Tag Archives: World politics

Last month’s Poll Of The Month winner: Were moonlandings a hoax?

Last month’s “Poll Of The Month” winner topic was, that moon landings could be a hoax. I have studied this little bit and I could not tell, that they were hoax, but something odd there is. I don’t understand why NASA won’t just explain these “mistakes” properly. They could do a documentary or discussion panel where people could ask these questions and get some real answers.

An Apollo Hoax analysis by Eric Dubay of AtlanteanConspiracy.com

Photo Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories)

-There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two

-In consecutive Apollo 17 photos (AS17-135-20588 and 89) the rock’s shadows change almost 180 degrees as if they switched studio-lights between shots

-In one shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that couldn’t happen in the blackness of space, and could only reflect off a background

-In one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks going across the foreground of the entire photo

-There is one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light, and another (AS12-49-7278) which shows two lens flares from overhead lighting

-There is one shot (15-86-11670) which clearly shows a sneaker-print partially covered by an astronaut boot-print (there were no sneakers on the moon, the astronaut’s boot-prints are otherwise all uniform)

-Many consecutive photos supposedly from astronaut’s hand-held cameras are exactly the same, completely unmoved, to a degree only achieved by a tripod

-Consecutive photos AS11-40-5862 and 63 show the lunar lander with different colored windows, different lettering on the United States sign, and a mysterious disappearing component

-Buzz Aldrin in consecutive Apollo 11 photos changes from white gloves, to dark gray gloves, back to white gloves, and back to dark gray gloves

-There is never a burn print under the lunar lander, nor is there any dust/dirt on the landing pod feet, as if it was just set down gently onto a stage

-There are many pictures which show moon rovers with no wheel tracks in front or behind them (as though they were set down into place) even though there are many footprints all around

-There are pictures of astronauts shown with footprints all around them, but no prints leading to or from where they are, as if they were lowered into place by wire

-There are shots that appear out of sequence in the timetable given

-There are shots which show camera cross-hairs being overlayed onto the original

-Photo AS11-40-5922 close-up of the Apollo 11 Eagle is classic, looks uncannily like cardboard, construction paper, scotch tape and wires

-The video from the Data Acquisition Camera mounted on the Apollo 11 starboard window and the Tripod Mounted TV Camera mounted outside both pan, tilt, reframe, and zoom supposedly while unmanned

-In the 6 moon missions the total time on the moon amounted to 4834 minutes and the total number of photographs taken was 5771; this means they were taking an average of one photo every 50 seconds, covering vast distances, all while supposedly doing many other tasks, collecting rocks, planting flags, making repairs, driving moon rovers etc. Is this even feasible?


General Evidence:

-NASA made all networks record their feed for TV broadcast, so that’s why we only ever see the grainy recording of a recording on TV, and now NASA says they lost the original high-definition video and data telemetry tapes so they can never be verified

-Blueprints and designs of certain machines are missing from both NASA and the companies which supposedly constructed them such as the Apollo Lunar Module and rover

-Van Allen Belt, Russians could never get beyond because of intense radiation that recquires 4 feet of lead shielding too heavy to rocket into orbit; and in 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation yet somehow American astronauts and their film was able to survive this without shielding

-There are no stars in any of the moon pictures/video, just complete darkness; they couldn’t make a perfect model in a studio, even a planetarium layout can only be seen in absolute darkness, spotlighting from the “sun” would block out the “star” lighting; so they cover this by saying the sun is SO bright on the moon that the astronauts couldn’t remember seeing stars either

-The moon walk is in half-speed slow-mo; if you speed it up x2 the astronauts are clearly in Earth gravity walking normally with long strides

-The flag in many photos and videos is shown flapping in the wind on the supposedly atmosphere-less moon

-Werner Von Braun took a NASA team to Antarctica in 1967 and was purported to be collecting “moon rocks.” Later Bill Kaysing (author of “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”) hired his private investigator friend Paul Jacobs to check with the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington and ask, “did you examine the Moon rocks, and did they come from the Moon?” The geologist simply laughed and insinuated that people high in the US government knew all about the cover-up.

-11 Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before making their missions, 3 had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, 7 died in 6 separate plane crashes, and 1 died in a car crash, highly unlikely coincidence, points towards a cover-up

-The astronauts rarely give public interviews or take questions at speaking events and were very unconvincing on their first interview back from the moon

-Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel who called him out on the hoax after he wouldn’t place his hand on the Bible and say he went to the moon

-Buzz Aldrin Jr. (Apollo 11), Gordon Cooper Jr., (Mercury 9, Gemini 5), Donn Eisele (Apollo 7), John Glenn Jr., (Mercury 6), Virgil Grissom (Apollo 1&15, Mercury 5, Gemini 3), James Irwin (Apollo 15), Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14), Walter Schirra Jr. (Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6, Mercury 8), Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10&18, Gemini 7&9), and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2, Challenger), all these astronauts are Masons

-The first director of NASA was Werner Von Braun one of hundreds of NAZI rocket scientists brought into America through the OSS Project Paperclip

-Nazis and Masons are not the most historically trustworthy folks

-Why didn’t NASA make some sort of light/flare display from the moon that people could see without their TVs to prove they were there?

-Why no color video on Apollo 11 when we know the astronauts had a color camera with them?

Peace,
~Eric

Source

Then we have a nice list where they are asking some tough questions:

>> 10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax

And then we have couple of videos made by Bart Sibrel:

Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel presents his highly acclaimed (and much hated) controversial documentary showcasing newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the first mission
to the moon, proving that the crew never left earth orbit.

Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt, much less the most complicated one ever imagined, landing on another heavenly body on its maiden voyage, and returning roundtrip with a crew that lived to tell,
all with 1960’s technology. (More computing power is found today in a $10 watch.)

According to William Kaysing, a NASA contractor for Apollo,
a classified interdepartmental memo rated the odds of a successful and survivable manned lunar landing on its first attempt at one in ten thousand. That is why the returning men of the mission looked so dejected rather than triumphant at their press conference,
as they were blackmailed into lying about the alleged greatest accomplishment of mankind, to the detriment of their own souls.

Sibrel has been interviewed, and his documentary about
the moon landings have been featured on, The Tonight Show,
The Daily Show, Geraldo at Large, The Abrams Report,
Coast to Coast, NBC, CNN, FOX, Time Magazine,
The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Washington Post
and USA Today.

 

 

And another one:

Astronauts Gone Wild is a 2004 film made by Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker from Nashville, Tennessee, United States who charges that the six Apollo moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s were elaborate hoaxes. Sibrel made this film, 53 minutes in length, as a follow-up to his 2001 video A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, which accuses NASA of falsifying the Apollo 11 mission photography. He also appeared in the TV special aired on the FOX network in 2001, called “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?”. More recently he has made appearances on radio programs, expounding on his theory and explaining why he believes that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax.

Encounters with astronauts

Buzz Aldrin
In Astronauts Gone Wild, Sibrel confronts nine Apollo astronauts and asks them to swear an oath on a Bible that they did, in fact, voyage to the Moon and back. His first encounter is with the Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin. Inside an office room, he shows Dr. Aldrin his “secret” footage, which Sibrel says was sent to him by mistake from NASA.[1] According to Sibrel, this footage shows the crew rigging a shot inside their spacecraft to appear halfway to the Moon, when they were really in Earth orbit and trying to deceive the world.

Aldrin dismisses Sibrel’s arguments, stating “We went to the Moon; we’re not misleading anybody.” Later in the film, Sibrel confronts Aldrin on another occasion, this time in September 2002 in Beverly Hills, California. The filmmaker makes his Bible demand. When the ex-astronaut refuses and tries his best to get away from the man, Sibrel follows Aldrin and calls him “a coward, and a liar, and a thief.”[1] Aldrin then punches (visually described as a right overhand) the man on camera. This incident, which made international headlines at the time, is the best-known response he received from one of the Apollo astronauts about his conspiracy belief.[3] In a recent radio interview, Sibrel stated that he blames himself for provoking Aldrin to punch him. He claims to have sent Aldrin a letter of apology.

Other astronauts
As shown in the video, Sibrel also was able to interview astronauts Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan and Edgar Mitchell about the Apollo project. Bean, for instance, states that the “all-up” testing[5] of the Saturn V rocket cut months off the schedule and was an impetus in reaching the Moon before decade’s end. Cernan describes an experiment on his Moon mission, Apollo 17, that was specifically designed to study the radiation of the Van Allen radiation belts. The interviews end with the request to swear an oath on Sibrel’s Bible. He asks them to “swear and affirm, under penalty of eternal damnation, perjury and treason” that the astronauts really went to the Moon. Cernan and Mitchell testify that they did indeed walk on the Moon, taking the whole oath as Sibrel states it to them. Alan Bean is also willing to swear on Sibrel’s Bible, though Sibrel shows him as unwilling to swear under penalty of treason.

Later, Mitchell had the following to say about his encounter: “Sibrel faked his way into my home with false History Channel credentials for an interview. After about 3-4 minutes, he popped the bible question. Realizing who he was, I maintained my cool enough to swear on his bible, then ended the interview and tossed him out of the house, with a boot in his rear.”

The other astronauts Sibrel confronts are Michael Collins, Alfred Worden, Bill Anders, John Young and Neil Armstrong. Sibrel did not arrange formal interviews with any of these men, instead accosting them at public events to make his Bible request. For the most part, these astronauts do the best they can to avoid him as soon as they find out that he supports the conspiracy theory.[1] He confronted Armstrong at a meeting of stockholders in New York City.[7] During interviews for the biography, regarding the hoax claims, Armstrong said, “It doesn’t bother me. It will all pass in time.”[8] The Apollo 11 commander refused to go along with his demands and states, “Mr. Sibrel, you do not deserve answers.” Meanwhile, Worden tells Sibrel that his claims of a falsified mission are “totally nonsense.” He says that he has no problem swearing on the Bible of his trip to the Moon, but that he doesn’t feel he needs to do so.

 

 

So were moonlandings a hoax? I don’t know, but most of this blog’s readers think so…

The Cooking of Humanity

Here is some information about how global elite uses microwaves to modify our thinking and social engineering.

TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW HERE-
https://www.auricmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Deborah_Tavares_Interview_with_Barrie_Trower.pdf
Cooking of Humanity – Invisible Global Warfare
DVD HERE http://shop.arccopy.com/DVD-Scientist…
Deborah Tavares interviews Scientist Barrie Trower
Portland, Oregon
http://www.StopTheCrime.net

 

 

You should read also this post:

https://www.auricmedia.net/couple-of-very-important-documents-must-read/

Barrie Trower (1 of 13) Radiation Scientist and Expert discusses Effects of Microwave Radiation

Playlist link for interview: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Documents and links are on Creatrix13 youtube channel… please watch the parts 1 to 13 and then go back for links

“Barrie Trower is a retired British military intelligence scientist. He trained at the Government’s Microwave Warfare establishment in the 60’s, and worked with the underwater bomb disposal unit, which used microwaves. In the 70’s he helped debrief spies trained in microwave warfare. His first degree is in Physics. (specialized in microwaves.) His second degree is a research degree. He also has a teaching diploma in human physiology and also teaches advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College.” —bio from Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation of South Africa http://www.emrrfsa.org/emrrfsa-scient…

Website: http://www.Bevolution.org

 

Couple of useful documents:

>> https://www.auricmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SantiniEnglishBevolution.pdf

>> https://www.auricmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Brainwavemodel_GB.pdf

“The most familiar precepts are not always the truest.”
MARCEL PROUST, Within a Budding Grove

New Evidence Demolishes Claims of Safety and Effectiveness of HPV Vaccine

Here is a an articel about HPV vaccine, which everyone should read:

By Dr. Mercola

There are currently two HPV vaccines on the market, but if there was any regard for sound scientific evidence, neither would be promoted as heavily as they are.

The first, Gardasil, was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. It is now recommended as a routine vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 9-26 in the US. On October 25, 2011, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also voted to recommend giving the HPV vaccine to males between the ages of 11 and 21. The second HPV vaccine, Cervarix, was licensed in 2009.

Were it to be discovered that the HPV vaccine, in fact, does not effectively prevent cancer, then young women (and now boys) are being exposed to clearly unacceptable health risks. And that’s precisely what a recent study has concluded…

Review of HPV Trials Conclude Effectiveness is Still Completely Unproven

Published online on September 24,1 a systematic review of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine by a Canadian team shows that its effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or “cherry picking” data) but also completely unproven.

The summary states it quite clearly:

“We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).

Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.” [Emphasis mine]

It is truly mindboggling, and a true testament to the conflicts of interest manipulating public health guidelines, that the HPV vaccine has received such robust backing by health officials and legislators alike.

Back in 2007, just a year after Gardasil’s introduction to the market, Texas Governor Rick Perry went so far as signing an executive order mandating sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV. Not surprisingly, Perry’s former chief of staff was then a Merck lobbyist. Fortunately, the Legislature subsequently overturned his order.

It’s important to realize that the HPV vaccine only protects against a small select set of HPV viruses that can lead to cell abnormalities that in some instances can cause cervical cancer, if the abnormalities are not identified and treated. So in reality, it’s a misnomer to call it an anti-cancer vaccine. And it’s massively misleading, if not a deliberate deception, to claim it “will” save lives.

Today, six years after licensure, we STILL have absolutely no proof, not a shred of actual evidence, indicating that Gardasil actually prevents cancer in the long-term and/or reduces cervical cancer mortality. What we have instead, is tens of thousands of adverse event reports and 122 deaths, as of mid-August.

Media Reports on Merck Study, But Ignores Canadian Review

What makes this issue so infuriating is the complete lack of transparency about the potential risks of the vaccine. Just days after the online release of the featured Canadian review, which obliterates claims of both safety and effectiveness, the Wall Street Journal2 reported that:

“A new study of Merck and Co’s Gardasil cervical-cancer vaccine showed it was associated with fainting on the day of inoculation and skin infections two weeks afterward, but no link with more serious health problems was found. …The Gardasil study – led by the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, California – was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to provide an additional look at the vaccine’s safety in a large group of people. It was funded by Merck.

…More than 200 categories of illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, nervous-system disorders and medical conditions such as attention deficit disorder, back pain and other injuries were reviewed. In most cases the condition existed before the vaccine was given. There were 14 deaths recorded among girls and women in the study but the causes, including car accidents, congenital heart problems, suicide, lupus and pneumonia, weren’t linked to the vaccine…”

There’s not a single mention of the Canadian review. Likewise, WebMD’s HPV page,3 which was reviewed by Kimball Johnson, MD on August 13, 2012, plainly states:

“No serious HPV vaccine side effects have been found, although fainting spells following injection have been reported in teens and young adults. Sometimes soreness occurs at the injection site.”

This kind of blatant hiding of potential adverse effects leaves me speechless… Where is the journalistic integrity and accountability? WebMD is the second most visited health web site on the entire web (Mercola.com is fourth), so to say they have an influence over the health choices made by the average US citizen would be an understatement. The general belief is that it’s a first-rate, trustworthy source of “independent and objective” information about health, but as I reported two years ago, the site is in fact heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.

The HPV Vaccine Risks You’re Not Being Told About

As of August 13, 2012, VAERS has received 119 reports of death following HPV vaccination,4 as well as:

  • 894 reports of disability
  • 517 life-threatening adverse events
  • 9,889 emergency room visits
  • 2,781 hospitalizations

And WebMD had the gall to misinform the public by stating that there have been NO serious side effects associated with HPV vaccination! What parent would not consider even the remote potential for permanent disability and/or death worthy of at least a brief mention?

Recent data pulled by VAERS research analyst Janny Stokvis5 also show a dramatic and recent increase in abnormal pap smears, cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer following HPV vaccination.

Bear in mind that cervical cancer typically does not strike until your late 40’s. According to 2005 -2009 data by the National Cancer Institute,6 the median age at diagnosis for cervical cancer in the US is 48. Only .2 percent of those diagnosed with cervical cancer were under the age 20, so it’s quite rare in this age group. It is estimated that 12,170 American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2012.7 Because we’re dealing with relatively low numbers to begin with, it makes the rapid increases detailed below all the more worrisome – especially when you consider that the vaccine is supposed to REDUCE cancer incidence.

The following data is for girls ages 14 to 26.8 According to Stokvis, some of the reports of cervical abnormalities are occurring four to five years after HPV vaccination, so we’re just now starting to see some of the longer-term ramifications, since the vaccine has only been on the market for six years.

March 2011 March 2012 % increase in 12 months
Abnormal pap smear 384 479 24.74 %
Cervical dysplasia 138 190 37.68 %
Cervical cancer 41 50 21.95 %

 

This new data supports previous suspicions that the HPV vaccine might actually increase your risk of cervical cancer. I wrote about this two years ago. The information came straight from Merck and was presented to the FDA prior to approval.9 According to Merck’s own research, if you have been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection and take the vaccine, you increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6 percent…

Additionally, since Merck’s research indicates Gardasil may also ‘provide cross-protection’ against other strains of HPV that are closely related to HPV 16 and 18 (two of the four strains included in the vaccine), this would mean prior exposure to these additional strains (which are not included in the vaccine itself) may pose an additional increased risk for cervical cancer when combined with vaccination.

As of August 13, 2012, more than 27,023 adverse event reports10 have been filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),11 including 918 reports from boys and men between the ages of nine and 44, who were given HPV shots. Keep in mind that it is estimated that only between one and 10 percent of serious events, which occur after vaccination, are ever reported to VAERS.12, 13

In addition, FDA researchers revealed in 2009 that nearly 70 percent of Gardasil vaccine adverse events reported to VAERS came from Merck, which indicates that the majority of doctors are reporting vaccine-related injuries and deaths directly to Merck instead of to VAERS.14 Who knows how many of the Gardasil-related injuries and deaths never make it from Merck’s files to the VAERS database.

Adverse events reported to VAERS post-HPV vaccination include:

Bell’s Palsy Guillain-Barre Syndrome Seizures
Paralysis Blindness Pancreatitis
Speech problems Short term memory loss Ovarian cysts
Blood clotting and heart problems Miscarriages15 and fetal abnormalities Cardiac arrest16 and sudden death

Large-Scale Study Shows HPV Vaccine is Ineffective and Increases Rate of Carcinogeic HPV Types in Vaccinated Women

The featured study alone is big news, but that’s not all. Other damning studies have also been completely ignored by media and public health officials alike. As reported by menstruationresearch.org in June:17

“In January 2012, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published the ATHENA HPV study18 announcing the results of a large cervical cancer screening trial, enrolling 47,208 women 21 years of age or older at 61 clinical sites throughout the United States. The authors reported that in a sub group of 12,852 young women, the HPV vaccine reduced HPV-16 infections only 0.6% in vaccinated women vs. unvaccinated women.

Most disturbing are the data that showed other high-risk HPV infections were diagnosed in vaccinated women 2.6% to 6.2% more frequently than unvaccinated women. In fact, the study reported that the increased rate of infections by carcinogenic HPV types in vaccinated women (other than those targeted by Gardasil®) is four to 10 times higher than the reduction in HPV 16/18 infections.”

Yet another recent British study19 published in the journal Vaccine on May 14, 2012, states:

“Estimates of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine impact in clinical trials and modeling studies rely on DNA tests of cytology or biopsy specimens to determine the HPV type responsible for a cervical lesion. DNA of several oncogenic HPV types may be detectable in a specimen. However, only one type may be responsible for a particular cervical lesion.

Misattribution of the causal HPV type for a particular abnormality may give rise to an apparent increase in disease due to non-vaccine HPV types following vaccination (‘unmasking’)… There could be an apparent maximum increase of 3-10% in long-term cervical cancer incidence due to non-vaccine HPV types following vaccination…Unmasking may be an important phenomenon in HPV post-vaccination epidemiology, in the same way that has been observed following pneumococcal conjugate vaccination.” [Emphasis mine]

Talk to Your Kids about HPV and Gardasil

There are far better ways to protect yourself or your young daughters against cervical cancer than getting Gardasil or Cervarix vaccinations, and it’s important you let your children know this. Remember, in more than 90 percent of cases, your immune system can clear up the HPV infection within two years on its own, so keeping your immune system strong is important.

In addition, HPV infection is spread through sexual contact and research20 has demonstrated that using condoms can reduce your risk of HPV infection by 70 percent, which is far more effective than the HPV vaccine! Be sure your kids know that this infection is sexually transmitted, so the risk of infection can be greatly reduced by lifestyle choices, including the use of condoms. Also let them know that, even if they get vaccinated, it is important that girls and women are screened every few years for cervical changes that may indicate pre-cancerous lesions because there is little guarantee that either Gardasil or Cervarix will prevent cervical cancer..

Jerry Brown Signs Bill Requiring Signatures for Those Opting Out of Vaccinations

Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that allows minor children as young as 12 years old to be given Gardasil, Cervarix, hepatitis B vaccine and future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases without a parent’s knowledge or consent.

Last month, the Sacramento Bee21 reported that Governor Brown signed legislation (AB2109) that requires parents seeking a personal belief exemption to vaccination for their children to pay for an extra office visit to obtain the signature of a medical doctor or other state designated health care worker that confirms the parents have reviewed information about risks and benefits of vaccines. The new law will take effect in January 2014. Wouldn’t it be nice if parents choosing to vaccinate their children were given truthful information about vaccine risks and benefits rather than complicating the process for those, who have already done their homework and have decided a vaccine is not in the best interest of their child?

According to the Sacramento Bee:

“Democratic Assemblyman Richard Pan of Sacramento proposed the measure, Assembly Bill 2109, which requires the statement to be signed by the parents and by a health care practitioner.

In signing the bill, Brown said that he will direct the state Department of Health to provide a way for people whose religious beliefs preclude vaccinations from having to seek a health care practitioner’s signature. Brown noted that AB 2109 does not eliminate parents’ current right to exclude their children from vaccinations but attempts to ensure that they have important health information in making that choice.”

Why We Must Protect Vaccine Exemptions

Your right to vaccine exemptions is increasingly under threat. All across the United States, people are fighting for their right not to be injected with vaccines against their will. These threats come in a variety of guises like California bill AB499,22 which permits minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent!

In light of the evidence that HPV vaccines have not been proven safe or effective, how wise is it to allow a young child to be vaccinated without her parents even knowing about it? It’s nothing short of insanity.

I cannot stress enough how critical it is to get involved and stand up for your human right to exercise informed consent and your legal right to obtain non-medical vaccine exemptions. This does not mean you have to opt out of all vaccinations if you decide that you want to give one or more vaccines to your child. The point is, everyone should have the right to evaluate the potential benefits and real risks of any pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, and opt out of any vaccine they decide is unnecessary or not in the best interest of their child’s health. Every child is different and has a unique personal and family medical history, which may include severe allergies or autoimmune and neurological disorders, that could increase the risks of vaccination.

It is your parental right to make potentially life-altering health decisions for your own children. Why wouldn’t you want to keep that right – even if you want your child to receive most or all vaccinations currently available? Tomorrow there might be a vaccine you don’t want your child to receive, but if you’ve failed to support informed consent rights and the legal right for all Americans to take medical and non-medical vaccine exemptions, you’ve given away your own freedom to choose in the future…

What You Can Do To Make a Difference

While it seems “old-fashioned,” the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and legal vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community. Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

Write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. Call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don’t let them forget you!

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what’s really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the “real life” experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

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

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

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors, employers or school officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

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

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

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

Source

The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind

Here is a video you should watch and learn about this system and scam behind it:

For more, visit: http://HiddenSecretsOfMoney.com
You are about to learn one of the biggest secrets in the history of the world… it’s a secret that has huge effects for everyone who lives on this planet. Most people can feel deep down that something isn’t quite right with the world economy, but few know what it is.

Gone are the days where a family can survive on just one paycheck… every day it seems that things are more and more out of control, yet only one in a million understand why. You are about to discover the system that is ultimately responsible for most of the inequality in our world today.

The powers that be DO NOT want you to know about this, as this system is what has kept them at the top of the financial food-chain for the last 100 years.

Learning this will change your life, because it will change the choices that you make. If enough people learn it, it will change the world… because it will change the system .

For this is the biggest Hidden Secret Of Money.

Never in human history have so many been plundered by so few, and it’s all accomplished through this… The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind.

 

 

7 Reasons Why Genetically Modified Foods Will Never Be Labeled And Why It Won’t Matter In The Future

Just spreading the information about GMO foods…

There are many arguments in favor of mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO). However, corporate lobbyists have been very effective in preventing any GMO labeling legislation from being enacted into law. The public is in favor of the idea, but politicians are only on board until voting polls close after which point they revert back to the corporate ideology preventing people from ever knowing the truth about what’s in their food. In the west, the probability of such laws ever being passed are very unlikely. Hate to be a party pooper, but here are 7 reasons why GMO foods will never be labeled.
At least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling, but the food industry in the EU and US are two different beasts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GMO foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property; if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present (e.g., a peanut protein in a soybean product); or if a food contains a toxicant beyond acceptable limits.

Even though it does exist, the generally accepted science of GMO foods does not clearly distinguish between its nutritional properties and those of non-GMO foods. Allergens are also known to be present in GMO foods, but this is largely ignored by the FDA. Also, now that the EPA has allowed Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide at levels 60 times above toxic exposure for canola, soy, sunflower, flax and peanuts, it’s a free pass to chemically spray most GMO foods beyond acceptable limits.

To government scientists, it’s all the same and they don’t see a difference, not because one doesn’t exist, but because they refuse to acknowledge it.

Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases.

Unless you are geographically located in a dozen or so countries in the world who have declared GMO (genetically modified organism) bans, then you’re likely eating GMO. It’s almost impossible to avoid all GMO foods, however educating yourself can make a big difference in the percentage of GMO foods you purchase as a consumer.

Although consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised, there are 7 reasons why they are unlikely to be be identified on any labeled food products:

1. Mandatory labeling would allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems. This would cause a ripple effect on the entire food industry causing information campaigns on some of the largest and most successful brands in the world, effectively removing their popularity through incremental education.

2. For religious or ethical reasons, many people want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA. More GMO foods are now being engineered with insect DNA and more experiments are taking place with animal DNA. If consumers were more informed through labeling initiatives, it would cause a massive backlash on well known brands of processed foods by these groups. Transgenic animals and crops would also come under fire.

3. Labels on GMO foods would imply a warning about detrimental health effects, which would stir controversy among millions who strive daily to maintain or advance their levels of health and wellness through dietary strategies. There are significant differences between GMO and conventional foods in terms of side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases. Although no nutritional or allergenic differences are acknowledged by the FDA, labeling foods as GMO would immediately place the decision making process back into the hands of the consumer by-passing the regulatory agency’s control.

4. Labeling of GMO foods to fulfill the desires of health conscious consumers would come at a consequence to all food manufacturers who use GMO ingredients. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GMO products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GMO products. Can you imagine what the effect would be in the US?

5. Consumers who want to buy non-GMO foods currently have an option to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GMO ingredients. Labeling GMO ingredients would also affect the entire organic foods industry now generating hundreds of millions in revenue. Many consumers would revert back to conventional foods if they learned they did not contain GMO ingredients. This would cause a loss in profits to some large food manufacturers who have organic divisions within their brands.

6. If GMO foods were segregated from non-GMO foods, the food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) would need to change drastically in a short period of time to accommodate the need for this change. The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the actual label. Accurate labeling requires an extensive identity preservation system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer to retailer. Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at various steps along the food supply chain. It would be very chaotic and the expense would go down the tubes if the majority of consumers avoided foods labeled as containing GMO ingredients. It’s a process the food industry knows would be extremely painful if it were to ever materialize.

7. If anti-GMO activists won the fight to pass GMO labeling legislation, it would set a precedent to every other highly controversial health topic in the hands of regulatory agencies. What next? Public health agencies would then be at risk at losing their credibility on other hot topics of debate such as fluoride in drinking water or vaccination. If populations were to win one huge battle that would free them from being incrementally poisoned, all government policy would be then be scrutinized and consumer advocate groups would stop at nothing to ensure all toxic public health policy would be dumped. It’s a loss of control and that’s something the cartels of the world are not interested in.

What’s The Solution and What Does The Future Hold?

If you haven’t figured out yet that our governments are not our best health and safety advocates, you haven’t been paying attention. We need to take the control away from the government and put it back into the hands of the people.

Content-based verification requires testing foods for the physical presence of foreign DNA or protein. A current application of this type of procedure is the analysis and labeling of vitamin content of foods. Methods for detecting the presence of GMO components in crops and processed foods are being discussed all over the world.

As the number of transgenes in commercialized crops increases, the techniques for detecting an array of different transgenes are becoming more sophisticated and even portable.

In the not too distant future, consumers will be able to run on-the-spot tests for environmental toxins, GMOs, pesticides, food safety and more with their smartphones and other hand-held devices.

“Modern biological research is also allowing an extension of laboratory devices on to small computer chips to detect biological information within DNA sequences,” said biotech specialist Dr. Marek Banaszewski. “Bioinformatic algorithms within programs will aid the identification of transgenes, promoters, and other functional elements of DNA, making detection of genetically modified foods on-the-spot and real-time without transportation to a laboratory.”

In a paper published in the journal Lab on a Chip, the team demonstrated sensing of an immune system protein, but the slide could be primed for any type of biological molecule or cell type. The researchers are working to improve the manufacturing process for the iPhone cradle and are working on a cradle for Android phones as well. They hope to begin making the cradles available next year.

Other handheld devices currently in development are portable chemiluminescence detectors, but based on enzyme-catalyzed reactions emitting light. The detection devices for nucleic acids, biotin associated with the target DNA provides the handle for the chemiluminescent detection. The non-radioactive DNA detection chemistry will be able to readily identify single-copy genes in transgenic plants making them suitable for GMO detection.

Sources:
cornucopia.org
preventdisease.com
colostate.edu

Natasha Longo has a master’s degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.

 


 

Here is a documentary about Monsanto and you soon realize that it’s the Beast from Hell…

 

 

“Truth has rough flavours if we bite it through.”
GEORGE ELIOT, Armgart