the particles move more rapidly, bounce more and more off of neighboring particles, and thereby expand. Adding energy to an element, as we can reasonably say will happen when we interact with electromagnetic fields, such as those produced by 5G, will also cause it to increase its normal spin of electrons around the nucleus.

Remembering Basic Chemistry

As we excite a substance, more and more, it will pass through its different physical states of matter. In other words, when we heat a solid, it stays solid till it reaches a melting point, at which time it converts into a liquid. If heated more, the liquid boils and turns into a gas. A solid has tightly packed atoms and molecules. A liquid has these particles more spread out, and a gas has them spread out further still. This gaseous state is a kind of maximum expansion of the substance, and we can see this microscopically. See (Encyclopedia Briitannica, Inc., 2019)

Going farther still into the microscopic world, we see that the actual atoms are responding to the application of additional energy. They demonstrate this in the form of an increased spin of their electrons, and that faster spin causes the additional agitation of particles we see.  A faster spin has another consequence: it causes the electrons to hop from the lower orbits to the higher orbits of its structure. See (Encyclopedia Briitannica, Inc., 2019). We could use the analogy of a tilt-a-whirl ride at the amusement park. The faster you spin, the more outward force you feel on your body. If you were not strapped in, your body would keep on moving outward from the center. The faster your spin, the more force you feel upon your body. See (Encyclopedia Briitannica, Inc., 2019).

As you may recall from your chemistry class(es), electrons travel in so-called orbits around the nucleus (which is made up of one proton and neutron). There are various orbits in an atom, each of which can hold a different number of electrons. There is a certain quantity of electrons which each orbit can accommodate when the atom is in stasis. In the case of an iron atom, the 1st orbit holds 2 electrons, the 2nd holds 8, the 3rd holds 14, and the 4th one holds 2. See (Encyclopedia Briitannica, Inc., 2019).

What might be the consequence, of additional spin, upon an iron atom? As expected, with more energy, be it from heat or millimeter-sized radio waves, it seems that electrons will likely hop up into the atom’s upper orbital areas.

The Influence of Additional Energy upon the Atoms which Help us to Breathe

This phenomenon is borne out by the following article, and it shows that this effect holds a particular consequence for Iron’s important interaction with the Oxygen molecule. According to the article, “The Iron-Oxygen Bond in Oxyhemoglobin,” scientist Max Perutz was inspired by contemporary scientist, Linus Pauling, to discover that “the iron-oxygen binding in hemoglobin depends on the electronic spin transition of the iron atom.” This article goes on to state that:

Essentially, Perutz found that when the ferrous iron in hemoglobin is in a low spin state, its higher d-orbitals are unoccupied by electrons, which allows oxygen to form a bond with iron. In a high spin state the electrons in ferrous iron are occupying all d-orbitals in the atom, and oxygen remains unbound, because there is no room in the uppermost orbital.

This suggests that the more likely structure for hemoglobin involves a single bond between iron and the oxygen molecule, not the double bond that Pauling had proposed in 1948 and again in 1964.  But Pauling was correct with respect to the presence of ferrous iron in the compound, and he had been able to make this determination before any crystallographic pictures were available to him. See  (Scarc, 2014).

In this low spin state, the upper most orbit is open. This means that all of its electrons are occupying lower orbits. Oxygen utilizes the uppermost orbit in order to find a place with iron and to bond with it. See  (Scarc, 2014)

If the Frequency Equivalent ™ of iron is activated by outside energy, at the level of 60,000,000,000 Hz of millimeter wave energy, it stands to reason that this will result in an activation of electrons such that they will be pushed to the outer orbit, thereby leaving no room for oxygen molecules to be able to bond with iron. This could mean that oxygen and iron molecules will not have the ability to bond.

The Potential Reach and Influence of 5G

This phenomenon could be of great concern to the future health of our world.

Since the vision and the marketing for 5G is for to have its towers within several feet of one another, and to have 5G technology, inside of homes, within phones, games, appliances, et al, it is likely that nowhere may be safe from these waves. Under a constant cascade of this specific frequency of radio waves, how and when will our lungs (not to mention those of non-human beings) be able to bring the life-giving and life-sustaining oxygen, to which we are accustomed, into our bodies?

While the air outside will still contain ample amounts of oxygen in a 5G world, our bodies ironically could still suffocate. To play with an old saying, we may have miles and miles of oxygen around us, but not a drop to breathe. How swiftly such a state of anoxemia may occur is unknown. But consider, for a moment, the diabolical potential of this kind of technology. It could easily be the product of a James Bond-movie level evil mastermind, and yet it is all too real.

It is mind-boggling to think of the potential harmful effects of this technology. It is fundamental and basic knowledge that we need oxygen in order to survive and thrive. It is the basis for our physical, mental, and emotional processes. Oxygen plays a key role in the lives of our animals, too. Plants breathe out oxygen for us to breathe in, we breathe out carbon dioxide which they use in their photosynthesis process. Nature and our creator have given us a beautifully-balanced system. Somehow, by design, deception, or dumb luck, the telecomm industries have somehow hit upon a frequency which will be tremendously counter/-productive and disruptive to that balance. Is this some kind of doomsday device, which could kill off many, and be the means to limit the freedoms, mobility, and vitality of the rest of society?

5G’s Dangerous History

It is pertinent to note that this type of technology has already been used as a weapons system. As shown in the article, “5G networks will use the same frequencies as pain-inflicting crowd control weapons”, this tech was used for purposes of crowd control and crowd dispersal. Apparently this technology can inflict a burning sensation and effect on your skin, as indicated by the quote below:

For years, the U.S., Russian and Chinese defense agencies have been developing weapons that rely on the capability of this electromagnetic technology to induce unpleasant burning sensations on the skin as a form of crowd control. Millimeter waves are utilized by the U.S. Army in crowd dispersal guns called Active Denial Systems. Dr. Paul Ben-Ishai pointed to research that was commissioned by the U.S. Army to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them. “If you are unlucky enough to be standing there when it hits you, you will feel like your body is on fire.” The U.S. Department of Defense explains how: “The sensation dissipates when the target moves out of the beam. The sensation is intense enough to cause a nearly instantaneous reflex action of the target to flee the beam.” See (Unattributed, “5G networks will use the same frequencies as pain-inflicting crowd control weapons”, 2017)

Another article adds more information to this discussion. It mentions that this technology was developed at least as far back as the 1980’s, and that the burning sensation comes from an actual heating of a victim’s skin to a level of at least 130 degrees Fahrenheit. It is said to be “non-lethal.” See (Unattributed, “Health Effects of 5G Networks,”, 2017)

5G in Context

One may reasonably wonder if the claims of non-lethality are valid, or if the difference between life and death may be just a matter of degree (pardon the pun). How hard would it be for the companies, beaming out this energy, to turn up the power and burn us to death, or to burn down our homes? Is it safe to bring such a potential danger into our homes?

You may recall that smart meters were touted as safe and efficient not that long ago. They are similar to 5G in that they communicate with an outside company. In some cases, smart meters have ignited or exploded inside of homes. The danger of smart meters, due to a defect in the design or manufacture of one or more units, is therefore potentially fatal. 5G technology will reportedly be in many of our appliances, not just a single outside unit. You can imagine that, if each of these units even has a fraction of the potential danger of a single smart meter unit, the results could be disastrous and deadly.

To those who might protest and ask, “Why would our government do such things?” consider this:

Firstly, we have seen how surveillance has been turned on citizens, even though much, if not all, of its justification for production and proliferation has been based upon the threat of a foreign enemy. Whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, have provided us a valuable service by showing us how little our government, and the Fortune 500 companies which seek to control it, cares about our privacy and our health.

Secondly, it is now common to see that military-grade hardware and armaments have been distributed widely to local and state police forces.  As these forces begin to use these items, they begin to look more like soldiers or Stormtroopers than typical police officers. It is not far-fetched to see how 5G, which is intended to be installed in every home, could be used as part of the militarization of the entire world; and the government could conceivably have at least as much information on its citizens as it has on its own enemies.

Thirdly, there are concerns over the so-called Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and a document which NASA briefly had on its website, about what the world would look like in 2025. Much of this subject is discussed in the article, “NASA – The End of Mankind ‘Leaked Document.’” See (Wales, Undated)

The above issues concern facts and events which likely seem fantastical to most of us. Making them harder to grasp is the fact that they have constantly been branded conspiracy theories for years. Yet the years 2017 and 2018 have borne witness to the confirmation of many conspiracy theories as scientific fact and the concomitant vindication of many so-called “conspiracy theorists.”  See (Rudkowski, 2017) and (Icke, 2017). For even earlier confirmations and vindications (from 2013 and 2014), check out: “25 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True,” and “25 Conspiracy Theories That Actually Ended Up Being True”. See (List 25, 2013) and (List 25, 2015).

With so many seemingly implausible theories and events becoming documented and publicized, the tool of plausible deniability, wielded so deftly by the government and its handmaiden, the mainstream media, seems more and more ineffective. At the same time the burden of proof seems to have shifted onto the establishment. It therefore seems more than reasonable that the remaining so-called “conspiracy theorists” be given the benefit of the doubt when they have the courage to address and warn the public about facts or concerns that they may have.

Coming back to our subject, in the context of these times it does not appear unreasonable to state that 5G may be part of a plan to enslave, control, and/or kill off much of the human race. This brings us to our next pertinent question…

Why Such a Rush to Put this Technology in Place – Haven’t We Learned Anything from the Past?

It seems, to this writer, very worrisome that the companies are pushing for local towns and cities to have no real say over the decision of where and whether (or not) to place this tech. It is being rushed into place at an alarming rate. The purported watchdog agency, the FCC, does not seem concerned about the technology in the least. In fact, they seem almost giddy at the prospect of its full implementation.

None of this tech will be really be tested before it is put online, and the rules and regulations controlling WiFi are woefully outdated, and seem purposely drafted to do little to nothing to protect citizens from the harm that 3G, 4G, and 5G technology represent. Some of this is discussed in a video, entitled “Michigan House Energy Policy Committee 5G Hearing May 29, 2018 – Part 1,” and can be found at. The area of particular interest, in regard to health issues, begins at about the 1:04 mark. (Technology, 2018)

As with conspiracy theories, it has become more and more difficult to see how we can believe the government, the media, or industry in regard to health matters anymore. We know that GMOs can cause cancer; we know that fluoride does not really help to protect your teeth and has harmful mental effects; there is more and more credible evidence that we and our property are being attacked from the sky (via chemtrails/geoengineering and lasers); and we now know that there have been no efforts to improve the safety of vaccines over the last 32 years despite the legislative mandate to do so;

Despite the dangers, the corporation formerly called Monsanto, now Bayer, is still selling its poison. Fluoride is still peddled by most dentists, and still flowing out of many area water supplies. We are still seeing streaks in the sky every day, and California is still being wracked by fires many of which seem to be caused by aerosol spraying, HAARP beams, and lasers from above. Lastly, despite the dangers, vaccine companies still act with impunity and some areas of the world have, or contemplate having mandatory vaccines. Considering that Adolf Hitler put fluoride into the food supply of the prisoners in his concentration camps in order to make them more docile, the push toward mandatory vaccines seems to smack of fascism.

The Small Amount of 5G Testing has been Neither Public Nor Positive

In his February 10, 2018 video, mentioned above, Joe Imbriano mentioned that 5G was already used in 2 U.S. schools. In those experiments, the following symptoms allegedly manifested: paralysis, arrhythmia, neurological problems, tingling in the extremities, fainting, malaise, and fatigue. (Imbriano, 2018)

Special Note: Sharry Edwards, and her staff at the Institute of BioAcoustic Biology and Sound Health, are working on this and many other health issues and concerns. Numerous classes, and regular radio broadcasts, are available to help you learn even more. Their website is www.soundhealthoptions.com and their phone number is (740) 698-9119. You will find the information and software, found there, to be very informative and empowering.

Finally, if you wish to get some experience working with vocal analysis, itself, go to www.SoundHealthPortal.com – the Institute’s online pubic workstation. Sharry Edwards has indicated that she will be dedicating part of the workstation to analyzing people’s sensitivity to 5G technology. So be on the lookout for that.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Pollen Is Getting Worse, but You Can Make Things Better With These Tips From an Allergist

Image Credit: Pixabay

By Kara Wada | EcoWatch

Blooming spring flowers signal the beginning of spring, but for millions of people, they also signal the onset of the misery: allergy and asthma season. Itchy, watery eyes; sneezing, runny nose; cough and wheezing are triggered by an overreaction of the body to pollen.

Every spring, trees and grasses release billions of buoyant pollen granules into the air, using the wind to disburse across the countryside in an effort to reproduce. It’s all about survival; plants that release more pollen have the survival advantage.

As an adult and pediatric allergist-immunologist in the Midwest, the onset of spring signals my busy season treating hundreds of patients for their seasonal allergy and asthma symptoms. If you suffer through the season, know that you are not alone. Throughout history, pollen has taken the fun out of spring for many. In modern times, however, medical science has identified practices and treatments that help.

Older Than the Dinosaurs, as Wide as the World

Fossilized specimens of pollen granules have been found predating dinosaurs and alongside Neanderthals.

And, sinus and asthma symptoms and treatments are documented throughout history and across the globe. People just didn’t know exactly how to treat the symptoms, or exactly what was causing them.

For example, more than 5,000 years ago, the Chinese used the berries of the horse tail plant, ma huang (Ephedra distachya), to relieve congestion and decrease mucous production associated with “plant fever” — a condition affecting people during the fall.

In Egypt, the “Papyrus Ebers,” written around 1650 B.C., recommended more than 20 treatments for cough or difficulty breathing, including honey, dates, juniper and beer.

Although Homer’s “Iliad” describes the loud noise of breathing in battle as “asthma,” Aretaeus of Cappadocia of the second century A.D. is credited with the first clinical description more consistent with modern understanding of this condition. He wrote of those who suffered that:

“They open the mouth since no house is sufficient for their respiration, they breathily standing, as if desiring to draw in all the air which they possibly can inhale… the neck swells with the inflation of the breath, the precordia (chest wall) retracted, the pulse becomes small and dense,” and if the symptoms persist, the patient “may produce suffocation after the form of epilepsy.”

By the time Columbus landed, indigenous populations in Central and South American were utilizing ipecacuanha, a root found in Brazil with expectorant and emetic properties and balsam, which is still used in some cold remedies today. Coca and tobacco leaves, used medicinally by the Incas, were later exported to Europe for additional experimentation for the treatment of rhinitis and asthma.

Aside from the “plant fever” described in China, the first written description of seasonal respiratory symptoms is credited to Rhazes, a Persian scholar, around 900 A.D. He described the nasal congestion that coincided with the blooming of roses, termed “rose fever.”

Symptoms Noticed, but No Cause Identified

As scientific advancement was stifled during the Middle Ages, in large part due to the plague, it wasn’t until 900 years later, in 1819, that Dr. John Bostock published a description of his own seasonal allergies. But he didn’t know what was causing them.

Having suffered from “summer catarrh” since childhood, Bostock persisted in his study of the condition, despite an initial lackluster response from the medical community.

In the nine years between his first and second publications, he found only 28 additional cases consistent with his own seasonal allergy symptoms, which perhaps demonstrates the lower prevalence of the condition at the time. He noted that nobility and the privileged classes were more often afflicted by seasonal allergies. This was thought to be the consequence of wealth, culture and an indoor life.

Societal changes with their roots in the Industrial Revolution, including increased exposure to air pollution, less time spent outdoors, increased pollen counts and improved hygiene, all likely contributed to the increased prevalence of allergies that we continue to see today. They also helped form the hygiene hypothesis, which states that in part decreased exposure to particular bacteria and infections could be leading to the increase in allergic and autoimmune diseases.

The source of seasonal symptoms at the time was also thought to be caused by the smell of new hay. This led to the coining of the term “hay fever.”

Bostock instead suspected the recurring symptoms were triggered by the summer heat, since his symptoms improved when he spent the summer on the coast. It would later became common for nobility and aristocrats to spend allergy season in coastal or mountain resorts to avoid bothersome symptoms.

Identifying the True Culprit

Through methodical study and self-experimentation, Dr. Charles Blackley identified that pollen was to blame for allergy symptoms. He collected, identified, and described various pollens and then determined their allergic properties by rubbing them into his eyes or scratching them on his skin. He then noted which ones resulted in redness and itching. This same technique is used in skin prick testing by allergists today.

Inspired by discoveries related to vaccination, Dr. Leonard Noon and John Freeman prepared doses of pollen extracts for injection in an effort to desensitize patients with allergic rhinitis in the early 1900s. This effective treatment, called allergy immunotherapy, also known as allergy shots, is still used today.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE….




E-mails Show Coca-Cola Tried to Influence CDC Health Officials

Image Credit: Natural Society

By Mike Barrett |  Natural Society

The 2 most important keys to a healthy lifestyle are diet and exercise. But Coca-Cola desperately wants people to believe that diet isn’t as important as exercise, which isn’t much of a surprise, considering the products the company makes. But what you may not know is that Coca-Cola is willing to sink to low levels in order to deceive the public in order to sell more products.

A report published January 29 in the health policy journal Milbank Quarterly reveals that e-mails between Coca-Cola and top officials from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that the company tried to use its influence with the agency to push the World Health Organization (WHO) to emphasize exercise over diet as the solution to the obesity epidemic.

The report is new, but the methods are not.

The Coca-Cola Deception

Back in 2013, the corporation came out with an advertising campaign centered on the nation’s status on health and obesity. In the ads, Coca-Cola claimed to be doing its part to fight obesity by creating products that help people lose weight. In other words, diet soda.

As we wrote in 2013, Coca-Cola explains in the campaign how it can play an important role in fighting obesity by offering low- and no-calorie beverages, and stresses that the obesity epidemic is not caused simply by consuming the calories in its products.

Coca-Cola has been accused in the past of paying scientists to shift the blame away from junk food and sugary drinks for causing the obesity epidemic. The company was even caught red-handed donating large sums of money to “charities” that published propaganda telling people that soda has nothing to do with obesity, diabetes, and the many other health problems associated with obesity. It was further revealed that Coca-Cola paid health writers, bloggers, and spokespeople to push soda on the public as a healthy beverage.

This time, consumer groups are accusing the company of trying to sway the CDC toward policies that would benefit its products by corresponding with top agency officials and donating to the CDC Foundation. These alleged actions were discovered through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

 

For example, former Coca-Cola senior vice president Alex Malaspina wrote in one newly discovered e-mail that the WHO “should not only consider sugary foods as the only cause of obesity but to also consider the lifestyle changes that have been occurring throughout the universe.”

The report states:

“The e-mails we obtained using FOIA requests reveal efforts by Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization.”

There is little doubt that the Western diet, as a whole, is contributing greatly to obesity worldwide, particularly in America. Americans’ lust for over-consuming fast food, junk food, and processed food is insatiable and the eating pattern carries much of the blame for the nation’s expanding waistline. But the Western diet is also sugar-laden, and that’s the information Coca-Cola wants kept out of the public eye.

And it’s not just Coca-Cola. PepsiCo and other beverage makers have sought to shift the blame away from sugar and toward a lack of physical activity by influencing policymakers and lawmakers, and through misleading marketing campaigns and so-called philanthropy for years.

Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said:

“One of the things the sugar industry has so far been quite successful in is denying the strong and emerging science related to the adverse effects of sugary drinks.”

Even before there were thousands of soda options to choose from, the sugar industry was trying to convince Americans that sugar was near-harmless. In the 1960’s, the industry paid Harvard scientists to author studies showing that the worst health effects of sugar were cavities and hyperactivity. It laid the blame for obesity and heart disease on fat, and the American public blindly bought into the propaganda. It wasn’t long before no-fat and low-fat products became commonplace.

In reality, low-fat foods contain about 20% more sugar than full-fat products. So while Americans were gobbling up more sugar and less fat thinking they were being healthy in doing so, the sugar industry lined its pockets on the money it made off of people’s naiveté and trusting natures. After all, if Harvard scientists say something is good for you, surely it is. Right?

Coca-Cola is still betting that buyers don’t understand the relationship between health and diet.

Nason Maani Hessari, a research fellow in the Department of Health Services Research and Policy at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom, who was first author of the new paper, said that:

“…these e-mail exchanges show what appear to be attempts to leverage personal relationships at the CDC to further these goals at the expense of population health – and lead to questions about whether organizations like the CDC should refrain from engaging in partnerships where there is such a potential for conflict of interest.” [2]

CDC: A Willing Partner

Dr. Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences in the Boston University School of Public Health called the depth of collaboration between Coca-Cola and the CDC “a little bit scary.” He also co-authored of a paper published in 2016 in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine detailing how Coca-Cola and PepsiCo sponsored at least 96 national health organizations at the same time the companies were lobbying against public health bills intended to reduce how many sugary sodas people drink.

“To me, the most disturbing aspect was the extent to which CDC officials were actually helping the company achieve its lobbying objective, and there were examples of giving them advice, providing contact information, helping them try to fight against soda taxes.

The larger implications of this, in my view, are that it really highlights the need to put up barrier walls – talking about building walls – but we need to have some barrier walls built between our government agencies and these corporations to prevent undue influence from occurring.”

Here is the truth: The occasional sugary drink is fine, but it should be a treat, and not part of your daily lifestyle – no matter what anyone says.

Sources:

[1] The Washington Post

[2] CNN

 




Amazon Urged to Burn Books on This Controversial Subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWPHiCivn0I

Article Source: Mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • When a government policy is unjust and people resist, the last resort is always a show of force. Use of fear, intimidation, discrimination and punishment of dissenting minorities is the hallmark of authoritarian governments, as is censorship and propaganda
  • Declaring a “take no prisoners” war on parents who decline to give their children every dose of every government recommended vaccine, the vaccine industry has been emboldened by lucrative public-private business partnerships forged with governments and the World Health Organization
  • The vaccine industry is looking to shut down the public conversation about health and vaccination, and seeks government mandates to force every child and adult to use every vaccine available
  • In 1983, the U.S. government recommended 23 doses of seven vaccines, given between 2 months and 6 years old. Today, the child vaccination schedule is 69 doses of 16 vaccines, given between the day of birth and age 18, with 50 doses administered before age 6
  • That vaccine list could double or triple in coming years. Drug companies are fast tracking more than a dozen new “priority” vaccines for children, pregnant women and adults, including respiratory syncytial virus, streptococcus A and B, HIV, herpes simplex virus, gonorrhea, E-coli, Shigella, Salmonella, tuberculosis, malaria and more, and industry will likely lobby governments to mandate all of them

The following referenced information contains opinion and perspective on a health topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics that is being discussed in public forums, including in medical, law and other professional journals; newspapers, magazines and other print; broadcast and online media outlets; state legislatures and the U.S. Congress.

Readers are encouraged to go to the websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for the perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for information on vaccine policymaking; to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for information on regulating vaccines for safety and effectiveness; and to National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for information on research and the development of new vaccines.

The World Health Organization has stated that “vaccine hesitancy” is one of the top 10 global public health threats.

By Barbara Loe Fisher

On a cold winter morning in November 2007, I watched hundreds of parents line up with their children in front of a Maryland county courthouse. The children had been kicked out of school by state officials and were truant.

The mothers and fathers were holding letters threatening them with imprisonment or fines of $50 a day for failing to show proof their children had gotten a chickenpox or hepatitis B shot.1

Confused, angry and frightened, but mostly resigned, they were working moms and dads trudging toward the courthouse on a Saturday morning to face a judge ordering them to vaccinate their children or go to jail. Patrolling the scene was an armed SWAT team of policemen with dogs.

The U.S. media turned out that day, but they and other members of the public were kept behind barricades and denied access into the building. I was there with my son, who brought his camera. We were there to witness what was going on with parents whose children had been injured by vaccines. There was no transparency, no public oversight on what was happening to the parents and children inside the building.

I spoke with several mothers leaving the building with their children and learned the sad truth. They were not being asked questions about their child’s medical history or whether the children had experienced health problems after previous vaccinations. No information was given about vaccine side effects or how to monitor their children for signs of vaccine reactions.2 They were not made aware of exemptions to vaccination.

Clearly, preventing vaccine reactions was not a priority for those in charge that day. The children were being injected with not just the two new vaccines added to the state’s school requirement list — hepatitis B and chickenpox — but also with other required vaccines if the public school system could find no record.

One mother told me her children were up to date on their shots but the school system lost the records. She agreed to have her children receive the required vaccines all over again on the spot to avoid being fined or, worse, being sent to jail.

This mother and I were talking hundreds of yards from the front of the courthouse door. We were standing about 12 inches inside a row of large cement stones that had been put there as a barrier to prevent terrorist attacks. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye I saw an armed guard with a dog emerge from the courthouse. He was walking straight toward us.

I got this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. It was the surge of shock and dread that any citizen of any country in any century has felt when an armed guard with a dog starts advancing. As if we were criminals or terrorists, he yelled and gestured to us to move behind the stones.

I looked at the mother and my son, who was filming our conversation, and we moved without a word. We were being shown the power of the State wielded by that guard armed with a dog and a gun, just as parents inside the courthouse were being shown the power of the State wielded by doctors with syringes.

US Constitution Protects Freedom to Dissent

When a government policy is unjust and people resist, the last resort is always a show of force. Use of fear, intimidation, discrimination and punishment of dissenting minorities is the hallmark of authoritarian governments and so is censorship and propaganda.

None of these tactics has a place in America, where our Constitution protects civil liberties, including freedom of thought, speech, conscience, religious belief and the right to dissent and petition the government.3,4,5 Twelve years after I watched a state health department flex its muscle at a county courthouse, this year the whole world is watching the multibillion-dollar vaccine industrial complex flex its muscle in America.6,7,8

Declaring a “take no prisoners” war on parents who decline to give their children every dose of every government recommended vaccine, the vaccine industry has been emboldened by the lucrative public-private business partnerships that have been forged over the past four decades with governments and the World Health Organization (WHO).9,10

Vaccine Industry Wants Forced Use of All Vaccines by All People

The win that industry is looking for is a complete shutdown of the public conversation about health and vaccination followed by a mandate by every government to force every child and adult to use every vaccine that drug companies develop and sell.

For children born in America in 1983, the federal government recommended 23 doses of seven vaccines given between 2 months and 6 years old.11 Today, the child vaccination schedule is 69 doses of 16 vaccines given between the day of birth and age 18, with 50 doses administered before age 6, at a current price tag of more than $3,000 per child.12,13

Child Vaccine Schedule Could Double or Triple in Future

For children born in America in the years to come, that vaccine list and cost could double or triple. WHO is encouraging drug companies to fast track more than a dozen new “priority” vaccines to market for children, pregnant women and adults — and you can be sure industry will lobby governments to mandate all of them — respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Streptococcus A and B, HIV, herpes simplex virus, gonorrhea, E-coli, Shigella, Salmonella, tuberculosis, malaria and more.14

Where is the scientific evidence to support the assumption that forcing everyone to use more vaccines to atypically manipulate our immune systems and repeatedly provoke inflammatory responses in our bodies throughout life will produce better health for all?15,16,17,18,19,20

The Real Public Health Emergency Is Not About Measles

The signs are everywhere that people are trying to throw off the chains binding them to failed medical and public health policies that cost Americans more than $3 trillion a year in health care costs.21

Americans are beginning to understand that trusting blindly and saluting doctors smartly for the past 40 years has not prevented 1 in 6 children from becoming learning disabled,22,23 or 1 in 9 from suffering with asthma,24 or 1 in 10 from struggling with mental and behavior disorders,25 or 1 in 40 from developing autism.26

America now has the worst infant mortality rates,27,28 worst maternal mortality rates29,30 and worst life expectancy31,32 of all developed nations.

Highly vaccinated and medicated Americans are very sick, with millions of children and adults suffering with immune and brain dysfunction marked by chronic inflammation in their brains and bodies33,34 that confines too many of them to special education classrooms and frequent trips to doctors’ offices to try to deal with a lifetime of chronic illness and disability.35,36

No public health official, professor or legislator in America can explain why millions and millions of children and more than half of all adults are chronically ill or disabled.37

This is the real public health emergency that mothers and fathers want to talk about, but Congress and medical trade groups do not want to discuss. This is the elephant in the room at every public hearing on bills proposing to take away or expand vaccine informed consent rights being held in state legislatures today.

No Exception Vaccine Laws Guarantee Denial of Vaccine Casualties

The pharmaceutical industry, which was handed a partial liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits by the U.S. Congress in 1986,38 which was turned into a total liability shield by the Supreme Court in 2011,39,40,41 is fighting to keep an economic stranglehold on a crumbling U.S. health care system.42,43,44,45

With the government having paid vaccine victims more than $4 billion in federal vaccine injury compensation since 1988 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,46,47 pharmaceutical corporations do not want to give up the no-risk, stable income stream they get from selling mandated vaccines.48

“No exception” vaccine laws guarantee that good vaccine science will never be done so vaccine casualties can continue to be swept under the rug by denying they exist,49,50,51,52,53 and nobody has to care about the crippled and dead bodies lying on the ground except the mothers and fathers grieving endlessly for what could have been.54

Today, most people know somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again.55,56 This inconvenient truth is why the vaccine industry must find a way to shut down all public conversation about vaccination and eliminate all vaccine exemptions — and do it now.

Vaccine Risks Not Being Shared Equally by All

In January 2019, the WHO announced that “vaccine hesitant” people, especially parents, are one of the top 10 threats to global health.57 This ominous warning was quickly followed by the declaration of a state of emergency in Washington after a handful of measles cases were confirmed in primarily unvaccinated children.58

Immediately, the media shifted into overdrive, just like in January 2015 when measles cases were reported in Disneyland and the California legislature quickly removed the personal belief vaccine exemption for school children,59,60,61 despite the biggest public protests the state Capitol had seen since the Vietnam War.

In the first two months of 2019, we have watched thousands of brave parents and health care professionals travel to state capitals and line up with their children at public hearings in Washington,62,63 Arizona,64 Nevada,65 Oregon66 and Capitol Hill.67

They are taking time off their jobs and spending their own money to make the journey to beg lawmakers to protect the legal right for children to get a school education and for parents to exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccine risk taking for their minor children.68

With almost no vaccine contraindications today that qualify for a medical exemption under narrow CDC guidelines,69,70 vaccine risks are not being shared equally by all. One-size-fits-all vaccine laws place an unequal risk burden on, and discriminate against, a vulnerable minority of children, who have genetic, biological and environmental susceptibility to suffering vaccine reactions.71,72,73,74

Why are the lives of vaccine vulnerable children, whom public health officials do not want to acknowledge, valued less than the lives of immune compromised children they will acknowledge?

Calls for Forced Vaccination and Censorship

Since 2015, no state legislature has removed a vaccine exemption.75,76 This year, while 11 states are proposing to restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions, NVIC is supporting 61 bills that expand exemptions or protect vaccine informed consent rights (as of March 1, 2019), the largest number of bills we have ever supported in a legislative session.77

This pushback against forced vaccination is being met with fury by doctors and lawyers inside and outside of government and by multimedia corporations demanding that parental rights and vaccine exemptions be stripped from state laws and that all information criticizing government vaccine policy be removed from the web.78,79,80

In the past few weeks, high-ranking federal health officials have made false statements in Congress in an effort to mislead lawmakers into believing childhood vaccines like MMR do not carry serious risks.81

The FDA Commissioner has threatened state legislators with federal government intervention if they do not eliminate vaccine exemptions.82,83,84 The Chair of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee has pressured Facebook to block conversations about vaccination and Amazon to censor books and videos containing information about vaccine risks and failures.85 ,86,87

Amazon immediately bowed to that government pressure and removed the movie “Vaxxed” from Amazon Prime Streaming and similar videos critical of vaccine safety.88 However, CNN is urging Amazon to go further and “burn” all the books, too, by completely removing them from the site.89,90

A Washington, D.C., lawmaker reacted to the hype by asking, “What if you take parents out of the equation?” and introduced a bill to allow minor children of any age to get vaccines in the city without a parent’s knowledge or consent after a doctor says the child is “mature” enough to make the decision.91

What is the justification for burning the books and clearing the way for doctors to persuade very young children to get vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge or consent?

The media would have you believe that calls for censorship and the elimination of state vaccine exemptions and parental rights are based on 206 reported cases of measles identified in 11 states between January and March in our population of 328 million people. According to the CDC, “three or more cases” of measles is considered to be an “outbreak.”92

All the blame for measles outbreaks is being put on parents of the less than 2 percent of unvaccinated children attending U.S. schools, where nearly 95 percent of children nationwide have received two doses of measles containing MMR vaccine.93 Aside from the illogical premise that children only catch measles or other infections in school buildings, is the call for censorship and “no exceptions” vaccine laws only about a few hundred cases of measles? I don’t think so.

The Human Right to Autonomy Limits the Power of the State

The demonization of parents and enlightened doctors who criticize vaccine science and government policy is merely the tip of the spear in a larger culture war going on in this and other countries, where economically stable, well-educated populations are beginning to understand they are being exploited by corporations that have made business deals with governments.94,95,96,97,98

The culture wars in the 21st century are about whether the first human right, individual autonomy,99 will survive, or an authoritarian State will own our children and have the power to eliminate civil liberties and sacrifice the lives of certain people for what those in control of the State consider the greater good of society.100

The human right to autonomy protects individuals and vulnerable minorities from being discriminated against and exploited by the State. Who has the moral right, or should have the legal authority, to demand that mothers and fathers violate their conscience and risk their children’s lives or face punishment for refusing to do it?

What kind of government policy demands that kind of involuntary sacrifice? And what kind of government demands that information about the risks and failures of a liability-free pharmaceutical product be censored and withheld from the people being forced to use it?

There is no more important freedom than the freedom to decide when and for what reason you are willing to risk your life or your child’s life. We give up the human right to autonomy at our peril, no matter where or in what century we live.

The outcome of the Vaccine Culture War will determine what it means to be free,101 because if the State can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

Martin Niemoller prophetically warned that incremental oppression by those in control of an authoritarian State is facilitated by denial, apathy and fear. He said:

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”102

Americans, this is our moment to help determine the outcome of a very real culture war that threatens to destroy long-held values and beliefs that are embodied in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution to protect us from tyranny. The Bill of Rights affirms that we have God-given natural rights, known today as civil liberties or human rights, which belong to each one of us and should never be taken away for any reason.

You Will Make the Choice

You and you alone will make the choice to live free or die as a slave. Do not let anyone take away your freedom to think and speak and obey the certain judgment of your conscience.

Use the NVIC Advocacy Portal to contact your state and federal legislators. Defend freedom and educate your family, friends and leaders in your community. Go to NVIC.org and sign up for our newsletter, so that no matter what happens in the weeks and months to come, you will not lose contact with us.

Be the one who never has to regret that you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health. Your family. Your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

Note: This commentary provides information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research and development (NIH), regulation (FDA) and policymaking (CDC). The World Health Organization has stated that “vaccine hesitancy” is one of the top 10 global public health threats.

One of the Most Powerful Videos I’ve Ever Seen

The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.

There is a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that results in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEcYQydhY9E

PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT AND DEFEND VACCINE EXEMPTIONS

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up to date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up to date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

SHARE YOUR STORY WITH THE MEDIA AND PEOPLE YOU KNOW

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

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

INTERNET RESOURCES WHERE YOU CAN LEARN MORE

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

  • 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 and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
  • Vaccine Failure Wall — View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.

CONNECT WITH YOUR DOCTOR OR FIND A NEW ONE THAT WILL LISTEN AND CARE

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

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

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

 




Bestselling Author’s ‘Anti-Vax’ Post Goes Viral: “I Do Not Consent”

By Arjun Walia | Collective-Evolution

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:Jamie McGuire, a New York Times bestselling author with a large social media following, recently shared why she does not consent to any type of mandatory vaccination initiatives. She received both support and backlash.
  • Reflect On:Why are people with big followings who oppose vaccinations and mandatory vaccine initiatives afraid to share their opinions? Why are vaccine awareness groups always attacked with ridicule and character assassination instead of with rebuttals?

It’s not often that people with a large following speak out ‘against’ vaccinations, despite the fact that many of them may feel a certain way. Sharing thoughts as to why one may not support vaccinations, especially if they are in the public eye, can lead to instant ridicule and character assassination. As a result, not many people are brave enough to speak out, but with more and more information emerging every single day about vaccinations and how they’re not as safe as they are marketed to be by their manufacturers (big pharma), speaking out against vaccinations using facts can no longer be countered or addressed with opposing evidence. There are several clear causes for concern when it comes to vaccinations, which render the idea of forced vaccinations as something extremely wrong and unethical.

On March 8th, she wrote the following post on her Facebook page:

Until you can prove vaccines do not cause DNA mutations, I do not consent. Until you can prove vaccines do not carry cancer causing retroviruses, I do not consent. Until you can prove vaccines do not impair fertility, I do not consent. Until you can prove vaccines are safe using the gold standard in medicine with an inert placebo, I do not consent. Until you can prove it’s safe and effective to inject 8 different viruses at one time, I do not consent. Until you can prove it’s safe to inject 18 times the “safe” limit of Aluminum into day 1 old babies, I do not consent.Until you can prove none of the 16 vaccines and their components do not cause autism, I do not consent. Until you can prove vaccines are not permanently harming the immune system and creating an epidemic of autoimmune diseases, I do not consent. Until you can prove vaccines do not contribute to SIDS, I do not consent. Until you can prove vaccinated individuals are healthier, live longer or thrive more so than their non vaccinated counterparts, I do not consent. Unless you carried, loved and cared for MY child, I do not consent.

We are proud of Jamie for saying what she () stated, and all of her points are extremely valid. This isn’t an ‘anti-vax’ post, but rather a post about information regarding vaccines. Using terms like ‘anti-vax’ and ‘pro-vax is really counterproductive, as both sides are concerned about the same thing, the safety of children and adults. Information that suggests vaccines need to be looked at deeper and raise concerns about them are not ‘anti-vax,’ it’s simply just important information. The mainstream likes to use these labels to pit two sides against each-other in a non peaceful way.

The work of Dr. Judy Mikovits came to mind when she mentioned retroviruses. She has a well-established history of working for the National Cancer Institute as a cancer researcher, and Dr. Mikovits worked with human retroviruses like HIV. Specifically, her work focused on immunotherapy research. In 2009, she was working on autism and related neurological diseases. She found that many of the study subjects had cancer, motor-neuron disorders, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). She believed a virus may have been responsible for these symptoms, and through her research, she isolated the viruses that turned out to have come from mice. From 2006 to 2011, Dr. Mikovits was the research director of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), a chronic fatigue syndrome research organization and clinic in Reno, Nevada in the United States.  Her and her team published a paper in one of the best scientific journals in the world, Science, on October 8th, 2009.  The study was retracted two years later after going through the rigorous peer-reviewed process, when another study was published. You can view the 2009 study here.

In 2011, another AIDS researcher in a journal called Frontiers in Microbiology wrote a paper that cost her a lot, because it stated that the most likely way that murine leukemia virus-related viruses  entered humans was through vaccines. You can read that study here.

The details explaining how retroviruses in today’s biological therapeutics including vaccines are contributing to autoimmune, neuroimmune disease and cancer are complex. Although I’ve spent my adult lifetime studying how retroviruses contribute to these diseases, paring down the complexities into basics is a daunting task. We now appreciate that it is the use of xenograft technologies in the development of vaccines and biological drugs and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have accelerated the spread of animal retroviruses into humans, a process known as zoonosis, whereby an animal retrovirus jumps species, learning to evade immune mechanisms of humans and thereby causing disease. 

Dr. Mikovits wrote a detailed article for Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s “Children’s Health Defence” organization, going into more detail about the vaccine/retrovirus issue and the information stated above. You can read that entire article HERE.  You can also watch a short video clip of her explaining what happened to her as a result of all these findings HERE. This is just one example, as there have been a multitude of other studies published outlining the concerns of retrovirus within vaccines.

She goes on to mention vaccine ingredients. Let’s look at aluminum as an example.

Another fairly recent study from 2015 points out:

Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggested that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term. (source)

This is one of multiple studies that has outlined how, despite the fact that aluminum has been used inside of vaccines as the adjuvant (to trigger an immune response, the more toxic the adjuvant the greater the immune response) for more than one hundred years, it’s one of multiple vaccine ingredients that has never gone through any safety testing. How can so many publications stress that we don’t know the details regarding the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients, yet our federal health regulatory agencies like the CDC continue to claim that vaccines go through rigorous safety testing?

Another quote from another study:

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.

The quote above comes from a study published in 2011. It’s 2019 now and we’ve come a long way in our understanding of vaccines. We are starting to see even more research confirming the statement above.

The point is that injected aluminum doesn’t exit the body, it’s designed to stick around because it’s the adjuvant. The vaccine doesn’t really work without it. This automatically implicates vaccines in the causation of multiple diseases from autism to Alzheimer’s disease later on in life.  In 2018, scientists opened the brains of multiple deceased autistic people and found some of the highest brain aluminum content ever measured in brain tissue. You can access that study here.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




The Impact of Vaccines on Mortality Decline Since 1900—According to Published Science

By JB Handley | Collective Evolution

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:Article written by JB Handley, Children’s Health Defense Director and Co-Founder of Generation Rescue.
  • Reflect On:How come we never hear about this information? It’s well sourced and factual. Why are vaccines marketed by pharmaceutical companies as life savers and completely safe when the data shows otherwise?

Since 1900, there’s been a 74% decline in mortality rates in developed countries, largely due to a marked decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. How much of this decline was due to vaccines? The history and data provide clear answers that matter greatly in today’s vitriolic debate about vaccines.

The simple question: “How did this happen?”

Why did the mortality rate decline so precipitously? If you listen to vaccine promoters, the answer is simple: vaccines saved us. What’s crazy about this narrative is how easy it is to disprove, the data is hiding in plain sight. The fact that this easily-proven-false narrative persists, however, tells us a lot about the world we live in, and I hope will encourage parents to reconsider the veracity of many of the narratives they’ve been fed about vaccines, and do their own primary research.

1970, Dr. Edward H. Kass

Standing before his colleagues on October 19, 1970, Harvard’s Dr. Edward H. Kass gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that would likely get him run out of this same profession today. At the time, Dr. Kass was actually the President of the organization, which made the things he had to say about vaccines and their impact on the reduction in American mortality rates even more shocking, at least by today’s standards. Forty-eight years after Dr. Kass’ speech, vaccines have taken on a mythological status in many corners of our world, hyped up by the people who benefit the most from their use. Of course vaccines saved the world. Of course every child should get  every vaccine. If you don’t vaccinate, you will enable the return of deadly childhood diseases. If you don’t vaccinate, your child will die. If you question vaccines, even a little, you’re an “anti-vaxxer” who should be shunned and dismissed!

But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?

In his famous speech, Dr. Kass took his infectious disease colleagues to task, warning them that drawing false conclusions about WHY mortality rates had declined so much could cause them to focus on the wrong things. As he explained:

“…we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past —tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc. —and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”

Dr. Kass then shared some eye-opening charts with his colleagues. I’m trying to imagine a President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America sharing one of these charts today at a meeting of public health officials. I picture someone turning the power off for the room where he’s presenting and then he gets tackled and carried off the stage…here’s the first example of a chart Dr. Kass shared in 1970:

But wait a minute, Dr. Kass’ chart doesn’t even include the measles vaccine…what gives? Well, in 1970, the measles vaccine was just beginning to be rolled out, and as you can clearly see, measles had long since experienced a dramatic decline in mortality. With Pertussis (Whooping Cough), he produced a similar chart:

In this case, you can actually see when the Pertussis vaccine was introduced. He also showed a chart for Scarlett Fever, which furthers the confusion about the role of vaccines, because there’s never been a Scarlett Fever vaccine, and yet the chart of a huge decline in mortality from Scarlett Fever looks very similar to measles and pertussis:

What’s the point?

Dr. Kass was trying to make a simple point to his colleagues, but one with profound implications for public health. His point was so important, I’m going to quote him in really big font to try and drive it home:

“This decline in rates of certain disorders, correlated roughly with socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel.”

Dr. Kass pled with his colleagues to be open to understanding WHY infectious diseases had declined so dramatically in the U.S. (as well as other first world countries). Was it nutrition? Sanitary methods? A reduction in home crowding? (We’ve since learned the answer to all three questions is, “Yes.”) He encouraged his colleagues to be careful not to jump to conclusions prematurely and to maintain objectivity and “devote ourselves to new possibilities.”

Luckily for us, Dr. Kass’ speech that day has been saved for posterity, as it was printed in its entirety in a medical journal. In fact, it’s a journal that Dr. Kass himself founded, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, and his speech is called, “Infectious Disease and Social Change.” There are a number of things about Dr. Kass’ speech that I found breathtaking, especially given that he was the President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Namely:

  1. He never referred to vaccines as “mankind’s greatest invention” or one of the other many hyperbolic ways vaccines are described all the time by vaccine promoters in the press today. Vaccines weren’t responsible for saving “millions of lives” in the United States, as Dr. Kass well knew.
  2. In fact, he never gave vaccines much credit AT ALL for the developed world’s dramatic mortality decline. Which makes sense, because none of the data he had would have supported that view. Which made me wonder, “has anyone tried to put the contribution of vaccines to the decline in human mortality in the 20th century in context?” Said differently, is there any data that measures exactly how much impact vaccines had in saving humanity? Yes, indeed there is. Read on.

1977: McKinlay & McKinlay: The most famous study you’ve never heard of

It won’t be the world’s easiest read, but I hope you take the time to read every word. In 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published the seminal work on the role vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century, that 74% number I talked about in my opening paragraph. Not only that, but their study warned against the very behavior we are now seeing in the world of vaccines. Namely, they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. Seriously, they predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)

You can read the document pictured below below, HERE. 

[In the document]…they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone.

Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” The study clearly proved, with data, something that the McKinlay’s acknowledged might be viewed by some as medical “heresy.” Namely:

“that the introduction of specific medical measures and/or the expansion of medical services are generally not responsible for most of the modern decline in mortality.”

By “medical measures,” the McKinlay’s really meant ANYTHING modern medicine had come up with, whether that was antibiotics, vaccines, new prescription drugs, whatever.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




Johnson & Johnson Exposed as ‘Kingpin’ Supplier, Seller, Lobbyist of Opioid Epidemic

Image Credit: Waking Times

By Elias Marat | Waking Times

Transnational corporation Johnson & Johnson has been accused of playing the role of “kingpin” in the nationwide opioid epidemic that continues to claim thousands of lives every year, according to an Axios report.

The pharmaceutical, medical, and consumer goods giant–which holds a range of properties including some of the most recognizable U.S. brands such as Band-Aids, No More Tears baby shampoo, and Neosporin, among others–has been accused by officials in the state of Oklahoma of playing the role of supplier, seller and lobbyist in the global opioid market.

J&J’s work in the painkiller market was done through two subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, which it sold to a private equity firm in 2016 for $650 million, according to Axios.

The company has long depicted itself as a “family company” operating under the credo:

“We are responsible to the communities in which we live and work and to the world community as well.”

But the new revelations cast, in sharp relief, how the company pulverized entire communities and destroyed families while raking in massive profits from a crisis that has fed waves of crime and a crisis of addiction and deadly overdoses that claim over 100 lives per day.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter has requested that the state release a vast tranche of confidential documents numbering in the millions of pages that Johnson & Johnson was forced to submit during the discovery phase of Oklahoma’s legal fight against the key companies who sparked the opioid crisis.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE……..




‘Big Pharma’ Spent Record Amounts on Lobbying in 2018, Report Shows

Image Credit: Natural Society

By Julie Fidler | Natural Society

The pharmaceutical industry, as usual, is doing whatever it can to profit off the suffering of Americans. Recent filings show ‘Big Pharma’ spent a record amount of money on lobbying in 2018. While you and your family are struggling to figure out how to pay for prescriptions, pharmaceutical companies are trying to figure out how to dig an even deeper hole in your wallet to make theirs fatter.

In 2018, the industry’s leading trade group spent a record $27.5 million on lobbyingan increase of $1.4 million from 2009, when Congress and the White House created the Affordable Care Act (ACT), a.k.a., Obamacare. In fact, 2009 was the last time pharma companies spent record amounts on lobbying: just over $25 million. [1] [2]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) started pumping out larger sums of cash after lawmakers rejected a legislative fix that would have reduced the group’s share of disbursements in a popular Medicare program. [1]

Last year, PhRMA shelled out upwards of $6 million to lobby Congress and the Trump administration in the 4th quarter, disclosures filed with the Senate Office of Public Records show. But the first 3 months of 2018 were the costliest for the trade association, as it spent nearly $10 million during that period alone.

When looking at individual companies within the pharmaceutical and health sector, the price tag is even higher. As of October 24, 2018, individual companies spent $194.3 million on lobbying, far above the amount quoted by PhRMA. [2]

According to Open Secrets, the independent, non-partisan research group that tracks money in U.S. politics, Pfizer, Amgen, and Biotechnology Innovation Organization – a separate lobbying group for pharmaceutical companies and smaller biotechnology companies – spent the most money on lobbying. This was done with the knowledge – and fear – that the White House could limit Big Pharma’s price increases and profits on medicines.

Congress, the White House, and the American public want to see the creation of a comprehensive drug pricing plan. Lawmakers were emboldened to push for such a plan even more after a report published January 22 by the Health Care Cost Institute showed that the cost of insulin nearly doubled in the United States between 2012 and 2016.

Unaffordable insulin could easily make diabetes a public health crisis if it isn’t one already. A report published in 2016 revealed that the number of people living with diabetes has quadrupled since 1980. Obesity, too, is on the rise, and it is one of the leading causes of Type 2 diabetes. In the years between 2007-2008 and 2015-2016, rates of obesity among adults rose from 33.7% to 39.6%. Rates of severe obesity increased during this time from 5.7% to 7.7%. [3]

According to the recent report, people with Type 1 diabetes spent an average of $5,705 per person on insulin in 2016, an increase of $2,841 per person since 2012. [2]

The institute wrote:

“The price of all types of insulin and insulin products increased, with point-of-sale prices roughly doubling on average between 2012 and 2016.”

There have been some “positive developments” in drug pricing behavior, US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said last week, but “drug companies have a lot further to go.”

That may be an understatement. Between May and the end of 2018, “drug companies took 57% fewer price increases on brand drugs compared with the same period in 2017,” according to Azar. But he praised Amgen, Merck, and Gilead for cutting the list prices on some of their drugs. He also pointed out that, so far, price increases in 2019 have been smaller and fewer than last year. Of course, we are only 1 month into the new year.

Even with these improvements, more needs to be done to make sure Americans can afford the medications they need, said Azar.

“We’ll continue taking action within the scope of the President’s blueprint. But if we need to go beyond its 4 corners to bring down list prices and out-of-pocket costs, we will.”

Sources:

[1] Bloomberg

[2] CNN

[3] American Cancer Society




Dr. Mercola: Is the Flu Vaccine Really ‘Working Well’ This Year?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • According to interim estimates, the overall adjusted effectiveness of the 2018-19 flu vaccine against all influenza virus infection associated with acute respiratory illness (ARI) needing medical attention was 47 percent
  • Among adults over 50, the vaccine had a mere 24 percent effectiveness against all influenza types, and an abysmal 8 percent against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection, which was by far the most common type
  • Of all who came down with ARI, only 14 percent actually had influenza. In the vast majority of cases — 86 percent — their respiratory illness was caused by something other than an influenza virus
  • There are more than 200 viruses that cause influenza-like illness with identical symptoms as influenza, such as fever, headache, aches, pains, cough and runny nose. The flu vaccine does not prevent these illnesses
  • Research published last year found people who had received a flu shot and contracted influenza shed a greater amount of influenza viruses through their breath than unvaccinated people

Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola

According to interim estimates1 released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on February 15, 2019 — which uses data from 3,254 adults and children enrolled in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network between November 23, 2018, and February 2, 2019 — the overall adjusted effectiveness of the 2018-19 flu vaccine against all influenza virus infection associated with acute respiratory illness (ARI) needing medical attention was 47 percent.

While the media has played this up as “good news,”2 and the CDC calls the results “encouraging,”3 the fact of the matter is the vaccine failed to offer any protection more than half of the time, and for adults over 50, it’s more or less useless.

This Year’s Flu Vaccine Is an Abysmal Failure for Those Over 50

Among children aged 6 months to 17 years, the 2018–19 seasonal flu vaccine had an average effectiveness of 61 percent.4 However, among adults over 50, which is the most vulnerable group, the vaccine had a mere 24 percent effectiveness against all influenza types, and an abysmal 8 percent against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection, which was by far the most common type.

According to the CDC, the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was responsible for 74 percent of all influenza A infections for which subtype information was available. What’s more, the CDC notes that,5 “Among the 3,254 children and adults with ARI … a total of 465 (14 percent) tested positive for influenza virus by real time RT-PCR …”

In other words, of all the people who came down with acute respiratory illness, only 14 percent actually had confirmed influenza. In the vast majority of cases — 86 percent — their respiratory illness was associated with a viral or bacterial infection caused by something other than a type A or B influenza virus.

This is important to remember, as people have a tendency to jump to the conclusion that when they have influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms they have influenza when, in fact, chances are the majority of the time they don’t.

The influenza vaccine contains only three or four type A or B vaccine strain influenza viruses. Even if those vaccine strain viruses are a perfect match for influenza viruses that are circulating in a given flu season, the vaccine does not prevent the majority of other respiratory infections that are experienced by people. As noted by the Cochrane Collaboration:6

“Over 200 viruses cause ILI (influenza-like illness), which produces the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough and runny nose) as influenza. Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot distinguish between ILI and influenza because both last for days and rarely cause serious illness or death.”

The 2017/2018 seasonal influenza vaccine’s adjusted overall effectiveness for the U.S. was just 36 percent against influenza A and influenza B virus infection,7,8 and between 2005 and 2015, the flu vaccine’s adjusted overall effectiveness was less than 50 percent more than half the time — with a low of only 10 percent in the 2004-05 season.9,10

It’s difficult to find another example of where a commercial product can fail to work more than half the time and still be recommended and even mandated for children and adults.

Obesity Is a Major Cause of Influenza Outbreaks and Vulnerability

In related news, research suggests widespread obesity may be a significant contributor to influenza outbreaks and general vulnerability, as obesity makes you shed and transmit virus for a longer period of time, thereby increasing the opportunity for spreading infections to others. According to this study,11 published in the September, 2018 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases:

“[O]besity increases the risk of severe complications and death from influenza virus infection, especially in elderly individuals … Symptomatic obese adults were shown to shed influenza A virus 42 percent longer than nonobese adults … no association was observed with influenza B virus shedding duration. Even among paucisymptomatic and asymptomatic adults, obesity increased the influenza A shedding duration by 104 percent.”

Aubree Gordon, Ph.D., senior author from the University of Michigan School of Public Health, told reporters,12 “This is the first real evidence that obesity might impact more than just disease severity. It might directly impact transmission as well.”

Additional research is underway to analyze whether influenza virus shed over longer periods is still equally infectious. The answer here, of course, would be to normalize your weight and strengthen your immune function. You can find more information about these strategies in the hyperlinked articles.

Flu Vaccine Still Allows Transmission of Disease

Obesity isn’t the only thing that might contribute to influenza outbreaks. A study13 published in the journal PNAS January 18, 2018, found infectious influenza viruses in the exhaled breath of people who had gotten seasonal flu shots and contracted influenza. Those vaccinated two seasons in a row had an even greater viral load of shedding influenza A viruses. According to the authors:

“Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models.

In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons … The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A but not for influenza B infections …

Finding infectious virus in 39 percent of fine-aerosol samples collected during 30 minutes of normal tidal breathing in a large community-based study of confirmed influenza infection clearly establishes that a significant fraction of influenza cases routinely shed infectious virus … into aerosol particles small enough to remain suspended in air and present a risk for airborne transmission …

The association of current and prior year vaccination with increased shedding of influenza A might lead one to speculate that certain types of prior immunity promote lung inflammation, airway closure and aerosol generation …

If confirmed, this observation, together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination, would have implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies.”

Mounting Body of Research Questions Validity of Annual Flu Vaccination as a Public Health Measure

On the whole, there’s really very little evidence to suggest annual flu vaccinations are a good way to combat influenza and save lives. On the contrary, the medical literature is burgeoning with studies questioning the validity of this public health measure. For example, studies have shown that:

With each successive annual flu vaccination, the theoretical protection from the vaccine can diminish14  A 2012 Chinese study15 found a child’s chances of contracting a respiratory infection after getting the seasonal flu shot rose more than fourfold, and research published in 2014 concluded that resistance to influenza-related illness in persons over age 9 years in the U.S. was greatest among those who had NOT received a flu shot in the previous five years.16

More recent research suggests the reason seasonal flu shots become less protective with each dose has to do with “original antigenic sin.” Here, they found that influenza vaccine failed to elicit a strong immune response in most participants,17 which was explained as follows:18

“What’s at play seems to be a phenomenon known as ‘original antigenic sin.’ Flu vaccines are designed to get the immune system to produce antibodies that recognize the specific strains of the virus someone may encounter in a given year.

These antibodies target unique sites on the virus, and latch onto them to disable it. Once the immune system already has antibodies to target a given site on the virus, it preferentially reactivates the same immune cells the next time it encounters the virus. This is efficient for the immune system, but the problem is that the virus changes ever so slightly from year to year.

The site the antibodies recognize could still be there, but it may no longer be the crucial one to neutralize the virus. Antibodies produced from our first encounters with the flu, either from vaccines or infection, tend to take precedence over ones generated by later inoculations. So even when the vaccine is a good match for a given year, if someone has a history with the flu, the immune response to a new vaccine could be less protective.”

71 people have to be vaccinated for a single case of influenza to be avoided, and vaccination has “little or no appreciable effect on hospitalizations or number of working days lost” — In its 2014 meta-analysis19 of the available research on inactivated influenza vaccines, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed evidence related to influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) that people experience during flu seasons, concluding that:

“Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza … as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case … Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalizations … or number of working days lost.”

The flu vaccine can increase your risk of contracting other, more serious influenza infections — Canadian researchers found that people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008, on average, had twice the risk of getting sick with the pandemic H1N1 “swine flu” in 2009 compared to those who did not receive a flu shot the previous year.20

These findings were replicated in a 2014 ferret study.21 Similarly, a 2009 U.S. study compared health outcomes for children between age 6 months and 18 years who did and did not get annual flu shots and found that children who received influenza vaccinations had a three times’ higher risk of influenza-related hospitalization, with asthmatic children at greatest risk.22

The concept of heterologous immunity may account for these findings. Heterologous immunity refers to the concept that your immune system is directional, and that once you’ve encountered a pathogen, your body is better equipped to fight pathogens that are similar. However, in the case of influenza vaccines, this directionality appears to work against you.

By learning to fend off certain influenza virus strains contained in the vaccine, your immune system becomes less able to fend off other influenza strains and disease-causing pathogens. As noted in a 2014 paper on heterologous immunity:23

“Immunity to previously encountered viruses can alter responses to unrelated pathogens … Heterologous immunity … may be beneficial by boosting protective responses. However, heterologous reactivity can also result in severe immunopathology. The key features that define heterologous immune modulation include alterations in the CD4 and CD8 T cell compartments and changes in viral dynamics and disease progression.”

In other words, while influenza vaccine may offer some level of protection against the three or four viral influenza strains included in the vaccine, depending on whether the vaccine used is trivalent or quadrivalent, it may simultaneously diminish your ability to ward off infection by other influenza strains and types of viral or bacterial infections.

Heterologous immunity is also addressed in a 2013 paper,24 which notes that “vaccines modulate general resistance,” and “have nonspecific effects on the ability of the immune system to handle other pathogens.” Researchers stated that:

“[O]ur current perception of the immune system is … simplistic. It was, to a large extent, shaped in the 1950s with the formulation of the clonal selection hypothesis.

This line of thinking has emphasized the adaptive immune system and the specific antigen recognition and specific memory, which have been crucial in vaccine development, perhaps at the expense of examining cross-reactive features of the immune system as well as the memory capacity of the innate immune system.

Although tens of thousands of studies assessing disease-specific, antibody-inducing effects of vaccines have been conducted, most people have not examined whether vaccines have nonspecific effects because current perception excludes such effects.”

Flu vaccine doesn’t work well in statin users — Statin drugs may interfere with your immune system’s ability to respond to the influenza vaccine.25,26 After vaccination, antibody concentrations were 38 percent to 67 percent lower in statin users over the age of 65, compared to nonstatin users of the same age.27 Antibody concentrations were also reduced in younger people who took statins.
Flu vaccine does not prevent most types of influenza — Independent scientific reviews have also concluded that flu shots have only a “modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost,” and have no effect on complications of influenza.28,29

Moreover, the influenza vaccine fails to prevent influenza-like illness associated with other types of viruses responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.30,31,32,33,34

Vaccination does not lower mortality in the elderly — Research35 published in 2006 analyzed influenza-related mortality among the elderly population in Italy associated with increased vaccination coverage between 1970 and 2001. Researchers found that after the 1980s, there was no corresponding decline in excess deaths, despite rising vaccine uptake.

According to the authors, “our study challenges current strategies to best protect the elderly against mortality, warranting the need for better controlled trials with alternative vaccination strategies.”

Another 2006 study36 showed that, even though seniors vaccinated against influenza had a reduced risk of dying during flu season compared to unvaccinated seniors, those who were vaccinated were also even more unlikely to die before the flu season ever started.

This finding has since been attributed to a “healthy user effect,” which suggests that older people who get vaccinated against influenza are already healthier and, therefore, less likely to die anyway, whereas those who do not get the shot have suffered a decline in health in recent months.

“New and improved” flu shot also fails to protect seniors — The Flucelvax vaccine introduced during the 2017-2018 flu season is grown in dog kidney cells rather than chicken eggs. Touted as a new-and-improved flu shot that would protect more people, Food and Drug Administration research found no significant difference between it and the conventional flu shot in protecting seniors.

While flu vaccines overall had a 24 percent effectiveness in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in people aged 65 and older, the Flucelvax vaccine had an effectiveness rate of only 26.5 percent in that population.37

Flu vaccine does not lessen influenza severity — While health officials claim getting a flu shot will lessen your symptoms should you contract influenza, a 2017 study38 by French researchers assessing the veracity of that claim found it to be false. Looking at data from vaccinated and unvaccinated elderly patients diagnosed with influenza, all they found was a reduction in initial headache complaints among those who had been vaccinated. According to the authors:

“Compared to nonvaccinated influenza patients, those who had been vaccinated had a slightly reduced maximum temperature and presented less frequently with myalgia, shivering and headache. In stratified analyses, the observed effect was limited to patients infected with A(H3) or type B viruses.

After adjusting by age group, virus (sub)type and season, the difference remained statistically significant only for headache, which was less frequent among vaccinated individuals.”

Flu vaccine is associated with serious disability — Permanent disability such as paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a risk you need to take into account each time you get a flu shot. As early as 2003, the CDC recognized the flu vaccine causes an excess of 1.7 cases of GBS per 1 million people vaccinated.39

Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows GBS is the top injury for which people are receiving financial compensation through the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), and the flu vaccine is now the most common vaccine cited by adults seeking a vaccine injury compensation award.40

Shoulder damage is another risk, caused by improper injection technique.41,42,43 Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) includes chronic pain, limited range of motion, nerve damage, frozen shoulder and rotator cuff tears, and is typically the result of the injection being administered too high on the arm. This risk is particularly high when people get vaccinated outside of a doctor’s office or other clinical setting.

Many people getting flu shots in a public setting like a grocery store or pharmacy simply roll up their sleeves or pull down the top of their shirt, exposing only the upper part of their deltoid, thereby increasing the risk of getting the injection in the joint space rather than the muscle.

GBS and SIRVA were both added to the Vaccine Injury Table of the VICP in 2017.44,45 By adding those vaccine complications to the table, vaccine-related GBS and SIRVA cases brought before the “Vaccine Court” in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., will be more likely to receive federal vaccine injury compensation.

In this lecture, immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., author of “Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do to Regain Our Health,” explains how vaccines damage your immune function, which can result in any number of adverse health effects.

Image source: 123rf.com




Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

By Arjun Walia | Collective Evolution

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:  Milk from cows has been touted as making our bones stronger, and preventing conditions like osteoporosis. It turns out that it’s the complete opposite, that milk causes bone degeneration by leeching calcium from the bone.
  • Reflect On:  How can the food industry put out information and ‘science’ that counters independent research and science that’s not sponsored by the actual food companies? Why do we believe what we believe? Is this a result of mass marketing?

It’s remarkable to analyze why many of us believe that milk, which is designed to help calves develop, is also suitable for human beings. We are the only species on the planet that consumes the milk of another animal. Furthermore, we are the only species on the planet who continues to drink milk after weaning. Even for cows, this would be a no-no. There are multiple studies showing that drinking milk for a cow leads to an increased mortality rate and actually makes bones more prone to fracturing, not less. One example would be this giant study from researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden.

And when we support the dairy industry we also support animal torture, suffering and heartache. Cows are forcefully impregnated so they can lactate, and when their babies are born they are ripped from their mothers and head straight for the slaughter house. Animal agriculture represents one of the biggest genocides on the planet today, and it shows how much we’ve lost our connection to all that is.

Lactose Intolerance

But back to consumer health concerns. If we look at all other animals who don’t consume the milk of another animal or after weaning, it is because they do not have the enzymes to break down the sugar found in milk. We are no different, and this explains why in some ethnic populations around the world, lactose intolerance is present in 90 percent of the population. A staggering 70 percent of the world’s population has some degree of lactose intolerance.

That being said, some people might have evolved and developed a cows milk just fine, which is why this information may not apply to everybody but overall, it definitely appears we are doing something unnatural.

This is explainable by science. Humans actually never had this enzyme, and to digest the sugar in milk, a cow’s milk at that, we had to develop the LTC gene, which was acquired by mutation. This is the lactase gene, which allows us to process lactose as adults. Clearly, we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies. I first came across this information from Katherine S. Pollard, a PhD at the University of California, San Francisco, in this lecture.

Metabolic Acidosis

One of the most important points people are becoming aware of  is the fact that animal protein may in fact be harmful for human consumption, and that plant protein is a much better option. I go more in-depth on this in my article Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body?

One thing animal protein does is trigger metabolic acidosis. This happens when the body produces too much acid and becomes very acidic, which can be caused by multiple things, including the absorption of casein found in animal protein. Casein makes up almost 90 percent of the protein in a cow’s milk. When the body experiences this type of acidosis, it actually forces the body to compensate by leaching calcium from the bones to help neutralize the increased acidity. Over time, all of this can have severe and detrimental effects on bone health, and studies have shown this.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




12 Reasons Why Even Low Levels of Glyphosate Are Unsafe

By Zen Honeycutt | Children’s Health Defense

A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s glyphosate-based weedkillers, including Roundup, caused him cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages. (Photo: London Permaculture/cc/flickr)

Proponents of GMOs and Glyphosate-based herbicides and staunch believers in the EPA have long argued that low levels of glyphosate exposure are safe for humans. Even our own EPA tells us that Americans can consume 17 times more glyphosate in our drinking water than European residents. The EWG asserts that 160 ppb of glyphosate found in breakfast cereal is safe for a child to consume due to their own safety assessments, and yet renowned scientists and health advocates have long stated that no level is safe.  Confusion amongst consumers and the media is rampant.

Glyphosate is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro, which are both manufactured by Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Agent Orange and DDT. There are 750 brands of glyphosate-based herbicides.Glyphosate based herbicides are the most widely used in the world and residues of glyphosate have been found in tap water, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested.

The detection of glyphosate in these foods has set off alarms of concern in households and food manufacturers’ offices around the world. Lawsuits have sprung up against companies that make food products that claim to be “100% Natural” and yet contain glyphosate residues. These lawsuits have been successful. Debates, using the argument that “the dose makes the poison,” have been pushed by media. Speculation is that these media outlets are funded by advertisers that make or sell these chemicals or have sister companies that do, and threatening their profits would be unwise for all involved – except the consumers.

It is time to set the record straight

Here are 12 reasons why there is no safe level of glyphosate herbicide residue in our food or beverages.

  1. Babies, toddlers, and young children have kidneys and livers which are underdeveloped and do not have the ability to detox toxins the way adults doTheir bodies are less capable of eliminating toxins and therefore are particularly susceptible. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that children, especially, should avoid pesticides because, “prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.”
  2. Glyphosate does not wash, dry or cook off, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in the bone marrow, tendons and muscle tissue. Bioaccumulation of low levels over time will result in levels which we cannot predict or determine; therefore there is no scientific basis to state that the low levels are not dangerous, as they can accumulate to high levels in an unforeseeable amount of time.
  3. “There is no current reliable way to determine the incidence of pesticide exposure and illness in US children.” -AAP  Children are exposed through food, air, contact with grass and pets. How much they are being exposed to daily from all these possibilities is simply not something that we have been able to determine. Therefore no one is capable of assessing what levels are safe from any one modality of exposure because an additional low level from other modalities could add up to a high level of exposure.
    1. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides have been proven to cause non-alcoholic liver disease in a long term animal study by Michael Antoniou, Giles Eric Seralini et al.  The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
    2. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate have been shown to be  endocrine and hormone disrupting. Changes to hormones can lead to birth defects, miscarriage, autoimmune disease, cancer, mental and chronic illness.
    3. The  EPA Allowable Daily Intake Levels (ADIs) of glyphosate exposure were set for a 175-pound man, not a pregnant mother, infant, or child.
    4. Glyphosate alone has been shown to be chronically toxic causing organ and cell damage. Glyphosate herbicides final formulations, have been shown to be acutely toxic, causing immediate damage at low levels.
    5. The detection of glyphosate at low levels could mean the presence of the other toxic ingredients in glyphosate herbicides on our food. Until studies are done, one must practice the Precautionary Principle. The label on glyphosate herbicides does not specify the pesticide class or “other”/“inert” ingredients that may have significant acute toxicity and can account for up to 54% of the product.
    6. Regarding the label and low-level exposure: “Chronic toxicity information is not included, and labels are predominantly available in English. There is significant use of illegal pesticides(especially in immigrant communities), off-label use, and overuse, underscoring the importance of education, monitoring, and enforcement.” – AAP. Exposure to low levels of glyphosate herbicides can occur through pregnant wives or children hugging the father who is a pesticide applicator.  The chronic health impacts such as rashes which can, years later, result in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are often ignored, especially by low income or non-English speaking users dependent on their pesticide application occupation for survival.
    7. The EPA has admitted to not having any long-term animal studies with blood analysis on the final formulation of any glyphosate herbicides.  The EPA cannot state that the final formulation is safe.
    8. For approval of pesticides and herbicides, the EPA only requires safety studies, by the manufacturer who benefits from the sales, on the one declared active chemical ingredient—in this case glyphosate. Glyphosate is never used alone.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Big Pharma’s Worst Nightmare: Survey Finds Most Medical Pot Users Quitting Prescription Drug Use

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

A new survey published this month in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs helps explain why Big Pharma is so afraid of cannabis. The pharmaceutical and alcohol industries, both powerful influences in Washington, have long lobbied against cannabis legalization in order to protect their profits.

However, the tide has turned as decriminalization of medical and recreational cannabis sweeps the nation and the continent. With legalization, more and more people are discovering how this plant can provide a safe alternative to the dangerous effects of prescription pills.

Researchers recently distributed 400 questionnaires to medical marijuana patients at a public event asking them about their usage and attitudes toward the U.S. healthcare system. The results of that survey were published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.

As Marijuana Moment points out, the participants reported using marijuana for various medical conditions, including chronic pain, muscle spasms, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of them said that cannabis represented an effective and relatively harmless alternative to pharmaceuticals that are conventionally prescribed for their respective conditions.

“In comparison to pharmaceutical drugs, medical cannabis users rated cannabis better on effectiveness, side effects, safety, addictiveness, availability, and cost,” the study found. “Due to the medical use of cannabis, 42 percent stopped taking a pharmaceutical drug and 38 percent used less of a pharmaceutical drug.”

Highlighting the potential for marijuana to curb the nation’s drug problem, the most common drugs patients reported quitting or reducing using were opioid-based painkillers, non-opioid painkillers, benzodiazepines and antidepressants.

As TFTP has reported, this massive shift from often dangerous prescription drugs to cannabis has been documented for some time now and is likely creating a wave of fear in the pharmaceutical industry. We reported on a survey conducted by the Centre for Addictions Research of BC in 2016 which found similar results.

The survey of 473 adult therapeutic cannabis users found that 87% of respondents gave up prescription medications, alcohol, or other drugs in favor of cannabis. Adults under 40 were likely to give up all three of these for medical cannabis.

The most startling revelation, and one that will have Big Pharma running to their crony lawmakers, is that 80% of respondents reported substituting cannabis for prescription drugs.

In addition, 52% said they substituted cannabis for alcohol and 32% said they substituted it for illicit substances. These results indicate a very promising trend of people moving away from dangerously addictive and deadly substances in favor of a miracle plant that has never caused an overdose death.

“The finding that cannabis was substituted for all three classes of substances suggests that the medical use of cannabis may play a harm reduction role in the context of use of these substances, and may have implications for abstinence-based substance use treatment approaches. Further research should seek to differentiate between biomedical substitution for prescription pharmaceuticals and psychoactive drug substitution, and to elucidate the mechanisms behind both.”

As The Free Thought Project has reported before, the U.S. is in the midst of a painkiller epidemic, with overdose deaths skyrocketing as Big Pharma has secured its grip on government and mainstream medicine. Opioid painkillers and heroin have driven overdose deaths to the point where they are now the leading cause of fatal injuries in the U.S. Alcohol is also killing Americans at a rate not seen in 35 years.

The results of this survey confirm that cannabis is the answer to all of these problems.

Americans for Safe Access has a comprehensive breakdown of conditions that cannabis can treat, and comparisons to prescription pills.

We are just beginning to confirm the benefits of cannabis on other conditions such as anxiety which is normally treated with pills such as Xanax, insomnia which is normally treated with pills such as Ambien, and antidepressants which are treated with pills such as Zoloft. All of these prescription drugs can cause debilitating addiction or severe side-effects.

Although the war on drugs put a stop to medical cannabis research for decades, in recent years we have seen a surge in studies being performed, as prohibition crumbles and the Schedule 1 classification of “no medical benefit” is exposed as a farce.

About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Facebook.