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.
February 29, 2012
By Lloyd Burrell
Cells phones are one of the most utilized, most convenient inventions of the twentieth century. While there are definite advantages to using cell phones, e.g., being in contact with loved ones at all times, as with any convenience or luxury there are usually some downfalls or consequences. With cell phones the consequences can be detrimental and therefore, should not be dismissed lightly.
Cell phones are a source of electromagnetic fields, radiation which creates change in anything it comes into contact with. EMFs emanate from mobile phones and because of how phones are used, these EMFs come into direct contact with the brain.
More than a dozen studies have linked using a cell phone for a long period of time — ten years or more — with a higher incidence of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas. These critical diagnoses are even more common when phones aren’t switched from one side of the head to the other when engaged in conversation.
Other adverse health effects include:
• Evidence of leukemia, breast cancer and other cancers.
• Neurological concerns and changes in the nervous system.
• A much higher risk of salivary gland tumors.
A study from the Medical University of Graz in Austria showed that cell phone use negatively affects sperm quality in men. A similar study from 2009 examined men in the height of their reproductive years and found infertility and the ability to father a healthy baby were compromised by cell phone usage.
Cells phones are also a source of perfluorooctanoic acid, a harmful chemical which has been linked to heart disease, cancer and female reproductive/developmental damage.
Cell phones are not the only problem. Cell phone towers, as well as other wireless devices, are responsible for contributing non-ionizing radio frequencies into the environment. Both the World Health Organization and the International Association for Research on Cancer have classified the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones as a 2B, possible carcinogen. The towers and the phones themselves are constantly emitting microwave radiation. Even when cell phones are not in use they are putting out EMFs.
February 17th, 2012
By: Stephanie Nebehay and Kate Kelland
Two studies showing how scientists mutated the H5N1 bird flu virus into a form that could cause a deadly human pandemic will be published only after experts fully assess the risks, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday.
An Ohio drugmaker began releasing limited supplies of a crucial medication to treat childhood leukemia Thursday, sending hospital pharmacists facing life-threatening shortages scrambling for their share
Speaking after a high-level meeting of flu experts and U.S. security officials in Geneva, a WHO official said an agreement had been reached in principle to keep details of the controversial work secret until deeper risk analyses have been carried out.
“There is a preference from a public health perspective for full disclosure of the information in these two studies. However there are significant public concerns surrounding this research that should first be addressed,” said Keiji Fukuda, the WHO’s assistant director-general for health security and environment.
The WHO called the meeting to break a deadlock between scientists who have studied the mutations needed to make H5N1 bird flu transmit between mammals, and the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), which wanted the work censored before it was published in scientific journals.
Biosecurity experts fear mutated forms of the virus that research teams in The Netherlands and the United States independently created could escape or fall into the wrong hands and be used to spark a pandemic worse than the 1918-19 outbreak of Spanish flu that killed up to 40 million people.
WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said that because of these fears, “there must be a much fuller discussion of risk and benefits of research in this area and risks of virus itself”.
But a scientist close to the NSABB who spoke to Reuters immediately after the decision said the board was deeply “frustrated” by it.
The only NSABB member attending the meeting was infectious disease expert Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University and he “got the hell beat out of him”, the source said.
“It was a closed meeting dominated by flu people who have a vested interest in continuing this kind of work,” he added.
The WHO said experts at the meeting included lead researchers of the two studies, scientific journals interested in publishing the research, funders of the research, countries who provided the viruses, bioethicists and directors from several WHO-linked laboratories specializing in influenza.
The H5N1 virus, first detected in Hong Kong in 1997, is entrenched among poultry in many countries, mainly in Asia, but so far remains in a form that is hard for humans to catch.
It is known to have infected nearly 600 people worldwide since 2003, killing half of them, a far higher death rate than the H1N1 swine flu which caused a flu pandemic in 2009/2010.
Last year two teams of scientists – one led by Ron Fouchier at Erasmus Medical Center and another led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin – said they had found that just a handful of mutations would allow H5N1 to spread like ordinary flu between mammals, and remain as deadly as it is now.
This type of research is seen as vital for scientists to be able to develop vaccines, diagnostic tests and anti-viral drugs that could be deployed in the event of an H5N1 pandemic.
In December, the NSABB asked two leading scientific journals, Nature and Science, to withhold details of the research for fear it could be used by bioterrorists.
They said a potentially deadlier form of bird flu poses one of the gravest known threats to humans and justified the unprecedented call to censor the research.
The WHO voiced concern, and flu researchers from around the world declared a 60-day moratorium on Jan. 20 on “any research involving highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses” that produce easily contagious forms.
Fouchier, who took part in the two-day meeting at the WHO which ended on Friday, said the consensus of experts and officials there was “that in the interest of public health, the full paper should be published” at some future date.
“This was based on the high public health impact of this work and the need to share the details of the studies with a very big community in the interest of science, surveillance and public health on the whole,” he told reporters.
Asked about the potential bioterrorism risks of his and the U.S. team’s work, Fouchier said “it was the view of the entire group” at the meeting that the risks that this particular virus or flu viruses in general could be used as bioterrorism agents “would be very, very slim”.
“The risks are not nil, but they are very, very small,” he said.
Click Here For The Full Report From MSNBC
February 17, 2012
By Theodora Filis
When Bill Gates, founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides vaccines to third world countries, promoted decreasing the population of the world and favoring the ‘death panel’, it shocked many people. Bill Gates believes that “instead of spending millions of dollars on old people who just have months to live, the money should be spent elsewhere, where it can actually benefit people”.
Two years ago, the Microsoft billionaire, unveiled his mission to reduce the world’s population through vaccines during a TEDx presentation. As Gates rambles on about CO2 emissions, and its effects on climate change, he injects without pause, that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.” He then goes on to describe how the first number, P (for People) might be reduced.
“The world today has 6.8 billion people”, said Gates, “that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
In January 2010, at the Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (€7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world.
For those who haven’t figured it out, the primary focus of the Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.
How could that be a bad thing? Sounds like noble philanthropic work, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught forcing dangerous (unsafe, untested or proven harmful) vaccines onto Third World populations – vaccines they cannot get rid of in the West. Some organizations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.
January 24th, 2012
The CDC identified a new virus in humans: H1N1, or what was then called swine flu, and the wheels of the public health machine started turning.
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global H1N1 pandemic in June, and by October 2009, the first doses of an H1N1-specific vaccine were administered.
A study published Tuesday looks at how Americans in their thirties reacted to the availability of a vaccine. In all, about one in five of those in Generation X got the H1N1 vaccine during the 2009-2010 pandemic, according to the researcher’s analysis of survey data.
On average, those with more education in general, and those who knew the most about influenza in particular, were most likely to either have taken or planned to get vaccinated against H1N1.
A slight majority of participants –- 53% – answered “probably true” or “definitely true” when asked whether the vaccine is safe, with 31% replying “not sure.”
Participants also graded information sources –- their doctors and news media, for example – on their trustworthiness regarding H1N1.
Health care professionals topped the list – doctors, researchers, pharmacists, and nurses with medical expertise.
News media fell in the middle of the spectrum, on average, followed closely by “a family member” and “a close friend”.
January 18, 2012
By Sayer Ji
The Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holds up India as a prime example of its success at eradicating polio, stating on its website (Jan. 11 2012) that “India has made unprecedented progress against polio in the last two years and on 13 January, 2012, India will reach a major milestone — a 12-month period without any case of polio being recorded.”
This report, however, is highly misleading, as an estimated 100-180 Indian children are diagnosed with vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year. In fact, the clinical presentation of the disease, including paralysis, caused by VAPP is indistinguishable from that caused by wild polioviruses, making the PGEI’s pronouncements all the more suspect.1
According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative’s own statistics2 there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI’s measurement of success? For the dozens of Indian children who develop vaccine-induced paralysis every year, the PGEI’s recent declaration of India as nearing “polio free” status, is not only disingenuous, but could be considered an attempt to minimize their obvious liability in having transformed polio from a natural disease vector into a man-made (iatrogenic) one.
January 2, 2012
By Brandon Turbeville
Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy. It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect. A more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.
Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented” whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organization.
The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code” and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911. This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.
Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the “barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws. As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards.
December 22, 2011
Aware and Prepare
“More problems arise from vaccines. They are not safe and effective.” –KTRN
Throughout India, the new pentavalent vaccine is being rolled out as part of the Government Universal Vaccination Program. The pentavalent vaccine in 5 vaccines in one, leading many to believe makes it much more dangerous challenging a childs fragile immune system. Add to this the question of necessity of involved vaccinations, the most recent report of a 58 day old child dieing within 24 hours of the vaccination backs the worries of vaccine injury and vaccine related death.
A high-level team consisting of experts from the Union Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) has started investigating into the sudden death of a 58-day-old baby at Vithura near here on Thursday.
The death of the infant, which occurred a day after she was given the first dose of pentavalent vaccine, is being treated as the first case of Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) following the introduction of the vaccine under the Universal Immunisation Programme in the country on December 14.
Kerala was the first State to have introduced the pentavalent vaccine, which combines the antigens against five diseases in a single shot (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B and Hib or meningitis) under the national immunisation schedule.
To allay any fears about any possible risks of the vaccine, Health Secretary Rajeev Sadanandan had made it clear earlier that every case of AEFI would be thoroughly investigated and that every child who had been given the vaccination would be followed up over a period.
November 2, 2011
By Kelly Brownell
Today’s children will be the first generation in the history of the country to lead shorter lives than their parents did. There are several contributors to this dim picture, but obesity leads the list.
Many things are being done to help prevent obesity in children and teens. One of the most visible is the effort by cities, states, and even entire countries to wage war on beverages with added sugar. What was once a simple landscape with only a few flagship beverages like Coke, Pepsi, and 7 Up has morphed into entire new categories of drinks with sugar — sweetened teas, vitamin waters, sports drinks, and energy drinks are examples. Collectively, these beverages are referred to as soda, soft drinks, pop, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sugary drinks — all terms referring to drinks high in sugar and containing little or no nutrition. In the 1990s, consumption of sugary drinks overtook milk consumption in the U.S., a trend that makes health experts cringe.
There is a long list of reasons why these beverages are bad actors:
They are the single greatest source of added sugar in the American diet and add little or no nutrition.
The body does not seem to recognize calories very well when they are delivered in liquids, hence sugary drinks appear to fool the body’s feelings of being full.
There is very clear evidence linking consumption of these beverages with elevated risk for obesity and diabetes.
There is massive marketing.
The health consequences of consuming sugary drinks are well known. It is not surprising, therefore, that groups such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and other groups have said that consumption is too high and needs to come down.
What has been missing from this picture is a detailed analysis of how the industry markets these products to the most vulnerable segment of our population: children. It is important to know this in order to help establish government policies on whether children should be protected from this influence, and also test whether the industry is holding true to its promises to market less to this age group.
The beverage industry, dominated by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, is represented by a trade association called the American Beverage Association (ABA). The beverage companies have made a number of promises that it will market less to children. Coca-Cola, for example, claims they “…will not place any of [their] brands’ marketing in television, radio, and print programming that is primarily directed to children under the age of 12…” Some industry critics believe that the chief aim of such promises is to court public trust and to convince legislators that government intervention is not necessary. Objective information is needed to see whether industry promises are kept and whether, in fact, children are exposed to less marketing of products that may cause harm.
Our group at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University has just released the most extensive analysis ever of the marketing of sugary drinks to children and teenagers. This new report found that children are exposed to more — not less — advertising for sugary drinks than they were several years ago, and that the companies are finding new and sophisticated ways to reach youth.
Our study looked at 14 beverage companies and examined the nutritional quality of nearly 600 products, including full-calorie soda, energy drinks, fruit drinks, flavored water, sports drinks, and iced teas, as well as diet energy drinks and diet children’s fruit drinks. Some key findings:
August 5th, 2011
The Huffington Post
Here’s another thing to tell people afraid of flying — airplanes could actually be safer than going to the hospital.
That’s the message from the World Health Organization, which announced this week that the risk of dying from medical errors and infections is greater than the risk of dying from a plane crash, Reuters reported.
The chance of a hospital error is about 1 in 10 in most hospitals around the world, and the chance of dying from that error is about 1 in 300, according to Reuters. But the risk of dying from a plane crash is 1 in 10 million passengers.
“It shows that health care generally worldwide still has a long way to go,” Liam Donaldson, the WHO’s envoy for patient safety, said in a news briefing that Reuters reported on.
The chance of hospital errors and infections is different from country to country, Postmedia News reported. For example, in Canada, the hospital-associated infection rate is 11.6 percent, while in the United States, it’s as low as 4.5 percent. But worldwide, the infection rates could be as high as 16 percent, according to Postmedia News.
Aside from death, hospital-acquired infections and medical errors can cause major health problems for people. Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in the United States make up 10 percent of all hospital-acquired infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And bloodstream infections are considered the eighth leading cause of death in the U.S.
While we’re looking at the odds, here are your chances of some other unfortunate events.
The odds of getting struck by lightning in any one year is 1 in 1 million, while the chance of getting struck in your entire lifetime is 1 in 10,000, according to the National Weather Service. And according to 2000 U.S. data from the University of Florida, the chance of getting bitten by a shark is 1 in 11.5 million.