The Common Mistake Women Make Which Can Turn Them into Cancer Patients

Mammograms Have 'Limited or No Effect' on Breast Cancer Deaths: Study

Story at-a-glance

• New research showed mammograms have little or no influence on the number of women who die from breast cancer
• Past research also found the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening
• Due to false positives, leading to unnecessary and harmful invasive procedures like biopsy, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, mammograms often cause more harm than good

By Dr. Mercola

With only a few weeks to go before the annual October rush promoting mammograms begins, a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is raising some doubts on mammography’s purported merits.

The findings showed mammograms have little or no influence on reducing the number of women who die from breast cancer … and considering there are serious health risks involved, too, what, then, is the point?

Mammograms Again Shown to Have Little to No Value

Breast cancer mortality rates in Sweden have been declining since 1972. Even though this was before mammography was introduced, the reductions have continued and many have attributed it to mammography screening.

The researchers that authored the current study also expected to see a reduction in breast cancer deaths associated with mammograms, but the results showed otherwise:¹

“County-specific mortality statistics in Sweden are consistent with studies that have reported limited or no impact of screening on mortality from breast cancer among women aged 40-69.”

In light of these findings, the study’s lead researcher Dr. Philippe Autier, at the International Prevention Research Institute in Lyon, France, noted:²

"Information to women on mammography screening should better reflect uncertainty on the effectiveness of that test, and underline the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment."

And this is not the first time the effectiveness of mammograms has been called into question. In 2010, another study concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.³

Mammograms May Cause More Harm Than Good

Many women are under the impression that a mammogram is simply an innocuous test that might or might not help you detect breast cancer sooner. But research shows this screening may end up harming more women than it helps.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Center issued a leaflet explaining the potential benefits and potential harms of mammography, stating that, based on the available research, it no longer seems reasonable for women to attend breast cancer screening. After systematically reviewing the randomized trials of mammography, they concluded that:⁴

"If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will benefit from screening, as she will avoid dying from breast cancer because the screening detected the cancer earlier.

Since these trials were undertaken, treatment of breast cancer has improved considerably. Women today also seek medical advice much earlier than previously, if they have noted anything unusual in their breasts...

Because of these improvements, screening is less effective today and newer studies suggest that mammography screening is no longer effective in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer.

... Since it is not possible to tell the difference between the dangerous and the harmless cell changes and cancers, all of them are treated.

Therefore, screening results in treatment of many women for a cancer disease they do not have, and that they will not get. Based on the randomized trials, it appears that:

If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, 10 healthy women will be turned into cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy, and sometimes chemotherapy.

Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer."

So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman's life:

• 2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
• 200 women will get false positives
• 10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer

Yet another study, this one published in The Lancet Oncology late last year,⁵ described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are typically aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.

This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a higher cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings! The study concluded that:

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls did not reach that of the screened group, we believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

FDA Secretly Monitored Mammogram Whistleblowers’ Emails

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.

According to the Washington Post⁶:

"All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes. Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers."

The FDA has declined to comment on the allegations, stating it does not comment on cases involved with litigation. However, according to internal FDA documents obtained by the plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency had asked the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) inspector general to conduct an investigation back in May 2010, stating suspicions that the plaintiffs had improperly disclosed confidential business information about the devices.

The HHS inspector general's office found no evidence of criminal conduct, stating the doctors and scientists had legal right to share their concerns with Congress and journalists. Hence no investigation was launched. But the FDA was not satisfied.

On June 28 that same year, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health wrote that, "We have obtained new information confirming the existence of information disclosures that undermine the integrity and mission of the FDA and, we believe, may be prohibited by law," and again requested action be taken against the employees in question. After consulting with general prosecutors, the inspector general declined the second request for an investigation as well. Now the question is whether the agency monitored their employees within legal limits, and whether the purpose of the extensive monitoring was reasonable. Senator Charles Grassley doesn't seem to think so, stating that:

"The FDA has a huge responsibility to protect public health and safety. It's hard to see how managers apparently thought it was a good use of time to shadow agency scientists and monitor their e-mail accounts for legally protected communications with Congress."

Why Getting a Mammogram Can be a Risky Decision

The long-held conventional medical advice has been for women to get an annual mammogram once they hit 40. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decided to alter their mammogram recommendation, advising women under the age of 50 to avoid mammograms, and limit them to every other year after the age of 50. The revision caused outrage among many cancer organizations. What was overlooked, however, was the reasoning behind the Task Force's decision to change their recommendation.

The prior advice was given in 2002, before a host of new research came out showing the problems of overdiagnosis, including false positives.

If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman's breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves removing a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. However, early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are actually NO universally agreed upon diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise...

Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50 percent -- perhaps as low as 2-4 percent.

This suggests that watchful waiting may be the more sensible approach, but most women are not informed of this option and instead go through invasive breast cancer treatments like surgery, radiation and toxic chemotherapy that often turns out to be unnecessary. As discussed above, it's really hard to justify harming 10 women with surgery and toxic chemotherapy treatment in order to save the life of one woman ...

Mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic (x-ray guided) biopsies, likely contribute to cancer because of the cumulative radiation exposure that occurs over a lifetime and the particularly radiation-sensitive nature of breast cells, e.g. BRCA1/2 genes confer greater risk for breast cancer, in part, because they interfere with the repair of radiation-induced DNA damage. Even the National Cancer Institute states that “repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer.”⁷

And finally, although receiving a false positive is the major danger of mammograms, false negatives also occur. Mammograms are especially inaccurate for women with dense breasts; New York and Virginia recently passed laws requiring women with dense breasts to be informed they may need to seek alternative screening methods. It’s estimated that up to 75 percent of women in their 40s, and up to 50 percent of all women, have dense breasts, which increases the likelihood that a mammogram will be ineffective and inaccurate.⁸

Thermography: Breast Health Monitoring That’s as Safe as Taking Your Photograph

Download Interview Transcript

I recently interviewed Gaea Powell about the use of thermography as a safe way to monitor your risk of breast cancer over the long term. Thermographic breast screening is as safe as having your photograph taken and measures the infrared heat emitted by your body, translating this information into thermal images. Thermography does not require mechanical compression or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation and/or increased tumor related blood flow approximately 8-10 years before mammography or a physical exam can detect a mass.

So, if your thermogram shows areas of high inflammation, it doesn't mean you have cancer, but it lets you know you need to address that inflammation to avoid deterioration, and in some cases that the area needs further evaluation.

A New Breast Health Assessment Paradigm - Thermography, BSE/CBE, Ultrasound, then MRI

Although scientific evidence supports elimination of mammography as a screening tool, it is currently considered the standard of care. Replacing it with a new breast health assessment paradigm is warranted and inevitable. The new paradigm begins with thermography, a non-invasive physiological screening that can only serve to enhance all anatomical screenings that may follow, such as BSE/CBE, ultrasound and/or MRI. Please understand though that because this paradigm is not yet accepted as the standard of care, most insurance companies will not cover a thermogram, nor an ultrasound or MRI without a "positive" mammogram. However, when choosing an MRI as an elective procedure, one can typically shop around and find a facility that will perform one without insurance for under $1,000.

New Study Shows This Vitamin Prevents Breast Cancer …

There are a number of lifestyle changes that can help prevent breast cancer from ever becoming a reality for you. For starters, we cannot discuss breast cancer without mentioning the importance of vitamin D. Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is easily one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in nearly every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D.

New research published in the journal Steroids has found that calcitriol inhibits the growth of cancer cells, including breast cancer cells, through the following mechanisms:⁹

• Cell cycle arrest
• Promotion of apoptosis (cancer cell death)
• Inhibition of invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis or programmed cell death. When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days!¹⁰

It is my professional opinion that for those who are diagnosed with cancer it is criminal malpractice not to recommend vitamin D and aggressively monitor a cancer patient's vitamin D level to get it between 70 and 100 ng/ml.

So please do watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be for prevention and treatment … and how to get them there. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.

Eight More Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

Prevention truly is worth a pound of cure when it comes to cancer, and the following healthy lifestyle strategies can help you avoid ever becoming a cancer statistic.

• Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
• Optimize your vitamin D level, as mentioned. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 70-100 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating whole foods like those in my nutrition plan and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities, which are part of my Peak Fitness program. It's important to lose excess weight because excess estrogen is produced in fat tissue, which can contribute to cancer risk.
• Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
• Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
• Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
• Avoid xenoestrogens. Xenoestrogens are synthetic chemicals that mimic natural estrogens. They have been linked to a wide range of human health effects, including reduced sperm counts in men and increased risk of breast cancer in women. There are a large number of xenoestrogens, such as bovine growth hormones in commercial dairy, plastics like bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and parabens in personal care products, and chemicals used in non-stick materials, just to name a few.

Technorati Tags: mammograms,mammogram studies,Cancer,Dr. Mercola,MRI's,Breast Cancer,women's health,cancer causing,FDA,Thermography. BSE?CBE,ultrasound

Did You Get Your ObamaCare Letter Yet?

American Thinker - Cindy Simpson - July 30, 2012

I got my ObamaCare letter yesterday. Lately I've been so caught up in the other troubling aspects of the AFA -- like the contraceptive mandate and the Supreme Court ruling on the penalty/tax -- that the "Medical Loss Ratio" rule had fallen off my radar screen.

But health insurers certainly haven't been able to forget about it. Here's an excerpt of the letter I received from my insurer, which was described in the header as "informational only per government requirements":

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers in the individual and small group markets to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they receive on health care services and activities to improve health care quality...If a health insurer does not spend at least 80 percent...[it] must rebate the difference.

The 2011 ratios were required to be calculated and rebates issued no later than August 1, 2012.

I wasn't surprised to not receive a rebate, but was floored to think of the implications of that letter: Our government has actually granted itself the power to define via thousands of pages of new regulations ("and they're not even done yet"), specific practices, procedures, and limitations on the profits of a private industry.

Numerous factors that affect profits are out of the insurer's direct control, and nebulous terms like "services," "activities," and "quality" open the door for some creative accounting. And it's reasonable to question whether profit limitations truly benefit the insured if such limits also diminish the insurer's ability and incentive to improve the quality of its operations. At the very least such rules give unelected HHS officials the power to exert lots of discretion, as it has already proven with the grant of numerous waivers and the contraception mandate.

Attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation, upon receiving his letter, published an article asserting that the precedent of the ObamaCare rebate "ends capitalism" and is indicative of the government's desire to destroy the market so it can take it over.

That day of destruction, intended or not, may come sooner than we realize. Thousands of businesses are poised to drop their employee health insurance programs, finding it more cost-effective to pay the penalty. Thousands of individuals will do the same and only get insurance when they need it (since there are no more pre-existing condition exclusions). Private insurers, like doctors, will probably exit the market in droves.

If government can pick winners then pull the strings in auto manufacturing, energy, banking and now the health insurance and health care industries, we can't help but wonder, like Irion, what's next. Might the government require us to eat that broccoli after all? Such a slippery slope may logically lead not only to broccoli mandates, but also to requirements that grocers give away the veggies for free and have their profits limited under food distribution service and quality quotas.

Where does it end? ObamaCare is an unhealthy recipe for disaster, with government intruding in the privacy of our doctor's offices, killing jobs in the private sector, and creating yet more government jobs to enforce the madness. Hopefully we can put a stop to the nonsense before it's too late.

Related:

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit

Obama Gets Civilian Army In Healthcare Bill

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

Killing Obamacare Before It Kills Us – Part 1: The Political Battlefield

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

Do you have a gun in your house? Your Doctor wants to know and so does the government.

GAO Report: White House Intentionally Delayed Obamacare’s Cuts To Medicaid Until After 2012 Election…

Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

Obamacare’s Second Anniversary: No Gift for Seniors

IPAB Spells Gloom And Doom For Medicare - Just yesterday (03.22.12) the House of Representatives voted to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision” IPAB (the CLASS ACT has also been nullified)

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate – ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

Obama Lies, Taxes Rise

Settling the Question of a Real Estate Tax in Obamacare

"Taxmageddon" in 2013? Can We Avoid It? Can You Afford It? 

Verichip (RFID) Implants are coming, now they will have your credit and social security info connected to... part of HC Bill

RFID Chip for all Americans in 2013 as Part of ObamaCare… See Biden Telling Fed Judge He Will Have to Rule on Implanted Microchips

RFID Implant Law Hidden in Obummercare Implementation 2013 -

Update on RFID: There is definitely a provision in the ObamaCare law, whose wording is purposely vague, for a database and tracking of implanted medical devices – pacemakers, artificial joints, things that are surgically implanted to bring function back to as close to whole as possible that could eventually lead to the mark of the beast technology. But after some additional research, it appears that the regulations for this have ‘not’ been written, and probably won’t be by year end, since they are behind on so many others. This means it probably won’t happen in 2013… but if ObamaCare remains and Obama is re-elected, it is only a matter of time. Luckily since it will require lots of compliance on this piece from the device manufacturers and importers, and they’re about to get hit with sales taxes, they probably won’t be implementing much else for a while, since they must get set up for all that mayhem of reporting requirements. This is another bullet dodge for a while to give Americans the opportunity to turn things around. We know it is part of the plan: Joe Biden mark my words (RFID). The question is when will they implement… if we don’t reboot and get rid of both ObamaCare and Obama as President.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare surprises,ObamaTax,Obama mandates,ObamaCare cramdown,wake-up America,Affordable Care Act

In America: For Refusing To Put A Normal Child On Psych Drugs - Results In Swat Teams and a TANK

Video: Refusing To Put A Normal Child On Psych Drugs Results In Swat Teams and a TANK. This is in America!

10 court appearances – and the Mom WON!… But what do you think would have happened if a United Nations treaty and board were involved?

See: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

www.parentalrights.org

Technorati Tags: psych drugs,drugs,Big Pharma,Big Brother,Big Government,parental rights,stand-up America,parenting,children,anti-psychotic medication,Michigan

HHS mandate loses first test in federal court

Hotair:

Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:12:52 PM by SeekAndFind

Don't get too excited by this court decision, an injunction against the HHS contraception mandate that goes into effect on Wednesday. We've seen other court rulings on ObamaCare go one way, only to be disappointed in the final test at the Supreme Court. Still, I'd rather win the first round than lose it (via The Anchoress):

The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the controversial ObamaCare mandate. The company's lawyers said they needed the injunction immediately because if the mandate is enforced, it must begin immediately making changes to its health plan, which renews on November 1st.

The case is similar to ones brought by Catholic-based colleges that have refused to provide employee insurance with such coverage, except this time, it is a secular corporation.

In his order, Colorado District Judge John Kane said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

The injunction only applies to Hercules Industries, not the mandate as a whole, and it's only temporary, as William Jacobson points out at Legal Insurrection. However, the usual paradigms for issuing temporary injunctions are that the judge believes the plaintiffs have a substantial chance of winning the case, and that the regulation or action being halted does significant damage to the plaintiff. That hints at a favorable ruling at the district court level for Hercules, which is definitely good news, as the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the owners of Hercules, proclaimed in its statement:

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business. The mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

In his order, Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, ‘there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict with [another statutory scheme]….’ Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case.” Kane explained that the government’s “harm pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”

According to the brief Alliance Defending Freedom filed along with the motion requesting the injunction, “the mandate disregards religious conscience rights that are enshrined in federal statutory and constitutional law.” It also violates the First Amendment “due to its massive inapplicability and its discrimination among religions,” the brief explains.

The Newlands have to win the case and have it upheld at the appellate level before it has force as a precedent. That seems, though, like a slam-dunk, especially after the very recent Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC that unanimously found a ministerial exception to equal-opportunity laws in religious schools — the very kind of religious organizations that got excluded from the religious exemption by the HHS contraception mandate. The fractious justices united in limiting the application of regulations dealing with federal mandates in what might be considered second-tier religious organizations, and the HHS mandate appears to occupy a very similar relationship as the EEOC issues in Hosana-Tabor. Plus, frankly, the HHS mandate seems flat-out offensive on its face to the First Amendment, which seems to be Judge Kane’s take, at least initially.

This is definitely a good start for those who have demanded respect for freedom of religious practice and expression. But, just as a reminder …

CLICK LINK FOR THE VIDEO

Technorati Tags: Catholic Colleges,Alliance Defending Freedom,ObamaCare court cases,ObamaCare,ObamaCare mandates,individual mandate,HHS,HHS mandates,ObamaCare surprises,EEOC,freedom of religion

All Americans Will Receive a Microchip Implant in 2013 Per ObamaCare

By Paul McGuire - July 23, 2012 - NewsWithViews.com – h/t to MJ

Updated: There is definitely a provision in the ObamaCare law, whose wording is purposely vague, for a database and tracking of implanted medical devices – pacemakers, artificial joints, things that are surgically implanted to bring function back to as close to whole as possible that could eventually lead to to the mark of the beast technology. But after some additional research, it appears that the regulations for this have ‘not’ been written, and probably won’t be by year end, since they are behind on so many others. This means it probably won’t happen in 2013… but if ObamaCare remains and Obama is re-elected, it is only a matter of time. Luckily since it will require lots of compliance on this piece from the device manufacturers and importers, and they’re about to get hit with sales taxes, they probably won’t be implementing much else for a while, since they must get set up for all that mayhem of reporting requirements. This is another bullet dodge for awhile to give Americans the opportunity to turn things around. We know it is part of the plan: Joe Biden mark my words (RFID) The question is when will they implement… if we don’t reboot and get rid of both ObamaCare and Obama as President. THITW~

A major news story broke on AOL and countless other mainstream news media outlets, this past week, that the Obama Health Care Bill will require all U.S. citizens and babies to receive a microchip or Medchip by March 23, 2013. Whether or not the microchip requirement in the bill is implemented by 2013, remains to be seen.

In 2010, my book ““Are You Ready For the Microchip?” was released, and I asked the question, “Is the microchip implant hidden in the Healthcare Bill? Are newborn children starting in 2013 going to receive a microchip shortly after birth?” Then in the book, I wrote, “ In the massive US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical Device Registry which states:

“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.”

The language is deliberately vague, but it provides the structure for making America the first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling medical care.

A number of states like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this kind of legislation.

As with numerous other things that I have written and spoken about based on solid documentation, I am regularly challenged by some, and especially those in the Christian community, who are clueless about what is going on. Their criticism has never prevented me from presenting the facts, because I never take a poll about what I write or speak on. A Christian is called to speak the truth in love, whether or not it is accepted. I am not trying to disparage any ministry, but I don’t determine what I say based on whether or not it is “seeker friendly,” or popular. The only issue is, is it true and is it wise to communicate it at that particular time?

There are many things that I could say, but don’t, because there many people in our nation who, when confronted with a truth that is outside the box of their socially engineered consciousness, go into cognitive dissonance. As the microchip implant moves closer day by day, along with the “manufactured crisis” of illegal immigration, the problems of states like Arizona are creating an environment where Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are moving legislation forward that would require all U.S. workers, citizens and resident alike, to obtain and carry a National Biometric ID Card in order to work within the United States. It does not matter where you stand on the issue of amnesty or immigration, everyone is going to have to have a National Biometric ID Card that will eventually contain an RFID transmitter which will allow Big Brother electronic data bases to track all of your personal information. It is a simply a national ID card under another name. The national ID card will transition into a microchip implant, because that is technically more efficient. All of this which is about to happen very soon, is just the tip of the iceberg.

President Ronald Reagan refused to pass what he called this “Mark of the Beast” legislation. In my book, “Are You Ready for the Microchip?,” I examine the careful wording in the Health Care Bill which calls for a Med-Chip and a microchip implant. It was never hidden, it is simply Republican and Democrat, along with our corporate-controlled and Orwellian media, who deliberately chose to ignore it. The Bilderberg Group gave orders to microchip the entire U.S. population and then the world. Before the Health Care Bill was passed, the target date was set for the year 2013, when every baby born in the U.S. will receive a microchip at birth. Many are attacking President Obama for this, but although it is the Obama Health Care Bill, the microchip plan was created decades ago and put onto the fast track by the Republican Administration of President George Bush and his allegedly “born-again” Attorney General, John Ashcroft, after 911. It seems Ashcroft was more concerned about covering up the breasts of a Lady Liberty statue in the hallway of the Department of Justice, than he was about protecting our Constitutional liberties, which include the freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, Evangelical Christians make excellent political pawns because they focus on secondary issues, rather than the important issues. This is because Evangelical Christianity in America today does not have a truly Biblical worldview. I truly do not want to sound unkind, but the historical reality is that Evangelical Christians have played the part of what Lenin called “useful idiots.” Obviously, this is not what God planned for His people. But, by rejecting a Biblical worldview, the Scripture, “My people perish for lack of knowledge,” is fulfilled. The majority of Evangelical Christians in America have a very superficial faith as a result of what they are being taught in many of their churches and seminaries.

The new microchip technology with an RFID chip is so advanced it sounds like science fiction. The Apostle Paul explains how this fits into Revelation 13, where the False Prophet will head a one world religion and force people to accept the mark of the beast. A microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, in and of itself, is not necessarily the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast under the direction of the False Prophet, requires the conscious rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and a commitment to worship the Antichrist as God.

The challenge for Christians and others will be the very act of taking a microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, simply because of its parallel to the Biblical mark of the beast. Will people of faith be exempted for religious reasons or will they be forced to take it or imprisoned. In addition, any microchip technology could be activated with enhanced controls after it is implanted. So what starts out as a simple microchip implant could become a technology where at some future time, you must worship the Antichrist as God, and reject Jesus Christ as Lord in order to participate in the economic system. The built-in and evolving capacity of microchip technology makes this a dangerous possibility.

In the final analysis, the simple act of accepting the implantation of a microchip for medical reasons appears harmless on the surface. However, there is no guarantee that once it is implanted, that it will not be activated for mark of the beast technology. This is the danger and challenge that lies before us.

Related:

For those that read the bill or have educated themselves on this bill, this is no surprise.  See the articles below from 2009 and 2011.  The chips have been part of the plan and the bill from the very beginning.

RFID Implant Law Hidden in Obummercare Implementation 2013

Verichip (RFID) Implants are coming, now they will have your credit and social security info connected to... part of HC Bill

RFID Chip for all Americans in 2013 as Part of ObamaCare… See Biden Telling Fed Judge He Will Have to Rule on Implanted Microchips

Other ObamaCare Surprises:

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit

Obama Gets Civilian Army In Healthcare Bill

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

Killing Obamacare Before It Kills Us – Part 1: The Political Battlefield

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

Do you have a gun in your house? Your Doctor wants to know and so does the government.

GAO Report: White House Intentionally Delayed Obamacare’s Cuts To Medicaid Until After 2012 Election…

Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

Obamacare’s Second Anniversary: No Gift for Seniors

IPAB Spells Gloom And Doom For Medicare - Just yesterday (03.22.12) the House of Representatives voted to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision” IPAB (the CLASS ACT has also been nullified)

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate – ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

Obama Lies, Taxes Rise

Settling the Question of a Real Estate Tax in Obamacare

"Taxmageddon" in 2013? Can We Avoid It? Can You Afford It?

Technorati Tags: 1984,Big Brother,Loss of Rights,Mark of the Beast,microchips,NWO,ObamaCare,RFID chip part of healthcare bill,stop centralized healthcare records,Verichip in the Healthcare Bill,Novartis Chip,Mark of the Beast legislation,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,RFID,MedChip,Christians,ObamaCare surprises,National Medical Device Registry,doctor shortages,death panels,healthcare rationing,Obama's Civilian Army,GAO,increased Medicaid costs,Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,PPACA

Court orders Planned Parenthood to start telling the truth

Abortionists ordered to warn of serious suicide risk

WND: A federal appeals court affirmed the last provision of a long-disputed informed consent law today, ruling that the state of South Dakota can require abortionists to inform women seeking to terminate the lives of their unborn baby that they face an increased risk of suicide.

Attorney Harold J. Cassidy called the decision of the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals “a fabulous victory for the women of the state of South Dakota.”

Cassidy represents Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center of Sioux Falls, and Stacy Wollman, president of Care Net of Rapid City. They were allowed in intervene in the case filed by Planned Parenthood against the state’s new law.

“This victory represents the fourth separate decision of the 8th Circuit reversing the district court in this one case, two decisions issued by en banc (full) courts four years apart – a rare occurrence that underscores the importance of the issues presented by the case,” said Cassidy.

“As a result of this case upholding all eight major provisions of South Dakota’s Abortion Informed Consent Statute, pregnant mothers will now be informed: 1) that ‘an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;’ 2) that the mother’s ‘relationship with that second human being enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of South Dakota;’ 3) ‘that relationship and all rights attached to it will be terminated;’ and 4) the abortion places the mother ‘at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide,’” he said.

The court’s opinion said even Planned Parenthood’s own testimony documented a link between abortion and suicide.

“Planned Parenthood’s own expert, Dr. Nada Stotland, admitted that one of the studies, which determined a suicide rate after abortion of 31.9 per 100,000 as compared to a suicide rate after live birth of 5.0 per 100,000, ‘indicates an association; not causation, but an association’ between abortion and suicide,” the judges wrote.

Commenting on the decision, Steven H. Aden of the Alliance Defending Freedom said “a woman’s right to make a fully informed choice is more important than Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.”

“If Planned Parenthood truly cared about the well-being of women, it would not try to prevent them from being informed of the well-documented risk of suicide that accompanies abortion,” he said. “The 8th Circuit has done the right thing in upholding a reasonable law that protects the well-being of women by making sure that the truth is not hidden from them.”

The Sioux Falls Alpha Center’s Unruh said the ruling “gives hope to the hopeless.”

“These are women who had abortions who were coerced, persecuted, broken. These women did a very courageous thing in going to the South Dakota legislature and telling their stories,” she said. “These judges have believed them, listened to their hearts and have ruled on their behalf.”

The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood against the state after the legislature in 2005 adopted the new informed consent requirements for abortionists.

Cassidy noted that normally a statement of the importance of the decision would suffice.

“However, we feel that, in this instance, given the fact that South Dakota’s Informed Consent Statute, passed to protect the interests of pregnant mothers in South Dakota, was the subject of false claims and protracted litigation that took seven years to conclude, and required the intervenors to win four different appeals in the Eighth Circuit, requires further comment,” he said.

“Throughout the legislative processes, over the past eight years, and all during the pending of this litigation, as well as that of the new case now pending in the District Court (in which Alpha Center and Care Net are party intervenors), Planned Parenthood has threatened expensive litigation and counsel fees. Planned Parenthood has argued that they should be free to perform their radical abortion practices the way its New York City office prefers and that the people of the state of South Dakota should not impose regulations that reflect the values of the people of the state; and the people should not protect the interests of their pregnant mothers.

“Planned Parenthood has been proven completely wrong on every issue in the case. The state statute is a constitutionally valid method to protect pregnant mothers,” he said.

“The people of the State of South Dakota have stood up to the threats, false accusations and litigation tactics of Planned Parenthood. In the process, the people of South Dakota have shown that they will not be intimidated by threats of litigation, threats of payment of attorneys’ fees, and will hold fast to their conviction that a handful of people in New York, with a radical philosophy, will not dictate to the people of South Dakota, when, if, and how they will protect their women from harm, pressure, coercion and false and incomplete information when making the most important decision of their lives,” he said.

Another new law adopted in South Dakota is subject to a second challenge by Planned Parenthood. The law requires that a physician have a personal interview with a woman seeking an abortion. The woman must be offered counseling by state-approved counseling centers before the abortionist can schedule the procedure.

In South Dakota, Planned Parenthood flies abortionists in to a facility where they perform abortions. The law requires doubling the visits, because an abortionist could not interview a woman and perform an abortion on her during the same trip.

The law also requires that an abortionist determine whether the woman is being coerced into the abortion and imposes a waiting period.

Several of the requirements no longer are being challenged by Planned Parenthood, and they are going into effect in the state. Remaining under challenge is the counseling requirement along with the three-day waiting period.

The state recently announced: “Pursuant to the 2011 and 2012 legislation and the order, beginning July 1, 2012, doctors who perform abortions must assess each woman for pre-existing risk factors such as coercion and must advise the woman about the risk of adverse psychological outcomes.”

During the 2012 legislative session, South Dakotans amended several portions of the 2011 abortion law, and Planned Parenthood followed up with an amended complaint. Planned Parenthood dropped its challenge to the provisions regarding coercion and a risk-factor assessment but continued challenging requirements regarding the referrals to the pregnancy help centers and the three-day delay.

As a result, the two sides agreed to an order that the coercion and risk-factor assessment provisions could go into effect right away.

“The remaining challenged provisions – the requirement for involvement of the pregnancy help centers and the three-day delay – will continue to be enjoined pending the outcome of discovery, briefing and argument before the district court,” the state’s announcement said.

According to a statement by the Alpha Center of Sioux Falls and the Black Hills Pregnancy Center of Rapid City, two abortion alternative centers to which women may be referred, the decision from Judge Karen Schreier opens the door to substantial new requirements for abortions.

“Planned Parenthood can no longer have a clerk schedule abortion surgery – which has been its practice – without a physician first seeing a pregnant mother, compelling a change in the practices at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility,” the statement said.

“Only a physician can schedule an abortion, and only after the physician first performs an assessment, which includes an assessment to determine if the pregnant mother is being pressured or coerced into having an abortion. Until now, no such assessments were performed, and no physician saw the pregnant mother until after the surgery was scheduled and only after she was required to sign a consent for the abortion and only after she was required to pay for the abortion,” the statement continued.

In today’s decision over the 2005 law, the appeals court ruling said: “To succeed … Planned Parenthood must show that the [suicide-abortion link] disclosure at issue ‘is either untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the patient’s decision to have an abortion.’”

“The legislature expressly required the disclosure of an ‘increased risk,’ not a causal link. Based on the accepted usage of the term ‘increased risk’ … the usage of that term … does not imply a disclosure of a causal relationship,” the court said.

Instead, the section “requires a disclosure simply that the risk of suicide and suicide ideation is higher among women who abort.”

The judges also said, “We hold that the disclosure facially mandated by the suicide advisory is truthful.”

“The state legislature, rather than a federal court, is in the best position to weigh the divergent results and come to a conclusion about the best way to protect its populace. So long as the means chosen by the state does not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians, we have no basis to interfere,” the court said.

Understand Planned Parenthood’s agenda. Get “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom”

Technorati Tags: abortion,women's health,women's clinics,depression,abortion clinics,abortion procedure,Planned parenthood,South Dakota,Alliance Defending Freedom

Why Did the Wall Street Journal Bury the Merck Fraud Story?

By Dr. Mercola

It was big news when court documents were unsealed revealing a whistleblower lawsuit accusing drug giant Merck of fraud and lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine. Just about every media, large and small, picked it up and the world was abuzz about the hundreds of millions of dollars the lawsuit claimed Merck had defrauded from the U.S. government.

The Wall Street Journal published the story in the form of a Dow Jones news release written by Jon Kamp on June 22, 2012, and links to the story began popping up on social media like Facebook.

Then, suddenly, the link to the story no longer worked, and if anyone clicked on the link in social media, it would show up "page not found." Apparently the story had been pulled, and when search engines and Internet archives wouldn't even show it, it looked as if it had never been published on the Journal's site at all. It was erased nearly clean--except for a small stock-watcher's website, 4Traders.com, which did a good job of erasing it from its main site but didn't catch it in the cache.

The question is, why did the WSJ pull the story and try to erase as if it never existed when there were actual court documents for evidence?

Is it possible that an event that occurred on June 25¹—three days after the story broke—could have influenced the story being pulled? On that day, the Wall Street Journal’s "elite" network of CFOs from the world’s top corporations met at the WSJ². Merck is on that executive council³.

My team attempted to connect with the WSJ on this issue, but as of this time, we have not yet received an answer as to why this article was pulled.

Merck Accused of Falsifying Efficacy Studies and Lying about Effectiveness of Mumps Vaccine

Merck has actually been slapped with two class-action lawsuits over their mumps vaccine (which is part of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine). The first, which was initially filed in 2010, was unsealed late last month.

Two former Merck virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, claim they witnessed first-hand the improper testing and falsification of data that was done to hide the fact that the vaccine has significantly declined in effectiveness⁴.

By artificially inflating the efficacy, Merck was able to maintain its monopoly over the mumps vaccine market—and that is the main point of contention of the second class-action lawsuit, filed by Chatom Primary Care⁵.

According to Courthouse News Service⁶:

"Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market... Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim "deterred and excluded competing manufacturers," who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product...

Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly...

That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths, including "manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results," to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result."

How Merck Faked and Manipulated Vaccine Trials to Achieve Desired Results

According to these two lawsuits, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990's to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to "report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy."

According to Krahling and Wlochowski’s complaint, they were threatened with jail were they to alert the FDA to the fraud being committed. The sham testing program was initially referred to as "Protocol 007," the Chatom anti-trust claim states. Suzanne Humphries recently wrote an excellent summary for GreenMedInfo.com⁷, explaining in layman's terms how the tests were manipulated⁸.

Here’s a brief extract. For more, please refer to the original source article:

“For the new testing method, the children’s blood was tested for its ability to neutralize the virus using the vaccine strain virus, instead of the wild type strain that is much more infective, and the one that your children would most likely catch... But still it was not 95% effective. In order to make the blood pass the test, antibodies from rabbits was added. The addition of rabbit antibody increased the efficacy to 100%. But that was not the end, because the test has to be done on pre-vaccine blood and post-vaccine blood.

Just the addition of rabbit antibody made the pre-vaccine blood go from 10% positive to 80% positive and that was such an obvious sign of foul play that yet another manipulation had to be made.

The desired end result is to have very low pre-vaccine antibody and 95% or more post-vaccine efficacy as measured by antibody neutralization. So, yet one more change in procedure was made: The pre-vaccine tests were all redone... According to the Merck scientists, they did this by fabricating the "plaque" counts on the pre-vaccine blood samples, counting plaques that were not there. What this allowed was a mathematical dilution of the pre-vaccine positive blood counts.”

This is a perfect example of how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results, and why it may be wise to question vaccine makers’ study results. Clearly, there needs to be a truly independent review in the mix... As reported by the Courthouse News Service⁹:

“Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred" with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management."

While I do not advocate indiscriminately abstaining from all vaccines, I strongly encourage you to exercise a major dose of due diligence as vaccines can cause serious reactions that can have devastating consequences. I believe in informed consent and the freedom to choose. There can be little doubt anymore that drug companies are in it for the profits, and virtually no price seems too high for them when it comes to protecting their profit-making.

When Words and Deeds Don’t Match, which is Closer to the Truth?

Forbes quoted a Merck spokesman saying¹⁰:

"Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety and effectiveness of our vaccines and medicines and the people who use them.".

Really?

Then WHY did they heavily promote Vioxx and keep it on the market until it had killed more than 60,000 people? I warned my readers that this pain killer might be a real killer for some people, five years before Merck made its $30 billion recall! Five years they let it go, and they undoubtedly would have kept it on the market longer had the lethal dangers not become so shockingly obvious to other scientists.

After Vioxx came the HPV vaccine Gardasil—perhaps the most unnecessary vaccine ever created, and likely one of the most dangerous to boot. Merck claims their main concern is safety, yet ever since Gardasil's approval in 2006, reports of life-altering side effects and sudden deaths of otherwise healthy teenagers have stacked up into the thousands, and Merck has steadfastly refused to acknowledge or address these health risks.

Gardasil appears to have one of the highest risk to benefit ratios of any vaccine on the market, and India even halted Merck's post-licensing trials of the vaccine after four young participants died, yet Merck has the gall to claim that nothing is more important to them than safety. Give me a break... Actions speak louder than words, and Merck has a long paper trail of litigation highlighting the company's questionable ethics.

More Censored News: MMR Vaccine Caused Autism, Italian Court Rules

These two lawsuits couldn't come at a more precarious time for Merck, as the Italian Health Ministry recently conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year old boy. As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy has awarded the family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that the boy "has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR)."

According to The Daily Mail, a British paper¹¹:

"Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family... said it was 'conclusively established' that Valentino had suffered from an 'autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay' and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab. Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: 'This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino.

'It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.'

Claudio Simion, a leading member of the lobby group Association for Freedom of Choice in Vaccination (Comilva), adds: 'The Rimini judgment is vitally important for children everywhere. The numbers with autism are growing. It is a terrible thing that the authorities turn a blind eye to the connection between the MMR vaccination and this illness.'"

This vaccine-news story was not picked up by a single US media outlet when it happened! Why? Could it be because the US government, which is brimming with paid-off industry shills, is hellbent on protecting the vaccination program? Not because it's a marvelous panacea that promotes optimal health and longevity and can be defended with raw facts and first-class science, but because it's a major profit center, both for the vaccine makers and for those whose pockets are lined with Big Pharma bribes.

U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program Also Found to be a Total Flop

In related news, a recent review of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program in the US concluded that the vaccine efficacy had declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. Furthermore, the varicella vaccine has:

• Not proven to be cost-effective
• Increased the incidence of shingles
• Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and
• Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine

The damning news was published in May in the journal Vaccine¹², and lends additional support to the idea that the vaccine program is based on financial interests, not health, as serious side effects are routinely ignored and ineffective and/or harmful products continue to be used.

The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, "CDC authorities still claimed" that no increase had occurred. The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the "rare serious events following varicella vaccination" as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults:

"In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease."

Get Informed Before You Vaccinate Yourself or Your Family

Stories such as these underscore the importance to take control of your own health, and that of your children. It's simply not wise to blindly depend on the information coming directly from the vaccine makers' PR departments, or from federal health officials and agencies that are mired in conflicts of interest with industry...

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks of medical interventions and pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, and have the freedom to refuse if you conclude the benefits do not outweigh the risks for you or your child.

Unfortunately, the business partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is too close and is getting out of hand. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.

We cannot allow that to continue.

It's vitally important to know and exercise your legal rights and to understand your options when it comes to using vaccines and prescription drugs. For example, your doctor is legally obligated to provide you with the CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) sheet and discuss the potential symptoms of side effects of the
vaccination(s) you or your child receive BEFORE vaccination takes place. If someone giving a vaccine does not do this, it is a violation of federal law. Furthermore, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors and other vaccine providers to:

• Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer's name and lot number
• Write down serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination in the patient's permanent medical record
• File an official report of all serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

If a vaccine provider fails to inform, record or report, it is a violation of federal law. It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that you have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you do not want you or your child to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

However, vaccine exemptions are under attack in a number of states, and it's in everyone's best interest to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact.

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Right now, in California, the personal belief exemption is under attack by Pharma-funded medical trade organizations and public health officials trying to get a bill (AB 2109) passed that would require parents to get a medical doctor's signature to file an exemption for personal religious and conscientious beliefs. Watch NVIC's 90-second public service message and learn more about what you can do if you are a California resident.

Internet Resources

To learn more about vaccines, I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
• If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
• Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.
• Vaccine Ingredient Calculator (VIC): Find out just how much aluminum, mercury and other ingredients are in the vaccines your doctor is recommending for you or your child.
• Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) on MedAlerts. Search the government's VAERS database to find out what kinds of vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths have been reported by patients and heath care workers giving vaccines.

Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns

Last but not least, if your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media, if you or your child are threatened.

That said, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate and connect with a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child, and isn't just competing for government incentives designed to increase vaccination rates at any cost.

Related:

U.S. Government & Whistleblowers Sue Merck About Falsely Certified Mumps Vaccine

Italian Court Says MMR VACCINE CAUSES AUTISM!!!

Drug Companies Shift Emphasis to Vaccines

For The Record: Rockefeller Soft Kill Depopulation Plans Exposed

Three Articles For Mass-Distribution: Rockefeller Depopulation Plans Exposed

Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction

In Addition To Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility GM Food for “Widespread Use”

Conclusive: Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the 1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal

Rockefeller Foundation and WHO Continue Collaboration on Sterilizing Vaccines, Implantables

Poison Tap Water Exposed As Soft Kill Weapon

Food and Depopulation: Rockefeller Family

Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction

MSNBC Hard Sell Propaganda for H1N1 Soft Kill Vaccination

Lindsay Lohan Poisoned: Get the Word Out About BPA and Other Soft Kill Weapons

Getting the Kids Ready for Soft Kill Vaccinations: “Mission Set: Immuno”

Dr Mercola: Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive Do-Gooders?

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Popping the Vaccine Bubble

The Drug Story

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG EMPIRE

Anyone, Recall Jane Bergermeister and the Lethal Vaccines??? It’s Back!

PBS Special: UN Ordered Depopulation of 3 Billion People by Food Malnutrition Has Started

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

Alert: Hallmark now distributing vaccine shot compliance cards targeting newborns across America

For Real! State Confiscated Newborn Over Vaccinations

83 percent of brain injury vaccine compensation payouts were for autism caused by vaccines

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

Myth Busted: Vaccinations Are Not Immunizations

Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines

Vaccines: Cooking Up a Witches Brew of Death and Deceit

Vaccines ARE Germ Warfare

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Tells Truth About Government Coverup of Vaccine Dangers

Healthy 7-Year-Old Girl Dies in Her Mother's Arms After Flu Shot

Video: NEW VACCINATION Program_MUST SEE

Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption

Technorati Tags: Big Brother,Big Business,Big Government,Big Pharma,childhood immunizations,childhood vaccines,Dr. Maurice Hilleman,FDA,Merck,Merck Scientist speaks out,Merck Vaccination Dangers,MMRII vaccine,NCVIA,ROCKEFELLER,ROCKEFELLER DRUG EMPIRE,Rockefeller Foundation,vaccines,watch the other hand,MMR,WSJ

References:

---

See All References