We should always question when people are said to have taken their own life or died in unusual or untimely ways because it’s been seen that our own government has used many methods to covertly assassinate people.
The medical-industrial complex is a part of the banks and corporations that control our government, and the intelligence agencies act as their covert enforcement arm… (Like how we set up coups in Central and South America to turn countries into “banana republics” to be controlled by Dannon etc etc etc..there’s a long history of this.)
Now that there’s a lot of alternative cures for cancer it only makes sense that these industries are trying to keep any of them from going mainstream. Natural cures like CBD oil or whatever, can’t be patented and profited from the way synthetic pharmaceuticals can be.
Holistic doctor dead of alleged suicide (#85)
Holistic Dr. Mark Flanagan, age 62 of Seguin, died on February 23, 2018. He allegedly hanged himself.
He was described as fit, healthy and fun loving by his friends who- understandably- appear to be in shock.
One mutual friend, a medical doctor whose name will not be shared, said Mark would not do this. It’s just not how Mark would have behaved.
We are thinking of Dr. Flanagan’s family and friends during this difficult time and will add an update as more information becomes available. Currently, all we know is what the published obituary stated: his date of death and that a full obituary will be coming out next week.
Many of the doctor’s friends and loved ones have been sharing their stories and grief on his personal Facebook page.
When a doctor suggests an operation that you don’t feel is necessary, you have the right to decide not to move forward with it – right? If you happen to have any sort of mental illness, it’s something that doctors could use to say you’re not in your right mind to make such decisions and then go ahead and do as they please regardless of your opinion.
That is what is happening right now in the U.K., as a 66-year-old woman who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia is set to be placed under general anesthesia and have breast cancer surgery against her will. A High Court judge has granted the University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust an order that is said to be in the woman’s best interest to remove a tumor in her left breast.
The woman, who has only been identified as “JT,” denies that she has cancer. She believes the tumor is merely a cyst and does not see the need for surgery. The judge said her mental illness means she does not have the capacity to decide on her own whether or not to undergo treatment.
After hearing arguments from lawyers representing both the woman and her doctors, the judge wrote in his decision that he was satisfied that she did indeed have breast cancer and that the proposed surgery was the right course of action.
Medical treatment could be what caused the cancer in the first place
It’s interesting to note that schizophrenia is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and some studies pin the blame on the antipsychotics given to such patients. A study released earlier this year showed that women who have schizophrenia have double the risk of breast cancer compared to those without the illness.
In particular, those women who were undergoing a combination therapy of both first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics had a significantly higher risk of breast cancer. The drugs linked to higher risk include risperidone, amisulpride and paliperidone.
Experts report that it is not unusual for schizophrenics to deny that they have cancer. A delay in diagnosis is common, and many do not follow through on recommended surgery. Some patients have even been known to attack their caregivers, according to a study in the American Journal of Surgery.
Consent to treatment
The official website of the NHS says that if people who have the capacity to make informed decisions choose to reject a treatment, their decision has to be respected even if it could cause them to die. However, it’s very different for those who are deemed to be incapable of making their own decisions.
The site reads:
If a person doesn’t have the capacity to make a decision about their treatment, the healthcare professionals treating them can go ahead and give treatment if they believe it’s in the person’s best interests. But clinicians must take reasonable steps to seek advice from the patient’s friends or relatives before making these decisions.
It’s not the first time something like this has happened in the U.K. A 55-year-old woman with learning difficulties was forced to undergo surgery for advanced uterine cancer. She had originally agreed to the operation, but later changed her mind and stopped showing up to medical appointments. She said she had a phobia of needles and hospitals.
Learning disabilities were somehow enough to have her deemed incapable of making rational decisions about her healthcare, and she was forced to undergo a hysterectomy and have her ovaries and Fallopian tubes removed. Doctors said that they would sedate her and bring her to the operating room, and then turn to “reasonable force and/or sedation to prevent [her] leaving hospital.”
In other words, if you don’t want to get a treatment your doctors want you to have for whatever reason, they could have you declared mentally unfit and do it anyway.
Billionaire Peter Thiel’s drug company illegally testing virus on unsuspecting victims
A vaccine company, funded by billionaire PayPal founder Peter Thiel, has been caught injected the herpes virus into people, without their consent, in a hotel.
An investigation revealed that a US researcher carried out illegal testing of the herpes vaccine on unsuspecting guests at a Holiday Inn and at a house on the island of St. Kitts.
A former associate professor at Southern Illinois University (SIU), William Halford, carried out the illegal “trials” at the Holiday Inn Express and a Crowne Plaza Hotel located 15 minutes away from the campus.
Halford, who died of cancer in June, conducted the testing on behalf of his pharmaceuticals company Rational Vaccines, which is co-owned by Thiel and Hollywood filmmaker Agustín Fernández III.
On four separate occasions in the summer and fall of 2013, Halford administered his experimental shots to at least eight patients, without gaining their written consent and without them knowing what he was injecting them with.
According to emails from seven participants and interviews with one participant, the victims were injected with a virus the company had created in the lab.
This isn’t the first time the billionaire founder of PayPal Peter Thiel has been connected to controversy, as earlier this year, he admitted to drinking the blood of children in a bid to extend his own lifespan. During an interview with Inc.com’s Jeff Bercovici, Thiel admitted that he harvests young blood from teenagers to drink and infuse himself with, in a practice known as parabiosis, which he claims is the closest modern science has come to creating an anti-aging panacea.
Thiel invested millions in Rational Vaccines in a bid to take on Bill Gates who has cornered the lucrative vaccinations market.
These revelations of reckless testing were described by Halford as a “milestone in my career,” after the unknowing patients reported severe symptoms from the jabs, according to an investigation by Kaiser Health News.
RT reports: In multiple email exchanges between Halford and the participants, seen by Kaiser, he asked them to send photographs of rashes, blisters and other reactions they might have received as a result of the injections.
Halford, who was a microbiologist rather than a physician, apparently knew that his makeshift trial was a violation of US law, as he stated the need for secrecy in one of his emails. He said it would be “suicide” if it became too public about how he was conducting his research.
He described his methods in some of his emails, as well as the number of injections given.
“Just wanted to pass along that I immunized someone with the higher dose of the HSV-2 vaccine on Monday, and I attach the photos of the injection site at 48 hours to give you and everyone else an idea of what to expect…,” he wrote in September 2013. “This individual requested that I give him two immunizations to double the effect…one immunization per leg.”
Four days later, Halford wrote that “everyone’s vaccines contained ~150 million infectious units of the HSV-2 vaccine strain,” noting that the first injection of the group represented about a 30- to 40-fold increase over what others received in August 2013.
In the same email, the microbiologist wrote that he believed the trials were important. “Saturday Sept. 21 definitely represents a milestone in my career,” he wrote. “Don’t know how it will turn out, but I undoubtedly feel like this was a real test of the (a) safety / tolerability of the HSV-2 vaccine and (b) an opportunity to see if it has any therapeutic potential…I am indebted to all of you.”
In an email dated October 2, 2013, Halford told a participant that his hypothesis of the injection’s outcome was “nothing more than an education guess.” He added that “the proof is in the pudding…let’s see if your problems with outbreaks dial back or not.”
In addition to the trial being blatantly illegal, the microbiologist also did not obtain written informed consent from the participants, which is required by US law when testing a live virus on humans. Moreover, medical researchers are not allowed to inject people without a physician or nurse practitioner present, Jonathan Zenilman, a doctor, an expert on sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins University, told Kaiser….
Whistleblower Joe Rannazzisi is telling all when it comes to placing blame for the nation’s opioid crisis. He says drug distributors pumped opioids into communities in the United States knowing that people were dying and that the US government is helping.
Rannazzisi ran the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, the division that regulates and investigates the pharmaceutical industry. Now in a joint investigation by 60 Minutesand The Washington Post, Rannazzisi tells the inside story of how, he says, the opioid crisis was allowed to spread. Its quick spread was also aided by Congress, lobbyists, and a drug distribution industry that shipped, almost unchecked, hundreds of millions of pills to rogue pharmacies and pain clinics providing the rocket fuel for a crisis that, over the last two decades, has claimed 200,000 lives.
The DEA responded to the explosive report that the government is helping keep Americans addicted to opioids so that pharmaceutical companies can continue to boast big profits. The DEA says it has taken actions against far fewer opioid distributors under a new law. A Justice Department memo shows 65 doctors, pharmacies, and drug companies received suspension orders in 2011. Only six of them have gotten them this year. “During the past seven years, we have removed approximately 900 registrations annually, preventing reckless doctors and rogue businesses from making an already troubling problem worse,” the DEA said in a written statement. “Increasingly, our investigators initiated more than 10,000 cases and averaged more than 2,000 arrests per year.”
But Rannazzisi says this is an industry that is out of control and the DEA isn’t making a dent in this crisis. “What they [big pharma] wanna do, is do what they wanna do, and not worry about what the law is. And if they don’t follow the law in drug supply, people die. That’s just it. People die.” The harsh reality is that the burgeoning issue of the opioid epidemic is lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians who help fuel it, so there’s no real rush to stem the bleeding of this crisis.
“This is an industry that allowed millions and millions of drugs to go into bad pharmacies and doctors’ offices, that distributed them out to people who had no legitimate need for those drugs,” Rannazzisi said.
Most of his anger is reserved for the distributors of opioid drugs. Some of them are actually multibillion-dollar, Fortune 500 companies. They are the middlemen that ship the pain pills from manufacturers, like Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson to drug stores all over the country. Rannazzisi accuses the distributors of fueling the opioid epidemic by turning a blind eye to pain pills being diverted to illicit use.
“This is an industry that allowed millions and millions of drugs to go into bad pharmacies and doctors’ offices, that distributed them out to people who had no legitimate need for those drugs,” Rannazzisi said. “The three largest distributors are Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen. They control probably 85 or 90 percent of the drugs going downstream,” he added when prompted. Rannazzisi said it’s a “fact” that the big pharmaceutical companies knew they were pumping drugs into people unnecessarily for profits and that people were dying.
In the late 1990s, opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone became a routine medical treatment for chronic pain. Drug companies assured doctors and congressional investigators that the pain medications were effective and safe. With many doctors convinced the drugs posed few risks, prescriptions skyrocketed and so did addiction.
Big pharma had a plan. It was solely a business plan. Their plan was to sell a lotta pills and make a lot of money. And they did both of those very well.
To my friends in Australia: the vaccine war deepens
by Jon Rappoport
Posted on September 24, 2017
The string of abuses laid on citizens of Australia by their government grows almost week by week.
Now, parental rights to raise children, without interference from the State, is under a new form of attack. This must be resisted.
Schools are bringing doctors on board, as a permanent feature. Young children will be subjected to medical diagnoses and treatment, without consent or approval from parents, even if those parents actively object. The State is stealing the role of guardian.
The Herald Sun reports. Read carefully:
“DOCTORS will have the power to treat students as young as 12 in schools even if parents refuse their consent.”
“GPs will consult at 100 Victoria high schools for up to one day a week as part of a $43.8 million program.”
“Guidelines released on Thursday show that even if a parent ‘expressly states’ that a doctor should not [examine] their child, the GP can if they deem the teen mature enough.”
“’Any student who wants to see the GP will be permitted to make an appointment,’ the policy said.”
“The GP will decide if the young person is mature enough to provide consent to any medical treatment for the prevailing issue.”
A young child “giving consent?” This is supposed to be “informed consent” when facing off with an adult doctor?
The handwriting is on the wall. Multiple vaccines will be given, to “bring children up to State standards.” This whole operation is, in fact, a front for forced vaccination. That’s the goal.
But it doesn’t stop there. The covert plan will eventually, if not sooner, include psychiatric diagnoses of so-called “mental disorders.” ADHD, clinical depression, bipolar, and so on. Followed by toxic drugs. Ritalin, Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, Lithium. It’s a parade of toxicity.
I have demonstrated, over and over, that NONE of these so-called mental disorders are based on diagnostic lab tests. They’re pseudoscience.
I would be quite willing to show this and debate this with any Australian doctor or bureaucrat. Head to head, live on Skype.
Is that a challenge? You bet.
The whole medical takeover of parental roles in Australia is on the move. This is naked State force. Nothing less.
“Doctors in schools” is a wedge, a first step in the door, a first boot on the face.
The propaganda is: “We doctors know best. We have the science. Parents are ignorant. We must protect the children. Public safety overrides parents raising their own children and making the important decisions.”
Get it? See the picture? The State is ripping away the natural right of parents to raise their own children.
It’s called a Medical Police State.
If you, as a parent, had some random doctor enter your house and demand to vaccinate, diagnose, and drug your children—and IF that doctor weren’t backed up by the State with all its coercive powers—if he were just a lone individual claiming he could do whatever he wanted to, to your children, you would throw him out without a moment’s hesitation.
Therefore, what we’re looking at here is force, that’s all. Not science, not freedom, not rights. Force. That’s the bottom line.
If some lone doctor, without force behind him, walked into your house and said he was going to inject your children with a neurotoxin called aluminum, and a toxin called formaldehyde, and a toxin called Polysorbate 80, and several germs—all standard components of vaccines—you would halt the proceeding immediately and investigate this ominous situation. You’d be crazy not to.
Where does all this stop?
I’ll tell you where. Nowhere. It doesn’t stop. Doctors, acting as agents for the State, are going to sink their hands into your lives deeper and deeper. Give an inch, they take a mile.
This is a war against you, your children, your family, and all families. This is what unchecked government does.
It says it cares, and then it wreaks destruction.
Do not let the long, long night descend.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
You walk into your doctor’s office for a physical exam and step on the scale. Last year, the doctor said you were overweight. Now he says you are obese — at the same weight.
A nurse takes your blood pressure. You have hypertension — with the same previously healthy reading you’ve had for years.
The doctor scans your wrist bone. You have a condition called “osteopenia” — with the same bone density that was fine last time you were measured…
You are suddenly sick, simply because the definitions of disease have changed. And behind those changes, a Seattle Times examination has found, are the companies that make all those newly prescribed pills.
This is nothing new. Unfortunately, the above quotation is from the introduction to a 2005 series of articles. They were sounding the alarm early, but things have only gotten worse.
Back then, the pharmaceutical industry had a hand in designing the testing tools for osteoporosis. They helped change the definition of obesity. They redefined diseases without any strong evidence. And they did this by giving money to doctors in order to promote their agenda. Some of the doctors who received kickbacks were policy setters in the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Institute for Health, and other medical associations.
Every time the boundary of a disease is expanded — the hypertension threshold is lowered by 10 blood-pressure points, the guideline for obesity is lowered by 5 pounds — the market for drugs expands by millions of consumers and billions of dollars.
The result? Skyrocketing sales of prescription drugs. Soaring health-care costs. Escalating patient anxiety. Worst of all, millions of people taking drugs that may carry a greater risk than the underlying condition. The treatment, in fact, may make them sick or even kill them.
One woman was taking a medication to lower her blood pressure. When it was ineffective, the dose was doubled. This caused an allergic reaction which sent her to the hospital and could have been deadly. Her doctor switched her to other medications.
But Saunders isn’t sure whom to trust. He questions the stream of studies leading to new guidelines urging broader use of new medications.
“In my heart of hearts,” he said, “I am concerned that these studies that are telling people that it’s best to get down to 120 over 80 are all paid for by drug companies who are trying to sell pills. It makes me uncomfortable. I think the days of getting unbiased information are gone.”
But this is all old news. Most people have gotten a glimpse of such conflicts of interest. But still, doctors rely on the experts. Even if your local doctor is not corrupt and money hungry, he may be listening to people who are. And worse yet, he may be reading medical journals that are a complete fraud.
Sadly, many of the retracted articles have to do with tumor biology. For years, people have been labeled conspiracy theorists for believing in the massive amount of corruption surrounding the cancer industry. This retraction is just the tip of the iceberg.
The most affected journals are Tumor Biology (25 papers) and Diagnostic Pathology (23 papers). The other journals are Comparative Clinical Pathology (one paper), Journal of Parasitic Diseases (four papers), Cancer Cell International (two papers), Journal of Ovarian Research (two papers), and World Journal of Surgical Oncology (one paper).
To submit a fake review, doctors often provided false emails which came back to them or someone else they could trust to provide a great review and vouch for the accuracy of the paper. Many journals accept paid entries without doing the homework to find out anything about the person submitting the paper, or who allegedly peer reviewed the piece.
But even when the medical papers are not outright lies, they can be quite misleading. According to a JAMA review:
Of the 45 eligible highly cited studies with efficacy claims (Table 2), 7 (16%) were contradicted by subsequent research, and another 7 (16%) were found to have initially stronger effects. In all these 14 cases (Box 1), subsequent studies were either larger or better controlled (randomized vs a nonrandomized original study). The findings of 20 highly cited articles (44%) were replicated (also with a larger sample size in subsequent research compared with the original highly cited study) and 11 (24%) had remained largely unchallenged.
Basically, 66% of the highly cited studies could not really be trusted. There just was not enough evidence of their findings to take them as solid truth. 32% of the studies should have been ruled out altogether, since later better studies found the results incorrect or highly exaggerated….
More than 68,000 doctors received payments in excess of $46 million — in the span of just 29 months — from goliath pharmaceutical corporations pushing opioid painkillers, researchers in a groundbreaking investigation of Big Pharma’s and the epidemic of legal and illicit opiates plaguing the United States.
Money to push opioids found one doctor in 12, and the rampant destruction wrought upon countless American families forced to cope with loved ones dependent on prescription painkillers, or on heroin sought when those ran out, proves circumstantially the dollars did their job.
“The next step is to understand these links between payments, prescribing practices, and overdose deaths,” Scott Hadland, a pediatrician and author of the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, told the Washington Post.
Averaged out, more than 1,000 people suffered fatal drug overdoses per week in 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported, and steep spike occurred during the first six months of the following year — which the National Centers for Health Statistics attributes largely to a sharp rise opioid deaths — in particular, heroin and the potent synthetic painkiller, fentanyl.
(Natural News) As one of the very few independent voices willing to stand up against the scientific dogma of our modern medical regime, I’ve long felt a need to communicate the dangers of flu shots to the public so that people can have better information to prevent vaccine injuries and save lives.
This doesn’t mean I’m opposed to the theory of vaccination, by the way. In fact, I’m the author of A Blueprint for Safer Vaccines, an audio guide to saving lives and preventing vaccine injuries and deaths.
My independent atomic elemental analysis of flu vaccines, published in the summer of 2014, proved that flu vaccines contain over 50 ppm mercury, an extremely toxic heavy metal linked to kidney failure, birth defects, spontaneous abortions and neurological damage. This finding has never been refuted by anyone. In fact, it was affirmed by vaccine proponents who insisted that it is perfectly safe to inject pregnant women, young children and senior citizens with mercury even though the flu vaccine insert itself readily admits there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in such groups.
Believe it or not, there are still millions of people, doctors, pharmacists and even journalists who do not yet realize there is a very high concentration of mercury in influenza vaccines given to pregnant women, children and senior citizens. Most people, you see, have been lied to by the media which has stated over and over again that mercury was removed from all vaccines.
That’s simply not true.
It’s still there. And toxic mercury is present in influenza vaccines at a level that’s literally 25,000 times higher than the EPA limit of mercury in drinking water.  It’s 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury contamination I’ve ever tested in ocean fish.
See the evidence for yourself
To prove the presence of mercury in influenza vaccines, I’m going to show you four irrefutable pieces of evidence:
1) Photographs of a 2013 / 2014 influenza vaccine box admitting, in very small print, to the addition of mercury to the vaccine as a preservative.
2) Photographs of the influenza vaccine insert once again repeating the admission that the vaccine contains mercury.
3) A screen shot from the Centers for Disease Control website which admits that vaccines still contain the following ingredients: Aluminum, Antibiotics, Egg Protein, Formaldehyde, Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) and Thimerosal, a mercury-containing chemical compound.
4) Lab results from the Natural News Forensic Food Lab which confirmed almost precisely the same level of mercury claimed by the manufacturer (GlaxoSmithKline).
Before I show you the irrefutable evidence, there is some good news in all this testing. As part of this Natural News investigation, I tested several different vaccines, including an HPV vaccine. Mercury levels were extremely low in these other vaccines. Only the flu shot contained extremely high mercury levels.
Influenza vaccine box admits safety never established for pregnant women
As you can see below, the box for this Flulaval Influenza Virus Vaccine readily admits the use of thimerosal which contains mercury. (Of course, you have to use a magnifying glass to see this.) In microscopic text on the package insert, it says straight out, “Register women who receive Flulaval while pregnant in the pregnancy registry by calling 1-888-452-9622.”
Yet, at the same time, the insert also admits that “safety and efficacy have not been established in pregnant women.”
In other words, this vaccine containing mercury is being promoted for use in pregnant women even when no safety in pregnant women has ever been established.
It’s also important to note that when people are being given flu shots, they are never handed the package or the insert, so they have no opportunity to read any of this information unless they specifically ask for it.
READ MOREAnn Coulter: “I’m On The Trump Train, Trump Is Off The Trump Train”
It’s not like a food item with a “Nutrition Facts” label. Vaccines are sold in “stealth” mode where patients have no idea what’s in them and no opportunity to read possible warnings.
As further proof of this point, consider the fact that this flu vaccine comes with only one insert, yet it’s a 10-dose vial intended to be injected into 10 different people. Clearly, if there’s only one insert but 10 people, then 9 out of 10 people can’t possibly be handed the insert.
Unethical medicine administered without informed consent (a violation of medical ethics)
In fact, from a legal perspective, vaccines are routinely injected into people without informed consent. Virtually no one administering vaccines ever explains the risks vs. benefits of vaccines as is required under medical ethics and state medical law. In nearly all cases, patients are simply hoodwinked and told there are no risks at all.
The second piece of evidence to reveal here is the package insert for the influenza vaccine, a document printed in microscopic text that’s almost impossible to read without a magnifying glass.
Of course, the intention is that no one ever read this document, because it contains shocking admissions of the total quackery and marketing deception behind flu shots.
As you can see from this snapshot, the package insert readily admits that each vaccine dose “contains 50 mcg thimerosal (<25 mcg mercury).”
In case you’re wondering, “mcg” means micrograms. A microgram is 1/1000th of a milligram. Mercury is toxic at any dose when injected into the body, even in micrograms. There is no such thing as a “safe” form of mercury when injected. In fact, the ethyl form of mercury used in vaccines is many times more toxic than methyl form once it enters human cells. Click here for a fascinating interview with mercury toxicity expert Dr. Chris Shade who explains this extremely important concept.
The same paragraph shown above also admits the vaccine contains formaldehyde, a potent neurotoxic chemical.
Vaccine insert admits safety and effectiveness have never been established
What’s even more astonishing about this insert is that it openly admits the flu shot is a complete medical hoax, backed by nothing but voodoo woo woo faith-based dogma (and clever marketing).
Here are actual words from the insert (which is much more lengthy than the snapshot shown above):
“There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval.”
“Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children.”
“Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval in pediatric patients have not been established.”
“Flulaval has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.”
“Do not administer Flulaval to anyone… following previous administration of any influenza vaccine.”
CDC admits use of mercury, MSG, formaldehyde
For those “mercury denialists” who still can’t believe flu shots given to pregnant women contain high concentrations of toxic mercury, even the CDC reluctantly admits this fact on its own website.
Laboratory results from the Natural News Forensic Food Lab
The final piece of irrefutable evidence on all this comes from my own scientific laboratory, where I run ICP-MS instrumentation to test foods, beverages, dietary supplements and other items for heavy metals contamination. I’m also the author of Food Forensics, the world’s first science book that detailed the heavy metals testing results for over 800 foods, supplements, pet foods and spices.
When I finally got around to testing vaccines, I was shocked to find over 51,000 ppb mercury in the Influenza Virus Vaccine.
Why was I shocked? Because I don’t recall ever seeing anything run through my ICP-MS instrument with that high a concentration of mercury. The mercury in this flu vaccine was the HIGHEST concentration of mercury I’ve ever seen in anything, period!
And this is a product that’s injected directly into the bodies of pregnant women, where mercury goes right into the developing fetus.
What’s even more interesting is that this finding once again confirms the accuracy of my lab instrumentation because it’s almost in perfect agreement with the level of mercury detailed on the vaccine package insert.
READ MORENew Documents Show Pentagon Is Shipping Billions Worth Of Weapons To Terrorists In Syria, Trying To Cover Its Tracks
Let’s do the math:
* Each dose of an influenza vaccine is 0.5 mL in volume
* My lab found just over 50 ppm of mercury in the vaccine liquid.
* 50 ppm (concentration) x 0.5 mL (volume) equals 25 mcg of mercury.
Guess what the package insert says? (Up to) 25 mcg of mercury per dose. Near-perfect agreement, in other words. My finding of 51 ppm rather than 50 ppm either means my own tests were off by about 2% (which is still considered very accurate for ICP-MS testing) or that GSK put 2% extra mercury into the vaccine.
And just so you know I actually did the tests, here’s what else we found with other analytes:
Aluminum: 0.4 ppm
So, I can confidently say that the flu vaccine won’t poison you with lead, cadmium or arsenic because it contains none of those things. Even the aluminum level is quite low and not a concern at this very low level. The real problem is just the mercury, at least as far as elements go.
Why won’t vaccine makers remove the mercury?
Good question. Everybody knows mercury is toxic to inject into the human body. That’s not debated except by irrational anti-science denialists who refuse to acknowledge the Table of Elements.
You have to wonder: why choose mercury as a preservative? And why do both the CDC and FDA continue to look the other way as an entire branch of modern medicine poisons our women and children with a neurotoxic heavy metal?
And if vaccine promoters, propagandists and patent holders want the world to accept all their vaccines, why don’t they just remove the mercury and be done with it? If they take out all the toxic elements, resistance to vaccines would all but evaporate.
Why vaccines are the “anti-science” medical voodoo of the modern world
Ever wonder why they don’t conduct legitimate clinical trials on flu vaccine efficacy? Probably because they know the results would have to be faked to show any efficacy at all. That’s what Merck did with its mumps vaccines, according to two former virologists who worked there. They spiked human blood samples with animal antibodies to fabricate positive results. Yep, vaccines work so poorly that even the manufacturers have to fake their own results to show any efficacy.
How’s that for medicine we can all trust? Think about it: this is a product that contains multiple neurotoxins in very high concentrations; a product backed by no safety trials or efficacy data; a product linked to numerous serious adverse reactions; and yet a product that enjoys absolute legal immunity thanks to the U.S. government.
If that’s not outright medical quackery, I don’t know what is.
For the record, I’m not an opponent of all vaccines. But I do believe — as do a rapidly increasing number of other clear-thinking people — that medicine should not poison our women and children. It’s time for mercury to be removed from all vaccines, once and for all. Anything less is medical negligence.
New video interview about flu shot failures
Ultimately, We the People will be victorious in the removal of mercury from all vaccines — an idea that’s already well accepted across much of Europe. And when that day comes, it will be yet another victory for the Natural News fan base, an amazing community of millions of remarkable people working together for the protection of our children, our health and our world.
See my recent video interview with Next News Network’s Gary Franchi on why flu shots are failures:
Sweden has banned mandatory vaccinations, citing “serious health concerns” and the fact they violate a citizen’s constitutional rights to choose their own healthcare.
The Swedish Riksdag (parliament) rejected seven motions on May 10 that would have enshrined forced vaccinations into law, stating “It would violate our [Swedish Constitution] if we introduced compulsory vaccinations, or mandatory vaccinations.”
Noting also the “massive resistance (by Swedes) to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccinations“, the Riksdag also made reference to “frequent serious adverse reactions” in children who receive vaccinations.
“NHF Sweden sent a letter to the Committee and explained that it would violate our Constitution if we introduced compulsory vaccinations, or mandatory vaccinations as was submitted in Arkelsten’s motion. Many others have also submitted correspondence and many citizens have called up Parliament and politicians. Parliamentary politicians has surely noticed that there’s a massive resistance to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccinations.
“NHF Sweden also shows how frequent serious adverse reactions according to the rate at which FASS specifies in the package leaflet of the MMR vaccine, when you vaccinate an entire year group. In addition, one must take into account that each age group will receive the MMR vaccine twice, so the side effects are doubled. We must not forget that, in addition, similar adverse reaction lists apply for other vaccines.
“In the letter, we have even included an extensive list of the additives found in vaccines – substances which are not health foods and certainly do not belong in babies or children. We also included for lawmakers a daunting list of studies that demonstrate vaccination is a bad idea.”
The Swedish Riksdag’s sensible decision flies in the face of what is happening in the United States and other western countries right now. Big Pharma has lawmakers in a choke hold, dictating policy and using the corrupt media to silence dissenters.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show and bravely exposed the “lawless mafia state” that is Big Pharma and their “extremely lucrative” vaccines scam.
“The pharmaceutical industry is so powerful,” RFK Jr explained. “They give $5.4 billion a year to the media. They’ve gotten rid of the lawyers, so there is no legal interest in those cases. They have really been able to control the debate and silence people like me.”
Asked how things could get this bad, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained that Congress granted Big Pharma “blanket legal immunity” when it comes to vaccines.
Big Pharma became a law unto themselves after President Regan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. They can put toxic ingredients in your vaccines, they can seriously injure your child – but you cannot sue them.
“What you have to understand is that the vaccine regimen changed dramatically around 1989. The reason it changed, Tucker, is that Congress, drowning in pharmaceutical industry money, did something they have never done for any other industry – they gave blanket legal immunity to all the vaccine companies.
“So that no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how absent the quality control, no matter how toxic the ingredients, or egregious the injury to your child, you cannot sue them.
“So there’s no depositions, there’s no discovery, there’s no class action suits. All of a sudden vaccines became enormously profitable.”
The enormous profits in the unregulated industry meant Big Pharma companies raced each other to produce new and unnecessary vaccines to pump into newborn children – often dozens at a time.
“It became a gold rush for the pharmaceutical industry to add new vaccines to the spectrum.”
But at what cost? The vaccine industry, operating under their own rules – or rather, complete absence of rules – is making it impossible for us to find out the facts. President Trump has long called for an independent inquiry into vaccine safety. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is calling for the same.
“I got three vaccines and I was fully compliant. I’m 63 years old. My children got 69 doses of 16 vaccines to be compliant. And a lot of these vaccines aren’t even for communicable diseases. Like Hepatitis B, which comes from unprotected sex, or using or sharing needles – why do we give that to a child on the first day of their life? And it was loaded with mercury.”
Tucker asked, “We do give that to children?“
“We continue to give it to them. The mercury has been taken out of three vaccines, but it remains in the flu vaccine, and it is still in vaccines all over the world. And it is the most potent neurotoxin known to man that is not radioactive.”
“How can we inject that into a child?”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to put the outrageous situation into context.
“If you take that vaccine vial and break it, you have to dispose of that as hazardous waste. You have to evacuate the building. Why would you take that and inject it into a child?”
For the last five years, attempts to reform America’s health care system have focused primarily on the demand side of the market, and specifically on the market for insurance. Yet, these reforms have not achieved significant improvements in health care outcomes, nor reductions in cost. As health care specialist John C. Goodman has pointed out in Forbes, the slowed growth of health care spending in the United States is a trend that correlates most closely with supply side reforms such as the availability of health savings accounts. Reductions in spending or costs are certainly not an effect of the Affordable Care Act.
One of the most critical supply side issues in health care is the supply of qualified doctors. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the number of doctors per capita is in decline for the first time in two generations, and the American Association of Medical Colleges has predicted a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians and 46,000 specialists by 2020.
In light of these statistics, it would seem prudent to adopt policies that streamline entry into the health care market, while keeping regulatory costs to a minimum. Regrettably, this is far from the case, with states erecting numerous barriers to would-be health care providers that contribute to the high prices and limited access currently set to cripple the American market. While some of these are familiar and even seem natural to most people, some of the ways in which governments act to restrict doctor supply will come as a surprise to many.
Monopolistic Medical Boards We are generally brought up to believe that monopolies are bad. The very word conjures up images of tight-fisted tycoons in top hats and monocles squeezing employees and consumers alike for all they are worth. While natural monopolies resulting from superior business models get an unfairly bad rap, people’s capacity for critical thought seems to inexplicably switch off when confronted with those monopolies which are created and supported by government.
The case of health care regulations is an interesting one, as state governments have empowered private medical boards with unilateral authority to set the rules for the medical profession, including the issuing and revoking of medical licenses. These boards effectively function like government regulatory agencies, with the important difference that they lack the opportunity for public comments, and thus are immune from any political pressure from citizens.
If the EPA or the IRS implements a regulation that the public doesn’t like, there is a political process by which they can voice their discontent and theoretically make an impact on the decision. In fact, this happens rather frequently, and although there is still too little accountability for regulatory czars, at least the opportunity exists for political action.
With state medical boards, no such process exists, and there is little transparency in the rule-making process that determines how doctors must operate. If a particular regulation is harmful, doctors and patients have no real alternative other than moving to a different state with different requirements, an impractical solution to say the least.
The fact that these medical boards are private rather than public entities is supposed to make us feel more free, but in fact, most members of these boards are appointed by state governors. When state laws forbid competition among regulators, and signal that the government will regard as binding anything the medical board decides to do, the distinction between public and private becomes meaningless.
For example, the California Business and Professions Code (Section 2220.5) states that “The Medical Board of California is the only licensing board that is authorized to investigate or commence disciplinary actions relating to physicians or surgeons” and charges the board with investigating any and all complaints from the public, other doctors, or health care facilities, or from the board itself. Although the board is technically private, the government sanctioned monopoly on enforcement stands as a barrier to entrants of the medical profession, who are forced to comply with a monolithic set of “take ‘em or leave ‘em rules,” with which they have no choice but to comply, or risk being barred from practicing their trade.
Limits on Nurse Practitioners Nurse practitioners represent a less expensive alternative to fully licensed doctors for patients with minor, day-to-day complaints. Frequently operating out of walk-in clinics or pharmacies, these health care providers offer convenience, competition, and innovation in a market in desperate need of all three. In response to the Affordable Care Act, many states have been loosening regulations on nurse practitioners, which is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done if we are to truly encourage competition and increase supply.
Midwives, physicians’ assistants, and other alternative practitioners also have a key role to play in medical care, and should be permitted to practice without physician supervision. Midwifery in particular was once a vibrant industry, that has since been crippled by costly regulations.
Restrictions on Retail Clinics Retail clinics, pharmacies, and even supermarkets are capable of offering routine medical services to patients with a convenience and regularity impossible in traditional physicians’ offices. Unfortunately, the American Medical Association (AMA) has aggressively lobbied against the availability of this type of facility.
In this, the AMA has been mostly successful. While pharmacists are permitted to administer injections to patients in Louisiana, the vast majority of states still have strict prohibitions on this sort of thing. Still, where retail clinics are permitted to operate, the effects have been dramatic. Wal-Mart has recently begun opening a series of in store clinics in a handful of states. The big-box store is boasting charges of just $40 for an office visit, about half of the industry standard, and has expanded its services to treat chronic conditions as well as the acute complaints in which most retail clinics have exclusively specialized. Additionally, the company has driven the cost of generic prescription drugs down to just $4.
Wal-Mart is leading the way in this area, by offering primary care services in fairly rural locations, where access to quality medical care can be particularly problematic. Retail clinics simply offer another option to patients, and restricting those options will always result in higher costs. Wal-Mart’s efforts offer only a glimpse at the potential for cheaper, more available medical care if states would relax their restrictions on retail clinics.
Licensing Requirements Every student wishing to practice medicine must pass the United States Medical License Examination, and all states impose additional requirements from state licensing boards. These are frequently lengthy and expensive procedures. Medical organizations such as the AMA have an incentive to limit the number of licensed doctors practicing in the marketplace, in order to protect high wages for established incumbents.
Just as the system of taxi medallions has long hindered the transportation industry, burdensome licensing requirements are still another barrier standing in the way of expanding the doctor supply.
There is an argument to be made that stricter licensing requirements result in higher quality doctors. Whether or not this is true is debatable, depending on which studies you read, but regardless of what the answer is, there is no reason not to allow various gradations of quality in the health care market. A system, or multiple systems, of voluntary certification instead of, or in addition to, traditional licensing would offer consumers a broad array of services with corresponding differences in price.
In virtually every other market, from food, to clothing, shelter, to transportation, consumers are permitted to select a level of quality appropriate for their budget constraints. If every car was mandated to be of Cadillac quality, a lot fewer people would have the means to drive. The availability of beat up old jalopies allows consumers to trade quality for affordability and expands access to transportation for everyone. There is no reason why medical access shouldn’t work the same way.
Importing Doctors Many nations other than the United States turn out qualified physicians, but American Licensing Boards do not fully recognize the credentials of doctors immigrating from abroad. This means that a fully capable physician from the United Kingdom or Germany will still have to serve a four year residency and go through the onerous licensing procedures.
About 15 percent of residency positions go to foreign medical graduates. If there were an alternative method of recognizing existing credentials, these slots could be filled by domestic medical students, resulting in more practicing doctors.
The Length of Schooling and the Small Number of Medical Schools There are currently only 129 accredited medical schools in the United States, too few to turn out enough doctors to meet the demand. In order to gain accreditation, a school must undergo an eight-year process overseen by the U.S. Department of Education.
The number of residency positions available is only 110,000, a number which is determined by the way Congress chooses to fund Medicare. But directly tying the number of available residencies to Medicare funding ignores the economic realities of the health care market, and fails to provide any measure of adaptability to changing conditions.
The deficit of residency slots also contributes to the length of time it takes to become a doctor. It can take as many as ten years from the time someone begins studying medicine to when they are allowed to practice. The result of this is a remarkable lack of flexibility for the health care market to adapt to changes in demand.