As if there weren’t plenty of reasons already to avoid genetically modified soy and other soy products – now a new study has made eating this GM crop even less appetizing.
As I previously reported for Natural Society, GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and reproductive system – and that’s not good considering that almost 90 percent of the soy grown in the US is genetically modified.
In a study we recently shared with you, researchers in Egypt who studied rats fed a GM soy diet found that:
DNA fragmentation increased significantly after the rats were fed GM soy, and the levels of toxicity increased at 30, 60, and 90 days.
Glyphosate-tolerant enzymes were found in the blood, and as researchers pointed out, “There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health.”
The kidney’s bio-pathology increased. Blood creatinine and uric acid concentrations increased significantly in rats fed the GM diet for 30, 60, or 90 days.
Chromosomal aberrations were observed. There was a “highly significant” number of abnormal cells.
Now, a study has just been released by Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., an MIT-trained systems biologist, which states that in vitro and in vivo lab tests reveal that a diet of GM soy results in:
“[the] accumulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and a dramatic depletion of glutathione, an anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, in GMO soy, indicating that formaldehyde and glutathione are likely critical criteria for distinguishing the GMO from its non-GMO counterpart.”
This means that all those biotech claims that GM and non-GM soy are essentially the same, are nothing but hogwash.
Dr. Ayyadurai stated:
“The results demand immediate testing along with rigorous scientific standards to assure such testing is objective and replicable. It’s unbelievable such standards for testing do not already exist. The safety of our food supply demands that science deliver such modern scientific standards for approval of GMOs.”
This is yet another reason to avoid GM soy.
COMMENT FROM THE POSTER:
And so the beat goes on even more.
Soy products of today have had questionable effects on human health, yet no one in industry, and definitely not in “government” have had the temerity to even do the proper research and evaluations of much of the soy products before pushing them as “health foods” in the market. Much of the “natural” soy products are actually filled with toxic residues of the agricultural chemicals used during growing, and the various chemicals used in the processing of raw soy.
More to this point, UNfermented soy and products made from unfermented soy are actually unfit and quite unhealthy for the human body. Many ancient cultures who used soy products for thousands of years fermented it first, as this effectively removes the more toxic principles before consumption. One of these unhealthy substances that naturally occurs in soy belongs in the chemical class of “pseudo-estrogens”. That is, a substance that mimics the effects of estrogen in the body that may cause certain undesireable characteristics to occur in the body. – This from unfermented soy.
Most of the “natural” (as claimed by the manufacturer on the label) soy products like “Silk” (TM), soy-based coffee creamers, and even the DHA that is added to certain baby formulas was extracted and treated with hazardous chemicals like Cyclo-Hexane, and various other petro-chemical-based substances. The resulting residual contaminants can lead to other health problems. Then, many sampled soy products were found to contain trace amounts of Mercury, an dangerous neurotoxic heavy metal that can accumulate in the body!
GMO soy has the added problems in that NONE of the various GMO-agriproducts have been thoroughly tested for actual health effects on the human population. They have all been “Generally Regarded As Safe” by the Food and Drug Administration without any actual hard evidence. Then, there is the problem of “Round-Up Resistant” (TM) crops yielding sufficient contaminating amounts of the dangerous Glyphosate (TM) and its common metabolite AMPA (Amino-Methyl-Phosphoric-Acid). These substances are being discovered in human urine, milk, and body fat samples of virtually the entire populations of the Western World, as well as in populations of many of the countries producing these GMO crops.
Where my Temple takes a stand against GMOs, in general, is when it is all in the misguided thinking, by the biggest pushers and profiteers of the sale of GMOs, that they can “improve upon Nature”. – This hubris in its finest shining colors, and We, the human species, are the unwilling “Guinea Pigs” in this grand experiement of the “refining and redefining of Nature”!
Think it is all to horrible to be true?
Perhaps it is time to do your own investigation, and compare what the pro-GMO crowd says is safe, to what you can reasonably find are the REAL answers.
Fluoride was originally added to the water supply sometime around the end of World War II in an effort to improve overall dental health. While the well-intended practice may have accomplished just that (although it’s still up for debate), no one anticipated the physical health dangers. Now, more and more people are recognizing the effects, and one of those is how it damages the pineal gland.
Fluoride: A Neurotoxin That Damages Your Pineal Gland
If you’ve never heard of the pineal gland, know it’s got a pretty important job. Located in the center of the brain, it’s responsible for melatonin synthesis (which plays a role in maintaining normal rhythms and sleep cycles), and also helps convert signals between our nervous and endocrine systems. Something about melatonin: it’s thought to act as a neuro-protector that could play a role in the aging process and Alzheimer’s, so when it’s messed up by things like fluoride, you could probably guess the result.  Unfortunately, the pineal gland can develop problems because it can also absorb a lot of fluoride—even more than our bones.
Our bones are exposed to toxic fluoride much more than we might think. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests: ”Fluoride levels above 1.5 mg per liter cause pitting of tooth enamel and deposits in bones.”  And because so much of the general water supply in the U.S. is still fluoridated, we’re often exposed to levels in the 2 to 5 mg range. Remember, not only is fluoride in the water, it’s also in a lot of the dental products you might be using.
But, let’s get back to that pineal gland. Fluoride can accumulate and calcify on the gland, blocking its effectiveness, and these deposits can get worse as we age.  No one is completely sure how fluoride build-up hurts the gland, but there are lots of ideas. A blocked pineal gland could lead to things like trouble sleeping or weight gain. One study even suggests toxic calcification could lead to early onset of puberty in girls. 
How to Detoxify the Pineal Gland
If you want to detox and decalcify your pineal gland from fluoride, there are some easy things you can do! First, stop drinking fluoridated water; this means you should probably steer clear of tap water, choosing alkaline or distilled water instead. Another thing you could do is try fluoride-free dental products.
So, now that you know a little bit about how fluoride can damage pineal gland health, what will you do to avoid it?
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
One of the ways this calcification is accomplished, is by the removal of the body’s Boron. Boron is one of the most important elements the body uses to properly assimilate and utilize Calcium, as well as to help regulate the body’s Calcium levels. Fluorides (especially of the form that is added to drinking water) bind up and cause the body to flush out most of its supply of Boron through the urine. This, plus the relative unavailability of Boron compounds from the soils (due to the excessive use of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides) creates chronic Boron-deficiency in the body.
Fluorides, as well as excessive amounts of other halides (like too much salt), effectively bind up and flush Boron out of the body. Therefore, a Boron-supplimentation therapy is needed for the body to be able to rebalance its Calcium levels, AND help mitigate severe Magnesium deficiencies.
Just more reasons to completely avoid fluoridated water and products made with fluoridated water!
Unlike GM corn, non-GMO corn doesn’t cause sterility.
by: Christina Sarich Infowars.com July 2, 2015
Still think GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts are equivalent? Think again. Unlike GM corn, non-GMO corn doesn’t cause sterility. A new study released by Egyptian scientists found that rats fed a GMO diet suffer from infertility, among other health issues.
Researchers from the Food Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Anatomy and Embryology, and Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt, have found that several unsavory changes occur when rats were fed GM corn.
“GM corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. In addition they found other organs may be affected too, such as heart and spleen, or blood cells. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes, the liver of females followed with 30.8%”
Additionally, by day 91, many of the rats fed a GM diet were completely sterile.
“In the third study, histopathological examination was carried out on the rats fed the GM maize, and the results were compared with rats fed non-GM maize. The study found clear signs of organ pathology in the GM-fed group, especially in the liver, kidney, and small intestine. An examination of the testes revealed necrosis (death) and desquamation (shedding) of the spermatogonial cells that are the foundation of sperm cells and thus male fertility – and all this after only 91 days of feeding.”
How long do you think this effect will take to show up in human beings who eat GM food?
The study abstract reads:
“This study was designed to evaluate the safety of genetically modified (GM) corn (Ajeeb YG). Corn grains from Ajeeb YG or its control (Ajeeb) were incorporated into rodent diets at 30% concentrations administered to rats (n= 10/group) for 45 and 91 days…General conditions were observed daily…and serum biochemistry were measured. The data showed several statistically significantdifferences in organs/body weight and serum biochemistry between the rats fed on GM and/or Non-GM corn and the rats fed on AIN93G diets. In general, GM corn sample caused several changes by increase or decrease organs/body weight or serum biochemistry values. This indicates potential adverse health/toxic effects of GM corn and further investigations still needed.”
This study simply corroborates previous findings, proving the same deleterious effects. Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and his colleagues found that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction – in many cases, causing infertility. Animals who ate GM soy were sterile by the third generation.
Years ago, Natural Society unveiled proof that hamsters fed Monsanto’s GM soy for two years had growth and development abnormalities, and also – became sterile.
If you don’t see a pattern here, you might need to look again.
How much clearer does it need to be? GMO’s and the general “Frankenstein Mentality” behind genetic-engineering sciences has a price, and a very high, perhaps irreversable one! This has the stamp of the “endgame plan” for humanity by the globalists. This was also one of the many ways supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to control and forcibly-reduce the world human population (along with the use of “vaccines”)!
It can be NO clearer what their intentions for us really are.
This is also WHY the Trans-Pacific Partnership “trade” agreement, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaty, and all other similar “trade treaties” need to be scrapped, NOT supported and passed. They are the means and the way to do an end-run around our domestic laws and codes on safety, quality-control, and environmental concerns. Though I am for less government, wherever and whenever possible, I am also for disallowing and stopping the privatization through “corporatization” of virtually every aspect of our lives. All of this must be scrapped, right now!
How Our Present Reality may be defined or at least shaped by Our Past.
Many of our personal “isms” that we may express or act upon today, are often supported or induced by memories of our past.
Some of the things we may dislike, or altogether avoid, that we are likely to encounter later in our lives, usually come from some past experiences in them. These kinds of experiences tend to be unfavorable or even very tragic ones. This commonplace with folks who have suffered some form of personal trauma due to experiencing an event that may have traumatized them to the point of eliciting nightmares as an after-effect. Some of the more common cases arising from folks who have grown up in especially violent environments, 1) were victims of a violent or non-violent but traumatizing crime committed by another, 2) wartime soldiers’ and veterans’ experiences on the battlefields (in what used to be called “shell-shock” in the old times, and now is called “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” [PTSD]), 3) those who experienced abuse in childhood years at home, 4) social problems with others – especially from being bullied by others, 5) and various other “forgotten”, but unresolved experiences. There is a very long list of the types of past events and experiences that may affect how one sees the world, and interacts with it, today.
The Nature of Some of our Phobias:
Many personal phobias may arise from something, or a multiple of things, that have been experienced in the past. Such memories of those events may be foggy at best, and not so visible in the here and now, but their effects can still be felt, although subtly. A common coping mechanism to “get past” a particular event is often by denying it. Such a denial of its occurrence does not necessarily “make it go away”, nor may it lend itself to a simple healing solution. Such an experience can easily lead to life-long effects, and even interfere with the individual’s potential abilities at interacting with society, if not dealt with in a timely manner and in a way that opens the doors to some workable, effective solutions. Most of these phobias will have a strong emotional element to them, relating directly to the emotional response of the experience which may have resulted in them.
Some cases of particular phobias, and/or other specific “nervous ticks” may be expressed, even without a direct recollection of the past experience that triggered them. Some adverse experiences may even have some folks become more socially withdrawn, as they become distrustful of others around them. This is one major area where modern psychiatry has failed miserably in its pursuits for “treatments”, especially when utilizing such methods as aversion-therapy, prescribed medications (petro-chemical drugs), and other “prosthetic bandage” methods which do very little to address the root causes and problems. Such treatment options are usually graded on how much profit can result from the treatment plans. Medicating such patients is especially inefficient, usually unhelpful, but profitable to the doctors AND the manufacturers of those products, even at the expense of the patient – and possibly society, later.
The Unseen Scars.
Many of the so-called “psychological” problems that result from unfortunate past experiences, are often referred to as the “Unseen Scars”, where such injuries were not so physically evident, but the emotional pain remains, hidden from public view. Such emotional “scars” can remain for many years, up until the last of a being’s life. Medications, aversion therapies, and especially “electroshock therapy” (which WAS outlawed years ago, but seems to be reintroduced as a “viable treatment” in recent years) DO NOT and HAVE NOT BEEN EVIDENCED TO resolve nor even efficiently “treat” emotional scars, nor emotionally-rooted behaviors and behavioral problems. This because they do absolutely NOTHING to address the root causes, but simply mask over the symptomatic behaviors with a prosthetic effect! Yet, the immense pressure from the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, National Institutes of Mental Health, and the many different organizations (to include a few NGO’s) is what helps to keep these unworkable, ineffective treatment options in place as the “standards of medical treatment”.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, volume 5 (DSM-V) and all previous editions came out as the “bible of human psychology”, and the favorite “go-to” book for psychologists and psychiatrists. Every “diagnosis” is attributed to “mental conditions” and “abnormalities” that are identifiable by behavioral characteristics, rather than any reproducible pathology or lab results. What’s even more disheartening: Most of the “syndromes” and conditions are more rooted in emotional scars from past traumatic events and/or other current, ongoing events. As any commonsense-minded individual could find, when one does not address the root problems, but merely masks them with some form of “treatment” or therapy that deals only with the behavioral symptoms, these are problems that are very likely to resurface! Chemical drugs are often only able to be “safely” taken for so long, before they build up to toxic levels in the body, and/or the body becomes resistant to them over time (through tolerance). Most of these drugs ARE toxic to the normal-functioning body. The body will try to do what it does best: Detoxify, and then eliminate these substances from the body altogether. Some of these medical drugs may, themselves, leave behind certain scars, be they physical and/or “psychological” as well.
Where the Failures of the Current Treatment Orthodoxy fail.
What many folks are not asking about, because they may not be seeing the real hidden-in-plain-view problem: “If our psychological medicine is supposedly superior to competing methods and orthodoxies, then why do we see so many examples of where the treated (former, but life-long) patients fall into relapses?” I thought the business of medicine and healing, was about actually healing (and even curing) conditions so that the patients can go on to lead healthy, self-sufficient lives??? – And THERE is the rub, and a prime example, yet again, that today’s “medicine” is not about curing or healing anything. The average psychologist/psychiatrist would want you “mentally ill” and dependent upon their care and advice for life! This is guaranteed profits for the long haul.
Just as much as there are severe conflicts of interest in physical medicine and where it is practiced, so the same can easily be said of “mental health” programs and their clinics. Many individuals who still carry around emotional scars, deeply buried within, are taught to rely on the various drugs and other treatment regimens as their relief. Yet, many still suffer the silence of their own memories, the pains of past experiences they have never been taught to work through and release from. To them, life does not seem to be the way it “should be”. To some, life has become more and more of a history of disappointments and many insurmountable hurdles. The current orthodoxy for treatment options is failing them worst of all.
So what kinds of alternative options are there available to those who are still dealing with “past baggage” and emotional traumas in their lives? That is a question I will do my best to answer in a later post in this series. What needs to be remembered here is: With the appearance of increased acts of spontaneous violence and mass-murders, and the fact that an unworkable system of treatments and therapies seems to always be championed as “The Answer” to everyone’s problems, is it any wonder why some folks would start to see that this treatment orthodoxy is NOT WORKING AS PROMISED?!? The MORE psychological intervention that the state invests in, the MORE we are seeing results that do little to justify the continued orthodoxy for treatment, as we have it now!
IN THE NEXT ARTICLE: “Brain As A Computer”- Why Modern Psychiatry Has It All Wrong! – Part III
I want to explore a little bit of the surfacing of repressed memories, and some of the acts that often result from reliving those memories. I would like to relate some of my personal experiences with folks whom I have known for a number of years. Some of them drink. Some of them, quite a bit. There is fertile discussion on the subject of whether alcohol “makes” anyone do anything they normally would not say or do when they are perfectly sober. I seek to dispel this meme from plain examples as observed, and understood.
After serious thought and contemplation, AND after a series of tragic events (real or “scripted”),
I decided that I was going to tackle a central issue, and debunk a meme that even most of the “alternative media” and other blogs are missing the point on! I am absolutely amazed that even “educated” folks on BOTH sides of the issues are missing this important fact: Drugs and/or any other intoxicating substance, lacking Consciousness and Will of their own, simply CAN NOT “make” anyone do or say anything! They simply are tools and “pathways” that ease the possibility of someone doing or saying what he/she intended to do (usually something that was deeply buried within mind, and inhibited by the being’s own “consciousness filters”).
In this mini-series,
I am going to take all of you on a journey into the realm of Mind, and the magnificent organ in which it inhabits during this life: The Brain. This is a journey that many millions upon millions of Shamanic practitioners and their clients have taken for a great many thousands (if not millions) of years that our kind has been upon this Earth. This is not from any classes nor any universities. I state, emphatically, here and now, that I have NO college degree and no certificates that “qualify” my statements as “scientific fact” or otherwise. These are simply from my own observations of real-life events and happenings, as well as from my own personal experiences and dealings with other people. In essence, the “establishment” has NOT vetted anything I am about to say, and NO ONE ELSE (on this green and blue Earth) has taught me any of this. This is all from my own learning and experience, as well as from a keen observation.
You are free to judge this mini-series and what in it I present to you, as factual, theoretical, or completely bogus as you may see fit. All I ask of you, is that you at least keep an open mind when reading this mini-series, and withholding your judgments until you have read and understood, what I have presented, how I based my conclusions and observations, and what I have demonstrated as the basis of these writings. These articles DO related to spirituality, medicine, and YES – some politics. This issue is most important to me, and it should also be very important to you, the readers of this blog. IF we are to actually fix what is wrong in this world, humanity’s place within it, and truly regain our personal power from those who lord over us (to our own “shepherded” self-destruction) with it, then we need to re-examine the basis of Mind.
Mind is the seat of consciousness.
When I say this, I literally mean it: Mind IS the seat of consciousness. It is where all things begin. It is where all things are decided well before being done. It is the realm of thought, dreams, images, wishes, desires, and any visualizations of what is to become. It is that “place” which engage ourselves and our surroundings, and also interact with others, to form ideas, goals, and ambitions based upon what we experience, and what we wish to do. The Mind is like the seed, and the fertile plain in which to start its journey of beginnings, growth, fruition, and results.
The Mind is also the “vault”, as in an experiencial “library”, a trove of memories, it is that “place” where we can “store” what we experienced, for later recall and use (such as, in problem-solving). We have the ability to store far more “data” than any advanced computer, even when we may seem to “forget” due to advanced age, deteriorating health, stress, or whatever malady that may interfere with our ability to recall. We do not actually forget. We tend to have trouble recalling something when we say we “forget”. The Mind only “forgets”, when it is intent on doing so, but merely by happenstance. This also takes a conscious effort from a conscious Mind. We have to actually forcibly “erase” that particular thought, and sometimes, this does not work as well!
The “Layers” of Mind and Consciousness.
I have come to understand that there are several “layers” to the Mind, or more appropriately – Consciousness. These correlate to the various “mind-states” or states-of-mind that are recognized in modern “medicine” and modern “science”. These different mind-states even have names and are recognized by measuring devices’ (Electro-Encephalographs – or E.E.G.’s) readings of brain activity through the various different wavelengths (or Brainwave Frequencies). What much of today’s science has documented as fact, many of our ancestral shamanic peoples already knew for thousands upon thousands of years: The Mind operates at different “states”, as through different levels of consciousness. In other words, this was already ancient knowledge!
The different “mind-states” have different properties and effects, as well as varying degrees of sharpness or “lucidity” of their images and visualizations. These different states can also have their own varying degrees of emotional actions/reactions to the various images and/or recalled experiences that may have actually happened, or are imagined to happen (like, in dreams, and especially “nightmares”). The rest of the body will often (and usually should) respond, even within the different mind-states, to the various imagery being played within the brain, especially if there is are strong emotional aspects or qualities to them. The level of physical activity (that is, many of the “involuntary” functions) of the body, should also operate on a similar level to the level of consciousness in the brain.
The Brain and Mind should not be confused with being the same!
The Mind is that aspect of being where consciousness is to be found and resides.
I do not consider it to be physical at all. I consider it to be an intangible characteristic of the state of Being. That is, it can not be objectively measured by test instruments, standard curricula, or any mathematical formulae. It exists outside of the limiting definition of “physicality”. Just as it exists outside of space and time. Mind can be thought of as an abstract “etheric body” that is parallel to our other “bodies” (like the Physical, Emotional, “Akashic”, etc.), with its own capabilities and “properties”.
The Brain, on the other hand,
Is that physical organ, which is like a very complex “computer”, that is inhabited by Mind. It truly is a marvel in how it was created, and how it functions on so many different levels and complexities! The Brain truly, is a computing device that is beyond anything that could ever possibly be created, with man’s technology or in any laboratory. It is where the Mind is able to interact with this physical existence, through a physical body, and serve as a “link” between this world, and other worlds (or, if you will, from this “ordinary reality”, in and among the “non-ordinary realities”). The Brain serves well as a “bridge” between and among the other worlds, mainly through the realm of Mind.
Fully-Conscious State, or “wide-awake” mind-state:
In this mind-state, one is fully awake and alert to things around him/her. This where the perception-filters and judgment are constantly in use. It is where we do a lot of our active learning, assimilating, judging, measuring, and various other proactive motions and thoughts. We constantly respond to a lot of our external stimuli, sometimes almost instantly, and to those happenings around us. We are aware of the physicality of our existence, and may be aware of a few of the more-subliminal elements in our environment, but not necessarily so. We may even be easily distracted by our surroundings, as opposed to being introspective of our inner state of being. This is the state in which we interact most with the world around us. Everything in this state can be observable and quantified.
The Sub-Conscious State, or otherwise known Semi-Trance State, or “Hypnogogic State”:
It is in this mind-state, that one is not fully cognizant of the physical details of the physical world, but is not exclusively ignorant of it. In this mind-state, one is very relaxed, but still alert to the sounds around him/her, alert to physical stimuli and sensations, smells, and may or may not be acutely discerning of the quality of sounds and stimuli, etc. This is thought to be like a “bridge” between consciousness and the total sub-consciousness. This is a common mind-state, brought about by meditation, prayer, and chants (or mantras) that helps the percipient to relax into this mind-state. The physical body’s various activities may also relax or decrease in “beat” if the percipient is able to truly relax the mind and thought processes. This is also where one can effectively “reprogram” him/herself, and also commence self-healing. One in this mind-state can instill a certain amount of control over body functions, thoughts, images, and emotions, but still be aware of their effects. Many Theraveda and Ayurveda techniques make full use of this mind-state, to bring about desired changes within the individual percipient.
This is also the level of consciousness where beings are very receptive to suggestion, and “programmable” (to a certain extent) by an outside “influencer”, like a hypnotist, psychiatrist, or any other knowledgeable therapist. One in this mind-state should be very much be on his/her guard to the possibility of an externality having undue influence upon him/her. This level is often the preferred level in which to “program” because the judgment and perception filters are partially “submerged”, and therefore not as available as one’s “watchdogs”, like they would be in the fully-awake mind-state! Being that judgment is less apparent, this serves as almost a direct gateway to the subconscious mind-state.
Between 0.5 and 90Hz are the states and frequencies that comprise the vast majority of our day to day experiences. The table below, breaks these core frequencies down further and shows some frequencies outside of this range that correspond to some more rare and unusual states of consciousness.
Self awareness, higher levels of insight and information. Tibetan monks that walk barely clothed for days through the snow have exhibited high levels of these. They are difficult to measure and little is known about them. They are carried on the very slow moving Epsilon Waves (<0.5Hz).
38 – 90Hz
Important in harmonizing and unifying thoughts processed in different parts of the brain. Combines different perceptions. Essential for complex motor processes. Suppressed totally by anaesthetic. Found in all parts of the brain.
18 – 38Hz
Wide awake, alert, focused, analyses and assimilates new information rapidly, complex mental processing, peak physical and mental performance, cannot be sustained indefinitely otherwise exhaustion, anxiety, and tension result.
Beta (Mid range)
Wide awake and alert behaviour.
12 – 15Hz
Also known as Sensory Motor Rhythm (SMR) – vigilance, reduced mobility, shallow breathing, less blinking, fixed attention and eye focus, enhancing through neuro-feedback has a calming effect.
Hyper-efficient in processing single tasks as the brain can focus on the details as well as the overall task at the same time
7.5 – 12Hz
Mental coordination and resourcefulness, relaxation, alert but not mentally processing anything, inward focus, calmness, at ease, deep breathing and closed eyes can amplify alpha wave production, peaks around 10Hz.
Schumann frequency. Stimulates retrieval of memories from the subconscious. This is the natural vibrational frequency of the ionosphere in the earth’s atmosphere.
4 – 7.5Hz
Associated with memory access, learning, deep meditation, sensations, emotions, the threshold of the subconscious, dreaming.
Associated with many altered consciousness states. Shamanic trances, Tibetan mantras and Buddhist chants use this frequency to access trance states
Long term memory access
0.5 – 4Hz
Deep sleep, human growth hormone release, low blood pressure, low respiration, low body temperature. No muscle movement – Reticular Activating System (RAS) shuts this down.
As with Lambda and HyperGamma waves, less is known about these states due to the rarity of observing them. They have reportedly been associated with when state Yogi’s go into when they achieve “suspended animation” where no heart beat, respiration or pulse are noticeable.
So, as we can see, the brain IS a very complex system, and the Mind represents an ever-changing program, “firmware”, interface, and everything else that defines who and what we are – beyond the physical body, in which the Brain is a part of the physical side of being. The individual Mind can exert influence and BE influenced upon and from, within and without. Our “nature” is defined by the perceptions we have built up from our own life’s experiences, and what we have learned (or have been “programmed”).
Once we understand the basics of Mind and Consciousness, we understand that any action or active “doings” require a conscious thought in order for that action to take place. Inanimate objects and/or substances, by virtue of them being “inanimate” and lacking any real “proactive” ability (or lacking the expression of a “proactive” ability), can NOT be the source of an action. In other words, they can NOT “make” or “do” anything on their own. They require a conscious user, as is the case of any “tool”, in order to affect any changes.
In the next article: The “Brain As A Computer”- Why Modern Psychiatry Has It All Wrong! – Part II,
I will delve some into past memories. That is, memories of the past in THIS life, and the subject of repressed memories. Many of our pains, anguishes, and other lingering injuries (both physical-effects and non-physical, emotional) are often the result of or from repressed memories, especially of tragic events and other negative happenings in our lives. Many times, do we see these memories resurface in unexpected times and places, and sometimes in unexpected situations. In some cases, these “flashbacks” can have very dangerous and disastrous results if not dealt with in a manner that safely disempowers them.
Earlier this year I spent a few days at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center with my daughter who was having an EEG done. On our way home, I learned that there had been an outbreak of an antibiotic-resistant bacteria while we were there, that it had infected seven people and killed two of them. My daughter and I were fine – the infection having been limited to people using a particular kind of duodenoscope.
When the story hit the news, I fully expected nationwide outcry similar to that inspired by the recent measles “epidemic” that began at Disneyland. That outbreak killed no-one, yet set the country on fire with calls for mandatory vaccination and even prison sentences for parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. Drug-resistant “superbugs” kill nearly 15,000 people a year in the US and a recent report predicts that they could kill as many as 300 million people by 2050. Surely this far more deadly health threat would lead to similar widespread outrage and calls for those even remotely responsible to be held accountable.
The manipulation of the conversation around vaccines in the mainstream media has been nothing short of a tour de force. If you read only mainstream publications, you might come away with the impression that outbreaks of measles are the most serious public health crisis since the Black Death. You might think that those who do not vaccinate are uneducated, superstitious, “anti-science” zealots who get their information from daytime talk shows. You might even start to feel outrage at these people who – for no good reason at all – have decided to endanger everyone else by refusing to do what every doctor knows is perfectly safe, effective and the socially responsible thing to do.
The presentation of this issue has been a study in just how easy it can be to generate mass hysteria around a particular threat – even while much more serious threats inspire no such response. It’s as if every mainstream reporter has been given the same playbook to use in putting together their articles about vaccines – a playbook designed to elicit the above response from the public. I’ve tried to imagine what this playbook must look like and I think I’ve come up with a pretty decent facsimile. Here it is, along with my own annotations:
1. Make it clear that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are only getting their information from Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carey and other celebrities with absolutely no scientific credentials.
2. Always equate the views of the CDC, medical journals and pharmaceutical company spokespeople with “science.” Some people will try to tell you that science is a method, not a conclusion, that scientific truths cannot be determined by consensus or by appeal to authority, but you can just ignore them.
“In my personal and scientifically backed opinion, the war against disease is a hundred fold more important than the mum-led war against vaccines. Do you want your child to die a slow, painful, agonizing death? If not, then shut the f*** up with your so called ‘facts’ you got from Yahoo Answers and get your kid vaccinated.
“I am going to sound derogatory, but if you don’t have formal education in at least biology, you have no role to talk about the way vaccines should be done.” (Sic.)
In other words, if you don’t have the same training we do, you don’t get to be part of the discussion. Even when the topic of that discussion is whether or not we get to forcibly inject things into your bodies and the bodies of your children. Just shut up and trust the scientists. But not thesescientists – they are all anti-science scientists. Only trust these ones.
3. Remind your readers that, however heart wrenching or tragic, anecdotal accounts are just that. They are not scientific, they don’t say anything about relative risk, and should play no role in influencing your opinion about vaccines.
Until you want to tell them the heart wrenching story of how author Roald Dahl lost his daughter to measles, or about the death of a young girl from rotavirus that inspired Dr. Paul Offit to develop a vaccine for that disease.
Anecdotal accounts of people suffering from vaccine-preventable illnesses are fine. Anything else though is just irrational. Take for example the thousands of stories from parents whose children were perfectly healthy until they received one or more vaccines and then suddenly lost the ability to speak, to walk, to feed themselves, or who started having seizures, stopped breathing or died. Many of the parents in these cases report that their doctors insist the vaccines had nothing to do with their child’s injury, even when no other explanation is apparent. Indeed, the vaccine manufacturers and the CDC insist that most such cases are simply coincidences and have nothing to do with the vaccines. But given the well-documented degree of conflict of interest and fraudulent practices within the CDC and the medical research community as a whole, many parents are understandably skeptical of such claims.
4. Remind your readers that “correlation is not causation.”
Unless you want to show them this graph and tell them it proves that vaccines save lives:
To listen to the mainstream media, one would think that measles was a deadly affliction on a par with Ebola or the plague. Vaccine advocates distort the dangers of measles by pointing to adverse effects experienced by populations in underdeveloped countries, where even the mildest of diseases can be deadly due to things like poor nutrition and sanitation.
By the 1950s in the United States though, measles was considered a mild childhood disease that nearly everyone caught before adulthood and lived through with no serious consequences. Says Dr. Donald Miller:
“With good sanitation and nutrition, the pre-vaccine mortality rate of measles in the U.S. was less than 1 in a million (compared with 14 deaths per 100,000 in 1900); seizures occurred in 1 in 3,000 people; and encephalitis, 1 in 100,000, with full recovery in 75 percent of those cases.”
It is also worth noting that the CDC’s statement that “(f)or every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it” relies on reported cases of measles. A more accurate estimate puts the death rate at closer to 1 out of 10,000 cases.
Meanwhile, in the past ten years there have been only a handful of measles deaths in the US, but VAERS data report 109 deaths associated with the measles vaccine since January of 2004, and the US Court of Federal Claims has settled 111 claims related to harm from the MMR vaccine in that same time.
Not only is measles a relatively benign illness for healthy people living in developed countries, contracting and surviving the disease confers benefits to the immune system – as well as strengthening herd immunity – in ways that vaccines cannot.
Far from protecting the most vulnerable demographic groups, widespread vaccination has increased the risk of serious harm from measles in some of these populations: Infants and very young children, as well as adults. Normally, measles wouldn’t appear in these age groups – but now it does, thanks to the vaccine. As Lawrence Solomon reported in the Financial Post last year:
“In the pre-vaccine era, when the natural measles virus infected the entire population, measles — ‘typically a benign childhood illness,’ as Clinical Pediatrics described it — was welcomed for providing lifetime immunity, thus avoiding dangerous adult infections. In today’s vaccine era, adults have accounted for one quarter to one half of measles cases; most of them involve pneumonia, one-quarter of them hospitalization.
“Also importantly, measles during pregnancies have risen dangerously because expectant mothers no longer have lifetime immunity. Today’s vaccinated expectant mothers are at risk because the measles vaccine wanes with time and because it often fails to protect against measles.
“…The danger extends to babies, whose bodies are too immature to receive measles vaccination before age one, making them entirely dependent on antibodies inherited from their mothers. In their first year out of the womb, infants suffer the highest rate of measles infections and the most lasting harm. Yet vaccinated mothers have little antibody to pass on — only about one-quarter as much as mothers protected by natural measles — leaving infants vulnerable three months after birth, according to a study last year in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. [Emphasis mine.]
“Factors such as these increased the death rate for adults and the very young, helping to reverse the decline in deaths seen in previous decades, according to a 2004 study in the Journal of Infectious Disease, authored by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.”
As discussed below, childhood illnesses like measles and mumps can help to develop the immune system in ways that help to protect against things like asthma, autoimmune disease and even cancer. So the proposition that eliminating measles – rather than simply reducing its deadliness – is a worthy public health goal is a questionable one.
5. Whenever possible, present the debate as if there are no legitimate reasons to choose not to vaccinate – only “personal beliefs” and “irrational fears.”
The reality is that there are legitimate and documented concerns about vaccine safety. Nobody denies this – all that is in dispute is the magnitude of the harm caused by vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers and their institutional supporters of course insist that any harm from vaccines is minuscule and easily outweighed by the benefits. However this claim is suspect for a number of reasons, not least of which is the stunning degree of conflict of interest and outright fraud within the world of medical research. Leaving aside these issues though, there remain good reasons to distrust the manufacturers’ claims.
Numerous studies fly in the face of the manufacturers’ claims, showing connections between vaccines and autoimmune disease, asthma, allergies, cancer, encephalopathy, and yes, autism. And even assuming integrity in the clinical trial process, these are not sufficient to demonstrate vaccine safety, as they typically only look at reactions that occur within a few weeks of vaccination, and only compare the adverse events experienced with one vaccine against those experienced with another vaccine – not against an unvaccinated sample. Even the Cochrane Review of the literature on the MMR vaccine, for example, came to the conclusion in 2012 that “(t)he design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”
Meanwhile, because of a law that removes any liability from the makers of vaccines for any harm caused by their products, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out nearly $3 billion in damages to the families of those who claim they have been injured by vaccines since its inception in 1988. This is despite the elimination by the DHHS of most of the original adverse events from the “Table of Compensable Events”, and what NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher calls “…a highly adversarial, lengthy, expensive, traumatic and unfair imitation of a court trial for vaccine victims and their attorneys.”
Of course these numbers don’t mean very much without a comparison to the background rate of such adverse events in the general population, not immediately following vaccination. Some studies have shown no increased adverse events after vaccination as compared to the general population. Other studies (including some that use post-vaccination data for other vaccines for comparison, rather than population-wide background rates) show higher rates of adverse events immediately post-vaccine.
Vaccine proponents argue that the VAERS numbers are not anaccurate reflection of vaccine damage, because each case reported has not been conclusively proven to be caused by a vaccine. It is a legitimate point – and is largely due to the fact that in most cases there is no way to confirm vaccination as the cause of the event.
The much bigger problem though is the degree to which the VAERS numbers suffer from significantunderreporting. Says president of the National Vaccine Information Center and advocate for parental choice regarding vaccines Barbara Loe Fisher:
“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”
Indeed, one study found that while 68% of cases of vaccine-associated polio were reported, only 4% of MMR-associated thrombocytopenia were reported. An earlier study found that only 1% of adverse events following prescription drug use were reported. And in 1994, a survey found that only 18% of 159 doctors’ offices made reports when children suffered serious health problems following vaccination. In New York, this number was one out of 40.
Some argue that adverse events are also over-reported to VAERS, presumably by distraught parents, but this charge is less credible. All the evidence shows that doctors and other healthcare providers are extremely reluctant to report events to VAERS. Healthcare providers account for 36% of all reports to VAERS, with vaccine manufacturers accounting for another 37%. Vaccine recipients and their parents or guardians account for only 7% of reports.
So what is the real risk of overall vaccine injury? The only honest answer is that nobody knows. The number of genuine vaccine injuries is likely much higher than what is reported in VAERS, but how much higher nobody can reliably say. The science on vaccine safety is conflicted, it is insufficient and it is badly corrupted by special interests. It is anything but “settled.”
But there’s more.
There is evidence that vaccines may cause harm well beyond what would show up in an adverse events report – harm that may manifest over many years, rather than in the days and weeks immediately following vaccination. Vaccines have been connected to increased rates of cancer, severe allergies and autoimmune disease:
“Measles helps a child’s immune system grow strong and mature.
“Once past the immunologic barriers of skin and mucosa, our (2-trillion-cell) immune system has two components: An innate system, which all animals have; and an evolutionarily more recent adaptive system that vertebrates have. The childhood diseases—measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox—play a constructive role in the maturation of the adaptive immune system. Two kinds of helper T-cells (Th) manage this system:cellular T-cells (Th1); and humoral T-cells (Th2), which make antibodies. The Th1 cellular T-cells are especially important because they attack and kill cells in the body that run amok and become cancerous. And they also kill cells that become infected with viruses.
“Measles (and other viral childhood diseases) stimulate both the Th1 and Th2 components. The MMR vaccine stimulates predominately the Th2 side. Overstimulation of this part of the adaptive immune system provokes allergies, asthma, and auto-immune diseases. Since the Th1 side thwarts cancer, if it does not get fully developed in childhood a person can wind up being more prone to cancer later in life. Women who had mumps during childhood, for example, have been found to be less likely to develop ovarian cancer compared with women who did not have mumps.”
According to the CDC, food allergies in children increased by about 50% between 1997 and 2011. Asthma rates have also been on the rise, with an increase of 28% between 2001 and 2011. And childhood cancer rates have been increasing since the 1970s. The National Institutes of Health reported in 1996 that the incidence of childhood cancer had increased by 10% between 1973 and 1991, and a 1999 report in the International Journal of Health Services said that:
“From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the incidence of cancer in American children under 10 years of age rose 37 percent, or 3 percent annually. There is an inverse correlation between increases in cancer rates and age at diagnosis; the largest rise (54 percent) occurred in children diagnosed before their first birthday. “
There are no definitive explanations for these dramatic increases in potentially life-threatening conditions among children, and in all likelihood there is no single cause responsible for any one of them. However parents have good reason to be concerned about harmful environmental factors, including vaccines. Indeed, several studies show increased rates of immunological problems associated with vaccination.
A study in New Zealand found a higher rate of asthma among those who had been vaccinated (Kemp et al, 1997); Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study in the US showed that children vaccinated with DTP or Tetanus vaccines were twice as likely to develop asthma as unvaccinated children (Hurwitz and Morgenstern, 2000), and another study showed that the MMR vaccine can cause human white blood cells to develop IgE antibodies – one of the main characteristics of asthma (Imani and Kehoe, 2001). A 2008 study found that delaying DPT vaccination was associated with reduced risk of childhood asthma.
Other studies have found a link between vaccines and allergies and autoimmune disease. A 1996 study in Africa found higher rates of allergies among those who had been vaccinated against measles than among those who had survived the disease. The study concluded that “(m)easles infection may prevent the development of atopy in African children.”
A 2001 study confirmed “A causal association between measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)…”; A study in 2014 found a strong correlation between hepatitis B vaccination and higher rates of multiple sclerosis; a 1999 study in Japan found that “…gelatin-containing DTaP vaccine may have a causal relationship to the development of this gelatin allergy”; and in 2009, a Japanese study that gave mice repeated immunizations with antigen found that “(s)ystemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization…”
In the journal Autoimmunity, Vared Molina and Yehudi Shoenfeld write “Vaccines, in several reports were found to be temporally followed by a new onset of autoimmune disease. The same mechanisms that act in infectious invasion of the host, apply equally to the host response to vaccination. It has been accepted for diphtheria and tetanus toxoid, polio and measles vaccines and GBS. Also this theory has been accepted for MMR vaccination and development of autoimmune thrombocytopenia, MS has been associated with HBV vaccination.”
Those who would force vaccinations on the rest of us are fond of repeating bromides like “your right to be sick ends where public health begins.” But who gets to decide what constitutes “public health”? Who decided that the eradication of every childhood illness is in the best interests of “public health”? Why are not increased rates of childhood cancer and life-threatening allergies relevant to “public health”? Why can I not demand that everyone else stop vaccinating their children because doing so directly threatens the ability of mine to contract childhood diseases which might help strengthen their immune systems?
6. If you must acknowledge that critics of vaccines have actual reasons for their concerns, restrict the discussion to the fear that vaccines may cause autism, and be sure to stress that the only basis for this concern is the retracted 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield.
At all costs, never ever mention any of the concerns listed in “4.” above.
For bonus points, see if you can create the impression that the only potential problem with vaccines is thimerosal, and then declare that thimerosal has been removed from all vaccines. (It hasn’t.)
7. When in doubt, pepper your stories with some of the following affirmations. Remember: The more you say them, the truer they become: “Vaccines save lives”; “parents who don’t vaccinate are selfish” (“ignorant”, “anti-science” and “hippies” all work well too.); and above all: “the science is settled.”
You may have to repeat this last one many many times before your readers come to understand and accept it.
8. Don’t even address vaccines directly. Simply include some mention of vaccine skepticism as an example of the kind of irrational thinking some people (especially, strangely, well-educated ones) still engage in despite “everyone knowing” how foolish it is.
This is perhaps the most powerful tool you can use to sway your audience. Nobody wants to be seen as foolish, and most people don’t have the time or inclination to look closely at the evidence for and against vaccine safety. If people keep hearing that “everyone knows” vaccines are safe and effective, most of them will tend to go along with that position even if they don’t know much about the topic – if only to avoid being seen as crackpots. Fear of public humiliation can be a beautiful thing in the right hands.
9. If the icky topic of conflict of interest or corruption of the research by vested interests comes up, just laugh it off. Remember: Writing in a derisive tone about other people’s claims or concerns is exactly the same as refuting them.
Amy Wallace, who wrote this Wired piece handled this especially well. And not only did she fail to interview a single critic of vaccines for the article, she cunningly created the impression that she had included their views by visiting an Autism One conference and mentioning and briefly quoting – but never actually speaking with – NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. Well done Amy Wallace!
Vaccine advocates like to point to studies that show no increased risk of harm from vaccines. They assert that these studies invalidate the findings of other studies that do show a link between vaccines and asthma, allergies, autism and other conditions. In a world in which scientific institutions could be trusted to conduct honest, objective research and produce credible results, this might provide some comfort. In the real world though, there is little reason to give credence to much of the research that gets produced on vaccines – and much less so to results that in any way favor the manufacturers of those vaccines.
Lest anyone suspect that this kind of cynicism about the scientific establishment is confined to anti-vaccination activists, here is what Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2009:
“…(C)onflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine.” [Emphasis mine.]
“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”
Likewise, in his 2013 book “Bad Pharma”, physician (and vaccine advocate) Ben Goldacre writes:
“Overall, the pharmaceutical industry spends around half a billion dollars a year on advertising in academic journals. The biggest – NEJM, JAMA – take $10 or $20 million each, and there is a few million each for the next rank down.”
Goldacre adds that “(a)dvertising is not the only source of drug company revenue for academic journals”, and cites “supplements” – special editions sponsored by drug companies – and reprints of individual academic papers that can bring in up to a million dollars each. And he cites a 2009 study demonstrating that industry-funded studies are more likely to be accepted by journals.
Recently, two former Merck scientists charged that the pharmaceutical giant “…fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine…” And in August of last year, senior CDC scientist William Thompson came forward with the statement that he and other researchers had omitted statistically significant data from a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. (It is worth noting that Dr. Thompson’s earlier studies at the CDC were hailed as “definitive” in refuting the Thimerosal-autism link by none other than Dr. Paul Offit.)
According to Thompson’s statement “(t)he omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”
In a secretly recorded conversation, Dr. Thompson told with Dr. Brian Hooker, “I have a boss who is asking me to lie. The higher ups wanted to do certain things and I went along with it.” He told Dr. Hooker that “…the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research, because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing. They are afraid to look for things that might be associated…”
Put simply: The scientific establishment has lost any right to be taken at its word on this issue.
10. “Muh Herd Immunity!”
Remind your readers of our long-treasured right to herd immunity: The right to demand – at gunpoint if necessary – that others take every possible precaution against contracting communicable diseases, regardless of the risks to themselves of doing so. This is a right our forefathers fought and died for and we’re not about to give it up now.
Those who support imposing vaccines by force argue that those who do not vaccinate threaten herd immunity for the entire population. The idea that vaccines can successfully provide herd immunity is already questionable, as – unlike many childhood diseases – they do not confer lifetime immunity. Nor do they offer 100% immunity to those vaccinated. But more importantly this argument presumes that “herd immunity” is something anyone has a right to in the first place.
For centuries, people have been aware that being out in public carries certain risks – among them, the risk that one might contract a disease from another person. Never before have people widely asserted that they have the right to demand that everyone around them take all possible precautions at whatever cost to themselves to make this environment absolutely risk free. If, as the mandatory vaccination proponents contend, we can demand that everyone around us take every conceivable precaution against every communicable disease, what else can we demand of them?
For starters, the recently vaccinated (with live-virus vaccines) should be excluded from all public property. And if not, why not? They pose far more of a risk than does anyone who has simply not been vaccinated. What are some other risky practices Americans should no longer tolerate from each other? Going out in public with a cold? Being a poor driver? Being in possession of any substance that might cause a severe allergic reaction in someone else?
How about superbugs? What are we going to do about all those people who abuse antibiotics, ultimately leading to the creation of superbugs. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are responsible for nearly 15,000 deaths in the US each year, far outstripping pre-vaccine deaths for measles, mumps and whooping cough combined. Can we not hold the irresponsible people who take antibiotics every time they have a minor infection accountable for this?
Personally, I avoid antibiotics for myself and my family as much as possible. I have never given them to a child with an ear infection (and yes, we’ve had some.) Should my preferences be imposed on everyone else? Doing so would clearly strike a blow against the propagation of superbugs. So why not?
Here’s why not: Because your right to protect “public health” – whatever you think that may be given the interest-driven media hysteria of the moment – ends where my body begins.
Herd immunity is not something anyone has a “right” to. It is a positive externality, and like other such externalities it is not something you have a right to demand that your fellow human beings provide for you. More to the point, you do not have a right to demand that other parents impose risks on their children that they are not comfortable with, in order to protect your child or anyone else’s children.
The Forced Vaccination Threat: a Tragedy of the Commons
Can there ever be a point where spreading a disease becomes “assault”? Of course there can: A person who knows that they are infected with Ebola, for example, stepping into a crowded subway car and proceeding to cough all over the other passengers, could easily be considered guilty of assault. But measles is hardly Ebola (it is not even on the federal government’s list of quarantinable diseases), and – contrary to the media frenzy that insists otherwise – not being vaccinated does not equate to being infected with a disease, far less to knowingly infecting others. Failure to take every precaution against getting a disease is hardly “assault.”
Even in the case of a truly deadly illness like Ebola, there is no justification for forcing a particular method of prevention on those who have not contracted it, or forcing treatment on anyone who has. All that anyone has a right to do is demand that those people not infect others.
It should be obvious by now that none of this would even be an issue if we lived in a society that honored self-ownership and private property. In the event of an outbreak of a truly dangerous disease – or even a disease that posed a serious risk to only a small segment of the population – each property owner could make their own decision about whether to exclude those who were infected or indeed, even those who chose not to be vaccinated against the disease, presuming there was a vaccine for it.
“Private businesses aren’t stupid; they don’t need the government to order them to keep lepers away. And if a particular church, say, wants to open its doors to such a person, that’s perfectly within their rights. (As a matter of courtesy, we would hope this policy would be announced to others who might not want to visit the same building.) Indeed, the final repository for such people would be buildings where the owners thought they could safely contain the disease. And the common name people would use for these buildings is “hospital.” In a free society, to be “quarantined” would simply mean that most owners (of roads, sidewalks, malls, hotels, factories, etc.) would refuse access, and so a contagious person would have few choices outside of treatment facilities.”
Rather than having a one-size-fits-all solution imposed upon everyone by some authority, everyone would make choices based on their own perception of the risks. Businesses that responded to the risk sensitivities of their customers would do well and those that did not would suffer. And because not all people have the same perception of or sensitivity to the same risks, there would be a wide variety of choices: Schools that allow unvaccinated children and schools that do not; restaurants that cater to those with severe allergies and those that do not; parks, libraries, cinemas and other establishments that specialize in serving immunocompromised and other medically fragile individuals, and those that do not.
In the absence of a “commons” – property that is used by everyone but owned by no-one (or, more realistically, owned by the state) there would be no calls for anyone to have vaccines forced upon them at gunpoint. Those who believe vaccinations are absolutely necessary would frequent businesses and venues that enforced strict vaccination policies, and those who did not would frequent places that had more relaxed policies.
My own guess is that for the most part, the issue would simply go away. People would come to realize that the real risk to themselves and their families posed by those who do not vaccinate is in fact minuscule – particularly in comparison to other risks we all expose ourselves to daily. In the absence of a “commons” managed by people who do not have to earn the costs of their operation, most business owners would find that they stood to lose more by excluding “non-vaxxers” than they did to gain by allowing them in.
It is only in a world where property rights are not clearly defined, where there are great swathes of “commons” (either “public” property or nominally private property over which owners do not have genuine decision-making powers) that there can be a conflict between “public” health and individual rights. Eliminate the commons and you eliminate that conflict – replacing it with a myriad of voluntary solutions to meet the differing wants and needs of diverse individuals.
Whatever Your Views on Vaccines, the Prospect of Forced Vaccination Ought to Make You Very Very Afraid
Do those who believe in mandated vaccination really want to establish the precedent of granting a government body the power to compel people to be injected with substances against their will? You may support the forced vaccination of other people’s children because you think vaccines are undeniably beneficial and problem-free. But you may not be so thrilled about the next substance the state decides everyone should have forced into their veins.
Do you really want to establish the precedent of being able to demand from your neighbors that they pose no risk to you at all? The corollary of course being that they may then demand the same of you? If as a society we decide that we have the right to demand a 100% risk-free environment in which to live then the potential intrusions into our lives are infinite.
Even if the manufacturers’ claims are correct and the risk of serious injury from vaccines is infinitesimal, for most people it is impossible to know ahead of time whether or not they will be injured by a vaccine. Nobody has the right to force another person to choose that risk – however small it may be – over the risks of the diseases the vaccines are intended to prevent.
The state already controls vast swathes of what we can do with our lives: What professions we may enter, how and where we may conduct business, what substances we cannot ingest, how much of the money we earn we are allowed to keep, how we may travel and what indignities we must tolerate in order to do so, when and where we may protest, and the list goes on and on. If you do not believe that individuals have the right to control what goes into their own bodies then I have to wonder what rights – if any – you do believe people still have.
It seems to me that, save choosing our mates for us, the last remnant of our self ownership lies in our right not to be directly assaulted, not to have unwanted drugs or other substances forced into our bodies. If you believe that the state has the right to do this, then there is essentially nothing left that it does not have a right to do.
The pro-vaccine lobby has done a phenomenal job of inciting fear among the American public in a way that happens to serve its interests: Fear of little children who may not have been vaccinated; fear of other parents who may make choices different from yours; fear of a disease that in the developed world is far less deadly than lightning strikes. But they’ve left out one of the most frightening specters of all, one that has a truly horrifying historical record of death and destruction: An all-powerful state that can literally do whatever it wishes to those living under it. If that prospect frightens you less than the remote possibility that you might contract measles from my five year old, then quite frankly you scare the hell out of me.
* * *
Comment from the Re-Poster:
This just turns my stomach at how badly misinformed and lied-to we have all been! This is perhaps one of the biggest health-scams I can even fathom ever happening to a supposedly-“civilized” people, in the modern-day world. We have totally lost all touch and meaning in what Natural Health is all about. “Nature” has lost all credibility in the eyes of those who seek to further demean and minimize anything natural, all for the sake of profits, and ultimately – TOTAL CONTROL.
When comes the day when there will be no such thing as “natural immunity” for humankind, will be the day that humanity’s days are truly numbered. The last thing anyone “needs”, is an artificial “life-line”, that will eventually be cut off when one’s usefulness to the system is over. THAT will be the precursor of the God-like power of “Life and Death”, in the hands of those least responsible about its usage.
Bombshell report destroys the hoax that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective
by Infowars.com | February 18, 2015
Exclusive: This marathon report is anchored by a Feb 2014 Senate Hearing on vaccines, featuring Senator Elizabeth Warren and Dr. Anne Schuchat, the director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. They use this national platform to continue the hoax that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective.
Infowars.com Nightly News director Rob Dew methodically covers the evidence that vaccines are in fact dangerous, in addition to the fact the vaccine manufacturers are not liable for their toxic products and as a result you will never see credible, impartial studies.
Those who do look at vaccines are attacked and demonized by the media and big pharma.
Rob also examines why autism saw an explosion in the late 80s, and concludes the report with a must-read article from retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock and an amazing quote from one of the first anti-vaxxers, Mahatma Ghandi. This report has a lot of amazing information, please check out the links below.
TO QUOTE GANDHI HIMSELF, One of the first of the “anti-vaxxers” : : :
* * *
The truth is that this quote only scratches the surface of Gandhi’s biting critique of the dangers, inefficacy, and malfeasance associated with the vaccination campaigns of his time. Gandhi, of course, is history’s most celebrated anti-imperialist, having almost single-handedly set into motion India’s independence from British colonial rule. He was extremely sensitive to Western forms of control and oppression, and was able to apply his intellect to the manner in which the Western medical establishment was coercing millions of Indians to succumb to the unhealthy practice of smallpox and plague vaccination.
Farmers who are using antibiotics to keep pests away from their crops are making children allergic to the fruits and vegetables they grow, research suggests.
Several years ago, more than 150 scientists and 50 farmers came out in support of stricter limits on antibiotics used in animal agriculture as part of a broader effort to tackle the public health crisis caused by growing antibiotic resistance. But now, in a case highlighted in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, this concern rears its head more aggressively. Not only are antibiotics that are used in livestock harmful, but the antibiotics being used on fruits and vegetables are causing other problems.
The journal had detailed how a 10-year-old girl who ate a blueberry pie had a near-fatal allergic reaction. It turns out the problem wasn’t the blueberries, but the antibiotic streptomycin. The blueberries had been treated with the antibiotic to keep bacteria, fungi, and algae from growing on the fruit.
Farmers have turned to antibiotics in increasing numbers to eliminate pests that are often caused by depleted soil – a byproduct of decades of Big Ag practices, namely from growing pesticide and herbicide doused GM crops. Aside from adding toxins to the soil and stripping it of important enzymes that plants need to fight off pests themselves, out of the 70+ trace minerals that were originally in nutrient-rich soils, modern methods replenish merely 4 or 5. This means that not only are plants less resistant to pests, but superweeds can grow like wildfire.
Furthermore, crops that are grown in depleted, biotech-influenced-soils are more susceptible to insect infestations, viruses, and diseases. That’s why Monsanto’s Round Up is one of the best selling chemical herbicides in the world – no matter that it causes birth defects, kidney disease, and cancer.
The ten-year-old girl who suffered an allergic reaction to some blueberries is a more common phenomenon these days, according to Dr. James DeAngelo, an allergy specialist. Children are popping up with allergies to fruits and vegetables all the time, but what they are really allergic to is what is sprayed on the plants:
“This could explain why so many people insist they’re allergic to berries, but when we test them to berries, they’re negative, and then they re-consume berries, they seem to tolerate them.”
DeAngelo notes that true allergies to any kind of berry are extremely rare.
Doctors believe traces of streptomycin and other antibiotics on produce, meat, and in the water supply can add to the rising incidence of fruit and vegetable allergies.
Many European countries have prohibited the use of antibiotics on food, but they are allowed in the US and in Canada. As long as we continue to follow Big Ag’s advice for growing our food – we can expect more problems like these to arise. Our children can’t even eat their greens anymore due to the overuse of antibiotics.
Fox host labels Kristin Cavallari “communist” over concerns about autism
Paul Joseph Watson
March 19, 2014
Actress Kristin Cavallari is facing condemnation after she revealed during an interview that she didn’t vaccinate her children due to fears over a link to autism.
During an interview on Fox News, Cavallari, who had her first child in 2012 and is expecting another this year, responded to the host who lambasted Jenny McCarthy for not vaccinating her children before asking Cavallari, “are you opposed to vaccines?”
“We didn’t vaccinate,” states Cavallari, to which the host responds, “Really! you’re one of those communists?”
When the host claims there is no connection between autism and vaccines, Cavallari cites a pediatric group called Homestead which encourages parents not to vaccinate and hasn’t documented a single case of autism, before noting that vaccines also now contain mercury.
In a follow up interview with Huff Post Live, Cavallari said she didn’t even plan to speak out on vaccines, but that she had “read too many books” on the issue and that autism’s prevalence had no explanation. “Something’s going on, whether it’s the chemicals in our food or the vaccines because there’s more mercury….something’s happening we can’t really ignore that, I choose to believe it’s in the vaccines, to each their own and that’s where I stand on it,” said Cavallari.
In answering a question about her private decision not to vaccinate her own children, Cavallari was not seeking to make a big drama out of the issue, but the establishment media predictably came down on her like a ton of bricks anyway, with numerous news outlets slamming The Hills star as spouting “pseudoscience” and being a “vaccine nut”.
Another website snarked that Cavallari and her husband Jay Cutler were part of the “dumb vaccine crowd”.
With a deluge of mainstream media outlets rushing to denounce Cavallari’s personal decision as a mother not to vaccinate her children, one would be forgiven for thinking that the pharmaceutical industry, which spends around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year, was in cahoots with the corporate press. That couldn’t possibly be the case, right?
Although in principle vaccines are a fantastic idea and their effectiveness historically has been beneficial in many ways, there are a number of legitimate concerns that pharmaceutical giants in alliance with governments have repeatedly attempted to silence via huge PR campaigns.
One of the most worrying factors is the clear connection between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in the developed world. A 2011 study published in the reputable Human and Experimental Toxicology journal found “a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.”
The United States administers the highest number of vaccine doses to children in the entire developed world, 26 before infants reach the age of one, and its infant mortality rate is higher than 33 other nations, all of which administer less vaccines.