26 June 2011

Why Your Baby Got the Hepatitis B Vaccine

David Satcher, former U.S. Surgeon GeneralImage via Wikipedia

I once asked US Surgeon General David Satcher why he recommended that babies receive the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth. I wanted to know why a sexually transmitted disease vaccine was needed in babies at birth.  The following article may supply the answer, better than Satcher's " You got to get them when you can get them..."

Why are Babies Vaccinated for a STD?

June 26, 2011
hepbvax.jpgPedophiles now pepper the professional landscape like warts on a witch.  

by Jack Ragnarok 

The widespread medical practice of administering Hepatitis B vaccines to newborns is something that should sound mental alarm bells. 
Why?  Hep B is contracted chiefly by sexual contact, first appearing among male homosexuals then later spreading to the general population by adult heterosexual promiscuity.
Hep B is but one of many STDs, but is not yet an epidemic. Why not vaccinate for common contagions that become epidemics? And  why  subject newborns to their first Hep B vaccination at 12 hours, then a booster shot at 4 months, and another at 4 years when the vaccine 'memory' has faded?
 Is it because babies are going to be sexually active in their first 4-5 years? The answer is Yes, but this type of sexual contact never happens by mutual consent;  it's called child molestation.
Pedophiles now pepper the professions landscape like warts on a witch. Some pedophiles are members of parliament that legislated exceptional powers be given to Child Protection agents. 
Other pedophiles are police;  others are found in religious orders, there are doctors and lawyers, and teachers, and engineers, etc.etc.. Many pedophiles  have  Hepatitis B and are carriers infecting others, including children and babies.
Where though is the wholesale threat of Hep B infection to children?
Enter the thugs of Child Protection agencies. These regularly abduct, or forcibly remove, children from parents straight into the waiting arms of individuals of an elite pedophile clientele. 
In nearly every office of any Child Protection agency there is at least one Frau Goebbels that liaises with the elite clientele. Sometimes it's upon request for a particular victim that a child is forcibly removed. 
An MP or doctor or policeman is attracted to the child through official capacity and requests Child Protection agents to intervene  to remove the child on the flimsiest of pretexts. 
Other times a child is removed by Child Protection from foster care by midnight raids, or foster care perverts are actively engaged providing the elite client with 'meat'. 
Many children that die in Child Protection care were victims of a blind eye policy to satanic practises.
To avoid the scandal that too many children and sucking infants in Child Protection care get infected with Hep B, complicit legislators drafted a series of Hep B vaccinations into law or into standard medical practice as something good and healthy for the nation's infants.  
Fortunately, most children are not sexually molested during their tender years; those that are  may never remember the incidents. 
For the former, the side-effects of vaccination cause death or maim by contaminants carefully planted within the witch's brew of vaccines. The range of vaccine contraindications is extensive but seldom are parents informed. 


Enhanced by Zemanta

24 June 2011

Nazi Eugenics Started Here in the USA

Where did the Nazis in Germany get their big ideas about racial supremacy? 

From the good ole USA that's where.

Long after the German Nazis were dead or in prison, eugenics was still being practiced

in the United States, and in some forms, still is, a black President notwithstanding. Here is

a report about what was occurring until just recently in the great state of North Carolina.

North Carolina Confronts the Ugly Past of Its Eugenics Law

Elaine Riddick Jesse can’t forgive the state of North Carolina for sterilizing her in 1968. Winston-Salem Journal
Wednesday, June 15 2011, 12:39 PM ESTTags: eugenicsNorth Carolina
A North Carolina state task force is holding a public listening session later this month for victims of the state’s now defunct eugenics law to come forward and share their stories. The session is part of an effort to compensate those who were forcibly sterilized decades ago. The majority of victims were poor black women, and many were minors or the victims of rape or incest. 
“The fewer black babies we have the better, that’s what some people said,” Professor Paul Lombardo told the BBC about the program. “They’re just going to end up on welfare.”
North Carolina is one of 32 states that passed laws that allowed the sterilization of people deemed “unfit to breed,” and ultimately took away the reproductive rights of more than 60,000 people nationwide. The programs targeted people deemed to be criminals, juvenile delinquents, the mentally ill, women considered to be “sexual deviants,” gay men, and people suffering from epilepsy. Those on welfare were targeted as well, especially African Americans after welfare became available to them in the 1960s, because they were seen as a drain on the system. 
Operations were often done without the victim’s knowledge. Sterilization was also sometimes used as a condition for release from prison or a hospital, or as an ultimatum to cutting off benefits.
In 1968, 13-year-old Elaine Riddick was raped by a neighbor. After giving birth in a hospital, a social worker deemed her “feeble minded” and officials coerced her illiterate grandmother to sign an “X” on an authorization form to have her sterilized.
“My grandmother was afraid that if she didn’t sign the paper, they would cut off her benefits, like the canned food she got every week,” Riddick said. “So she signed, without understanding what sterilization or tubal ligation really meant.” Riddick, now 57, plans to testify at the session.
Eugenics enjoyed wide support among progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Alexander Graham Bell, and from members of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association. “It is better for all the world, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind,” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in the 1927 ruling that upheld the legality of compulsory sterilization. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The 1927 ruling was never overturned. However, in 1942, the Supreme Court ruled against punitive sterilization.
Many states began abandoning their eugenics programs after World War II, fearing comparisons to Nazis’ eugenics practices in Germany. But North Carolina’s program actually grew stronger after the 1940s, bolstered by financial support from some of the state’s wealthiest residents. That is why the state is believed to have more surviving victims, almost 40 percent of the over 7,500 sterilized, even though it is behind Virginia and California as the states with the highest numbers of sterilizations. North Carolina was also unique in that it was the only state that used social workers to urge sterilization, and allowed people to petition the state to have someone sterilized. The program lasted until the late 1970s and the state’s eugenics law was removed from the books in 2003.
After collecting testimonies in Raleigh on June 22, the state task force will make a recommendation to the governor on how to compensate surviving victims. North Carolina congressman Larry Womble is pushing for monetary compensation. $20,000 has been suggested, a figure that could amount to up to $58 million in reparations for the estimated 2,900 surviving victims, although many victims are expected to not come forward out of shame. Reparations of any amount are sure to face stiff opposition, as the state is facing a $2.5 billion budget hole this year.
To learn more about North Carolina’s Eugenics program, visit the Winston-Salem Journal’s special report, “Against Their Will.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Study Shows Brain Damage from Fluoride

Well wouldn't you know it- Finally a study is done which shows the obvious, that a toxic chemical like fluoride is, well, toxic! There never was any evidence that it was in any way
Putting toothpaste on a toothbrush. The toothp...Image via Wikipedia
 beneficial. It doesn't do what is publicly claimed- prevent dental decay. Look at your teeth- How long have you been drinking fluoridated water-? Now it turns out that fluoride is toxic to the brain- in fact other studies in the past have shown that fluoride affects human behavior- makes people very obedient and docile- easy to control. Is that how the powers that be get away with so much ridiculous insane stuff and there is hardly a peep from the public-? They just blink stupidly into their TV screens, chewing their cuds like the good sheeple they have been made into by the daily ingestion of fluoride and other mind altering substances...
New Study: Fluoride Can Damage the Brain - Avoid Use in Children


NEW YORKJune 21, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system," concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia (June 2011), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).
The research team reports, "It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride." (1)
"Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident," they write.
Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water.
"Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF.  "We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children's teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can't see the harm it's doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking," says Beeber.
Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain's physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological  and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.
"Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth," they write.*
Animal studies show fluoride's toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer's disease, Valdez-Jimenez's team reports.
A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that "A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ." (Biological Trace Element Research)  (2)
In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council's (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." And, "Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease." (3)
On April 12, 2010Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed." (4)
Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 (5) and then was fired for doing so.(6)
Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.
Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years  – the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska.  This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.
*Translated from Spanish using Google Translation
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
Back to top
Enhanced by Zemanta

19 June 2011

The Health Benefits of Olive Oil

Although olive oil does not stand up well to hard high temperature cooking and is best consumed raw in salad dressings or with bread, the health benefits are now scientifically verified. The obvious benefits of the so-called Mediterranean Diet can now be scientifically measured. So learn the wonders of olive oil and learn to use it well. Enjoy.

Consuming more olive oil may protect against strokes

  • Email
  • print
  • increase text sizedecrease text size
Olive oil
People who cooked with olive oil and used it as a dressing or with bread had a lower incidence of stroke, a study found(Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)

Pour some more of that EVOO on your plate -- a study finds that eating more olive oil could be linked with lower stroke risk in older people.

Medical records of 7,625 people 65 and older who lived in three French cities were examined by researchers to determine how their olive oil consumption affected their chances of having a stroke. The participants had no history of stroke at the beginning of the study.

Olive oil is a component of the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in healthy fats (like olive oil and nuts), plus whole grains, fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken. Red meat and wine are consumed in moderate amounts, and regular physical activity is part of the regimen as well. Other studies have linked the Mediterranean diet with a lower risk of heart disease, but scientists are still assessing the roles various portions of the diet and lifestyle play.

In this study, participants were surveyed about how much olive oil they consumed: About 23% used none, 40% were moderate users (cooking with it or using it as a dressing or with bread) and about 37% were intensive users (using it in cooking and as a dressing or with bread).

In an average 5.25 years of follow-up, 148 strokes occurred. Those who were intensive users had a 41% lower stroke risk compared to those who never used olive oil. Researchers arrived at that number after adjusting for such factors as body mass index, other stroke risk factors, diet and physical activity. The results were statistically significant for ischemic stroke (caused by blockage of an artery to the brain) but not hemorrahagic stroke (caused by the rupture of a blood vessel).

The authors noted that the findings could be used to make dietary recommendations for older people at risk for stroke. The study was published online Wednesday in the journal Neurology.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Genetic Revolution In Medicine

An overview of the structure of DNA.Image via Wikipedia
In the future will doctors be able to hook you up to a genetic sequencer and fore tell your whole future like some high tech soothsayer? Will your genetic readout determine what happens to you- how society views you? Will you be labeled a high risk for cancer or some other disease and therefore not eligible for employment benefits? Or will you be considered a future criminal and be under some sort of police surveillance- "Cause we know you're gonna do it one of these days!" Could there be a move for 'pre-emptive arrests'? The brave new world has arrived ahead of schedule. Are you ready?

Genomic Sequencing at the Bedside

Recent news reports on genetics shed light on the direction of DNA research. Reports from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) demonstrate significant genetic advances that may soon offer new opportunities and require thoughtful decisions from patients. In February the NHGRI reported that the cost of DNA sequencing - identification of each of the six billion base pairs in an individual's genome - is rapidly declining: from $100 million in 2001 to $10,000 today. Noting this dramatic fall, a writer at Medgadget.com comments:
At this rate it will not be long before a whole genome will go for less than 1,000 dollars. Yet despite these amazing advancements, adoption of genetic technologies in clinical practice still has not really caught on, but we are eagerly awaiting the day were [sic] we can run a whole genome sequence for each patient on our own in-office desktop sequencer.
Clinical diagnosis and individualized treatment of disease based on a patient's genetic makeup is NHGRI's stated goal. Eric Green, M.D., Ph.D., director of NHGRI, says, "While significant challenges remain to our understanding of how the genome operates in health and disease, there are enough examples to say with confidence that genomics research will lead to important advances in medicine."
The NHGRI has also announced a new strategic plan for genomics research, "Charting a Course for Genomic Medicine from Base Pairs to Bedside." The plan produced in consultation with the research community over the past two and a half years envisions five areas of research: understanding the structure of genomes, understanding the biology of genomes, understanding the biology of disease, advancing the science of medicine, and improving the effectiveness of health care.
Consider a few facts. The human genome is around 3,000 Mb (megabase pairs). According to NHGRI, it took 13 years for all the sequencing power in the world to produce the first sequence of a human genome. In 2003 it took 100 machines to sequence a human-sized genome in three months. In 2011 it takes only one machine just five days to complete the sequence. This stunning advance in speed results from changes in technology that began in January 2008. Current efficiency of DNA sequencing leads to lower costs. (See graph below.)
The implications for patients are numerous, ranging from the potential for customized, gene-based care to major ethical and privacy dilemmas. The NHGRI plan calls for low-cost and highly accurate tools to sequence data "at the point of care." The NHGRI writes:
The plan also calls for new technologies to measure the interaction between the environment, behavior and genes and for routine clinical applications of genomic tools such as newborn genetic screening and other types of diagnostic screening. It also calls for electronic medical records systems that integrate family histories and genomic data to generate personalized diagnoses, treatments, and prevention plans.
Health consumers will need to familiarize themselves with genomic medicine so they can understand their personal risks, participate in clinical decisions, make the best use of new therapeutics and, if they so choose, modify their behaviors in response to genome-based health information. Legislators and policymakers must craft policies that continue to promote the confidentiality of participation in genomics research. Other policies will be needed to protect individual privacy and access to health coverage, and to encourage investment in genomic health technologies through intellectual property incentives.
Dr. Green says, "Our base-pairs-to-bedside plan maps the next steps in the herculean endeavor not only to discover medical secrets hidden within the human genomes, but to bring those discoveries to the practitioner and patients."
From these advances emerge several questions the NHGRI press release does not address:
  • What if the patient resists or refuses genomic sequencing for privacy or other reasons?
  • Would physicians be allowed to discontinue care for the patient?
  • To what degree could a patient be forced to change his or her behavior?
  • Could the health insurer drop coverage or increase premiums if the patient refused sequencing?
  • Who is liable if the genomic sequence "foretells" a future that never happens?
"DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Program," K. A. Wetterstrand, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, February 4, 2011, accessed May 24, 2011.
"How Big Is the Human Genome?" Laurence A. Moran, Sandwalk:Strolling with a Skeptical Biochemist (blog), March 24, 2011.
"DNA Sequencing Beating Moore's Law," Wouter Stomp, Medgadget.com, May 22, 2011
"NHGRI Charts Course for the Next Phase of Genomics Research" (Media Release), Jeannine Mjoseth, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 9, 2011.
Source: National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health

Testing Newborns for Future Criminality

A Connecticut professor of law thinks newborns should be screened for inborn criminality. Jennifer Melien Brooks-CrozierMAOA-Low Genotype and Intervention Services for MAOA-Low Children."
The paper's abstract describes a 1993 study by Hans Brunner of the genetics of male members of "a large Dutch family who exhibited behaviors such as impulsive aggression, arson, and attempted rape...." These males had a mutant copy of a particular gene, which accounted for a deficiency of the enzyme monoamine ozidase A (MAOA).  Dr. Brunner concluded that low MAOA leads to abnormal aggressive behavior.
However, the abstract continues, later studies determined that reduced MAOA through genetic mutation does not fully explain this aggressive behavior. Scientists in New Zealand found that childhood maltreatment combined with the mutant MAOA gene leads to violate aggression. On its own the gene mutation was insufficient.
Ms. Brooks-Crozier proposes that newborn genetic screening of infants be expanded to include a screening test for the MAOA-low genotype. She argues that these research studies "can and should be used to prevent violent crime and to preserve the sense of peace an safety that is the foundation of free, civilized societies."  Furthermore, the abstract states:
The screening test would allow states to target a population of children at risk of criminal behavior. The intervention services - family education and counseling, home visits, parent support groups, and psychological and social work services - would prevent those at-risk children from suffering the maltreatment that would cause them to later develop aggressive, antisocial behavior.
The author acknowledges that there would be constitutional and policy implications of such a proposal, presents a cost-benefit analysis, and "ultimately concludes that it would pass constitutional muster and be a cost-effective public policy."

Health IT: What You Don't Know Could Hurt You

The private sector has ventured into a controversial process that Congress set in motion. Last month GE Healthcare and Thomson Reuters announced "the ability to combine commonly used outcomes research data from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research Databases with electronic medical records data from GE Healthcare's Centricity Electronic Medical Records (EMR) solutions... ."
In short these two large corporations have joined forces to track and analyze the treatment received by patients. Outcomes research has proven controversial. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, or "economic stimulus"), passed in February 2009, requires and funds "comparative effectiveness research" (CER) on selected medical treatments. The law also established a panel of 15 presidential appointees - the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research - to determine which medical procedures to investigate for effectiveness.
Under the federal health care reform law ("Obamacare"), Congress renamed the Council  the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The CER requirement in the ARRA and the additional committees proposed by Obamacare may have led to the oft-cited August 7, 2009, "death panels" accusation made by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on her Facebook page.
Limits on treatment options appears to be one goal of the joint venture. GE Healthcare claims "researchers and physicians can now gain new insights into patient treatment protocols, better enabling them to determine the ideal course of treatment while avoiding expensive options that do not deliver results." What classifies as a "result" is not known. Researchers and analysts may report results that meet their own biases and preferences.
Such research is not new. For decades Thomson Reuters has provided de-identified insurance claims and prescription data to researchers to study the outcomes and effectiveness of medical treatments. However, the media release notes:
The addition of the de-identified patient data from GE Healthcare means a research study can link clams data that track the treatment received by a population of patients diagnosed with a condition such as hypertension, with clinical data on everything from a patient's body mass index, blood pressure, symptoms and more. With this joint solution, the research provides more specific evidence about the effectiveness of treatments, allowing clinicians and patients to make more informed decisions.
The companies have plans for extensive research using patient data. Just one year ago they demonstrated the broad linking of data at a conference in Atlanta, Georgia. They combined clinical data collected on 30 million individuals by more than 9,000 system users. The data included health insurance claims data and prescription data. The companies plan to provide customers with detailed research and analytical services. Bill Marder, senior vice president at Thomason Reuters, says:
We can now conduct studies that assess the effectiveness of medical treatments, prescription adherence, and disease management initiatives based on both a deep set of clinical data and extensive data on the complete healthcare experience of a patient. This includes all hospitalizations and ambulatory visits as well as all filled prescriptions, costs, and reimbursements.
Although outcomes research could lead to treatment restrictions, as Governor Palin warned - insurers and government agencies could refuse to reimburse doctors and hospitals for treatments classified as "ineffective" - the corporate news release made no mention of patient-consent requirements. The companies also assert "complete patient anonymity and privacy" with a claim that teams at both organizations "have developed an algorithm which enables the de-identification of patient data without loss of utility." However, no definitions of "de-identification" or "anonymity" were provided.
"GE Healthcare and Thomson Reuters Create Powerful, Precise Clinical Research Dataset," The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2011, Accessed June 8, 2011.
"Palin: Obama's 'Death Panel' Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby," Eric Kleefeld,TalkingPointsMemo, August 7, 2009.
HITECH Act, Section 13001, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, February 17, 2009.
Subtitle D, Section 6301, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2010.

Health Freedom Watch is a monthly email newsletter published by the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (formerly Citizens' Council on Health Care), a national nonprofit, educational organization whose mission is to support patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation and the right to a confidential patient-doctor relationship. Health Freedom Watch provides reports on national and state policies that impact citizens' freedom to choose their health-care treatments and practitioners, and to maintain their health privacy - including genetic privacy. Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) is not affiliated with any other organization. © Citizens' Council for Health Freedom.

Enhanced by Zemanta