The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

What's Hot…



by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Naturally occurring clay may turn out to be one of the most effective ways to kill antibiotic-resistant superbugs, according to a study conducted by researchers from Arizona State University and published in the journal Environmental Geochemistry and Health.

“Minerals have long had a role in non-traditional medicine,” said Enriqueta Barrera of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the study. “Yet there is often no understanding of the reaction between the minerals and the human body or agents that cause illness. This research explains the mechanism by which clay minerals interfere with the functioning of pathogenic bacteria.”

The key to stopping superbugs?

According to researcher Lynda Williams, clay minerals have been used in many traditional medical systems for thousands of years. Relatively recently, green clays found only in France and traditionally used in French mineral baths were proven to have antibacterial properties. Indeed, the green clays were used effectively to treats Mycobacterium ulcerans, a bacterial species that causes the skin disease known as Buruli ulcers.

“These clays,” Williams said, “demonstrated a unique ability to kill bacteria while promoting skin cell growth.”

Buruli ulcers begin as painful swelling of the skin but can eventually lead to large, open ulcers on the arms and legs. If untreated, the disease can lead to permanent deformity and even secondary infections that can cause death.

The French green clay was eventually depleted, however, and scientists have been searching for viable replacements. The value of antibacterial clay has become even higher as more and more pathogens continue to develop resistance to numerous forms of pharmaceutical antibiotics.

“As antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains emerge and pose increasing health risks,” Williams said, “new antibacterial agents are urgently needed.”

Indeed, multi-drug-resistant bacteria are now so prevalent and dangerous that they are considered a global health concern.

“This serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future,” reads a 2014 World Health Organization report, “it’s happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country.”

Clays kill MRSA, E. coli

The new study identifies and partially explains antibacterial properties in clays extracted from a volcanic deposit near Crater Lake, Oregon. The tests were conducted using the bacterial species Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis, which are common causes of human digestive and skin infections, respectively.

The researchers found that the clays flooded the bacterial cells with iron, overwhelming their ability to store the mineral and eventually killing them.

In addition, the researchers found that clays with antibacterial activity tend to be more acidic, thereby creating an environment more hostile to bacteria. This is particularly significant, since chronic, non-healing wounds tend to have a higher pH (i.e., less acidity and more alkalinity) than healthy skin. This same principle is used in many current wound treatments, such as acidified nitrate.

“Antibacterial clays can buffer wounds to a low [more acidic] pH,” Williams said. “The clays may shift the wound environment to a pH range that favors healing, while killing invading bacteria.”

Clays extracted from the Crater Lake region have also shown antibacterial activity against superbugs including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-resistant E. coli (ESBL).

“To date,” Williams said, “the most effective antibacterial clays are those from the Oregon deposit.”

Even in the Oregon deposit, not all clays were equally potent. Apparently, the geologic history (and thus chemical composition) of the clays plays a key role. The researchers found that two blue clays from the deposit were very effective against E. coli and S. epidermidis, while a white clay was 56 percent effective against E. coli and 29 percent effective against S. epidermidis. A red clay had no effect.

Sources for this article include:


Read article here:

TLB suggests you read more great/pertinent articles here:







By:Kimberlee Hertzer


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of a new insecticide, DuPont’s cyantraniliprole (CTP), despite concerns about it getting into the nation’s food supply and the fact that it’s highly toxic to hundreds — perhaps even thousands — of endangered species.

To help protect the public and wildlife from the effects of CTP, three groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety and Defenders of Wildlife – are suing the EPA in federal court.

According to the Center for Food Safety, the complaint filed by the groups stated that the insecticide “kills by causing unregulated activation of ryanodine receptors, which results in unregulated muscle contraction, paralysis, and death.”

The EPA’s own data showed CTP to be toxic, the Center for Food Safety said.

“Based on data showing the concentrations or amounts of CTP that cause direct effects, EPA classified the chemical as ‘slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish; slightly toxic to estuarine/marine fish; slightly to very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates; moderately to highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates, highly toxic to benthic invertebrates; highly to very highly toxic to terrestrial insects’ from acute exposures.”

Concerns About Cyantraniliprole

Here are a few of the other significant concerns:

1. CTP Will Get Into Our Food Supply.

Will this harmful pesticide get into our food supply? Yes. According to the Federal Register, CTP residue will be allowed on foods such as:

  • Almonds
  • Berries
  • Citrus
  • Leafy Vegetables
  • Onions

2. CTP Will Be Hard To Avoid.

You can change your eating habits, but it will be difficult to avoid CTP. After all, the EPA expects that its “use will be widespread.” So it will be used not only for agricultural purposes, but also for use on lawns, ornamental plants, fly baits, and even golf courses.

Want the best chemical-free, all-natural insecticide — for your garden AND home?

Sound familiar? It should.

Roundup was also deemed safe; however, we now know just how harmful it is. Likewise, CTP is a chemical that we should stop using now before the damage is done.

3. CTP Will Destroy The Bee Population.

The EPA is aware that CTP is dangerous to bees — but still approved it. Considering that the bee population is dwindling here in the U.S., perhaps the EPA should take a cue from Europe and stop using any pesticides that harm bees. And let’s be honest: We need them to grow food!  Beyond Pesticides says that in the near future, there may not be enough bees to pollinate crops due to the harmful effects of pesticides:

Beekeepers nationwide have experienced honey bee losses of over 40 percent over the 2012/2013 winter period —2013/2014 winter losses are likely to be released soon— with some beekeepers reporting losses of over 70 percent, far exceeding the normal rate of 10 to 15 percent. Some have even been driven out of business. Current estimates of the number of surviving hives in the U.S. show that these colonies may not be able to meet the future pollination demands of agricultural crops.

4. CTP Will Seep Into Our Water Supply.

The EPA will regulate the amount of CTP that is allowed on crops, but it hasn’t taken any steps to limit the amount of CTP that may get into the water supply.

“EPA’s unlawful and irresponsible approval ignored its own scientists’ warnings that strong protective measures are needed because this pesticide can drift into wildlife habitat,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety. “The agency also failed to include measures to protect water quality from pesticide run-off despite the urging of local water management authorities.”

How To Protect Yourself And Your Family From Pesticides

For now, CTP is used in the United States, Canada, China and India. While it’s hard to avoid, there are some steps that you can take to protect yourself and your family from CTP and other harmful pesticides.

  • Grow your own food, and use organic pesticides and fertilizers on your lawn and garden.
  • Buy and eat organic fruits and vegetables.
  • Add detoxifying herbs and food to your diet, including: beets, turmeric, Milk Thistle, dandelion greens, Essiac Tea and cilantro.


Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:


Most border crossings in Liberia, located in West Africa, have been closed and communities hit by an Ebola outbreak face quarantine to try to halt the spread of the virus. The symptoms include high fever, bleeding and central nervous system damage. Fatality rates can reach 90% and the incubation period is two to 21 days. THERE IS NO VACCINE OR CURE (CDC).

 How It All Begins

United States aid worker, Nancy Writebol, a missionary sent by the Calvary Church in North Carolina, became the second American citizen to contract the Ebola.  Previously, Dr Kent Brantly, a doctor also working at an Ebola clinic in the capital of Liberia, Monrovia, had previously been infected with the deadly Ebola virus while treating victims of the disease at a hospital in West Africa. Ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids, stated Tarik Jasarevic, a spokesman for the WHO, said around 100 health workers had been infected by Ebola in three countries. The virus has now killed 660 people across Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone since the outbreak began nearly six months ago. Ebola has a mortality of approximately 90% and overwhelms the health care systems of the communities in which it appears.


The past week has seen Ebola infecting key medical staff in Sierra Leone, a deadly Middle East virus become airborne and a whole city in China put on lock-down for fear of bubonic plague. Lockdown? What exactly is lockdown? If a community is to stop Ebola, they must go into lockdown procedures. Lockdown procedures include the closing of the border to a present non-infected nation. The map, below, shows the impacted countries experiencing an Ebola outbreak.


Why are we admitting people to the U.S. who are coming from a region with a live Ebola outbreak. Presently, Ebola is not being tested for at the U.S. Border.

Both Dr. Jane Orient, one of Arizona’s top physicians as well as other researchers, such as myself, have received information, from Border Patrol informants, that as many as 100,000 West Africans are being admitted to the United States under the same provisions that President Obama is presently admitting so-called “unaccompanied minors”. These people are from the same region of the world as the uncontained outbreak of Ebola. As Dr. Orient said in her interview on The Common Sense Show, on June 30, 2014, “It is not a matter of if Ebola comes into the United States, but when.”

The United States Containment Procedures

Fortunately, the United States has detailed procedures to deal with a pandemic outbreak and it carries the force of law. Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. The authority for carrying out these functions on a daily basis has been delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC utilizes two basic strategies when trying to contain a public outbreak of something as deadly as Ebola and they are Isolation and Quarantine.

“Isolation is used to separate ill persons who have a communicable disease from those who are healthy. Isolation restricts the movement of ill persons to help stop the spread of certain diseases. For example, hospitals use isolation for patients with infectious tuberculosis. Quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill. These people may have been exposed to a disease and do not know it, or they may have the disease but do not show symptoms. Quarantine can also help limit the spread of communicable disease” (CDC). Quarantining involves the creation of detainment facilities in which people, who are suspected, or are infected with a pathogen, are forcibly detained and not allowed to leave. This statute also applies, in the same manner, as people who “may be exposed”.


The United States Is Moving to Establish Quarantine Centers

Even if there was not a present immigration crisis at the border, there is a significant outbreak of Ebola in a seven country region of West Africa. With modern air travel, this government should be enacting protocols to limit the chances for Ebola from coming into the United States. Instead, President Obama is having ICE and DHS load up the basses and planes, at taxpayers expense ship them throughout the United States without going through a minimum of a three week health screening period (i.e. Ebola’s incubation period). This is highly irresponsible and could be considered to be an act of treason being committed against the people of the United States. Under federally mandated quarantine procedures, here is what the CDC and President Obama are mandated to do in the present crisis. Here is what is supposed to happen as described by the CDC:

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has statutory responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases in the United States. Under its delegated authority, the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine works to fulfill this responsibility through a variety of activities, including

  • the operation of Quarantine Stations at ports of entry

  • establishment of standards for medical examination of persons destined for the United States, and

  • administration of interstate and foreign quarantine regulations, which govern the international and interstate movement of persons, animals, and cargo.

Instead, we are getting this type of Obama led method of pandemic protection, as described below.

Ebola Quarantine Centers

Yesterday, Paul Watson opened a lot of eyes with the following statement: ” The source, an office clerk within the LADHS, said that during a policy meeting on the morning of June 18th last month, his supervisor announced that the Los Angeles County Dept. of Health Services had struck a deal with the government to open up “low cost housing” facilities for homeless people, otherwise known as “FEMA camps.” The source said that his supervisor ordered staff not to use the term “FEMA camps.” One look at who is behind this program should raise the eyebrows of every person. as it is being administered by the Department of Health Services.

“In an effort to respond to the high need for recuperative care services, Housing for Health will open a 38 bed recuperative care site in South LA this summer. The goal of recuperative care is to provide short-term housing with health oversight to homeless DHS patients who are recovering from an acute illness or injury or have conditions that would be exacerbated by living on the street or in shelters. The site was renovated to serve patients with mobility impairments and provides wheelchair accessible community space indoors and in an open-air courtyard. The site will be operated by LAMP Community, a non-profit agency with over 25 years of experience providing services to homeless individuals”.


At a time when city, state and federal budgets are stretched to infinity, we are supposed to believe that out of the goodness of their hearts, LA County is going to provide these kinds of services at this kind of expense to previously ignored homeless people? Does any of this make any sense given the economic state of the country? Paul Watson is calling these facilities, FEMA camps. I agree with Paul and would also add that they are FEMA Quarantine Camps. This is the early preparation for what is coming. Cities across the country, from Tempe, AZ. to Charleston, SC., are outlawing homeless people as it gives the government to quarantine these people.  A clear pattern is emerging that we are soon going to see from California to South Carolina homeless people being quarantined, held against their will, for “health” reasons. The handling of the present and potential Ebola crisis speaks for itself. When there is trouble America, who are you going to call? Thirty years ago, we called the Ghostbusters (i.e. hit movie 1984), which is a whole lot better than what is available now.


TLB recommends you visit Dave at The common Sense Show for more great/pertinent commentary, articles, radio shows and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE


Some scientists believe vaccines can “cure” autism.

By TLB Contributor: Christina England.

For many years the medical establishment has denied that the MMR vaccine can cause autism, despite government papers stating that the MMR vaccine can cause an SSPE-like syndrome, which many professionals believe to be autism, the non-fatal form of SSPE. [1] Instead of researching this link further, as one would expect, scientists from the University of Guelph are developing a vaccine believed to alleviate specific symptoms found to be associated with autism.

(SSPE or subacute sclerosing panencephalitis is a degenerative neurological condition which affects a person’s behavior, memory and coordination, leading to fits, blindness and eventually death.)

For years, doctors have been bombarding the systems of autistic children with antibiotics to control the bacteria, clostridium bolteae, reported to be found in abundance in the guts of autistic children. This bacteria causes these children to suffer from constipation, diarrhea and other gastrointestinal related problems.

Just Another Vaccine?

A paper written by Brittany Pequegnat, et al, states:

“Individuals with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) are likely to experience chronic gastrointestinal (GI) irritations, such as constipation and diarrhea. GI disorders have a demonstrably high correlation with ASD and current literature suggests that it occurs with rates as high as 91.4% of patients. Of the ASD patients affected, 75.6% suffer from diarrhea. Diarrheal irritations can be extremely uncomfortable for a child and have been noted to have a loose association with regressive autism.” [2]

Ms. Pequegna continues by adding:

“In a small proof-of-principle intervention trial, vancomycin was orally administered to severely autistic children with chronic, persistent diarrhea, and short-term improvement of symptoms was seen in 8 out of 10 children. However, these improvements were not persistent, and once vancomycin was withdrawn, any behavioral gains in these children were lost; in turn suggesting that microbial dysbiosis was suppressed but not eliminated.”

In other words, instead of studying existing papers and eliminating what is believed to be a possible cause of autism, scientists have developed yet another useless vaccine. Surely, it would have been more beneficial for scientists to research what is actually causing autistic children to have the overabundance of clostridium bolteae in their gut, rather than develop yet another vaccine, which by their own admittance does not work.

A Severely Flawed Study

Many parents believe that there are already too many vaccines, putting young children at the potential risk of autism and associated disorders. In a desperate bid to prove them wrong and to carry on the vaccination drive, researchers Dr. Frank DeStefano and his colleagues from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and Abt Associates published a fascinating paper in the Journal of Pediatrics in March of this year.

Their paper discussed whether or not a high number of vaccines administered at an early age caused autism. The researchers studied data from 256 children with autism and compared it to the data from 752 children without autism (born from 1994 –1999). All of the children studied came from three managed care facilities. The authors looked at each child’s cumulative exposure to antigens, the substances in vaccines that cause the body’s immune system to produce antibodies to fight disease, and the maximum number of antigens each child received in a single day of vaccination.

The paper states that researchers determined the total antigen numbers by adding the number of different antigens in all vaccines each child received in one day, as well as all vaccines each child received up to two years of age. They found that the total antigens from vaccines received by age two years and the maximum number received on a single day was the same between children with and without ASD (autism spectrum disorder).

The authors recognized that children receive more vaccines today then in the late 1990s and took this fact into consideration. However, they stated that vaccines in the late 1990s contained more antigens than they do today. The authors concluded that:

“An infant’s immune system is capable of responding to a large amount of immunologic stimuli and, from time of birth, infants are exposed to hundreds of viruses and countless antigens outside of vaccination … The possibility that immunological stimulation from vaccines during the first 1 or 2 years of life could be related to the development of ASD is not well-supported by what is known about the neurobiology of ASDs. In 2004, a comprehensive review by the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is not a causal relationship between certain vaccine types and autism, and this study supports that conclusion.” [3]

Why You Can’t Trust the CDC

I found three major flaws with this study.

1. The number of children in each group is unbalanced.

How can a study of this caliber be fairly examined if the numbers of children taking part in each group are unequal?

2. There was no control group.

All reputable studies need a control group to compare the results with. For this study to be taken seriously researchers would need three groups of participants, the third group being a group of unvaccinated children.

3. There was no mention of genetics or whether any of the children suffered from an underlying condition that may have made them susceptible to adverse reactions.

In recent years researchers have determined that certain genetic disorders have the potential to cause children to react adversely to vaccines. An excellent example of how a genetic condition can affect a child receiving vaccines can be seen in the case of Hannah Polling. [4]

Hannah suffered from a mitochondrial disorder — a dysfunction in basic cell metabolism, which put her at increased risk of injury from vaccines, as determined by the vaccine court. The result of this condition combined with the vast amount of vaccines that Hannah received in one day was autism.

Experts Who Value Science More Than Profit

Professionals like Dr. Rebecca Carley, Dr. Viera Scheibner and psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown have been warning parents about the dangers of vaccines and their possible links to autism for many years.

Dr. Viera Scheibner, a retired principal research scientist with a doctorate in natural sciences, has been speaking on the dangers of vaccination since 1985. Dr. Scheibner has published three books and 90 scientific papers in prestigious scientific journals on the subject.

Dr. Rebecca Carley was the first professional to recognize that there was a link between the MMR vaccination and the non-fatal form of SSPE, which she has been classifying as autism for the past fifteen years. Her professional opinions have been backed up scientifically as one hundred percent correct when government documents locked up for thirty years were recently uncovered, revealing that the government had discovered that the MMR vaccine was causing what they referred to as an SSPE like-syndrome.

Psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown has been speaking out since 1995 on the link among vaccines, autism and parents being falsely accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. She began to notice the link after she witnessed the parents of autistic children were being blamed for their children’s illnesses and disabilities as soon as they mentioned that their child/children became ill after they received a vaccine.


Governments are so determined to push vaccinations and reassure mothers that vaccines do not cause autism, they have come up with yet another flawed study to prove it. This effort is followed by a massive vaccination drive and media campaign to scare parents into accepting vaccines. Just to reassure parents further, the government is now encouraging the development of a vaccine to alleviate the symptoms of autism, just in case they are wrong. Really reassuring, isn’t it?

Here we have yet another example of just how desperate governments and the pharmaceutical industries are to protect the vaccination schedule. Instead of admitting that vaccinations are not only damaging the health of our children and that vaccines are totally ineffective at controlling diseases, governments get together with scientists to cash in on children’s suffering and develop yet another useless vaccine to cure the symptoms caused by the original vaccine.

Instead of wasting time developing more vaccinations, scientists, big pharma and governments would be better employed spending more time researching what professionals like Dr. Rebecca Carley, Dr. Viera Scheibner and psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown have been saying for years.

A Final Word From the Author

As a mother of two autistic children, I would advise parents against using a vaccine to alleviate debilitating GI (gastrointestinal) disorders, which are often a symptom of autism. Paul Shattock, a leading expert from the Autism Research Unit, Sunderland University, and Dr. Ellowad, an expert in gastroenterology and child allergies, Great Ormond Street, both advise eliminating dairy and wheat from the diets of autistic children to help alleviate their problems. Their dietary advice not only helped me to manage my autistic son’s difficult behavior, but also completely cured the intense pain and chronic diarrhea he suffered as part of his disorder.

Photo Credit

TLB recommends you visit Vactruth for more great/pertinent articles and information

See featured article and read comments here:



BY: Arjun Walia

In this day and age, it’s very dangerous and naive for us, health professionals included, to assume that health authorities and pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart. We are living in a time where people are pushing for the freedom of information and as a result, it’s coming to the surface. For years, a massive amount of advertising has led people to believe that all vaccinations are safe and necessary. Many individuals continue to promote themselves as believers of science, without actually looking at and examining  the science behind vaccinations. Meanwhile, babies and children are bombarded with a rigorous North American vaccination schedule that more and more parents are choosing to opt out of. Much of this mistrust has to do with the lies and cover-ups from health authorities and vaccine manufactures, who have been involved in a 30 year scandal.

Documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and suggests that this practice continues till this day. (1)

The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations.(1)

Documents reveal that the JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates, which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity.”(1) Wouldn’t it be illegal to deliberately conceal information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an official vaccination schedule? Is this not an ethical violation? All potential adverse affects should be known and completely disclosed, especially with regards to vaccines, which are administered to individuals to prevent disease of which an individual will most likely never be exposed to. Many of them contain harmful toxic chemicals.

The documents further reveal that British health authorities have been engaging in these cover-ups of information for the last 30 years.  As a result many children have been vaccinated with their parents not knowing important information about the serious risks and adverse affects associated with multiple vaccines. (1)

“The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.” (1)

In summary, here are what the transcripts appear to show with regards to the JCVI/DH meetings that took place from 1983-2010.

  • Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines
  • Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues
  • Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies
  • Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits
  • Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine pediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted
  • Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues
  • Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunization program which could put certain children at risk of server long term neurological damage

The report goes on to provide some incredible and shocking information that is important for people to know. The report is cited in the article, but again, you can read the full version HERE.

In the last 30 years, the United States vaccine schedule has tripled, along with various ailments and disease. From birth, babies are bombard with a variety of different vaccinations. As a result, many have died, fallen ill and acquired a number of health problems. A 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by congress as a result of pharmaceutical lobbying shields pharmaceutical companies and drug companies from injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines they manufacture. So, regardless of vaccine manufactures and health authorities knowing about the dangers associated with vaccines, and covering them up, they are still protected. Nevertheless, taxpayer money has dished out billions of dollars in vaccine injury related ailments.

This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a reality. It’s always important to look at information on both sides of the coin. Sure, some vaccinations may have been successful in disease prevention, that doesn’t mean all of them are and have been. Health authorities and vaccine manufactures do commit scientific fraud and cover up information that might hurt their interests. Apart from this information, there are a number of credible studies that show how some vaccines can, are and have been harmful to human health. To view more articles from CE on this, click HERE

“Just because a study sponsored by the manufacturer does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean that the vaccine is safe. In fact, if one looks at the manufacturer studies, their often not designed to detect serious adverse events. Obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for.” – Lucija Tomljenovic (2)



(Videos (not video links) added by TLB)



Arjun WaliaAbout the author: Arjun Walia

I joined the CE team in 2010 and have been doing this ever since. There are many things happening on the planet that don’t resonate with me, and I wanted to do what I could to play a role in creating change. It’s been great making changes in my own life and creating awareness and I look forward to more projects that move beyond awareness and into action and implementation. So stay tuned :)

TLB recommends you visit Collective EVOLUTION for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE


By TLB Contributor: Christina England.

Countries around the world are coming up with more and more elaborate tricks to pressure parents into fully vaccinating their children. Recently we have seen them telling barefaced lies, denying unvaccinated children access to daycare facilities and excluding students from attending their graduation ceremony over a chicken pox scare. To learn more, please continue reading.

Scare Tactics Used in Australia

Over the last few weeks, newspapers in Australia have reported that due to the changes being made to the Public Health Act, parents will be forced to produce an up-to-date vaccine certificate, or a conscientious exemption form countersigned by their doctor, if they want to use day care facilities for their children. Any day care facility failing to comply with these new regulations is likely to incur a fine.

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the President of the NSW branch of the Australian Medical Association, Brian Owler, has declared this “a sensible move.” He believes that making parents supply mandatory documentation about their children’s vaccination status will boost vaccination rates. [1]

Jillian Skinner, the NSW Health Minister, told reporters:

“Anyone who has seen a baby with whooping cough or a toddler with measles or has spoken to a parent who has lost a child knows the devastating consequences of failure to vaccinate.”

She is absolutely correct, of course; seeing a child with whooping cough is extremely disturbing. However, is vaccination a cast-iron guarantee that your child will be protected? No, it isn’t, and I can say this with one hundred percent certainty because my own child contracted whooping cough, despite being fully vaccinated at the time.

Currently, in Australia, vaccination is not mandatory. This is explained very clearly in full in a research paper written by Dr. Viera Scheibner, which we will discuss in just a moment. She says that “Parents have a constitutional and legal right to opt for natural immunity, which is achieved by contracting the natural infectious diseases of childhood.”

She states that this right is defined in the New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act of 1999, which stipulates that a child is considered immunized if they were administered a vaccine, developed natural immunity by contracting the alleged ‘vaccine-preventable’ diseases, or if the parents have declared in writing a conscientious objection to the child being vaccinated.

In 2012, Reuters published an article stating that infectious disease specialist David Witt, from the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, reported that his research revealed that the effects of the whooping cough vaccine can wear off over time. He stated, “We have a real belief that the durability (of the vaccine) is not what was imagined.” [2]

In other words, there has never ever been any real evidence that the vaccine was effective long term. Worrying, isn’t it?

Witt’s study can be found at Clinical Infectious Diseases. [3]

While the Australian government has decided that the best way to boost vaccination uptake is to deny unvaccinated children the right to childcare, the UK government has used other dirty tactics to get parents to vaccinate their children.

Scare Tactics Used in the United Kingdom

I am sure that many of you are aware that the UK media recently published a frenzy of reports, highlighting a so-called measles epidemic in Wales. According to newspapers, this epidemic was threatening the lives of two million children residing in the UK. [4]

However, there was never a massive measles epidemic in Wales. The British media had ‘accidentally on purpose’ reported the SUSPECTED cases of measles, as ACTUAL cases of measles and, in fact, the numbers of confirmed cases were negligible. [5]

Mind you, this latest so-called measles epidemic in Wales is nothing new. Here in the UK, we have heard it all before. In fact, there have been regular so-called outbreaks of measles occurring in Wales for several years.

In 2011, the headlines in Wales stated: Parents Urged to Get Children Vaccinated as Measles Spreads. [6]

In 2009, the headlines in Wales stated: More Parents Choosing MMR Jab for Kids During Welsh Measles Outbreak. [7]

In 2008, headlines in Wales read: Measles Outbreak in Wales Worsens. [8]

In 2007, the headlines in Wales stated: Alert Over Measles as Cases on the Increase. [9]

Strangely, however, not one of these reports states whether or not the sick children were vaccinated against measles. The reason that this important factor has been left out of reports is because the public is educated to automatically assume that the children most at risk from contracting measles are in fact those who have not yet been vaccinated.

This is untrue, however, because it has been documented for many years that if your child has been vaccinated against measles, there are no guarantees that they are protected.

The Truth About the Measles Vaccine

A paper written by Peter Aaby et al. for The Journal of Infectious Diseases in 1986, titled Vaccinated Children get Milder Measles Infection: A Community Study from Guinea-Bissau, states that vaccinated children who contracted measles developed a milder form of the disease. In fact, Aaby’s paper states very clearly that vaccinated children are no more protected from the measles than their unvaccinated peers.

In his opening paragraph, Aaby states:

“When vaccinated children develop measles it is usually assumed that seroconversion did not occur because maternal antibodies neutralized the vaccine, because immunoglobulins were administered simultaneously, or because improper handling of the vaccine inactivated it. Numerous cases of ‘vaccine failures’ have been noted in reports from developing countries. It is often claimed that such failures create a lack of confidence in the immunization program. Some investigators have therefore suggested that the age of the child at vaccination be raised to get a higher rate of seroconversion.” [10]

In other words, when a vaccinated child contracts the measles, instead of realizing that the vaccine is ineffective, scientists look for external reasons as to why the vaccination failed. For example, they may look for any environmental factors, which may have contributed.

In this instance, they blame maternal antibodies for seroconversion not occurring and the poor handling of the vaccines. (Seroconversion is the development of detectable specific antibodies specific to, and in response of a particular antigen, such as a virus or a vaccine.) [11]

Aaby continued by stating:

“In an urban area of Guinea-Bissau, where measles has been a major source of child mortality, an immuization program was introduced to control the disease. Nonetheless, measles has continued to cause many deaths, and many children are reported to catch measles after vaccination.”

Dr. Viera Scheibner’s detailed and valuable research supports Aaby’s findings. In her paper A Critique of the 16-Page Australian Pro-Vaccination Booklet Entitled ‘The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers,’ in the section titled Effectiveness of Vaccination, [12] she writes:

 “Outbreaks in the fully vaccinated American children continued with increasing frequency and severity. Without disclosing the vaccination status of children in measles epidemics, claiming victory over measles is just empty jabbering.

 Moreover, vaccinated children started developing an especially vicious form of atypical measles. Fulginiti described the occurrence of atypical measles in children given formaldehyde treated, aluminium precipitated measles vaccine, also referred to as “killed” measles.

 He explained the problem as due to the altered immunological host response caused by vaccination.”

Up to this point atypical measles had only occurred in children who had received the ‘killed measles’ vaccine. However, Dr. Scheibner continued by adding:

 “Later on, when live attenuated measles vaccine was introduced, the recipients starting developing atypical measles from it, as well.”

Dr. Scheibner continues by quoting a study, written by Rath and Schmidt, who studied 386 children who had received three doses of the killed measles vaccine. They discovered that when 125 of these children were later exposed to the measles virus, 54 of them developed measles. The authors concluded:

“It is obvious that three injections of killed vaccine had not protected a large percentage of children against measles when exposed within a period of two and a half years after immunization.”

Dr. Scheibner later explains how diseases such as whooping cough and measles can occur in ever-younger children not because the unvaccinated are spreading them, but because babies are born to vaccinated mothers who lack transplacentally transmitted immunity, which normally protects small babies against contracting any infectious disease.

She continues by adding that breastfed babies of vaccinated mothers are three times more likely to catch measles than baby’s breastfed by naturally immune mothers.

Various studies support this. A study titled Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage by Sandra Waaijenborg et al. published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases agrees. [13] Waajjenborg’s study researches whether using the MMR vaccine “successfully” for twenty years has adversely affected the maternal antibodies passed to infants by their mothers who were vaccinated as children. Her team concluded that:

“Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and possibly rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.”

These studies and papers strongly support that vaccinated children still catch the diseases that they are vaccinated against and that vaccines are not only unsafe, but they are also totally ineffective.

Scare Tactics Used in the US

The US government has become so paranoid that unvaccinated children are a danger to the public that they have gone all-out to segregate them. The most outrageous vaccine segregation that I have ever heard of took place in at a school in Norwin, Pennsylvania, recently.

Nine students who had not received the chicken pox vaccination were informed that they would not be allowed to attend their prom unless they either received the chicken pox vaccination or had a blood test proving their immunity.

The panic came after a fellow student caught the disease. However, the students were later informed that they could attend the prom after all because the event didn’t fall within the time frame specified to avoid contagion and the school had miscalculated the dates. The health department recommended that students should be excluded eight to 21 days post-exposure to a person with chicken pox.

Pupils were informed that it was unclear whether or not they would be allowed to attend their graduation ceremony, which fell within the period spelled out by the health department.

Sadly, there has been no update on this story, so we do not know if they were allowed to attend their graduation or not. [14]


Despite the fact that study after study confirms that vaccinated children are no more protected than their unvaccinated peers, governments from around the world, hand-in-hand with Big Pharma and the medical professionals, keep coming up with more elaborate ways to force parents into vaccinating their children.

I find it very sad that governments are so keen to boost vaccination targets that they are denying parents the ability to earn a livelihood by denying their children’s admittance into day care. This seems to me to be over the top and completely unnecessary. How do governments expect parents to be able to support their family if their children are denied access to day care provisions?

Social play is an essential part of a child’s development and to deny children the right to play with their peers in a safe play environment purely because they are not vaccinated, in my opinion, amounts to little more than child abuse.

How is the Australian government planning to get around parents’ right to opt for natural immunity for their children? Are they planning on changing the law to make vaccination mandatory or will they just make it mandatory for parents who use day care facilities?

Furthermore, to deny students the opportunity of attending their graduation ceremony just because they are not vaccinated with the chicken pox vaccine is totally ridiculous. Graduating from high school is one of the biggest days in a student’s life. It is a once in lifetime occurrence. Once it is gone, it is gone.

It is about time that the governments wised up to the fact the unvaccinated children are the most protected children on the planet and that it is the vaccinated that are most at risk of disease and disability. They need to read the work of Dr. Scheibner and the many other researchers who have spent years studying the subject of vaccination and allow children to develop their own natural immunity.

Photo Credit

If you are looking to continue your research into the issues involved with vaccines TLB recommends you visit Vactruth for more great/pertinent articles and information.


By: Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) We live in a world of outrageous lies fronted by corporate interests, but one of the fundamental undeniable truths of biology is that cancer is curable.

The cures have been known for decades, and they’re readily within reach of people everywhere. But we are not allowed to have any knowledge of these cures for the simple reason that the cancer industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry that needs disease to stay in business.

Today, I invite you to watch a documentary called “Cancer is Curable NOW” by Marcus and Sabrina Freudenmann who now run the Truly Heal website.

Three years after its original release, the full documentary is available on Youtube as shown below.

A high-definition version is only offered on for sale, which helps support the filmmakers and Natural News.

The direct link on Youtube is:

Learn from the wisdom of over 30 holistic health experts

Cancer is Curable NOW pulls together wisdom from more than 30 international holistic professionals who have been working passionately in the field of cancer alternatives — doctors, scientists, researchers and writers from around the world.

Most of us have probably heard about many of these experts in books and on television, but this documentary brings their knowledge together and condenses the most important elements into a 90-minute documentary that will forever enlighten you on the REAL cures for cancer.

To create this film, Marcus and Sabrina interviewed a vast array of experts from both the English-speaking world and foreign locales, such as doctors from cancer clinics in Mexico and Germany. The documentary allows viewers to experience the treatments used in the top clinics around the world such as ozone therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, insulin potentiated treatments and all the forms of hyperthermia — AND hear the top doctors from these clinics explaining in depth how each treatment works.

Watch the FULL, free documentary here:

Learn more from the filmmakers at

Learn more:


TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:


By Alexis Baden-Mayer

This article is for everyone who eats chicken. It’s not about whether eating chicken is moral or healthy. If based on your own ethical and nutritional requirements, you’ve already decided to eat chicken, please consider this advice:

Only eat chicken that is organic and raised outdoors on pasture.

If you can, buy your chicken directly from a farmer who slaughters their birds on the farm. If you’re shopping at the grocery store, look for chicken that is USDA Organic and, to ensure that it was actually raised outdoors on pasture, certified as Animal Welfare Approved or Global Animal Partnership “Step 5.” (These two animal welfare ratings include pasture requirements that are stronger than those required by the USDA Organic program.)

Why follow this advice? Aside from the obvious animal welfare issues, organic chicken, raised outdoors on pasture, without the routine use of antibiotics, is better for your health, and better for the environment. (If you’re already convinced, scroll down for links on how to avoid chicken from factory farms).

Nine billion chickens a year

For the first time in 100 years, Americans are eating more chicken than beef.

Every year, 9 billion chickens are slaughtered for meat in the U.S. This number represents more than 95 percent of the land animals killed for food in the country.

Where does all this chicken come from and how was it produced?

We’d like to think it’s like the Portlandia “Is it local?” sketch. There, a waiter describes a locally raised organic chicken named Colin, who was “a Heritage Breed, woodland-raised chicken that’s been fed a diet of sheep’s milk, soy and hazelnuts.” It’s enough to make the diners leave the restaurant to go see Colin’s idyllic farm for themselves.

Unfortunately, reality is more like Food & Water Watch’s “Is it factory farmed?” spoof. There, the waiter admits the chicken was raised on a factory farm controlled by one of four giant corporations. It was kept in a crowded, filthy warehouse with a hundred thousand others, kept alive only with the prophylactic use of antibiotics. Then it was processed in a slaughterhouse where the lines move too fast to monitor or implement any kind of food safety system, so its carcass was simply dunked in bleach to remove any visible signs of fecal contamination.

Health, safety and factory farm chicken

Each year roughly one in six Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. More deaths are attributed to contaminated chicken than any other food, with salmonella as the leading cause of death.

If you heard about the recent Foster Farms Salmonella outbreak (or any of the many other food safety scandals that regularly make headlines), you know that where the chicken you eat comes from, and how it is produced, can have a big impact on your health. California-based Foster Farms is responsible for infecting 500 people across the country with antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.

How chicken is produced is even more of a concern for the people involved in the production. The poultry industry is notoriously dangerous. It “chews up its workers and spits them out like a chaw of tobacco,” says Celeste Monforton of George Washington University School of Public Health & Health Services.

If you haven’t read anything about the meatpacking industry since you were assigned Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle in high school, you can update your knowledge of what it’s like to work in a poultry slaughterhouse by reading Gail Eisnitz’s Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the US Meat Industry, Human Rights Watch’s “Blood, Sweat, And Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants,” Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Unsafe at These Speeds,” or the Charlotte Observer’s “The Cruelest Cuts: The Human Cost of Bringing Poultry to Your Table.” These books and articles provide graphic first-person accounts of common workplace injuries in poultry slaughterhouses, everything from fingers lost on the line to hands that are so mangled by long-term repetitive stress that they can’t hold a spoon.

Slaughterhouse workers are also sickened by chemicals sprayed on poultry carcasses to kill pathogens.

Working on a factory farm raising chickens is also dangerous and bad for your health. According to the Center for Disease Control, hazards include: “Exposures to chemicals such as ammonia or disinfectants and detergents used on poultry farms… exposures to biological agents including viruses… bacteria… and fungi… [and] injuries … from working in awkward body positions during activities such as poultry catching.”

1.5 billion pounds of chicken manure

The poultry industry is one of the nation’s biggest polluters. In what is known as the Broiler Belt of the Southeast, “The industry is serving a cocktail of injustice and pollution to rural residents, and most of them aren’t in a position to fight back,” according to an article in Grist.

But the water, air and greenhouse gas pollution generated by poultry factory farms isn’t confined exclusively to the regions where the farms are located. The environmental impacts of factory-farmed chicken, as documented in Pew’s “Big Chicken: Pollution and Industrial Production in America,” and Frontline’s “Poisoned Waters,” are widespread.

Poultry farms are responsible for more manure pollution than other livestock operations. Of all the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), as factory farms are denoted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), poultry farms are the most densely concentrated. Concentrated animals means concentrated waste. Factory farm waste is typically spread on cropland. That’s the cheapest way to dispose of it. But there isn’t enough cropland for it all.

In 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that there were 1.5 billion pounds more “nutrients” than available cropland could handle. More than half of this was attributable to poultry, even though poultry farms represented only 15 percent of all CAFOs. Where do all these “excess nutrients” end up? In our water. And that means polluted drinking water, closed beaches and fish kills.

Buy organic!

Want chicken that’s more like Portlandia’s Colin, chicken that’s better for you, better for the environment and raised humanely?

Start by looking for USDA certified organic chicken in the grocery store. USDA Organic certification prohibits soaking chicken in chlorine, the use of feed containing slaughterhouse waste, and ensures chicken that hasn’t been contaminated with arsenic.

Under USDA certification, the routine, over-use of antibiotics is also prohibited. Antibiotic-free organic chicken is less likely to contain antibiotic-resistant bacteria, though a recent Consumer Reports study found more antibiotic-resistant bacteria in organic chicken than expected. It’s likely that the organic chicken gets contaminated at the slaughterhouse or at the meatpacking plant, as the same facilities process conventional and organic birds alike. (That’s one good reason to buy organic chicken raised locally on a small farm that slaughters the birds on site. Mobile slaughter and processing units are making it easier for small-scale chicken producers to avoid the large slaughterhouses).

The leading producer and distributor of USDA certified organic chicken is Coleman Natural Foods, a Perdue brand that markets Petaluma Poultry. Petaluma’s Rosie was the first USDA certified organic chicken brand. Rosie was “never administered antibiotics,” she was fed an “organic vegetarian diet with no GMOs” and she was raised “free range.” There are few standards of purity higher than “reared without antibiotics on an organic vegetarian diet.” But what does “free range” actually mean?

Rosie’s website features a close-up of a fluffy white chicken nestled behind a tuft of grass on a sunlit pasture. But it also mentions that the company had to start a recycling program with rice farmers to rid itself of the manure that piles up in the poultry houses. Under organic rules, farms are required to provide chickens with access to the outdoors. So if Rosie were really spending all of her time outdoors, would farmers have a problem with manure piling up indoors?
It turns out that the extent of outdoor access provided to organic, free-range chickens varies widely and could be anything from pasture to a dirt lot. The Animal Welfare Institute’s Food Labeling for Dummies warns about this claim: “The length of time the birds are required to have outdoor access, and how this must be verified is not legally defined and therefore varies greatly from facility to facility. Crowding is not uncommon.”

Organic is a very strong standard, overall, but for animal welfare guarantees and access to pasture, there are more specific and rigorous programs available. Organic Consumers Association recommends looking for USDA Organic plus an Animal Welfare Approved or Global Animal Partnership (Step 5) label.

You can also buy direct from Animal Welfare Approved farmers here.
Or check out the American Pastured Poultry Producers’ Association,, and to connect with farmers raising chicken organically on pasture.

Beyond organic

Just like processed food companies should have to tell us which ingredients are genetically engineered, companies that sell animal products should have to tell us how the animals were raised.

Ideally, all chicken in the grocery store would be labeled to tell consumers how it was produced. A great model for a mandatory method-of-production labeling system is the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating program run by the Global Animal Partnership (GAP).

GAP sets minimum standards of animal welfare that all producers, from Step 1 to 5+, must meet. All chickens must be handled in a manner that does not cause injury. No chicken may be physically altered. Among the physical alterations routinely performed on chickens that are banned by GAP are:

•    Beak trimming: The incredibly painful partial amputation of the beak, which contains more nerve endings than our finger tips.
•    Dubbing: Cutting off the chicken’s comb with a pair of scissors, without anesthetics or analgesics.
•    Caponization: Castration that is performed without any pain relief and requires cutting into the abdomen to access the testes. (Caponization is banned in the E.U.).
•    De-Spurring: Removal of the spur bud on the back of the male’s leg using a heated wire.
•    Toe trimming: Cutting off toes to prevent growth of nails or spurs.

Under GAP’s 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating system, the higher the “Step” the better the living conditions are for the chickens.

Step 1: Chickens are kept indoors, but they must have enough space to express natural behavior, including standing, turning around and preening, without touching another chicken.

Step 2: Chickens are kept indoors, and in addition to being given enough space to express their natural behaviors, they are given at least one “enrichment.” These are materials that add complexity to their environment and encourage the expression of natural behaviors, such as foraging, without losing their novelty. Examples include bales of straw or hay, and scattered grains. Step 2 chicken brands include Eberly, Empire Kosher, FreeBird, and Wise Organic Pastures.

Step 3: Chickens have seasonal access to the outdoors with provisions that encourage ranging and foraging. Indoors, at least two enrichments must be provided. Outdoors, at least 25 percent of the area must be covered with vegetation and/or forage. Step 3 chicken brands include Bell & Evans, Mary’s Chicken, Pine Manor Organic, Petaluma Poultry.

Step 4: Chickens live in an enhanced outdoor environment during daylight hours, with access to housing. When they may be at risk outdoors due to climatic conditions, the chickens have continuous access to a covered outdoor area with foraging material and natural light. At least 50 percent of the outdoor area must be covered with vegetation and/or forage. Step 4 chicken brands include the Crystal Lake ‘Free Ranger,’ Campo Lindo Farms, Joyce Farms, Draper Valley, Shenandoah Valley Organic, and Vital Farms.

Step 5: Chickens live outdoors in an enhanced environment during daylight hours and may only be housed during extreme weather conditions. At least 75 percent of the outdoor area must be covered with vegetation and/or forage. Step 5 chicken brands include Field to Family, White Oak Pastures, and Pitman Family Farms

Step 5+ chickens spend their lives on a single farm.

The GAP program provides consumers with an impressive range of information. Whole Foods Market and a few other smaller local and regional groceries and restaurants sell only GAP Step-rated meats.

The best alternative to the GAP system is the Animal Welfare Approved labeling scheme, which is roughly equivalent to the GAP Step 5/5+ label.

Animal Welfare Approved has a few additional standards that aren’t included in GAP’s program, including a family farm requirement. There are other minor differences between AWA and GAP. For example, the GAP standard acknowledges, “Rapid growth rate has a significant impact on welfare, including health, of chickens.” But AWA actually prohibits the use of: “Birds who have undergone genetic selection to the point that their welfare is negatively affected.”

See for Yourself: Videos of Chicken Farms

Out of Site, Out of Mind: Conventional Poultry Farming

Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating

Pitman Family Farms, Global Animal Partnership Step 5 (second half of the video)

White Oak Pastures, Global Animal Partnership Step 5

TEDx Talk by Andrew Gunther, Animal Welfare Approved

Kingbird Farm, Animal Welfare Approved

Deck Family Farm, Animal Welfare Approved

B & Y Farms, Animal Welfare Approved

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director for the Organic Consumers Association.


Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:

Only one can be right 1


TLB Preface by: Roger Landry (TLB)

When a serious Ph.D. scientist (Dr. Boyd Haley) is exposed to the propaganda and voodoo science of a Big Pharma Vaccine agent MD (Dr. Paul Offit) this is the result.

As you will see there is no love loss coming from Dr. Haley … and not much in the way of earned respect for Dr. Offit either. Their stance on Vaccines could not be more polarized. What you will see and hear is the propaganda as set forth by Big Pharma, vs the reality described by a life long dedicated researcher.

One propagates the idea that vaccines are a modern miracle of medicine having saved countless lives, and the other expounds on the idea that vaccines are responsible for the disabling of an entire generation of our children! These two stances could not differ more …

Only one can be correct … you be the judge!

If Vaccines concern you … watching this video may be among the most valuable 36 minutes you will invest in this subject! After you watch this video please continue on to the vital presentation below …

Bio-chemist Dr. Boyd Haley disputes the claims of vaccine proponent Dr. Paul Offit point by point in this pilot video.

Haley vs Offit: A Virtual Debate re The Greatest Medical Controversy of our Time


Help us complete this step or our FULL Documentary! You can be a part of ensuring that this groundbreaking video on vaccine safety is completed. Featuring a virtual debate between Boyd Haley and Paul Offit, the documentary offers important insights on what can happen when industry profits, rather than human health, drive government vaccine recommendations.

Dr. Offit appears often on national television as an expert on vaccination. By not inviting any of his many critics, the mainstream media gives the impression that he has none. This false impression leaves the public uninformed on the very real threats posed to children’s health through an overly aggressive vaccine program that now recommends children receive an astounding 48 vaccines by the age of six.

Your donation will allow us to complete this step of the project by filming Boyd Haley with a professional crew as we have done with Paul Offit . In return, you’ll receive:

• A complete bibliography of 145 published scientific studies proving the danger of mercury in vaccines.

• Dr. Offit’s full interview transcript with color-coded comments from six of his critics with disease mortality charts and links to more information.

(please go HERE for more information)

The six critics are:

• Boyd Haley, PhD • Brian Hooker, PhD • Russell Blaylock, MD • Suzanne Humphries, MD • Sherri Tenpenny, MD and • David Ayoub, MD

About Richard P. Milner

Richard P. Milner is an award-winning documentary filmmaker with over thirty years’ experience in film and television.  Milner is the co-founder and executive director of Public Affairs Media, Inc.

Recent television projects Milner has produced and/or directed include ABC Network News Good Morning AmericaThis week with George Stephanopoulos, and World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Staff series work has included Crazy for Food (PBS); Navajo Rodeo Cowboys(PBS); Geography in U.S. History (PBS); A Personal Story (TLC); and Science Times (New York Times TV and National Geographic).  Milner also originated and co-produced the PBS Frontline documentary on endocrine disrupting chemicals entitled, Fooling with Nature.

At NBC-TV, New York, Milner developed story ideas, edited and directed post-production on more than twenty documentary specials for NBC White Paper, NBC Reports and NBC Magazine on health, economics, science, and public affairs with such correspondents as David Brinkley, Marvin Kalb, John Dancy, Lloyd Dobbins, and Edwin Newman.

Milner’s documentaries have won the Christopher Award and the WorldFest Houston Gold Award for Best Continuing News Story.


TLB: Please click on this link to INDIEGOGO to help make this happen. This is one of the most serious issues facing all of us with catastrophic implications for our children and future generations. Knowledge is the only tool to effectively overcome planned ignorance … be a part of the solution … PLEASE …


By TLB Contributor: Christina England

I recently attended the annual Allergy & Free from Show in London. The show is the largest show of its kind in the UK, with over three hundred exhibitors, displaying everything from wheat-free biscuits to allergen-free mattresses.

There were a vast number of exhibitors, exhibiting an array of produce for wheat-free, gluten-free, egg-free, dairy-free, soya-free and nut-free diets, and after attending a number of lectures on food allergies, I began to question what was behind the rapidly growing problem of severe food allergies.

The exhibitors informed me that the number of people who suffer from food allergies has grown to an all-time high, with at least one in five people in Britain suffering from a food allergy or food intolerance. Interested in their comments, I asked them what they believed was causing this massive increase. Although many were reluctant to answer my questions, a few people told me that they believed that environmental factors were at the root of the problem.

Intrigued, I asked them whether or not they believed the large number of childhood vaccinations could be to blame for the increase. Although a few did believe that this was a possibility, none of them wanted to be interviewed on the topic.

The Difference Between a Food Allergy and a Food Intolerance

A food allergy usually happens rapidly, within a few minutes of eating a particular food substance. The reaction is often very severe and in some cases can cause the sufferer to die. [1]

Food intolerance is very different. A person is classified as having food intolerance if they are hypersensitive to a particular food substance. The onset of the symptoms is a lot slower and less severe than those of an allergy and the sufferer can usually tolerate a reasonable amount of the offending food before the reaction occurs. [2]

Professionals Unafraid to Speak Out About Vaccinations

Unlike the exhibitors, there are some professionals who are unafraid of voicing their opinions on vaccinations and food allergies.

Community contributor Barbara Feick Gregory is a woman who is unafraid of speaking out. To ascertain whether or not vaccinations were responsible for the massive increase in food allergies, she decided to compile a major study of Internet resources, patents, medical studies, allergy sites, allergy discussions, vaccination information sites (both pro and con), animal studies, veterinary websites, vaccine package inserts, etc., and explain what correlations she had discovered.

When she began researching the subject of peanut allergies, she discovered that in 1960, when children were receiving as few as two vaccinations peanut allergies were extremely rare. However, by 1997, the number of young children suffering from peanut allergies in the US had risen to 1 in 250. By 2002, this number had doubled to 1 in 125.

Shocked by what she had discovered, Ms. Gregory began to study each country in turn. She wrote, “Food allergies have become a major problem in industrialized countries,” and shared the following statistics from countries around the world:

  • Australia: “1 in 20 Australian children suffers from a potentially fatal food allergy…”
  • Canada: “…nearly 6 % of children suffer from food allergies……the Anaphylaxis Canada’s Summer 2001 newsletter states that “approximately 4% of children and 2% of adults have developed a potentially lethal allergy to food.”
  • France: 4 to 8.5% of preschool children have food allergies
  • Greece: 6% -8% of infants and young children have food allergies
  • Italy: “An estimated 6 to 8% of the Italian population has food allergies.
  • Japan: “about 10% of Japan’s population suffers from food allergies
  • Malaysia: “about 30% of young children are likely to develop allergic disorders in the first five years of life
  • Netherlands: about 4.8% of the population has food allergies
  • South Africa: up to 6% of young children have food allergies
  • Sweden: approximately 10% of children have food allergies
  • USA: 6 to 8 percent of children 4 years of age or under have food allergies
  • UK: 5-7% of infants have food allergies.”(sic)

Ms. Gregory discovered that the countries which had the lower numbers of vaccinations had fewer food allergies than the countries with higher numbers of vaccinations.

After completing her study, she came to the following conclusions:

“Vaccines are the main cause of food allergies. The first allergy in children is casein (milk) allergy due to the casein and aluminum adjuvant in the DTaP – Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) shot which is often given at 2-3 months of age. Since all babies are fed milk in some form immediately, this is the first allergy to be recognized. 

The next allergy to usually show up at about 3 months of age is soy allergy due to the soy peptone broth and aluminum adjuvant in the Pneumococcal Conjugate vaccine given at approximately 2 months of age. Since soy formula is frequently fed to infants, this allergy also shows up early.

Peanut and nut allergies have shown up as early as 6 months of age in children. Peanut oil is a common trade secret ingredient in vaccine adjuvants. Some manufacturers rely more predominantly on other oils in the vaccines – sesame oil in the vaccines used in Israel and parts of Europe or fish oil which is used in the Scandinavian countries.

At 6 months of age, children can have had as many as 16 vaccinations several of which can contain mixed oils in the vaccine adjuvant. Many different food oils can be used in the vaccine adjuvant and even more foods used in the culture medium. These ingredients do not have to appear on the package insert because they are considered “inactive” and are a protected trade secret.

Most physicians do not know that all of the ingredients do not appear on the package insert. Vaccines are not identical from batch to batch or even from dose to dose. The food protein remaining from the oils in the adjuvant or the culture medium varies which is why all the children getting vaccinated from a particular batch of vaccine may not all get the same food allergies.” [3] [4]

Her study is certainly very interesting and extremely well researched, but is she correct?

Dr. Tim O’Shea Mirrors Her Research

Dr. Tim O’Shea has also studied food allergies and vaccination in depth. He, too, discovered that before 1900, peanut allergies were unheard of, whereas today, as many as 1.5 million children in the US are allergic to peanuts.

In an article titled Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic, he wrote:

“The big change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. An article appeared in the NY Times on 18 Sept, 1964 that would never be printed today. The author described how a newly patented ingredient containing peanut oil was added as an adjuvant to a new flu vaccine, in order to prolong the “immunity.” The oil was reported to act as a time release capsule, and theoretically enhanced the vaccine’s strength. Same mechanism as with penicillin.

That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines.” [5]

In other words, peanut oil was never approved as a safe ingredient for vaccinations, but the pharmaceutical industry decided to use it anyway.

What Has Peanut Oil in Vaccination Got to do with Peanut Allergies?

According to Dr. O’Shea, by 1980, peanut oil was considered to be an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. He wrote:

The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century.”

He continued:

“Why was peanut allergy so violent? Adjuvant pioneer Maurice Hilleman claimed peanut oil adjuvants had all protein removed by refining. The FDA disagreed. They said some peanut protein traces would always persist - that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.

But all their secret research obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. Mother Nature bats last: no intact proteins in the body. 60 million years of Natural Selection didn’t create the mammalian immune system for nothing. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire. And since the goal of oil emulsion adjuvants was to prolong reactivity in the first place – the notion of time-release – this led to sensitization.” [5]

What he is saying is this – if you vaccinate a child with an intact protein, an inflammatory response will take place. This is because the protein will eventually invade the bloodstream and when it does, the body sees this protein as a threat and therefore sets up a defense mechanism to include antibodies. When an antibody is exposed to a protein, it triggers a release of histamine. The histamine in turn causes an inflammation, which leads to a sensitivity to that protein. This is a naturally occurring chain reaction of events. [6]

The Terms Allergy and Anaphylaxis Were Created to Describe Vaccine Reactions

In fact, according to, the terms allergy and anaphylaxis were created by pediatrician Clemens von Pirque and Dr. Charles Richet to describe adverse reactions to vaccines. explains that during the late 1800s people began to fall ill after receiving the diptheria vaccine. Dr. Clemens von Pirque began to study this illness at detail in a bid to discover what was causing their illness. wrote:

Austrian pediatrician Clemens von Pirquet studied the illness at length and observed that the symptoms of this sickness resembled those in people who were hypersensitive to pollens and bee stings. To better describe this ‘altered reactivity’ to the sera he created the Latin derived word allergy in 1906.”

In 1901, Dr. Charles Richet found similar reactions when he tried to vaccinate dogs against jellyfish stings. He reported that the dogs had a very violent reaction after receiving the second vaccine, killing them within minutes. Dr. Richet decided to name the reaction ana-phylaxis the Latin term for anti-protection. stated:

Richet experimented further. He quickly discovered that any protein including food proteins injected into the bloodstream results in sensitization and anaphylaxis on subsequent exposure to the food. Richet injected minute quantities of milk and meat proteins into cats, rabbits and horses and showed that anaphylaxis is a universal immune system defense.” [7]

Dr. Richet went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

For more information on these two doctors and their discoveries related to vaccinations, allergies and anaphylaxis, please read references [8] and [9].


Crucial scientific evidence has proven that vaccinations are responsible for children suffering food allergies for more than a century. Despite this evidence being available, Big Pharma and world governments have chosen to ignore the facts in favor of vaccination. The question is, why? Why has this crucial evidence been hidden for so long, potentially putting the lives of millions of vulnerable children at risk?

This ignorance has caused millions of children worldwide to need the use of EpiPens to overcome severe allergic reactions to food substances. (EpiPens are an emergency device used to inject adrenaline to treat the severe allergic reaction anaphylaxis).

It is my firm belief that this information has been covered up and hidden for all these years for financial gain. After all, it is far more beneficial for Big Pharma to have millions of children using EpiPens than for children to be fit and healthy, and it is a recognized fact that Big Pharma and governments work hand in hand.




ChristinaChristina was born and educated in London, U.K. In 1978, Christina changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for her work with the elderly in 1980. For the last decade, Christina England has been investigating the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Her articles have had over 500,000 hits and she is now known worldwide for her groundbreaking journalism work.

Christina also has created a world first online resource for parents who have lost their children after vaccine injuries


TLB recommends you visit Miss Eco Glam for more great/pertinent articles and information

See featured article HERE


  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated