Friday, December 15, 2006

Breast Cancer Drop Tied to Hormones

Here is another example of throwing drugs at a "condition" that has backfired. There are natural ways to deal with menopause, but there is no money to be made by the pharmaceutical companies or the doctors so they resort to whatever might help (and make money).

Fri Dec 15, 3:46 AM ET

The millions of women who quit taking menopause hormones after a big federal study found that the pills raised the risk of breast cancer now have more reason to be glad they stopped.

A new analysis reveals that U.S. breast cancer rates plunged more than 7 percent in 2003 and strongly suggests that the reason is less hormone use.

"It's a big deal ... amazing, really," said one of the researchers, Dr. Rowan Chlebowski of Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. "It's better than a cure" because these are cases that never occurred, he said.

About 14,000 fewer women were diagnosed with the disease than had been expected, researchers reported Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Cancers take years to form, so going off hormones would not instantly prevent new tumors. But tumors that had been developing might stop growing, shrink or disappear, so they were no longer detected by mammograms, doctors theorized.

Cases dropped most among women 50 and older — the age group taking hormones. The decline was biggest for tumors whose growth is fueled by estrogen — the type most affected by hormone use.

In fact, when both factors were combined — older women with estrogen-positive tumors — the drop was 12 percent.

The decline was seen in every single cancer registry that reports information to the federal government, and no big change occurred with any other major type of cancer. These are strong signs that the breast cancer decline is no statistical fluke or error.

A separate study by the American Cancer Society, currently in press with a medical journal, also documents the drop in cases. Lead author Ahmedin Jemal attributes two-thirds of it to a decline in hormone use and the rest to mammography use leveling off, resulting in fewer tumors being detected.

"We are really trying to look at the big picture," he said. "You cannot rule out the effect of screening."

Breast cancer is the most common major cancer in American women and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women. About 213,000 new cases are expected to occur in the United States this year and more than 1 million worldwide.

Incidence in the United States rose almost 2 percent per year from 1990 to 1998, then began to slightly decrease, said Dr. Peter Ravdin of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who led the analysis presented at the Texas conference.

In July 2002, the federal Women's Health Initiative study was stopped after more breast cancers and heart problems occurred among women taking estrogen-progestin pills.

That led to new warning labels on the drugs and doctor groups urging women to use the lowest dose for the shortest time possible for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms.

Within a year, about half of women who had been taking hormones stopped. Prescriptions had been steady at around 22 million each quarter, but plummeted to 12.7 million in the last quarter of 2003, according to IMS Health, which tracks drug sales.

Breast cancer rates declined, too. In 2002, there were roughly 134 cases per 100,000 women — a 2.5 percent drop from about 137 the previous year. In 2003, there were only 124 cases per 100,000 women — about a 7 percent drop over 2002. That is the most significant decline in the breast cancer rate since records have been kept beginning in the 1970s.

Researchers saw an even stronger trend when they looked month-to-month. Cases dropped 6 percent in the first half of 2003 and 9 percent in the second half.

"Consistently across the entire year, there appeared to be a trend toward decrease," Ravdin said.

Estrogen-sensitive tumors declined twice as much as tumors that are not fueled by estrogen. The decline in incidence among women ages 50-69 was three times that of other age groups.

The numbers come from the National Cancer Institute's surveillance database, which uses cancer registries around the country to project national incidence and death rates.

When the 2003 numbers were first released a few months ago, they were grouped with 2001 and 2002 and portrayed as a leveling off of breast cancer after decades of steady rise. The big single-year drop was not pointed out.

"You don't want to overinterpret one point" without knowing whether it is a trend, said Kathy Cronin, a National Cancer Institute statistician who worked on the new analysis.

"The major health organizations have been cautious because of not wanting to call attention to something of this much interest to everyone prematurely," said Dr. Michael Thun of the cancer society.

Ravdin disagreed.

"It doesn't have to be a trend to be real," he said. "Such a rapid effect is most consistent with the idea that cancers that were already there ... were actually being stopped in their growth to the point where they would not be detected."

It is not known whether these tumors will regress and never become a problem or just take longer to show up, he said.

However, doctors already know that withdrawing hormones causes tumors to shrink. If a woman with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer has her ovaries removed, "her tumor will stop growing immediately," Ravdin said.

Dr. JoAnn Manson, a women's health expert at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who has a new book out on hormones and menopause, thinks the big drop in breast cancer cases could be due to hormones, "especially a reduction in long duration of use."

"It's also possible that a trend toward lower doses of hormones has played a role," she said.

She and other doctors are continuing to study women in the big federal study who had been on hormones and then quit.

Federal statistics for 2004 are expected in April. Information from one large registry, California's, published recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, hints that the trend is continuing.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which makes the hormone pills Prempro and Premarin, may not be much affected by the new data, said Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan. Most women are already aware of the drugs' risks and those that choose to use them do so only for a short time, she said.

"I wouldn't expect a big impact."


On the Net:

San Antonio Breast Cancer meeting:

Hormone study: off(%)

Government's cancer report: s/ReportNation2005release

American Cancer Society:

National Cancer Institute:

Natural Nutrition

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Sugar Substitute Kills Dogs

Good thing humans don't have livers - er, ah, wait, we do. Why would anyone put this stuff in their bodies? Anything artificial is messing with nature and the results are often negative. Read the article and draw your own conclusions. I personally try to stay as organic as possible and I am healthy, don't need drugs to treat any "symptoms"... How many "meds" are you on?

Sat Sep 30, 12:57 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Keep those sugarless treats out of Fido's reach. Veterinarians warned on Friday that a commonly used sweetener might cause liver failure in dogs, and perhaps even kill them.

Their report in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association appears to strengthen the suspected link between the sugar substitute xylitol, thought to make dogs sick, and possible liver failure.

Xylitol, a naturally occurring product, is found in many sugar-free chewing gums, candies, baked goods and toothpastes.

Researchers Sharon Gwaltney-Brant and Eric Dunayer with staff at a poison unit of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Urbana, Illinois, gathered information on eight dogs treated between 2003 and 2005 after eating products containing xylitol.

Each dog became ill, and five died or had to be put down because of liver failure, possibly from ingesting xylitol.

One dog who had to be euthanized had eaten four large, chocolate-frosted muffins containing about 1 pound (0.45 kg) of xylitol.

"People don't think sugar-free gum can kill their dog. I didn't before I got into this. But this is something people should be aware of," Gwaltney-Brant, who co-authored the study with Dunayer, said in a statement.

Gwaltney-Brant said for dogs, ingesting even a small amount of xylitol can trigger significant insulin release, which drops their blood sugar and can be fatal.

"A 22-pound (10-kg) dog who consumes one gram (0.03 ounces) of xylitol should be treated," she said, adding that further studies were needed to definitely establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

Detoxify your Body

Friday, September 22, 2006

More drug-resistant TB seen in U.S.A

By JORDAN ROBERTSON, Associated Press Writer

The worst forms of the killer tuberculosis bug have been gaining ground in the United States, alarming public health officials over imported drug-resistant strains of a disease that is mostly under control in this country.

Although the number of drug-resistant TB cases in the U.S. is small compared to developing nations, health officials here warn that visitors from other countries who are unaware of their infections are bringing over the deadliest mutations.

Often those with drug-resistant strains stop taking their medicine when they feel better but aren't cured.

That's what happened with Pich Chhieng, 61, a teacher who was infected in his native Cambodia and carried it with him to this country. He took medication for eight months but abruptly stopped because he ran out of money and was feeling much better.

He didn't know until he was hospitalized while visiting family in Los Angeles that by neglecting his treatment he had allowed the disease to mutate, and the drug-resistant bacteria had overwhelmed his lungs.

"I knew it wasn't cured yet, but I thought it wasn't that strong," said Chhieng, who has been forced to stay in California until he is cured. "I thought it was gone, and when it came back like that, I felt really bad. I wanted to kill myself."

The majority of drug-resistant infections in the U.S. are brought in by legal visitors, and health officials argue that simply tightening immigration controls won't solve the problem.

The only visitors to the U.S. who are screened for tuberculosis and other medical conditions are immigrant and refugee visa applicants, and TB experts say there is no easy way to screen the millions of tourists, workers and others who aren't currently evaluated.

Worldwide, TB kills 2 million people each year, mostly in Africa and southeast Asia.
Of gravest concern is so-called "extensively drug-resistant" TB, which recently killed more than 50 people in South Africa. It's been found in limited numbers in the U.S. — 74 reported cases since 1993.

The strain is nearly impossible to cure because it's immune to the best first- and second-line TB drugs. It is as easily transmitted through the air as garden variety TB.

Health officials here also have been jolted by a spike in a milder but still-lethal form called "multi-drug resistant" TB.

That's the strain afflicting Chhieng. It responds to more treatments but can cost up to $250,000 and take two years to cure.

The number of cases of that variety are multiplying worldwide, jumping more than 50 percent from about 273,000 in 2000 to 425,000 in 2004, according to a study published in August in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

In the U.S., 128 people were diagnosed with it in 2004, a 13 percent spike from the previous year.

Health officials say a drug-resistant outbreak like the one in South Africa is unlikely here because of stringent public health safeguards, but warned that more widespread infections are possible in the future because the disease is so easily transported.

"That's a red light flashing," said Dr. Charles Wallace, an infectious disease specialist with the Texas Department of State Health Services. "That's a warning sign that TB is becoming more difficult to manage when it goes untreated and undiagnosed. We always like to think that it can't happen here, but any disease that travels through the air could be on a plane flying here at any time."

U.S. health officials believe more money is needed for prevention and treatment abroad.
"It certainly has outbreak potential if we don't get on it right away," said Dr. Kenneth Castro, director of the CDC's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination.

The states with the highest numbers of multi-drug resistant cases in the last decade were New York, California, Texas and Florida, according to the CDC.

In New York City, a series of deadly HIV-related drug-resistant TB outbreaks ripped through prisons and hospitals in the early 1990s, killing hundreds of people, including many who had started treatment.

But mortality rates dropped dramatically after the health department created a separate unit to target the strain, stepped up education in multiple languages and improved coordination with doctors.

Last year, overall tuberculosis rates in the city hit their lowest point since the peak of the most recent epidemic in 1992; however, drug-resistant cases jumped from 18 in 2004 to 24 cases last year.

"The threat is always there," said Dr. Sonal Munsiff, director of the city's tuberculosis control bureau. "And I think it's increasing in some ways because drug-resistant tuberculosis is increasing worldwide. So it doesn't take long to get a case here."

Health officials complain that federal funding has not kept up with the increased demands of battling the disease. State and county health departments wind up paying for uninsured patients like Chhieng, who has six months left in his two-year treatment.

Chhieng praises the treatment he has received in the U.S. He says he has gained weight and is feeling better, but has not seen his wife in a year and a half. And he regrets being a burden to his daughter-in-law, who is housing him and translates for him.

"Everything's better right now," he said. "I'm going to have a long life to live. I really miss home. I miss my wife, I miss my country, I miss the weather over there. I just want to go home."

Garlic Treatment

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Garlic beats MRSA

Garlic 'beats hospital superbug'

As modern antibiotics become less and less effective against today's "Superbugs", ancient garlic is in the forefront of defeating todays "superbugs" viruses, bacteria and parasites. Allicin occurs naturally in garlic. The ingredient which gives garlic its distinctive smell is the latest weapon in the battle to beat the hospital "superbug" MRSA.

University of East London researchers found allicin treated even the most antibiotic-resistant strains of the infection. MRSA (Methecillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) causes an estimated 2,000 deaths in UK hospitals each year.

Researchers are now testing allicin products in a six-month study. Dr Ron Cutler and his team discovered the effectiveness of allicin in laboratory tests five years ago. They found it can cure MRSA within weeks. It is even effective against the newer strains which cannot be treated by the "last line of defence" antibiotics Vancomycin and Glycopeptides.

Fatal infections
The team have developed a nasal cream, pills and soaps. The effect of the treatment was dramatic. Deborah Brown, patient Initial trials have proved effective, so researchers will now test them in a six-month study of 200 volunteers including healthcare workers and patients.

The scientists hope the products will be used by people working in hospitals so they can prevent MRSA being passed on to patients, as well as the patients themselves. MRSA organisms can live harmlessly in humans, carried in the nasal passages and on the skin, but they can cause fatal infections in immune-suppressed patients, the elderly, the young and those with surgical implants.

Dr Cutler told BBC News Online: "My aim would be to firstly work to try and reduce the carriage of MRSA amongst healthcare workers. "But we would also hope to use allicin treatments for patients themselves." He added: "The trials we have conducted so far show that this formulation is highly effective against MRSA, and it could save many lives.

"MRSA is causing a genuine crisis in our hospital system in Britain and worldwide. Antibiotics are increasingly ineffective, but we do have a powerful natural ally. "Plant compounds have evolved over millions of years as chemical defence agents against infection. "Garlic has been used in medicine for centuries, and it should be no surprise that it is effective against this very modern infection."

'Incredibly painful'
Deborah Brown, 34, from Rainham in Kent, contracted MRSA after a major spinal operation in November 2000. Painful wounds on her spine failed to heal for two years, despite using the antibiotics and creams currently available.

But within two months of using the allicin creams and pills, her MRSA had virtually cleared and the wounds had begun to heal. She said: "The effect of the treatment was dramatic - I am making a good recovery - but it was really awful at the time.

"Having weeping wounds on my back that never healed was incredibly painful and I became increasingly depressed as the MRSA didn't respond to repeated courses of antibiotics. "If my case helps to show that allicin works against MRSA then I am glad that something good might come of it."

The research is to be published in the Journal of Biomedical Science next year.

The benefits of garlic are too numerous to mention here. For additional info:

Benefits of garlic

This info comes from the BBC News:

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) - Natural?

Have you seen the new 7Up advertisements that made the implausible claim that the reformulated soft drink is now "100 percent natural." Looks to me like the upside down uncola is trying to turn things on their head again. But 100% natural?? The first thing that comes to mind: Yeah, sure.

Already, a little bit of the steam was taken out of 7Up's "natural" claims with the news that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is planning to file a lawsuit accusing Cadbury Schweppes, who owns 7Up, of deceptive advertising.

Sure, the new 7Up formula contains no artificial ingredients or preservatives, but it does contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). And calling anything with HFCS in it "100 percent natural" is like calling checkers, chess.

In a statement issued by CSPI, Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson made this case against calling HFCS natural:

"High-fructose corn syrup isn't something you could cook up from a bushel of corn in your kitchen, unless you happen to be equipped with centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns and buckets of enzymes." Studies have shown that high fructose corn syrup is far from healthy.

In early 2004, a review of fructose nutritional data was conducted by the Department of Nutrition at the University of California, Davis (UCD). In animal studies, the UCD team found plenty of problems associated with HFCS, including insulin resistance, high blood pressure, and elevated levels of triglycerides. And although data for humans is not as conclusive, the researchers report that a high intake of fructose may increase body weight and encourage insulin resistance, both of which are risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

Allan Spreen, M.D., has also pointed out another problem with HFCS: the browning reaction. Dr. Spreen explained: "The browning reaction occurs when certain carb molecules bind with proteins and cause aging. It's also called 'glycation', 'glycosylation', and sometimes the Maillard reaction. It changes the structure of enzymes and other proteins, resulting in tissue and organ damage (and it's suspected in organ damage particularly in diabetics)."

According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, the browning reaction occurs with any sugar, but with fructose it happens seven times faster than it does with glucose.

Somehow, this just doesn't sound natural to me! Purified, ice-water with a slice of lemon (or a couple drops of lemon essential oil) will be a lot healthier, more refreshing and will satisfy your thirst, rather than stimulating it.

Natural Wellness Solutions

Monday, May 29, 2006


I find it difficult to get away from using my cell phone, but after reading this, I will keep my conversations short and hope for new technology. Very scary reading - a real life horror flick? Don't be a chicken little, but be aware.

"The Largest Biological Experiment Ever"
by Arthur Firstenberg, January 2006, The Eldorado Sun

In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world. The following week Michael Repacholi, her subordinate in charge of the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Project, responded with a public statement belittling his boss’s concerns. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term.

Nothing could better illustrate our collective schizophrenia when it comes to thinking about electromagnetic radiation. We respond to those who are worried about its dangers — hence the International EMF Project — but we ignore and marginalize those, like Mrs. Brundtland, who have already succumbed to its effects.

As a consultant on the health effects of wireless technology, I receive calls that can be broadly divided into two main groups: those from people who are merely worried, whom I will call A, and those from people who are already sick, whom I will call B. I sometimes wish I could arrange a large conference call and have the two groups talk to each other — there needs to be more mutual understanding so that we are all trying to solve the same problems. Caller A, worried, commonly asks what kind of shield to buy for his cell phone or what kind of headset to wear with it. Sometimes he wants to know what is a safe distance to live from a cell tower. Caller B, sick, wants to know what kind of shielding to put on her house, what kind of medical treatment to get, or, increasingly often, what part of the country she could move to to escape the radiation to save her life.

The following is designed as a sort of a primer: first, to help everybody get more or less on the same page, and second, to clear up some of the confusions so that we can make rational decisions toward a healthier world.


The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation. Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.

Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.

An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation. An increasing number of scientists speculate that our own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling. In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.

As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature. Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.

Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour. Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.

The Blood-Brain Barrier

The second effect that I want to focus on, which has been proven in the laboratory, should by itself have been enough to shut down this industry and should be enough to scare away anyone from ever using a cell phone again. I call it the “smoking gun” of cell phone experiments. Like most biological effects of microwave radiation, this has nothing to do with heating.

The brain is protected by tight junctions between adjacent cells of capillary walls, the so-called blood-brain barrier, which, like a border patrol, lets nutrients pass through from the blood to the brain, but keeps toxic substances out. Since 1988, researchers in the laboratory of a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, have been running variations on this simple experiment: they expose young laboratory rats to either a cell phone or other source of microwave radiation, and later they sacrifice the animals and look for albumin in their brain tissue. Albumin is a protein that is a normal component of blood but that does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The presence of albumin in brain tissue is always a sign that blood vessels have been damaged and that the brain has lost some of its protection.

Here is what these researchers have found, consistently for 18 years: Microwave radiation, at doses equal to a cell phone’s emissions, causes albumin to be found in brain tissue. A one-time exposure to an ordinary cell phone for just two minutes causes albumin to leak into the brain. In one set of experiments, reducing the exposure level by a factor of 1,000 actually increased the damage to the blood-brain barrier, showing that this is not a dose-response effect and that reducing the power will not make wireless technology safer. And finally, in research published in June 2003, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, just once during its lifetime, permanently damaged the blood-brain barrier and, on autopsy 50 days later, was found to have damaged or destroyed up to 2 percent of an animal’s brain cells, including cells in areas of the brain concerned with learning, memory and movement. (1) Reducing the exposure level by a factor of 10 or 100, thereby duplicating the effect of wearing a headset, moving a cell phone further from your body, or standing next to somebody else’s phone, did not appreciably change the results! Even at the lowest exposure, half the animals had a moderate to high number of damaged neurons.

The implications for us? Two minutes on a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier, two hours on a cell phone causes permanent brain damage, and secondhand radiation may be almost as bad. The blood-brain barrier is the same in a rat and a human being.

These results caused enough of a commotion in Europe that in November 2003 a conference was held, sponsored by the European Union, titled “The Blood-Brain Barrier — Can It Be Influenced by RF [radio frequency]-Field Interactions?” as if to reassure the public: “See, we are doing something about this.” But, predictably, nothing was done about it, as nothing has been done about it for 30 years.

America’s Allan Frey, during the 1970s, was the first of many to demonstrate that low-level microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier. (2) Similar mechanisms protect the eye (the blood-vitreous barrier) and the fetus (the placental barrier), and the work of Frey and others indicates that microwave radiation damages those barriers also. (3) The implication: No pregnant woman should ever be using a cell phone.

Dr. Salford is quite outspoken about his work. He has called the use of handheldcell phones “the largest human biological experiment ever.” And he has publicly warned that a whole generation of cell-phone-using teenagers may suffer from mental deficits or Alzheimer’s disease by the time they reach middle age.

Radio-Wave Sickness

Unfortunately, cell phone users are not the only ones being injured, nor should we be worried only about the brain. The following brief summary is distilled from a vast scientific literature on the effects of radio waves (a larger spectrum which includes microwaves), together with the experiences of scientists and doctors all over the world with whom I am in contact.

Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people. Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no evidence of harm.

I have omitted one disease from the above list: the illness that Caller B has, and that I have. A short history is in order here. In the 1950s and 1960s workers who built, tested and repaired radar equipment came down with this disease in large numbers. So did operators of industrial microwave heaters and sealers. The Soviets named it, appropriately, radio wave sickness, and studied it extensively. In the West its existence was denied totally, but workers came down with it anyway. Witness congressional hearings held in 1981, chaired by then Representative Al Gore, on the health effects of radio-frequency heaters and sealers, another episode in “See, we are doing something about this,” while nothing is done.

Today, with the mass proliferation of radio towers and personal transmitters, the disease has spread like a plague into the general population. Estimates of its prevalence range up to one-third of the population, but it is rarely recognized for what it is until it has so disabled a person that he or she can no longer participate in society. You may recognize some of its common symptoms: insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headaches, fatigue, memory loss, inability to concentrate, depression, chest discomfort, ringing in the ears. Patients may also develop medical problems such as chronic respiratory infections, heart arrhythmias, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, uncontrolled blood sugar, dehydration, and even seizures and internal bleeding.

What makes this disease so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to cope with, is that no treatment is likely to succeed unless one can also avoid exposure to its cause — and its cause is now everywhere. A 1998 survey by the California Department of Health Services indicated that at that time 120,000 Californians — and by implication 1 million Americans — were unable to work due to electromagnetic pollution. (4) The ranks of these so-called electrically sensitive are swelling in almost every country in the world, marginalized, stigmatized and ignored. With the level of radiation everywhere today, they almost never recover and sometimes take their own lives.

“They are acting as a warning for all of us,” says Dr. Olle Johansson of people with this illness. “It could be a major mistake to subject the entire world’s population to whole-body irradiation, 24 hours a day.” A neuroscientist at the famous Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr. Johansson heads a research team that is documenting a significant and permanent worsening of the public health that began precisely when the second-generation, 1800 MHz cell phones were introduced into Sweden in late l997. ( 5,6 ) After a decade-long decline, the number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise in late 1997 and more than doubled during the next five years. During the same period of time, sales of antidepressant drugs also doubled. The number of traffic accidents, after declining for years, began to climb again in 1997. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease, after declining for several years, rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. This two-year delay is understandable when one considers that Alzheimer’s disease requires some time to develop.

Uncontrolled Proliferation

If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” which examined one aspect of that question. (7) They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country — and county by county in Sweden — they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking!

Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers. The number of ordinary radio stations in the United States today is still less than 14,000. But cell towers and Wi-Fi towers number in the hundreds of thousands, and cell phones, wireless computers, cordless telephones and two-way radios number in the hundreds of millions. Radar facilities and emergency communication networks are also proliferating out of control. Since 1978, when the Environmental Protection Agency last surveyed the radio frequency environment in the United States, the average urban dweller’s exposure to radio waves has increased 1,000-fold, most of this increase occurring in just the last nine years. (8) In the same period of time, radio pollution has spread from the cities to rest like a ubiquitous fog over the entire planet.

The vast human consequences of all this are being ignored. Since the late 1990s a whole new class of environmental refugees has been created right here in the United States. We have more and more people, sick, dying, seeking relief from our suffering, leaving our homes and our livelihoods, living in cars, trailers and tents in remote places. Unlike victims of hurricanes and earthquakes, we are not the subject of any relief efforts. No one is donating money to help us, to buy us a protected refuge; no one is volunteering to forego their cell phones, their wireless computers and their cordless phones so that we can once more be their neighbors and live among them.

The worried and the sick have not yet opened their hearts to each other, but they are asking questions. To answer caller A: No shield or headset will protect you from your cell or portable phone. There is no safe distance from a cell tower. If your cell phone or your wireless computer works where you live, you are being irradiated 24 hours a day.

To caller B: To effectively shield a house is difficult and rarely successful. There are only a few doctors in the United States attempting to treat radio wave sickness, and their success rate is poor — because there are few places left on Earth where one can go to escape this radiation and recover.

Yes, radiation comes down from satellites, too; they are part of the problem, not the solution. There is simply no way to make wireless technology safe.

Our society has become both socially and economically dependent, in just one short decade, upon a technology that is doing tremendous damage to the fabric of our world. The more entrenched we let ourselves become in it, the more difficult it will become to change our course. The time to extricate ourselves, both individually and collectively — difficult though it is already is — is now.


1. Leif G. Salford et al., “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881-883.

2. Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, “Neural Function and Behavior,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433-439.

3. Allan H. Frey, “Evolution and Results of Biological Research with Low-Intensity Nonionizing Radiation,” in Modern Bioelectricity, ed. Andrew A. Marino (New York: Dekker, 1988), 785-837, at 809-810.

4. California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3.

5. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “1997 — A Curious Year in Sweden,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 13, no. 6 (2004): 535-538.

6. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Does GSM 1800 MHz Affect the Public Health in Sweden?” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop “Biological Effects of EMFs,” Kos, Greece, October 4-8, 2004, 361-364.

7. Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, “Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,” Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 21, no. 1 (2002): 3-8.

8. David E. Janes Jr., “Radiofrequency Environments in the United States,” in 15th IEEE Conference on Communication, Boston, MA, June 10-14, 1979, vol. 2, 31.4.1-31.4.5.

Vital Wellness Resources

Friday, May 26, 2006

MEDICALIZATION - The Drugging of America

How did mankind ever survive without drugs? Think about it, are we getting healthier because of all the drugs we are taking? Why are drugs more expensive in the USA than any other country (most are made here)? Personally, my father has been hospitalized over 6 times for "medication" complications. Yeah, if you mix 10 prescriptions, who knows what drug interactions will happen. But, doctors know best, right?

May 14, 2006
The Plan to Drug American School Children
by George Stone

(Note: George Stone has a master's degrees in anthropology and social work. He is a licensed clinical social worker with 35 years experience in therapy and supervision specializing in family &brief therapy and has practiced privately and publicly with patients ranging from poor to middle class, with urban and rural families, and with Black, Hispanic, White, Asian American, Native American and Alaska Native families. He is dedicated to keeping families together by helping them solve their own problems without using psychiatric medication or hospitalization, and to returning children home if they are in psychiatric custody.)

MEDICALIZATION: Convincing Healthy People They Are Sick
This paper outlines the deliberate marketing of harmful drugs to children as a direct result of the drug industry take over of the American mental health system. My point of departure is Ivan Illich's broader assertion that "The medical system has become a major threat to health." (1976) Time has proven Illich to be a prophet: medicine is now the leading cause of death in America. (Null 2005) What is wrong in American medicine is also wrong in psychiatry. Pharma marketeers claim psychiatric drug treatment is a scientific miracle. However, the outcome evidence on psychiatric treatment shows otherwise: the recovery rate for treated schizophrenia has fallen from 70% in the mid-nineteenth century to 11% today, while the death rate for the "new" atypical antipsychotic drugs is double that of the older typical class. These outcomes contrast with 49-51% recovery Third World countries, like India and Nigeria, where these drugs are not used consistently. (Whitaker 2004) The suicide rate for treated schizophrenia in the UK has increased 20 fold since the introduction of antipsychotic drugs in 1954. (Healy et al 2006) Five times as many people are being defined as permanently mentally ill (disabled) today than before the introduction of drug treatment. (Whitaker 2005) Yet, inspite of these ominous facts, millions of American children are routinely being given these dangerous drugs.

How did this happen?

The drugging of American children is not accidental. It is a part of the larger problem of the premeditated medicalization of modern life discussed by Illich (1976), McKnight (1999) and others. However, the issue goes beyond the use of drugs: it is about freedom. The massive pharmaceutical corporations, which barely existed before World War II, are the most profitable legal businesses in human history. They have the money, the plan and the ruthless determination to medicalize our lives to sell us as many drugs as possible. They are a major threat to the basic human rights, as well as the health, of every person on the planet.

By "medicalization" I mean Pharma is deliberately and systematically promoting ideas about illness and disease to explain everyday life. (Summerfield 2002) By blurring the boundaries between sickness and health, Pharma convinces healthy people they are sick (Moynihan &Cassels 2005), and that "lifestyle" drugs, like Viagra, are necessary to happiness as well as health. (Abramson 2004)
Medicalization is an iatrogenic disaster of unbelievable proportions: it is inflicting harm on the lives of tens of millions of people. As our culture becomes a biomedical folktale we are being robbed of our traditional ways of managing illness and meeting death. And, in addition, the high cost of drugs threatens to bankrupt the American health care system, if not the entire American economy.

Pharma has used its economic power to create an effective lobby, which controls U.S. public health policy as well as watchdog agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

More frightening still, as I will show, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC) is a creation of pharmaceutical interests. Two of its central policy recommendations are bald-faced drug marketing schemes. The first targets 52 million American school children for mental health screening by a program known as "TeenScreen." While the second irrevocably links the mental health treatment psychiatric drugs - - not coincidentally, the most expensive and dangerous psychiatric drugs - - using the pseudo-scientific Texas Medication Algorithmic Program or TMAP.

Let's begin with a look at the money trail of legal drugs and some Pharma history.
"The US government contributes more money to the development of new drugs in the form of tax breaks and subsidies than any other government. Of the 20 largest pharmaceutical corporations, nine are based in the United States. Yet drugs are more expensive in the United States than in any other part of the world, and the global drug companies make the bulk of their profits in the United States.
"The pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent more than $800 million in federal lobbying and campaign donations at the federal and state levels in the past seven years.No other industry has spent more money to sway public policy in that period.its combined political outlays and lobbying and campaign contributions is topped only by the insurance industry." (Ismail 2005)

Pharma's huge profit margin has allowed it to buy control of the FDA.
"Most of the industry's political spending paid for federal lobbying. Medicine makers hired about 3,000 lobbyists, more than a third of them former federal officials, to advance their interests before the House, the Senate, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other executive branch offices." Yet, "The drug industry's huge investments in Washington [are] meager compared to the profits they make [from].a series of favorable laws on Capitol Hill and tens of billions of dollars in additional profits.They have also fended off measures aimed at containing prices, like allowing importation of medicines from countries that cap prescription drug prices, which would have dented their profit margins.In 2003 alone, the industry spent $116 million lobbying the government.Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which created a taxpayer-funded prescription drug benefit for senior citizens.[in] Medicare, the government program that provides health insurance to some 41 million people, the [drug] industry found a reliable purchaser for its products. Thanks to a provision in the law for which the industry lobbied, government programs like Medicare are barred from negotiating with companies for lower prices .Critics charge that the prescription drug benefit will transfer wealth from taxpayers, who provide the funding for Medicare, to pharmaceutical companies." (Ismail 2005)

Pharma's influence saturates every aspect of our lives and culture with harm like DDT once saturated our physical environment. Here's how it began.

THORAZINE: The First Pill to Create Its Own Ill
David Healy (2002), the British psychiatrist and drug researcher, believes that the marketing of Thorazine in the US in 1954 created the modern drug era and ultimately gave us everything from Valium to Viagra. Smith-Kline-French (SKF, now Glaxo-Smith-Kline GSK) was a small, $50 million dollar pharmaceutical house, when it obtained the rights to market Thorazine. The drug was originally used as an anesthetic; however, it was introduced in the U.S. as an antinausea drug, which then made $75 million dollars (in 1954 dollars) as an antipsychotic in its first year on the market. Within five years it had elevated SKF to a $350 million dollar a year house. Thorazine taught the pharmaceutical industry how to market an ill for every new pill it discovers.

I should add that Doctor Healy also sounded the alarm on the danger that Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor antidepressants (SSRI) posed for children. Read as, "Pharma is so powerful in the U.S. it prevented FDA action on SSRI's, so warnings had to come from the outside."

GADSDEN'S GANG: Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun.
Thirty years ago, when the late Henry Gadsden was CEO of Merck pharmaceuticals, he candidly told Fortune magazine how unhappy he was that his company's potential markets were limited to sick people. He wanted Merck to be like "Wrigley's, chewing gum," so that "Merck would be able to 'sell to everyone.'"(Moynihan &Cassels 2005) Gadsden's dream did not die with him: although Americans make up only 5 percent of world population, they consume 50 percent of world pharmaceutical production. This kind of consumption isn't a social accident. The gang Gadsden left behind made this happen through careful planning, hard work and the infusion of obscene amounts of cash. One must admire Pharma's achievements, even while condemning the consequences they have brought down on us.

Pharma marketing has not only convinced Americans their drugs are necessary, but that Americans have the best health care system available. But according to John Abramson, while we have the most expensive health care system it is far from the best. Although we spend twice as much on health per person than any other nation, our healthy life expectancy ranks twenty-second out of twenty-three industrialized countries, better only than the Czech Republic. Two-thirds of American medicine is beneficial. However, one-third is ineffective, unnecessary and even deadly, as well as expensive. This one-third of medicine adds $500 billion dollars annually to the cost of our health care, while shortening our lives and even killing us outright. And, shamefully, America is the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health coverage to all its citizens, 43 million Americans do not have health insurance benefits. This leads Abramson to conclude, "Putting the pharmaceutical industry in charge of our health is like putting the fast food industry in charge of our diet." (2004)

A recent Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK) TV drug ad proudly claimed, "Today's medicines finance tomorrow's miracles." This five-word marketing slogan is a revealing self-portrait of the industry. In fact, drug sales finance three main activities: 1) drug research and medical research, 2) drug marketing and public relations, and 3) drug lobbying. These are Orwellian processes, not miracles, and they are larger, more complex and better coordinated than the invasion of Normandy. Allen Jones, who exposed the illegal influence that drug companies exerted on the state of Pennsylvania (and was fired for it), puts the matter this way:
"This isn't a David verses Goliath battle. There is no stone big enough to whack the pharmaceutical industry in the forehead and knock it over. These guys are operating in the shadows. They are operating in the dark. They are operating by buying off decision-makers in an illegal manner. There needs to be exposure of that. It's like fighting vampires, not fighting giants.It's an industry that is very organized and an industry that is ruthless. It is an industry with a long-term view and a long-term plan." (Whitehead 2005)

Similarly, Moynihan and Cassels say:

The extent of the pharmaceutical industry's influence over the health system is simply Orwellian. The doctors, the drug reps, the medical education, the ads, the patient groups, the guidelines, the celebrities, the conferences, the public awareness campaigns, the thought-leaders, and even the regulatory advisors - - at every level there is money from drug companies lubricating what many believe is an unhealthy flow of influence. Industry does not crudely buy influence with individuals and organizations - - rather its largesse is handed out to those considered to be most commercially helpful. The industry's sponsorship is strategic, systematic, and systemic. It is designed primarily to engender the most favorable view of the latest and most expensive products. But it is also used to maximize the size of the markets for those products, by portraying conditions like [Irritable Bowel Syndrome] IBS as widespread, severe, and above all, treatable with drugs. And, who is supposed to be fearlessly regulating this mess? The public agencies who themselves rely on the very same industry for much of their funding. (2005:171-172)

Pharma's marketing strategies leave unmistakable fingerprints. For a more complete discussion of these fingerprints see Moynihan and Cassels 2005. The Pharma "miracle" is an alchemy predicated on expanding the definition disease itself, while narrowing the treatment of any given disease to a specific drug or class of drugs. By using these simple strategies, Pharma can redefine a risk factor, like osteoporosis (the natural reduction in bone density that occurs with age) as a dreaded disease that affects millions of women. The transformation of a disease usually takes place under the cover of an "expert consensus process." Pharma convenes a panel of "experts" under the banner of a prestigious university or organization. (Whitehead 2005) The experts reach a "consensus" about a particular disease or drug that favors the drug companies. The consensus then becomes the "standard of treatment" for the disease or drug in question. Moynihan &Cassels outline this process with osteoporosis. (2005) To put a favorable marketing spin on osteoporosis, Merck donated money to the World Health Organization (WHO) to "study" the "disease." In return, WHO allowed Merck to hand-pick a panel of friendly experts, who then created the definition of osteoporosis Merck wanted. That is, the panel concluded that the bone density of a healthy 30-year-old woman should be the diagnostic standard. This means any woman with a bone density less than that of a healthy 30-year-old can be said to be have osteoporosis. By raising the diagnostic standard, Merck was able to increase the number of women who could be "diagnosed" with the treatable "disease" of osteoporosis. The panel's consensus was written into the medical lore as a research project sponsored by WHO and is now the standard of practice for treating osteoporosis. Merck's guiding hand is invisible to the casual observer. (Moynihan &Cassels 2005)

But Merck did not stop there. In Western medicine there can be no treatment without diagnosis: a drug cannot be sold without a diagnosis to justify its use. In addition to expanding the definition of a disease, Merck also insured that the means to diagnose the millions of allegedly afflicted persons would also be available. Merck stacked the deck by promoting diagnostic procedures, which would lead to a dramatic increase in the number people actually diagnosed with a problem. For osteoporosis, x-rays are the means to determine bone density levels for individual diagnoses. Therefore, Merck subsidized the purchase of x-ray machines to conduct screening exams. Radiologists, who would benefit from a boom in business, were natural allies in promoting screening exams. (Moynihan &Cassels 2005, chapter

Two distinctive fingerprints of Pharma marketing are: 1) The ability to redefine a "disease" and 2) the ability to develop the means for "diagnosis" of the newly expanded disease. These provide the rationale for "treatment," in this case, with a drug like Fosamax. Presto! With this alchemy Pharma can spin any disease/drug combination into a winner that insures billions of dollars in bottom line profits - - before the drug is even approved for sale!
The problem is, of course, that to achieve this goal everyday human unhappiness must be deliberately and wrongly transformed into a medical problem, and unnecessary, ineffective and even harmful drugs must be promoted to treat the new problem.

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) is another example. SAD was a rare problem prior to its treatment.

We cannot become healthy if we attempt to drug and continue to pollute our bodies with medicines and dead deranged "foods."

* Almost every drug or medicine is poison and has no healing power.

Detox your body

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Vacine Magic - The Grand Finale

While controversial, step back and think about the implications of this article. You have to keep your eyes open and use your mind. Don't be a sheep lead to slaughter. World domination has been attempted several times. Do you think there are no evil people today? You have a mind - use it. Don't be told what to think, make up your own mind.

The Future of Civilization and 21st Century Medicine Rests with Vaccinations According to Health Officials and Drug Industrialists. Here's An Opposing View by An Award-Winning Author and Internationally-Renowned Public Health Expert

Vaccine Magic: The Grand Finale
by Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH

Magicians do slight-of-hand-routines. Now you see it; now you don’t. Theirs is a deceptive trade. You watch the active hand. It fools every time. Before their trick they bate you with what appears real and solid. You know you’re not a fool, but you’re left wondering, “How did that happen?”

Vaccine magic is performed consistently by the mainstream media. Spin-doctors and medical deities weave webs of deception only sorcerers might suspect. Vaccines are heralded as cancer cures, required for frightening flus, vital for children’s health, and scientifically-certified as risk free.

Grab the Bate
“A federal advisory panel recommended that the Food and Drug Administration approve a vaccine that has been shown to prevent cervical cancer, the second most prevalent cancer among women worldwide,” the LA Times’s act heralded nationally.(1)
The story didn’t explain the many certified causes of cancer including lifestyle risks, chemical exposures, and vaccines containing foreign genetic material from various species.
This bate said, “The FDA almost always follows the recommendations of its advisory panels and is expected to do so in this case, . . .”

I went to see “The Shaggy Dog,” rated-G, with my 11-year old daughter the other night. The villain, lusting for wealth and power, developed a human vaccine for longevity by mutating animals. He said, “The FDA is never a problem that money can’t handle.” My laugh was tempered by the long list of FDA-approved drugs, and previous vaccines for polio, smallpox, anthrax, Lyme, hepatitis B and more, condemned by class-action lawsuits.

Speaking for their cervical cancer vaccine, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) said, “It is common sense, good medicine and a groundbreaking step forward in the fight against cancer.”

Odd, I thought, Planned Parenthood traditionally plans population control not cancer prevention. Richards presides over the world’s second leading proponents of population reduction.

In recent publications, PPFA heralded its collaboration in drug trials with the Population Council of New York involving RU-486, the “abortion pill.” Following years of violating the health of millions of women with under-the-skin progestin implants called Norplant, these same parties now advance “Are You For 86?” When you “86” something, it means you “get rid of it,” “trash it,” or “disappear it.” Are you interested in disappearing life? Obviously, these family and population planners seek ways of getting rid of “excess” humans.(2)

Financially influenced by Rockefeller’s leading petrochemical–pharmaceutical institutions, history shows these powerful “population planners” consistently working to manage global eugenics—the science of racial hygiene and “ethnic cleansing.”(3) Desperately seeking ways to control “excess populations,” how do you suppose they might magically disappear half of us now targeted for elimination?

Meanwhile, Newsweek (May 19, 2006), and the same day Honolulu Star Bulletin, said direct injection of mercury known to be neurologically toxic, while in vaccines has little, if anything, to do with sky-rocking rates of brain damage called “autism” in our nation’s youth. Through their message affiliate, MSNBC, researchers from Cambridge University—a virtual central intelligence agency for governing royalty—encourage you to test yourself for this myserious “mindblindness.” (4)

Why would magicians want to extinguish “mindblindness?”
To solve this mystery, Occum’s Razor is not prescribed. It states the simplest explanation for anything is usually correct. Magicians don’t want you to look here, especially with “Vaccine Magic.” The sky-rocking rates of neurological disease in our children, coinciding in time with accumulating heavy metals and toxic chemicals injected with vaccines far exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s toxic dose limits, has nothing to do with vaccine poisoning says the medical serpent.Now You See It, Now You Don’t.

Hawaii Governor, Linda Lingle, is not immune to these tricks of magic. Medical organizations nationwide have urged her to “veto a bill [SB2133] that would ban vaccines with any mercury . . . except in cases of shortage.” (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 19, 2006) Her compliance is assured as medical deities tell us important mercury-preserved vaccines are in short supply.

Using words carefully chosen and echoed internationally by health officials, state Health Department deputy director, Dr. Linda Rosen, said “Our concern is this will make more people afraid of immunizations and reluctant to immunize children.” The audience doesn’t perceive the deception—the difference between vaccination and immunization. “Immunization” is not man-made toxin-injection. It is the natural body-guarding response to foreign proteins and germs, the most lethal of which have been transmitted to humanity through contaminated vaccines and blood supplies.

Classic immunology draws an important distinction between these two terms. Casually substituting “immunization” for “vaccination” mystifies the masses. More accurately, in reality, vaccinations cause hypersensitizations. Simply put, white blood cell body guards begin to attack far more than desired. Myriad auto-immune diseases and childhood injuries result from vaccinations warns package inserts rarely studied by medical deities.

But pseudo-scientists and ignorant health officials confuse this matter with the “immunization” misnomer. Similarly, they repeat the myth that vaccines, not improvements in hygiene and nutrition, caused the great reduction, or alleged elimination, of deadly human diseases.
These are crucial tricks of the “public health” trade.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), allied medical associations, and Kaiser Permanente oppose Hawaii’s SB2133. Their audience doesn’t see the revolving door between prestigious AAP pharmaceutical prostitutes, our medical associations profiteering as drug-dealers, and their common markets developed from diseases induced by vaccinations (including numerous cancers, auto-immune diseases, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and more). Add to this unholy alliance Kaiser Permanente—America’s leading vaccine testing institution—organizationally rooted in the genocidal practice of eugenics for white-Anglo-American-supremacy.
Foolish Heresy or Reality?

Before your imagination runs wild considering my view of “Vaccine Magic,” consider Kaiser’s history with the Rockefeller family cooperatively pioneering “managed care” in America along with the Kaiser Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology, and Human Heredity in pre-Nazi Germany. In essence, these contemporary powers spearheaded Hitler’s racial hygiene program, its genetic experiments for unnatural selection, and propaganda methods in advancing their “master race.”(5)(6)

“Everything has changed today!” you say?
Maybe not. Victims then were persuaded to enter gas chambers for “public health” and “disinfection.” Come get your free vaccines! But officials assure us, “vaccines are safe and effective.”

“If you tell a lie long enough eventually it will be believed as truth,” Hilter said. “And the greater the lie, the more people will believe it.” Are today’s hospitals and school-based vaccination policies kin to the concentration camps of yesteryear?

Given the magnitude of this issue, don’t you think it might be prudent to view who might be pulling the strings behind stage, and ask some serious questions? It would be radical to do less.
Doctors, nurses, and public health pundits rarely consider who or what’s behind the “curtain.” Blind bias says this is heresy. They never learn this history, not foolish conspiracy theory, but a living dynasty, largely because the Rockefeller’s established monopoly over American medicine, public health, and academic programming started early last century.

Have you seen the movie Manchurian Candidate? Medical deities may be, likewise, well-trained assassins; clueless of their lethal actions, and the diabolical jobs they perform for their shadow governors. Viewed under this microscope, such malfeasance and political corruption are tricks vaccine magicians prefer not revealed about their trade.

The Grand Finale: Saving Their Best for Last
A few years go, among his final acts, Lance Burton made a 330,000 pound Stealth Bomber disappear on prime time television. The mirage involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel each performing with limited knowledge of the total scheme. The camera never blinked. The aircraft disappeared none-the-less.

Near the Bible’s end, with the final world war afflicting terrorized humanity, great plagues erupt along with weather changes and natural disasters. Pharmaceutical magicians are then indicted (literally in older Bible versions of Revelation 18:23) for hypnotizing the planet’s mystified masses. This pagan deception kills billions of people who put their faith and trust in lesser deities. A third of all life on Earth disappears as a result of the magicians’ economic and geopolitical poisonings.

If you were to write the grand finale for a movie called “Vaccine Magic,” how would it end?
Here’s my version. . . .
Set in tropical Hawaii, natives are decimated. Less than 8,000 remain. Anglo-American cult[l]ure has afflicted them like a plague. Immigrants fare little better. Economically privileged citizens neglect ancient wisdom and their moral roots. They grow stressed, demoralized, and diseased by their addiction to spiritually-constraining and ecologically-unsustainable living. Their ocean is crying and dying. Traditional strength in aloha ohana (i.e., the loving family) is replaced by an engrossing virtual reality projected by a controlled-media promoting individualism, immorality, lust for sex, social dominance, and drug delirium. This infuses all pastimes and pleasures.

As this magical distraction and trance-state spreads, the government, directed from the shadows by demonic humanoids, grows in power and possessions. Sovereign spiritual temples, children’s bodies, are decreed state properties. Philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccinations, blood testing, genetic tracking, and micro-chipping are terminated. Access to schools and workplaces is blocked pending compliance with state "immunization" statutes.
In the final scene, a flu fright or bioterrorist attack is loosed by the shadow governors. People line up, like sheep to the slaughter, for “required immunizations” and FDA-approved drugs. The frenzy provides opportunity for government orders for "medical microchips," produced by the “Digital Angel Corporation”(7) to be seeded into the population.

Most government officials and medical operatives are unaware of the total scheme. The company’s literature decrees these “sensors” beneficial in identifying, monitoring, and, if necessary, incapacitating “high-value assets” including “pets, fish, poultry, humans and livestock.” The hair-sized microchips are dispensed, along with the vaccines, in military-style operations. Recipients are told they are "lucky" to get the treatments given their "limited supply." Soon thereafter, the “medical biochips” are triggered (as viewed in the new release of Mission Impossible). Millions of "lucky" persons die. Survivors are terminally enslaved.
Posted courtesy of Dr. Len Horowitz and Tetrahedron, LLC
For more information about Dr. Horowitz and his many archived articles link to:, or visit his website
To order the doctor's many books, DVDs, CDs, and recommended health products, link to, or call toll free 1-888-508-4787.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Thimerosal Logic?

From Health Sciences Institute (HSI)

In several e-Alerts I've told you about the controversy concerning thimerosal use. The medical mainstream, backed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), maintains that there's no link between thimerosal and the sharp rise in autism over the past 15 years.

Here are a few highlights of the controversy:
The mercury exposure to children through vaccines has dramatically increased since the early 90s. During the same period, the rate of autism in the U.S. jumped from 1 in 10,000 children to 1 in 150, according to CDC research.

A 2003 study published in the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons examined extensive CDC data on vaccines in children. The conclusion: Children who receive just three vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal are 27-times more likely to develop autism, compared to children who get vaccinations containing no thimerosal.

More than three years ago, William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., warned of the danger of multiple vaccines coupled with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. In his Daily Dose e-letter he wrote: "The mercury in thimerosal mounts a two-pronged attack: it impairs brain development and, at the same time, damages the child's immune system and gastrointestinal tract. So these vaccines cause the initial damage to the immune system. Then, because the damaged immune system cannot cope with three live viruses at once, the triple vaccine triggers autism."

Enigma wrapped in a riddle

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times features the newest twist in the debate over thimerosal's link to autism.

This coming July, a new California law will take effect, limiting the thimerosal content in vaccines for pregnant women and children under the age of three. The Times notes that other states attempting to pass similar laws are meeting resistance from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Here's where it gets interesting. In fact, it gets downright odd.

According to the Times, the AAP has a "zero tolerance stance" regarding mercury, and the academy recognizes that "mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and children."

Okay - so far so good. In fact the AAP position is quite clear AND accurate.

But Dr. Louis Z. Cooper, chairman of the AAP Center for Child Health Research, tells the Times that the scientific evidence doesn't justify the need for a ban of all mercury-containing vaccines.

But don't spend too much time mulling over that paradox, because this is where Dr. Cooper starts stretching logic to the extreme.

The Times notes that Dr. Cooper "voiced concern" about World Health Organization (WHO) immunization programs. Dr. Cooper told the Times that these programs rely "heavily" on thimerosal-containing vaccines for millions of kids in poor nations, and WHO "could face cost and logistical problems" if those vaccines were abandoned.

Well heck! We wouldn't want to inconvenience WHO officials over a little thing like the safety of millions of poor children!

And then - to complete the perfect torture of this logic - Dr. Cooper tells the Times that if thimerosal vaccines are banned in the U.S., it would make it "a lot harder to explain" to other countries why they should accept them.

That's his defense! Keep using vaccines with mercury here at home so that WHO officials won't have to explain to third-world leaders why their kids are getting shots that are considered a significant health risk in the U.S.

But here's what will be the hardest thing to explain: Why we put their children AND our children at risk when the evidence clearly warned us not to.

Exercise your options

Here in the U.S., one of the many luxuries we enjoy is the availability of options.

In recent years, thimerosal content of children's vaccines has been reduced, but the preservative is still used in most flu vaccines and tetanus boosters. So if you have a young child or grandchild, when it comes time for those required shots, ask your pediatrician for assurance that the vaccines contain no thimerosal. In some cases, your insurance may not cover it, but it is definitely worth it to protect kids from the increased risk of autism. (Just don't tell the WHO if you decide to pay for it yourself. How would they ever explain THAT to the rest of the world?)

Mercury Detox - What you can do

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Danger of Household Insecticides Confirmed in Recent Study

A study by French researchers has found that using insecticides -- either in the home or garden -- increases the risk of childhood leukemia.

Your child's risk of harm from pesticide exposure is highest while you're pregnant and in the early years of his or her life. The study, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, included 280 children who had been newly diagnosed with acute leukemia and another 288 children without the disease. After interviewing each child's mother it was found that:
• Children exposed to home insecticides while in the womb or after birth had almost twice the risk of acute leukemia as those who were not.

• Children exposed to garden insecticides and fungicides had double the risk of acute childhood leukemia.

• Children who had been exposed to insecticidal shampoos to treat head lice had almost double the risk.

A 2002 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found similar findings. Along with noting that children exposed to professional pest control from one year before birth to three years after birth had a significantly increased risk of leukemia, the study found that:

• Insecticide exposure early in life appears to be worse for the child than exposure later in life.

• The highest risk came from exposure during pregnancy.

• The more frequent the exposure, the higher the risk.

Pesticides Increase Risk of Non-Hodkin Lymphoma. Yet another study, published in the journal Cancer, found that children exposed (either in utero or after birth) to household insecticides or professional extermination chemicals within the home were three to seven times more likely to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma than children not exposed.

The risk of one type of lymphome, lymphoblastic lymphoma, increased by 12.5 times after exposure to household pesticides. "A limited number of these compounds may be capable of inducing lymphoma, particularly when used around the home," said chief researcher Jonathan D. Buckley, M.B.B.S., Ph.D., from the Department of Preventative Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Children Especially at Risk from Insecticides Exposure to pesticides, says Dr. Donald Mattison, of the March of Dimes, can cause many short- and long-term problems, including:

• Nervous system disturbances
• Nervousness
• Agitation
• Insomnia
• Muscle weakness
• Respiratory agitation
• Irritability
• Forgetfulness
• Confusion
• Depression

"Children are more vulnerable to the effects of pesticide exposure because their internal organs are still developing and maturing," said Dr. Mattison. Further, because they play on the floor or lawn and put objects into their mouths, they may be exposed to increased amounts. And the List Goes On:

The potential health effects of pesticide exposure do not end yet. Studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Working Group have found that children exposed to carcinogenic pesticides are at a high risk of future cancer. And animal and human studies of individual pesticides have also uncovered the following risks:

• Fertility problems
• Brain tumors
• Birth defects
• Irritation to skin and eyes
• Hormone or endocrine system problems

Protecting Your Child and Family From Dangerous Insecticides
While it would be difficult to reduce your child's pesticide exposure to an absolute zero, you can significantly reduce it. One of the most important things to be aware of is to avoid using conventional lice treatments on your child.

"Commercial Preparations like (brand X)... are definitely toxic to people," says Dr. Andrew Weil, MD. That's because they contain pediculicides, which are potent pesticides and insecticides designed to poison lice, but that can be absorbed directly into your child's scalp.

If your child does come home with a case of head lice, we recommend you use Lice B Gone™, a safe, non-toxic, 100 percent pesticide-free multi-enzyme shampoo made from natural plant sources. This extra-strength formula has been clinically proven to effectively remove lice and nits without harmful pesticides or irritating chemicals.
Along with avoiding conventional lice treatments, we also recommend using the following strategies:

• Buy certified organic fruits, vegetables and meats (be sure to wash produce, particularly commercially grown produce, thoroughly before eating using a diluted soap solution).

• Avoid the use of toxic pesticides in your home and yard (opt for natural pesticides that you can find in your local health food store instead).

• If you are pregnant, nursing or have children in your home, never use pesticides in your home or garden.

• Avoid using conventional flea and tick collars and sprays on your pets. Instead, we recommend the 100 percent non-toxic and pesticide-free Flea 'n Tick B Gone.

• Don't use pesticides for aesthetic purposes like dandelions in your lawn.

• Don't use chemical bug repellants or lice shampoos.

Pesticides and herbacides are just 2 products out of thousands of toxic chemicals that create havoc with our bodies. To address toxins that are already in our bodies:

Body Detox - chelation therapy