Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers On The Rise
March 16, 2010
Businessweek.com
By Jenifer Goodwin
The incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer has steadily increased since the 1990s, making it by far the most common form of cancer, affecting more people than all other cancers combined, two new studies find.
More than 2 million Americans on Medicare were treated for non-melanoma skin cancer in 2006, up from 1.6 million in 1992, according to one study. The other found that one in five 70-year-olds has been treated for non-melanoma skin cancer.
Researchers called non-melanoma skin cancer an “epidemic” that is only going to get worse as all those bathing beauties and sun worshippers from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s get older, and their cumulative sun exposure racks up.
“We are dealing with a problem that is not going away,” said Dr. Howard Rogers, a dermatologist in Norwich, Conn., and lead author of one of the studies. “The number has kept going up and up at a rate of 4.2 percent every year, on average, from 1992 to 2006,” he said.
The studies are published in the March issue of the Archives of Dermatology.
The two types of non-melanoma skin cancer are basal cell and squamous cell. While basal cell carcinoma is slow-growing and rarely fatal, it can damage the surrounding tissue and bone if it’s not caught early, causing disfigurement when the cancer is removed.
Squamous cell carcinoma is also rarely fatal, though it can metastasize and spread to the lymph nodes and other organs, Rogers said. When caught early, squamous cell carcinomas are also highly treatable.
In the study by Rogers and colleagues, the researchers analyzed data from two Medicare databases and national surveys. They found the total number of procedures to treat skin cancer in the Medicare population increased by nearly 77 percent between 1992 and 2006. Between 2002 and 2006 alone, skin cancer procedures increased by 16 percent.
In the second study, Dr. Robert Stern of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston, developed a mathematical model to estimate the prevalence of non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States.
With about 13 million white non-Hispanic U.S. residents having been treated for at least one non-melanoma skin cancer at the beginning of 2007, that means non-melanoma skin cancers have struck five times as many people as breast or prostate cancer. More people have had non-melanoma skin cancer than all other cancers combined over the last 31 years, according to the study.
Most of those who had a non-melanoma skin cancer had more than one, with the average being 1.6, he noted.
“This is only going to get worse,” said Dr. Suephy Chen, an associate professor of dermatology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. “Our population is aging. Those people who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s when there was not a big sun-protection message out there are now coming into their 50s and 60s and are starting to develop skin cancers.”
While non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common, melanoma is a serious worry. Though melanoma accounts for less than 5 percent of all skin cancers, it was expected to lead to an estimated 8,650 deaths in 2009, according to the American Cancer Society.
In a third paper in the same journal, researchers from the U.S. National Cancer Institute found survivors of one melanoma are about nine times as likely as the general population to develop a second melanoma.
Of nearly 90,000 patients who survived at least two months after an initial melanoma diagnosis between 1973 and 2006, about 12 percent developed one or more other primary cancers. One-fourth of those were additional melanomas, according to the study. Women with head and neck melanoma and patients younger than 30 had even higher increased risks of developing another melanoma.
As incidence has risen, so has the cost of treating melanoma. In adults 65 and older, melanoma treatment costs about $249 million annually, or about $28,000 per patient lifetime, according to a fourth study in the same journal by Chen and her colleagues at Emory University.
Catching melanoma early is critical for saving lives and controlling costs, Chen said. About 40 percent of the annual cost for melanoma goes to treating stage 4 (advanced) cancers, even though they account for only 3 percent of melanomas.
“It’s a huge difference in the cost of taking care of a stage 1 versus a stage 4 patient,” Chen said. “It makes a lot of sense to invest in early detection and prevention measures such that the economic burden is not so high.”
In an accompanying editorial, researchers from Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, called for a “revised health strategy” that treats skin cancer as a chronic disease requiring not just a one-time treatment, but ongoing monitoring of patients, prevention and education.
To lessen your chances of getting skin cancer, dermatologists recommend applying broad-spectrum sunscreen liberally and often; wearing hats and other protective clothing when out in the sun; avoiding sun exposure when the sun’s rays are the strongest — between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. — and never using tanning beds.
It’s especially important to take these steps with children and teens (to the extent they will listen), Rogers said. Skin cancer is turning up in younger and younger patients. In the past week or so, he removed non-melanoma cancer off the cheek of a 17-year-old boy and removed a melanoma from an 18-year-old girl.
And even if you have memories of basting yourself with baby oil, or you’re a retiree and loathe to miss your weekly tee time, it’s never too late to start decreasing your exposure.
“Think of sun exposure like putting money in a bank that you can’t withdraw,” Rogers said. “You can’t get rid of the damage you have, but continued sun exposure accelerates the rate at which you will develop new skin cancers. Protecting your skin from the sun will help decrease the rate.”
Click here for the full report.
Disease Cause Is Pinpointed With Genome
March 12, 2010
Reuters
By Julie Steenhuysen
The studies, which would not have been possible a year or two ago, are the first real delivery of the promised transformation of medical science from the Human Genome Project’s mapping of the human genetic code.
One was also made possible by some of the $5 billion that U.S. President Barack Obama directed to the National Institutes of Health in September from the $787 billion economic stimulus package.
And in that study, the genetic researcher was himself one of the patients.
Dr. James Lupski of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston has a recessive genetic disease called Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome. It affects the nerves stretching from the spinal cord to the arms, legs and feet.
Lupski has been experimenting on himself and his own family for years.
“We tried every other method for 25 years to find out which mutation was important,” he said in a telephone interview.
“With this methodology we were able to do it. This is the first time whole genome sequencing has applied to actually find the cause of a disease.”
Lupski had been taking blood samples from his grandparents, parents and siblings for years. He got close but the research was considered too risky for funding by the National Institutes of Health.
“He was only able to complete this study because of the stimulus money that we got,” said Dr. Story Landis, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Her institute designated Lupski’s project for about half a million dollars of the money that Obama directed to the NIH.
RECESSIVE GENES
Lupski’s team used a gene sequencer from Carlsbad, California-based Life Technologies to read the entire DNA code in the samples from Lupski and three of his siblings who have the syndrome, his parents and four other siblings who do not.
“It is a recessive disease and neither of my parents have the disease. Each of us who has it got one mutant allele (gene) from my mom and one mutant allele from my dad,” he said.
Researchers know about 40 different genes that can cause Charcot-Marie-Tooth. But in each family, only one of these genes is involved.
The sequencing revealed a gene called SH3TC2, the researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Other groups are already working on a drug that may affect that gene, Lupski said.
The researchers also found that family members who inherited just one faulty copy of the gene had a predisposition to carpal tunnel syndrome, in which a nerve in the wrist can get pinched.
As prices are coming down on the cost of sequencing a human genome, more such research will be possible.
“We estimate that the entire effort would currently cost less than $50,000,” the researchers wrote.
In a second study, Jared Roach of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle and colleagues sequenced the entire genomes of a family of four affected by two recessive genetic diseases — Miller syndrome, which can cause facial disfigurement, and primary ciliary dyskinesia, a lung disorder that raises the risk of respiratory infections because the hairlike extension on cells called cilia fail to move properly.
“Our results demonstrate the unique value of complete genome sequencing in families,” they wrote in the journal Science.
They used a sequencer made by another one of the companies exploiting genomic sequencing, Complete Genomics based in Mountain View, California.
Click here for the full report
Sniffing Trumps Weed for 12-Year-Olds
March 12, 2010
Fox News
It’s important to warn children about the dangers of drugs like marijuana and cocaine, but what parents really need to worry about, researchers say, is their kids “huffing” common household products such as shoe polish, glue and air fresheners.
In fact, more 12 year olds have used potentially lethal inhalants to get high than marijuana, cocaine and hallucinogens combined, according to data released Thursday by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in conjunction with the 18th annual National Inhalants & Poisons Awareness Week.
“We continue to face the challenge of increasing experimentation and intentional misuse of common household products among the youngest and most vulnerable segments of our population – 12 year olds,” Harvey Weiss, executive director of The National Inhalant Prevention Coalition, said in a news release.
The frightening thing about “huffing” is that most parents are not aware that the use of inhalants can cause “sudden sniffing death,” which is immediate death due to cardiac arrest. Kevin Talley, the father of Amber Ann Suri, learned that lesson much too late: Amber died in February 2009 after huffing. Although she was taken to a doctor, she was only treated for sinus problems and died a short time later.
As a physician, I cannot stress enough the importance of educating adolescents about the dangers of the inhalation of volatile substances,” said Dr. Jennifer N. Caudle, an osteopathic family physician and director of the family medicine section of the Department of Internal Medicine at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore. “Young people do not always realize the consequences of their actions. It is possible to die from trying inhalants even once. ‘Sudden sniffing death’ causes the heart to beat rapidly, which can result in cardiac arrest.”
SAMHSA data from the 2006-2008 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health show a rate of lifetime inhalant use among 12 year olds of 6.9 percent, compared to a rate of 5.1 percent for nonmedical use of prescription type drugs; a rate of 1.4 percent for marijuana; a rate of 0.7 percent for use of hallucinogens; and a 0.1 rate for cocaine use.
Click here for the full report
3D TV May Be The Future Despite Fears of Causing Health Problems
March 12, 2010
Mail Online
By Mail Foriegn Service
Avatar director James Cameron hailed 3D TV as ‘the future’ last night as he helped launch a range of 3D television sets.
At a glitzy launch in New York of Samsung 3D sets, he told the crowd: ‘You will all remember that you were here, in Times Square, for the launch of the television of the future.’
The Black Eyed Peas were called in to perform and lend the event a touch of glamour as fears surfaced that viewers could experience health problems while watching the screens.
Viewers wear electronic glasses with the screens which open and close rapidly in time, with images designed for the right and left eye, creating a three-dimensional effect.
But doctors said headaches and visual disturbance were likely.
Dr Michael Rosenberg, an ophthalmology professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said: ‘There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems, for example a minor muscle imbalance, which under normal circumstances, the brain deals with naturally.’
But he said that in a 3D film, these people are confronted with an entirely new sensory experience.
‘That translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache,’ he added.
A recent study by the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that 3D does cause headaches and blurred vision.
Researchers attributed this to viewers focusing on the foreground and distance simultaneously.
There have been a number of anecdotal reports of viewers developing headaches while watching Avatar and the internet is awash with forums advising how to avoid head pain while viewing 3D.
Samsung, which is the industry leader for flat-screen televisions, was the first to unveil its range of sets which will hit British shops by the end of the month.
They are offering 46 and 55-inch televisions and Blu-ray with two pairs of 3D glasses.
In hot pursuit is Panasonic, which is also launching its first 3D televisions at a BestBuys shop in New York this week. Sony, meanwhile, aims to start selling its sets in June.
British retailers are already preparing for a rush of orders when the new ranges become available.
Bill Moir, head of marketing at electrical specialist Comet said: ‘Our first 3DTVs will be available to pre-order online from the end of March and available in stores in April.
‘We’ve already seen a lot of demand for the new technology. Thousands of customers have already registered their details online with us to receive more information about 3DTV ahead of the UK launch.’
Experts predict that within five years every full-size television will have 3D capability.
Click here for the full report
The Men Who Run The Global Phamaceutical Industry
February 26, 2010
24/7 Wall St.
By Douglas A. McIntyre and Michael B. Sauter
There are twelve major pharmaceutical firms that dominate this industry worldwide. Their combined market value is over $1 trillion with total annual sales of over $500 billion. The firms have developed and marketed most of the global blockbuster drugs. Most of the significant actions take by the FDA and other drug and medical device regulatory bodies involve the medications, devices, and vaccines developed by these firms.
These twelve companies are also involved in most of the large product liability actions and class action suits regarding prescription drugs. The largest pharmaceutical firms spend tens of million of dollars in legal fees and lobbying expenses every year to protect the intellectual property they have created and to defend themselves when side effects from their products injure customers.
The twelve CEOs on this list are the global drugs lords. They operate in a heavily regulated industry and have close and often fractious relationships with the governments whose agencies work with them. 24/7 Wall St. has looked at each company, its blockbuster drugs, and its most valuable board members. These members are often not the most well-known people on the boards. They are, however, individuals from the medical community, former regulators, academicians involved in the medical research world, and fixers who serve on large numbers of boards and whose contacts in the world of government and industry are invaluable.
The drug industry is under seige by generics and rising costs of R&D. Many of the largest firms in the sector, the companies on this list, have been though substantial restructurings and have fired tens of thousand of people, cutting R&D budgets in the process. This generation of CEOs and board members will shape the rapidly changing industry more than any other group in decades.
Click here for the full report
Many Cancer Patients Over Radiated
February 26, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
One of the advantages of natural medicine is that if you make a mistake on your dosage, it’s usually no big deal because natural medicine is inherently safe. But conventional medicine, with all its toxic chemotherapy poisons and irradiation machines, can be fatal even when simple mistakes are made. Numerous patients have already been killed by miscalibrated chemotherapy pumps that drip poison in to the bodies of patients. And now there’s news from Springfield Missouri where an actively-used brain cancer irradiation machine has been miscalibrated since 2004.
Oops. Gee, didn’t anyone wonder why the burn marks were so severe and patients were losing brain function so rapidly?
Oh, wait. I forgot: Nobody noticed because losing cognitive function is a “normal” side effect of conventional cancer treatments. Harming patients in the cancer industry is now so routine that nobody even notices it anymore!
Nobody bothered to check the machine
The facts of this case are a bit frightening because this could happen anywhere, in any hospital: For the last five years, patients undergoing brain irradiation treatments have been over-exposed to very high levels of radiation. The radiation machine at the CoxHealth hospital in Springfield, Missouri was apparently never calibrated correctly. The incompetent technicians who set up the machine (who probably lost their own brain function as a result of being around so many miscalibrated radiation machines) apparently never bothered to configure it correctly. They just used the default setting the machine came with, which happened to be the “Fry my brain” setting.
Now here’s the really scary part: The massive radiation overdose problem was only discovered when the hospital trained a new physician on the machine. They were apparently going over all the settings and functions of the machine when the new doctor asked something like, “Hey, why is this dosage knob turned all the way up to ‘Hiroshima’?”
Hospital administrators scratched their heads (after which clumps of hair fell out) and then began to realize something was wrong. “This might explain all the severe radiation burns on patients skulls…”
Oops.
So what, exactly, do you do in a case like this? Do you call all the brain cancer patients who suffered radiation burns and a loss of cognitive function and say, “Um, we’re really sorry that we fried your brain because we were too stupid to configure the radiation machine correctly…”
Or do you just hope no one notices because cancer patients are too frightened to know the difference between “treatment” and a radiological assault?
I have a solution to this problem
This accidental irradiation overdose issue is a huge problem all across the country. Radiation machines are often miscalibrated, and there’s virtually no oversight by anyone. Hospitals can openly operate miscalibrated machines for years on end without anyone doing a single thing to stop them.
But I have a simple, highly-effective solution to this problem: Just require cancer doctors to irradiate their own brains using the machines before treating patients. If such a rule were enforced, I’ll bet you that all of a sudden those machines would be correctly calibrated.
Naturopathic physicians, by the way, aren’t afraid to take the same medicine they’re about to prescribe to patients. You need these anti-viral herbs? I’ll take some too just to show you how safe they are, see? No big deal.
But conventional cancer doctors would never inject themselves with chemotherapy or stick their heads under an operating radiotherapy machine. You know why? Because those treatments are dangerous! That’s why they’re reserved solely for patients. Only the patients get poisoned and irradiated.
Why do you think radiology technicians flee the room before they fire up their machines on patients? They flee the room because they don’t want to be anywhere near that radiation!
Cancer doctors aren’t very bright about curing cancer, but they are smart enough to figure out that radiation = cancer. Which makes it all the more hilarious that they use radiation to treat cancer, huh?
Click here for the full report
Double Mastectomy May Not Improve Survival
February 26, 2010
Business Week
By Kathleen Doheny
Women with breast cancer who choose to have a preventive mastectomy on their disease-free breast do reduce their risk of cancer in that breast, studies have shown.
But now new research finds that the survival benefit from that preventive surgery is small and not equal among all women.
“The survival benefit was limited to a small subset of all breast cancer patients [studied],” said study author Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian, an assistant professor of surgical oncology at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston.
Those most likely to derive a survival benefit, she said, were those younger than 50 who had been diagnosed with early-stage cancers that were estrogen receptor (ER)-negative.
ER-negative tumors don’t require estrogen to grow, as do ER-positive tumors, and the prognosis is poorer for the ER-negative cancers, according to the American Cancer Society.
The study is published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
According to Bedrosian and others, experts have long known that women diagnosed with breast cancer have an elevated risk of developing cancer in the opposite breast. Removing that breast as a preventive measure reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of cancer in that breast.
“But we have never really established the difference it makes in the survival of breast cancer patients,” she said. So, Bedrosian and her colleagues used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, evaluating 107,106 women with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy for that cancer between 1998 and 2003, along with a subset of 8,902 who had the opposite breast removed as a preventive measure.
After a five-year follow-up, 88.5 percent of those who had the opposite breast surgery were alive, versus 83.7 percent of those who did not, a difference of less than 5 percent. The improved survival was clear for a select group, mostly the women aged 18 to 49 with early-stage, ER-negative tumors, the researchers found.
There was no information from the database on whether the women had genetic mutations to boost breast cancer risk, Bedrosian noted.
After five years, what might happen? “We actually would expect that number [the nearly 5 percent benefit] would increase over time,” Bedrosian said.
The findings makes sense to Dr. Allison W. Kurian, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine in Stanford, Calif., who has published research on the topic.
“These results are consistent with other studies,” she said, including her own research published in 2009 in the same journal, which found that the risk for a breast cancer in the opposite breast is affected by a variety of factors, with those having ER-negative tumors in the original breast cancer having a higher risk of getting second tumors in the opposite breast.
Bedrosian said her research suggests most women diagnosed with breast cancer shouldn’t be concerned about the opposite breast: “We cannot demonstrate for most of them a survival benefit [with preventive mastectomy on the opposite breast].”
However, she said, psychological factors should also be taken into account. “There are some patients who may feel they still want to do this,” she said.
Kurian agreed: “This paper does give more information [about the outlook for various women], but it remains a personal decision for women to discuss with their doctor.”
Click here for the full report
9 Food Label Lies
February 26, 2010
Mercola
Dr. Mercola
The healthiest food often has the least marketing muscle behind it. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently published a comprehensive report on the subject, a persuasive indictment called “Food Labeling Chaos.”
Here are nine of the most common ways food labels lie, so you can prepare before your next trip to the grocery store.
“Made With Whole Grains”
Unbleached wheat flour is still the main ingredient; whole wheat flour is further down on the list, indicating that the product contains relatively little. One truth — the presence of whole grains — masks another; that whole grains make up an insignificant portion of the food.
Another factor to keep in mind is the presence of potassium bromate, a dough conditioner found in commercial bakery products and some flours, which is a major, but hidden cause of thyroid dysfunction. This ingredient may be used even in whole grain breads. For more information, please review this previous article.
Ingredients
Even if the first ingredient listed isn’t sugar, the product may contain more sugar than anything else. How is it possible? Just add up all the sugars that go by different names, such as sugar, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup and white grape juice concentrate.
Serving Size
There are 2.5 official servings in a 20 ounce soda bottles, meaning that 100 calories per “serving” is really 240 calories per bottle.
Omega 3
Everyone knows omega-3 fats are healthy, but that doesn’t mean every product emblazoned with the word is a healthy source of it. The FDA allows certain foods that are rich in two of the omega-3 fats to advertise that they can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, but only if they’re also low in saturated fats or other risk factors. Which is why some unhealthy foods use a bit of marketing misdirection: the packaging has the word “omega-3,” but nothing specifically about heart health.
“Made With Real Fruit”
Usually the only thing approximating fruit is concentrate (sugar). If you want real fruit, buy real fruit. If you want candy, buy candy.
“0 Trans Fat”
Many reformulated foods are basically just as bad, but they scream one truth: “0 trans fats!” to obscure another: “still bad for your heart!”
“Free Range Eggs”
This means chickens must be granted the luxury of exactly five minutes of “access” to the outdoors every day. Those eggs you buy may have been raised ethically, with room enough for hens to roam the yard. But there’s no guarantee in the “free range” label.
Fiber
The fibers advertised in many foods are mainly “purified powders” called inulin, polydextrose and maltodextrin. These “isolated” unnatural fibers are unlikely to lower blood cholesterol or blood sugar, as other fibers can.
Tastes Like Medicine!
The FDA allows food manufacturers to make certain pre-approved “qualified health claims” about the health benefits of nutrients in food. But marketers have stretched this inch into a long mile. For instance, food makers can’t say that their product “helps reduce the risk of heart disease” without FDA approval, so they say that it “helps maintain a healthy heart.”
That’s why several public health groups, including the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, have voiced concern about this trend.
Click here for the full report
Treating Brain Injuries with Amino Acids
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Researchers from The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have found in a lab study that amino acids are highly effective at restoring cognitive function and balancing neurochemical levels in those who have undergone brain trauma. Conducted on mice who had been inflicted with traumatic brain damage, the study holds promising potential for humans with similar injuries.
The study appeared in the online journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In it, researchers fed brain-injured mice leucine, isoleucine, and valine, three branched chain amino acids (BCAAs) that have been shown to heal severe brain injuries. The result was that the brain-injured mice demonstrated a full cognitive recovery, visibly responding the same as uninjured mice following their treatment.
The BCAAs used in the study are the precursors to two important neurotransmitters, glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) which jointly balance proper brain activity. Damage to the hippocampus, the portion of the brain that sustains memory and higher learning, is typical during a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and results in reduced BCAA levels. Supplementation with BCAAs has proven to rejuvenate the brain and restore it to normal function.
Intravenous nourishment with BCAAs has been done before, however in this study the BCAA mixture was added to the mice’s drinking water. Dr. Akiva Cohen, Ph.D. and author of the study, recommends dietary supplementation with BCAAs for human TBI treatment. He believes oral rather than intravenous supplementation is preferable because, rather than flood the brain with too high a dose intravenously, drinking BCAAs will provide a more sustained dose with increased benefits.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
This is interesting research because it shows how dietary supplements can give the brain the raw materials it needs to heal itself. The fact that this process exists at all is considered utterly impossible by the FDA, which maintains the ridiculous position that there is no such thing as a nutritional supplement that has any therapeutic effect on the human body whatsoever.
If BCAAs actually worked, the FDA says, they would be “drugs” instead of supplements. And they would be regulated and available only by prescription. The FDA cannot tolerate the existence of a nutritional supplement that actually works to accelerate healing while being freely available to anyone who wants to buy it.
Reality, however, stands in contrast to the FDA. In the real world, nutrients do help the brain heal. In the real world, food is medicine. The FDA, to its own embarrassment, continues to deny this simple fact of human physiology.
Click here for the full report
The Forced Vaccine Argument – Act of Violence?
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
This parody cartoon grew out of the idea that vaccines are “shots” that are being increasingly forced upon children and teens. At times, these vaccines are enforced at gunpoint or with the presence of vicious guard dogs — as happened in Maryland two years ago when a court judge ordered thousands of parents to bring their children to court for vaccination or face gunpoint arrest and possible jail time.
Most modern vaccinations are, of course, a form of chemical violence against children. If they were all formulated without chemical preservatives (like thimerosal) and dangerous adjuvants (which can harm the nervous system), that might be a different story. But far too many of today’s vaccines are chemical concoctions that are entirely unnatural to the human body. To force them into the bodies of innocent children is an act of medical violence.
The method of introducing the vaccines is unnatural and highly interventionist: These chemicals and DNA / RNA fragments are injected directly into the tissues and blood, bypassing the skin (a normal protective defense) and bypassing the digestive system, too. An injected mandatory vaccine dumps foreign material directly into the bloodstream of children without the consent of either the child or the parents — that’s what qualifies mandatory vaccines as “chemical violence” against children.
The Mad Doctor is in
The doctor in this parody cartoon was intentionally created to depict a “crazed” mad doctor because nothing turns an ordinary doctor into a mad man faster than an argument about vaccines. While he may seem to be a reasonable person on all other subjects, once you challenge him on the dangers of over-vaccination of children, all reason gets thrown out the window and he morphs into a raging lunatic of unscientific emotion.
The complete lack of scientific evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines makes no difference to him. “Vaccines need no science,” he’ll say, “Because everybody knows they work!”
My offer of $10,000 to anyone who can produce a scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of H1N1 vaccines remains utterly unclaimed.
Vaccine failures are common
Meanwhile, in the real world vaccines are failing miserably. A recent outbreak of mumps in the New Jersey / New York area occurred almost entirely among children who had already been vaccinated against mumps.
Clearly if vaccines really worked, then an outbreak should have only occurred among those who were NOT vaccinated against mumps, right? But as I reported here on NaturalNews, 77 percent of the children who got infected had already been vaccinated!
A similar truth emerges when you look at H1N1 deaths: Thousands of those who were vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu had already received the vaccine shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H…). We still don’t know the exact number of how many vaccinated people died because the CDC is hiding that data from the public, making sure the mainstream media doesn’t learn the truth that even many of those who were vaccinated still died.
What the CDC and its Big Pharma cohorts want people to mistakenly believe is that vaccines always offer protection against infectious disease. (100% protection). But this is blatantly false. In fact, because vaccines introduce a weakened virus into the body, they may hamper the normal immune response, creating systemic weakness that makes people more vulnerable to future infectious disease. In essence, weakened viruses create weakened immune responses, “training” the immune system to be more passive against future threats. That’s why people who received vaccines in the past are far more likely to die of infectious disease in the future.
Click here for the full report
