Top 10 Ways to Know You’re Living in a Medical Police State

May 31, 2009

Mike Adams
May 27, 2009

Are Americans really living in a medical police state? The recent news with Daniel Hauser and his family’s fight over chemotherapy seems to indicate so. Here are ten ways to recognize whether you’re living under the oppressive tyranny of a medical police state.

#1 – If an armed U.S. Marshall is posted outside your house at night — just to make sure you don’t escape “treatment” — you’re probably living in a medical police state.

Source: “Daniel was allowed to spend the night at home, but County Attorney James Olson said a deputy was posted at the Hauser farm in Sleepy Eye.” (FoxNews)

#2 – If saying “I’d rather not inject my child with that poison” to your doctor results in him calling Child Protective Services, you’re most likely living in a medical police state.

#3 – If a nationwide manhunt (involving FBI agents) is unleashed just to find you and drag you back to the hospital to submit to dangerous pharmaceuticals, there’s little doubt you’re living in a medical police state.

#4 – If you find yourself suddenly wondering if you should flee to Mexico in order to find freedom, you’re probably living in a medical police state.

#5 – If doctors call the police to prevent you from visiting competing cancer clinics outside the country, that’s a warning sign that you’re living in a medical police state.

#6 – If your doctor claims to be practicing “integrative medicine” but then calls the police when you don’t submit to chemotherapy, you’re definitely living in a medical police state.

Quote from Daniel Hauser’s oncologist, Dr. Bostrom: “Although I’ve had patients concerned about getting chemo, this is the first time I’ve ever had to report someone.” Source:…

#7 – If you’re blasted by the mainstream media for supporting a mother’s right to protect her teenage son from an injection of toxic chemicals, you’re almost certainly living in a medical police state (populated by sheeple).

#8 – If you walk into a hospital and they handcuff you, steal your child and forcibly inject him with dangerous poisons while explaining, “It’s for your own good,” then you’re almost certainly living in a medical police state.

#9 – If the State calls you “medically negligent” for feeding your child raw foods, or medicinal herbs, or holistic diets that are free from sugar, red meat and chemical additives, then you’re definitely living in a medical police state. (Fact: Parents who feed their children diets of raw, living foods have been accused of medical neglect.)

#10 – If you disagree with your psychiatrist, and in response he diagnosis you with “Oppositional Defiance Disorder” and demands you take his mind-altering psych drugs, you are absolutely living in a medical police state!

Read Entire Article


Feds Plan Vaccines for All Americans by Fall

May 31, 2009
Fox News
May 1, 2009

U.S. authorities are pledging to eventually produce enough swine flu vaccine for everyone but the shots won’t begin until fall at the earliest.

Scientists are racing to prepare the key ingredient to make a vaccine against the never-before-seen flu strain — if it’s ultimately needed.

But it will take several months before the first pilot lots begin required human testing to ensure the vaccine is safe and effective.

“We think 600 million doses is achievable in a six-month time frame” from that fall start, Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Craig Vanderwagen said.

“I don’t want anybody to have false expectations. The science is challenging here,” Vanderwagen told reporters. “t’s a question of can we get the science worked on the specifics of this vaccine.”

Read entire article

More Parents Refusing Vaccines for Children

May 31, 2009

Associated Press
February 17, 2009

CINCINNATI—An increasing number of Ohio parents are using religious exemptions to delay or refuse for immunizations for children amid fears that vaccines contribute to autism.

Ohio Department of Health data shows the number of religious or philosophical exemptions nearly quadrupled in Ohio between 1998 and 2008, though that figure still represents fewer than 1 in 100 children.

All states require children to be immunized for school. Most allow religious exemptions, and Ohio and 19 others also permit exemptions for personal reasons.

Doctors say they’re concerned that more exemptions could lead to outbreaks of preventable illnesses among children who haven’t had the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.

Read entire article

Vaccines Found to Cause Diabetes in Children

May 31, 2009

David Gutierrez
Natural News
August 20, 2008

Two new studies showing that vaccines increase the risk of diabetes have been published in the Open Pediatric Medicine Journal.

In a prior study, published in the journal Autoimmunity, Dr. J. Bartholomew Classen of Classen Immunotherapies and David Carey Classen of the University of Utah compared more than 100,000 children who had received between one and four doses of the hemophilus vaccine with more than 100,000 unvaccinated children. The Classens found that after seven years, children in the vaccination group had a 26 percent higher risk of developing diabetes than children in the non-vaccine group. This amounted to an extra 54 cases of diabetes per 100,000 children vaccinated.

The Classens noted that the vaccine itself is only projected to prevent seven deaths and seven to 26 cases of permanent disability per 100,000 children.

“Our results conclusively prove there is a causal relationship between immunization schedules and diabetes,” J. Bartholomew Classen said at the time.

In the more recent study, Classen examined data on the same vaccine, this time looking only at children who had a sibling with Type 2 diabetes. He found that the hemophilus vaccine led to an extra case of diabetes in one of every 50 such children, or 2 percent. This is 40 times higher than the already-elevated rate found in the Autoimmunity study.

“The recent data shows that common childhood vaccines are especially dangerous to children with a strong family history of diabetes,” Classen said. “Parents of a child with a strong family history of insulin-dependent diabetes … should know that the administration of a full series of vaccines may have a greater than 5 percent chance of causing their child to develop diabetes.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Open Pediatric Medicine Journal, demonstrated a connection between the hepatitis B vaccine and Type 2 diabetes.

Survey: 98% Say Parents Should Have Right to Refuse Vaccination of Children

May 31, 2009

Mike Adams
Natural News
April 8, 2008

A public survey posted on reveals that 98% of survey participants (1919 out of 1954) believe that parents should have the right to refuse vaccinations for their children. The online survey was conducted from April 6 to April 8, and survey respondents were self-selected. A total of 1,954 votes were received at the time of this writing. The survey asked the question, “What should happen to parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated?” The results were as follows:

They should be fined: 1% (20 votes)

They should be jailed: 0.2% (4 votes)

They should have their children taken away: 0.6% (11 votes)

Nothing: It’s their right to refuse vaccinations: 98.2% (1919 votes)

The survey comes on the heels of the FDA’s approval of a vaccine for diarrhea for children and the growing concern by parents that infants are being given far too many vaccines that may cause health problems due to the combination of multiple chemicals being injected. (The survy is republished at the end of this article, in case you’d like to see the current results or take the survey yourself.)

Vaccine promotion as a marketing gimmick

Drug companies, meanwhile, are seeking out new “markets” for promoting vaccines, including lobbying state legislators to pass mandatory vaccination laws, spreading fear about the Human Papilloma Virus to promote HPV vaccines, and urging parents to get their babies vaccinated for an ever-increasing number of health concerns — including diarrhea. Intelligent, well-informed parents are increasingly asking, “Do our babies really need so many injections?”

The vaccination model of medicine is based on medical mythology promoted by Big Pharma-affiliate health authorities who do not believe the human immune system is able to adequately protect the body without chemical intervention. Vaccine believers — which include most doctors and health officials — insist that the only way the human immune system can properly recognize a potentially dangerous invader (such as a virus) is to intervene by injecting the body with weakened viral elements combined with inflammatory chemicals designed to activate an artificial immune system response. This inflammatory response may be partially responsible for the increase in autism and other diseases following vaccinations. (Some children have died within hours after receiving vaccine injections.) Author Byron Richards recently authored a detailed article explaining this:

This medical mythology goes to great lengths to discount the naturopathic view of human health, which says that the human immune system should be supported rather than chemically hijacked, and that when properly supported through healthy foods, nutrition and an absence of chemical toxins, the human immune system is a fantastically effective technology that accurately identifies invading viruses and protects the body with an appropriate immune system response. Allowing the human immune system to do its job also subjects it to stresses that allow an adaptive response to unfold — a response that strengthens the immune system against future threats, significantly lowering the risk of infection in the future.

Vaccines, on the other hand, weaken the immune system, denying it the adaptive response it needs to strengthen its defenses against future threats. But vaccine promoting health authorities think the only way to reduce the risk of infection is to administer a never-ending series of vaccination injections: one for each mutation of a virus that might be circulating in the wild. At no point does this pro-vaccine medical mythology believe the human immune system should take over and that vaccines are no longer needed. Rather, it is based on the idea that infants, children, adults and seniors must be subjected to hundreds of different vaccine injections over their lifetime. Each injection, of course, earns revenue for the drug companies that primarily sponsor the continuation of this outmoded medical paradigm.

Most vaccines are medically useless

Clinical studies show that vaccines don’t work on most people. Even winter flu shots are little more than a form of medical Russian roulette, since most vaccines are built to defend against the previous year’s viral strains, not the current year. And that’s if they even work at all: The hard science says that senior citizens who receive vaccine shots have absolutely no reduction whatsoever in their frequency of catching the flu.

Vaccines, for the most part, are little more than modern medical quackery. It’s Big Pharma’s version of snake oil. Most vaccines simply don’t work on most people, and some people are harmed or killed by vaccines. And while defenders of vaccines (most of whom are on the take from Big Pharma in one way or another, by the way) may claim that vaccines have eradicated infectious disease in our world over the last century or so, the simple truth is that advances in public sanitation are responsible for virtually all the improvements in infant mortality and the eradication of serious infectious disease.

Far from the mission of saving lives, Big Pharma is now pushing vaccines for conditions that pose very little threat to life in the first place. The fact that vaccines are now being pushed to prevent infant diarrhea is a perfect example. If infants are suffering from diarrhea, they need proper nutrition (get off those processed infant formula products!) and immune system support. They do not need to have their immune systems attacked by yet another chemical cocktail injected into their bodies at Big Pharma profit centers (also known as clinics and hospitals).

Vaccination is the great medical hoax of our time. One day it will stand alongside mercury fillings, public water fluoridation, antibiotics abuse, the cholesterol “disease” hoax and psychiatric drugs as one of the grandest medical cons ever perpetrated on the American people. Modern medicine has become a system driven almost entirely by profit, not by any genuine desire to save lives. And the promotion of “treatments” is more about sales and marketing than disease prevention.

Parents would do well to think twice before submitting their children to vaccines. Remember this: Autism is not reversible. The damage caused by vaccines is permanent. Protect your healthy baby from brain damage or death. Inform yourself about the side effects of vaccines, and find the courage to “just say no” to vaccine quackery.

Inform yourself now

I encourage all parents considering this issue to seek out a qualified naturopathic health practitioner and find your own answers to this vaccination question. Some parents may decide to have one or two vaccines and skip the rest, reducing the total chemical burden on their children. Some may even decide to subject their children to no vaccines whatsoever. The choice is yours.

And that’s my point, actually. I believe the choice of vaccination should be up to the parents, not the government. Medical pill-pushers, on the other hand, strenuously disagree. They believe so strongly in their vaccine quackery that they insist parents who refuse to subject their children to an unlimited number of vaccines should be arrested, fined or thrown in prison. That is the view of mainstream medicine, with all its medical schools, “scientific” journals and FDA cheerleading. It is a system of medical imperialism that seeks to overthrow fundamental health freedoms and remove parents from the chain of decision making that determines the health outcome of their own children. Vaccine-pushing doctors and drug companies literally seek to criminalize parents who do not agree with their own distorted opinions on vaccines, and they truly hope to limit consumer choice, restricting parents to a single system of chemical-based medicine that has been arbitrarily designated as the one true system of medical belief by those who stand to gain the most from its adoption.

Vaccines, in other words, have been chosen not because they are based on scientific validity, but because they are consistent with the shared illusions that now serve as the very foundation of modern pharmacological medicine: That the human body has no ability protect or heal itself, and that any “real medicine” must come from outside the body, to be forcefully injected where it can override the body’s innate biochemistry and eradicate some real or imagined threat. For doctors to abandon the mythology of vaccines, they would have to throw out their entire (mis)understanding of the human body and start from scratch. And they’re not about to venture down that road unless someone forces them to… because who knows where that road might lead… like, perhaps, to the most frightening of all concepts to vaccine-pushing doctors: Homeopathy!

Vaccines are popular in the modern medical community for no reason other than the fact that they support the arrogant notion that doctors do all the healing, not patients. That’s why the continued mythology of vaccines and chemical intervention is so dangerous to human health — because by definition it excludes the acknowledgement of the only pathway to true healing: That the patient is the healer and that achieving lasting health can only be accomplished by supporting the patient’s own internal healing technology… the amazing human immune system!

I guarantee you this: My own immune system knows more about my health than any doctor. In fact, my own immune system knows more about my health than my own conscious mind! It is impossible for a human brain to comprehend the miraculous complexity of the underlying immune system technology that protects it.

But are vaccines ever useful?

Of course, there are certain limited situations in which vaccines can be quite useful. If you’re about to work in a class IV biohazard laboratory, where highly aggressive viruses like Ebola or Warburg can kill you in minutes or hours, then receiving a vaccine injection to protect you from these various strains makes good sense because the risk of injury is so high from your professional work that it makes the risk of harm from a vaccine seem small by comparison. But should the public be vaccinated against these highly virulent strains? Of course not. Such strains can never become epidemics for the simple reason that they kill their hosts too quickly.

I’m not kidding when I say that the best way to stop the spread of these rare, aggressive outbreaks of viral strains from the Conga is for all the hospital staff to flee into the hills and thereby create distance between themselves. It is an inarguable, well-documented fact that the primary hubs for the spread of such aggressive diseases are, in fact, the hospital workers themselves. Think about it: Where do sick people go first? To the hospital! And that’s where the virus catches hold and starts to spread. The most dangerous place to go during any epidemic is to the hospital.

But getting back to babies and mild viral infections, should babies be subjected to the risks of vaccines in order to prevent mild, non-fatal conditions like diarrhea? Of course not. That makes no scientific sense. It does, however, make great marketing sense if you’re a shareholder for one of the companies manufacturing the infant diarrhea vaccines.

Funny thing, though: The healthiest children I see are the ones playing in the dirt, wearing no sunscreen, breatfeeding and receiving no vaccine shots whatsoever. It’s all the kids following the modern “scientific” lifestyle that are sick. They’re the ones eating processed foods, drinking corporate-sponsored infant formula, smearing on toxic sunscreen chemicals, chugging artificial sports drinks and getting jabbed with needles all the time. Those are the kids who have allergies and weakened immune systems. Coincidence? You be the judge.

I can tell you this, though: If I have children, I would never subject them to any vaccines. And as they grow up healthy, I’ll slap a bumper sticker on my car that reads, “My Vaccine-Free Kid is Smarter than Your Honor Student!”

New Study of Splenda Reveals Shocking Information About Potential Harmful Effects

May 31, 2009

Organic Consumers Association
February 11, 2009

James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health, has expressed shock and outrage after reading a new report from scientists outlining the dangers of the artificial sweetener Splenda (sucralose).

In animals examined for the study, Splenda reduced the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50 percent, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight and affected P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected.

The P-gp effect could result in medications used in chemotherapy, AIDS treatment and treatments for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines, rather than being absorbed by the body.

According to Turner, “The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study … confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label.”

High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Heart Risks

May 31, 2009
The New York Times
April 22, 2009

Some research has suggested that consumption of high-fructose corn syrup, used as a sweetener in a wide variety of foods, may increase the risk of obesity and heart disease. Now, a controlled and randomized study has found that drinks sweetened with fructose led to higher blood levels of L.D.L, or “bad” cholesterol, and triglycerides in overweight test subjects, while drinks sweetened with another sugar, glucose, did not. Both L.D.L. and triglycerides have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The study was published online on Monday in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis, assigned 32 overweight men and women, whose average age was 55, to groups consuming either fructose-sweetened or glucose-sweetened drinks over a 10-week period. The drinks, specially formulated for the study, contained only pure fructose or pure glucose.

For the first two weeks, the volunteers lived in a clinical research center, consuming a balanced diet high in complex carbohydrates and undergoing various blood tests and measurements of body fat. This phase established baseline measurements for the study.

Read entire article