After looking at a database of 850 patients diagnosed with lymphatic and bone marrow cancers between 1972 and 1980, researchers from the University of Tasmania and Britain‘s Bristol University found that living near high-voltage power lines might increase the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and related conditions later in life. Internal Medicine Journal September 2007; 37(9):614-9 from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/09/18/report-links-power-lines-to-cancer.aspx
0 Comments
This week, we celebrate our 12th anniversary of Vaccine Awareness Week. In this video, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) — which will celebrate its 40th anniversary as an organization in April 2022 — summarizes some of the high and low points we've experienced over the past year.
Growing Understanding of Vaccine DangersAccording to Fisher, polls show two-thirds of Americans do not want COVID shot mandates.1 They do not want to be required to show a vaccine passport in order to participate in society, enter a restaurant or a store, hold a job or go to college.2 "There is definitely not an appetite in this country for mandatory use of this COVID-19 vaccine," Fisher says. An estimated 25% to 30% of health care workers and medical doctors are even refusing the COVID shot.3 As noted by Fisher, "That's quite significant, considering they're the ones who have been taking care of these [COVID] patients in hospitals." Importantly, over the past 18 months, the number of people asking questions about vaccine safety has grown significantly.
In the early 1980s, when the NVIC first started, there was no information at all for the public about vaccine risks. Doctors never discussed it, so parents knew nothing. Of course, doctors were not educated on vaccine risks either, so the ignorance was spread equally among medical professionals and lay people. Awareness about dangers has increased more or less in tandem with the expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule.
Today, children receive 72 doses of 16 different vaccines by the age of 18. The catalyst for the explosion of added vaccines in the early 1990s was the partial liability protection Congress gave vaccine manufacturers in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury ActThe movie, "1986: The Act," released in 2020 explains how the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) came about, and the ramifications of it. Fisher, who is featured prominently in the film, explains:
The Destruction of the NCVIAThe National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors to provide parents with written vaccine information before their children are vaccinated. Originally, these information statements were thick booklets full of information. But after the law was passed, the Department of Health and Human Services gutted the vaccine safety provisions, reducing that vaccine information statement down to a single sheet of paper.
Then, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Wyeth in a DTP vaccine injury case (Bruesewitz v Wyeth6) in which the prosecutor argued the vaccine injury was the result of a design defect (failure to make a product safer). Wyeth could have made the DPT vaccine safer, and they didn't do it. The Supreme Court majority claimed the legislative history was clear — that Congress intended that vaccine manufacturers should have no liability for FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines. This was in fact the complete opposite of what the legislative history shows. Two of the Supreme Court judges, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote a brilliant dissent, stating that the legislative history does not show that Congress wanted to give the companies complete liability protection.7 The film, "1986: The Act," dispels the myths surrounding this law, clearing up the many confusions about what the law was initially intended to accomplish. Unfortunately, the misinterpretation and gutting of the NCVIA opened the proverbial flood gates to more vaccines being mandated for children.
The PREP ActWhile the U.S. Supreme Court granted vaccine makers blanket immunity for childhood vaccine-related injuries by the Supreme Court in 2011, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act passed by Congress in December 20058 added yet another layer of liability protection for the industry. After 9/11, Congress and the pharmaceutical industry got together and passed BioShield legislation. This federal legislation was based on the idea that weapons of mass destruction could be used against the United States, necessitating protective legislation to respond to "pandemic or bio-terrorism emergencies." Of course, the weapons of mass destruction were never actually found but, still, Congress in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry passed BioShield legislation. The PREP Act is part of that legislation. The PREP Act has to do with declared public health emergencies such as pandemics, and includes a separate mechanism for compensation when the injury occurs from a pandemic-related medication or vaccine. The PREP Act compensation mechanism was reconfirmed by Congress in the spring of 2020, and again in March 2021,9 in regard to COVID-19. While the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act-related compensation mechanism has been fatally compromised with Congressional amendments and federal agency rule making over the years, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) under the PREP Act is even worse. It's so bad, if you're injured by a vaccine used under a public health emergency declaration, there's virtually no hope of compensation. Imagine surrendering to all the pressure of losing your job and getting the jab, only to get so sick you generate over $1 million in hospital bills. It sounds outrageous, but this has in fact happened to many. They have zero recourse and in most cases have to declare bankruptcy, while the vaccine companies can continue to ravage the public treasuries without ANY liability or responsibility. It's beyond reprehensibly criminal, but they are getting away with it. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book, "The Real Tony Fauci," which comes out in November 2021, goes into far greater detail as to just how this BioShield legislation is really nothing more than a gaming of the system, essentially allowing drug companies to capture hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal government, (really you, the taxpayer). It's all a massive money and power grab. Fauci himself, who is definitely one of the cores of this whole nightmare, is responsible for having allocated probably over $1 trillion in federal funding to researchers, principal investigators that are intimately and ultimately tied to pharma, over the 37 years he's presided as director of the NIAID. His budget for fiscal year 2021 alone is $6.5 billion.10 The patents they created generates royalties to them. It's a nightmare dystopia of raping the public from the federal treasury. 'Colossal Mismanagement of a Pandemic'From the beginning, health authorities have been neglectful when it comes to the treatment of COVID-19. They've even actively prevented safe and effective treatments from being used. In the interview, Fisher describes her own experience with COVID-19:
Of course, there are indications that it wasn't really inadvertent mismanagement but, rather, a strategic and carefully orchestrated plan to implement the Great Reset.
The ultimate "public health authority" is of course the World Health Organization, and the No. 1 funder of the WHO is Bill Gates, as he provides funding not only through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation but also GAVI. This financial leverage gives Gates a disproportionate amount of power over public health globally and, of course, we know that his primary goal is to expand the use of vaccines. At the same time, Gates is also a major Big Tech player, which is the central enforcer of censorship. By censoring one side of the discussion, Big Tech is responsible for making informed consent impossible. Growing Awareness That Vaccines Don't Prevent InfectionThe good news is that the COVID situation is waking people up not only to the potential dangers of these novel mRNA injections, but also to the problems and fallacies associated with all the conventional vaccines. They are starting to recognize these injections are not as harmless or as effective as they have been purported to be. That is one of the silver linings of this entire mess.
The Fight for Medical Autonomy and FreedomSince the start of the COVID pandemic, the NVIC has encouraged people to work within the system, to go to your state legislators and have personal conversations with them. NVIC created model state legislation at the beginning of this pandemic, because they knew the end game would be mandatory COVID vaccination. So far, 21 U.S. states have passed legislation that restrict or prevent COVID vaccine mandates or COVID vaccine passports. Several state governors have also issued executive orders to the same effect. These successes show us that we should not lose complete faith in the system just yet. It's broken, yes, but the answer is not to give up but, rather, to get personally involved. We need freedom-loving, rational people to get involved at every level of government, Fisher says:
As explained by Fisher, the federal government could also invoke its authority over interstate commerce and prohibit unvaccinated people from flying from one state to another that way. There's already legislation introduced in Congress proposing this.15 So, even though 21 states have enacted laws against the requirement of vaccine passports, we're not out of the woods yet. The freedom to travel can still be stripped from us in a variety of ways, and we must fight to block all of them. FDA's Approval of the Pfizer COVID ShotAugust 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval16 to the COVID-19 mRNA injection developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, sold under the brand name Comirnaty, for use in people aged 16 and older. It's the fastest approval in history,17 and is based on just six months' worth of data from 44,060 people.18,19 Half of them got the shots and half initially received a placebo. However, in the second week of December 2020, Pfizer unblinded the control group and 93% of controls opted to get the real injection20 rather than remain in the control group for the remainder of the trial, which is slated to continue for another two years. In other words, there's no control group left against which to compare side effects and effectiveness. The FDA was expected to hold a public meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC)21 and allow for public and expert input before the first COVID-19 vaccine was formally licensed. For transparency and full public disclosure of vital scientific information, this meeting should have taken place before approval because COVID-19 vaccines are the first to ever have been distributed to the US population under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). In response, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children's Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit22 August 31, 2021, against the FDA and its acting director, Dr. Janet Woodcock, for this mess. On its website, CHD says:
As explained by Fisher, in order to receive Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA, vaccine makers had to show their COVID jabs were more than 50% effective at preventing serious symptoms of COVID-19 disease.23 They were not required to demonstrate that the shots prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or that it prevents transmission of the virus.
Many Vaccines Don't Prevent Infection or TransmissionThe problem is, many vaccines don't work the way we've been told. Take the pertussis vaccine, for example. According to Fisher, there's ample evidence that you can be vaccinated against pertussis and still transmit the infection, including asymptomatically.24,25 The same thing has been shown for measles,26 mumps,27 influenza28 and chickenpox29 vaccines.
Dr. Peter McCullough, an epidemiologist and cardiologist who is very familiar with medical research protocols, has pointed out that none of the COVID injection trials has data safety monitoring boards. It appears standard safeguards were intentionally eliminated for the rapid rollout of these shots and to eliminate any public outcry because the incriminating data are simply not being collected. How convenient. Actually, it is a clever strategy to achieve their goals and they are getting away with it, because those in authority do not have the courage and boldness of physician scientists like McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA technology.31 We need 10 times more of these types of brave souls to stick their necks out, as they have the credibility to actually make a difference. We just need enough of them to take a stand. Had proper monitoring boards been in place, McCullough believes the vaccination campaign would have been stopped by late January 2021, because of the high number of suspicious deaths that had occurred by then. There's also the possibility of these shots causing antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), which is a big concern for the future. Watch the NVIC Conference for FREEAs you might expect, this has been an unusual year, and virtually nothing has been routine. This year, NVIC was removed from three of the four major social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter)32 after NVIC held their groundbreaking online Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination: Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 2st Century in late 2020.33 Fisher says:
Take Action, Support NVIC TodayAs in previous years, during Vaccine Awareness Week, I will match your donations to the NVIC, dollar for dollar, so this is a great time to maximize your impact. So, please, consider making a tax-deductible donation to the NVIC today, and be sure to sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal to stay abreast of the latest legislative activities in your state. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/09/26/vaccine-awareness-week-update-2021.aspx Helping you take control of your health in these crazy times is Dr. Richard Fleming, a prolific author in addition to being a physicist, a nuclear cardiologist, researcher and attorney. Here, we discuss his latest book “Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon? A Scientific and Forensic Investigation,” slated for release September 7, 2021. It’s currently available for preorder on Amazon. It’s an incredibly well-documented book and contains history that many of us aren't aware of. As it turns out, the creation of this virus goes back not a year or two but two decades.
Standing on Principles of EthicsFleming is also a scientific reviewer for more than 16 different journals. He was on the external clinical review board for The Lancet, but quit in protest of the fake hydroxychloroquine article they published — an act I believe demonstrates his dedication to scientific integrity. He also resigned from the British Medical Journal Open Quality due to similar concerns.
Digging Up the TruthEarly on in 2020, Fleming started researching treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 using the Fleming Method, which you can learn more about on flemingmethod.com. Using this method, you can measure how a given intervention works on the tissue level, and how infection or inflammation is responding to the treatment. He ended up developing 52 treatment combinations, and over the course of that study, the length of hospitalization stays went from five to six weeks down to one to two weeks. But he also learned something else.
Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?While gain-of-function can be used for benevolent purposes, it can just as easily be used for nefarious ones, “and that's kind of what you see happening,” Fleming says.
While Fleming carefully lays out the evidence in his book, he leaves it up to you, the reader, to decide whether SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon or not. However, he says, if you do come to that conclusion (and he believes you will once you’ve seen the evidence), “then you have to recognize that the vaccines are nothing more than the genetic reproduction of that bioweapon.” Hence, the COVID shots are bioweapons too. Warning to Medical ProfessionalsIf you are a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or other health professional administering these COVID shots, you may be wise to reconsider your participation in this scheme. A significant problem is there’s no way to provide or obtain informed consent. As noted by Fleming:
On flemingmethod.com, you can find several video presentations and PDFs where Fleming goes through the emergency use authorization documents. With that data in hand, Fleming suggests asking yourself some fundamental scientific questions, such as: “Is there any statistical difference in the number of people who developed COVID-19 or died among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?” The answer provided in the documents is no. There is no statistical difference between the two groups. The vaccines do not statistically reduce COVID-19 infection or death thereof. There are fewer cases in absolute numbers, but statistically there’s no difference. Add to that the risk of side effects. If you take the shot, you risk developing inflammation and blood clotting. As noted above, coerced administration of these shots violate any number of laws. Fleming also cites supreme court rulings in which the court ruled people have the right to choose their own health care.
Moderna Has Been Aware of Risks for YearsYou’ve probably heard that the mRNA in the COVID shots are designed to stay right around the injection site. However, Fleming points out that Moderna knew this wasn’t the case, as they published research in 2017 showing a lipid nanoparticle vaccine for influenza ended up in the brain, bone marrow, liver, spleen and just about everywhere else in the bodies of the test animals.
What You Can Do if Your Job Mandates the JabFlemingmethod.com is a real treasure trove of information that you can surf through. There, you’ll also find sample documents for medical, religious, legal and Constitutional exemptions to vaccination that you can present to your employer, educational institution or anyone else trying to bully you into taking an experimental COVID shot. He also has fliers you can print out and distribute that lay out your U.S. Constitutional and statutory rights as a citizen, as well as petitions for the President of the United States, Senate, House of Representatives and state governors, calling on them to investigate those responsible for this gain-of-function bioweapon. You can find all of those petitions under the “Actions” tab at the top right corner. Fleming also encourages people to take legal action.
Cases Filed With International Criminal CourtAccording to Fleming, Italian lawyers have already filed a case in Italian Federal Courts and plan to file with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Attorneys from six different countries are also putting together a joint case. While the U.S. did not ratify the ICC, American citizens can still be held accountable in the ICC. Laws and statutes being relied upon include the Biological Weapons Convention treaty, the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It’s now up to the ICC to decide what it wants to do, and when.
We’re Battling the Biggest Propaganda Campaign in HistoryIn closing, Fleming says:
Indeed, this is undoubtedly the most effective propaganda campaign in the history of humanity, and it’s hard to blame someone for cracking under that type of a coordinated assault. The good news is that common sense has not entirely died yet. Fleming says:
More InformationTo learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of “Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon? A Scientific and Forensic Investigation.” You can also find a lot of information on flemingmethod.com, including science-based treatment suggestions for COVID-19 and side effects from either the COVID shot or spike protein transmission from a person who got the shot. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/09/26/is-covid-19-a-bioweapon.aspx By Dr. Mercola
Government Seizes $70,000 On What Grounds?
Why Are Family Farms Under Attack?
FDA Also Threatens Your Right to Food Choice …
Please Support Your Local Small Farms
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/15/raw-milk-farmers-on-money-laundering-crimes.aspx By Dr. Mercola
Environmental Chemicals a Likely Factor
10 Top Offenders that Can Disrupt Your Hormones
New Concern: Metalloestrogens
Tips to Reduce Exposure to Hormone-Disrupting Substances
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/19/precocious-puberty.aspx By Dr. Mercola Reaching puberty is a rite of passage that we've all been through, but children nowadays are reaching it earlier than ever before -- a trend that has both health experts and parents alarmed. Precocious puberty, which is the appearance of secondary sex characteristics like pubic hair or breast growth before age 8, or the onset of menarche before age 9, impacts at least 1 in 5,000 U.S. children, and the rate is on the rise.1 Even in the last three decades, children (particularly girls) are maturing at younger and younger ages (precocious puberty is 10 times more common in girls than in boys). Puberty, Once the Norm at Age 15, Now Occurring in 7-, 8- and 9-Year-OldsIn the 19th century the onset of menstruation occurred around the age of 15. Now the average age of the first period, or menarche, is around 12. The time during and before puberty is one of rapid development and change, which is why even months matter when it comes to first menstruation. Before menstruation, girls will show beginning signs of development, such as breast "budding" and growth of pubic hair. These signs are now becoming unsettlingly common among 7-, 8- and 9-year-old girls, to the extent that many health care providers, rather than labeling these children with a diagnosis that something is wrong, have simply changed the definition of what's normal... but is it really "normal" for girls to mature at such a young age? There are more questions than answers in the case of precocious puberty, but what is certain is that girls are developing earlier than they have even 10, 20 or 30 years ago. One study in the journal Pediatrics revealed that by age 7, 10 percent of white girls, 23 percent of black girls, 15 percent of Hispanic girls and 2 percent of Asian girls had started developing breasts, with researchers noting:2
Early puberty can set the stage for emotional and behavioral problems, and is linked to lower self-esteem, depression, eating disorders, alcohol use, earlier loss of virginity, more sexual partners and increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. There is also evidence that suggests these girls are at increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancer, later in life. Environmental Chemicals a Likely FactorScientists have brought forth a number of potential explanations for the rising rates of early puberty, but one that deserves special attention is environmental chemicals, and particularly estrogen-mimicking, "gender-bending" chemicals that easily leach out of the products that contain them, contaminating everything they touch, including food and beverages. As the featured New York Times article reported:
This is an extreme case, but the truth is we are all part of a "secret experiment" of sorts, because hormone-disrupting chemicals are all around us. Bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial petrochemical that acts as a synthetic estrogen, is found in our plastics and our tin can linings, in dental sealants and on cash-register receipts. Laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected BPA in the umbilical cord blood of 90 percent of newborn infants tested -- along with more than 230 other chemicals. As written in the New York Times:
No one knows what happens when a developing fetus or young child is exposed to hundreds of chemicals, many of which mimic your body's natural hormones and can trigger major changes in your body even as an adult, let along during the most rapid and vulnerable periods of development (in utero and as a young child). BPA is, unfortunately, but one example. Others include phthalates, a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They're also one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters, found in everything from processed food packaging and shower curtains to detergents, toys and beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances. Other environmental chemicals like PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT) may also be associated with early sexual development in girls. Both DDE and PCBs are known to mimic, or interfere with, sex hormones. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found in non-stick cookware, also falls into this dangerous category, as does fluoride, which is added to the majority of public water supplies in the United States. Research showed that animals treated with fluoride had lower levels of circulating melatonin, as reflected by reduced levels of melatonin metabolites in the animals' urine. This reduced level of circulating melatonin was accompanied -- as might be expected -- by an earlier onset of puberty in the fluoride-treated female animals. These Chemicals Also Increase Your Risk of Cancer and Heart DiseaseIf a chemical is capable of influencing the rate of your reproductive development, it stands to reason that it would be capable of influencing other hormone-sensitive growth processes as well, and this is indeed the case. For instance, new research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled.3 Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in not only puberty but also the development of breast cancer. They are widely used in household products such as:
Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing estrogen-mimicking compounds: metals. Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as "metalloestrogens" with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human body, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer and also possibly early puberty. The following metals, which are added to thousands of consumer products, including vaccines, have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens:4
Data from a long-running British health survey, meanwhile, has shown that if you have high levels of the chemical BPA in your urine, you may be at an increased risk of heart disease. Some of the greatest concern surrounds early-life, in utero exposure to BPA, which can lead to chromosomal errors in your developing fetus, causing spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. But evidence is also very strong showing these chemicals are influencing adults and children, too, and leading to decreased sperm quality, early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles and ovarian dysfunction, obesity, cancer and heart disease, among numerous other health problems. Avoiding Hormone-Disrupting Substances is Crucial for Children and Adults AlikeWhile young girls may show obvious signs of exposure to hormone-disrupting substances via early puberty, other signals are more insidious and may not show up until a disease is already present. Here are 11 measures you can implement right away to help protect yourself and your children from common toxic substances that could cause precocious puberty and other long-term health problems:
Theo Colburn's book Our Stolen Future is a great source for further investigation as it identifies the numerous ways in which environmental pollutants are disrupting human reproductive patterns. I believe it is one of the best resources on this topic and highly recommend it. Vitamin D Also Linked to Early PubertyIt has been suggested that girls who live closer to the equator start puberty at a later age than girls who live in Northern regions. Since this indicates a potential connection with sun exposure, researchers decided to investigate whether vitamin D was, in fact, related. Upon measuring vitamin D levels in 242 girls aged 5-12, researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health found that those who were deficient were twice as likely to start menstruation during the study period as those with higher levels.5 Specifically, among the vitamin-D-deficient girls, 57 percent started their period during the study, compared to 23 percent with adequate vitamin D. However, researchers defined adequate vitamin D as ≥ 30 ng/mL, which is actually still a deficiency state! For optimal health, vitamin D levels should be a minimum of 50 ng/mL, which means the number of vitamin-D-deficient girls with early puberty was probably much higher than the study reported. The earlier you enter puberty, the longer you're exposed to elevated levels of the female hormone estrogen, which is a risk factor for certain cancers such as breast cancer. This has been the primary "link" between early puberty and cancer that has been explored, but it's important to understand that vitamin D deficiency is also a major risk factor for cancer, heart disease and many other diseases. So it could be that some of the increased risks that come from early puberty are linked to low vitamin D levels. What You Should Know About Obesity, Stress and ExerciseObesity (which exposes girls to more estrogen because estrogen is both stored and produced in fat tissue) is another likely factor in early puberty. The New York Times reported:
As for stress, this, too, has been linked to early puberty, with girls whose parents divorced when they were between 3- and 8-years-old significantly more likely to experience precocious puberty. "Evolutionary psychology offers a theory," the New York Times reports. "A stressful childhood inclines a body toward early reproduction; if life is hard, best to mature young. But such theories are tough to prove." Interestingly, in addition to avoiding environmental chemicals, obesity and stress, and optimizing your vitamin D, regular exercise appears to be one of the best known ways to help prevent early puberty. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/16/early-precocious-puberty.aspx
As plastic ages or is exposed to heat or stress, it can release trace amounts of some of its ingredients. Of particular concern are bisphenol-a (BPA), used to strengthen some plastics, and phthalates, used to soften others.
These chemicals are used in hundreds of household items; BPA is in everything from baby bottles to can linings, while phthalates are found in children‘s toys as well as vinyl shower curtains. They enter your body through the food, water and bits of dust you consume, or are simply absorbed through your skin. BPA and phthalates are endocrine disrupters, which mimic hormones. Estrogen and other hormones in relatively tiny amounts can cause vast changes, so researchers worry that BPA and phthalates could do the same, especially in young children. To cut down on your exposure, avoid plastic bottles and toys labeled with the numbers 3 or 7, which often contain BPA or phthalates, and canned foods, especially those with acidic contents like tomatoes. You should also avoid heating plastic in microwaves. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/31/the-terrible-truth-about-plastic-you-never-knew.aspx More than three decades of scientific research suggests that repeatedly telling children that they are especially smart or talented leaves them vulnerable to failure, and fearful of challenges. Children raised this way develop an implicit belief that intelligence is innate and fixed, making striving to learn seem less important than seeming smart; challenges, mistakes, and effort become threats to their ego rather than opportunities to improve. However, teaching children to have a “growth mind-set,” which encourages effort rather than on intelligence or talent, helps make them into high achievers in school and in life. This results in “mastery-oriented” children who tend to think that intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. This can be done by telling stories about achievements that result from hard work. Talking about math geniuses who were born that way puts students in a fixed mind-set, but descriptions of great mathematicians who developed amazing skills over time creates a growth mind-set. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/12/22/the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids.aspx More than 80 percent of schools in America use toxic pesticides as a preventative measure, whether it‘s needed or not. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/16/80-percent-of-schools-are-applying-pesticides.aspx By Dr. Mercola Over the years, I've written a number of articles outing industry front groups1 such as the Genetic Literacy Project, the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH),2 Science 2.0, GMO Answers, Independent Women's Forum, Science Codex, Center for Consumer Freedom and the Center for Inquiry. Once you start to investigate these front groups, you'll find the same names appearing again and again, cowriting articles, interviewing each other and referring to each other's work in a closed loop. I've also written about academics and journalists who, while presenting themselves as independent experts, are actually shills for industry. This is a fairly close-knit group of individuals, so the worst actors are not hard to identify based on their associations. Well-established actors include Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy,3 Henry Miller, Steven Salzberg,4 Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine,5,6 Kevin Folta, Keith Kloor7 and Mark Lynas. Learn to Recognize Astroturfing When You See ItIn the TED Talk above, award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson discusses strategies used by industry to manipulate public opinion and steer online discussion. A strategy that has become phenomenally popular with the advent of social media is astroturfing, which is when a special interests group creates a fake grassroots campaign for or against a particular agenda. You might think it's a group of moms devoted to children's health that is touting the benefits of GMOs or vaccines, for example, when in fact the campaign is run by industry. Increasingly over the past year or so you may have seen a number of articles simultaneously criticizing both the "anti-vaxxers" and "anti-GMO movement," making contemptuous and sometimes wildly insulting comments about people who question the safety of either of these industries and their wares. While GMOs and vaccines may seem like strange bedfellows, the cross-linking of these two industries in propaganda material is neither accidental nor haphazard. Industry Messaging ExampleIn a May 18, 2017 Forbes article,8 Senapathy (one well-known mouthpiece for the GMO industry) took aim at the "anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements," saying they're "inextricably linked and cause preventable suffering."
She goes on to point out how similar the communication tactics are between vaccine and GMO detractors. Ironically, her article reveals just as much if not more about the biotech and vaccine industries' messaging tactics. You can go through her article and check off numerous boxes for how to spot a piece of industry propaganda. That includes the claim that the science is settled (which automatically precludes the need for further discussion), citing a fellow industry shill (in this case Kloor), using strong, derogatory language when describing those who disagree with industry talking points, making ample references to "conspiracy theories" and "other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought." Seven Classic Propaganda TechniquesWhenever you hear or read that someone is a "quack," and that "the science has been settled," or that something is "science-based," it's probably a smear campaign created by an astroturf group, industry front group or paid shill. In fact, the seven techniques of propaganda have been clearly delineated and are used without exception by most industries. As noted by writer Morgan Crouch in his article, "What Are the Seven Techniques of Propaganda?" these include:9
Pesticide and Vaccine Partnerships RevealedWhile Senapathy tries to show how those who question the safety of either GMOs or vaccines are all alike — that is, tinfoil hat-wearing lunatics who follow flat earth theories in their spare time — what she ultimately achieves is a perfect example of industry PR. This systematic messaging strategy has been carefully developed, and is known to have a penetrating psychological effect. Both the vaccine and biotechnology industries use the same terminology and the same psychological assault strategies to make you feel like you're in the wrong — or worse. In her article, Senapathy basically accuses all vaccine and GMO safety advocates of being killers, merely for asking questions and not settling for non-answers, and doing what they think is right for their own health and that of their children. Another article10 that connects the vaccine and chemical technology industries was recently published by The Feed. In it, Ashleigh Morse, Ph.D., whose training centers on psychology and the influence of environmental cues on decision-making, and who says she works as a consultant to "a range of clients" in the field of science communication and public health,11 argues that juries are incapable of assessing the validity of scientific evidence presented in court, or the validity of the scientific methods used. Specifically, Morse — whose professional credits include a single published research paper listed on her LinkedIN bio on the role of opioid processes in reward and decision-making — is referring to the recent jury verdict against Monsanto, but she goes on to link that to vaccine science. "When juries decide on the science, we get autism linked to vaccines and the Monsanto verdict," she writes. When In Doubt, Blame the RussiansThen there's the curious claim that the Russians are to blame for Americans' lack of faith in vaccine safety.12 According to a recent paper13 published in the American Journal of Public Health, Russian trolls and Soviet-directed Twitter bots promoted anti-vaccine information on social media to "amplify the vaccine debate" and create dissent in the U.S. According to the authors, "Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination," and "Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate." Those two sentences are interesting and revealing indeed. In a nutshell, they're saying that by providing anti-vaccine content, these bots made it seem as though there was actually something to discuss when, in the opinion of the authors, no discussion about vaccine safety should occur at all. Apparently, it is their view that the vaccine debate is "illegitimate," since there's "public consensus" on vaccines (refer back to the bandwagon strategy, No. 6 in the propaganda list above). In other words, everyone knows vaccines are safe; the science is settled, so there's no valid reason to question it. Summing up the alleged Russian bots' efforts to sway public opinion against vaccination, the authors referred to it as "weaponized health communication." The Russians Did It AgainCoincidentally, the vaccine paper above was submitted for publication shortly after news stories began circulating claiming the Russians were behind anti-GMO rhetoric.14 Minnesota Farm Living writes:15
Here, the author links to the "Are GMOs Safe?" page on the Genetic Literacy Project's website as evidence to support GMO safety. But, the Genetic Literacy Project is a well-known front group for the GMO industry and hardly a reliable source of impartial information. As for why the Russians would want to spread anti-GMO rhetoric in the U.S., the study authors note Russia has an interest in creating division among the American people to weaken the country as a whole, and to promote their own agricultural exports, as Russia banned GMOs in 2016 and is trying to increase its exports of organic food. Claim of Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety Is Patently FalseIn the Minnesota Farm Living article cited above, you can see the telltale industry rhetoric in the sentence, "the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, [yet] consumers still question their safety." The reality is there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. That is in fact the title of a scientific statement17 published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, January 24, 2015. The statement, aptly titled "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety," was signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians and scholars. What's more, the paper states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated," and that such a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue." In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still does not possess any evidence demonstrating safety because they do not do scientific reviews. And even if they did, hundreds of scientists say there's no evidence demonstrating that genetically engineered foods are safe, and a number of independent studies have raised serious health concerns. To learn more about how GMOs were introduced into the food supply without safety testing, see my two-part interview with attorney Steven Druker, author of "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth." (Part 1, Part 2.) GMO-Vaccine ConvergenceThe reason for the joining of PR forces between the vaccine and biotech industries becomes clearer when you take into account the fact that GMOs are moving into the vaccine industry. The 2016 article,18 "GMOs Lead the Fight Against Zika, Ebola and the Next Unknown Pandemic," published in The Conversation, asserts that GMOs play a "vital role" in medicine, adding:
Additionally, scientists are also exploring the possibility of vaccinating plants against pests as an alternative to using pesticides.19 In other words, it's really quite crucial for these two bedfellows, strange as their joining may seem at first, to get people to embrace both genetic engineering and vaccines. That's why we're now seeing more and more articles deriding both vaccine and GMO safety advocates in the same piece, whether it necessarily makes sense to do so or not. Both of these industries are using the exact same messaging strategies — because so far they have worked — to achieve the same aim: Shame those who dare question the safety of either, and make them feel like ignorant outcasts and social misfits, thereby shutting down the conversation. Preempting Your RightsIn my five-part "Ghost in the Machine" series, I discuss the many ways in which big industries manipulate science, and how they've captured our regulatory agencies and manipulate our political system. Here's a listing of the series, in case you missed any of them: A feature common to both the vaccine industry and the biotech industry is the use of legislation to preempt your rights and force you to use their products whether you want to or not, and without regard for the health consequences. In recent years, I've written extensively about the vaccine industry's attempts to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions across the U.S. In some cases, they've succeeded. In others, they've lost, but efforts to strip every American of their right to informed consent and medical freedom is ongoing. The chemical technology industry is following the same agenda. One of the latest infringements on your rights is a provision in the Farm Bill that would block local governments from regulating pesticide use. The U.S. House committee approved the draft back in April. As noted by Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides:20
Monsanto Ghostwriting Shill Attempts to Tie USRTK to Russian Troll EffortsA common corporate tactic is to use "third-party experts" to bring the industry's message to the public under the cloak of independent opinion or expertise (No. 4, "Testimonial"). The idea is that academic types are far more credible than industry employees when it comes to defending the industry's position. A well-known spokesperson for the GMO industry is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California. A "No on 37" advertisement had to be pulled off the air because Miller was fraudulently identified as being part of the Stanford University faculty. Last year, Miller was outed yet again — this time as a ghostwriter for Monsanto. Forbes fired Miller when it became clear he had submitted ghostwritten material. On a relevant side note, Senapathy has cowritten articles with Miller, which is why some of her Forbes articles ended up being deleted as well,21 and the foreword for her book "Fear Babe" was written by Folta, a University of Florida professor who hid his financial ties to Monsanto. The Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) discovery against Monsanto was led by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). Proving he's still working on Monsanto's behalf, Miller penned a two-part article22,23 for Investor's Business Daily this past summer, in which he tries — quite unsuccessfully — to tie USRTK to the alleged Russian GMO disinformation campaign. The fact that they're still turning to Miller is probably a sign of just how desperate Monsanto (now Bayer) has become. Other discovery documents obtained by USRTK included email correspondence revealing Monsanto has been quite desperate for a number of years already. In an email dated February 26, 2015, Daniel Goldstein, senior science lead of medical sciences and outreach for Monsanto, tells Monsanto's food safety scientific affairs lead, John Vicini, Ph.D.:24 In this email, Goldstein admits two pearls: First, the list of supporters willing to do their dirty work is short — which is why we keep seeing the same names pop up in pro-GMO propaganda pieces — and ACSH is a most valuable front group for the biotech industry. Another Undercover Ambassador for GMO Industry Wants You to Think the Russians Are Responsible for 'Anti-Vaccine Myths'So, who else wants you to think that "the Russians did it"? Mark Lynas, a long-term shill for the GMO industry, just published: "Opinion: Russian Campaign to Spread Anti-Vaccine Myths Part of a Wider War on Science and Truth"25 on the Alliance for Science website. As the other examples cited above, Lynas — normally a pro-GMO advocate — is now cross-linking GMOs and vaccines, closely mimicking the core message of Senapathy's article, which is that "Many anti-GMO groups and anti-vaxxers are closely linked." Again, what we're seeing is a crossover or merging of the GMO and vaccine industries in terms of messaging and propaganda angles. Rather than fighting public doubt separately, the shills for these industries are now putting out a single joint message that anyone who doubts the science presented by either of them is an anti-science nut job. The take-home message here is that these tactics are nothing but a PR ploy. Yes, they're trying to make you feel like an outsider, an outcast. They're trying to make you feel ashamed of your "ignorance," or worse, as if you've fallen for false propaganda propagated by evil Russians in an effort to divide and conquer. But all you really need to do is look for the hallmarks of astroturfing, and you'll quickly see through their ruse. You are not wrong for questioning flawed and biased science. You are not ignorant for questioning whether vaccines and GMOs might be unsafe when there's a clear lack of evidence to support safety claims. You are not a danger to the public for looking at the evidence and making your own decisions about whether or not you want your family to receive a particular vaccine or eat a certain food. Your inquiries and thought processes are only dangerous to the industries in question which, by the way, are willing to go to just about any lengths to hide the dangers of their products in order to maintain their profits. Stand your ground. It's solid. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/09/18/gmo-and-vaccine-partnerships.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |