What’s The Difference Between REAL Science & CONSENSUS Science?

By Catherine J. Frompovich

REAL science is exemplified by demonstrable scientific findings like those of Copernicus and Galileo, who basically were called “quacks” by none other than the ruling authority of that time, the Roman Catholic Church, for insisting the Sun was the center of the Universe, not Planet Earth. Each suffered organized oppression by the Church, too.

Galileo’s books were banned from being read! Anything sound familiar in these censoring times?

Copernicus and Galileo: A Scientific Revolution
20:07 minutes

[embedded content]
https://youtu.be/y-XiG8S4o_A?t=26

REAL science also is found in the work of Sir Isaac Newton. An apple never can fall up! Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

REAL science also can be found in the dabblings of the colonialist founding father Benjamin Franklin’s flying a kite in a rainstorm! That ‘foolhardy’ exercise led to the invention of the lightning rod and also understanding negative and positive charges.

The Periodic Table of Elements went from a “dream” by Russian chemist Dmitrii Mendeleev to a set table of the properties of individual elements, now complete [at least for the time being] as REAL science.

Real science is the standardized practice of questioning, researching, finding and reporting the “secrets” of how and what “makes things work” without any influences to deviate from those findings.

Consensus science is a relatively new science ‘discipline’ invading all sorts of vested interests, corporations and businesses such as: pharmaceuticals [Examples: Vioxx and neurotoxic vaccines]; chemical companies [Example: Monsanto Roundup® glyphosate]; the microwave industries—anything from military radar to microwave ovens, cell phones, 5G, the Internet of Things (IoT), and medicine [Examples: the War on Cancer, Autism, superbugs from excessive antibiotic prescribing; the opioid epidemic!]

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink? [Like at the CDC/FDA and Big Pharma.]

[….]

When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus.

Source: https://stream.org/doubt-scientific-consensus/

[Also, consider who is paying for the ‘freight’ to produce the science?]

CONSENSUS science rears its unfettered ugliness in dramatic reversals of real science findings, which had to be sanitized and reformulated with actions taken by the CDC/FDA and Big Pharma.

Here are just a few examples:

June 2000 The Simpsonwood Meeting where CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten’s findings that certain vaccines DID cause Autism were discussed to change the outcome of Verstraeten’s original real science findings into a consensus science that no vaccine is capable of causing Autism, an elitist epidemiological ‘dogma’ which never can be challenged! The transcript of that clandestine meeting is here: http://fearlessparent.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Simpsonwood_Transcript_Scan_by_RJK_OCR.pdf

The Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD, / CDC’s Eileen Boyle, PhD, debacle
Dr. Coleen Boyle surfaces again in this featured story about Poul Thorsen, PhD, the MASTER MANIPULATOR who currently is under eleven (11) indictments regarding wire fraud and money laundering, and for ripping off the U.S. CDC to the tune of between One and Two MILLION Dollars.

Thorsen also used Danish demographics he was not permitted to use for his falsified study that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.

Dr. Boyle was aware of that sticky-wicket issue about not getting Danish permission to use certain demographics, etc., but flew to Denmark to ‘save the deal’. It’s documented in the book, Master Manipulator. https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/if-truth-be-told-about-cdcs-science-manipulators.html

• Whistleblower William Thompson, PhD, collaborated with, but rejected, the ultimate in CONSENSUS science when he exposed the CDC’s requirement to destroy all science by discarding their findings into a trash can the CDC provided! However, real science found the MMR vaccine actually CAUSED Autism in young black boys under three years of age, which was featured in the documentary VAXXED, From Cover-up to Catastrophe. https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/if-truth-be-told-about-cdcs-science-manipulators.html

Washington, DC area constitutional attorney Jonathan Emord, who understands the law and how it applies to government officials and agencies, was totally aghast by the remarks he received from an FDA lawyer/attorney. Emord has authored two well argued, erudite books: Global Censorship of Health Informationand The Rise of Tyranny—How Federal Agencies Abuse Power and Pose Risks to Your Life and Liberty, regarding federal bureaucratic legal mischief. Emord says, “FDA refuses to honor five decisions holding its censorship unconstitutional.” [2]

Attorney Emord goes on to say that an attorney in the FDA Chief Counsel’s office regarding a court order to the FDA made this really shocking statement, “Jonathan, the FDA will never abide by the Pearson decision.” [3]

Despite Jonathan’s noting it was a final and binding decision—an order of the court—the FDA attorney said, “That may be so, but I am telling you the FDA will never abide by that court decision, never, ever.” [4]

Emord goes on to tell us, His words pierced to the very core of my being. Here was an agency’s legal officer telling me that the agency was, intentionally, lawless.” [5]
https://www.activistpost.com/2016/10/cdc-flagrant-refusal-of-subpoena-nothing-new-regarding-vaccine-coverup-fraud.html

So, there’s a very real conundrum as to why U.S. federal agencies and corporations can practice CONSENSUS science, but pawn it off as REAL science.

How has this been allowed to happen, especially if there is another agenda, e.g., to change society’s understanding and acceptance of a once hallowed concept for research, which now has been trashed into nothing short of fraudulent science to promote advertising, billions of sales and ultimate obedience to control mechanisms?

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice, plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer health ​issues researcher ​and holistic health advocate since the late 1970s; she continues researching and writing in retirement. Her career in holistic healthcare began in the early 1970s when she had to save, and restructure, her life resulting from having “fallen through the allopathic medical paradigm cracks.”

Catherine has written numerous books. The following can be purchased on Amazon books:

Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities (2016)
Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines (2013)
A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments (2012)
Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009)
Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Subscribe to Natural Blaze for health freedom and natural living headlines to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on Twitter and Facebook.

Source

Scientists Uncover the Secret to Making Great Chocolate

“Mixing ingredients for several hours produces smooth molten chocolate by breaking down lumps of ingredients into finer grains and reducing friction between particles.”

By University of Edinburgh

The science of what makes good chocolate has been revealed by researchers studying a 140-year-old mixing technique.

Scientists have uncovered the physics behind the process – known as conching – which is responsible for creating chocolate’s distinctive smooth texture.

The findings may hold the key to producing confectionary with lower fat content, and could help make chocolate manufacturing more energy efficient.

A team led by the University of Edinburgh studied mixtures resembling liquid chocolate created using the conching process, which was developed by Swiss confectioner Rodolphe Lindt in 1879.

Their analysis, which involved measuring the density of mixtures and how they flow at various stages of the process, suggests conching may alter the physical properties of the microscopic sugar crystals and other granular ingredients of chocolate. Until now, the science behind the process was poorly understood.

The new research reveals that conching – which involves mixing ingredients for several hours – produces smooth molten chocolate by breaking down lumps of ingredients into finer grains and reducing friction between particles.

Before the invention of conching, chocolate had a gritty texture. This is because the ingredients form rough, irregular clumps that do not flow smoothly when mixed with cocoa butter using other methods, the team says.

Their insights could also help improve processes used in other sectors – such as ceramics manufacturing and cement production – that rely on the mixing of powders and liquids.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved a collaboration with researchers from New York University. The work in Edinburgh was funded by Mars Chocolate UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Professor Wilson Poon, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Physics and Astronomy, who led the study, said: “We hope our work can help reduce the amount of energy used in the conching process and lead to greener manufacturing of the world’s most popular confectionary product. By studying chocolate making, we have been able to gain new insights into the fundamental physics of how complex mixtures flow. This is a great example of how physics can build bridges between disciplines and sectors.”

Get a conching machine here.

Subscribe to Natural Blaze for health freedom and natural living headlines to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on Twitter and Facebook.

Source

“IF Truth Be Told About Vaccines” Anthology HHS-CDC-FDA Propagandize Big Pharma’s Pseudoscience Into Medical ‘Truths’

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Problem>>Reaction>>Solution

Problem

Medical science, based solidly in man-made-patented chemicals, is nothing short of a physiologically inept standard due to its “consensus science” being steeped in the dominant “disease management versus cure” modality using man-made chemicals—petrochemicals, in most cases, plus recently-added nanotechnology, something totally anathema to thousands of years of human (Homo Sapiens) biological evolution!

A rather significant clue to the allopathic paradigm’s healing failure [how long has there been a War on Cancer?] is its inability to factor into its consensus science, thinking and practices, there ARE cumulative effect(s) from all chemicals, including medicines and environmental, in the etiology of disease!

Source: The Truth About Vaccines

“You cannot poison a body into wellness.”

However, that’s not the apparent official position the FDA takes on the current pharmaceutical scourge and scandal coming out of China regarding contaminated blood pressure and heart medications.

The risk associated with abruptly discontinuing the use of these important medicines far outweighs the low risk that our scientists estimate to be associated with continuing the medicine until the patient’s doctor or pharmacist provides a safe replacement or a different treatment option,” the FDA stated.

If allopathic medicine were to acknowledge chemicals as a key precipitating factor – or trigger – in disease morphology, their entire house of cards would come tumbling down since its religious-belief-like educational system and protocols of Rx prescription drugs, chemotherapy, vaccines, biologicals—all man-made and patented were, and are based upon, a ‘monopolistic business plan’ designed by the late John D. Rockefeller (1839 – 1937)[1], whose main objective was to create a global pharmaceutical system of health controls for many reasons. Rockefeller’s prime objective was to eliminate natural medicine being practiced in the USA.

But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.

Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution.

This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.[2]

Rockefeller probably factored into his monopolistic-plan, and thinking, the 1905 Supreme Court Case Jacobson v. Massachusetts[3] which set the standards for vaccination in the USA, and are totally obsolete today since back then in 1905 those who opposed vaccinations were fined only $5, BUT the ingredients (excipients) in vaccines then were ‘relatively harmless’ compared with the neurotoxins and nanoparticles present in today’s mandated vaccines! Thus, the courts must revisit Jacobson and bring it up to date: 1905 elementary immune system science versus 2019 consensus pseudoscience versus factual independent research science denied by vested-interest Big Pharma and CDC/FDA.

As they say, the rest is history. Furthermore, big medicine became the fair-hair child of Big Pharma, a corporate-controlled industry now directing medical schools, the U.S. HHS, CDC, FDA and CONGRESS, a man-made tragedy and criminal activity, in many educated opinions. The result: there’s been a voluminous and precipitous rise in iatrogenic diseases.

Iatrogenic (of a disease or symptoms) induced in a patient by the treatment or comments of a physician. Chambers English Dictionary[4]

Nothing demonstrates the above more clearly than the apparent ideological failure of vaccinology science, which has been delusional from the very beginning starting with Edward Jenner’s hypothesis. See If Truth Be Told About Cowpox & Smallpox Diseases Scientific Differences That Caused A Pharmaceutical Fairytale (March 25, 2019)

That delusion eventually morphed into a legal obstacle for humankind in many ways, i.e., depriving individuals of their right to self-determination in the care of their and their children’s health and bodies, which includes vaccination mandates, forced vaccinations, fines, and Child Protective Services abuses in removing children from parents’ custody and homes.

The fallacy of using aluminum in vaccines started around 1932.

Aluminum was first used in human vaccines in 1932 and was the only adjuvant in use in licensed vaccines for approximately 70 years. Apr 16, 2015[5]

Currently, there are newer adjuvants such as: AS04, MF59 squalene, AS01b, CpG 1018 a synthetic form of DNA.[6]

There’s a huge question about immunology
However, a huge question comes to mind when one considers immunology, a ‘science’ in its infancy days back then in the early 1930s.

When the humoral adaptive response to the aluminum adjuvant was discovered in the early 1900s, one has to wonder if that response was not a very real adverse reaction, since the humoral immune system was activated, not the innate immune system!

Had the rewiring the human immune system begun—inadvertently or intentionally, which enabled vaccine consensus science to plow forward creating the need for booster shots for all diseases. The information below may help you to understand why I make that claim.

The adaptive immune response is largely driven by lymphocytes: T-cells and B-cells. The relative activities of the B-cell and T-cell populations determine the type of immune response generated in response to infection.[7]

Real immunity [innate immunity] is life-long and occurs only after having contracted an infectious disease, which facilitates not having to live a life becoming either a carrier or a ‘progenitor’ of communicable infectious and other vaccine-laden diseases due to vaccine shedding for as long as 30 days post vaccination[8] and post vaccination booster shots!

How can “science-based medicine” be trusted when, in reality, low-level and insufficient populations ‘efficacy and safety’ studies were designed and implemented for a total of 800 children in only 8 remarkable studies to gain approval licensure for the MMR vaccine in 1978?

Furthermore, those studies do not include the ten-year [1990s] fraudulent fudging of efficacy reports for the Mumps active in the MMR vaccine when Merck added rabbit blood antibodies to achieve and meet the 95% efficacy rate required for FDA licensure. See the qui tam whistleblower lawsuit[9] in U.S. Federal Court in Philadelphia.

Thus, there is a specific need for this Anthology to drill down on the fraudulent erroneous propaganda HHS, CDC, FDA and Big Pharma have been promoting GLOBALLY for decades, influencing the World Health Organization (WHO) at the United Nations, foreign governments and local health agencies.

The Selling of Science” or the privatization of knowledge[10]
“The American public would be surprised, and maybe even concerned, if they knew how widespread the practice of self-regulation was.”
… José Solís, PhD

In a quote, which has become part of medical school orientations everywhere, David Sackett, often referred to as the “father of evidence-based medicine,” once famously said:

“Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own.” [11]

—–

For a long time, we were interested by what we believe to be a pervasive problem in modern medicine. Namely, the spread of new technologies and therapies without clear evidence that they work, which are later (and often after considerable delay) followed by contradictions, which, in turn, after yet another delay, is followed by changes in practice and reimbursement.[12]
[CJF emphasis]
Sources: Killing For Profit – at the European Parliament

Resource:
The Fox Owns the Henhouse—When Public Safety is Governed by Private Profit [April 8, 2019]
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-fox-owns-the-henhouse-when-public-safety-is-governed-by-private-profit/

Reaction

The “reaction” within a normal Hegelian Dialectic ‘paradigm’[13] is not what’s been occurring in the case of vaccine fraud. Since the Autism explosion[14], there’s been an enlightenment, plus outrage, taking place due to the sharing of knowledge and personal child-and-family life-altering adverse health reaction stories by the thousands, including resolute consumer activism regarding First Amendment and humans’ unalienable rights, which health officials may not have expected.

Here’s one example:

Reality Check: Questioning Vaccines is a Public Health Threat? Ben Swann (March 14, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/reality-check-questioning-vaccines-is-a-public-health-threat.html

Others:

Attkisson Report Reveals Threats Against Congressmen Investigating Autism-Vaccine Link
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/01/attkisson-report-reveals-threats-against-congressmen-investigating-autism-vaccine-link/ (Jan. 9, 2019)

“We spoke to 11 current and former members of Congress and staff who claim they faced pressure, bullying or threats when they raised vaccine safety questions.” Physician and former Rep. Dave Weldon commented, “It would typically be in a hallway or the street and people would come up to you and say, “You know, you really need to, you know, back off on this. It could be, it could be bad for the community or bad for the country or bad for you.”

Congressman Mark Green Under Fire for Seeking Vaccine Truth [Jan. 1, 2019]
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/mark-green-vaccine-truth/

There are 3 major issues here:

  1. That vaccines have not been proven safe
  2. That the research standards and liability for vaccine manufacturers are uniquely inadequate
  3. That we are currently in the midst of one of the greatest assaults on freedom and integrity in a generation.

Rep. Bill Posey Calling for an investigation of the CDC’s MMR research fraud [July 29, 2015]

[embedded content]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud

The Making of a Monster: We’re All Lab Rats in the Government’s Secret Experiments [March 26, 2019]
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/the-making-of-a-monster-were-all-lab-rats-in-the-governments-secret-experiments.html

UPS partnering with drug giants to inject you with vaccines in your own home… pilot project a blueprint for nationwide vaccine mandates at gunpoint [April 5, 2019]
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-05-ups-drug-giants-inject-vaccines-home-blueprint-mandates.html

Solution

The only solution to this unprecedented medical police state now encompassing the vaccine fraud perpetrated upon U.S. citizens, plus others globally, is for there to be criminal investigations into the documented FRAUDULENT science manipulation that has taken place time after time at the very agencies entrusted with the safe-keeping of consumer health in the USA.

High-ranking federal HHS/CDC/FDA bureaucrats, researchers, epidemiologists, etc. who have perpetuated these ongoing fraudulent practices must be prosecuted legally at law and removed from their cozy perches of authority reflecting Big Pharma’s controls.

It’s what’s referred to as “breach of fiduciary duty”.

“A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure in regard to the client and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client.”

Source: USLegal.com

When Congress enacted the 1986 National Vaccine Law[15], was that a benign or deliberate betrayal of U.S. health consumers, equivalent to ‘throwing them under the bus’, which can be considered criminal and collusive activity, plus a breach of fiduciary duty?

Did Congress essentially absolve vaccine manufacturers from any and all product legal liability claims, thus ensuring Congressional constituents that Congress, figuratively, had “thrown voters under the bus”?

That idiomatic phrase, “thrown under the bus,” represents a veiled spirit of sordid betrayal, plus intended, undeniable deliberate harms, since Congress knew about the tremendous number of lawsuits for vaccine product adverse reactions that prompted Big Pharma to seek Congressional “get out of jail free” cards, or not make vaccines. Was that an illegal act by Big Pharma? Collusion? Sherman Antitrust Act and RICO?

According to the 1986 NCVIA, it preempts all design-defect claims against vaccines as unavoidably unsafe, and was affirmed per the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 Brusewitz decision.

In essence, the U.S. Congress sacrificed infants, toddlers, teens, adults and seniors unalienable health rights and personal sovereignty to the ‘arm bending’ and ‘no vaccines manufactured threats’ made by vaccine makers, who, at that time, were subject to “a storm of lawsuits,” more than Big Pharma could defend and probably would have put them out of business! Fast forward to what’s happening with Bayer after purchasing Monsanto and the thousands of glyphosate lawsuits.

That lawsuits admission, alone, should have been THE huge red flag something was wrong with vaccines and for Congress to say, “Hell, no! Clean up your act!”

Thus we can see how Congress knowingly colluded with Big Pharma to ensure denial of product liability legal rights to citizens damaged by vaccine. That NCVIA law gave Big Pharma and the CDC/FDA what amounts to “carte blanche” [complete freedom to act as one wishes or thinks best][16] for the roughshod and draconian vaccination mandates since 1989, ever increasing to today’s nightmares!

Needless to say, “all hell’s broken lose” and there’s more fraudulent disinformation about vaccine ‘science’ than probably at any time in history, since the CDC/FDA literally have become the Big Pharma vaccine machine ‘mouthpiece’.

The indignities, harms, adverse reactions and police state activities involving vaccine issues must be addressed immediately. Therefore, here’s a suggestion to be taken seriously by all who care about what’s happening regarding the “Vaccine Police State” wherever you live.

What to do.

Contact the following law authorities and request a Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility be filed against Big Pharma, vaccine manufacturers and Congress.

The Attorney General of the United States
All Attorneys General[17] of each of the 50 U.S. states
All Inspectors General[18] of every health agency at federal and state levels

While you are at it, kindly remind all officials that the Sherman Antitrust Act[19] and the RICO Act[20] [18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS] also are involved.

All The Proof You Need to File Your Requests

Below is a series of “If Truth Be Told” articles published online containing factual science documentation for you to present to authorities, which prove FRAUD regarding vaccine science being a perpetual practice within CDC and FDA.

Are There “Sleeper” VACCINE-caused Mutations Cytochrome P450 Genes Produce Which Medicine Deliberately Ignores (March 4, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/are-there-sleeper-vaccine-caused-mutations-cytochrome-p450-genes-produce-which-medicine-deliberately-ignores.html

If Truth Be Known About The Mumps Vaccine! Animal Blood Antibodies For 10 Years Got FDA Licensure: FRAUD (March 14, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/if-truth-be-known-about-the-mumps-vaccine-animal-blood-antibodies-for-10-years-got-fda-licensure-fraud.html

IF Truth Be Told About Vaccines! Risk Of Seizures After MMR & DTP Vaccinations Exist Per CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink Working Group (March 16, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/if-truth-be-told-about-vaccines-risk-of-seizures-after-mmr-dtp-vaccinations-exist-per-cdc-vaccine-safety-datalink-working-group.html

If Truth Be Told About Fake News, Trolls & “Astroturfing” (March 20, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/if-truth-be-told-about-fake-news-trolls-astroturfing.html

If Truth Be Told About Cowpox & Smallpox Diseases Scientific Differences That Caused A Pharmaceutical Fairytale (March 25, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/if-truth-be-told-about-cowpox-smallpox-diseases-scientific-differences-that-caused-a-pharmaceutical-fairytale.html

If Truth Be Told About The SV-40 Cancer Virus In The Original Polio Vaccines Given To Millions Of American Children (March 27, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/if-truth-be-told-about-the-sv-40-cancer-virus-in-the-original-polio-vaccines-given-to-millions-of-american-children.html

If Truth Be Told About Unreported Vaccine Adverse Reactions: Do VAERS Reports Represent Demographic Statistical Actuality? (March 31, 2019)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/if-truth-be-told-about-unreported-vaccine-adverse-reactions-do-vaers-reports-represent-demographic-statistical-actuality.html

If Truth Be Told: Pregnancy Vaccines Are Not Tested For Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment Of Fertility Proof In Vaccine Package Inserts [April 4, 2019]
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/if-truth-be-told-pregnancy-vaccines-are-not-tested-for-carcinogenesis-mutagenesis-impairment-of-fertility-proof-in-vaccine-package-inserts.html

If Truth Be Told About Death, Disability Vaccines Ineffectiveness With Validation From Peer Review Journals, Demographic Charts & Graphs [April6, 2019]
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/if-truth-be-told-about-death-disability-vaccines-ineffectiveness-with-validation-from-peer-review-journals-demographic-charts-graphs.html

If Truth Be Told About Measles Deaths In U.S. 2004 to 2015 [April 7, 2019]
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/if-truth-be-told-about-measles-deaths-in-u-s-2004-to-2015.html

MMR Vaccine Approved After Only 42-Day-Trials In 1978, Per FDA FOIA Reports [April 13, 2019]
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/mmr-vaccine-approved-after-only-42-day-trials-in-1978-per-fda-foia-reports.html

If Truth Be Told About CDC’s Science Manipulators [April 15, 2019]
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/04/if-truth-be-told-about-cdcs-science-manipulators.html

The Pièce de résistance In Vaccine Data

Nothing addresses the documented “numbers game” in vaccine statistics reporting than the two sets of seemingly opposing data below which ought to demonstrate clearly how vaccine data reporting is skewed and cannot be depended upon for accuracy.

Measles U.S. Cases Chart 1950 to 2019
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186678/new-cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/

1950 319,124
1960 441,783
1970 47,351
1980 13,506
1990 27,786
1991 9,643
1992 2,237
2018 372
2019 555

Now, compare the above figures with the numbers from CDC: is the average numbers game being played?, or so it seems. Who can prove such statistics?

Which data sets represent fraudulent statistics?

CDC’s report most quoted on measles stats
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

Measles.

Measles vaccine was licensed in the United States in 1963. During 1958-1962, an average of 503,282 measles cases and 432 measles-associated deaths were reported each year (9-11). Measles incidence and deaths began to decline in 1965 and continued a 33-year downward trend. This trend was interrupted by epidemics in 1970-1972, 1976-1978, and 1989-1991. In 1998, measles reached a provisional record low number of 89 cases with no measles-associated deaths (13). All cases in 1998 were either documented to be associated with international importations (69 cases) or believed to be associated with international importations (CDC, unpublished data, 1998). In 1994, every dollar spent to purchase measles-containing vaccine saved $10.30 in direct medical costs and $3.20 in indirect societal costs (7)

7. Batelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy Reserach Program, Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation. A cost benefit analysis of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Arlington, Virginia: Batelle, 1994
9. CDC. Annual summary 1980: reported morbidity and mortality in the United States. MMWR 1981;29.
10. CDC. Reported incidence of notifiable diseases in the United States, 1960. MMWR 1961;9.
11. CDC. Reported morbidity and mortality in the United States, 1970. MMWR 1971;19.

Lastly, what’s happening in the country of Ukraine where, as of April 3, 2019, there were close to 70,000 cases of measles?

Are children dropping over like flies? How come there seems to be ‘a lid’ on reporting what’s going on regarding a dramatic spread of measles in the European Union? What role do refugees and immigrants from elsewhere play in the spread of infectious diseases[21] anywhere?

Concerned healthcare consumers must recognize what’s become the “tail wagging the dog”: Big Pharma vaccine geopolitics.

Notes:

[1] https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20/how-rockefeller-founded-modern-medicine-and-killed-natural-cures/
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/november-2016/forced-vaccination-the-tragic-legacy.aspx
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4923397/
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494348/
[6] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html
[7] Ibid.
[8] https://www.nvic.org/cmstemplates/nvic/pdf/live-virus-vaccines-and-vaccine-shedding.pdf
[9] https://bergermontague.com/federal-judge-permits-false-claims-act-case-continue-vaccine-manufacturer-merck/
[10] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-fox-owns-the-henhouse-when-public-safety-is-governed-by-private-profit/?utm_source=mailchimp
[11] https://retractionwatch.com/2011/07/11/so-how-often-does-medical-consensus-turn-out-to-be-wrong/
[12] Ibid. study co-author Vinay Prasad
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/?fbclid=IwAR0SKjwd6BTSFxPdnzQFok4ki0ofTE8AZvPuzZj6I311RGfwMwhZa2wm6z4#!po=26.9444https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
[15] https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
[16] Dictionary online
[17] https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Inspector%20General%20Act%20Of%201978.pdf
[18] Ibid.
[19] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act
[20] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96
[21] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Top image credit: Infowars

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Source

Scientists Plan to Clone 42,000-Year-Old Horse Using Liquid Blood

By Elias Marat

A team of Russian and Korean scientists in the Siberian region of Yakutsk has managed to salvage pristine samples of liquid blood from the heart of an ancient 42,000-year-old horse that was preserved in permafrost.

Their goal? To eventually gather the cells necessary to revive the extinct species back to life through cloning.

The male foal, which was discovered last August in the Batagaika depression, is a remarkably well-preserved specimen that belongs to an extinct equestrian species known as Lenskaya, or Lena Horse, according to the Siberian Times, which populated the remote corner of Russia between 30,000 to 40,000 years ago.

Now a joint team from the North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk and the South Korean Sooam Biotech Research Foundation has begun analyzing the remains with the clearly expressed goal of cloning the Ice Age-era horse.

Semyon Grigoryev, the head of the Mammoth Museum in Yakutsk, told Russian news agency TASS that the autopsy has revealed the animal’s “beautifully preserved organs” as well as muscle tissue that has maintained a healthy “natural reddish color.” Likewise, the hair on its head, legs, and body parts is largely intact–a fantastic attribute given that “preserved hair is another scientific sensation as all previous ancient horses were found without hair,” Grigoryev remarked.

Grigoryev said:

We can now claim that this is the best preserved Ice Age animal ever found in the world.

The foal likely died of drowning early in life judging by the results of its autopsy, Grigoryev added.

“A lot of mud and silt which the foal gulped during the last seconds of its life were found inside its gastrointestinal tract,” Grigoryev said.

It remains unclear, however, if viable cells can be grown from the blood samples extracted so far.

However, another team of Russian scientists working alongside Japanese researchers have managed to spark activity in the cells of a well-preserved mammoth carcass that dates back 28,000 years ago.

Whether the material on-hand will provide the Russian-Korean team with the basis for a fully-cloned animal is another story, however. Interestingly enough, Gizmodo notes that lead collaborator Sooam Biotech has made a lucrative business for itself by cloning pet dogs as a means to “heal the broken hearts” of bereaved pet owners, and its own lead researcher was the subject of accusations that he had committed several egregious ethical violations in the 2000s.

Likewise, the ethics surrounding the possibility of cloning the ancient foal remain questionable for various reasons, such as the fact that the clone will likely enjoy the existence of a lab-rat throughout its life, without its natural wild habitat of Ice Age-era Siberian tundra and vast forests.

Nevertheless, the team is so “confident of success” that it is already “reportedly choosing a mother for the historic role of giving birth to the comeback species,” according to Siberian Times.

Whether the idea sounds wild or not, if it’s left up to the researchers in Yakutsk we could be in for a show lifted straight out of Jurassic Park.

This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed.

Source

Zombie Science: Researchers Kept the Brains of Decapitated Pigs Alive For 36 Hours

By Dagny Taggart

Scientists seem to be crossing a lot of boundaries as of late, which begs the question: Just because they can do something, does it mean they should?

Advances in brain-related technology are reaching dystopian levels. Scientists recently developed the ability to predict our choices before we are consciously aware of them, and can now translate people’s thoughts into speech. Smart chips that will create super-intelligent humans are in development, and China is mining data from the brains of citizens.

While there are legitimate uses for some of this technology, it doesn’t take much stretch of the imagination to realize that much of it could also be used for nefarious purposes.

Are scientists taking some research too far?

Developments in artificial intelligence are both fascinating and terrifying, but they pale in comparison to a recent discovery in neuroscience.

This headline caught my attention a few days ago:

Yale Scientists Kept Decapitated Pigs’ Brains Alive for 36 Hours

That article goes on to explain the study:

In March 2018, Yale neuroscientist Nenad Sestan shared a remarkable bit of news with his peers at a National Institutes of Health (NIH) meeting: he was able to keep pigs’ brains “alive” outside their bodies for up to 36 hours.

The news quickly made its way from that meeting to the media. And now, more than a year later, the details of the radical study have finally been published in the highly respected journal Nature, confirming that what sounded initially like science-fiction was actually sound science — and raising startling questions about what it really means to be “dead.” (source)

A press release titled Pig brains kept alive outside body for hours after death outlines the details of the study:

Researchers at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, hooked the organs to a system that pumped in a blood substitute. The technique restored some crucial functions, such as the ability of cells to produce energy and remove waste, and helped to maintain the brains’ internal structures. (source)

Sestan wanted to know if a whole brain could be revived hours after death, so he decided to find out…

…using severed heads from 32 pigs that had been killed for meat at a slaughterhouse near his lab. His team removed each brain from its skull and placed it into a special chamber before fitting the organ with a catheter. Four hours after death, the researchers began pumping a warm preservative solution into the brain’s veins and arteries.

The system, which the researchers call BrainEx, mimics blood flow by delivering nutrients and oxygen to brain cells. The preservative solution the team used also contained chemicals that stop neurons from firing, to protect them from damage and to prevent electrical brain activity from restarting. Despite this, the scientists monitored the brains’ electrical activity throughout the experiment and were prepared to administer anaesthetics if they saw signs that the organ might be regaining consciousness. (source)

The researchers tested how well the brains fared during a six-hour period.

Here’s what they found:

…neurons and other brain cells had restarted normal metabolic functions, such as consuming sugar and producing carbon dioxide, and that the brains’ immune systems seemed to be working. The structures of individual cells and sections of the brain were preserved — whereas cells in control brains, which did not receive the nutrient- and oxygen-rich solution, collapsed. And when the scientists applied electricity to tissue samples from the treated brains, they found that individual neurons could still carry a signal.

But the team never saw coordinated electrical patterns across the entire brain, which would indicate sophisticated brain activity or even consciousness. The researchers say that restarting brain activity might require an electrical shock, or preserving the brain in solution for extended periods to allow cells to recover from any damage they sustained while deprived of oxygen. (source)

This research revealed some shocking information.

It appears that the death of brain cells may not be as sudden, or as irreversible, as previously believed. The cells of the brain remained viable six hours later, compared with other brains not preserved using the newly developed process, the researchers reported.

This study revealed a surprising degree of resilience among cells within a brain that has lost its supply of blood and oxygen, Sestan said. “Cell death in the brain occurs across a longer time window than we previously thought,” he explained.

“Although the experiments stopped short of restoring consciousness, they raise questions about the ethics of the approach — and, more fundamentally, about the nature of death itself. The current legal and medical definitions of death guide protocols for resuscitating people and for transplanting organs,” the press release states.

“For most of human history, death was very simple,” says Christof Koch, president and chief scientist of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington. ”Now, we have to question what is irreversible.”

In most countries, a person is considered to be legally dead when brain activity ceases or when the heart and lungs stop working. The brain requires an immense amount of blood, oxygen and energy, and going even a few minutes without these vital support systems is thought to cause irreversible damage. (source)

The researchers say their findings might lead to new therapies for stroke and other conditions, as well as provide a new way to study the brain and how drugs work in it. They said they had no current plans to try their technique on human brains.

Last year, Sestan said the BrainEx system is far from ready for use in people – not least because it is difficult to use without first removing the brain from the skull.

This study and its possible uses raise serious ethical concerns.

Do the possible implications and consequences of this research send chills down your spine?

We’ve long been told that the brain cannot survive long without blood – that brain deterioration begins within minutes, and death soon follows.

This study brings those beliefs into question and raises some serious concerns about ethical issues.

Scientists – both those involved with the study and some who were not – have weighed in on the ethical issues surrounding this type of research and its possible uses, reports the Associated Press:

Christof Koch, president of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, who didn’t participate in the study, said he was surprised by the results, especially since they were achieved in a large animal.

“This sort of technology could help increase our knowledge to bring people back to the land of the living” after a drug overdose or other catastrophic event that deprived the brain of oxygen for an hour or two, he said. Unlike the pig experiments, any such treatment would not involve removing the brain from the body.

The pig work also enters an ethical minefield, he said. For one thing, it touches on the widely used definition of death as the irreversible loss of brain function because irreversibility “depends on the state of the technology; and as this study shows, this is constantly advancing,” he said.

And somebody might well try this with a human brain someday, he said. If future experiments restored the large-scale electrical activity, would that indicate consciousness? Would the brain “experience confusion, delusion, pain or agony?” he asked. That would be unacceptable even in an animal brain, he said. (source)

In an editorial in Nature asserting the need for ethical guidelines for research on brain tissue, Sestan and 16 other scientists explained the various forms this tissue could take, such as samples removed via surgery or tissue grown in a lab from stem cells. They noted that “the closer the proxy gets to a functioning human brain, the more ethically problematic it becomes.”

The study also raises questions about whether brain damage and death are permanent:

Lance Becker, an emergency-medicine specialist at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, says that many physicians assume that even minutes without oxygen can cause irreversible harm. But the pig experiments suggest that the brain might stay viable for much longer than previously thought, even without outside support. “This paper throws a hand grenade into the middle of what the common beliefs are,” says Becker. “We may have vastly underestimated the ability of the brain to recover.” (source)

This may be the most troubling excerpt from the ethical issues editorial:

In the meantime, scientists and governments are left to confront the legal and ethical quandaries related to the possibility of creating a conscious brain without a body. “This really is a no-man’s land,” says Koch. “The law will probably have to evolve to keep up.”

Koch wants a broader ethical discussion to take place before any researcher tries to induce awareness in a disembodied brain. “It is a big, big step,” he says. “And once we do it, it’s impossible to reverse it.” (source)

Also chilling: When MIT Technology Review contacted Sestan last year to ask a few questions about his study, he declined to elaborate, “saying he had submitted the results for publication in a scholarly journal and had not intended for his remarks to become public.”

Steve Hyman, director of psychiatric research at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was among those briefed on the work. He shared his thoughts on the experiments with MIT Technology Review:

“These brains may be damaged, but if the cells are alive, it’s a living organ. It’s at the extreme of technical know-how, but not that different from preserving a kidney.”

Hyman says the similarity to techniques for preserving organs like hearts or lungs for transplant could cause some to mistakenly view the technology as a way to avoid death. “It may come to the point that instead of people saying ‘Freeze my brain,’ they say ‘Hook me up and find me a body,’” says Hyman.

Such hopes are misplaced, at least for now. Transplanting a brain into a new body “is not remotely possible,” according to Hyman. (source)

More disturbing concerns were raised in the MIT article:

Sestan acknowledged that surgeons at Yale had already asked him if the brain-preserving technology could have medical uses. Disembodied human brains, he said, could become guinea pigs for testing exotic cancer cures and speculative Alzheimer’s treatments too dangerous to try on the living.

The setup, jokingly dubbed the “brain in a bucket,” would quickly raise serious ethical and legal questions if it were tried on a human.

For instance, if a person’s brain were reanimated outside the body, would that person awake in what would amount to the ultimate sensory deprivation chamber, without ears, eyes, or a way to communicate? Would someone retain memories, an identity, or legal rights? Could researchers ethically dissect or dispose of such a brain? (source)

If you are interested in additional information on the ethical issues surrounding this type of experiment and its possible consequences, the full editorial is worth reading and can be found here: The Ethics of Experimenting With Human Brain Tissue.

What do you think?

Do you think this study could have serious consequences? If so, what do you think this technology may be used for? Do you think the pros outweigh the cons? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

About the Author

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.

This article was sourced from The Organic Prepper.

Source

If Truth Be Told About Unreported Vaccine Adverse Reactions: Do VAERS Reports Represent Demographic Statistical Actuality?

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Ever since the 1980s I have been researching vaccine data, but I cannot seem to figure out – for the life of me – how many actual adverse reactions experienced by vaccinees are reported to VAERS, since there are so many data variables, plus estimated figures bandied around, as you will soon learn.

The vaccine adverse reactions reporting conundrum apparently gained some legitimacy with this report:

VAERS MAY ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 1 PERCENT OF ACTUAL VACCINE INJURIES [Nov 2, 2015]

But how many children have vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler [1] observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.

Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.   [1] [CJF emphasis]

— Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-founder & President  National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)

Now here’s where things can get somewhat “squirrelly,” I think.  In checking CDC/FDA and the feds websites, I find varying explanations and numbers for estimated yearly VAERS reports.

Since 1990VAERS has received over 123,000 reports as of June 14, 2014
[VAERS-1 Form used from 1990 to June 30, 2017]
Source: FDA

In recent years VAERS has received approximately 40,000 U.S. reports annually.  
[VAERS Form 2.0 was implemented June 30, 2017.]
Source: Federal Register

However by law, healthcare professionals must Report Vaccine Reactions!  

And still, MDs, nurses and others, who should know their legal responsibilities as licensed healthcare professionals, DO NOT file vaccine damage reports with VAERS!  What are they hiding, or whom are they protecting?

On the other hand, anyone who has experienced an adverse event after receiving a vaccine CAN and SHOULD file the proper VAERS report (Form 2.0) at this HHS website Report an Adverse Event.

Now here’s an example of where I feel almost like a cat chasing its tail in trying to figure out VAERS.

I downloaded this data set, which apparently is a sophisticated Excel spreadsheet.  Columns A to G have these designations:

VAERS_ID RECVDATE STATE AGE_YRS CAGE_YR CAGE_MO SEX

However, scrolling down the left column designated A “VAERS ID,” the numbering system seems to be an ongoing sequence that started with ID No. 794156 on 1/1/2019 and ends with ID No. 801633 as of sometime in February 2019.  Would that mean that 7745 adverse reports were filed from January 1, 2019 to sometime in February 2019?

If that be the case, then how does the above numbering system fit in with the following reported data?

A. Since 1990VAERS has received over 123,000 reports as of June 14, 2014
B. In recent years [2015 to 2019?] VAERS has received approximately 40,000 U.S. reports annually
C. 40,000 reports a year times 4 years (2015-2018) equals 160,000 to be added to 123,000 (2014) equals 283,000 reports; so why begin Jan. 1, 2019 with 794,156?
D. If 7745 adverse reports were filed from January 1, 2019 to sometime in February 2019,then what explains ID No. 801633 as of sometime in February 2019?
E. If 7745 reports represent approximately one-eighth (1/8) of 2019 calendar days, can we hypothesize 61960 total VAERS reports for all of 2019—not 40,000?
F. The above numbering system seems to indicate, and represent, more adverse events reported since the mandatory increases in the CDC vaccine schedule.

If I am correct in my assumptions about the VAERS ID numbering system, there probably is substantial proof that 801633 Adverse Events Reports had been filed to sometime in February 2019 since 1990.

Those numbers indicate there ARE adverse reaction vaccine problems, which the CDC and FDA do not seem to acknowledge, all while cataloging VAERS as a post-marketing product-efficacy surveillance system.

And even more alarming, I think, when taking the above ‘logic’ a step further to factor into consideration Dr. Kessler’s estimation of less than 1% being reported, what could be the “real life” number of experiences by consumers to February 2019?  Good question?

My calculator figured 80 million 163 thousand 3 hundred probable adverse reactions may have occurred from 1990 to sometime in February 2019, which could [or should] have been reported to VAERS.

Sadly, consumers probably may never know the accurate data sets until there is total transparency at every level of vaccine consensus science and adverse events reporting.

Reference:

[1] https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/588757

Source

If Truth Be Told About Cowpox & Smallpox Diseases Scientific Differences That Caused A Pharmaceutical Fairytale

By Catherine J. Frompovich

“I hope that someday the practice of producing cowpox in human beings will spread over the world – when that day comes, there will be no more smallpox. – Edward Jenner


Holy cow!

Edward Jenner did not know cowpox and smallpox were/are two different organisms or diseases!

And the pharmaceutical industry followed charlatan Edward Jenner into a perpetuity of high profits and criminal scientific misdemeanors for which Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers are not being held accountable within product liability law, at least in the USA, due to the actions of the U.S. Congress in 1986 when it passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).

By 1985, vaccine manufacturers had difficulty obtaining liability insurance. … Because of this, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986, establishing a federal no-fault system to compensate victims of injury caused by mandated vaccines.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act]

[Who says vaccines are safe, if Congress in 1986 recognized injuries caused by vaccines? Don’t people have the inherent right to protect themselves and their children from known vaccine adverse health effects, especially neurotoxins and toxic chemicals?]

Cowpox Definition

noun

a viral disease of cows’ udders which, when contracted by humans through contact, resembles mild smallpox, and was the basis of the first smallpox vaccines.

[Dictionary online]

Cowpox is a viral skin infection caused by the cowpox or catpox virus. This is a member of the Orthopoxvirus family, which includes the variola virus that causes smallpox. Cowpox is similar to but much milder than the highly contagious and sometimes deadly smallpox disease.

[https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cowpox/]

What is the treatment for cowpox?

However, studies in mice suggest a role for the viral DNA polymerase inhibitor cidofovir, given parenterally, topically, or in an aerosolized form, for disseminated cases of cowpox. Patients should be made aware that their lesions are potentially infectious, but no person-to-person transmission has been reported. Jun 19, 2018

[https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1131886-treatment]

Medical Care

Because cowpox is generally a self-limited disease, treatment is largely supportive. Patients often do not feel well and require bed rest or, occasionally, hospitalization.

[https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1131886-treatment]

What is the treatment of cowpox?

There is no cure for cowpox, but the disease is self-limiting. The human immune response is sufficient to control the infections on its own. The lesions heal by themselves within 6–12 weeks. Often patients are left with scars at the site of the healed pox lesions.

Patients may feel unwell and require bed rest and supportive therapy. Wound dressings or bandages may be applied to lesions to prevent spread to other sites and potentially to other people.

Patients with underlying skin conditions, such as atopic dermatitis, may be at greater risk of generalised cowpox.

[https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cowpox/]

How many people have died from cowpox?

The scourge of the world. An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone. This virulent disease, which kills a third of those it infects, is known to have co-existed with human beings for thousands of years. Feb 17, 2011

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml]

The question above refers to cowpox, but the data “spinmiesters” cite smallpox deaths!

What kind of transparency, plus scientific accuracy, is that in reporting medical and health information over the Internet? Doesn’t that represent an example of real fake news?

Vaccine MIS-information probably is the primary example of fake news on the Internet!

I believe I can make that statement unequivocally, as the above discussion of cowpox not being smallpox clearly demonstrates, plus my researching vaccine science data since the 1980s!

In England, the Royal Society For Public Health, Vision and Practice published online its 36-page report “Moving The Needle, Promoting vaccination uptake across the life course,” which clearly sets out the projected long-range plans for all the vaccines coming from Big Pharma.

In the above Report’s section titled “Responsibility of the press,” we find this:

The press, therefore, has a responsibility to share accurate, evidence-based information about vaccinations, given the vital role vaccinations play in improving and maintaining the health of the population. [Pg. 32] [CJF emphasis everywhere]

No truer words spoken, but definitely not practiced by mainstream media!

There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles regarding the dangers and downfalls of vaccines, their ingredients and harms [vaccine package inserts Contraindications, Adverse Events] etc. published online, and

Is there an obvious Conclusion?

If Jenner’s ignorance, misinformation and ‘scientific’ lie(s) have been promoted since the 1700s, isn’t it time to confess the mistake; correct the science; and re-establish scientific integrity within medicine and pharmacology?

Remember, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Source

Scientists From Around the World Call for Immediate Halt to “Genetically Altered Children”

By Derrick Broze

Scientists and ethicists from around the world are warning of the consequences of failing to implement a temporary global halt on gene editing of human eggs, embryos, and sperm. 

In a letter to the journal Nature, 18 scientists and ethicists from seven countries called for a global moratorium on the type of gene editing that can result in genetically altered babies. The letter was prompted by a 2018 announcement by a Chinese scientist declaring the birth of the world’s first gene-edited twin babies.

The 18 signatories of this call include scientists and ethicists who are citizens of 7 countries. Many of us have been involved in the gene-editing field by developing and applying the technology, organizing and speaking at international summits, serving on national advisory committees and studying the ethical issues raised.

Fears of “designer babies” have been on the rise in the last decade as scientists move closer to producing embryos which have been genetically modified to produce children with specific, desirable characteristics. This vision was once the exclusive domain of Hollywood movies like Gattaca, but now, a future where parents are able to pick and choose exactly how their child’s genes express themselves is eerily close.

Specifically, the group is calling for a moratorium on germline cells—in this case egg or sperm cells—that can then be inherited and “could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species.”

“To begin with, there should be a fixed period during which no clinical uses of germline editing whatsoever are allowed,” the scientists write. “As well as allowing for discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues that must be considered before germline editing is permitted, this period would provide time to establish an international framework.”

From that point on, individual nations will choose their own paths. The scientists predict that some nations may choose to continue a moratorium indefinitely or a permanent ban. They also call on any nation that chooses to allow specific applications of germline editing to first give public notice and engage in an “international consideration about the wisdom of doing so.” The group also calls for a “transparent evaluation” to determine if germline editing is justified and for a nation to gain a “broad societal consensus” over the appropriateness of the editing.

“No clinical application of germline editing should be considered unless its long-term biological consequences are sufficiently understood—both for individuals and for the human species,” the group urges.

In a separate letter to the journal Nature, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that the NIH strongly agrees that a moratorium should begin immediately and last until nations commit to international rules to determine “whether and under what conditions such research should ever proceed.”

“This is a crucial moment in the history of science: a new technology offers the potential to rewrite the script of human life. We think that human gene editing for reproductive purposes carries very serious consequences—social, ethical, philosophical and theological,” Collins wrote. “Such great consequences deserve deep reflection. A substantive debate about benefits and risks that provides opportunities for multiple segments of the world’s diverse population to take part has not yet happened. Societies, after those deeper discussions, might decide this is a line that should not be crossed. It would be unwise and unethical for the scientific community to foreclose that possibility.”

In a response to both letters, the editors of Nature released an editorial describing their viewpoint. “Whether or not a moratorium receives more widespread support, several things need to be done to ensure that germline gene-editing studies, done for the purposes of research only, are on a safe and sensible path,” the editors wrote. The editors called for all proposals and basic research studies using gene-editing tools in human embryos to be deposited in an open registry. Certain countries will have lax laws which could be exploited by “would-be mavericks” and thus there is a need for global laws to prevent and penalize unacceptable research, the editors state.

The right decisions on human germline modification can be reached only through frank and open discussion, followed by swift action. With so much at stake, that must happen now.

This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed.

Source

Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate

By Truthstream Media

This is a much bigger issue beyond whether or not you are “pro” or “anti” vaccines.

It’s a larger situation about free speech in a society where the public square has gone digital, and major corporations, political leaders, and so-called scientific “experts” are going to start deciding what people are allowed to see, discuss, and know.

If you don’t share this one, it’s probably going to get buried. Note — Just in case, our backup channel on Vimeo is here: https://vimeo.com/truthstreammedia



Aaron & Melissa Dykes are the founders of TruthstreamMedia.com, Subscribe to them on YouTube, like on Facebook, follow on Twitter, support on Patreon.

Watch their mini-documentary Obsolete here and their full-length documentary THE MINDS OF MEN here.

Also Read: Amazon Joins Big Tech Assault on Anti-Vaccine Information

Source