The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon



cmsri_logo 3

By: Roger Landry, TLB Founder and Show Host

An ever increasing level of distrust permeates our healthcare system today. More are questioning daily exactly what has brought America to this sad and rapidly declining state of health. When we can no longer trust the advice or information coming from our caregivers, health agencies or pharmaceutical manufacturers, how can we expect anything else?

I would strongly recommend listening to the following recorded show. I feel humbled and privileged to be involved in such a vital discussion with people of such esteem. This is truly an All Star panel consisting of such heavy hitters on this topic as:

CMSRI funding

Clair Dwoskin:
Founder and facilitator of The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI)

Dr. David Lewis:
PhD Microbiologist, Author of “Science For Sale”, EPA/CDC Whistleblower with 30 plus years of applicable research and observations.

Christina England:
Long time Researcher, Author and Staff Writer for TLB, Health Impact News, Vactruth and other publications

Let’s put the truth and knowledge based on fact with no ulterior motives, in the hands of those who need it most and allow them to make decisions that benefit them, their children and future generations to come! Truth has the power to defeat lies every time if delivered by organizations or individuals of solid character. What you are being presented with here is just such an organization …



So let show and tell you why …

Please listen to this (recorded) show by clicking on the TLB radio network logo, and be sure to read Christina’s thoughts (article) below the show, her perspective is always time-worthy and outstanding!

TLB radio



So lets talk about why …

Parents Should Demand the Truth About Vaccination Studies

By TLB Staff Writer: Christina England

Many of us are aware that much of the research that we read today regarding the safety of vaccinations has been funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Whilst this satisfies many parents researching the subject, others are beginning to question the validity of these studies. They are asking themselves whether or not the information that is being provided could be biased in any way.

However, did you know that the majority of the vaccine studies being used by professionals to prove that vaccines are safe and effective are actually being written by scientists who have a vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry?

This was an issue highlighted in a paper written by Gayle DeLong from the Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College, New York.

She wrote:

“Conflicts of interest (COls) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. Conversely, some advocacy groups may have legislative and financial reasons to sponsor research that finds risks in vaccines. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article details the conflicts of interest each of these groups faces, outlines the current state of vaccine safety research, and suggests remedies to address COls. Minimizing COIs in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.”

Her paper was extremely detailed, fully referenced and full of facts and figures.

Summarizing what she had discovered, she wrote:

“COls can influence the objectivity of vaccine safety researchers. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article describes the COls faced by various research sponsors. Vaccine manufacturers have financial motives and public health officials have bureaucratic reasons that might lead them to sponsor research that concludes vaccines are safe. Advocacy groups have members with legal and financial reasons to support studies that find adverse effects in vaccines. These conflicts do not mean the research is incorrect, but the research could be selective and biased. Currently, most vaccine safety researchers face conflicts, which contribute to consumer confusion as well as more studies concerned with vaccine safety. Reported injuries from vaccines are not investigated and both the public as well as some health workers question vaccine safety research. Ameliorating the COIs–through bureaucratic restructuring and enforced transparency-could lead to less bias, more investigation into reported injuries and increased trust in vaccine safety research.”

In 2012, health advocate and parent of two, Claire Dwoskin, became extremely concerned about the information being provided to parents by health care providers. Health-conscious herself, she wanted to understand the reasons behind the sudden influx of adults and children suffering from autoimmune disease, inflammatory disease and neurological disorders, including autism, ADHD, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

She decided to open a charitable organization aimed at recognizing the problems facing parents today and addressing the many issues surrounding the dangers of vaccination. The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, often referred to as CMSRI, was established to provide funding for research to address eroding national health, particularly in very young and elderly populations.

The organization’s mission, as stated on their website, is as follows:

  • To provide scientific research to address gaps in the knowledge about the biological and genetic risk factors for vaccine induced brain and immune dysfunction, including lack of adequate safety data, particularly for delayed or chronic health outcomes;
  • Evaluate the biological and genetic reactivity of vaccine additives such as aluminum adjuvants (immune stimulating agents), mercury preservatives and other toxic ingredients;
  • Research the effects of multiple vaccine exposures and their potential impact on development of chronic illness, disability, cancer, fertility and neurodegenerative disease;
  • Evaluate bias in reporting of vaccine risks and benefits; and
  • Research and quantify incidence of novel vaccine-associated autoimmune diseases
  • To provide information to government agencies responsible for developing national vaccine policies, the media and the public to address real and perceived vaccine safety concerns.

In the few years that this organization has been funding research on vaccinations, several leading scientists and researchers have been able to present very important facts about the dangers of vaccines and vaccine ingredients to the public.

We as parents owe it to ourselves and our children to learn the truth about the vaccinations being recommended by our governments and health care providers. We must ask ourselves whether it right that the majority of research and studies supporting vaccination safety today is funded by the vaccine manufacturers. Are parents being sold short when it comes to vaccination safety?

If you believe that researchers studying the areas surrounding vaccinations should not receive funding directly from the pharmaceutical industry, then please support Claire Dwoskin in her quest to provide parents with the independently funded research that they deserve.

To support Claire Dwoskin and the CMSRI, please donate whatever you can today. Join The Liberty Beacon in demanding the truth about vaccination.

Please visit Clair at her website:


Additional information: Questions you NEED to be asking !!!


by TLB Contributor: Dane Wigington

When highly toxic materials are sprayed into skies around the globe as part of the ongoing climate engineering assault, these materials must inevitably fall to Earth and be inhaled and/or absorbed by every single living organism. The atmospheric spraying programs must  be considered biological warfare. The primary objective of any such spraying operation is irrelevant to the aforementioned scenario, the end result is still the same.

Global climate engineering is not just shredding the ozone layer and disrupting the entire climate system, climate engineering is also an all out biological assault against the entire planet and all life. Though governments around the globe and the entire climate science community are discussing and debating the  “option” of geoengineering (never admitting to the rationally inarguable fact that geoengineering has been going on for decades), the question of fallout contamination from SRM aerosol spraying is never even mentioned by our so called scientists. The US military has for many decades routinely conducted biological testing on US citizens and our own soldiers without their knowledge or consent. In some experiments soldiers were made aware of the fact that they were being used as lab rats. Decades ago the US military waged biological warfare in Vietnam which is still destroying countless lives today. All of this and more is historical fact which cannot be denied.

Climate engineering is nothing less than biological warfare against civilian populations around the globe. In regard to climate engineering, specific scenarios should be considered and remembered. At minimum we are all being “slow killed” with the toxic materials which lab tests from around the globe prove are raining down on us from the aerosol spraying. If those in power feel they are losing control over populations they could at any point in time could alter the elements being sprayed to something much more lethal. If you don’t think this is a very real possibility, if you don’t believe your own government would commit such a crime, you are not yet awake. The article below is an exceptional and compelling exposé of the US military waging biological warfare against its own citizens with total impunity.
Dane Wigington

How The U.S. Government Tested Biological Warfare On America


Source: priceonomics, article by Zachary Crockett

As leaves turned red, and as San Francisco segued into the smoky autumn of 1950, Edward Nevin lay dying in a hospital bed.

A rare bacteria had entered his urinary tract, made its way through his bloodstream, and clung to his heart — a bacteria that had never been seen in the hospital’s history. Before researchers could hypothesize the bacteria’s root cause, ten more patients were admitted with the same infection. Doctors were baffled: how could have this microbe presented itself?

For nearly thirty years, the incident remained a secret — until Edward Nevin’s grandson set out to bring about justice.

What ensued was a series of terrifying revelations: for two decades, the United States government had intentionally doused 293 populated areas with bacteria. They’d done this with secrecy. They’d done this without informing citizens of potentially dangerous exposure. They’d done this without taking precautions to protect the public’s health and safety, and with no medical follow-up

And it had all started in 1950, with the spraying of San Francisco.

Biological Warfare in the U.S.

Biological warfare, or “germ warfare,” is the “use of biological toxins or infectious agents (bacteria, viruses, and fungi) with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans.” Historically, the United States’ involvement in bacterial weaponry has been driven by competition and paranoia.

In 1918, toward the tail end of World War I, the government briefly experimented with ricin — a deadly, natural plant protein — and the Chemical WarfaService (CWS) was formed to oversee research and development. With the signing of the Geneva Protocol in 1925 (which prohibited the use of biological and chemical weapons in international warfare), the U.S. government’s interest waned: until the 1940s, biological weapons were largely considered impractical.

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, the United States changed its mind.

In 1942, President Roosevelt signed into action the first biological warfare program; backed by the National Academy of Sciences, the initiative sought to develop biological weapons and explore vulnerability of the U.S. to such attacks. A government body — the War Research Service (WRS) — was created to oversee these activities, and George W Merck (of the Merck Pharmaceutical Company) was appointed to leadership. At his team’s directive, Fort Detrick, the United States’ biological warfare “headquarters,” was constructed in the small town of of Frederick, Maryland.

The facility then embarked on top secret plan to stage open-air “biological warfare tests” using the unsuspecting American public.


Technicians test a bacteria at Fort Detrick (c.1940s)

By the the end of World War II, the government had amassed a massive arsenal of biological weapons (using anthrax and other various bacteria) — all under the “strictest secrecy.” Soon, justification for continuing the research shifted to the “need for national defense.”

“Work in this field cannot be ignored in a time of peace,” Merck warned officials. “It must be continued on a sufficient scale to provide an adequate defense.”

The government agreed. Under the command of University of Wisconsin professor and bacteriologist Ira Baldwin, A Committee on Biological Warfare was established in 1948. When a subsequent report determined that the United States was “particularly susceptible” to attacks, a series of “open air tests” were ordered. The purpose of these efforts? To simulate the effects of a realistic biological warfare attack.

With a plan in place, a task force was sent to unleash bacteria on San Francisco.

San Francisco’s Bacteria Fiasco

A confidential government report written in 1951 — “Special Report No. 142: Biological Warfare Trials at San Francisco, California, 20-27 September 1950” — maps out the details of the city’s top-secret bacteria bombing. Through the tests, officials sought to accomplish three objectives: to study the “offensive possibilities of attacking a seaport city with a biological warfare aerosol,” to highlight the vulnerability of the country’s defense against such attacks, and to gain data on how bacteria affected a population.

Nowhere in the report was the welfare of San Franciscans mentioned; the tests proceeded without knowledge or consent from the public.

On the 20th, just three days after the 49ers made their NFL debut, the U.S. Army was deployed to San Francisco and began secretly showering the city with bacteria. Over a course of eight days, a ship puttered along the shoreline of the bay, releasing massive clouds of two different pathogens — both of which were supposedly non-pathogenic, yet “realistic simulants that might be used in an attack.” In total, six “experimental warfare attacks” were carried out: four with Bacillus globigii, and two with Serratia marcescens.


Serratia marcescens, known for its blood-red coloration, is one of two bacterias sprayed over San Francisco in 1950

The Army blasted these chemicals in 30-minute spurts, producing huge clouds up to two miles in length, then proceeded to collect and assess dozens of samples a various collection spots across the city. As noted in the report, various aspects of each of the six tests were scrupulously monitored — the time, the temperature, the wind speed, the humidity — but the most important factor seemed to be brushed over: the well-being of the people being sprayed.

The samples collected yielded counts that gave some indication of how much bacteria was being inhaled. According to Leonard J. Cole, author of the biological warfare book Clouds of Secrecy, it was quite a bit:

“Nearly all of San Francisco received 500 particle minutes per liter. In other words, nearly every one of the 800,000 people in San Francisco exposed to the cloud at normal breathing rate (10 liters per minute) inhaled 5000 or more particles per minute during the several hours that they remained airborne.”

“Since the army’s bacteria ‘presented similar dosage patterns,’” he continues, “San Francisco residents were inhaling millions of the bacteria and particles every day during the week of the testing.”

San Francisco residents’ safety was wholly brushed over in the report, which promptly concluded “it’s entirely feasible to attack a seaport city with [biological warfare] aerosol.”

The Death of Edward Nevin

A month prior to the Army’s tests, a 75-year-old man named Edward Nevin checked into a San Francisco hospital to undergo a prostate gland surgery. The procedure went well, and after a month in the facility, he was on his way to recovery. Then, on September 29, two days after the Army’s tests, Nevin fell contracted a urinary tract infection and fell gravely ill.

When the man’s urine culture came back, it contained Serratia marcescens — a bacteria that had not once been documented in the hospital’s long history.

In mid-October, the bacteria spread to Nevin’s heart, and he died.

Over the next six months, 10 more patients were admitted with infections caused by Serratia marcescens (all of whom later recovered after long, painful hospital stays). Like the rest of San Francisco’s citizens, the hospital’s doctors were unaware that the government had just clandestinely sprayed the city with Serratia marcescens. A panic ensued at the hospital, as researchers frantically struggled to determine how the bacteria infected these people.

The following year, a team of Stanford University researchers dug into the case; led by Dr. Richard Wheat, they published an article in the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine exploring the facts: 11 patients infected over 6 months, aged 29-78, all with urinary tract infections caused by Serratia marcescens.

Despite the best efforts of some of the nation’s leading scientists, no source could be identified. Historically, Serratia marcescens had no record in San Francisco — or California, for that matter.

The medical paper did not go unnoticed: when the government read it and realized that they’d caused a bacterial outbreak, they reeled to cover their tracks.

In August 1952, a secret, four-person investigation was ordered by Fort Detrick commander, General William Creasy to reassess the pathogenic nature of Serratia marcescens. In a two-page report, the investigators admitted that the bacteria was NOT an “ideal simulant,” and mused that the likelihood it had killed Nevin was considerable. Despite this, they proceeded to justify its continued use in biological tests:

“On the basis of our study, we conclude that Serratia marcescens is so rarely a cause of illness, and the illness resulting is predominantly so trivial, that its use as a simulant should be continued, even over populated areas.”

Throughout the report, investigators showed little remorse for the infected civilians. General Creasy was equally unphased: in a follow-up with Army officials, he promised to consult with the U.S. Public Health Service regarding the safety of Serratia marcescens — but he never did.

And all the while, the public remained completely in the dark about what was going on.

Edward Nevin’s Grandson Fights for Justice

For 25 years, the government’s involvement in biological warfare testing — and its use of civilians as unwitting guinea pigs — remained top-secret. It’s a secret that likely would’ve gone on indefinitely if not for the efforts of a savvy Newsweek reporter named Drew Fetherston.

In November 1976, Fetherston exposed a number of biological tests performed in major cities by the Army and the CIA. Using his research, the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered the bacteria spraying that had occurred in its streets in 1950.


A sketch of Edward Nevin III — Edward Nevin’s grandson

Edward Nevin III, a young lawyer in San Francisco, was waiting for a train in nearby Berkeley when he read the news. When he skimmed the name of the man who’d died from the bacteria — Edward Nevin — he reeled in shock. Good heavens, he muttered, that’s my grandfather!

Growing up, he’d always been told that his father’s father had died from kidney disease; now that he knew the bitter truth, he felt a need to exact revenge in the form of justice.

Nevin wrote the government, demanding access to case’s related documents; his request was denied. Though the Freedom of Information Act had just been enacted, the government maintained that all files were classified — despite the fact the the media had already exposed the incident. In turn, Nevin sued the government to the tune of $11 million.

“Our motive [is] to obtain information,” he told a group of reporters who’d asked about the high amount, “would you fellows have paid attention if the claim were for only a few thousand?”

The government tried to dismiss the case on the grounds that they were immune from lawsuits involving “basic policy,” but the request was denied. Samuel Conti, a federal judge, was appointed to preside over the trial, and a date was set for mid-1977.

In light of this news, the government decided it was best to relinquish some of its information. In February 1977, an extensive history — “U.S. Army Activity in the U.S. Biological Warfare Program, 1942-1977” — was released, chronicling the country’s involvement in open-air testing for the first time in history. (Click the image below to view the document in its entirety):


From March to May of 1977, a series of hearings commenced in the Senate’s subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research. Medical experts, military leaders, and politicians ferociously debated whether or not Serratia marcescens — the bacteria that killed Nevin — was harmful. George H. Connell, the assistant to the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), was especially vocal about its dangers:

“There is no such thing as a microorganism that cannot cause trouble. If you get the right concentration at the right place, at the right time, and in the right person, something is going to happen.”

“An increase in the number of Serratia marcescens,” added an unnamed microbiology professor, “can almost certainly cause disease in a healthy person…and serious disease in sick people.”

A copy of the full hearing transcript (all 300 pages) can be accessed by clicking the image below:


Meanwhile, Nevin III’s trial was postponed or rescheduled a half dozen times from 1977-1980. By the time a trial was set in stone for March 16, 1981, he’d already spent some $60,000 on legal fees, and was mentally and emotionally drained.

Nonetheless, he found solace in the case’s stipulatons: to win, all he’d have to do is show that there was a “probability” — or greater than a 50% chance — that the Army’s germs were responsible for his grandfather’s demise.

And as a lawyer, he’d have the opportunity to defend his own family in court.

As the trial began, the evidence seemed to be overwhelmingly in Nevin III’s favor: on September 26th and 27th, the government had sprayed the city with Serratia marcescens; on September 29th, Serratia marcescens showed up in his grandfather’s system — and directly led to his death.

“We’ve been nothing but loyal to this country,” Nevin told the Judge Conti in his opening statement. “and we feel betrayed.”

His argument was threefold: the bacteria sprayed by the government directly caused his grandfather’s death; the Army used Serratia marcescens despite inadequate testing; and, since they’d sprayed it without consent, it had been “an act of negligence.” He questioned the legality of these actions:

“On what basis of law does the U.S. government of the United States justify the dispersion of a large collection of bacteria over the civilian population in an experiment…without informed consent?”

John Kern, the sharp, respected attorney representing the government, denied all of these allegations. The Serratia marcescens that killed Nevin and the Serratia marcescens released by the Army were two entirely different strains, he maintained; it was mere coincidence that the hospital had an outbreak around the same time.

Incredibly, Kern also attested that the Army needed no permission to spray the public without consent or knowledge. The Federal Torts Claims Act, established in 1946, gave the public the right to sue the Federal government — but it came with limitations. Among them, a vaguely-worded “discretionary function” made the feds immune to suits in which they were “performing appropriately under policy.” The dousing of civilians in bacteria, contended Kern, qualified as such.

Kern then launched into a theatrical denial of Serratia marcescens’ harmful effects. “Every atom in this pen could decide right now to rise up about six inches and turn around 180 degrees,” he emphatically stated, with his pen thrusted in the air. That, he concluded, would be about as likely to happen as the bacteria killing someone. He continued, citing a series of Fort Detrick tests in the 1940s in which “volunteers” were exposed to millions of Serratia marcescens organisms and suffered only “some coughing, redness of the eye, and a fever,” with all symptoms subsiding after a few days.

One of Kern’s witnesses, a doctor for the biological warfare unit at Fort Detrick, agreed. In possibly the most callous statement of the day, he looked Nevin III in the eyes, and delivered his opinion: “The strain [wasn’t] pathogenic,” he said, “[and] I would still spray SF again today.”

Dr. Wheat, the Stanford physician who’d investigated Nevin’s death in 1951, testified to a different tune.

“No similar organisms had ever been isolated in the hospital laboratory…then over a relatively short period of time, there were a number of cases,” he told the judge. “It’s very difficult for me to escape the conclusion that there is at least some probability, some causal effect [that the cases are related].”

Debates on the bacteria’s safety and the cause of Nevin’s death continued in this way for several hours, each side presenting a slew of medical “experts.” The government’s legal team maintained that the odds of Nevin’s death being linked to the Army’s bacteria spray were “one in a hundred;” Nevin III’s witnesses held the belief that the events were inseparably connected.


General William Creasy in uniform

When it came time to cross-examine military officials, the case suddenly took a jarring turn.

As General William Creasy, commander of the United States’ biological warfare unit, stepped to the stand, it became clear that presiding judge Conti was leaning toward the defense of the military. “When the government trotted out a witness in uniform,” noted one San Francisco Examiner court reporter, “it was all over.” After telling Nevin III that he was “wasting [his] time,” the General proceeded to defend the ethics of spraying people without their knowledge:

“I would find it completely impossible to conduct such a test trying to obtain informed consent. I could not have hoped to prevent panic in the uninformed world in which we live in telling them that we were going to spread non-pathogenic particles over their community; 99 percent of the people wouldn’t know what pathogenic meant.”

During the cross-examination, Judge Conti continually denied Nevin III’s reasoning, and even berated him for his lack of respect toward military officials. After several interruptions, Judge Conti altogether halted the questioning and called a recess. Out in the hallway, a belligerent General Creasy unsuccessfully challenged Nevin III to a fistfight.

Nevin III’s legal opponents were simply too powerful: he was swimming upstream and flailing.

When Judge Conti’s verdict was handed down on May 20, 1981, it surprised no one: the case was ruled in favor of the government.

The Army had been entitled to spray the population without consent, concluded Conti, under the “discretionary function exception” in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Despite a lack of convincing evidence, Conti also declared that the Army had skillfully chosen its bacteria — and that it was not, in fact, harmless.

For Nevin III, whose grandfather had died from the organisms, this was not easy to swallow. He appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals did not overturn the verdict. He appealed again — this time to the Supreme Court — and received a similar response.

For Nevin III, justice was not served.


San Francisco’s incident was just one of 293 bacterial attacks staged by the United States government between 1950 and 1969. It was neither the most heinous, nor the deadliest.

In 1955, as an “experiment,” the CIA sprayed whooping cough bacteria over Tampa Bay, Florida. Whooping cough cases in the area subsequently increased from 339 and one death in 1954, to 1,080 and 12 deaths in 1955 — but no hard evidence has ever surfaced linking the two incidents. In an infamous 1966 test, federal agents crushed light bulbs containing trillions of bacteria on the New York Subway, exposing thousands of rush hour commuters; the government never followed up to see how many people fell ill.

Before a crowd at Fort Detrick in 1969, Richard Nixon terminated the offensive use of biological weapons in the United States, effectively ending open-air testing.

It wouldn’t be until 1977 that the public learned any of this was even going on — and even then, the U.S. government never admitted its fault, or seemed to show any indication of remorse for its actions.

Serratia marcescens, the bacteria sprayed over San Francisco, has since been declared hazardous. “It can cause serious life-threatening illness,” wrote the FDA in 2005, “especially in patients with compromised immune systems.” Much other medical literature contends the same.

Today, Edward Nevin III is a practicing medical malpractice and personal injury lawyer in Petaluma, California. Though he lost the case in 1981, he succeeded in bringing to light many government actions that had previously been shrouded in secrecy.

“At least we are all aware of what can happen, even in this country,” Nevin Jr. said, shortly after the trial. “I just hope the story won’t be forgotten.”


See original article here

TLB recommends you visit Dane at Geoengineering Watch for more great/pertinent articles.



america vaccines 1

How can an industry responsible for so many lies and so much suffering and death be allowed to continue, or even exist?

By: Roger Landry (TLB)

What is presented here is a critical look at the pharmaceutical industry and focuses on the vaccination program in America. This goes a long way towards explaining the possible motivations for the actions of those responsible for administering it. Slowly but steadily the veil of lies and false promises is being pulled back and the light of truth is becoming apparent.

Corruption, Complacency, Complicity, Greed, Agenda, Station… This is what dominates our healthcare system today and exactly what has brought America to this sad state of health. When some or even many of the aforementioned qualities are needed even to obtain research grants (with the exception of organizations such as CMSRI) PROVEN to affect the (supposed) science we are presented with … how can we expect anything else?

If you wish to better understand the unthinkable lack of conscience leading to the untold damage and death caused by the pharmaceutical industry in America over the last few generations, please watch this video …

Science is for sale in America today, and nowhere is this more readily apparent than in the vaccination schedule. The almighty dollar is the navigator of this massive ship of American healthcare, and it is by far the pharmaceutical industry that influences, or outright controls, the very scope and direction of this vessel. The pharmaceutical lobby spends five times more capitol than the entire military industrial complex does influencing congress to do their bidding … and when you control our leaders through promise and bribery … you in fact control our health!

Parents of vaccine damaged or deceased children are put through a cacophony of obstacles and hoops they must jump through for any recognition of damage, and justice is still often never forthcoming. The total immunity from prosecution of all from the production process through the administering of vaccines in America, makes conscience all but unnecessary for all within this mechanism. The officially stated science behind vaccines is not questioned regardless of the fact that countless peer reviewed studies prove unequivocally their harm … because all of this influence is bought and payed for. Please watch this short video to gain a more in-depth understanding …

Let’s try putting the truth and knowledge based on fact with no ulterior motives, in the hands of those who need it most and allow them to make decisions that benefit them, their children and future generations to come! Truth has the power to defeat lies every time if delivered by organizations, agencies and individuals of solid character well trusted by those who must depend on them. Sadly, tragically and factually … this does not exist in the prostituted American healthcare system today!

The attached short article contains some outstanding sources and references to further the point being made here. TLB highly recommends you take the time to check this information out as thoroughly as possible. If it is reasons and answers you are looking for in your search for understanding the power and influence of Big Pharma, and the corrupt and complicit state of the vaccination program in America today … this will compliment and help to clarify everything stated above …




By: Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines Exposing and Opposing the Vaccine Agenda.

1)  Vaccine science is ‘unsettled’

There are scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines as well as the “herd immunity myth”.  [See the International Medical Council on Vaccination.]  And, there is documented evidence that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has intentionally kept this information away from public health workers, physicians, legislators and the general public.  [See: Health Hazards of Disease Prevention, Deadly Immunity by Robert Kennedy, Jr, Science for Sale by Dr David Lewis, Red Ice Creations interview with researcher scientist Dr Brian Hooker.]

2)  Harvard Study concludes “safe and effective drugs” are a myth

A 2013 Harvard Study exposed the epidemic of corruption in government institutions by Big Pharma influence and money.  [See: Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs]

3)  All participating in vaccination program are exempted from liability

Those manufacturing, ordering or administering vaccines have been granted immunity from liability should their drug cause injury, illness or even  death. There is no incentive to insure vaccines are even effective, which they aren’t.  [See Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz versus Wyeth]

4)  Patients and parents never given full disclosure

Vaccine package inserts are intentionally substituted with a sales pitch created by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics that hides the truth about vaccine benefits and health risks, including seizures, denying parents/patients full disclosure.  [See American Academy of Pediatrics’ Refusal to Vaccinate document, that no one should sign.]

5)  CDC vaccination recommendations not science based

Vaccine schedules have been established by the CDC and are promoted by public health departments, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other various organizations. CDC vaccine recommendations are not science-based as many of their reports have been altered to hide pertinent and damning information.  [See former CDC scientist Dr David Lewis’ book Science for Sale]

6)  CDC is a private for-profit corporation ‘doing business’

The CDC is not a government health advocacy organization. It is a corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet and headquartered in the STATE OF GEORGIA, with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, their recommendations are influenced by the ‘fiscal’ health of their corporation.

7)  State public health institutions are private for-profit corporations ‘doing business’

Physician or institutional records are frequently reviewed by the STATE public health department, which is also a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet, who receives monetary compensation from the CDC to perform this function. Therefore, the state public health department’s recommendations and actions are influenced by the ‘fiscal’ health of their own corporation.

8)  American Academy of Pediatrics is a private for-profit corporation ‘doing business’

The AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS and the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS are not health advocacy organizations. They are trade associations-corporations (listed on Dun and Bradstreet) that are head-quartered in the STATE OF ILLINOIS and the STATE OF KANSAS respectively, whose monetary compensation from the vaccine manufacturers contributes to the ‘fiscal’ health of their corporations.

9)  Physicians get more money for each ‘fully vaccinated’ child

Physicians (who are intentionally misinformed by the CDC and Big Pharma and who cannot be sued for vaccine injuries) are paid higher reimbursement rates for each “fully vaccinated” child.

10)  Profits, not science, motivate vaccine mandates

LEGISLATORS for the STATE have passed corporate statutes mandating certain vaccines for attendance in educational institutions. As the LEGISLATORS have no medical training and can easily be influenced by drug company lobbyists and or the CDC, INC, their statutes are not scientifically motivated.   [See retired pharmacist and lobbyist Kristine Severyn’s Profits not Science, Motivate Vaccine Mandates]

Pdf of this page for printing out


Also see:

SB277 the Road to Pharmageddon

Forced Vaccination is Equivalent to Human Experimentation and Subject to the Nuremberg Code

TLB recommends you visit “Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines Exposing and Opposing the Vaccine Agenda for more” pertinent article and information. See attached article here


By: Celeste McGovern

The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?

No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession. You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice. Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the “Godfather of Autoimmunology” – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.

But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines – specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases. The bigger evidence is a huge body of research that’s poured in in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past five years. Take for example, a recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity.

“On one hand,” vaccines prevent infections which can trigger autoimmunity, say the paper’s authors, Alessandra Soriano, of the Department of Clinical Medicine and Rheumatology at the Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Gideon Nesher, of the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem and Shoenfeld, founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center of Autoimmune Diseases in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer. He is also editor of three medical journals and author of more than 1,500 research papers across the spectrum of medical journalism and founder of the International Congress on Autoimmunology. “On the other hand, many reports that describe post-vaccination autoimmunity strongly suggest that vaccines can indeed trigger autoimmunity. Defined autoimmune diseases that may occur following vaccinations include arthritis, lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, dermatomyosiositis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and demyelinating disorders. Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA.”

ASIA – or Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (also known as Shoenfeld’s syndrome) — first appeared in the Journal of Autoimmunology four years ago. It is an umbrella term for a collection of similar symptoms, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, that result after exposure to an adjuvant – an environmental agent including common vaccine ingredients that stimulate the immune system. Since then an enormous body of research, using ASIA as a paradigm, has begun to unravel the mystery of how environmental toxins, particularly the metal aluminum used in vaccines, can trigger an immune system chain reaction in susceptible individuals and may lead to overt autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease results when the body’s system meant to attack foreign invaders turns instead to attack part of the body it belongs to (auto is Greek for self). If the immune system is like a national defence system, antibodies are like drones programmed to recognize a certain type of invader (a bacteria say) and to destroy them or mark them for destruction by other special forces. Autoantibodies are like drones that are misidentifying a component of the human body and have launched a sustained attack on it. If they mistakenly target a component of the conductive sheath around neurons, for example, nerve impulses stop conducting properly, muscles go into spasm and coordination fails; multiple sclerosis results. If autoantibodies erroneously focus on joint tissue; rheumatoid arthritis results. If they target the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, Type 1 diabetes, and so on

“Throughout our lifetime the normal immune system walks a fine line between preserving normal immune reactions and developing autoimmune diseases,” says the paper. “The healthy immune system is tolerant to self-antigens. When self-tolerance is disturbed, dysregulation of the immune system follows, resulting in emergence of an autoimmune disease. Vaccination is one of the conditions that may disturb this homeostasis in susceptible individuals, resulting in autoimmune phenomena and ASIA.”

Who is “susceptible” is the subject of the paper entitled, “Predicting post-vaccination autoimmunity: Who might be at risk?” It lists four categories of people: 1) those who have had a previous autoimmune reaction to a vaccine, 2) anyone with a medical history of autoimmunity, 3) patients with a history of allergic reactions, 4) anyone at high risk of developing autoimmune disease including anyone with a family history of autoimmunity, presence of autoantibodies which are detectable by blood tests and other factors including low vitamin D and smoking.


Regarding those who have had a previous adverse reaction to vaccines, the paper cites five relevant studies including the case of a death of a teenage girl six months following her third Gardasil injection against HPV virus.  She had experienced a range of symptoms shortly after her first dose, including dizziness, numbness and tingling in her hands, and memory lapses. After her second injection, she developed “intermittent arm weakness, frequent tiredness requiring daytime naps,” worse tingling, night sweats, chest pain and palpitations. A full autopsy was unrevealing but blood and spleen tissue analysis revealed HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments – matching the DNA found in vials of the Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer – “thus implicating the vaccine as a causal factor.” The DNA fragments had also been found to be “complexed with the aluminum adjuvant” which, according to the report, have been shown to persist for up to 8 to 10 years causing chronic immune system stimulation.

“Although data is limited,” Shoenfeld and his colleagues concluded, “it seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine.”


The second group which the paper cites for vaccine exemption is patients with “established autoimmune conditions.” Vaccines don’t work so well in them, say Shoenfeld and his colleagues, and they are at “risk for flares following vaccination.” Inoculations that contain live viruses including chickenpox, yellow fever and the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) are “generally contraindicated” for people with autoimmune conditions because of  the risk of “uncontrolled viral replication.” But inactivated vaccines are not such a good idea either because they usually contain the added ingredient aluminum, linked to autoimmunity.

The immunologists describe recent studies in which patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease given the influenza vaccine (without aluminum) suffered more joint pain and fever than controls and whose levels of autoantibodies (the drones that attack self) increased after receiving the flu vaccine. What’s more, they developed new types of autoantibodies that weren’t present before the vaccines, and those persisted. As the presence of autoantibodies can be predictive of developing autoimmune disease in patients without symptoms, even years ahead of disease onset, this is troubling to those who understand immunology.

A number of studies claim vaccines are safe for the “overwhelming majority of patients with established autoimmune diseases,” the study allows, but they only looked at rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and not at severe and active cases so “the potential benefit of vaccination should be weighed against its potential risk,” they cautioned.


Vaccine trials have usually excluded “vulnerable” individuals — only extremely healthy individuals with no allergies are recruited. It’s a “selection bias,” say Soriano and Shoenfeld, and has likely resulted in serious adverse events being “considerably underestimated” in “real life where vaccines are mandated to all individuals regardless of their susceptibility.” The true incidence of allergic reactions to vaccines, normally estimated at between one in 50,000 to one in a million doses, is probably much higher and particularly where gelatin or egg proteins are on the ingredients list, they say.

There’s a long list of vaccine ingredients that are potential allergens: besides the infectious agents themselves, there are those from hen’s egg, horse serum, baker’s yeast, numerous antibiotics, formaldehyde and lactose, as well “inadvertent” ingredients such as latex. People’s allergic histories have to be taken before vaccination say the researchers. But some signs of reaction don’t show up until after the shot.

The public health nurse or GP might tell patients that a long-lasting swelling around the injection site after a vaccine is a normal reaction, for example. But that is not what the immunologists say. “[A]luminum sensitization manifests as nodules [hard lumps] at the injection site that often regress after weeks or months, but may persist for years.” In such cases, they say, a patch test can be done to confirm sensitivity and to avoid vaccination.

According to a growing body of research, though, allergy may be only the beginning of many dangerous aluminum-induced phenomena.


Aluminum has been added to vaccines since about 1926 when Alexander Glenny and colleagues noticed it would produce better antibody responses in vaccines than the antigen alone. Glenny figured the alum was inducing what he called a “depot effect” – slowing the release of the antigen and heightening the immune response. For 60 years his theory was accepted dogma. And over the same time, the vaccine schedule grew decade on decade, but few ever questioned the effects of injecting aluminum into the body, which is strange considering its known toxicity.

A PubMed search on aluminum and “toxicity” turns up 4,258 entries. Its neurotoxicity is well documented. It affects memory, cognition, psychomotor control; it damages the blood brain barrier, activates brain inflammation, depresses mitochondrial function and plenty of research suggests it is a key player in the formation of the amyloid “plaques” and tangles in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. It’s been implicated in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and autism and demonstrated to induce allergy.

When kidney dialysis patients were accidentally infused with aluminum, the “dialysis-induced encephalopathy” (DAE) they developed neurological symptoms: speech abnormalities, tremors, memory loss, impaired concentration and behavioural changes. Many of the patients eventually went into comas and died. The lucky ones survived: when the source of toxicity, aluminum, was removed from their dialysis they recovered rapidly.

With these new observations, researchers began investigating the adjuvant effects of aluminum and in the past decade there has been a flurry of research. Far from being a sandbag that holds the antigen for a while and then gets excreted, it turns out that aluminum salts trigger a storm of defence action. Within hours of injection of the same aluminum oxyhydroxide in vaccines into mice, for example, armies of specialized immune cells are on the move, calling in grid coordinates for more specialist assault forces. Within a day, a whole host of immune system commandos are in play — neutrophils, eosinophils, inflammatory monocytes, myeloid and dendritic cells, activating lymphocytes and secreting proteins called cytokines. The cytokines themselves cause collateral damage but they send out signals, directing cell-to-cell communication and recruiting other cells into action. If the next phase of the attack is launched: fibroblast growth factor, interferons, interleukins, platelet derived growth factor, transforming growth factor and tumour necrosis factor might all be engaged. There’s evidence that poorly understood and pesky inflammasomes, (currently a topic of cutting- edge cancer causation research) such as the Nod-like receptor 3( NLRP) are activated too, but it’s all still too early to say exactly what they’re doing.

New research emerging from University of British Columbia has found that aluminum adjuvant injected into mice can alter the expression of genes associated with autoimmunity. And in their recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, immunologists at the University of Colorado found that even host DNA is recruited into the aluminum assault, that it rapidly coats injected alum, triggering effects that scientists have barely scratched the surface of understanding.


This mobility or “translocation” of aluminum in the body is perhaps the most disturbing of the mounting evidence in current aluminum research. In 1998, French researcher Romain Gherardi and his colleagues observed an emerging condition of unknown origin which presented in patients post-vaccination with Chronic Fatigue like symptoms including swollen lymph nodes, joint and muscle pain and exhaustion. Tissue biopsies of the patients’ deltoid revealed lesions up to 1 cm in diameter and unique from similar lesions of other diseases. They went to the lab for analysis and to Gherardi’s astonishment, they mainly consisted of macrophages – large white blood cells in the immune system whose job is to swallow up foreign invaders in the body. Enclosed in the cellular fluid of these phagocytes were agglomerates of nanocrystals of aluminum.

Gherardi and his colleagues began injecting mice with aluminum to see what happened. Their research published in 2013 revealed that the metal particles were engulfed by macrophages and formed MMF-like granulomas that dispersed — to distant lymph nodes, spleen, liver and eventually brain.

“This strongly suggests that long-term adjuvant biopersistence within phagocytic cells is a prerequisite of slow brain translocation and delayed neurotoxicity,” writes Gherardi in his February 2015 review of the relevant research in Frontiers in Neurology.

A more frightening animal study of aluminum is that of Spanish veterinary researcher Lluis Lujan’s study of ovine ASIA. After huge numbers of sheep in Spain died in 2008 in the wake of a compulsory multiple vaccine campaign against bluetongue in Spain in 2008, Lujan set out to find out what killed them – and he began by inoculating them with aluminum.

His 2013 study found that only 0.5% of sheep inoculated with aluminum vaccines showed immediate reactions of lethargy, transient blindness, stupor, prostration and seizures – “characterized by a severe meningoencephalitis, similar to postvaccine reactions seen in humans.”  Most of them recovered, temporarily, but postmortem exams of the ones who didn’t revealed acute brain inflammation.

The delayed onset “chronic” phase of the disease affected far more of the sheep — 50-70% of flocks and sometimes virtually 100% of animals within a given flock, usually including all of those who had previously recovered. The reaction was frequently triggered by exposure to cold and began with restlessness and compulsive wool-biting, then progressed to acute redness of the skin, generalized weakness, extreme weight loss and muscle tremors, and finally, entered the terminal phase where the animals went down on their front quarters, became comatose and died. Post-mortem examinations revealed “severe neuron necrosis” and aluminum in the nerve tissue.

The immune system’s reaction to aluminum “represents a major health challenge,” Gerhardi declares in his recent review, and he adds that “attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made… A lot must be done to understand how, in certain individuals, alum-containing vaccines may become insidiously unsafe.”

Back to the problem of which “certain individuals” should avoid vaccination to avoid autoimmune disease.


Soriano and Shoenfeld’s identify a final category: anyone at risk of developing autoimmune disease. Since a number of them have been shown to have genetic factors that would include anyone with a family history of autoimmune disease. It also includes anyone who has tested positive for autoantibodies which can indicate disease years before symptoms show up.  Vaccinations, the doctors say, “may trigger or worsen the disease.”

Smokers too, have an exceptionally high risk of developing an autoimmune disease, says the report. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 18% of Americans smoke. That means about 42 million Americans have an elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease and they’re stacking the odds with every vaccine.

And finally, factors that Shoenfeld and Soriano associate with high risk of developing autoimmunity are high estrogen and low vitamin D —  which means anyone taking birth control or hormone replacement therapy and, according to one 2009 study of vitamin D status, about three quarters of American teens and adults should be wary of vaccines.

Shoenfeld doesn’t seem to mean to exclude all of these people from immunization, however. The paper concludes that “for the overwhelming majority of individuals, vaccines carry no risk of systemic autoimmune disease and should be administered according to current recommendations.” Which is in stark contrast to the body of the paper. The final word is cautionary about weighing the “potential benefit of vaccination…against its potential risk.”

It’s exemplary of a strange sort of schizophrenia in a wide range of recent immunology papers. The doctors seem to be trying to reconcile a century of “safe and effective” vaccine dogma with the last decade’s worth of terrifying research findings. There’s a lot of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” in them.

The new research seems about to gain the upper hand, however. A 2013 overview of ASIA by six immunologists including Shoenfeld, for example, is a catalogue of vaccine side effects from Gardasil deaths, narcolepsy epidemics, infertility, chronic fatigue, dead sheep and aluminum-addled brains. It is rife with statements that would have been virtually unheard of inside mainstream medicine a decade ago. Like this shocker:

“Perhaps, in twenty years, physicians will be dueling with better characterized particles of autoimmunity, and the vaccines may become fully safe as well as effective. Nonetheless the recognition of ASIA has initiated the change to put more efforts in identifying the good, the bad and the ugly of vaccines and in particular of adjuvants as triggers of autoimmunity.” Bad and ugly of vaccines? What’s wrong with the adjuvants? That’s not in the CDC hand-out.

Or how about this one:

“Despite the huge amount of money invested in studying vaccines, there are few observational studies and virtually no randomized clinical trials documenting the effect on mortality of any of the existing vaccines. One recent paper found an increased hospitalization rate with the increase of the number of vaccine doses and a mortality rate ratio for 5-8 vaccine doses to 1-4 doses of 1.5, indicating a statistically significant increase of deaths associated with higher vaccine doses. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines…” That could be any anti-vaxxer jabbering on…but it’s not.

But here is the topper:

“The US Supreme Court ruled that vaccines makers are immune from lawsuits charging that the design of the vaccine is defective. Thus there is need for innovative clinical trial design and the vaccines themselves should be redesigned.” Immunologists including the world’s leading authority on autoimmunity are saying it is time to take vaccines back to the drawing board.

Autoimmune disease is the third leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and now among the top 10 killers of young American women.  The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association estimates that 50 million Americans suffer from one of 88 autoimmune diseases — from type 1 diabetes to systemic lupus erythematosus — and some research puts the figure at one in five globally. At least 40 more diseases are suspected to be immune-mediated. Most of them are devastating — frequently crippling, expensive to treat and incurable. And they are increasing at an astonishing pace.

At this stage, it looks like the more the research pours in, the harder it is going to get for pro-vaccine immunologists to keep multiple personality disorder – or complete nervous breakdown  — at bay. Ten years of cutting edge research into aluminum’s effects on the immune system has revealed primarily how wrong they were. And how little they know.  If, after 90 years, doctors finally have begun to seriously examine the mechanism and question the merits of injecting metal toxins into newborn babies, what have they yet to discover? ASIA sounds awful. (Too bad for all the people whose kids suffered through chronic fatigue when it was just a Freudian yearning to sleep with their mother.) But what if, like Lujan’s sheep, the “negligible” minority that has been paying the price for the good of humanity is actually only the tip of the iceberg? What if some people with no apparent adverse immune reactions still have nanocrystals of aluminum silently depositing in their brains? What if ASIA really includes Alzheimer’s? ALS, autism? ADD? And that’s just the A’s.

Even if immunologists keep wearing their rose coloured glasses, and vaccine ingredients are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the exploding autoimmunity, the “ugly” in vaccines will still get harder and harder to ignore. When everyone on the planet is getting injected, 20 years is a long time for disabled people to stack up while scientists “duel with the characterized particles of autoimmunity.” In the fury over the Disneyland measles outbreak that is gripping the world’s vaccine promoters, time is running out for doctors and researchers who see the “bad and ugly” side of vaccines and their adjuvants to do something about it. There’s slim chance of a vaccine redesign in the absence of a profit incentive and a strong chance of universal vaccine mandates for one and all — previous anaphylactic shock reaction or not.

Celeste McGovern is a Canadian freelance journalist in the UK.


TLB recommends you visit Green Med Info for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article here


The New Gardasil

By: Kelly Brogan MD

I believe in living life with no regrets. When we make decisions from a place of authenticity, when we listen to our inner compass for guidance, check our fear, then we have done the best that we could have done. If it ends up being a mistake, then look at that as an opportunity, and own it. Move on. In fact, many times, our most tragic life events lead us somewhere expansively grand.

This untethered existence is challenged by a simple fact, these days: the Pharmaceutical industry has coopted our maternal inner compass. They, in partnership with media, have grabbed onto our natural tendency to worry about the welfare of our children, and they have tempted us with a shiny apple. Visiting again and again until we relent.

And here we create fertile soil for regret. Every day, in my office, I have women expressing poignant remorse, shame, and rage because they trusted their Pharma-pushing doctor instead of trusting themselves, trusting in the inherent potential of the body to be well, to heal, to surmount seeming obstacles. No cohort of women are more lionized than those who have lost their daughters to a vaccine promoted to save them from a disease they were never going to get. The HPV vaccine.

This issue activates my primal feminism, my perception that I am here on this earth to help guard what is sacred about women and their children. It pulls at my heartstrings. I had tears streaming down my face, watching this 5 minute video.

But, we don’t have to recruit emotion to sound a blaring alarm about what is going on here.

Let’s just stick to the science, shall we?

The Fear They’re Selling: Cervical Cancer

What is your likelihood of developing cervical cancer? And if you do develop it, is it a death sentence?

In the marketing and licensure of the HPV vaccine, changes to cervical cells have been equated with death. This is called using a “surrogate marker” and in vaccine research, this is considered acceptable because we can’t otherwise prove a non-event is attributable to an intervention. There are leaps in logic and in science inherent in this practice, that render conclusions nothing more than false marketing.

In fact, none of the HPV vaccines have ever been proven to prevent a single case of cervical cancer. Don’t take my word for it, listen to what Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers for the vaccine, and a whistleblower, has to say:

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue. This vaccine has not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don’t get cervical cancer – they won’t know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer. …To mandate now is simply to Merck’s benefit, and only to Merck’s benefit.”

You can also consult her subsequent research that demonstrates no added protection above and beyond the Pap smear. Combined pap smear and HPV vaccination have not been demonstrated to improve outcomes above Pap screening alone, and a recent review states, “Pap screening will still be required in vaccinated women hence HPV vaccination programs are not cost-effective, and may do more harm than good, in countries where regular Pap screening and surgery has already reduced the burden of this disease.”

We already have something, with no side effects, that works.

The cervical cancer diagnosis rate in the United States is 7.9/100,000. Given that only 5% of HPV infections progress to neoplasia (CIN) and that 91% of early stage cases resolve spontaneously within 36 months, with 70% of CIN 1 and 54% of CIN 2 cases doing the same within 12 months, using these pathologies as surrogate markers for cancer incidence represents a scientific shortcoming.

Built on this house of cards, and defying pre-existing FDA criteria for fast-tracked approval, Gardasil was brought to market in 6 months and is now one of our great human experiments. Several countries including Japan, France, and India have banned and/or filed criminal lawsuits about Gardasil, but, as Americans, not only are the “one less” commercials still running, but the latest and greatest version of Gardasil is now available.

Why A New & Improved Model?

When we mess with nature, it fights back. We all know that antibiotics are responsible for increasingly virulent and deadly strains of bacteria. Well, it’s a similar story when you force viruses to respond to vaccine-level perterbations. This is called serotype replacement or forced strain evolution. This means that when we trigger highly unnatural immune responses to specific strains, the other existing strains become stronger. This is why and how we went from 7 to 13 strains of Prevnar and from 4 to 9 strains of Gardasil.

In a study just out, entitled, Comparison of HPV prevalence between HPV-vaccinated and non-vaccinated young adult women (20-26 years)the perils of vaccination are revealed. Is the vaccine-based effect a desirable long-term outcome? This study would argue otherwise, concluding:

“…vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of nonvaccine high-risk types than unvaccinated women (61.5% vs 39.7%, prevalence ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.98).”

Here we have a vaccine creating the need for another vaccine, just as has happened with chicken pox and shingles vaccines. Employing the usual tactics of a vaccine “placebo” and distributing a small sample over many areas (600 participants per location), Gardasil 9 is brought to us with a whopping dose of viral antigen, and a mind-crushing dose of aluminum – 1,500mcg per 3 recommended doses. It is brought to us without even review by the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Slipped onto the market.

Who Cares About Aluminum?

I do. And I’m not talking about what you’re wrapping your leftovers in. I am talking about bypassing intestinal barriers and securing 100% absorption through injection of this known neurotoxin into your daughter’s body.

A recent report simply states:

“Aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”

Once thought to be efficiently cleared from the body, it has been known since 2001 that aluminum “biopersists”. Gherardi et al. state:

“We previously showed that poorly biodegradable aluminum-coated particles injected into muscle are promptly phagocytosed in muscle and the draining lymph nodes, and can disseminate within phagocytic cells throughout the body and slowly accumulate in brain.”

One of my intellectual heroes, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, explores Dr. Kawahara’s research positing all of the ways that aluminum is a “death factor” for humans in a compelling video lecture. The list is long and growing.

What Could Happen?

Well, you could be one less. And not in the way that Merck means it. You could die in the prime of your young life, as these women have. But, more likely you could develop a chronic and debilitating autoimmune condition, primary ovarian failure, or bizarre neurological impairments such as the now documented POTS syndrome. I personally have seen patients with new onset mania and psychosis, as well as debilitating and treatment resistant depression.

Even the package insert itself declares a rate of 2.5% serious adverse events, and that is only within the 15 day trial monitoring period. That’s 2,500 life-altering events per 100,000 women.

Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, poses this important question:

“Is it ethical to put young women at risk of death or a disabling autoimmune disease at a pre-adolescent age for a vaccine that has not yet prevented a single case of cervical cancer, a disease that may develop 20-30 years after exposure to HPV, when the same can be prevented with regular Pap screening which carries no risks.”

Given this, it is all the more harrowing that we are living in a legislative climate that puts profits before our children’s health. In many states across the nation, bills are hitting the floor that seek to eliminate the ethical principle of informed consent by allowing children as young as 12 to receive the HPV vaccine without parental oversight.

Inform yourself, find your compass, so that you can be one less woman, wishing she had only known more.


TLB recommends you visit Kelly Brogan MD for more pertinebnt articles and information.

See featured article here

By Melissa Dykes | May 21, 2015

It’s hard to even guesstimate the number of people, not just in America but around the world, who feel they are being targeted by space age directed energy mind control weapons and gangstalked by minions of governments and shady groups for scientific experiments and other seedy ends.

The numbers are at least in the hundreds of thousands at this point.

Every once in a while, a little piece of this trend rises to the surface and makes its way into mainstream headlines, if even at a local level as is the case with the recent news that the Richmond, California City Council which just passed a resolution “in support of the Space Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty to permanently ban spaced-based weapons”.

Via San Jose Mercury News:

Few societal threats escape the watchful eye of the Richmond City Council, so it was no surprise Tuesday night that it voted its opposition to airborne weapons systems that have allegedly targeted residents with mind-control technology. You read that correctly.

After a dozen professed victims told of pain suffered from chemtrails, particle beams and electromagnetic radiation, the council voted 5-2 in favor of Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles’ resolution “in support of the Space Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty to permanently ban spaced-based weapons,” with Mayor Tom Butt and Councilman Vinay Pimple dissenting. [What unfortunate names…]

“I’m just a dumb city council person,” Butt said, “and this is way, way over my head. I frankly think it’s way out of the purview of what this city council should be taking up.”

Colleague Nat Bates was more understanding: “I’m going to support the resolution for the simple reason that we have voted on a lot of dumb ideas.”

With a population of nearly 108,000 people in 2013, Richmond is no small town… and this is just one example of one town in one state in our country where at least a dozen people felt the need to speak out about what they believe is happening to them.

While these council members can poke fun and make light of this, guaranteed the people suffering what they believe is never ending electronic harassment by the government don’t think it’s very humorous at all.

And the numbers of those people who do believe that appear to be growing exponentially.

The purpose of the Space Preservation Act of 2001, introduced by former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich, was to reaffirm it “is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.”

The bill would have permanently banned all space-based weapons and the termination of testing and developing them. It further specifically defined “weapon” in part as a device capable of “Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person” via “the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.”

It further noted that this would include “exotic weapons systems” such as electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; chemtrails; high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; laser weapons systems; strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

The bill, of course, got lost in committees and never passed. Not that our government would even bother to pass such a bill in the first place as a token gesture, but even if they had, considering most of the projects listed above are all like top secret or even above top secret military projects, it wouldn’t have been enforced anyway.

We only hear about some of the space weapons coming out now and then in the news or via the patent office, and guaranteed whatever we hear about, you know they likely have something years more advanced we have no idea about because the American public is on a need-to-know basis and long ago at least back to the late-1800s when they were developing and secretly testing electric airships, the government decided we don’t need to know.

We are currently being told microwave energy weapons are still a “conspiracy theory,” even as Boeing recently patented a Star Wars-style force field capable of “producing a plasma field between the target and the explosion using lasers, electricity and microwaves.”

However, the bottom line here is that so many American citizens are now publicly complaining of electronic harassment of various types at the hands of our government that city councils are being forced by their constituency to take up resolutions about it.

Melissa Dykes (formerly Melton) is a co-founder of, where this article first appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


See article here:

TLB Recommends that you  read other great/pertinent articles at:

Merck not liable 1

By TLB Contributor: Paul Fassa

In 2007, Merck settled various class actions suits filed against Vioxx, a pain killer that also killed around 60,000 American consumers over a four and one-half year period. It caused heart failures. Merck’s total payout was $4.85 billion. So pharmaceuticals could be considered risky business, even though they still profit from damaging drugs.

Vaccine manufacturing is a good business without risks for sociopaths. Lawsuits against Big Pharma based on life-long debilitating vaccine adverse events or deaths are legally fire-walled and contained within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

The NVICP was set up to have the federal government settle claims, that aren’t reported by mainstream media, using funds collected from vaccine manufacturers’ approval fees and surtaxes on purchased vaccines.

Vaccines require less testing than drugs for diseases, and they’re cheaper to manufacture. So they have huge profit margins without accountability, and vaccines licensing regulations are confusing enough to not be concerned about generic vaccines entering the market. A vaccine manufacturer can keep on keeping on enjoying strong profits while its inventors continue getting royalties.

crazy-doctorMerck is perhaps the biggest player in the vaccine business. They and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) produce all the world’s MMR vaccines. The USA is supplied by Merck.

The Disneyland so called measles epidemic was the main factor in California’s rush to legislation that will no longer allow exemptions to opt out of vaccinations for school age children. No doubt Merck had a hand in pushing the legislation using straw-men (and women) lobbyists.

Merck’s High-Risk Vaccines in the CDC’s Childhood Vaccination Schedule

Merck has influenced the CDC to include the Hep-B vaccine (HBV) on newborns. Hepatitis-B is transmitted sexually or by shared hypodermic needles only. Apparently, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are now assuming all pregnant women are hypodermic injecting drug-users or promiscuously practicing unsafe sex.

Babies get three toxic Hep-B jabs as infants without even testing the mother for Hepatitis-B. Many so called SIDs (sudden infant deaths) have been linked to the Hep-B vaccinations. And there are too many parents in jail accused of SBS (shaken baby syndrome) merely because of official denial that Hep-B vaccines killed their babies.

Those that survive Hep-B vaccinations are not even protected against hepatitis B later in life, when sexually active folks or IV drug users into the actual Hep-B risk zone. But usually their immunity is impaired enough for them to come down with a variety of autoimmune diseases, such as food allergies, asthma, diabetes, or neurological issues.

Lately, there have been deaths reported in Europe linked to Paul Offit’s rotovirus vaccine, manufactured by Merck, that have not been reported in the USA. This is also a vaccination given to infants as influenced by Dr. Paul Offit, the outspoken consultant for Merck.


The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) is Merck’s three in one shot has left its share of broken autistic children. Merck simply ignores those disasters while using the media to spread untrue claims that measles epidemics are caused by the unvaccinated, even to the extent or creating fake epidemics, such as the recent Disneyland “measles outbreak”.

Although the Disneyland outbreak was blamed on those not vaccinated, it was never proven or even thoroughly investigated. There is evidence, even mentioned by the CDC, that live virus vaccines such as the MMR can shed those viruses to others for a period of up to a few weeks. So the outbreak could have been sparked by some who were vaccinated.

Besides – where’s the logic? Anyone vaccinated is protected against a disease except from those who are not vaccinated? Are folks this stupid? Give me a break!

If you’re old enough, you may remember measles, mumps, and chicken pox as common relatively harmless childhood diseases that confer immunity when they’re over. Sometimes mothers in small towns or rural areas would gather at “measles parties” to expose their kids to one with a measles infection in order to confer lifetime immunity.

The MMR shot has also proven to not even temporally protect against these common childhood diseases with several breakouts occurring among groups that have been met the “herd immunity” criteria of vaccinating all or almost all the kids in a given population.

Merck’s MMR vaccine risks far outweigh any proposed benefits for these benign benefits. Even their vaccine package inserts show this!


Despite mainstream and industry claims to the contrary, several different independent studies have linked the MMR to autism and other brain damage disorders. The number of measles vaccine and MMR vaccinations serious adverse reactions reported since 1990 are 6,962, of which 329 were deaths.

During that same period, deaths from from measles complications ranged from none to five. What kind if benefit to risk ratio is that?

Since very few adverse reactions are reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System), the adverse event numbers are no doubt higher, much higher.

Merck Pushed a Vaccine for a Bogus Threat While Hiding the Hazards

The scare tactic promoting Gardasil is cervical cancer. The human papilloma virus (HPV) has over 100 strains. Gardasil targets two that cause the most genital warts, while ignoring another 11 that can also lead to cancer. But ninety percent of HPV warts tend to heal on their own within two years, often by one year. And they can be treated topically before then.

Bottom line, HPV is not nearly the death-warrant they are spinning it as. It usually goes away on its own or at worst is remedied by mild medical intervention. Even after young women get their three Gardasil-HPV shots, they still need to undergo Pap tests for early cervical cancer detection. So how can Gardasil guarantee protection against cervical cancer?

Even one of the developers of the HPV vaccine Gardasil confessed how unnecessary it is. This data is knowingly omitted from Merck’s media press releases, doctor bribes, and political lobbying efforts.

VAERS reports 41 cases of cervical cancer following vaccinations with Gardasil. Again, the CDC’s VAERS is voluntary for doctors and mostly unknown to parents and vaccinated adults. It’s estimated that perhaps only five percent of vaccine injuries get reported to VAERS.

So those reports are a fraction of actual events.

At last count in 2013, Gardasil’s mounting known death toll since 2009 was 140. This is in addition to the serious adverse effects of thousands, of which many are permanent, painful disabilities such as Guillain-Barre’ Syndrome (GBS) or other neurological and autoimmune maladies.

The apparent tip of this mostly unreported iceberg should be ample evidence that the risks far outweigh Gardasil’s false benefits.

Merck lobbied California politicians successfully for programs supporting the coercion of adolescent girls and boys (?!) without parental consent into Gardasil jabs. Perhaps after many lives are ruined by Gardasil vaccinations in California, a class action suit against those state legislators would be in order.

That class action suit could be based on their not investigating Merck’s murky past and their current vaccination adverse reaction rate against the virtually non-existent threat of cervical cancer from the human papillomavirus.

This video is from a Danish TV production that dared probe the adverse effects of  HPV vaccines.

Sources and References


Paul Fassa is a contributing staff writer for and a contributor to The Liberty Beacon project. His pet peeves are the Medical Mafia’s control over health and the food industry and government regulatory agencies’ corruption. Paul’s valiant contributions to the health movement and global paradigm shift are world renowned. Visit his blog by following this link and follow him on Twitter here.


TLB recommends you visit REAL farmacy for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article here


By: Robert Oliva

There is a cancer eating at the core of medical research.

You’ve most likely heard of medical reports touting the effectiveness of a diet plan, a new drug, a supplement, or medical procedure. You may have even decided on a course of action based on these findings, only to find out later that they have been refuted by new studies.

Strikingly, the odds are that the studies that influenced your decision, and possibly the decision of your doctor, were wrong.

We are bombarded by medical research studies that don’t stand the test of time and potentially cause serious negative health outcomes.

Perhaps, because of this, you’ve become jaded about the newest health findings. I don’t wish to dissuade you from how you feel. In fact, this article will show you how untrustworthy medical research is and what you must do to protect yourself and loved ones.

The Case Against Medical Research

Medical research is fraught with incompetence, careerism, and fraud. In the April 15, 2015 edition of Lancet, the UKs leading medical journal, editor-in-chief Richard Horton stated:  “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

He ominously went on to say “… science has taken a turn toward darkness.”

As early as 1996, voices were being raised against the scandal of medical research. Douglas G. Altman, head of Medical Statistics Laboratory in the UK, asked the following question in the British Medical Journal (BMJ):

“What… should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either willfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions?”

His answer:

“We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature… have shown that all of the above phenomena are common. This is surely a scandal.”

In 2005 Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, currently a professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated:

“Therbad science 3e is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”

And that “…in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.”

Ioannidis’ research model indicated that up to 80 percent of non-randomized research studies (the most common kind of study) are wrong, along with twenty-five percent of randomized trials (the supposed gold standard of research). Incredulously, these studies are published in top peer reviewed medical journals.

These numbers indicate that much of what our physicians prescribe to us is wrong. Our doctors use research to inform their medical decisions – decisions like what drug to prescribe, what surgery to elect, and what health strategy to adopt. They are making crucial treatment decisions for depression, Alzheimer’s, type 2 Diabetes, cancer, obesity, etc. based on bad, incomplete or hidden medical research. Remember Vioxx, Hormone Replacement Therapy, anti-arrhythmia drugs, high carbohydrate diets? The lives of hundreds of thousands of people were damaged or ended prematurely.

What’s Wrong with Medical Research?

There are serious deficiencies in medical research that have an onerous impact on our well-being.

Research Bias Ioannidis defines bias as “the combination of various design, data, analysis, and presentation factors that tend to produce research findings when they should not be produced.” Many researchers enter their study with a specific finding in mind and, not surprisingly, they find it.

Journalist David H. Freedman in Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science quotes Ioannidis:

“At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,” and there is an “intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.”

Bias can happen in numerous ways, such as how the research is designed, how the samples are selected, and how subjects are pressured, or though errors in data collection and measurement or publication bias. All of this leads to erroneous results and potentially disastrous medical advice.

Publication Bias – various industries, governments, and regulatory agencies may severely distort the truth by omission. Nearly half of all research studies never see the light of day. According to Live Science:

“Oftentimes, medical journals or pharmaceutical companies that sponsor research will report only “positive” results, leaving out the non-findings or negative findings where a new drug or procedure may have proved more harmful than helpful.”  In other words, the truth is hidden.

An example of this occurred with nearly 100,000 people dying from taking “safe” prescription anti-arrhythmic drugs in the 1980s. Or more recently, when none of the negative studies of the anti-depressant reboxitene were published.

This leaves us and our doctors in the dark about the efficacy and safety of drugs and medical procedures. We are systematically being misled!

See Dr. Ben Goldacre’s Ted Talk to learn more.

Conflicts of Interest many studies, especially drug studies, “…have the added corruptive force of financial conflict of interest.” The more embedded the financial and other interests in the outcome of a study, the more likely the findings are going to be false. Ioannidis’ own research found that conflicts of interest “are common in biomedical research and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported.”

Conflicts of interest are not limited to financial matters:

“Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure.”

Research findings can be distorted by: small sample size, poor choice of methodology, and erroneous statistical analysis, all of which are widespread in medical research.

What Can We Do to Protect Ourselves?

Given the distorted, corrupt and unreliable state of much of medical research how can we know what to do?

Short of ignoring research altogether, there are ways we can protect ourselves.

In his book WrongDavid Freedman lists some practical measures we can take to evaluate the reliability of medical research.

You can tell that a research study is probably wrong if:

  • It’s simplistic, universal and definitive. It touts a cure for cancer, obesity, and aging.
  • It’s supported by a single study, small studies or animal studies. One small study of mice proving a cure for dementia.
  • It claims to be groundbreaking. The truth about heart disease has finally been discovered.
  • It is being pushed by people or organizations that will benefit financially.
  • It’s geared toward preventing a recent trauma or occurrence from happening in the future. A quick fix to solve serious and complex problems.
  • I would add that association does not prove causation. Unless a study is a randomized control trial (RCT) it can not prove that one thing causes another, such as red meat causing heart disease.

Read Doctoring Data by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick for an in-depth study of flawed medical research.


There are efforts being made within science to rectify the problem with medical research. But much remains unreliable and downright wrong. We cannot afford to be fooled by flawed studies. Arm yourself with knowledge. Review the scientific reliability of a course of action. Discuss it with your physician. This can help in wading through the biased and damaging studies given the light of day in scientific journals and media. Take responsibility. Your life may depend on it.


About the author


by: J. D. Heyes

Does the habitual use of antidepressants do more harm than good to many patients? Absolutely, says one expert in a new British Medical Journal report. Moreover, he says that the federal Food and Drug Administration might even be hiding the truth about antidepressant lethality.

In his portion of the report, Peter C. Gotzsche, a professor at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark, said that nearly all psychotropic drug use could be ended today without deleterious effects, adding that such “drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world.”

Gotzsche, author of the 2013 book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, further notes in the BMJ that “randomized trials that have been conducted do not properly evaluate the drugs’ effects.” He adds, “Almost all of them are biased because they included patients already taking another psychiatric drug.”

Hiding or fabricating data about harmful side effects

The FDA’s data is incomplete at best and intentionally skewed at worst, he insisted:

Under-reporting of deaths in industry funded trials is another major flaw. Based on some of the randomised trials that were included in a meta-analysis of 100,000 patients by the US Food and Drug Administration, I have estimated that there are likely to have been 15 times more suicides among people taking antidepressants than reported by the FDA – for example, there were 14 suicides in 9,956 patients in trials with fluoxetine and paroxetine, whereas the FDA had only five suicides in 52,960 patients, partly because the FDA only included events up to 24 hours after patients stopped taking the drug.

He said that he was most concerned about three classes of drugs: antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants, saying they are responsible for 3,693 deaths a year in Denmark alone. When scaling up that figure in relation to the U.S. and European Union together, he estimated that 539,000 people die every year because of the medications.

“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm – by dropping all antidepressants, ADHD drugs, and dementia drugs (as the small effects are probably the result of unblinding bias) and using only a fraction of the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines we currently use,” Gotzsche wrote.

“This would lead to healthier and more long lived populations. Because psychotropic drugs are immensely harmful when used long-term, they should almost exclusively be used in acute situations and always with a firm plan for tapering off, which can be difficult for many patients,” he added.

Gotzsche’s views were disputed in the same BMJ piece by Allan Young, professor of mood disorders at King’s College London, and psychiatric patient John Crace.

“More than a fifth of all health-related disability is caused by mental ill health, studies suggest, and people with poor mental health often have poor physical health and poorer (long-term) outcomes in both aspects of health,” they wrote.

They also insisted that psychiatric drugs are “rigorously examined for efficacy and safety, before and after regulatory approval.”

Pushing kids to suicide

However, as NaturalNews has documented over the years, the ill effects of these very drugs are apparent to anyone with an open mind. Here are just a few of those stories:

In 2011, we reported that the mainstream national psychiatric organizations colluded with Big Pharma to create what had grown to a $20-billion-a-year psychotropic drug empire, a push that began in earnest in 1987.

“The story that people with mental disorders have known chemical imbalances, that’s a lie. We don’t know that at all. It’s just something that they say to help sell the drugs and help sell the biological model of mental disorders,” we quoted veteran investigative reporter and author of Mad in America, Robert Whitaker, as saying in an earlier interview.

In 2013, we reported on a study that suggested higher teen suicide rates were tied to an increase in the prescribing of psychotropic drugs.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Psychiatry, found that 1 in 25 teens attempts suicide in the U.S., and the suicide attempts were tied to the increased use of psychotropic drugs in many of those cases.

The same year, we also reported that a pair of additional studies found psychotropic drugs increased the risk of diabetes threefold and caused a 20-fold increase in attempted suicides.

“The diabetes study, conducted by researchers from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, TN, between 1996 and 2007, focused on children and young adults between ages 6 and 24 who were enrolled in Tennessee’s Medicaid program,” we reported.

The second statistic came from an historic review, “Lifetime Suicide Rates in Treated Schizophrenia: and 1994-1998 Cohorts Compared.” As the largest study ever to address suicide in schizophrenia patients, it reports disturbing facts about anti-psychotic drugs, which would be better termed “psychotic drugs.”

In a chapter in his 2013 book, Gotzsche revealed how Big Pharma companies like GlaxoSmithKline covered up the harmful effects of their psychotropic and antidepressant medications, such as pushing teens into suicide with “happy pills.”



See featured article here

TLB recommends you visit Natural News for more great/pertinent articles.



Tasha David (back right) tells how she chose to not vaccinate her two youngest children Sasa, eight (front left), and Chiante, five (front middle) after her first SIX (back row L-R: Asante, 16, Jourdahn, 25, middle row L-R: Deveraux, 20, Sahara, 14, Acacia, 10, Armaan, 12) suffered health problems

A mother of eight, Tasha David explains why she is against vaccination stating that six of her vaccinated children suffer from a range of health problems. Three have Autism, one has ADHD and one has a language disorder. She refused to vaccinate her two youngest and says they’re the only ones without chronic health problems.


By: Tasha David

When I first became a Mum, I never questioned getting my children vaccinated. It was just what you did when you have children – you do what your doctor tells you, because they know best.

My husband and I had never been told that there could be any adverse reactions, only a bit of redness and swelling at the injection site. So as each of our six eldest children got progressively sicker after each vaccination, we never made that connection.

Out of our six vaccinated children, our 16, 12 and 10-year-old have moderate to severe Autism, our 25-year-old has ADHD, our 14-year-old has a severe language disorder, and our 20-year-old has severe mood swings.

They also suffered from chronic ear infections, bronchiolitis, asthma, eczema, psoriasis, urinary infections, gastrointestinal and autoimmune disorders, allergies, chemical sensitivities and intolerances.

We tried genetic testing to look for answers, but no reason was found for our children’s afflictions. So I started looking for answers on my own. I read books, went to seminars, read all the scientific studies I could get my hands on and that’s when I discovered that our family was not the only one.

There were many other families suffering from the same issues as ours.

This realization led us to not vaccinate our five and eight-year-old old and they have thrived because of it. Out of all their siblings they should have been the most susceptible to genetic problems considering that I was in my late thirties when I had them and was overweight.

Yet our two youngest never had to suffer through the many illnesses that their brothers and sisters did.

Not because they had never been exposed to illness because like all preschool and school children, they had been. But they had a resilience that had been taken from their siblings.

They have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives, but more importantly they had none of their sibling’s disorders.

This was an especially bitter sweet realisation for me, as I looked at them and realised just how much my other children had lost because of me.

I had to come to terms with the fact that my ignorance about what I allowed to be put in to my children’s bodies had caused at least two (possibly three) of my children to NEVER be able to have the chance to be independent, fall in love and have a family. That when I die, they face the possibility of living with strangers who don’t love them the way they deserve to be loved.

People need to realise that vaccination is not one size fits all, that there are families in your community that are struggling with the harm that vaccines have caused.

Have we so quickly forgotten Saba Button, Lachlan Neylan [both toddlers were left severely disabled following flu shots in 2010 and 2012, respectively], and Ashley Epapara? [who died a day after receiving a flu shot in 2010] This is why vaccination must always remain a choice – otherwise we are saying that some children matter more than others.

In 2009 a fully vaccinated nurse is suspected to have infected four infants with Whooping cough in a maternity ward in Sydney, as well as several studies since then that show that this vaccine is not providing the protection that our children deserve.

In 1991 we had a 71 per cent vaccination rate for Whooping Cough, yet there were only 347 cases, but in 2011 with a vaccination rate of over 92 per cent, we had over 38,000 cases. How can the unvaccinated be to blame? In 2012, there have thus far been more cases of pertussis than in any full calendar year recorded since 1959, when roughly 40,000 cases were reported. Recent Evidence Shows Vaccinated Kids Account For 90 Percent of Cases of Whooping Cough

Pregnant women need to be aware that vaccine product inserts say that the effect of this vaccine on the development of the embryo and foetus has not been assessed. Vaccination in pregnancy is not recommended unless there is a definite risk of acquiring pertussis.

The attacking of parents whether they vaccinate or not needs to stop, because at the end of the day we all love our children dearly, and we all want what is best for them and for all children.

Divisiveness is not the answer and it never will be, we will only find real solutions when the fighting stops and open discussion begins.


Tasha David is president of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network.


TLB recommends you visit Prevent Disease for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 747 other subscribers