Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

ACTION ALERT: Oppose [NJ] Dietitians Monopoly Bills

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

09/19/08 – UPDATE: NJ Assembly vote postponed until October (6th or 23rd).., maybe it was the 1,000 person parade permit requested from the Trenton PD! Return here for updates & new rally date. See Action Steps below, for all States.
—————
Say No to Restrictions on Nutritional Free Speech!

09/18/08 – I was on the Gary Null radio show – http://www.garynull.com/ – earlier today alerting tri-State listeners to an urgent issue. For the first time in the decade since then NJ Governor Christy Todd Whitman vetoed it, as not adding anything to consumer protection, the State Legislature is about to adopt nutritionists licensing law that will put a stop to all discussions of nutrients, advanced health care and everything we have been trying to accomplish. This evil bill must be stopped or NJ will go the way of Ohio… where people are prosecuted regularly for daring to speak. A protest is planned. Read on:

Yes I know, we used to have a First Amendment. We even have a Supreme Court that told us in 2002, in Thompson v Western States, in the powerful words of Justice O’Connor:

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last – not first – resort. … We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making [even] bad decisions with the information.”

The “Registered Dietitian Licensing” Bills, A2933 and S 1941 ignore all that…

You can contact your NJ legislator at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/

Take Action in All States: ask your Legislators to oppose all restrictions on Nutritional Free Speech!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=25929

So here is the scoop from Nutritionist Dian Freeman:

WHERE HAVE ALL THE HEALTH SHOPS GONE?

Trenton is voting on nutritional censorship bills
masquerading as dietitian licensing bills

NJ Senate Bill S1941 and Assembly Bill A2933 Propose
A Ban on All Current Sources of Holistic Health Information
about Food, Diet, Weight-Loss, Nutrition and Supplements

Please help stop the passage of these Bills

JOIN US FOR A MARCH ON TRENTON

Thursday, September 25, 2008

This is the day the Assembly will vote on Bill A2933

Contact all state legislatures to say you oppose
NJ Senate Bill 1941 and Assembly Bill 2933

These bills interfere with our freedom of speech, civil rights,
our right of informed choice and it creates a
medical monopoly over all nutritional information

This Bill will license and allow only medically trained registered
dietitians to practice, lecture, and advise regarding
health, food, weight-loss, supplements and nutrition

These bills designate the American Dietetic Association (ADA) as the only legal entity allowed to set nutritional standards. They choose the foods served in schools, hospitals & nursing homes. Among their sponsors are: Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Taco Bell, PepsiCo, Crisco, Hershey’s, etc. Are these the nutritional sources you seek?

Contact Us if you can Join Our March on Trenton -Thursday, September 25, 2008 – We need a head count!

Please share this information and contact Us
If you can help and if you can attend our rally

Dian Freeman – (973) 267-4816 – abouthealth@att.net

——————————

Where Have All the Health Shops Gone? Long Time Passing…
Testimony before
The Committee of Health and Senior Services
of the New Jersey State Assembly
by Dian Freeman, MA
Certified in Clinical Nutrition and Holistic Health
Doctoral Candidate in Medical Humanities, Drew University

Today, health freedom choices in New Jersey include medical care, natural alternative care or a combination of both. This will come to an end if Assembly Bill 2933 is passed.

Masquerading as a “Registered Dietician Licensing” Bills, A2933 and an identical bill in the Senate, S1941, will name dieticians as nutritionists while allowing no other to teach, consult or advise about health, nutrition, supplements, diet, food or food materials. This will BAN all natural and alternative health practitioners from calling themselves nutritionists or disseminating information about natural food, holistic health and medical alternatives.

The justification for these Bills is that the New Jersey State legislature, being so much wiser than the federal government (which protects civil rights), believes that the people are too incompetent to know what is good for them. This bill is proposed in the name of protecting “the People” from making “wrong” decisions about their nutrition. This bill wishes to delineate for the poor confused populace who is the correct person to see about nutrition and that this correct person is one who is medically trained in food science. Thus the attempt in this bill to rename those who are ordinary dietician to now be know as the only “nutritionists’ that are medically approved.

They use the fact that doctors are licensed to justify licensing in general. The licensing of doctors does not exclude other doctors, those who have a PhD in nutrition or are naturopaths, NDs, or those who are Ayurvedic doctors form practicing. Licensing should not exclude the competition to the potential licensee.

We, the nutritionists, holistic health practitioners, herbalists, naturopathic doctors, Ayurvedic doctors, doctors of Nutrition, etc., who have worked hard to build businesses in the natural health field do not wish to prevent dieticians from being licensed. We believe in free information and choice. But, we do not believe that in a free country health information and options should be excluded through the licensing of dieticians.

We ask that the newly added exclusionary portion of the Dietician’s Licensing Bill be deleted. This is the portion that excludes all other practitioners from remaining in their natural health businesses. To exclude a group in favor of another is an unconscionable and discriminatory act unbecoming to those governing in a free society.

The obligatory 12 Points in opposition to Senate Bill 1941
1. As currently written, this bill would censor information that is neither understood nor endorsed by the medical establishment. Information should be freely available in a free society. Therefore, the crux of the issue with this bill is multiple violations of civil rights, i.e., freedom of speech, the right to have fully informed choice and the basic right to make our own personal health decisions. This bill is also questionable relative to anti-trust laws against creating business monopolies. As it is written, Bill S1941 favors the medical establishment in New Jersey.

2. This bill, if passed, will disallow the public to be educated about natural health options and choices. Dieticians have no training or interest in natural and holistic alternatives and wish to be known as “medical nutritionists”. An oxymoron if ever there were one. Medicine and nutrition have been at odds for centuries.

In the Sixteenth Century, as in the Twentieth Century, licensed physicians and surgeons were going to the British Parliment to ban the activities of the alternative practitioners of their day, herbalists. Parliament ordered an end to this misuse of the Parliament to enforce licensure, thereby protecting the nutritionists from “suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss of their goods…” (see attachment 7- The Herbalists Charter). http://home.earthlink.net/~lifespirit23/herbcharter.htm

The obvious aim of senate bill 1941 is once again the age old attempt to silence by licensure all alternatives to modern medicine and to render historically valuable health information extinct. This is knowledge that is valuable in both a historical and a practical sense. We ask the New Jersey legislators to stop this atrocity of justice and abuse of civil rights. We hope that this legislature, to paraphrase the Herbalist Charter, will order an end to this misuse of the New Jersey Legislature to enforce licensure, thereby protecting we nutritionists from “suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss of our goods… to a medical monopoly. This charter protecting herbalist was taken as law by New Jersey and remains on the books today.

3. In every culture the perception of a people weighs as reality. The perception by the people about nutritionists and natural health practitioners is of those who would advise about eating organic food, traditional common-sense health practices, balancing and healing diet programs, effective supplement protocols and recommendations on other alternative choices that are complementary to a holistic approach to health. Dieticians are trained in none of these aspects of nutrition because doctors are not trained in them. Dieticians are by their own admission, medical. They are taught to mirror the medical establishment’s disrespect for holistic alternatives. This medical attitude, based on ignorance and fear, is unfortunate. Without the option to seek information from an alternative viewpoint, many will be misled by dieticians masquerading as nutritionists.

To designate dieticians as nutritionists is both to redefine the common perception of a nutritionist, which is propagating a lie upon the public, and to destroy a vast and growing industry by creating a medical monopoly.

4. These Bills deny the public access to holistic health information, thereby eliminating any possibility of a person to make an informed choice regarding their health and violating the American Medical Association’s dictate of 1999 which says, “Informed consent can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an intelligent choice.” Permitting only one side of a story does not lend itself to providing an informed consent.

5. Among the sadder consequences of these Bills would be the inevitably contradictory and probably intentional misinformation dispensed by the medical science community on diet and food. This would lead to confusion among the public as to what their truly healthful choices are. Natural practitioners can clear up much of this misinformation today by helping those who are confused to sort it all out.

Without the dissemination of natural health information and if natural health dialogue is censored by the passage of this bill, the ancillary businesses that depend on natural health information will decline and eventually vanish. This may be the true intention of this bill. The pharmaceutical and medical industries appear to be using their vast resources and influence to get the legislators of New Jersey to eliminate those seen as competition.

The businesses that will decline with the passage of this bill will be small farmers, organic foods, health shops, herbal and natural supplement suppliers, Dan doctors who council on diets for the autistic, natural health publications, etc. Voters will not be happy with those who take away their supplements. The natural heath field is a large industry. A industry of voters. Large enough to be of significant competition to the medical and pharmaceutical industry.

6. Of course, dieticians have a right to be licensed if they so choose. Removing the clause from these Bills that criminalizes the people who have been practicing, learning and teaching holistic nutrition would be the logical solution for this dilemma. Allowing nutritional guidance and the dissemination of natural health information by those other than dieticians would give dieticians their license without infringing upon the freedoms of others.

7. The bill proposes to designate registered dieticians as “nutritionists” a designation they did not have before and do not have the training for. It would also deem it illegal for any person who is not a medically trained dietician working inside the medical “box” to address or share information relating to food, diet, nutrition and health including doctors of nutrition and those nationally certified and conventionally trained as nutritionists.

8. Dieticians have traditionally been perceived as the food preparers in institutions. They have training in the constituents that make up a food thus they prepare the nutritional panels on food packaging. Memorizing food nutrients does not provide for understanding the nutritional value of food. Dieticians advocate the use of processed foods probably because the chemical constituents they memorized seem the same whether processed or fresh. In his article “Corporate Potluck” (attachment 6), Jacob Wheeler describes a dietician at the 2007 American Dietetic Association’s Annual Food and Nutrition Expo in Philadelphia as “promoting Taco Bell’s new Fresco Style line…” Wheeler notes that among the many sponsors present were PepsiCo, Heshey’s, Crisco, Taco Bell and McDonalds,” and he asks. “When did PepsiCo become an advocate for health?” A nutritionist does not advocate such food. A dietician does.

9. Dieticians choose the foods served in public schools, hospitals and nursing homes. All three the butt of many common jokes within the nutritional field as well as among everyday people. Nutritionists believe if people regularly ate the food recommended by dieticians, most people would end up, sooner than later, in hospitals and nursing homes, which may be part of a larger plan. It is dieticians that choose pizza, hot dogs and french fries as a wholesome school lunch with ketchup seen as a valid serving of vegetables. The moms of New Jersey will think their legislators have gone nuts when they hear that they are considering naming the perpetrators of such food atrocities as valid nutritionists.

10. Dieticians also recommend the diets of the American Diabetic Association and the American Heart Association and hand them out in doctor’s offices and hospitals. In study after study, these diets are reported to be less healthy for the diseases that they target than the Atkins diet is! There is not one major study that supports the effectiveness of these medical diets. Looking at the statistics, we see that diabetes and heart disease have not diminished one iota in America over recent decades, rather, they are growing to epidemic proportions. Medical-model diets seem not to work and authentic nutritionists reject them. As a result, with real nutritional guidance people are getting well eating the right foods and taking effective and appropriate supplements.

11. As I mentioned before, perception is often read as reality. The fact that this bill so strongly favors the medical establishment and is sponsored mainly by those who are medical doctors, work in the medical field or work for medical foundations does not leave much room for the perception of the impartiality or fairness of the sponsors or the legislature.

The legislators who sponsor this bill and those who vote for it will be perceived as bent on outlawing all competition to the medical model. By denying their voters the many healthy alternatives available they will be forced to adhere to the medical industry’s two “health” options: drugs and surgery. There may be a perception that New Jersey legislators have no compunction about violating the civil rights of their constituents in favor of their own special interest and agenda.

This is a perception that will be brought to the mind of New Jersey voters repeatedly, state-wide, district-by-district by holistic health proponents each time a legislator who votes for these Bills comes up for re-election. American can be tenacious when it comes to the loss of their freedoms.

12. If passed in New Jersey, a precedent will be set for similar legislation to pass in other states. This will lead to a nation-wide, state-by-state ban on the dissemination of all holistic information. This effort will accomplish what the combined forces of the pharmaceutical and medical industries, with the help of the FDA, have been unable to accomplish on a federal level. Even though they have been trying for years to outlaw holistic practices in Washington D.C., that ol’ Constitution keeps getting in their way.

The proposal of such legislation reeks of a paternalistic government behaving with an obnoxiously elitist attitude giving the appearance of questionable ties to the special interest of the pharmaceutical and medical industries.

They want us to believe that they think it is up to our government, our legislators, to protect us from natural wholesome advice, supplements and information in favor of the FDA approved products and procedures of the medical/pharmaceutical industries.

These are the products and procedures that nearly caused me my life. And no wonder, the FDA recently requested an internal assessment of whether it could do its job (attachment 5). The result of this massive audit found that the FDA cannot fulfill its mission because “its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.” They admit they are inept.

These are facts that we in the natural health field have long been aware of. Many practitioners, like me, were damaged by modern medicine when we healed or cured ourselves naturally it became out passion to dedicate our lives to sharing that information with those who seek it out. There must be alternative choices for those who do not choose modern medicine and for those who wish to use a little of both. We Americans have the right to health self-sufficiency not to a “big Brother” government that makes our health choices for us.

In actuality, modern medicine, working without the natural health wisdom of the ages, is not doing so well for the people. Jama has named doctors as the third leading cause of death (attachment 1) and a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund of western countries has determined the U.S. comes in “dead last” in “providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens” while France came in first. France mixes traditional and natural health practices with modern medicine as most of the other industrialized countries in the study (attachment 2). In addition, the associated press last year reported that the U.S. lags behind 41 nations in life span projections, “as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles (attachment 3).” Dieticians and their fast food sponsors will not be of any help to the U.S. in improving the nutrition and lifestyle of its citizens.

These trends could be reversed if modern medicine in the U.S. joined with traditional and natural health practitioners in changing the diet and lifestyles of Americans. Until then and with the help of dieticians, the U.S. will lead the western world only in the expanding numbers of cases of heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

Protecting Our Bodies and Our Kids From Vaccination

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

This article is written from the point of view of a parent who does not want her children vaccianted and reports on her efforts to protect them.

She mentions many good resources and a host of useful information but left out the Natural Solutions Foundation Vaccine Exemption eBook (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=699) which offers much more in-depth information than generally available without expensive and intensive legal consultation.

Written by two attorneys specializing in health rights and options, this is a remarkable document which should be on your computer (print it out if you want it on your shelf) when you are considering how to protect yourself and your children from the specter of vaccination.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org

Vaccinations: Parents’ Informed Choice

By Destiny Dawn | September 2, 2008

To my friends and family that know how I feel about vaccinations you will be happy to hear I have finally learned how to deal with the school district about this matter in time for enrollment.

After many hours of research I found an article that is very well written on the subject that I decided to share. Below is a intro for the article, to continue reading click the “more” link after the excerpt.
Vaccinations: Parents’ Informed Choice

By Lynne Born

Because the misinformation surrounding vaccination is so extensive, many parents don’t even question whether or not they should vaccinate their child, overlooking one of the most important decisions a parent can make. Since medical authorities say vaccination is safe, most parents simply go ahead with vaccination, completely unaware of the potential dangers and unable to recognize a serious reaction when it does occur.

And since government health departments and school authorities give the impression that vaccination is mandated for every child in the United States, most parents believe they are legally required to vaccinate their child. But in all 50 states, you are free to decline vaccination entirely, or adopt a partial vaccination schedule, an important decision about the health and welfare of your child.

However, parents face tremendous pressure from doctors, the media, schools and even other parents, to follow the standard vaccination schedule and subject their child to an ever-escalating protocol of multiple injections at various stages of their young lives, even including injections with several vaccines in the same shot.

Misinformation

Because vaccines are used predominately on our precious children, most people assume that the many vaccines have been subjected to thorough trials and rigorous studies proving that vaccines are safe and effective. Parents have been told that mass vaccination campaigns ended multiple epidemics around the world, that vaccines are effective at preventing the illnesses they are targeted against, that side effects are rare and generally consist of sore arms or mild fevers that pass quickly, and that the few serious negative reactions are carefully tracked and monitored, keeping adverse reactions to a minimum.

However, parents who take the time to dig deeper and pierce this veil of misinformation find that these assertions lack solid scientific backing. Not only has there never been a single long-term study comparing the health and welfare of vaccinated to unvaccinated children, multiple examples can easily be found of vaccinated children acquiring the very illness they have been vaccinated against. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines can be extremely harmful, permanently disabling and even deadly to our children. And the current system for tracking and reporting adverse reactions to the FDA is sloppy, poorly executed and voluntary rather than mandatory, even when a child has been permanently disabled or killed by a vaccine.

Vaccination Prevents Natural Immunity

When a baby becomes infected with a communicable disease, his immune system responds through a sophisticated web of interlocking reactions that can produce immunity for life to naturally acquired childhood diseases. These miraculous defenses exist, in part, to keep invading microbes and viruses from taking hold in the deeper systems and organs of the body.

But vaccines, which contain both live and dead viruses, killed bacteria, genetically engineered DNA and chemical preservatives, are injected directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the natural immune response. This deprives the body of the ability to naturally develop life-long immunity in all its multifaceted complexity to normal childhood diseases like measles, mumps and chicken pox. Mass vaccination is a manmade attempt to remove the natural infection response from human development and replace it with a series of artificially imposed infections and immune responses determined by the doctor’s vaccination schedule.

So Many Shots

Thirty years ago, children received a total of four vaccines, but today a fully vaccinated child receives a whopping 37-50 vaccines during the early, formative years of life, when his developing immune system is most vulnerable. Even an adult immune system would be challenged by so many vaccines given during such a short period of time. While unvaccinated children will never develop every disease for which children are given a vaccine, their bodies are forced by the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) vaccination schedule to respond to them all. Furthermore, the DPT vaccine forces an immune response to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis on the same day, an event that would never happen in real life. Plus, there are virtually no studies or scientific research on the effects of multiple viral and bacterial vaccines given in combination or in close succession, and how they affect the human body.

Evidence of Vaccine Harm

The medical profession is extremely reluctant to acknowledge adverse reactions to vaccination, even when the reaction is instantaneous or occurs within a few hours, and even with adults who can clearly verbalize their negative reactions, which infants are unable to do. And since no studies have ever tracked negative effects that occur over the long term, reactions that occur days, weeks or years later are almost never attributed to the vaccine.

It is a little-known fact that not a single study exists to prove that vaccines are safe over the long term. “It would be such an easy study to organize. Use three groups of children–the first group fully vaccinated, the second group partially vaccinated, and the third group no vaccinations. Then follow them for up to 10 years and we would be able to see the kinds of problems that are manifesting from these vaccines,” says Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the National Vaccine Information Center.1 However, evidence of vaccine harm is not really a secret– hundreds of published medical studies have documented both vaccine failure and vaccine harm, even though most pediatricians continue to vaccinate and most parents remain completely unaware of these studies.2

One well known example of a long term negative vaccine reaction occurred with the polio vaccine used in the late 1950s into the early 1960s. This vaccine was later found to be contaminated with a monkey virus, SV40, which had tainted the vaccine during production. And even though the virus was discovered in 1960, the contaminated vaccine continued to be given to American children for three more years with the full knowledge of government health authorities, until it was withdrawn in 1963. Thirty years later, SV40 has been isolated in bone, brain and lung cancers of disabled and deceased adults. The SV40 vaccine debacle proves a direct connection between a vaccine and a slow-growing cancer which developed decades after the vaccine.3 Unfortunately, authorities made no effort to find and track adult recipients of the vaccine, study and catalog their health status, or note their rate of cancer, even though a clear opportunity exists to study long term effects of a vaccine in a very direct and concise way.

Delayed negative reactions have also been confirmed by the work of Dr. Viera Scheibner, who developed a baby monitor in an effort to prevent Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Her monitor sounds an alarm if the baby stops breathing or shows patterns of stress breathing during sleep. In designing the monitor, she had no preconceived intention of specifically tracking vaccination reactions, as she had never conceived of the fact that vaccinations were in any way problematic or harmful.

In due course of tracking infant breathing at night, she recorded the breathing patterns of babies following the DPT injection. She found that the vaccine caused babies a great deal of stress and that this stress showed a remarkable uniformity, with stress flare-ups immediately following the vaccine on day 2 or 5, or delayed reactions on the 15-16th or 20-25th day in babies who recovered and those who subsequently died from SIDS. Scheibner’s monitor proved that death from the vaccine sometimes occurs weeks after the injection, in correlation with the stress patterns it identified. However, the longer time frame gives doctors and health authorities every excuse not to attribute it to the DPT shot.

Adverse Events Not Reported Or Tracked

One of the great dangers of the current pro-vaccine mentality is the fact that negative vaccine reactions are very rarely reported to the adverse event reporting system, a system rife with problems. When a vaccine is released onto the market, post-marketing surveillance is supposed to track any negative reactions from the millions of people taking the newly released vaccine. However, not only is the adverse reporting system entirely voluntary, 90 to 99 percent of all adverse reactions are never reported, according to David Kessler, head of the FDA for most of the 1990s.4 And no oversight of any kind ensures that reports made directly to the pharmaceutical companies are then forwarded to the FDA–the process is run entirely by the “honor system.”

A very clear example of the poor adverse event documentation occurred during President Bush’s recent Smallpox Vaccination Program of 2003. Before the program, the public was repeatedly told to expect death rates from the vaccine of one to two per million. In fact, there were three deaths (that we know of) among the approximately 36,000 civilians and few hundred embedded reporters who were vaccinated.5 This makes the actual death rate 80 times higher than that which the CDC told the public to expect. Serious adverse reactions such as brain swelling, heart inflammation, heart attacks, uncontrolled ulceration of the skin, among others, were one in 583, seven times higher than the CDC’s original guesstimate of one in four thousand. And yet medical authorities and mainstream news continue to use the old, inaccurate numbers rather than update the risk estimate as they should.

Even worse, these numbers were probably vastly under-reported since, just as with childhood vaccination reactions, reporting adverse reactions during the smallpox vaccine was not mandatory and was also limited to an arbitrary and ill-defined time frame of 2-4 weeks. What was the rate of death and injury from the vaccine over the next few months and years? All of these important risks should have been studied and tracked for an honest assessment of the true risk of this vaccine, but researchers missed this valuable opportunity due to the usual shoddy and incomplete tracking system that reflects the poor science behind vaccine development.

Hepatitis B Vaccine At Birth

Let’s look at the hepatitis B vaccine as a way to examine problems with the development and introduction of any new vaccine.

Hepatitis B is primarily an adult disease transmitted through blood and body fluids. High risk populations include drug users, heterosexuals and homosexuals with many sexual partners, health care workers exposed to blood, and babies born to infected mothers. In 1996, 270 children under the age of 14 were infected with hepatitis B, with only 54 cases reported in the 0-1 age group.

In spite of the low risk for children in general, and in spite of the ability to target at-risk children by specifically testing their mothers before birth, the CDC added the hepatitis B vaccine to the recommended vaccination schedule in 1991, with the first of three doses to be administered on the very day of birth before leaving the hospital.

In 1986, Merck & Co. began marketing the first genetically engineered hepatitis B vaccine. A flagrant example of the poor science behind vaccination development, the FDA approved the vaccine for use after only 1636 doses of Recombivax HB were administered to only 653 children who were subsequently monitored for only 5 days after each dose.6 Since the vaccine is recommended for the first day of life, Merck was asked for safety data on newborns. They replied, “We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds.”7 Further, Merck admitted in 1996 that no data is “available for the simultaneous administration of Recombivax HB with other vaccines” even though children are routinely given other vaccines along with Recombivax HB vaccine.

Since the introduction of this vaccine, there have been hundreds of reports in the medical literature (mostly published in international medical journals outside of the United States) citing central nervous system diseases, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, arthritis, severe rashes, fever, chronic fatigue, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) as a direct result of the vaccine. Parents have filed tens of thousands of adverse event reports with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including emergency room visits, hospitalization and deaths. A study in New Zealand reported a 60 percent increase in juvenile diabetes after a massive campaign to vaccinate babies from 1988 to 1991 with the hepatitis B vaccine.8 Even Merck itself admits to systemic complaints such as fever, joint pain, fatigue and weakness in up to 17 percent of all hepatitis B injections. And perhaps most telling of all, over 50 percent of the doctors surveyed in the UK refused to take the hepatitis B vaccine themselves, citing the known dangers from the vaccine, even though as medical professionals working in hospitals, they belong to a high risk group exposed to blood products and needles in the daily course of their work.

But most disturbing is the fundamental question of why this vaccine was recommended for infants in the first place. In 1996, there were 1,080 reports of adverse reactions among 0-1 year olds from the vaccine, including 47 deaths. If only 10 percent of the true deaths and injuries are being reported–an extremely conservative estimate–this means that there were actually over 10,800 adverse reactions and 470 deaths from the vaccine. Yet in that same year, there were only 54 cases of the disease reported in the 0-1 year old group. This frightful equation reveals that for every child that acquires hepatitis B, the vaccine kills 9 babies and injures 200.

Why subject tens of millions of infants to the known dangers of this vaccine when the few babies actually at risk for the disease can be identified by simply screening the mother?9 And finally, even if parents opt to include this vaccine in their child’s vaccine schedule, why is the vaccine given on the day of birth? Parents need time to get to know their child first, so they can compare the baby’s health status before and after vaccination, so any harm can be noticed, tracked and treated.
In addition to problems with genetically engineered vaccines, many vaccines–notably the MMR, chickenpox and Sabin polio vaccines–inject live viruses into the body. Various stabilizers and preservatives are added including formaldehyde, lead, aluminum and MSG. Unknown amounts of RNA and DNA from animal and human cell tissue culture have been found as well. And even though concerned parent groups have fought for the removal of the mercury-based preservative thimerisol from childhood vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry still uses mercury in flu vaccines, a new addition to the recommended yearly vaccination schedule for children starting at age 6 months. Additionally, the medical industry has continued to use old lots of thimerisol-containing vaccines until supplies are exhausted, rather than pull them from the market immediately, as they should.

Families “Compensated” For Loss Of Their Child

Because of the dramatic increase in the number of injuries from childhood vaccines over the past decades, Congress enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, setting up a fund to compensate parents for injured or dead children (as if a parent could ever be “compensated” for the loss of their child due to vaccination). Application to this fund is the first step parents must take when their child has been harmed; thus, the fund serves to shield the pharmaceutical company from all initial liability. To date, the fund has paid out over $1.2 billion to parents with over 12,000 reports made every year. This is a staggering number considering how many reactions occur that medical authorities refuse to attribute to the vaccine. And if David Kessler is correct and 90-99 percent of all injuries are not even reported, the true number of children injured or killed by vaccines would be 1.2 million or more per year.

The many excellent organizations10 that work to inform doctors and parents of the risks of vaccines describe the anguished phone calls they receive, recounting the devastation, guilt, confusion and distress that follow.11 Parents describe babies who within hours or days of their vaccination, run fevers, become restless or listless, fall into deep sleeps interspersed with piercing screams, arch their backs strangely while they cry, fall into comas or repetitive seizures, twitch, jerk, or stare into space blankly. Or, parents describe a general decline in overall health with constant ear infections, sudden sensitivities to foods and food allergies, sleep disturbances, asthma, unexplained rashes, and loss of developmental milestones replaced instead with repetitive head banging or body rocking.

Many parents and doctors believe the staggering increase in chronic childhood illness is a reaction to the dozens of vaccines that are now part of the standard vaccination schedule. Fifty years ago, autism affected less than 1 in 10,000 families, but now 1 in every 68 families have an autistic child. The rate of schoolchildren with autism has increased 1700 percent nationally from 1992 to 2002, creating a huge drain on families, school resources and social services that can never be remedied if the root cause turns out to be vaccination as many suspect, and the true solution is never addressed. Childhood asthma, diabetes, attention deficit disorder, and obesity have skyrocketed as well. As the SV40 polio debacle proved what can happen, “We may be trading mumps and measles during childhood, for cancer and leukemia in adults,”says Barbara Loe Fisher.

Do Vaccines Even Work?

Even if parents find out about the risks of vaccines on their own, their doctors usually assure them that the risk is worth the almost certain benefit of freedom from infectious disease that their child receives. However, time and again, vaccines have simply not worked against the disease they are targeted to prevent. A 1978 survey of 30 states showed that more than half of all children who contracted measles had been fully vaccinated. Sweden abandoned its whooping cough vaccine after it examined 5,140 cases of whooping cough in 1978 and found that 84 percent had been vaccinated three times. A 1990 Journal of American Medicine Association article stated that “Although more than 95 percent of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases. . . occur among previously vaccinated children.” The medical literature is filled with example after example of the failure of vaccination to furnish protection against common childhood diseases.

But rather than accept the premise that the entire system of vaccination is fundamentally flawed, the medical industry calls for “booster” shots and re-vaccination, without any solid, long-term studies to see whether immunity is actually achieved and, if so, for how long.

Vaccination Did Not End Epidemics

While we have all been taught that vaccination ended the world’s many deadly epidemics, an honest and careful review of original historical medical sources, publications and statistics from the past two hundred years reveals that infectious diseases declined 90 percent before mass vaccination was ever introduced.

Experts attribute the cessation of epidemic diseases not to mass vaccination, but to a major sanitation reform movement that swept Europe during the 1800s. These reforms included moving human waste out of streets via plumbing systems; regularly cleaning streets and stables of horse manure and human waste; improving roads so that meats, vegetables and raw milk could be distributed in cities while still fresh; and upgrading water distribution systems to prevent bacterial contamination.12

All the old terror diseases of plague, black death and cholera responded to these reforms, and epidemics declined throughout the 1800s, long before the advent of vaccination. Even the CDC reported in 1999 that infectious diseases declined in the past century due to improvements in sanitation, water and hygiene. Vaccination against whooping cough, diphtheria, measles and polio all occurred only at the very end of the life cycle of each epidemic, exposing the fallacy of the claim that vaccination ended epidemics.13

The only exception to this decline in epidemic disease is smallpox, which, contrary to all we have been taught, actually increased with the advent of mandatory vaccination and decreased only after an organized uprising by parents and doctors forced European governments to end their mandatory vaccination programs.14 Even though the World Health Organization claims credit for the eradication of smallpox worldwide through vaccination, the fact is that smallpox declined in countries around the world whether the population had been vaccinated or not. As Dr. Glen Dittman said in 1986, “It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10 percent of the population were ever vaccinated.”

Big Business Creates Pressure to Vaccinate

The children of the United States represent the most highly vaccinated population in the world. Millions of dollars are provided by the multi-national pharmaceuticals to create front organizations like “All Kids Count” and “Immunization Action Coalition,” groups with friendly, neutral names that disguise the pharmaceutical funding behind their mandate to promote vaccination. Vaccines produce billions of dollars a year for the drug companies, in part because the federal government funds massive vaccination drives by buying vaccines with our tax dollars and then giving state health departments millions of dollars with the goal of achieving 100 percent vaccine compliance. If they fail, the money can be withdrawn from the state. The result of all of this money available to state health authorities is enormous pressure applied to the schools, which in turn pressure parents by requiring proof of vaccination for entry into school at every level of a child’s development.
Resistance

Yet resistance to the mandatory vaccination schedule is growing and millions of parents are questioning both the underlying science of vaccination and expressing concerns about side effects. A 2003 study found that 93 percent of pediatricians and 60 percent of family physicians reported at least one family that had refused a vaccine for their child.

When a parent chooses to limit or opt out of the vaccination schedule, a wide variety of official responses have been reported ranging from no difficulties at all, to the opposite extreme, official threats of medical child neglect charges. It is an unfortunate fact that parents who decline vaccination have been thrown out of their doctors’ offices and children have been refused entry into school. In extreme cases, officials have charged parents with medical child neglect and forced them to go to court to retain the right to raise their child.15 Parents receiving benefits such as welfare, food aid and medical care risk the loss of such aid when they wish to opt out of vaccination.

Yet it is also true that many parents experience no resistance from authorities with their right of vaccination refusal unchallenged, as long as they follow the various state laws for exemption.

Polio, smallpox and diphtheria were in decline before the introduction of vaccinations. Mandatory smallpox vaccination in England and Wales resulted in a huge increase in the disease. Typhoid fever died out with no vaccination program.

How To Opt Out

Since this short article cannot examine every vaccine, if you have questions about a specific vaccine, please see the footnotes and recommended reading list at the end of this article to help you decide which, if any, vaccines you feel are safe for your child. While vaccines may be “mandated” by the CDC, they are not “legally required.” No one has the legal authority to vaccinate your child against your wishes.

If the birth will take place in a hospital, you can amend the medical treatment forms or your birth plan, and clearly state that you do not want any vaccines for your baby while in the hospital. You should also communicate your request verbally with the staff on all shifts, either yourself or by having your spouse or advocate communicate your wishes clearly and directly.

Once your child is born, the pressure to vaccinate comes from two sources–medical authorities and school authorities. Medically, you are free to make any decision at any time you feel is best regarding your child’s vaccination schedule. However, if you opt out of vaccination, many doctors may lie about vaccines being mandatory or frighten you with exaggerated statistics about the dangers of not vaccinating and refuse to treat your child. Unfortunately, the “bread and butter” of pediatric practice are the many “well baby” visits that include vaccination throughout your child’s development.16

However, it is the entry into day care or school that triggers the need for legal exemptions. There are three types of exemptions–philosophical, medical and religious. There are medical exemptions in all 50 states, religious exemptions in all but two states (West Virginia and Mississippi), and philosophical exemptions in 16 states. You can check the laws for your particular state at www.thinktwice.com or www.909shot.com/state-site/legal-exemptions.htm

Private schools have their own rules and may reject children that have not been vaccinated. Public schools, however, are required by law to accept your exemption, when properly prepared according to the laws of your state. Home schooling sidesteps the issue entirely.

Once you check the laws for your particular state, you can choose the exemption type that is best for your situation. It is very important to submit the appropriate paperwork to the school so that your refusal to vaccinate cannot be interpreted as parental neglect. A philosophical exemption generally requires a short letter simply stating that you object to vaccination. The religious exemption also requires a letter, but some states stipulate that you actually belong to, and are a practicing member of, a religion that specifically objects to vaccination. The medical exemption is usually the most difficult to obtain because doctors are subject to review and censure by state medical authorities when they grant exemptions. In some cases medical exemptions may be obtained from the school nurse–and are often easier to obtain than from a physician.

Happily, simply signing and submitting the exemption is generally all that is needed. Some exemption letters must be notarized or drafted as a signed affidavit. And some School Immunization Records have an exemption section on the form itself, that you simply fill out. Here is an example for California: www.dhs.ca.gov/publications/forms/pdf/pm286b.pdf. For examples of exemption letters for all possible scenarios and all states see www.vaclib.org/pdf/exemption.htm

When discussing your decision to opt out, it is best to remain calm, courteous and diplomatic, even in the face of ignorance or resistance from authorities. Do not enter into arguments with authorities and draw attention to your decision. There is no need to attach documents to your exemption proving evidence of the problems with vaccination or explaining your reasons for opting out–you simply want an exemption for your child. If you encounter belligerent or arrogant authorities who intimidate you with threats of sending you to jail or taking your child away, try to sidestep their resistance in a non-confrontational manner and leave the situation as soon as possible. If you run into this kind of resistance, you should put your wishes in writing, escalate your exemption request to someone above that official, and demand a written response. You’ll be surprised how quickly resistance from authorities can fade once they must put their illegal statements and intimidations in writing.17

Above all, remember that no authority has the legal right to vaccinate your child without your permission. Should they do so, they open themselves up to legal liability and you have all the resources of the law behind you. While you may experience resistance, they are breaking the law, not you. Do not be coerced or intimidated into vaccinating your child–it is your choice and your right to do what you feel is best.

Naturally Derived Immunity

Those of us involved in the Weston A. Price organization have an intimate understanding of the lies and distortions that various government and corporate forces use to control our food choices. The grassroots Campaign for Real Milk started with research into the facts of the situation, analyzed how the media and agribusiness distorted the true history of raw and pasteurized milk, the organized a drive for freedom of choice, and supported the farmers committed to producing raw milk.

It is these same kinds of distortions and propaganda regarding drugs and vaccines that are sometimes overlooked in the natural food community. The doctor who tells parents that raw milk will give their child TB is the same doctor who assures parents that vaccines are safe, effective and nothing to be concerned about.

We know that children of the many cultures that Weston Price studied needed no vaccination–they grew up vibrant, healthy and strong, able to fight off infectious disease as long as they maintained their original, native diets. Should a child be in any danger from an infectious disease, we have many powerful tools available to us–nutrient-dense healing foods along with homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism and naturopathy, all systems of earth-based healing that take into account the full well being of the whole person to restore and maintain true health.

The recent avalanche of drug scandals exposing death and injury from drugs fully approved by the FDA demonstrates harm far greater than specific problems with individual drugs. Western medicine operates under the assumption that synthetic, genetically engineered drugs and vaccines heal the sick and protect the young from disease, an assumption that parents are expected to accept without question. But when it comes to your child, you are the expert most qualified to decide what is best for your child, using your intelligence and common sense in the same way we fight for our right for real food.

About the Author

Lynne Born has been an alternative health care activist, writer and independent medical researcher for over 20 years. She is a longtime member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and enjoys a diet based on homemade full-fat foods, bone broth, raw milk and fermented foods.

ENDNOTES

1. Barbara Loe Fisher, National Vaccination Information Center, http://www.909shot.com. Nevada County, California, has the highest percentage of unvaccinated children in the state of California, providing a perfect setting for this simple study. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/CM171959.DTL.
2. For their excellent collection of hundreds of peer reviewed, published articles on the dangers, side effects, and inefficacy of vaccination, see Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System, by Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., 1997. Available from New Atlantean Press, 505-983-1856. See also any of the excellent books by Neil Z. Miller, including Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?, 2002. Check his website for additional books, http://www.thinktwice.com.
3. Even Dr. Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine admitted under oath that most cases of polio in the USA since 1961 were actually caused by the vaccine.
4. David Kessler, ” Introducing MedWatch: A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effect and product problems,” Journal of American Medical Association, July 2, 1993, 269(21): 2765–68.
5. As the deaths followed one after another in March and April 2003, headlines read “First death: Nurse dies after smallpox vaccination”; “Second worker dies of heart attack after smallpox vaccination”; and “Coroner rules [smallpox] vaccinations contributed to reservist’s death.” (An internet search easily reveals these articles.) Yet, by June 2003, mainstream media articles were not only ignoring the earlier deaths, they continued to use the old, inaccurate figures of one or two deaths per million rather than the newly updated, more truthful numbers that had become apparent during this vaccination program.
6. Merck & Co. 1993 product insert for Recombivax HB.
7. 1997 Illinois Board of Health hearing, The Congressional Quarterly, August 25, 2000, pg. 647.
8. Barthelo Classen, M.D., CEO of Classen Immunotherapies Inc. Epidemiologic study in the New Zealand Medical Journal, 1996.
9. See http://www.909shot.com/History/Newsletters/hepbnlr.htm for more detailed information about the dangers and risks of the Hepatitis B vaccine.
10. National Vaccination Information Center, http://www.909shot.com; Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute, http://www.thinktwice.com.
11. See http://www.thinktwice.com/stories.htm, http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/vaccines/wake.html.
12. The concept that epidemic diseases were ended by sanitation reforms is reinforced when natural disasters destroy sanitation systems and roads, bringing epidemic diseases with the collapse of the infrastructure. Vaccination does not end these epidemics – only the restoration of basic services restores health.
13. See charts showing the decline of epidemics in my article “Smallpox Vaccine has the Pox”, http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/born0803.html, July/August 2003.
14. For an in-depth study of the unscientific and fraudulent development of the smallpox vaccine, see my article referenced in footnote 13.
15. See Immunization, The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James, 1995, Chapter 10 “Appointment with Tyranny” for a story of a court battle over the right to not vaccinate in 1981.
16. See How To Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctors, by Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. for an excellent resource on parenting without vaccination.
17. Dr. Joseph Mercola has written an excellent article that details how to handle resistance in your state: How to Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations of All Kinds, http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/article/vaccines/legally_avoid_shots.htm.

RECOMMENDED BOOKS AND WEBSITES

Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller, 2002. Check his website for additional books, www.thinktwice.com.

National Vaccination Information Center, www.909shot.com. Check www.908shot.com/ResourceCenter/ResourceCenter.htm for recommended reading.

Immunization, The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James, 1995.

Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a medical Assault on the Immune System, by Viera Scheibner, PhD., 1007, New Atlantean Press, (505) 983-1856.

How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctors, by Robert Mendelsohn, MD.
MERCURY IN VACCINES AND AUTISM

The mercury-autism connection has surfaced to the public’s attention with the publication of “Deadly Immunity,” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the July issue of Rolling Stone magazine, simultaneous with publication in Salon. Kennedy describes a Center for Disease Control and Prevention meeting held June 2000 at which CDC epidemiologist Tom Verstraeten presented evidence to industry and government officials that thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative in vaccines, was responsible for the epidemic of autism in America’s children. Instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the attendees spent the rest of the meeting discussing ways to cover up the damaging data.

Subsequently, powerful friends in Congress have tried to protect vaccine manufacturers with legislation to shield them from more than 4000 pending lawsuits. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $837,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into the homeland security bill. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,” says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

More than 500,000 children suffer from autism, with 40,000 new cases diagnosed every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

The CDC counters parental anger and negative publicity by citing studies that vindicate thimerosal, studies opponents claim are doctored and highly suspect. “You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity and head of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage. Yet the lure of profits proved greater than the company’s concern for the public. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, and are needed to make in mass vaccination programs cost effective.

The introduction of thimerosal into vaccines coincided with an increase in the number of vaccines given to children. Infants who receive all their vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of six months are exposed to levels of ethylmercury, injected directly into the bloodstream, 187 times greater than the EPAs limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin.

Kennedy describes a burgeoning scandal that has the potential to bring down the pharmaceutical industry. To read his article, see www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7395411.
IF YOU MUST VACCINATE

* Wait until the child is at least 2 years old.
* Do not give more than one vaccination at a time.
* Never vaccinate when the child is sick.
* Be sure that the vaccines are thimerosal-free.
* Supplement the child with extra cod liver oil, vitamin C and B12 before each shot.
* Obtain a medical exemption if the child has had a bad reaction to a vaccination before or if there is a personal or family history of vaccine reactions, convulsions or neurological disorders, severe allergies and/or immune system disorders.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts,
the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2005.

Thimerisol Is Just Another Word for Toxic

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

Mary Tocco wrote a well reasoned and articulate summation of the dangers of thimerisol, which is 50% mercury by weight, in vaccinations. This article should be shared with anyone, whether a doctor, parent, school official or public health official, who thinks that it might be good public policy to vaccinate anyone, including children.
When they have digested this information, please let them know that the other components of vaccines, including stray DNA from aborted fetuses and animals, genetically modified DNA, aluminum, squalene, formaldehyde, polysorbagte 80 (a known cause of infertility), FDA-acknowledged “steal viruses”, including some that cause leukemia and other cancers and a witches’ brew of other poisons are regularly introduced into humans despite the irationality of doing so from a health or logic point of view.
Let me know what happens!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org

To the Editors of Scientific American
Tue, August 26, 2008

Dear Editors,
I am continually shocked at the misinformation your magazine perpetuates about toxic vaccines. Consider the following FACTS pertaining to mercury/thimerosal:
• Manufactured by Eli Lilly in 1930 and put in vaccines and other topical agents in 1930 as a disinfectant.
• 1948 Blue Ribbon Panel appointed by Washington deemed it “very toxic” and ordered it removed from all topical and biological. They removed all topical applications and supposed to remove all biological with mercury. Dr. Frank Engly, only living member of that panel. Their recommendations were ignored due to “POLITICS”.
• 1956 – CD gets reports on the toxicity of thimerosal, removed murcuralate, mecurocome and other topical applications.
• Thimerosal is toxic and accumulates in the brain. (Dr. Boyd Haley, University of Kentucky, mercury specialist)
• Department of Defense during WW2 said Eli Lilly must label it “POISON”
• 1971 Eli Lilly’s own study said it was “Toxic to tissue cells in concentrations as low as one part per million”.
• That is 100 times weaker than what has been given to babies for the last 20 years.
• 1997 10 babies died when thimerosal was dabbed on their umbilical cord after birth, Toronto, Canada
• Russia banned thimerosal in vaccines 20 years ago as did Denmark, Great Brittan and all Scandinavian countries.
• Prior to 1999- 2003 Congressional Hearings, doctors did not know the level of thimerosal in vaccines and any doctor in their right mind would NEVER say that mercury in any form is safe at any level.
• Children got between 40 to 60 times the EPA safety level injected with vaccines. (Dept. of Biologic, Evaluation and Research, 2003 Congressional hearings.)
• It took until late 2003 to use up all the vaccines containing the full dose of mercury, they were never recalled and Con. Dan Burton said in 2000, “Every day these vaccines are given, 8000 children are at risk”. Over the next 3 1/2 years over 11 million children were at risk from those vaccines.
• When mercury/thimerosal is combined with Aluminum, the two act synergistically and drive the mercury deeper into the brain tissue. (Dr. Boyd Haley)
• Mercury is absorbed into fatty tissue very quickly…that is why is it not in the blood for long. To say that it is eliminated quickly is a total outright lie. Autistic children suffer with toxic metal injury from mercury and aluminum. It is not found in the blood after a few days because it has been absorbed by the fatty tissue including the brain. When you challenge the body to “dump the toxic metals”, their tests are off the charts!!! A blood test will not show that.
Having given you some of the FACTS on mercury keep in mind this does not even consider other toxic ingredients found in all vaccines: Aluminum, Formaldehyde, Alum, Acetone, MSG, Glycerin, foreign viruses from growth mediums, much more all listed on http://www.novaccine.com/

I think that anyone who believes that vaccines are safe needs to step up, drop their britches and bend over, and get the very same vaccines they recommend for the babies, only make them WEIGHT APPROPRIATE! Then get them every 2 months for the next 2 years. A one year old baby weighing 30 pounds will get the same flu shot that a 300 pound man will get, with 25 micrograms of mercury. One doesn’t need to be a MD to see that this policy is terribly flawed… to put it mildly.

WAKE UP! We are not so easily led anymore! We want true science and not bias, junk science. Parents are smarter than you think and you just made your magazine lose credibility once again.

Mary Tocco
Private Vaccine Investigator for the last 28 years
Public Speaker
Producer of, “Are Vaccines Safe?”

Penny For Your Thoughts, or Is That Life Inprisonment?

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Thinking people are the greatest danger to totalitarina regimes. Thinking people who share their thoughts compellingly are a danger which no totalitarian regime tolerates. Repression and supression of independent thinking is vilified in what can be seen as the central unifying principle of all fascist states: dissent is a crime and thinking wrong thoughts is a crime as well.
The current administration is determined to increase the characteristics that make it look like a totalitarian state with our without the consent of Congress.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 has not even been passed yet but the Department of Homeland Security is implementing it, at public expense, at to great public shame, despite the lack of Congressional mandate.

Passed by the House, but not even voted on by the Senate, the audacious and very likely unconstitutional acts described below should give any real patriot the “screaming meemies”. And, if they have their way untammelled, you may be screaming your meemies on the inside of a solitary confinement cell in a thought reeducation camp.

Now would be a good time to get involved to make sure this atrocity never, never comes to fruition in the US, a country which at least in theory, has a Constitution to protect your rights from invasions like this one.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.YouTube.com/NaturalSolutions
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
Thought Crimes Agenda Already Being Implemented
08-07-2008

Lee Rogers

The Department of Homeland Security is moving towards implementing a provision of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 otherwise known as the “Thought Crimes Bill”. This is despite the fact that the legislation has not been signed into law. The House version of the bill HR 1955 was passed by a margin of 404-6 where as the Senate version of the bill S 1959 is still awaiting action.

One of the bill’s provisions gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to fund a University based Center of Excellence to study ways to thwart what the government believes are extremist belief systems and radical ideologies of individual Americans. In other words, if the government doesn’t like the way you think, they are going to have teams of social scientists and behavioral experts trying to figure out the best way to deal with you.

As it turns out, the Department of Homeland Security is already funding a Center of Excellence to study thought criminals in the United States at the University of Maryland. This shows that it doesn’t matter if S 1959 is defeated or not, as they are moving forward with this agenda with or without Congressional approval. In reality, Congress is nothing more than a staged circus to make people falsely believe that they actually have a say in what the government does.

The Department of Homeland Security is funding research to setup an Orwellian system to deal with political dissenters under the guise of fighting terrorism and they care not if it is in accordance with what the people want. Another words, be prepared for the possibility of a future with re-education camps as a real life Ministry of Love system is implemented.

The following is taken from Security Products Online detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s funding of this Center of Excellence that will study thought crimes or as they like to call it the threat of homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization:

A team of more than 50 social scientists, armed with new federal funding, will extend its research into radicalization and the formation of terrorist groups in the United States and abroad. The researchers will also study the effectiveness of counter-terror strategies, as well as efforts to build community resilience to attacks.

Now, let’s take a look at section 899D of HR 1955 and we’ll see that what’s proposed in the bill has for all intents and purposes already become a reality.

`SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center’) following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

`(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall–
`(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
`
(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

`(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.

The Department of Homeland Security is providing roughly $12 Million over 3 years to fund this research. Among the planned research includes building a database of U.S. extremist crime, studying how social networks spread thought crime, tracking sympathy and support for terrorism in the United States among various communities, studying the phony European white Al-Qaeda threat and much more.

The government has no business funding research studying the political beliefs of people and determining who may or may not be a potential terrorist based upon a vague definition of homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization. In fact, the definitions of these terms as defined in HR 1955 and S 1959 are up to the interpretation of the government.

This means that a homegrown terrorist could potentially be anybody the government doesn’t like. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it opens up the flood gates for a tyranny only theorized in novels like George Orwell’s 1984. The social scientists that are being funded in this program could potentially suggest the implementation of programs that could include the round up of people for re-education based upon any sort of criteria even if no real crime has been committed.

Literally, the Department of Homeland Security is funding research to go after people who have political beliefs and ideologies that are contrary to the agenda of the establishment. Unfortunately for the American people, they are employing the services of some very smart people to do this. Who knows what these people will come up with but considering what they’ve already done, it won’t be in the best interest of freedom.

In the Soviet Union, political dissidents and intellectuals were labeled crazy and put in mental institutions or slave labor camps. Could the same thing happen in the United States? [The largest detention center, located outside of Fairbanks, Alaska, is said to hold an astonishing 2.5 million people, and alleged to be designated for “mentally ill people”. Whether such mental illness is that which is recognized by the psychiatric profession or political dissent is an opent question at this point. Dr. Rima]

After these scientists finish their research, it very well could considering what we see with the militarization of police and growing technological spy grid here in the United States. How can we assume that their recommendations will defend liberty when everything else the government has done in order to fight this phony terror threat has been contrary to the principles of freedom?

Particularly interesting is how they are concerned about activity on the Internet. Many freedom oriented radio networks and web sites have been formed over the past decade to protest what is becoming an increasingly corrupt and criminal government. The free flow of information is a real threat to the establishment and they are scrambling for ways to determine how to put the lid on it.

In closing, it is disturbing that the Department of Homeland Security would fund a program before a bill authorizing the action is signed into law. The provisions in the thought crimes bill represent the potential for total despotism and tyranny and even if a few of the provisions are implemented like this Center for Excellence funding, it marks a severe threat for liberty. These government terrorists must be defeated and there needs to be an investigation into the funding of this research which is unconstitutional on its face.
www.roguegovernment.com

Weaponized Avian Flu – Assault on the Body Politic: Model Emergency Powers Act

Saturday, July 26th, 2008

July 24, 2008
Disclaimer: No one knows if the pandemic will be unleashed. Let us pray that it will not. However, we note with alarm that there are an increasing number of indicators suggesting that this Pandemic is being prepared to be used against us all using a variety of weaponized viruses. If our ringing of the alarm bells is successful, we will be spared – and we will have been wrong. Let us all devoutly hope that the Natural Solutions Foundation’s urgent and effective information dissemination is that successful.

Please help to make the Pandemic secret so ineffective that the authors of this nightmare are backed off by our shared awareness. Disseminate this information to everyone you know and ask them to do the same.

Our best weapon against the coming Pandemic is truth.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org

During the last week or so Natural Solutions Foundation has published information on the weaponization of the Avian Flu virus, an otherwise harmless (yes, harmless) organism. We also published information on the increasingly widespread Model State Emergency Powers Act. Some of you questioned this information so we publish references on the history and current status of this freedom-curtailing initiative adopted by many States which allows Governors to declare when it is a felony to resist vaccination and other treatments.

The Emergency Health Powers Act represents, in the eyes of the Natural Solutions Foundation, as great a threat as other, better known acts such as the Patriot Acts I and II, BIOSHIELD I and II and the Warren Act.

They serve as the backdrop for the dispersal of dread diseases and the supression of knowledge about protection and liberty.
The Natural Solutions Foundation opposes all such draconian and freedom-denying acts.

Please join our Health Freedom eAlert list (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187) to help us help you stay healthy, informed and free.

Please read on…

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org

From Wikipedia:

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) is a proposal by the Center for Law and the Public’s Health, a joint venture of Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University, to aid America’s state legislatures in revising their public health laws to, as proponents put it, more effectively control epidemics and respond to bioterrorism.

The proposal has been criticized for what has been called a “sweeping reach” that could be abused by governments.

The initial proposal was drafted at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Lawrence O. Gostin, an attorney at the Washington, D.C., center, during the anthrax letter scare in fall 2001. It took him “three to four weeks’ to do so, he said.

The draft, dated October 23, 2001, was produced by Gostin without consultation from any of the various groups he listed on the title page as being “in collaboration with”, namely, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of City and County Health Officials. The claim of collaboration was an error, and a later version, dated December 21, 2001, made the revised statement on its title page that the law was a “draft for discussion … to assist” those organizations. [1]

The model act subsequently came under the aegis of the Turning Point National Collaborative on Public Health Statute Modernization to revise state health laws. On September 16, 2003, a third draft of the law was issued. On June 15, 2004. it won the 2004 Distinguished Achievement in Public Health Law Award from the Public Health Law Association.

The model act would revise some subjects covered by existing public health laws, such as reporting of contagious diseases, disposal of the dead, and quarantines.

Critics said, however, that it did so in such sweeping language that it “could turn governors into dictators” as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed, and Phyllis Schlafly called it “an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of the American people.”

The very definition of a “public health emergency,” which triggered the law’s provisions, critics said, was so broad that an influenza outbreak could qualify as an “emergency”. The LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund feared it could lead to imprisonment of those with AIDS.

But attorneys Jason W. Sapsin, Stephen P. Teret; Scott Burris, Julie Samia Mair, James G. Hodge Jr, Jon S. Vernick and Gostin wrote in an article in the August 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Assn., that “Provided those powers are bounded by legal safeguards, individuals should be required to yield some of their autonomy, liberty, or property to protect the health and security of the community.” [2] This is one of the classic uses of the police power of a sovereign state.

George J. Annas, a lawyer at the Boston University School of Public Health and the MSEHPA’s leading critic, said: “The Model Act seems to have been drafted for a different age; it is more appropriate for the United States of the 19th century than for the United States of the 21st century.” Annas said the law was unconstitutional.

As of April 15, 2006, 32 states have introduced 92 legislative bills or resolutions that are based upon or feature provisions related to the articles or sections of the act. Of these bills, 37 had passed. [3]

[edit] References

* George J. Annas. “Bioterrorism and Public Health Law” (letter). Journal of the American Medical Association. vol. 288 n. 21. December 4, 2002. 2685-2686.
* George J. Annas. “Bioterrorism, Public Health, and Civil Liberties.” New England Journal of Medicine. vol. 346, no. 17. April 25, 2002. 1337-1341. (Letters responding in vol. 347, no. 1, September 12, 2002.)
* George J. Annas. “Terrorism and Human Rights” In In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis. Jonathan D. Moreno, editor. Basic Bioethics Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2003.
* Joseph Barbera, Anthony Macintyre, Larry Gostin, Tom Inglesby, Tara O’Toole, Craig DeAttey, Kevin Tonat, and Marti Layton. “Large-scale Quarantine Following Biological Terrorism in the United States: Scientific Examination, Logistics, and Legal Leimits and Possible Consequences.” Journal of the American Medical Association. vol. 286, no. 21. December 5, 2001. 2711-2717.
* Ronald Bayer and James Colgrove. “Rights and Dangers: Bioterrorism and the Ideolgies and Public Health.” In In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis. Jonathan D. Moreno, editor. Basic Bioethics Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2003.
* John M. Colmers and Daniel M. Fox. “The Politics of Emergency Health Powers and the Isolation of Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health. vol. 93, no. 3. March 2003. 397-399.
* Larry Copeland. “CDC Proposes Bioterrorism Laws.” USA Today. November 8, 2001. 3A.
* Janlori Goldman. “Balancing in a Crisis?: Bioterrorism, Public Health, and Privacy.” In Lost Liberties: Ashcroft and the Assault on Personal Freedom. Cynthia Brown, editor. New York: The New Press, 2003.
* Lawrence O. Gostin. “Law and Ethics in a Public Health Emergency.” Hastings Center Report. vol. 32, no. 2. March-April 2002. 9-11.
* Lawrence O. Gostin, Jason W. Sapsin, Stephen P. Teret, Scott Burris, Julie Samia Mair, James G. Hodge, Jr., and Jon S. Vernick. “The Model State Emergency Powers Act: Planning for and Response to Bioterrorism and Naturally Occurring Infectious Diseases.” Journal of the American Medical Association. vol. 288, no. 5. August 7, 2002. 622-628.
* Lawrence O. Gostin and James G. Hodge, Jr. “Protecting the Public’s Health in an Era of Bioterrorism.” In In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis. Jonathan D. Moreno, editor. Basic Bioethics Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2003.
* Lawrence O. Gostin and James G. Hodge, Jr. “Public Health Emergencies and Legal Reform: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice.” Public Health Reports. vol. 118, no. 5. September-October 2003. 477-479.
* Lawrence O. Gostin. “Public Health Law in an Age of Terrorism: Rethinking Individual Rights and Common Goods.” Health Affairs (Millwood). vol. 21, no. 6. November-December 2002. 79-83.
* “Legislation would let governors quarantine entire cities.” Knight Ridder News Service. November 7, 2001.
* Sharon Lerner. “A New Health-Emergency Law Raises Concerns for the Immune Compromised: Round Up the Unusual Suspects”. The Village Voice. January 2, 2002.
* William Martin. “Legal and Public Policy Responses of States to Bioterrorism.” American Journal of Public Health. Vol.94, Iss. 7. July 2004. 1093
* Thomas May. “Political Authority in a Bioterrorism Emergency.” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Bioethics. vol. 31, no. 1. Spring 2004. 159-164.
* Jane M. Orient. “Bioterrorism and Public Health Law” (letter). Journal of the American Medical Association. vol. 288 n. 21. December 4, 2002. 2686.
* “Outside Experts: Lawrence O. Gostin.” Government Executive. February 2004. 110.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSEHPA

Update: By 2002/3, numerous States had debated, and many had passed, provisions of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Acts. National Vaccine Information Center published this informative update. Information
2002/2003

What You Need to Know About The Proposed Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in Your State

The terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent threats of biological warfare against U.S. citizens have prompted calls by public health officials to prepare for mass vaccination campaigns for anthrax and smallpox. National vaccination programs targeting civilians, including children, are being proposed in model state legislation that would give public health officials the power to use the state militia to enforce vaccination during state-declared health emergencies. While it is critical for the U.S. to have a sound, workable plan to respond to an act of bioterrorism, as well as enough safe and effective vaccines stockpiled for every American who wants to use them, there are legitimate concerns about a plan which forces citizens to use vaccines without their voluntary, informed consent.

In this time of great sadness, fear and confusion, Americans have a choice to make; either we defend the individual freedoms our forefathers fought and died to give us, or we sacrifice those freedoms and let the terrorists win. What we choose to do will define who we are as a nation for many years to come.

When federal and state public health officials convince your Governor to declare a “public health” emergency, they want to be able to use the “state militia” to:

*

take control of all roads leading into and out of your cities and state;
*

seize your house, car, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of your personal property);
*

arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate you and your children without your consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in your death or injury).

To view a copy of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act:

http://www.publichealthlaw.net

To view the actual bills: www.vaccinationnews.com

The American Legislative Exchange Council is tracking the state activities of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. To view the details of each bill please visit the ALEC website, www.alec.org, Here are the results of their 2002 analysis:

States that had passed EHPA legislation: Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont.

StateBill #As of Date Action Taken

AZ: HB 2044 5/23/02 Passed House and Senate. Signed by Governor

CA: AB 1763 5/22/02 In Assembly Comm on Appropriations

CT: HB 5286 5/8/02 Passed the House. No home quarantine or conscientious obj www.ctvia.org. Adjourned

DE: HB 377 7/3/02 Passed House and Senate. Signed by Governor

FL: SB 1262 5/23/02 Passed House and Senate – Signed by Governor

GA: SB 385 5/16/02 Passed Senate Passed House Signed by Governor

HI: HB 2521 6/18/02 Passed House Passed Senate Signed by Governor

ID: HB 517 3/15/02 Passed House- Sent to Senate Comm on State Affairs – Adjourned, no carryover

IL: HB 3809 6/2/02 Adjourned No Carryover

IL: SB 1529 11/13/02 To Senate Comm on Rules

KS: SB 597 5/31/02 Died in Comm

KY: HB 108 4/15/02 Adjourned – No carryover

LA: HB 91 4/18/02 Passed House Passed Senate Signed by Governor

ME: HP 1656 4/11/02 Passed House and Senate. Signed by Governor

MD: HB 303 4/9/02 Passed House – and Senate Signed by Governor

MD: HB 234 4/9/02 Passed House – and Senate Signed by Governor

MA: SB 2194 11/26/01 Senate Comm on Ways and Means

MN: HF 3031 5/22/02 Passed by Senate Passed by House – Signed by Governor

MS: SB 2737 3/5/02 Passed Senate – Died in House Comm on Appropriations

MS: HB 1348 4/14/02 Adjourned – No carryover

MO: SB 712 5/17/02 Final Version no longer contained MSEHPA principles. Adjourned No Carryover

NE: LB 1224 4/19/02 Indefinitely Postponed

NV: Draft 3/19/02 Interim Legislative Comm on Health Care

NH: HB 1478 5/17/02 Passed House Passed Senate – Signed by Governor

NJ: SB 1042 2/21/02 Senate Comm Health

NM: HJM 34, SJM 62 2/14/02 Passed House and Senate

NY: AB 9508, 3/5/02 Amended in Assembly Comm on Health
SB 5841 3/4/02 Amended in Senate Comm on Health

NC: HB 4416 7/02/05 Signed by Governor

OK: HB 2765 5/23/02 Passed House Passed Senate-Conf Comm

PA: HB 2261 1/2/02 To House Comm on Veterans Affairs
SB 1338 3/11/02 To Senate Comm Public Health and Welfare

RI HB 7305 6/4/02 Adjourned
HB 7357 6/26/02 Vetoed by Governor

SD: HB 1304 2/25/02 Passed House and Senate, Signed by Governor

SC: HB 4416 7/02/02 Passed House Passed Senate Signed by Governor

TN: SB 2392 5/22/02 Passed Senate Passed House Signed by Governor

UT: HB 231 3/18/02 Passed House and Senate, Signed by Governor

VT: SB 298 6/12/02 Passed House Passed Senate Signed by Governor

VA: HB 882 2/8/02 Continued to 2003

WA: HB 2854 3/14/02 Passed House – Adjourned – no carryover

WI: AB 850 3/20/02 Passed Assembly- Failed to pass Senate Joint Resolution 1

WY: SB 67 3/13/02 Passed Senate – Adjourned – no carryover

http://www.nvic.org/ActionAlerts/what_you_need_to_know.htm

Update: July 2006
By 2006, the Act had been introduced in whole or part through 171 bills or resolutions in forty-four (44) states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariannas Islands. Thirty-eight (38) states [AL, AK, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WI, and WY] and DC have passed a total of 66 bills or resolutions that include provisions from or closely related to the Act. The extent to which the Act’s provisions are incorporated into each state’s laws varies.
http://www.publichealthlaw.net/ModelLaws/MSEHPA.php