Gordon Pedersen, Ph.D. hosted a Special Webinar on Tuesday,
October 27 discussing the benefits of the The New Silver Sol Technology!
Posted at 07:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Bird Flu Pandemic
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
RELATED: Polk Coroner: H1N1 Deaths Understated
Iowa has officially recorded 21 H1N1 deaths, including seven in Polk County alone. But the county’s medical examiner said he has performed autopsies on some residents who were never diagnosed with H1N1, but actually had it. “In the autopsy, what we’re seeing is very heavy, wet hemorrhagic lungs, lungs with a lot of blood in them,” said Dr. Gregory Schmunk.
New reports from Iowa and North Carolina are raising concerns that the deadly H1N1 swine flu mutations that have been confirmed by the WHO in Ukraine, Norway and elsewhere have already reached the United States. In Iowa, a report that doctors are seeing “very heavy, wet hemorrhagic lungs, lungs with a lot of blood in them” in H1N1 patients is creating concerns among health experts that the deadly Ukraine H1N1 has already spread there. In addition, a report of Tamiflu-resistant H1N1 swine flu in North Carolina is raising questions about the ability of medical authorities to combat H1N1 if thousands of people do start dying. If deadly H1N1 swine flu mutations have already reached the United States, what does that mean? Doctors in Ukraine have been reporting that victims of H1N1 there are experiencing violent hemorrhaging in their lungs. As the patients near death, their lungs reportedly become as “black as charcoal” and literally begin to disintegrate. Will this start happening soon inside the U.S.?
The news report causing the most concern today is the one about H1N1 patients in Iowa. Commenting on a dramatic spike in H1N1 deaths in Iowa, Dr. Gregory Schmunk told KCCI news that what doctors there are seeing ”is very heavy, wet hemorrhagic lungs, lungs with a lot of blood in them.”
Hemorrhagic lungs that are filled with blood?
That sounds precisely like what is taking place in Ukraine.
Last week, the WHO confirmed that an H1N1 mutation had been discovered in Ukraine. This H1N1 mutation involved a receptor binding domain change, and it is apparently causing the H1N1 virus to become much more virulent.
Just like the new report in Iowa, many victims of H1N1 in Ukraine have been experiencing violent hemorrhaging in the lungs. Temperatures inside the lungs of patients in Ukraine have been reported to be as high as 135 degrees Fahrenheit. As the patient near death, the lungs turn to mush and literally become as black as charcoal.
In fact, one doctor in Western Ukraine was quoted as saying the following about what is happening to the lungs of these patients…..
“We have carried out post mortems on two victims and found their lungs are as black as charcoal. They look like they have been burned. It’s terrifying.”
If that wasn’t bad enough, the WHO has now confirmed that the same H1N1 mutation has shown up in Norway.
Norway’s Institute of Public Health has released a statement in which they announced that this mutation “could possibly…cause more severe disease” because it apparently infects tissue deeper in the airway than usual.
Not only that, but today Hong Kong’s Department of Health has confirmed that it has found the same mutation in a H1N1 flu virus sample as the one detected in Norway recently.
Hong Kong is on the other side of the world from Ukraine and Norway.
What in the world is going on?
Nobody knows for sure, but the truth is that the increasing similarities between the current H1N1 outbreak and the 1918 “Spanish flu” outbreak are becoming too striking to ignore.
Firstly, both the current outbreak and the 1918 Spanish flu are from the H1N1 family.
Secondly, both the current outbreak and the 1918 Spanish flu have the same mutation that is currently being reported in Ukraine, Norway and Hong Kong.
Thirdly, the hemorrhagic deaths that victims are experiencing in Ukraine closely mirror the kind of deaths experienced by victims of the 1918 Spanish flu. Just consider the following description of 1918 Spanish flu deaths from Wikipedia…..
“One of the most striking of the complications was hemorrhage from mucous membranes, especially from the nose, stomach, and intestine. Bleeding from the ears and petechial hemorrhages in the skin also occurred.” The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza, but the virus also killed people directly, causing massive hemorrhages and edema in the lung.”
You would think this stunning information would be so important that the mainstream media would be all over it, but sadly that is not the case. Instead they seem intent on covering the opening of the “New Moon” movie and whatever Barack Obama had for breakfast this morning.
But not only is the mutation discussed above a tremendous concern, but now there are confirmed reports that Tamiflu-resistant H1N1 is spreading.
Recently a Tamiflu-resistant strain of the H1N1 swine flu was reported to have been discovered in Wales, and now a Tamiflu-resistant cluster of the H1N1 swine flu has been reported in North Carolina.
However, medical authorities don’t seem overly concerned. Dr. Alicia Frye, epidemiologist in the CDC’s flu division, said in a prepared statement that “at this time we don’t have any information that should raise concerns for the general population.”
If the best drugs medical authorities have will soon not work against H1N1, perhaps the public should be concerned.
Meanwhile the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention has announced that swine flu deaths in Europe are doubling every two weeks.
Swine flu deaths in Europe are doubling every two weeks?
Perhaps the mainstream media should start paying attention to this.
Posted below is one of the very few mainstream media video reports we have about the “black lung” flu that is ravaging Ukraine…..
All of this is happening at a time when environmental extremists are pushing the “overpopulation” myth harder than ever. In fact, the United Nations Population Fund has just released its annual State of the World Population Report in which it openly calls for reducing world population growth as a way to combat climate change. The reality is that if a deadly H1N1 mutation did kill tens of millions, many very sick environmental extremists would actually applaud. Increasingly, many in the environmental community are viewing humanity itself as a “disease” that needs to be eradicated for the good of the earth.
Talk about a dangerous belief system
Posted at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sharyl Attkisson is a CBS News correspondent and investigative reporter. She’s covered Capitol Hill since February 2006 and has been a Washington-based correspondent there since January 1995. She was also part of the CBS news team that received the Edward Murrow Award in 2005 for overall excellence. Additionally, she received an Outstanding Investigative Journalism Emmy in 2002 for a series on the Red Cross.
In case you didn't realize it, Sharyl Attkisson is the investigative reporter behind the groundbreaking CBS News study that found H1N1 flu cases are NOT as prevalent as feared.
In fact, they’re barely on the radar screen.
How did this startling information come about, and why is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) painting a different picture entirely? I spoke directly with Sharyl Attkisson to find out.
Two Videos
Getting Started on the Swine Flu TrailThe first video is an amazing interview I did with Sharyl about ten days ago and what the bulk of this article is based on.
The second video is brand new and was done at noon yesterday in which I was videoed in the CBS studio in downtown Chicago. Sharyl was gracious enough to invite me to be on with Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former director of the NIH. We both were in agreement about the swine flu and opposed to the stance the CDC is taking, but we had different views on mammograms.
Please also watch the second interview as it is very entertaining.
Ms. Attkisson says:
“The reason I looked into this is a couple of months ago, I got tips from three or four different segments of public healthcare, with folks telling me the CDC has recommended that they go ahead and stop testing for and counting swine flu cases.
Each different entity that contacted me was concerned, thinking that this should not be happening. They really felt that it was necessary for the swine flu to continue to be tracked in some details. So I went about trying to find out why this decision was made and what the ramifications would be.
… I started by contacting the CDC and the HHS and asking some basic questions. I felt like I pretty much got stonewalled with some of the information I really needed to get at, especially what I needed from the states data, and information on the rationale behind this decision to stop counting and testing for swine flu.”
Because the CDC did not initially respond to Attkisson’s requests, she contacted all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. She also asked states, one by one, to help explain the rationale behind the CDC’s decision to stop tracking H1N1 cases.
Attkisson continues:
“One of my good sources within the government said to me that they’re either trying to, in his opinion, over-represent the swine flu numbers or under-represent by not counting them anymore. He said, “You need to find out which it is.” And so to find out which it might be, I really wanted to see the data that the CDC had at the time it made the decision to quit counting the cases.”
What Her Investigative Report Reveals
If you listen to most media outlets and even to government agencies, you get the impression that virtually every person who has visited their physician with flu-like symptoms in recent months has H1N1, with no testing necessary because, after all, there's an epidemic.
We are all being led to believe that every case diagnosed as “swine flu” or even as “flu-like illness” is, in fact, swine flu.
But Attkisson’s investigation revealed a very different picture right from her first contact with individual states. She explains:
“Across the country, state by state, they were testing [for H1N1] until CDC told them not to bother. They were testing, in general, the cases most likely to be believed to have been swine flu based on a doctor’s diagnosis of symptoms and risk factors such as travel to Mexico.
These special cases were going to state labs for absolute confirmation with the best test -- not the so-called “rapid testing,” but the real confirmation test.
Of those presumed likely swine flu cases out of approximately every hundred of what was tested, only a small fraction were actually swine flu. In every instance, perhaps the biggest number of cases that were swine flu was something like 30%. The smallest number was something like 2% or 3%.
Maybe there’s one state where it was just 1%.
The point is, of the vast majority of the presumed swine flu cases recognized by trained physicians, the vast majority were not flu at all. They weren’t swine flu or regular flu; they were some other sort of upper respiratory infection.”
And here is the clincher that it seems the CDC just doesn’t want the American public to know …
“The CDC explained that one of the reasons they quit counting was because of all the flu that’s out there, most are swine flu. Well, that’s true. Most of the flu that was out there was indeed swine flu, but they failed to say that most of the suspected flu was nothing at all. And I think that’s the caveat the public just didn’t know,” Attkisson explains.
She gives even more striking examples of the numbers the investigative report revealed. For instance:
- In Florida, 83 percent of specimens that were presumed to be swine flu were negative for all flu when tested!
- In California, 86 percent of suspected H1N1 specimens were not swine flu or any flu; only 2 percent were confirmed swine flu.
- In Alaska, 93 percent of suspected swine flu specimens were negative for all flu types; only 1 percent was H1N1 flu.
Freedom of Information and Getting the Truth Out
It is not easy for journalists to access this type of information, and they often have to wait weeks, months or even years for information from the CDC and the FDA -- information that is readily available and supposed to be clearly public.
Attkisson expands on the difficulties she faced in trying to get simple data regarding swine flu cases in the United States:
“They [CDC’s public affairs] quit communicating with me when I pressed on why I couldn’t get certain information. They just wouldn’t answer my emails anymore. So I had to file a Freedom of Information request, which is usually my last choice because I know I was going into a deep black hole many times and I’ll never get an answer.
But in this case, I got an interesting response on October 19 from the CDC when I had asked for some simple, public documents that would have been easy for them to obtain too quickly.
Journalists are allowed to ask for expedited processing of their Freedom of Information request because, for obvious reasons, they’re working on a story that may have public impact or be of public interest. The agencies are not supposed to use the Freedom of Information Law to obstruct or delay the release of this information.
This may be the first time I was denied that expedited processing from Freedom of Information that we’re entitled to as members of the press; a letter from HHS or Health and Human Services (the CDC is under HHS) said to me that one of the reasons they’re denying my expedited processing is because this is not a matter of “widespread and exceptional media or public interest.”
In other words, the CDC doesn’t think these questions about swine flu prevalence and these other things that we’ve been asking are, at least in their opinion in this letter, not a matter of widespread and exceptional media or public interest.”
Yet, while the CDC expressed that questions about swine flu prevalence were not a matter of widespread media or public interest, the President had declared the swine flu a national public health emergency!
The inconsistencies at the CDC are nearly incomprehensible.
The Ramifications of the Swine Flu Policy
According to Attkisson’s CBS News study, when you come down with chills, fever, cough, runny nose, malaise and all those other "flu-like" symptoms, the illness is likely caused by influenza at most 17 percent of the time and as little as 3 percent! The other 83 to 97 percent of the time it's caused by other viruses or bacteria.
So remember that not every illness that appears to be the flu actually is the flu. In fact, most of the time it's not.
Curiously, the CDC still advises those who were told they had 2009 H1N1 (and therefore should be immune to getting it again) to get vaccinated unless they had lab confirmation.
But because very few people have actually had a lab-confirmed case of H1N1 (and in most cases those people told they had swine flu probably did not), this means nearly everyone is still being advised to get the swine flu vaccine.
Attkisson has been one of the few to speak out against this flawed system and point out the serious ramifications that come when a public health agency is secretive about their health data.
Attkisson says:
“From a public and journalistic standpoint, I believe the mistake comes when you don’t fully disclose to the public as you go and discover the mistakes. Try to disclose and fix things that come up.
Everybody understands that there isn’t a perfect system, but I think you need to be upfront with them, explain what you’re doing, and explain what you’re discovering. If you’ve made a mistake or you feel like you need to correct something, say that, too, but don’t just try to keep information from the public.”
I couldn’t agree more, and Attkisson’s CBS News report has stood out like a bright light of truth among all the clouds of misinformation.
If you’d like to learn more about the report and its findings, you can read all the details in the past article CBS Reveals that Swine Flu Cases Seriously Overestimated.
Posted at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
European scientists and health authorities are facing angry questions about why H1N1 flu has not caused death and destruction on the scale first feared, and they need to respond deftly to ensure public support.
Accusations are flying in British and French media that the pandemic has been "hyped" by medical researchers to further their own cause, boost research grants and line the pockets of drug companies.
Britain's Independent newspaper this week asked "Pandemic? What Pandemic?"
France's Le Parisien newspaper ran the headline: "Swine flu: why the French distrust the vaccine" and noted a gap between the predicted impact of H1N1 and the less dramatic reality.
"Although some 30-odd people have died....the disease is not really frightening," it said. "Dangerous liaisons between certain experts, the labs and the government, the obscurity of the contracts between the state and the pharma firms have added to the doubt."
In response, scientists are walking a fine line. They say that although the virus is mild, it can still kill, and that the relatively low fatalities in Europe are in part, the result of official response to their advice.
However, in Britain, health authorities' original worst-case scenario -- which said as many as 65,000 could die from H1N1 -- has twice been revised down and the prediction is now for around 1,000 deaths, way below the average annual toll of 4,000 to 8,000 deaths from seasonal winter flu.
Posted at 05:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 01:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Dr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who, from my view, is actually able to compellingly and convincingly provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases.
The Difference Between What You Learn in School and What Works
Dr. Palevsky says:
“When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it.
Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught.
But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.
… and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.
… It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.
It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.”
Were Vaccines Really the ‘Savior’ Against Past Diseases?
Conventional medicine teaches that the polio and the smallpox epidemics went away because of the vaccines, and that most of the diseases that we faced in the 20th century in the United States were brought down because of the power, strength and the implementation of the vaccine policy.
Meanwhile, there are a significant number of studies in the medical literature that actually show there were many other reasons that these infectious diseases went away.
For example, one article published in 2000 in the Pediatrics Journal describes how, before the World War II, the majority of the infectious diseases the US was faced with – such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, measles, influenza, parapertussis, tuberculosis and scarlet fever – were all reduced before World War II and BEFORE there were antibiotics and vaccinations available to treat or to vaccinate against these diseases.
The reasons for the reductions in incidence rates and mortality of these diseases were predominantly due to the implementation of public health strategies, including:
- Clean water
- Better living conditions
- Improved sanitation
- Improved nutrition
There are many such examples.
Have the Proper Safety Studies Actually Been Done?
So, why is there such a vast difference among intelligent, scientifically oriented, committed and objective scientists and physicians about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals.
But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.
Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it’s injected into your body?
Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?
More and more studies are coming out to show that:
- The proper studies haven’t been done
- Antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
- There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
- There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
- There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain, and
- There are foreign DNA particles that get into your body
For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied.”
What we currently have is a one-sided policy; a one way of thinking that is impossible to really allow for the appropriate debate. Science is truly a field where you ask a question, you find an answer, and you don’t have the biases or the influences that change the way an answer or a conclusion is made. We are not seeing that with vaccines.
On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally.
How a Conventionally Trained Physician Accepts that Vaccines Can Cause Harm
Dr. Palevsky began his investigation in earnest about 10 years ago because parents came to him with complaints, worries, and concerns that something had happened to their children after they were vaccinated.
Interestingly, this is the same way that I became enlightened about vaccines -- through the concern of a very patient mother whose family I was taking care of. She gently persisted in showing me the evidence and thank God I listened!
Tragically, most doctors are far too arrogant to even consider that there is any possibility that there might be something wrong with vaccines.
Most pediatricians are indoctrinated to simply tell parents that anything related to a bad outcome from a vaccine is a mere coincidence. But how come there are so many of these “coincidences”?
Says Palevsky,
“It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed asthma and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because they’re doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real.
The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age.
The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system.
Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction.
… When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards.
You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.”
When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.”
The NVIC Set to Create Groundbreaking Vaccine Safety Research
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) just raised $100,000 and continues to look for donations and sponsors to allow proper safety studies to be done by independent researchers, who aren’t going to influence the outcomes.
One study that looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children does exist.
Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in April 2005, that looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all.
All the investigators asked the parents to do was to report atopic illness. Atopic illness means allergies, asthma, eczema, hay fever. The investigators were blinded, meaning they didn’t know which category the participants belonged to.
When they assessed the data, they found that the largest number of reports by parents of children with atopic illness were in the kids who were fully vaccinated. The second highest reports were in the families who are partially vaccinated. And the lowest number of reports was in the children who were unvaccinated…
The investigators performed a statistical analysis to see if the data was based on chance or on real statistical differences, and found there were statistically significant differences between these groups. They couldn’t understand how this was possible, because the generally accepted consensus is that vaccines are completely safe, and completely effective.
Based on this initial finding, we clearly need to do follow-up studies to ask the same question over and over again; repeat this kind of investigation with different populations across different parts of the country, to unearth the truth!
Dr. Palevsky says:
“Certainly, the issue has been raised about the special interests, the money that’s tied, the policies, how much money the vaccine manufacturers stand to make, the doctors who make decisions on vaccines, and how much money they stand to make. But we need the science and not this conspiracy theory...
If we just stay with the science, and really start to address the need for the science, and look at the fact that there is a lack of science, we will definitely see that more needs to be done.
We have not done due diligence.”
Are Some Vaccines Safer Than Others?
Many may be surprised by Dr. Palevsky’s answer:
“… in my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we’re trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe.”
What most people don’t know is that a virus is not “alive,” per se.
It is simply a piece or strand of either RNA or DNA. And even of itself, a virus can’t “do” anything.
In addition it is so tiny that it can only be seen under an electron microscope. It is much smaller than bacteria, which can only be seen in the regular microscope. So viruses cannot be isolated when you make a viral vaccine. All that can be isolated is the tissue, whether it’s human tissue or animal tissue that is believed to have been infected by that specific virus that you’re trying to isolate.
So when a viral culture or a set of cultures are made including the specific virus, you’re going to have the DNA of people or animals who were already infected. Those cells are then taken and grown on animal cells, whether it's monkey kidney cells or chicken embryo cells.
When mixed together, these cells will splice and recombine, which means that DNA from animal cells are going to mix with DNA from the known infected cells with the virus.
So by definition, a viral vaccine contains foreign animal and, even possibly, foreign human DNA. That’s why if you have an egg allergy, you shouldn’t get certain vaccines because it is known that there’s going to be egg protein in the vaccine.
So the question is, how safe is it to inject viral material that is embedded into the DNA of foreign DNA cells?
What studies have been done to actually test whether foreign DNA is getting into your body; whether it stays in your DNA; whether it gets into your brain; and whether there are foreign animal viruses that are inherently present in animal DNA to begin with?
The Dangers of Adjuvants
Adjuvants are used in vaccines in order to create a sufficiently strong immunological response. Adjuvants augment your immunological response.
But there is clear evidence that adjuvants, like aluminum and squalene impair your immune system.
So while you may be getting the antibodies desired, you are, at the same time, damaging your immune system. Particularly in children, this can set them up to develop chronic illness.
Pushing for Informed Consent
So, does that mean you should never vaccinate against anything?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“That’s something that needs to be left up to the individual parent. I am truly a proponent of informed consent, and I’m truly supportive of families who have done their homework and who have been able to make the choice.
What is the possible risk of the illness? What is the possible health outcome if your child gets one of those illnesses?
And how much do you know about those risks versus how much do you know about the risks of the vaccines and the health outcomes of what may happen when children are vaccinated against single, or even multiple, vaccines?
And when parents are given both sides, it is up to them to make that informed choice.
It is no longer my role to tell them that they must do this vaccine but not that vaccine, because each parent has to make an informed choice based on their understanding of how diseases occur or don’t occur, what science we have available, and whether they feel comfortable with the devil that they know (the science and the outcomes of disease) versus the devil that they don’t know (science and the outcomes of the vaccine).”
What about the Swine Flu Vaccine?
Echoing many other health professionals, including myself, Dr. Palevsky’s concern is that there haven’t been sufficient amounts of scientific investigation to actually be able to say that the vaccines are safe, or even effective.
He says:
“Now if you read the packaging first of the swine flu vaccine, it specifically states that the swine flu or the H1N1 flu vaccine was manufactured in the same manufacturing process as the flu vaccine. Therefore since we believe that the flu vaccine has been sufficiently tested to be safe, we can then conclude that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.
But the public should know that even though our authorities are standing there and saying that the H1N1 vaccine is safe, the proper studies have not been done.
… And it’s unfair to say to parents or to the public that if you come down with a flu-like illness, it must be H1N1. In studies that have been done, people who did get the flu had their noses swabbed, and they were found to have H1N1.
What’s missing in these data is a population of healthy people who have not had any flu symptoms – to actually see if their noses contained H1N1 – because if someone is sick and has the presence of an H1N1 virus in the nose, it doesn’t mean that the H1N1 is causing the illness.
You really have to take an appropriate control group to see if people are colonized with that virus even when they’re not sick.
So we don’t have that data; we really don’t know. I don’t think we can say with good scientific certainty that people who are getting sick from the flu and who are being diagnosed with H1N1 are actually having H1N1 as the cause.”
Other Ways to Protect Yourself Against the Flu
Again, there’s clear evidence in the medical literature that shows proper hygiene, proper sleep, proper diet, proper supplementation with things like vitamin D (making sure that you get your vitamin D level done first), and perhaps vitamin C, can actually prevent you from getting the flu.
Many insist that vaccinated individuals “protect” the unvaccinated against the flu virus – in essence, reaping the benefit of the protection they refuse for themselves, while at the same time putting others in danger.
But how does that make sense?
Says Dr. Palevsky:
“How does vaccinating against the flu virus stop you from carrying the flu virus in your nasal passages?”
And yet, this is what many believe.
The Concept of Herd Immunity – BUSTED!
One of the primary arguments that is being used to justify this insane behavior is “herd immunity.”
The fact is that vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin, or in your body.
But many do not understand the significance of this fact, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses, and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated.
As it turns out, this belief is NOT based on scientific fact.
Dr. Palevsky explains:
“This whole concept of herd immunity is very interesting, because we were taught that herd immunity occurs because a certain percentage of a population gets an active illness. Therefore by a certain percentage of getting the active illness, they impart a protection onto the remaining part of the population that has not gotten the illness yet.
And so the herd that is getting the illness is shedding the illness and protecting those who have not gotten it.
In vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated. And that has NOT been shown to be true, because the true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE DISEASE, and we know that despite what we’re taught, vaccination does not mimic the natural disease.
So we cannot use the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease in the vaccination policy. But unfortunately, we do use it even though it cannot be used because it doesn’t have scientific backing.
What’s most interesting to me is that the entire concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the viruses and the bacteria all on their own, and that what turns them on and off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.
All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn’t infect 70 or 80 percent of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20 or 30 percent that didn’t get the disease.
This is because the virus itself had a life cycle of its own. And so it came and went without any percentage of the population being protected. There wasn’t herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.
We fail to include that viruses have a life cycle, and that they are in relationship to other organisms and to us. Something activates them and something actually stops them, and it has nothing necessarily to do with the percentage of people who would have the illness or who have been vaccinated.
… It is preposterous to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria or the viruses that they have been vaccinated against. If, in fact, children are vaccinated, then why are parents and public health authorities afraid that non-vaccinated children are somehow carrying something that their children are not, when they should feel comfortable that their children are vaccinated?
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.
It just doesn’t make any sense.”
The Difference between Natural Immunity and Vaccine-lnduced Immunity
It’s important to understand that the natural illness has greater influence on the health of your body. Says Dr. Palevsky:
“In medical school, the mentors that I had saw children in their practices in the 40s, 50s and all the way up to the 80s getting these flu-like illnesses who were properly treated with rest, fluids and proper supplementation.
Those kids had developmental growth spurts after the illnesses were over.There is something to say for these viral illnesses that impart a certain boosting of the immune system of your children. And if we’re not letting them have these illnesses, what are we doing to their immune systems? Aren’t we actually hampering their overall health?”
You need to understand that there’s a significant difference between natural immunity and vaccination immunity.
When children are born, they develop natural immunity to hundreds, thousands, millions, and even trillions of microorganisms that they breathe in, eat, and touch through their skin. Their immune systems at the lining of their airways, at the lining of their intestines, and on their skin are actively protecting their body from the outside world.
Those immune systems that are intricately and specifically located in the linings are very important to create memory and protection to the organisms that they continue to breathe, eat, and touch.
That immune system response then has a domino effect on creating other memory and immune responses that give your body antibodies and protection.
That’s a very important step for how the immune system matures in our children. From the linings, the immune system receives information, sends out signals to all other parts of the immune system, and creates an immune response, memory, and antibodies.
On the other hand, when you inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line of defense.
With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural disease.
Some people will argue that this is why we have nasal spray vaccines.
However, again, you’re making the assumption that you have not already been exposed to the virus at some point, and you’re also making the assumption that exposure automatically leads to infection.
Exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot of it has to do with the overall status of your immune system.
The Dangers of Combining Vaccines
One issue that is frequently ignored is the potential harm from the synergy of combinations of vaccines, which have never been studied.
No one knows whether there’s interaction between the bacteria and the viruses in the vaccines administered as part of the childhood vaccination schedule, or if there is interaction in the trace thimerosal (which is still in some of the multi-vials of certain vaccines), or the large amount of aluminum that is in many of them.
Dr. Palevsky says:
“There is a scientist named Boyd Haley, who has actually looked into some of the vaccine ingredients and (1) what happens to nerve cells when you inject them in the lab to specific vaccine ingredients, and (2) what happens to the nerve cells when you keep adding another vaccine ingredient.
He specifically showed that in the presence of thimerosal, there’s a lot of damage to nerve cells. When you add aluminum to the thimerosal, you need less thimerosal to create the damage to the immune and nerve cells in the presence of aluminum.
Then when you add neomycin – an antibiotic in some of the vaccines – it potentiates the potency of nerve cell damage with aluminum and mercury together.
And when you culture the nerve cells and testosterone, versus estrogen, and you expose them to some of the vaccine ingredients like thimerosal, you actually see that the nerve cells that are exposed to testosterone are more damaged in greater amounts than the nerve cells that are bathed in estrogen.
That raises some concern because we do see that children with neurodevelopmental disorders are 4:1, boys to girls.
So you have to question whether testosterone actually makes children more vulnerable to exposure to toxins like mercury, aluminum or their combination?
None of these studies have been done in humans. People say, “We can’t do those studies.” And I say, “Why not?” They say, “It’s unethical.”
I say, “Well, if it’s unethical to do those studies on vaccine ingredients and combining them together, then it’s unethical to give the vaccines in general.”
So we’re missing a lot of important data that we won’t believe, and we’re also missing a lot of important data that we won’t accumulate because most of the studies that are done are by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.”
About Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., F.A.A.P.
Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician who utilizes a holistic approach to children’s wellness and illness. Dr. Palevsky received his medical degree from the NYU School of Medicine in 1987, completed a three-year pediatric residency at The Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC in 1990, and served as a pediatric fellow in the ambulatory care out-patient department at Bellevue Hospital, NYC, from 1990-1991.
Since 1991, his clinical experience includes working in pediatric emergency and intensive care medicine, in-patient and out-patient pediatric medicine, neonatal intensive care medicine, newborn and delivery room medicine, and conventional, holistic and integrative pediatric private practice at the Center for Health & Healing- an integrative and complementary care medical facility affiliated with the Beth Israel Medical Center in NYC. Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association (www.hpakids.org) and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association (www.holisticmedicine.org).
In his current practice in Northport, Long Island and Manhattan, NYC, Dr. Palevsky offers consultations and educational programs to families and practitioners in the areas of preventive and holistic health; childhood development; lifestyle changes; nutrition for adults, infants and children; safe, alternative treatments for common and difficult to treat acute and chronic pediatric and adult conditions; vaccination controversies; mindful parenting; and rethinking the medical paradigm.
Additionally, he teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents, and medical and allied health professionals, both nationally & internationally, and is available for speaking engagements worldwide.
For more information or to contact Dr. Palevsky, please visit www.drpalevsky.com or contact info@drpalevsky.com
Related Links:
Posted at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
by Andrew Napolitano
We elect the government. It works for us. As we watch the Democrats' plans for health care take shape, we can only ask how did our government get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?
Last Saturday, at 11 o’clock in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of every American at a cost of $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years.
For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical decision making with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal of federal bureaucrats.
It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.
The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.
In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the President tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.
In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care -- where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.
One thing we can’t do is just sit back and take it.
Judge Andrew Napolitano is Fox News' senior judicial analyst.
Posted at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
|
Posted at 07:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
If you are an American diabetic, your physician will never tell you that most cases of diabetes are curable. In fact, if you even mention the "cure" word around him, he will likely become upset and irrational. His medical school training only allows him to respond to the word "treatment". For him, the "cure" word does not exist. Diabetes, in its modern epidemic form, is a curable disease and has been for at least 40 years. In 2001, the most recent year for which US figures are posted, 934,550 Americans died from out-of-control symptoms of this disease.1
Your physician will also never tell you that, at one time, strokes, both ischaemic and haemorrhagic, heart failure due to neuropathy as well as both ischaemic and haemorrhagic coronary events, obesity, atherosclerosis, elevated blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, impotence, retinopathy, renal failure, liver failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, elevated blood sugar, systemic candida, impaired carbohydrate metabolism, poor wound healing, impaired fat metabolism, peripheral neuropathy as well as many more of today's disgraceful epidemic disorders were once well understood often to be but symptoms of diabetes.
If you contract diabetes and depend upon orthodox medical treatment, sooner or later you will experience one or more of its symptoms as the disease rapidly worsens. It is now common practice to refer to these symptoms as if they were separable, independent diseases with separate, unrelated treatments provided by competing medical specialists.
It is true that many of these symptoms can and sometimes do result from other causes; however, it is also true that this fact has been used to disguise the causative role of diabetes and to justify expensive, ineffective treatments for these symptoms. Epidemic Type II diabetes is curable. By the time you get to the end of this article, you are going to know that. You're going to know
why it isn't routinely being cured. And, you're going to know how to cure it. You are also probably going to be angry at what a handful of greedy people have surreptitiously done to the entire orthodox medical community and to its trusting patients.Posted at 03:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
From Ken Adachi, Editor
http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/desireejenningsrecovery08nov09.shtml
November 8, 2009
Desiree Jennings Experiences Amazing Recovery with Nature-based Therapies (Nov. 8, 2009)
Desiree Jennings is the 26 year old cheerleader and marathon runner was who severely crippled with a neurological disorder diagnosed as dystonia in the wake of taking the Wonderful Swine Flu vaccine (that government officials and pharmaceutical shills keep telling us is "safe").
Don Nicoloff mentioned to me on the phone tonight that he heard an audio clip from a radio show in which Dr Rashid Buttar of Huntersville, North Carolina, the physician who helped Desiree detoxify her body of the POISONS given to her when she got vaccinated with the saving Swine flu vaccine, explain how he applied intravenous solutions including chelating agents, anti-oxidants, nutritional support, and NATURE-BASED anti-viral compounds over a period of 36 hours which resulted in a stunning and amazing turnaround for Desiree from the seizures she was experiencing nearly EVERY MINUTE, with no ability to talk, and unable to breathe for 10 or 15 second intervals when first carried into his clinic.
You can hear the entire story from Dr Buttar himself in this radio show interview with Robert Scott Bell On October 25, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0VJ7F34Hk
Medical Director, Dr. Rashid A. Buttar is a graduate of the University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Surgery. He trained in General Surgery and Emergency Medicine and served as Brigade Surgeon and Director of Emergency Medicine while serving in the U.S. Army. Dr. Buttar is board certified in Clinical Metal Toxicology, Preventive Medicine, is board eligible in Emergency Medicine and has achieved fellowship status in three separate medical societies.
The interview below is a November 6, 2009 update with Robert Scott Bell on the Michael Savage radio show on Desiree's amazing recovery with a review and update from Dr Buttar on Desiree's treatment, along with comments from Desiree's husband, Brandon Jennings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pnI-dDH7s
Update video clip below from Desiree Jennings herself taken on October 29, 2009:
http://desireejennings.com/
"This year my husband warned me not to get a FLU SHOT....Now, I wish I had listened."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD1BAxVnFdc&feature=player_embedded
Final Thoughts
This woman was approaching DEATH and through divine intervention was lead to the right physician with the CORRECT understanding of how the human body works and the need to NOT TOXIFY the body's immune structure with PHARMACEUTICAL QUAKERY which POISONS the body and can lead to tragic consequences as seen here. Please note that Dr Buttar employed NATURE-BASED therapies and was able to remove the toxins that were poisoning Desiree's body and return her body to normal functioning.
She was POISONED by a pharmaceutical product that the government, Big Medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry had ASSURED her was SAFE and efficacious. She was BETRAYED by the liars and cretins of government and Big Pharma who could DO NOTHING to help her in the wake of the vaccine poisoning of her body, and could only offer BOTOX (!!!) as she slipped closer and closer towards death.
The Desiree Jennings story should be a wake up call to people around the world that Big Pharma, along with their Illuminated pals in government, are engaged in the GREATEST POISONING CAMPAIGN in the history of mankind.
The sooner that people everywhere in the world wake up to this dastardly deception and STOP TAKING THOSE DAMN VACCINES, the sooner this nightmare will draw to a close.
Ken Adachi
Posted at 12:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)