Scientific Revolutions: Vaccines, viruses and evolution

NaturalNews.com

In this interview, Dr Wakefield speaks at length about the interaction between human beings and infectious disease. This is perhaps the most in-depth discussion by Dr Wakefield that has ever been captured on camera about the long-term threat that vaccines pose to the future of humankind. Here’s some of what Dr Wakefield says about the importance of expanding our view of infectious disease beyond the stilted, dumbed-down conceptual framework of conventional medicine, the CDC, the WHO, etc.

I’ve grown to have a huge respect for [infectious bacteria and viruses] over the years. We are here on the Earth now because of infection. Not in spite of it, because of it. Our immune system has been fashioned, shaped, designed over millions of years, since we first emerged from the primordial soup as single-celled organisms to evolve a hugely complex immune system that is a result of its interaction, its education with infectious agents. They are the prime factor in developing our immune responsiveness.

By going from a respiratory route of infection of a natural virus to an injected form of infection… from going from a different strain, a different route, a different dose of infection and a different mean population age of exposure to infection, so kids used to get mumps at 7 to 10 years of age, now they get it at 18 months — when you change that subtle ecological balance which has evolved over such a long time, it is no wonder that you are going to have unexpected, unintended consequences.

The other thing, of course, is that we’ve now come to learn that so many infections or so many infectious agents are actually beneficial. We require them for education of our gut immune system. The exposure of the gut, the colonization of the gut, the gut flora very early on, is a major determiner of how our immune system [develops.]

I’ve become a great respecter of infectious agents and their ability to elude us, to cause problems that we did not expect, and if we believe in our exquisite arrogance that we can exploit them, manipulate them in a test tube, give them back to people and exploit them in a way we call attenuated, then the virus will laugh at us. It will simply laugh, because it has a collective intelligence that will not allow that to happen.

You’re fighting mutations that are collectively more intelligent, more adaptable, and ultimately can cause what, we don’t know. But you also create a population that now becomes dependent on vaccination. Not just the first vaccine, but the second, the third, the fourth… it never ends. You create a population that is dependent on immunization.

Watch the complete interview at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=0CDBE…

The dogmatic intellectual brutality of modern medical science

In this interview, Dr Wakefield also speaks about the vaccine attack dogs who use fear tactics to terrorize scientists into conforming to “accepted” views on vaccines:

I talk to many scientists, many physicians whose children are affected by autism following vaccines who say I know there is a problem, but we don’t dare step out of line. We look at what happened to you, and we don’t dare step out of line. …And I do meet these people all the time, and to me that’s unacceptable. Because the future of the world depends upon the wellbeing of our children.

[Science] has sold out to the pharmaceutical industry, and to the pharma-government complex. Medical schools are dependent upon their funding in large part from the pharmaceutical industry, or pharmaceutical industry influences, and this is dancing with the Devil in respect to the way in which science should be conducted, and the influences placed upon it.

This is what happened to me, there were constraints placed upon my valid vaccine safety research, because in the UK, the government had done a deal with the pharmaceutical industry that meant the government had picked up their liability for a knowingly dangerous Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine. They licensed a vaccine in July of 1997 which had, in that same month, been withdrawn in Canada for safety reasons. They knew it was not safe. It was cheaper. They put price before the wellbeing of children.

Now we’ve seen time and time again the corruption, the abuse of science, and it’s happening largely on one side of this equation. You are told time and time again there are 14, 17, 20, millions of papers which exonerate the vaccine, saying there’s no link between mercury thimerosal preservative and vaccinations. In fact when the data are analyzed, when the studies are looked at comprehensively, 74 percent of those studies’ published data support a link between mercury and autism.

And yet the public are being told, through this vast public relations machine, that the science is over, it’s ruled it out. And when you take the science that proposes it is ruled out and reanalyze it correctly, which Dr Desoto did from the University of Northern Iowa, it shows exactly the opposite effect, and the scientists who wrote the original papers had to change their findings and conclusions. They had not analyzed the data properly.

So science in the private interest, I’m afraid, is damaging for the people. And that’s what we’re seeing at the moment.

The future of human civilization is threatened by modern vaccines

In this interview, Dr Wakefield also speaks out how vaccines may one day threaten the long-term survivability of the human race, even while forcing the world population to become dependent on vaccines in the mean time.

Here’s what he says:

What happens to a population that becomes dependent for its very survival on vaccines? Who are we, and our children, and our grandchildren, then beholden to? And are the people we are beholden to, the pharmaceutical industry, are they actually capable of anticipating what that bacteria or virus is going to do next? No. Because they’ve never thought about it in the first place. So we are creating a marketplace; we are creating a wonderful revenue model; and we are creating a potential time bomb for the population.

You cannot sterilize the world, nor should you. This whole notion of the Germ Theory needs to be radically modified in light of what we now know, so that we have scientists who acknowledge that this fundamental and very essential ecological interaction between man and microbe, or plant and microbe, is vital… but you have a commercial imperative which pays no heed to that at all.

The dangers of vaccines are quite real

Are vaccine ingredients truly dangerous to human health? Dr Wakefield addresses that question in great detail:

You’re taking children and you’re giving them ethyl mercury from day one… indeed now in pregnant women in the influenza vaccine, and you are potentially very likely biological, plausibly, poisoning the immune system of those individuals, biasing it towards an immune response that is not protective against viral infections, and then you’re giving live viruses? What is the outcome of that going to be?

Aluminum is known to influence the immune system in the same way. Indeed, that’s why it’s there [in the vaccines]. It’s there to promote an antibody response, a response which does not bias the immune system towards protection from intracellular organisms like viruses. You are deliberately doing it. So when you then give a live viral vaccine, what is the compound effect of that? When you’re giving them all at the same time, what is the compound effect? No one knows. Why? Because no one’s looking. Why? Because no one cares enough, that’s why.

Do not take these infectious agents, these known toxins for granted. Do not make assumptions about them, particularly when you’re using them in combination because they will produce untoward effects that you don’t even expect, that you are not looking for, [that] you have not got on your list of adverse reactions that are known to be caused by this virus. You won’t find them. Because you have changed the whole interaction between the infectious agent… and the immune system. That’s what you’ve changed, something so fundamental.

Dedicated to scientific truth, regardless of the personal and political costs

Ultimately, Dr Wakefield is a truly dedicated scientist who persistently pursues the evidence without regard to any particular political agenda or corporate agenda. Unfortunately for Dr Wakefield, this pursuit of scientific truth has put him in the crosshairs of the conventional medical system, the mainstream media and virtually the entire pseudoscientific vaccine-pushing attack dogs; but this has not deterred Dr Wakefield from continuing to pursue scientific answers to important questions.

And yet, Dr Wakefield has no illusions that his contributions to these scientific revolutions in the understanding of infectious disease and vaccines may not be recognized in his own lifetime:

If you’re going to get involved in this kind of debate, then you as the scientist need to study the history of medicine, the history of science as well, and understand this is the fate of many people who go out on a limb, who make extraordinary claims. That’s what’s going to happen. You mustn’t expect to be exonerated in your lifetime… or ever.

But you must stick to the scientific principle and pursue the hypothesis until its natural conclusion, and not abandon it because you’re put under political, financial or other pressures, if you can. Now, there is an additional imperative for a physician to do it, who is looking at these children… As long as I don’t suffer from the vainglorious belief that this is all going to be resolved in my lifetime — I hope it is for the sake of these children — but I’m so far beyond that notion that I need some kind of redemption from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or The Lancet, I don’t. These are instruments of a state that I don’t really want to be associated with. I would like to stick to the principles of medical science, and that’s my job. And I won’t be deterred from that.

Corrupt Newspapers ‘softened’ Torture After U.S. began Using it

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 2, 2010

Torture, as a tool to obtain information from a human being is disgusting, inhumane and illegal by all measurements in past and

Do as I say, not as I do. This seems to be the motto of the torturers and the pandering media.

modern societies.  It is unthinkable that anyone with red blood in their veins could consider it acceptable to torture a person in order to obtain information that as it has been widely demonstrated, (1) has never provided any useful details to prevent a disaster.  In the western world, torture is mostly seen as unjustified, (2) and only some power men who control the militaries of the world still agree to use torture in various forms to get details of ‘plots’ to attack the free world.  Only a population that never experience torture as a tool to criminalize citizens could hesitate before the question, Is Torture Ever Justified? (3)

How would public perception change if the media that feeds propaganda to them on a daily basis simply began to indirectly condone or soften torture as a tool the government uses in times of war? A study conducted by Harvard reveals that the four newspapers with more circulation in the U.S. effectively mischaracterized the use of waterboarding -as a form of torture- after it was discovered the United States waterboarded and humiliated prisoners.  (4) The study conducted by Law students at Harvard says that The New York Times, the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal either refused to call waterboarding torture or did it in only and handful of their articles that talked about the use of torture by the United States.

We found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding…   … from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding.

According to the study, newspapers were more likely to call waterboarding torture if another country was the perpetrator of the crime.

The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23).

Although waterboarding has been debated and talked about since the beginning of the century, it was never so close to home as it has been in the last decade.  After 9/11, and in the middle of a careless campaign to hunt a nonexistent enemy, the U.S. launched a military assault in Iraq and Afghanistan to find and kill the murderers who had killed innocent Americans.  There was very little concern in the public’s mind as to how this goal was achieved and what would it take to bring them to justice.  Then came Abu Ghraib (5) and a mass awakening took place.  Was the U.S using the very same techniques it had condemned in the past?  The answer was YES.

Harvard’s study examined the newspapers’ coverage using electronic databases.  “Our research team word searched for the term “waterboarding”, these included classifying the practice as “torture,” giving it some lesser, negative classification (such as calling waterboarding “inhuman”), giving it a softer, less negative classification (such as calling waterboarding “objectionable”), or not characterizing the practice at all.”  The study analyzed the reporting of four major newspapers using Proquest, LexisNexis, and the NY Times website archives.  Read more about the methodology on page 5 of the study.

“The results of this study demonstrate that there was a sudden, significant, shift in major print media’s treatment of waterboarding,” concludes the study.  After the Abu Ghraib scandal, the four studied newspapers changed the word torture for “harsh” and/or “coercive”, to describe waterboarding.  This behaviour was seen both in articles considered as “news” as well as those classified as “opinion”.  Although Harvard’s study does not provide any possible reason why this change in wording occurred, it does cite an article by New York Times editor Clark Hoyt, who said that this behaviour was a deliberate decision made by Journalists and Editors in an effort to remain “neutral”.

The study refutes Mr. Hoyt’s statement with the fact newspapers comfortably called waterboarding and other practices of the sort “torture” before 9/11 and even before 2004 without any reserves.  Another reason why Mr. Hoyt’s affirmation is baseless, is that waterboarding had been labeled torture and an illegal practice by American law, international law, and the very same newspapers that now justify their actions by calling themselves “neutral”.

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

(2) http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf

(3) http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/pew-poll-public-support-for-torture-at-five-year-high/

(4) http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf

(5) http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

Zero Hora Newspaper Lies to Readers about Chem-trails

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 23, 2010

Chem-trails do not decorate or adorn the sky. They are part of an experiment used globally called Geo-engineering that seeks to limit the

Chem-trails are lines of toxic Aluminum Oxide, Barium and Sulfur left on the sky by airplanes with the intent of reflecting solar radiation.

amount of sunlight the planet receives in order to reduce the nonexistent global warming. As The Real Agenda already reported, chemical trails or chem-trails, as they are called in English, are composed of crystals of aluminum oxide, barium and sulfur, used to -according to some scientists-, block and reflect sunlight in order to decrease the temperature of the planet. The problem with these trails is that, inevitably, they become part of the air people breathe, causing them severe breathing problems and other health complications.

Geo-engineering, or the artificial manipulation of weather and climate patterns, is a topic that has stirred controversy after it was discovered that government agencies have studied and are still studying the application of weather modification techniques, they say, to eliminate or limit global warming and other weather “diseases”. As with other artificially engineered products, such as GM foods, most of us were ignorant about it and took a huge effort from the alternative media to uncover and expose this program. See the video of chemical trails over the city of Sao Leopoldo, RS, Brazil and planes spreading them here.

The use of chemical trails is not only a question of climate change, but involves a set of environmental changes. The first direct consequences of the spraying of chemicals have been a multitude of health complications to the population, as the effects of neurological and behavioral changes, impaired blood circulation, heart problems, effects on the eyes and vision, reproductive failure, damage to the immune system, gastrointestinal, liver and kidney function damage, hearing defects, disorders of the metabolism, dermatological lesions, asphyxiation and pulmonary embolism. How do we know? Tests conducted on people suffering from any or several of these complications have high levels of one or more of the chemicals sprayed on population centers. In other tests, air samples also showed high concentrations of barium and aluminum.

But if these tracks are not toxic chemicals, as the Zero Hora Newspaper says, why is Monsanto, a chemical company itself, creating seeds that can withstand the chemicals used in the spraying? According to Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, the chemicals applied to populated and depopulated areas are harming not only the environment but also human health.

“… We also know that certain types of chemicals can damage human health and animals, especially the immune system … … the dangers of hormonal changes are now more fully explained in the Internet but are not well known by people who listen to traditional news media.(1) Most of these highly toxic chemicals are invisible and thus are easily out of our collective radar. With the level of stress created by the financial crisis deliberately orchestrated by the elites, where millions of people lost their jobs and homes, a deteriorating environment is not a priority for anyone, especially if there is little information about it. This scenario is part of a broader perspective and is what Naomi Klein writes in his book “The Shock Doctrine.” We have major crises, one after another, making it difficult to keep up with our daily routine, much less to have time to consider the toxicological implications of huge amounts of heavy metals and chemicals that poison our food chain and therefore our supposed health . “We’re on top of a food chain in ruins. ”

Read the complete evaluation from Dr. Perlingieri on Geo-engineering and climate change here.

Chem-trails over Sao Leopoldo, Brazil on June 4th, 2010

In spite of negative consequences, there are scientists who insist on the use of chemical trails.”I suggest that both the aluminum oxide as well as silica particles can be used diluted as an additive in the fuel used in aviation,” writes engineer John Gorman, who conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario. “We want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft is strolling in the lower stratosphere,” he adds. Reports of chemical trails over hundreds of cities in countries around the world are now common. Plumes of smoke paint the blue skies of gray after commercial and private planes release chemicals. Both government agencies and institutions such as the air force and private contractors are responsible for operating the aircraft, putting the chemicals in tanks or even in the fuel that airplanes use.

With all the negative effects that chem-trails have had on populations, many scientists have made pronouncements about the dangers that this type of Geo-engineering poses to the environment and people. Dan Schrag, from Harvard University, warned that any attempt to change the environment, including the ecosystem itself, could have disastrous consequences, including droughts and other natural disasters. “I think we should consider the climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but there is no evidence to show that a climate crisis exists,” said Schrag. Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers University, says the consequences could go much further than drought. These experiences, he says, “could create disasters”, damaging the ozone layer and potentially changing the stratosphere, eliminating weather patterns, such as the rainy season from which billions of people depend on for their crops and to feed their families. “The problem is that this is exactly what the use of chemical trails are supposed to do: change weather patterns. The use of chemicals to block the sun’s rays will lead to drastic changes in the biosphere and atmosphere, such as the hydrological cycle, wind patterns and how the sun drives the winds around the planet. Other consequences such as soil fertility and water availability are beginning to be emerge.

Do not let the lies of the Zero Hora newspaper confuse you. Geo-engineering and chemical trails are not the same as condensation trails or contrails. While the contrails disappear after a few minutes in the sky, chem-trails are left by airplanes crossing the sky several times, producing figures like chessboards, circles and semi-circles.

If humans are responsible for global warming, why block the sun? The truth is that the sun is the most gigantic hot body in the solar system and as such, the element that determines the climate. Different calculations estimate that human activity emits only between 4 and 6 percent of total CO2 in the atmosphere, thus having little influence on weather patterns. Volcanic eruptions and the sun, for example, have a greater effect on climate than any human activity. CO2 is really what most of the biosphere uses as food. An environment rich with CO2, provides more fuel for the plants and trees and more food for animals and humans. Another consequence of chemical trails is acid rain. Raindrops containing chemicals cause massive acidification of lakes and rivers, contributing to the poisoning of humans, trees at higher elevations and many sensitive forest soils.

But not only those who reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are skeptical about the use of chemical trails. The chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, Doug Parr, a defender of the explanation of anthropogenic global warming, disqualifies Geo-engineering as “strange” and “dangerous.” A report from KSLA earlier this year found that chemical experiments with aerosols have been happening for decades. The report revealed experiments exposed in 1977 in hearings before the U.S. Senate. The report showed experiments with biochemical compounds in humans and reported that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.

According to the article on Zero Hora, -which omits the name of the reporter- these tracks mean nothing more than random condensation of

This is what a chem-trail looks like 30 minutes after it was sprayed. It then spreads and covers the sky in what seems to be haze.

contrails, but the evidence shows exactly the opposite. The newspaper reporters are ignorant or simply lie to their readers deliberately.

If the ultimate goal of Geo-engineering is to reduce the effects of global warming due to human activity and their related emissions of greenhouse gases, you would think that this method would at least have a good chance of working, Would not you? Well, it happens that Geo-engineering has no effect in preventing what corrupt scientists say causes global warming in the atmosphere. Therefore, the use of chemical trails is at best an inefficient solution and, at worst, a mass poisoning of humanity.

Scientist David Suzuki says Geo-engineering is “madness” and goes further to say: “If we learned anything from the past, is that although we are very skillful in inventing new and powerful technologies, our knowledge of how our world works and how things are interconnected is almost zero. ”

But there is a more worrisome aspect about Geo-engineering We all know what governments are capable of doing when they want to manipulate people: inexplicable wars, false pandemics, non-existent terrorist events … Although the use of chemicals as weapons of war is generally seen as morally and universally banned, we have seen very convincing evidence that such a prohibition is not always respected. According to an article published in Wired Magazine, other forms of Geo-engineering such as ocean fertilization can be used to sterilize the oceans, that in turn would destroy fisheries and water ecosystems.

Even the globalist United Nations, traditional supporter of these policies expressed concern with the use of chemical trails. The 14th Session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice was the first place where the United Nations Council discussed Geo-engineering since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in 1976. The treaty banned Geo-engineering when it is used for hostile purposes.  SBSTTA 14 will recommend to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to impose a moratorium on all activities related to climate change through Geo-engineering at a meeting in Nagoya Japan on October 2010.

So why have we adopted a technique of changing the climate which is harmful to humans and whose main goal is not achievable? Who benefits from this type of Geo-engineering technologies that are adopted for other reasons? Certainly not the environment. More answers about chemical trails or chem-trails, its origins and what they mean can be found in The Science of “Air Pharmacology” and “Chemtrails.”

Naturally, the knowledge spreads faster and better when more people locally and responsibly report on these issues. So tell your family, friends and acquaintances about the origin and dangers of Geo-engineering around the globe. Just as THE PEOPLE exposed the lies about anthropogenic global warming and Climategate, it is our duty to expose this too.

To my colleagues at the Zero Hora newspaper, I have to say: it costs nothing to write a full report with credible sources and facts. But I think we all know why this newspaper avoids writing the truth. It is part of the great media empire from Brazil known as GLOBO. Maybe it’s hard to speak or write the truth while working there. Only those who lend themselves to lie or tell half-truths because of their ignorance or laziness have space in a company like Zero Hora or the GLOBO empire.

A Pandemic of Corruption, not H1N1

Margaret Chan

Dr. Margaret Chan standing next to the WHO's flag bearing the Caduceus.

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 7, 2010

There is no need to say it; it is almost redundant and repetitive to tell about the corruption that brought about the H1N1 false alarm last year.  However, it is never excessive to point out massive corruption when it is detected and identified so clearly.  Many independent sources have denounced the corruption that runs rampant in the World Health Organization.  One of them, the European Health Council, studied and published a report that revealed the gigantic corruption scheme within the WHO and between its workers and the pharmaceutical industry.

Now it is the turn of the British Medical Journal to denounce and publish its findings.  The highlight of the report states that highly positioned scientists who ‘convinced’ the heads of the WHO to declare the pandemic, held tight financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that loaded up their coffers with the sale of the vaccines.  The WHO scientists received direct financial compensation from the vaccine manufacturers. During and after the fallout, the WHO denied requests to disclose information on conflicts of interests between its top advisers and the drug companies.

Perhaps the biggest victim after the thousands of patients who died of the side effects the vaccine produced, those suffer from irreparable neurological disorders -also as a consequence of the vaccine- and others who will die and get sick in the future, is the WHO itself.  The very little credibility it still held has completely dissipated and nothing that comes out of its loudspeakers can be trusted.  Now, the only way the organization -a branch of the United Nations- can enforce any of its maddening policies is through the puppet governments that follow any of the guidelines it may issue in the coming months and years.

Caduceus

* The Caduceus is an appropriate choice to represent modern medicine. In antiquity, it was the guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars and thieves.

The findings revealed by Deborah Cohen, editor at the BMJ, and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, were not only not denied by the head of the WHO, Dr Margaret Chan, but also defended and justified.  Chan said the secrecy was necessary to protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing critical work and also to ensure transparency.  In other words, it is not necessary to carry out honest work at the World Health Organization so long people do not suspect or discover corruption.  However, if corruption is discovered, it is absolutely fine to cover it up while the WHO investigates itself to determine if there is or not wrongdoing in its operations.

The British Medical Journal is not the only organization that found corruption at the heart of the WHO.  As mentioned before, the European Health Council’s investigation also determined that the declaration of the H1N1 Pandemic was based on politics and not science.  It says the way in which the WHO handled the supposed pandemic was “a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.”

The reaction from the pharmaceutical industrial complex could not come fast enough.  The drug lords said the WHO did not have other option but to declare the pandemic due to the fact vaccines are the only ways to prevent and cure disease.  This of course are lies.  Vaccines do not treat or cure disease; they prolong them and produce them.  On the other hand, natural production of vitamin D3, for example, is a proven way to prevent and cure disease such as Influenza and others like cancer more effectively than any vaccine ever could. How many times do you hear any doctor or WHO scientist recommending a patient to take sunlight so the body can produce the necessary vitamin D or D3?  The answer is never.  The reason for that is that both the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO pretend to perpetuate the sick care programs that currently have more people than ever in drugs.  Anyone heard of drug or pharmaceutical dependency?

Studies in North America, South America and Europe have shown that a 40-60 nanograms of serum per mililiter hydroxyvitamin D (100-150 nanomols per liter) of  blood is lethal to disease, including 10 different kinds of cancer, diabetes and of course influenza.  The details of the studies and what Vitamin D and D3 are capable of doing to prevent disease as well as to decrease the chance of many medical problems to recur, can be seen here.  So one of the keys to prevent disease is to find out what’s the level of serum in your blood, and to intake vitamin D or D3 if there is a deficiency.  The cost can vary from free (exposure to sunlight 10-15 minutes a day between 11 am and 1 pm when there is less UVB radiation) to about five cents of a dollar a day (using supplements).  Don’t let any doctor confuse you with “no one knows what is the right dosage of vitamin D”, because that is exactly the wrong question to ask or try to answer.  But if you are someone who feels more comfortable with measuring your daily intake, 2000 IU per day is a recommended dosage.  Again, the details can be seen in the video cited above.

As Mike Adams writes “People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out.  A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?”.  That is exactly my point, too.  A few thousand lives don’t mean anything to an industry whose only goal is to profit every single year based on lies, scare tactics and corruption.  This is precisely what Dr. Margaret Chan meant with her statement.  Corruption is tolerated.  Experimenting with humans is all right.  Looting the public coffers is also fine.  And when people find out the lies, they themselves decide whether there was wrongdoing or not.

But how is it that the World Health Organization mixes, brews and carries out the corruption cocktail we are talking about?

Over-blow the supposed risk: The WHO and pharmaceutical companies classify the risk as very high and create imaginative levels of chance of mortality.  This time, the WHO created a 6th stage which it then declared we were all in.  At this time, when very few cases of H1N1 had been confirmed around the planet, the simple intake of Vitamin D and D3 -either through sunlight or supplements- would have done away with the virus.

Demand that nations purchase vaccines: The WHO asked and then demanded that countries bought vaccines from the biggest manufacturing houses: Sanofi and Glaxosmithkline; in order to prepare for the supposed pandemic.  They then raised the risk level to one of “public health emergency”, which made the countries carry out massive vaccination campaigns against the unsuspecting public.

Loot the public coffers: Nations -both in developed and underdeveloped regions of the world- spent billions of dollars purchasing  H1N1 vaccines while the virus never even reached a significant level of risk.  As it turned out, what did get indeed gigantic was the bank accounts of the pharmaceutical companies as they collected the money.

Payoffs to corrupt scientists: While the world was falling victim of the panic and interacting with anyone on the street was seen as risky, -masks popping out everywhere- scientists at the WHO pocketed kickbacks from the pharmaceutical  manufacturers. Those monies were intentionally kept secret; as the head of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan admitted.

Instigate and increase fear: As a way to keep the profits from the sale of vaccines growing, the WHO as well as national and local health departments called on people to vaccinate themselves and their relatives.  Vaccinating, they said, was the only way to be saved from the deadly H1N1 virus.  How many of the people who allegedly died from H1N1 died due to the virus?  Very few.  Most of them died of health complications related to previous medical problems that were aggravated with the influenza virus.  The vaccine did not prevent or treat those complications.  In fact, many of them were triggered by the vaccines themselves.

The question that comes to mind then is: Why do governments and its health departments continue to follow guidelines from the WHO given the blatant corruption schemes that govern its actions?   And more important:  Will they continue to obey the directives from the WHO in the future?  Probable yes.  Bureaucracy is an equal opportunity offender and it does not distinguish whether it is a local, regional, national or international organ.  So the decision to reject the WHO’s corrupted rules and to take responsibility for your health is in your hands.  So when the next ‘pandemic’ comes around remember:  The scientists that advice the WHO are in the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies and they will always hype a virus and turn it into a monster with 5 heads if that is what it takes for them to turn a profit. And one more thing:  there has never been an independent scientific study that confirmed that vaccines prevent, treat or cure any disease.  Vaccines are the biggest scam of modern medicine.  All medical studies carried out which claim that a vaccine prevents, treats or cures disease were either conducted by vaccine manufacturers or paid by them so universities and laboratories  “independently confirmed”  they are effective.

If there is anything positive left from the WHO’s imaginary H1N1 pandemic is that now more than ever we can be sure neither the WHO nor the pharmaceutical industrial complex have your interests at heart.  Their only interests revolve around the idea of filling their pockets with money and in the process depopulate the planet a little bit more every time.

* W. Burkert, Greek Religion 1985 section III.2.8; “Hermes.” Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online. Retrieved October 04, 2006.

Where’s Jimmy? Just Google His Bar Code

Fox News

Scientists currently tag animals to study their behavior and protect the endangered, but some futurists wonder whether all humans

tracking chip

VeriChip Tracking Chip

should be tagged too.

Scientists tag animals to monitor their behavior and keep track of endangered species. Now some futurists are asking whether all of mankind should be tagged too. Looking for a loved one? Just Google his microchip.

The chips, called radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, emit a simple radio signal akin to a bar code, anywhere, anytime. Futurists say they can be easily implanted under the skin on a person’s arm.

Already, the government of Mexico has surgically implanted the chips, the size of a grain of rice, in the upper arms of staff at the attorney general’s office in Mexico City. The chips contain codes that, when read by scanners, allow access to a secure building, and prevent trespassing by drug lords.

In research published in the International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Taiwanese researchers postulate that the tags could help save lives in the aftermath of a major earthquake. “Office workers would have their identity badges embedded in their RFID tags, while visitors would be given temporary RFID tags when they enter the lobby,” they suggest. Similarly, identity tags for hospital staff and patients could embed RFID technology.

“Our world is becoming instrumented,” IBM’s chairman and CEO, Samuel J. Palmisano said at an industry conference last week. “Today, there are nearly a billion transistors per human, each one costing one ten-millionth of a cent. There are 30 billion radio RFID tags produced globally.”

Having one in every person could relieve anxiety for parents and help save lives, or work on a more mundane level by unlocking doors with the wave of a hand or starting a parked car — that’s how tech enthusiast Amal Graafstra (his hands are pictured above) uses his. But this secure, “instrumented” future is frightening for many civil liberties advocates. Even adding an RFID chip to a driver’s license or state ID card raises objections from concerned voices.

Tracking boxes and containers on a ship en route from Hong Kong is OK, civil libertarians say. So is monitoring cats and dogs with a chip surgically inserted under their skin. But they say tracking people is over-the-top — even though the FDA has approved the devices as safe in humans and animals.

“We are concerned about the implantation of identity chips,” said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the speech, privacy and technology program at the American Civil Liberties Union. He puts the problem plainly: “Many people find the idea creepy.”

“RFID tags make the perfect tracking device,” Stanley said. “The prospect of RFID chips carried by all in identity papers means that any individual’s presence at a given location can be detected or recorded simply through the installation of an invisible RFID reader.”

There are a number of entrepreneurial companies marketing radio tracking technologies, including Positive ID, Datakey and MicroChips. Companies started marketing the idea behind these innovative technologies a few years ago, as excellent devices for tracking everyone, all the time.

Following its first use in an emergency room in 2006, VeriChip touted the success of the subdermal chip. “We are very proud of how the VeriMed Patient Identification performed during this emergency situation. This event illustrates the important role that the VeriChip can play in medical care,” Kevin McLaughlin, President and CEO of VeriChip, said at the time.

“Because of their increasing sophistication and low cost, these sensors and devices give us, for the first time ever, real-time instrumentation of a wide range of the world’s systems — natural and man-made,” said IBM’s Palmisano.

But are human’s “systems” to be measured?

Grassroots groups are fretting loudly over civil liberties implications of the devices, threatening to thwart their  development for mass-market, human tracking applications.

“If such readers proliferate, and there would be many incentives to install them, we would find ourselves in a surveillance society of 24/7 mass tracking,” said the ACLU’s Stanley.

The controversy extends overseas, too. David Cameron, Britain’s new prime minister, has promised to scrap a proposed national ID card system and biometrics for passports and the socialized health service, options that were touted by the Labour Party.

“We share a common commitment to civil liberties, and to getting rid — immediately — of Labour’s ID card scheme,” said Cameron according to ZDNet UK.

These controversies are impacting developers. One firm, Positive ID, has dropped the idea of tracking regular folks with its chip technology. On Wednesday, the company announced that it had filed a patent for a new medical device to monitor blood glucose levels in diabetics. The technology it initially developed to track the masses is now just a “legacy” system for the Del Ray Beach, Fla., firm.

“We are developing an in-vivo, glucose sensing microchip,” Allison Tomek, senior vice president of investor relations and corporate communications, told FoxNews.com. “In theory it will be able to detect glucose levels. We are testing the glucose sensor portion of the product. It will contain a sensor with an implantable RFID chip. Today’s patent filing was really about our technology to create a transformational electronic interface to measure chemical change in blood.”

Gone are the company’s previous ambitions. “Our board of directors wants a new direction,” says Tomek. “Rather than focus on identification only, we think there is much more value in taking this to a diagnostic platform. That’s the future of the technology — not the simple ID.”

The company even sold off some of its individual-style tracking technology to Stanley Black and Decker for $48 million, she said.

These medical applications are not quite as controversial as the tracking technologies. The FDA in 2004 approved another chip developed by Positive ID’s predecessor company, VeriChip, which stores a code — similar to the identifying UPC code on products sold in retail stores — that releases patient-specific information when a scanner passes over the chip. Those codes, placed on chips and scanned at the physician’s office or the hospital, would disclose a patient’s medical history.

But like smart cards, these medical chips can still be read from a distance by predators. A receiving device can “speak” to the chip remotely, without any need for physical contact, and get whatever information is on it. And that’s causing concern too.

The bottom line is simple, according to the ACLU: “Security questions have not been addressed,” said Stanley. And until those questions are resolved, this technology may remain in the labs.