Today, Kevin explains why HCG drops absolutely do not work and why certain steps will guarantee success in network marketing. Plus, Dr. Theresa Dale stops by to reveal the homoeopathic ways to protect yourself from radiation exposure and how to get your hands on homeopathic vaccines!
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, Kevin explains how diet foods are specifically designed to make you fat and how America is slowly being sold to the highest bidder.
Reporter Suffers Stroke On Air
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
April 18, 2012
By Alan Phillips, J.D.
“So New York thinks children are smart enough to make their own health decisions. If this is the case, why not let them eat ice cream for dinner?” –KTRN
New York’s A343 and S384, if enacted into law, will give children the right to consent to HPV and Hep B vaccines, without the knowledge and consent of their parents. Regardless of your position on vaccines, these bills set a disturbing precedent in violation of the U.S. Constitution. If you live in New York, take or send this Memorandum of Law to your state representatives, along with any other concerns you may have, to oppose these bills!
As a starting place, constituents are “one person with one vote.” If your position is one held by a minority, which is usually the case with vaccine freedom-of-choice advocates, legislative activism is an up-hill battle. But legislative activism involves the art of persuasion, since ultimately, legislatures can enact any law they have the votes for, Constitutional or not. So, if you can tell your representative, “I don’t like this bill” and why that can be persuasive, but if you can add to that, “and by the way, you can’t enact this bill into law because it’s unconstitutional,” you can substantially bolster your “one person, one vote” starting point. Furthermore, a loud minority can often influence legislation considerably, and a compelling legal argument can add considerable “volume” to your position. So, if this Memorandum represents your views, then given a copy to your NY rep today!
Meanwhile, here’s a summary of some of the legal and other problems with NY’s A343 and S384:
1. They are unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated: “Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.” Giving medical decision-making authority to children violates parents’ 14th Amendment Constitutional due process right to parent their children. When the state takes parental decision-making away from parents, it is essentially saying that the parents are unfit to make those decisions. When the state gives that authority to children, it is saying that kids are fit to make decisions that the parents aren’t fit to make. Rather absurd, isn’t it?!
2. These NY bills violate parents’ First Amendment “free exercise” of religion. Parents, and not children, have the legal authority to exercise a vaccine religious exemption for their children under N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2164(9). They also violate the NY State Constitution’s religious liberty section, which supports NY parents’ right to refuse vaccines for their children for religious reasons.
3. These bills violate the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which requires “each healthcare provider who administers a vaccine” to “provide to the legal representatives of any child” a copy of information “prior to the administration of the vaccine.” A child can’t consent to the administration of a vaccine without the parent’s knowledge and consent if the person administering the vaccine must first give the parent vaccine information. If healthcare providers administer a vaccine to a child without first giving the required information to parents, they are violating federal law, and in the process, probably violating state medical ethical rules at the same time (because of violating federal law), subjecting themselves to discipline by their state medical, nursing, or other relevant boards.
April 12, 2012
By Ethan A. Huff
“When are these doctors going to learn? Adults shouldn’t even be taking acetaminophen – now they want you to give it to your babies. Let’s kill their livers right away. What a crock.” –KTRN
A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics suggests that giving eight-week-old babies several doses of acetaminophen (Tylenol) before and after the barrage of recommended childhood vaccines they typically receive will help them to sleep better, and improve vaccine efficacy. And because many doctors believe that sleeping after vaccinations is a positive sign that vaccines are supposedly “working,” this dangerous protocol could become common practice among pediatric doctors when administering childhood vaccines.
Linda Franck and her colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco’s (UCSF) Department of Family Health Care Nursing conducted a randomized, controlled trial on 70 infants that technically constitutes child abuse. For their study, the team told one group of mothers to administer standard care to their babies, while the other was told to give their babies a heavy load of pre-dosed acetaminophen 30 minutes before receiving their vaccines, and every four hours after that for a total of five doses.
At the conclusion of the study, the team observed that acetaminophen helped the babies to sleep more, and also allegedly helped to increase their antibody production rates. Franck and her colleagues also made the suggestion based on their findings that young babies receive their vaccinations in the afternoon rather than in the morning, so that sleep would come more naturally in the 24 hours that followed.
It is bad enough that babies are injected with upwards of 20 vaccines within the first few months of their lives (http://www.cdc.gov). But now researchers want to give these delicate, developing human beings large doses of acetaminophen, which has been shown in numerous studies to cause liver and kidney damage, and even death (http://www.lef.org).
April 6, 2012
By Mike Adams
“More proof that vaccines are just another money maker for big pharma.” –KTRN
For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actually cause measles. And flu shot vaccines actually increase susceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)
Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.
New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.
As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…)
In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough — the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. “We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention.”
This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:
“GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine’s protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it’s still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough.”
Huh? So let me get this straight:
• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.
• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.
• Doctors openly admit the vaccine “doesn’t provide lasting protection” against the disease.
• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!
That’s essentially like saying, “We know these vaccines don’t really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway.”
April 5, 2012
By Jonathan Benson
“Here is more evidence that demonstrates how vaccines are causing autism in children.” –KTRN
The rate of autism among American children has nearly doubled over the past decade, according to a new report released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jumping from about one in 150 children back in 2000 to about one in 88 children in 2008, which is the last time official estimates were calculated. And interestingly, this steady rise in autism rates coincides directly with CDC-endorsed vaccination schedules that have also risen sharply since the 1980s.
Back in 1983, for example, the CDC recommended only ten vaccines for children from birth through six years old (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/images/schedule1983s.jpg). Today, that number has risen significantly to 29 vaccines and counting, many of which are now administered all at one time or in combinations like the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (http://www.cdc.gov).
And yet the mainstream medical system and its allies in the government and media are willfully ignoring this glaring fact, blaming “unknown” causes and “genetics” for causing autism, which are the two most common catch-all scapegoats. And in explaining the drastic rise in autism rates over the years, the talking heads actually claim that there is no rise — the seemingly elevated autism rates are merely the result of improved autism screening methods that are now identifying more cases.
March 28, 2012
By Ethan A. Huff
“More evidence that vaccines are virtually pointless.” –KTRN
While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body’s natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.
The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.
But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.
“Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity,” said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. “It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis.”
March 26, 2012
By Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D.
“If you thinks vaccines are safe – think again.” –KTRN
The swine flu pandemic of 2009 was caused by a type A influenza (H1N1) virus. This virus was originally referred to as “swine flu” because many of the genes of this new virus were very similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs in North America. The H1N1 virus is genetically similar to the 1918 pandemic virus, as determined from victims of the latter who were buried, and later disinterred, in Svalbard. It was responsible for most of the outbreaks up until 1956 and then disappeared.
However, this new virus was actually quite different from the typical swine flu viruses. This virus first caused illness in Mexico and the United States in March and April, 2009. This novel H1N1 flu spread from person to person, unlike typical swine flu. In 2009 vaccines were being developed for the prevention of swine flu in humans. (Source)
On 11 June 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the swine flu had developed into a full-scale world epidemic — a pandemic alert to Phase 6. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of WHO, commented on the situation in a somewhat ambiguous way. While stressing that the swine flu had reached a serious pandemic level, she declared later in the same statement that the illness seemed to be mild and that most of the patients would recover without medical intervention. (Source)
The world chose to listen to the first part of her message.
Two pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Novartis had, under considerable time pressure, developed a vaccine against the swine flu. Since the cultivation of an adequate amount of virus to generate the vaccine requires time, GSK and Novartis decided to formulate a weaker vaccine but strengthen it with an adjuvant that contains squalene. Immunologic adjuvants are substances, administered in conjunction with a vaccine, that stimulate the immune system and increase the response to the vaccine.
FDA Admits Mercury In Cosmetic Products Is Extremely Toxic – So How Is It Safe In Dental Fillings and Vaccines?
March 14, 2012
By Ethan A. Huff
“The FDA is at it again. They say mercury in cosmetic products is toxic, but they have nothing to say when it comes to the mercury in vaccines. There are probably no former executives from Cover Girl working at the FDA.” –KTRN
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an updated warning about skin care products that may contain mercury, including many anti-aging, smoothing, skin-lightening, and beauty lotions and creams sold at ethnic beauty shops and online. Some of the tainted personal care products, most of which are imported, have been found to contain mercury levels far higher than acceptable limits, including one product that reportedly contained 131,000 times the acceptable limit of mercury.
According to the FDA, more than 35 products tested over the years have been found to contain levels of mercury beyond the one part per million (ppm) maximum standard for cosmetic products. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), for instance, tested 27 skin products recently and discovered that 11 of them had levels of mercury far higher than one ppm.
You can view a list of the mercury-contaminated products tested by MDH here:
Similarly, a 2010 report by the Chicago Tribune (CT) found that out of 50 skin-lightening creams tested, six contained levels of mercury so high that they are technically illegal. And just like what was found in the MDH study, the CT study revealed that most of the creams containing mercury had levels in the thousands of parts per million, which is known to cause kidney damage and other serious health problems (http://articles.chicagotribune.com).
March 6, 2012
By Mike Adams
“The idea that vaccinated people are in a danger from the unvaccinated is a hilarious concept. If the vaccines work, shouldn’t they be immune?” –KTRN
Vaccine pushers often resort to an interesting fear tactic to try to mandate vaccine obedience among the masses: They insist that those who are unvaccinated are a health threat to the rest of the vaccinated population because the vaccinated people might get infected by the unvaccinated disease carriers!
The quack logic of such a claim should be self-evident. If vaccines protect people from infectious disease, then vaccinated people should not be concerned at all about being around unvaccinated people. After all, the vaccine made them all “immune,” right?
But of course that’s all propaganda. Vaccines don’t really work at all. They are marketed under a blanket of disease hysteria and pimped by a cult following of medicalized quacks and needle junkies who abandoned real science long ago. After all, who needs real science when you’ve got the CDC marketing all the fear for you? The CDC is to medicine what George Bush was to the war industry — spread a little fear and the profits roll in.
The real risk to others? People who routinely take antibiotics
As it turns out, the real health risk that does exist in person-to-person exposure of infectious disease comes from people who routinely take antibiotics. Those who take the most antibiotics become drug-resistant bacteria factories, and they can spread their drug-resistant strains to others around them. Their risk of developing superbugs rises proportionally to the frequency and duration of their taking prescription antibiotics. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028479_superbugs_antibiotics.html)
The most dangerous person in your family, it turns out, is not the “unvaccinated” person but the one taking antibiotics! They are human breeding grounds for bacterial mutations that can be downright deadly.