crone61's place

Bush Administration Sued for Allowing Continued Use of Four Pesticides

by Jo Hartley

(NaturalNews.com) Environmental and farm worker groups have now sued the Bush administration for allowing the continued use of four pesticides. They claim that the government brushed aside its own evidence that the chemicals are toxic to workers, children, and animals.

The suit challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's 2006 decision to reauthorize the four pesticides used on fruit and vegetable fields in California.

A 1996 federal law required the EPA to reassess the safety of all pesticides used on foods. Based on this reassessment, the EPA was to decide whether to approve their use. The EPA found that four substances posed substantial risks to human health but they concluded that the cost savings to growers outweighed the dangers to humans.

These four pesticides reportedly put thousands of farm workers and their families at risk of serious illness.

EPA spokesman Tim Lyons stated that the agency would review the lawsuit and respond in court. However, they did say: "Our mission is to protect the environment and human health."

California officials have officially classified one of the pesticides (ethoprop) as a carcinogen. The state requires manufacturers to disclose this risk on any product label but cannot outright ban the pesticide because it has the EPA's approval. The suit said the pesticide, which is mainly used on potatoes, sugarcane, and tobacco, has been linked to fish deaths and has also begun to drift from fields into nearby rural communities.

Another pesticide (methidathion) has been listed as an air contaminant by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation due to the potential health hazards associated with it. This chemical is used on artichokes, oranges, almonds, peaches and olives in California.

The other two pesticides are methamidophos (used mostly on potatoes and cotton) and oxydemeton-methyl (used on broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, corn, cabbage and Brussels sprouts). The suit stated that both have been associated with bird deaths. Methamidophos has been banned or severely restricted in several countries in recent years. Oxydemeton-methyl is now linked to birth defects.

The basis for the lawsuit is the EPA's own findings about the risks associated with these four pesticides.

Federal law allows the agency latitude to approve the continued use of risky pesticides such as these based on offsetting benefits. The main benefit preventing the EPA ban of these chemicals is, not surprisingly, cost savings. However, the EPA has failed to address the specific dangers each pesticide poses to children. It has also not taken into adequate account the potential adverse effects on farm workers or to wildlife.

The suit is seeking a court order requiring the agency to re-evaluate once again the use of these pesticides. Plaintiffs in the suit include the United Farm Workers, the Teamsters, Pesticide Action Network North America, Beyond Pesticides and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Hopefully the comments will work on this one.  Have no idea why they don't on the first one, and they have it featured so I can't go in and ferret out the problem.

(found on rense.com)

HPV - The First Cancer Vaccine
Dr. Tim O'Shea

Excerpted from the 11th edition of
The Sanctity of Human Blood By Dr. Tim O'Shea
10 -6-7

It was inevitable. In the post 9/11 marketing frenzy questing for more and more bugs and diseases to make vaccines against, what could be a more promising candidate than the second highest cause of death in the US?

Cancer of the cervix has been on a gradual upswing during the past 3 decades, now affecting some 13,000 American women, 4,000 of whom die. In the 1970s, herpes simplex virus was proposed as a possible cause, but that hypothesis was soon abandoned after epidemiological studies proved inconclusive. In the 1980s the next candidate suggested as the missing link was human papilloma virus. [345]

Before we continue, a word about epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies, also called population studies, are the poor cousin of true clinical trials. They are not controlled studies done under set scientific conditions, but rather attempts at verifying a hypothesis just by counting the incidence of a certain disease or condition within a certain population. The problem is that results from epidemiological studies are subject to widespread interpretation, depending on who's doing the counting, who decides the criteria for what gets counted, who publishes the results, etc. For this reason, epidemiological studies can be used to "prove" two completely divergent hypotheses.

In the exploding vaccine industry today, epidemiological studies are quickly becoming the standard to validate our need for more vaccines, because they're faster, cheaper, and capable of supporting practically any required outcome.

So, once herpes was ruled impossible, the new population studies then proposed human papilloma virus as a cause of cervical cancer. The first problem is that there are over 100 strains of HPV, only 30 of which are even theoretically linked with cervical cancer. [344] In addition, HPV is present in at least half the normal population, [345] almost never causing any disease or problems whatsoever. Indeed, HPV has never been proven as a pathogen for any disease.

HPV AND CANCER

Now in any cancer, we're talking about a normal cell that mutated and then began to make copies of itself, unchecked.  

The creators of the HVP/ cancer myth are pretending that the HPV came along and attacked some normal cells and mutated those cells and caused them to begin replicating themselves out of control - cancer. And that this is happening on a mass scale even though we just discovered it. And worse, that a vaccine can neutralize that type of attack on normal cervix cells.

Scientifically, what they're proposing is ludicrous.

Few scientists have a better grasp of the proposed virus/cancer model than Berkeley's Peter Duesberg PhD. In his scholarly paper tracing the history of the HPV/ cervical cancer story, Duesberg explains why HPV is such an unlikely cause of any cancer:

"no set of viral genes is consistently present or expressed in human cervical cancers. [345] S HPV does not replicate in the cancer cells."

So if the mutated cervical cancer cells are not mutating because of abnormal viral genes being spliced into a normal cell, how else could HPV be causing this cancer? Duesberg again: 

"the "hit-and-run" mechanism of viral carcinogenesis was proposed. It holds that neither the complete [virus], nor even a part of it, needs to be present in the tumor. Obviously, this is an unfalsifiable, but also an unprovable, hypothesis. [345]

All that has ever been shown is that HPV is sometimes present in cervical cancer tissue, but as we know it's also present in half the normal population.

There is a total lack of evidence that cervical cancer appears in women with HPV more often than in women without it. [345] And yet this will be the focus of the vaccine: to pretend to eliminate this ubiquitous virus from the body.

THE NEW HPV VACCINE

The original phrase used by Merck to link HPV with cervical cancer was "there is a strong connection." ([260] p 1964)

How that phrase got transformed to 'is the cause of' in the past two years is more a matter of marketing than of science.

The HPV vaccine had been in the Merck pipeline for years, finally getting FDA approval in 2006. [4] Merck's HPV vaccine is called Gardasil. It has no competition.

What's in it? According to Merck's own data, the vaccine is made from "virus-like particles" from four strains of HPV: Types 5, 11, 16, and 18. ([1] p 1984.) With no clinical studies proving it, Type 16 and 18 are now cited by Merck in the Physicians Desk Reference as the cause of "over 70%" of cervical cancer cases.

The theory is that these virus-like particles will trigger the body to make antibodies that will be able to prevent the full-on natural strains of HPV from getting a foothold. For five years, anyway. That's what Merck is claiming.

The Merck insert for Gardasil makes this unproven flat statement: "HPV causes squamous cell cervical cancer."

We 've already learned above that such is not the case.

The market that Merck decided on was 12 year old girls, the thinking being that since HPV is sexually transmissible, might as well get it at the start. 

Now before we get too ebullient about this newest fad, let's consider objectively what we're being sold here.

EXTRAVAGANT DEMANDS ON CREDIBILITY 

With other vaccines for viral diseases, such as MMR, hepatitis B, and polio, what has never made sense scientifically is that the vaccines do not contain the original wild virus that occurs in nature and supposedly causes the disease. Instead the vaccine contains a manmade mutation of the natural virus, that is then claimed to be able to confer immunity by triggering the body to produce antibodies to the original disease. So that was bad enough. But what they're asking us to believe about HPV is going to far.

All physiology and immunology textbooks describe the triggering of immunoglobulin production as an extremely specific sequence, resulting in extremely specific antibodies. [149] They don't talk about cousins of viruses or particles from viruses able to trigger the precise antibodies to the virus itself. Such a claim is brand new. How could any real immunity come from vaccines like these, even if the viruses were the causative agents of disease?

The second enormous impediment to credibility is that the average age for cervical cancer is 50 years. (Merck Manual p 1964 [260]) But the plan is to mandate Gardasil to 12 years olds. And the manufacturer is only claiming efficacy for 5 years. So using their own statistics, this makes the vaccine worthless in the long run, because by the time most females need immunity, it will have worn off long ago.

A risk factor in cervical cancer that has been clearly established is the lifetime number of sexual partners: the more partners, the more likely the disease. ([260] p 1964) So who has more, 12 year olds or 50 year olds? Even if the vaccine worked, statistically it should be given to women in their mid 40s. Why don't they do that? Here's the reason:

The vaccine's "safety and efficacy not been evaluated over 26"years of age. ([1] p 1987)

Oh, OK. Well, guess we better give it to the young girls then.

Are there any side effects of this new vaccine? Here are some of those cited by the manufacturer:

fever

nausea

pharyngitis

dizziness

NVD

upper respiratory infection

gastroenteritis

appendicitis

PID

bronchospasm

Physicians Desk Reference [1] p 1987

Other side effects discovered later include loss of consciousness, 
156 The Sanctity of Human Blood

loss of vision and seizures. [ 3]

There's a bargain - real side effects in return for unreal immunity.

CARCINOGENICITY 

Can the vaccine itself cause cancer? That's a fair question - we're talking about a vaccine that they're claiming prevents cancer by imitating a pathogen that itself causes cancer, right? So wouldn't we want to be fairly secure that this vaccine wouldn't cause cancer? Here's what the manufacturer states:  

Gardasil .. "S not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or impairment of fertility. ([1] p1986 )

That's great. They want to vaccinate all American 12 year olds with a vaccine for cancer and they don't even know for sure whether or not it causes cancer, or makes the recipients infertile. Yeah, sign my kid up for that one.

Curiously, the HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnancy because of its effects on the fetus [1], but menarche is no problems?

THE TEXAS TWO-STEP

The HPV controversy sank to new levels with the Feb 2007 decision by Texas Governor Rick Perry to "require" the HPV vaccine for all 12 year old girls in Texas. [2] In an unprecedented unilateral move, with no input from either the state legislature or the Texas Medical Board, with no scientific credentials, Perry brashly made this sweeping invasion into the privileged area of parental authority, and then lamely tried to defend his position. Ignoring the utter lack of science behind the vaccine, with complete disregard for vaccine exemption laws that are found in every state, and acting entirely outside the scope of gubernatorial jurisdiction, Perry plays king.  
157  The Sanctity of Human Blood

THE LOVE OF MONEY

Perry must have had the inside track; the vaccine was quietly added to the Mandated Schedule just after Perry's edict. That brought the number of vaccines for American schoolkids to an unprecedented 68.

Even so, such unilateral imprudence and reckless disregard for the normal operation of state government in a public official rings the Follow the Money bell.

Gardasil is a 3 shot series at $360. [2] Perry's financial ties to Merck are a matter of public record. [2]

East Coasters might think, well what can you expect from TexasS But 17 other states prepared to follow suit and initiate similar mandates, even before it was added to the Schedule. [3]

Projected profits from future HPV vaccine sales? 

"The vaccine is expected to reach $1 billion in sales next year, S could make Gardasil Swithin five years, sales of more than $4 billion, according to Wall Street analysts." [4]

FINAL QUESTION

Again, the whole story of HPV vaccine is much more twisted than we're representing here. The reader is invited to follow up on the above cited sources. Never before has such a calculated, systematic misrepresentation of fact been attempted in which data is so obviously manipulated, issues so deliberately obscured, and financial interests so obsequiously served.

Reflecting on the section above, with the uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine, the certainty of the side effects, the prodigious economic upside to global dissemination irrespective of its scientific merits, the absence of long-term studies, and the ludicrous "religious /ethical" media controversy smokescreen designed to distract us from the underlying scientific issues, is this really a vaccine you want to try out on your little girl?

Crackdown means fewer illegal migrants

Tighter security persuades some would-be migrants to give up sooner

The Associated Press

updated 3:40 p.m. ET, Thurs., May. 1, 2008

SASABE, Mexico - The sandy streets of Sasabe are empty. Migrant smugglers have to hunt for business at border-town shelters. Many deported migrants give up after one try, taking their government up on free bus rides home.

A U.S. crackdown is causing the longest and most significant drop in illegal migration from Mexico since the Sept. 11 attacks. Officials say the U.S. economic downturn, tighter security and a more perilous and expensive journey are persuading many who try to sneak into the U.S. to give up sooner.

Border Patrol arrests are down 17 percent so far this year along the U.S.-Mexico border after falling 20 percent all of last fiscal year and 8 percent the year before that. While it's impossible to know how many people are crossing illegally, the Patrol uses apprehensions to estimate the ebb and flow of traffic.

The downturn in illegal immigration has created labor shortages throughout the United States and several states are considering temporary-worker programs, especially in agricultural fields, where produce is going bad.

Mexicans in the U.S. are starting to send less money home, too.

Money being sent back is down
Remittances soared in the early part of the decade to become Mexico's largest source of foreign income after oil exports. But they rose just 1 percent in 2007, reaching $24 billion and in the first quarter this year, they slipped almost 3 percent from the same period last year, Mexico's central bank said this week.

Adolfo Vasquez, a 41-year-old corn farmer from southern Mexico, picked fruit for three years in Washington state. Last year it took him two tries to get to his job. This year, he walked for four nights before U.S. Border Patrol agents caught him. He doesn't plan to try again.

"It's very disheartening because every time it gets twice as difficult," said Vasquez, resting under an aid station tent for deportees in Nogales. "We're going to go to Los Cabos or Tijuana. We hear there is work there."

The number of returned migrants who try again through the heavily traveled desert corridor west of Sasabe has dropped from 80 percent to 40 percent since January, said Border Patrol spokesman Jose Gonzalez. Agents keep fingerprints on all those apprehended and can determine multiple offenders, even if they give false names.

U.S. authorities attribute the drop to tighter security and a new program in the Tucson sector that has prosecuted more than 3,000 migrants for crossing illegally since it started in January. They face jail sentences from a few days to six months.

But none of the migrants interviewed by The Associated Press knew about the new prosecution program. Those on their way home said the main deterrents were tougher security and the dangers of the desert, including bandits who rob and even rape migrants on both sides of the border.

More border security
The U.S. Border Patrol has added 200 officers since last year to the Tucson sector, and a total of 3,000 agents now search the vast desert for illegal migrants by truck, horse, ATV and helicopter. They now have four drones scanning for drug and migrant smugglers, as well as two newly built 12-foot walls with steel posts near Nogales and in Sasabe.

At the same time, Mexican drug smugglers have started to collect fees for access to the main routes into Arizona.

As a result, Grupo Beta, the Mexican government's migrant rescue group, has seen a 257 percent increase in the number of people seeking discounted bus tickets home this year. So far, 2,500 people in Nogales and Sasabe asked for the tickets this year, while Grupo Beta had only 700 requests in all of 2007.

"We can't keep up with so many people who are heading back," said Enrique Enriquez, coordinator for Grupo Beta in Nogales. He said his rescuers spend the day shuttling migrants to a bus station.

Maria Fernandez, 25, made her first crossing with her husband after both had been laid off from a department store in Puebla state. Friends in New York offered to help them find work. First they traveled to Altar, a farming town 70 miles south of Sasabe, a major gathering point for those heading to Arizona.

There, they had to pay about $50 so drug smugglers would allow them to travel the bumpy road north, and another $30 for a van that took them and another 25 migrants to Sasabe.

They walked for four nights through the mesquite-covered desert, where they were robbed once. They hid from Border Patrol agents at least five times. But when they reached the highway where they would meet their next ride, they were spotted by a helicopter.

Now, Fernandez was waiting in Nogales for her husband to be deported, as she had been.

"I won't try again because it's very difficult and, as a woman, one risks a lot," she said.

The crackdown has made smugglers more desperate to recruit clients for the trip north. If fewer people cross, their earnings drop.

Smugglers losing money
Francisco Loureiro, who runs a migrant shelter in Nogales, said that when migrants began arriving in January, the start of the high season, he spotted smugglers trying to drum up business inside his shelter.

Now, local police visit the shelter three times a night.

"The officers have found smugglers carrying guns and even drugs," Loureiro said.

During earlier peak traffic seasons, overflowing vans and pickups would arrive in Sasabe and then head out to the drop-off points where migrants begin their long walk. The town of 1,500 people could see its population triple from migrants passing through.

Now businesses are closing and at least six safe houses and hotels have been left unfinished, said town administrator Ramona Flores. Border experts estimate that 70 percent of residents earn their living from migration.

On a recent afternoon, only eight men waited for their smuggler near a pile of smashed and rusting cars.

"We're supposed to be in high season, but in one day the most we've seen is between 300 and 400 migrants," Flores said.

Juan Luna, a 39-year-old bricklayer from Guanajuato state, said he was heading to Oklahoma, where he would work as a dishwasher at a restaurant. But after two nights of walking through the desert, he and five others from his town were caught.

"The United States is where those without resources go," Luna said at the Nogales bus station, where he was waiting to return home. "That was a little door we still had open. But they are closing it, and now we don't know what we will do."

Though awash in water, Vermont set to protect springs

By Tom A. Peter
Tue Apr 29, 4:00 AM ET
 
With Lake Champlain, snowy peaks, and 40 inches of rain a year, the Green Mountain State isn't exactly parched. But don't tell that to Annette Smith.
 
Six years ago, a mining company pumped 2.7 million gallons of water from an underground well near her Danby, Vt., home. The local springs were so dry she had to spend more than $4,000 to dig a new well. When water eventually returned to the springs, the levels weren't what they once were, she says.

Such episodes have Vermonters so worried about unregulated water withdrawals that on Friday the state legislature passed a bill that establishes a water-permit requirement.

There's just one problem.

Several local bottled water companies and manufacturers worry that the new measure will boost costs and delay sales. While the measure has won praise from environmentalists, some analysts say it could violate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by unfairly restraining international trade.

"We're concerned that this going to add an undue cost to businesses currently in Vermont who want to expand operations," says William Driscoll, vice president of the Associated Industries of Vermont. "We're also worried about discouraging new businesses from coming to Vermont."

He estimates that the new bill would increase permit costs by 50 to 100 percent. Depending on the site, he says, a permit could cost from $20,000 to $100,000, even $200,000 in select cases.

Declaring groundwater to be a public trust, the bill aims to prevent corporations from taking more than their fair share. Enterprises withdrawing more than 57,600 gallons of water a day must now obtain a permit. (Most farms are exempt.) Gov. Jim Douglas (R) is expected to sign the measure.

"We wanted to protect our groundwater for the next several generations," says state Sen. Virginia Lyons (D), chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee. "If we don't have any protections, then an international company could come in and begin to extract water and take [it] without regard for the amount of resources available."

At least one Canadian bottled water company already pumps water out of Vermont, bottles it in New Hampshire, and sells it around the country, a sore spot among many locals.

"It really is commercializing and making a commodity of something that is really a staple for all of us," says Carolyn Shapiro, an East Montpelier artist who lives near a proposed bottled water site.

While Vermont is not the first state to enact such groundwater legislation, its measure is unusual because it avoids grandfathering large numbers of groundwater users – something that has created problems in other states. Despite more than 20 years of regulation in Massachusetts, for example, an estimated 160 streams struggle to support fish and other aquatic life: Groundwater withdrawals have lowered water levels, says Kirt Mayland, director of the Eastern Water Project for Trout Unlimited, a conservation agency based in Arlington, Va.

"It's hard to overemphasize the importance of getting ahead of this problem before it's created, because trying to fix it once it's already out there is extremely difficult," says Mr. Mayland. "And from an environmental standpoint, it's almost too late because the damage has been done in a lot of these streams."

The legislation is a "good first step," says Ms. Smith, the Danby resident who also heads Vermonters for a Clean Environment. But she'd like a stronger law. "A permit is usually a permit to pollute or a permit to in some way degrade the resource," she says. "A regulatory program that permits the extraction of large withdrawals of groundwater is not necessarily one that protects the resource."

On the other side, analysts say if Vermont's permit process disrupts international companies' operations, they may challenge it on the grounds that it violates NAFTA by interrupting trade.

Senator Lyons, however, doubts this will be a problem because domestic and international companies must meet the same requirements.

(found on rense.com)

HPV - The First Cancer Vaccine
Dr. Tim O'Shea

Excerpted from the 11th edition of
The Sanctity of Human Blood By Dr. Tim O'Shea
10 -6-7

It was inevitable. In the post 9/11 marketing frenzy questing for more and more bugs and diseases to make vaccines against, what could be a more promising candidate than the second highest cause of death in the US?

Cancer of the cervix has been on a gradual upswing during the past 3 decades, now affecting some 13,000 American women, 4,000 of whom die. In the 1970s, herpes simplex virus was proposed as a possible cause, but that hypothesis was soon abandoned after epidemiological studies proved inconclusive. In the 1980s the next candidate suggested as the missing link was human papilloma virus. [345]

Before we continue, a word about epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies, also called population studies, are the poor cousin of true clinical trials. They are not controlled studies done under set scientific conditions, but rather attempts at verifying a hypothesis just by counting the incidence of a certain disease or condition within a certain population. The problem is that results from epidemiological studies are subject to widespread interpretation, depending on who's doing the counting, who decides the criteria for what gets counted, who publishes the results, etc. For this reason, epidemiological studies can be used to "prove" two completely divergent hypotheses.

In the exploding vaccine industry today, epidemiological studies are quickly becoming the standard to validate our need for more vaccines, because they're faster, cheaper, and capable of supporting practically any required outcome.

So, once herpes was ruled impossible, the new population studies then proposed human papilloma virus as a cause of cervical cancer. The first problem is that there are over 100 strains of HPV, only 30 of which are even theoretically linked with cervical cancer. [344] In addition, HPV is present in at least half the normal population, [345] almost never causing any disease or problems whatsoever. Indeed, HPV has never been proven as a pathogen for any disease.

HPV AND CANCER

Now in any cancer, we're talking about a normal cell that mutated and then began to make copies of itself, unchecked.  

The creators of the HVP/ cancer myth are pretending that the HPV came along and attacked some normal cells and mutated those cells and caused them to begin replicating themselves out of control - cancer. And that this is happening on a mass scale even though we just discovered it. And worse, that a vaccine can neutralize that type of attack on normal cervix cells.

Scientifically, what they're proposing is ludicrous.

Few scientists have a better grasp of the proposed virus/cancer model than Berkeley's Peter Duesberg PhD. In his scholarly paper tracing the history of the HPV/ cervical cancer story, Duesberg explains why HPV is such an unlikely cause of any cancer:

"no set of viral genes is consistently present or expressed in human cervical cancers. [345] S HPV does not replicate in the cancer cells."

So if the mutated cervical cancer cells are not mutating because of abnormal viral genes being spliced into a normal cell, how else could HPV be causing this cancer? Duesberg again: 

"the "hit-and-run" mechanism of viral carcinogenesis was proposed. It holds that neither the complete [virus], nor even a part of it, needs to be present in the tumor. Obviously, this is an unfalsifiable, but also an unprovable, hypothesis. [345]

All that has ever been shown is that HPV is sometimes present in cervical cancer tissue, but as we know it's also present in half the normal population.

There is a total lack of evidence that cervical cancer appears in women with HPV more often than in women without it. [345] And yet this will be the focus of the vaccine: to pretend to eliminate this ubiquitous virus from the body.

THE NEW HPV VACCINE

The original phrase used by Merck to link HPV with cervical cancer was "there is a strong connection." ([260] p 1964)

How that phrase got transformed to 'is the cause of' in the past two years is more a matter of marketing than of science.

The HPV vaccine had been in the Merck pipeline for years, finally getting FDA approval in 2006. [4] Merck's HPV vaccine is called Gardasil. It has no competition.

What's in it? According to Merck's own data, the vaccine is made from "virus-like particles" from four strains of HPV: Types 5, 11, 16, and 18. ([1] p 1984.) With no clinical studies proving it, Type 16 and 18 are now cited by Merck in the Physicians Desk Reference as the cause of "over 70%" of cervical cancer cases.

The theory is that these virus-like particles will trigger the body to make antibodies that will be able to prevent the full-on natural strains of HPV from getting a foothold. For five years, anyway. That's what Merck is claiming.

The Merck insert for Gardasil makes this unproven flat statement: "HPV causes squamous cell cervical cancer."

We 've already learned above that such is not the case.

The market that Merck decided on was 12 year old girls, the thinking being that since HPV is sexually transmissible, might as well get it at the start. 

Now before we get too ebullient about this newest fad, let's consider objectively what we're being sold here.

EXTRAVAGANT DEMANDS ON CREDIBILITY 

With other vaccines for viral diseases, such as MMR, hepatitis B, and polio, what has never made sense scientifically is that the vaccines do not contain the original wild virus that occurs in nature and supposedly causes the disease. Instead the vaccine contains a manmade mutation of the natural virus, that is then claimed to be able to confer immunity by triggering the body to produce antibodies to the original disease. So that was bad enough. But what they're asking us to believe about HPV is going to far.

All physiology and immunology textbooks describe the triggering of immunoglobulin production as an extremely specific sequence, resulting in extremely specific antibodies. [149] They don't talk about cousins of viruses or particles from viruses able to trigger the precise antibodies to the virus itself. Such a claim is brand new. How could any real immunity come from vaccines like these, even if the viruses were the causative agents of disease?

The second enormous impediment to credibility is that the average age for cervical cancer is 50 years. (Merck Manual p 1964 [260]) But the plan is to mandate Gardasil to 12 years olds. And the manufacturer is only claiming efficacy for 5 years. So using their own statistics, this makes the vaccine worthless in the long run, because by the time most females need immunity, it will have worn off long ago.

A risk factor in cervical cancer that has been clearly established is the lifetime number of sexual partners: the more partners, the more likely the disease. ([260] p 1964) So who has more, 12 year olds or 50 year olds? Even if the vaccine worked, statistically it should be given to women in their mid 40s. Why don't they do that? Here's the reason:

The vaccine's "safety and efficacy not been evaluated over 26"years of age. ([1] p 1987)

Oh, OK. Well, guess we better give it to the young girls then.

Are there any side effects of this new vaccine? Here are some of those cited by the manufacturer:

fever

nausea

pharyngitis

dizziness

NVD

upper respiratory infection

gastroenteritis

appendicitis

PID

bronchospasm

Physicians Desk Reference [1] p 1987

Other side effects discovered later include loss of consciousness, 
156 The Sanctity of Human Blood

loss of vision and seizures. [ 3]

There's a bargain - real side effects in return for unreal immunity.

CARCINOGENICITY 

Can the vaccine itself cause cancer? That's a fair question - we're talking about a vaccine that they're claiming prevents cancer by imitating a pathogen that itself causes cancer, right? So wouldn't we want to be fairly secure that this vaccine wouldn't cause cancer? Here's what the manufacturer states:  

Gardasil .. "S not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or impairment of fertility. ([1] p1986 )

That's great. They want to vaccinate all American 12 year olds with a vaccine for cancer and they don't even know for sure whether or not it causes cancer, or makes the recipients infertile. Yeah, sign my kid up for that one.

Curiously, the HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnancy because of its effects on the fetus [1], but menarche is no problems?

THE TEXAS TWO-STEP

The HPV controversy sank to new levels with the Feb 2007 decision by Texas Governor Rick Perry to "require" the HPV vaccine for all 12 year old girls in Texas. [2] In an unprecedented unilateral move, with no input from either the state legislature or the Texas Medical Board, with no scientific credentials, Perry brashly made this sweeping invasion into the privileged area of parental authority, and then lamely tried to defend his position. Ignoring the utter lack of science behind the vaccine, with complete disregard for vaccine exemption laws that are found in every state, and acting entirely outside the scope of gubernatorial jurisdiction, Perry plays king.  
157  The Sanctity of Human Blood

THE LOVE OF MONEY

Perry must have had the inside track; the vaccine was quietly added to the Mandated Schedule just after Perry's edict. That brought the number of vaccines for American schoolkids to an unprecedented 68.

Even so, such unilateral imprudence and reckless disregard for the normal operation of state government in a public official rings the Follow the Money bell.

Gardasil is a 3 shot series at $360. [2] Perry's financial ties to Merck are a matter of public record. [2]

East Coasters might think, well what can you expect from TexasS But 17 other states prepared to follow suit and initiate similar mandates, even before it was added to the Schedule. [3]

Projected profits from future HPV vaccine sales? 

"The vaccine is expected to reach $1 billion in sales next year, S could make Gardasil Swithin five years, sales of more than $4 billion, according to Wall Street analysts." [4]

FINAL QUESTION

Again, the whole story of HPV vaccine is much more twisted than we're representing here. The reader is invited to follow up on the above cited sources. Never before has such a calculated, systematic misrepresentation of fact been attempted in which data is so obviously manipulated, issues so deliberately obscured, and financial interests so obsequiously served.

Reflecting on the section above, with the uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine, the certainty of the side effects, the prodigious economic upside to global dissemination irrespective of its scientific merits, the absence of long-term studies, and the ludicrous "religious /ethical" media controversy smokescreen designed to distract us from the underlying scientific issues, is this really a vaccine you want to try out on your little girl?

Beltane is from sunset April 30th to sunset May 1st.

It will soon be time to don your ankle bells (to ward off the fairy folk) and dance the brightly colored May Pole.  Also, don't forget to decorate your baskets and fill them with useful items before you secretly leave them on a needy or deserving person's step.

For those who worship God/dess, this is the time of the May Queen, Stag Lord, Jack-in-the-Green and the Green Man.

Those of you wishing to add to your family, this is a time of fertility and festival.

Make sure you have your frankincense, roses, lemon balm, lemon thyme, quartz crystal, sunstone, orange calcite and malachite.

Remember, flowers and bright colors are called for this day.

May your fires burn strong and bright through the night.

Many blessings to all.

FDA reviewing plastic ingredient BPA

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

The Food and Drug Administration is reconsidering the safety of a hormone-like chemical, bisphenol A, or BPA, commonly found in baby bottles and infant formula cans.

FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach launched the review after the National Toxicology Program's April 15 report suggesting that BPA may alter human development. Days later, Canada declared the chemical toxic and proposed banning it.

The FDA isn't recommending people stop using BPA, says Laura Tarantino, director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety. But the agency will take another look at the safety of baby bottles, formula cans and other products made with BPA, which has been shown to leach into food. Depending on their findings, she says, the agency could require changes in the way these products are made or the amount of BPA that's allowed to be used.

The review is being welcomed both by industry and environmentalists.

Rep. John Dingell and Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrats and leaders of the energy and commerce committee, have been investigating the FDA's handling of BPA. They called for a new safety check after the toxicology program's report, which expressed "some concern" that low levels of BPA cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, breast and the age at which girls enter puberty.

Scientists don't have much evidence about how BPA affects people. But environmental organizations such as the Environmental Working Group note that 100 studies have found harmful effects in animals at very low levels. Many researchers are concerned that BPA, which acts like the female hormone estrogen, causes profound effects on animals in low doses, especially during pregnancy and infancy. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found BPA in 95% of Americans tested.

Dingell and Stupak say the FDA ignored that research last July when the agency determined that BPA is safe in the amounts to which Americans are now exposed. In a letter to Dingell and Stupak, the FDA says it based its conclusions on two reports funded by the American Plastics Council, an industry group.

"There is a wealth of scientific information available about the safety and health effects of Bisphenol A, yet FDA seems to have relied exclusively on two industry funded studies, one of which has not even been made available to the public for review," Dingell said in a statement. "This raises serious concerns about whether the science FDA relied on to approve the use of bisphenol A was bought and paid for by industry."

Dingell says he plans to watch the FDA closely during the new review.

Tarantino says the FDA has always considered all of the evidence about BPA. When setting a safe exposure level, though, the FDA drew on the industry studies because they were large and designed to answer specific questions about how much BPA is safe to consume, she says.

In its new review, the FDA will include the toxicology program report, the Canadian study and other recent publications, Tarantino says.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who also has been investigating the safety of BPA, praised the toxicology program for bringing the chemical's risks to light.

"The FDA needs to act quickly and undertake a thorough review so that the public — and especially infants — are protected," Waxman said in a statement.

Sarah Janssen, science fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, says the FDA should let the public know who attends its meetings and which scientific studies are included.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, says the FDA should clear up the fear and confusion about BPA, which it says has been safely used for decades. A new FDA statement, the council says, will "help explain the extensive scientific review that has already been conducted."

by Deborah Williamson 

(NaturalNews) How do you feel when you wake up in the morning? Do you wish you had restored vitality, a strong libido, more mental clarity, clearer skin, reduced weight, a stronger immune system and looked and felt healthier in every aspect of your being? Do you have symptoms such as unexplained fatigue, depression, lack of libido, sluggish elimination, irritated skin, allergies or low-grade infections, a distended stomach, menstrual difficulties and mental confusion? Have you ever considered that with a little effort you could reverse the signs of ageing?

Total body purification is a process that assists the body with battling the build up of toxins and poisons and helping it create a balance. Purification can open a door to optimal health and vitality, one which is oriented toward maximizing one's individual potential. First and foremost its a choice that allows us an opportunity to assume responsibility for the quality of our own "wellness" and make the conscious decision to accept a healthy lifestyle.

In addition to encountering highly stressful lives, our bodies are continually bombarded with over-processed foods and unhealthy fats that many of us eat, sugary and caffeinated liquids we drink and polluted air that we breathe. These poor habits can easily abuse the delicate working systems of our bodies and inhibit our systems' purification and evacuation pathways. This can then lead to the development of symptoms, such as hormonal problems, depression, fatigue, headaches, infections, digestive problems, loss of libido, allergies and muscular aches and pains. There is also overwhelming evidence that internal toxins and poisons, left to their own devices, can initiate cancer and other serious terminal and debilitating diseases that plague our 'modern' society.

Toxins and poisons can undermine our health and weaken our body's immune system, leaving us defenceless. At some point -- let's call it the "saturation point" -- our bodies begin to outwardly show the effects. It's usually at this time that we seek medical advice so we can label what's happening to us by giving our malady a name. We are generally prescribed drugs which have been tried and tested to cure our symptoms, but not the underlining cause of our ill health.

Purification is the natural process of neutralising and eliminating toxins and poisons from our bodies, which is essential for the maintenance of optimum health and vitality. Purification is therefore the single most powerful tool we can use to prevent and reverse ill health and disease. Along with personally-empowered wellness, you can provide yourself with an alternative to dependency on doctors and drugs, to complacency, to mediocrity, to self-pity, to boredom and to slothfulness.

Many wellness promoters see wellness as a philosophy that embraces many principles for good health and long life. To be well is to have empowerment, to take control of one's life and to walk the middle line; balance in all things in life is the key to contentment. Personal wellbeing is a mindset, a predisposition to adopting a series of key principles in various aspects of life that lead to high levels of optimal health and vitality in all areas of life. Personally-empowered wellness, however, is multidimensional, centred on personal responsibility and environmental awareness.

So how do we even begin to think about personal wellness amidst all the demands of our modern day lifestyles? We all know where to go if we are sick, but where do we go to get well? These days the "educated wellness seeker" is searching for luxury spa destinations that are able to offer wellness programs, which educate, motive and facilitate their purification journey.

Such is the power of purification that when combined with simple healthy dietary changes, exercise, spa treatments, yoga, meditation and a desire to achieve better health the opportunity to find optimum health and vitality is overwhelming. Many things that were previously thought to be impossible have recently become possible.

During a purification program, you can produce quite dramatic results. Given the opportunity, our bodies can develop new found energy levels, improved sleep patterns, a sense of peace and decreased bloating or fluid retention. We also have the opportunity to shed excess weight, leaving us with fewer aches and pains, more mental clarity and a real boost for our libidos.

The purification process leaves one feeling rejuvenated on all levels; it's a re-programming of our mental and physical systems. The beauty of a contemporary purification program is that it addresses the very core of our health problems, rather than just suppressing our symptoms.

If you elect to start today and empower yourself to make healthy lifestyle changes, you'll find yourself on the pathway to optimum health and vitality which lasts well into your autumn years. It's never too late to start a wellness lifestyle; it is open to all ages, all religions, people across the globe and it truly is a multicultural experience.

 by Jo Hartley

(NaturalNews) Most people are unaware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the 20th century. Raw milk - straight from the cow - has been called the "stem cell" of foods. It was used as medicine to treat, and many times cure, some serious diseases. From the time of Hippocrates until just after World War II, this miracle liquid nourished and healed millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a completely balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to.

Raw milk ingredients that make it such a powerful food:

Proteins

Raw cow's milk has all 20 of the standard amino acids, which saves our bodies the work of having to convert any into usable form. About 80% of the proteins in milk are caseins (reasonably heat stable but easy to digest). The other 20% fall into the class of whey proteins. These are also easy to digest, but also very heat sensitive.

The immunoglobulins are an extremely complex class of milk proteins also known as antibodies. These provide resistance to many viruses, bacteria and bacterial toxins and may also help reduce the severity of asthma symptoms. Research has shown a significant loss of these important disease fighters when milk is pasteurized.

Carbohydrates

Lactose is the primary carbohydrate in cow's milk. It is made from one molecule each of the simple sugars glucose and galactose. People with lactose intolerance do not make the enzyme lactase and so cannot digest milk sugar. Raw milk has its lactose-digesting Lactobacilli bacteria intact. This may allow people who traditionally have avoided milk to drink raw milk.

Fats

About two thirds of the fat in milk is saturated. Saturated fats play a number of important roles in our bodies. They construct cell membranes and key hormones, they provide energy storage and padding for delicate organs, and they serve as a vehicle for important fat-soluble vitamins.

Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) is abundant in milk from pastured cows. This is a heavily studied, polyunsaturated Omega-6 fatty acid that has promising health benefits. Some of CLA's many possible benefits are (1) it raises metabolic rates; (2) it helps remove abdominal fat; (3) it boosts muscle growth; (4) it reduces resistance to insulin; and (5) it strengthens the immune system and lowers food allergy reactions. Grass-fed raw milk has 3-5 times more CLAs than the milk from feed-lot cows.

Vitamins

Whole raw milk has both water and fat soluble vitamins. No enriching is necessary. It's a complete food. Pasteurized milk must have the destroyed components added back in, especially the fat soluble vitamins A and D.

Minerals

Raw milk contains a broad selection of minerals ranging from calcium and phosphorus to trace elements.

Calcium is abundant in raw milk. Its benefits include a reduction of some cancers, particularly colon; higher bone density in people of all ages; lower risk of osteoporosis in older adults; lowered risk of kidney stones; the formation of strong teeth; as well as a reduction of dental cavities.

An interesting fact about minerals as nutrients is the special balance they require with other minerals to function properly. For example, calcium needs a proper ratio of phosphorus and magnesium to be properly utilized by our bodies. Raw milk is in perfect balance.

Enzymes

The 60 functional enzymes in raw milk have an amazing assortment of jobs to perform. Some of them are native to milk and some come from beneficial bacteria growing in raw milk. When we eat food that contains enzymes devoted to its own digestion, it's less work for our pancreas. Other enzymes, like catalase, lysozyme and lactoperoxidase help to protect milk from unwanted bacterial infection, making it safer for us to drink.

Cholesterol

Milk contains about 3mg of cholesterol per gram. Our bodies make most of the cholesterol we need. This amount fluctuates by what we get from our food. Cholesterol is a repair substance. It is a waxy plant steroid that our body uses as a form of water-proofing and as a building block for key hormones.

Beneficial Bacteria

Raw milk is a living food with amazing self-protective properties. As most food goes bad as it ages, raw milk gets better. From helpful bacterial fermentation, the digestibility of enzymes, vitamins, and minerals all increases.

Today, the demand for raw milk from pasture-fed cattle is growing as word spreads of the tremendous health benefits of drinking raw milk. Those who want information can go to the following websites:

(www.realmilk.com)

(www.westonaprice.org)

Sales of raw milk are currently legal in 28 out of 50 US states. Specific information for each state can be found here: (http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html).

The HPV Vaccine: Herd Immunity or Human Sacrifice?

by Joanne Waldron  

(NaturalNews) Reports of adverse reactions to the new HPV vaccine are escalating. One particularly heart-wrenching example is the story of an active 12-year-old little girl named Brittany who recently lost all feeling in her leg and collapsed two weeks after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. Although she once had dreams of earning an athletic scholarship, she now struggles to hobble around each day with the aid of braces and a walker, First Coast News reports. According to the article, she has been diagnosed with Acute Demyelinating Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), a condition characterized by inflammation of the brain and associated with the vaccination ((http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/loca...) .

Like many other parents, this girl's mother had no idea that this kind of reaction to the vaccine was possible and never would've allowed her daughter to receive it had she been made aware of this. To add insult to injury, people who are injured by the vaccine cannot even sue Merck, the maker of the Gardasil vaccine, because the vaccine is part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund. Unfortunately, the only recourse for those injured by this vaccine is to file a claim with the government. Translation: compensation of the victims becomes the responsibility of taxpayers.

While the FDA may claim that adverse reactions to this vaccine are rare, a review of the U.S.'s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data shows that thousands and thousands of adverse reactions have been reported in the United States alone ((http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfi...) . Girls from other countries have been injured by this vaccine, as well. Hundreds of Australian girls have experienced side effects like paralysis, dizzy spells and seizures, but Australia's Department of Health and Ageing won't release any of the details ((http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22...) . According to LifeSiteNews, The European Medicines Agency reports that there were two more women who died not long after they received the vaccine, one in Austria and one in Germany ((http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/ja...) . The Financial Times reports that there have been eleven deaths and a wide array of other adverse reactions, including Bells Palsy, Guillan-Barre syndrome, seizures, blood clotting, heart problems, and even miscarriages and fetal abnormalities amongst pregnant women who received the vaccine ((http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/728046c4-e15b...) .

Many doctors are not recommending this vaccine, because in addition to the serious adverse reactions and deaths that have been reported, they have concerns about the vaccine's long-term safety and efficacy. In her well-written book called The Parents' Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations, Dr. Lauren Feder notes that the pain that many girls experience after the shot is probably due to the aluminum adjuvants in the vaccine. She also cautions that the vaccine contains polysorbate 80, a substance linked to infertility in mice. After some deliberation, it was her opinion that the vaccine had more risks than benefits.

One vaccine researcher, Diane M. Harper, a physician and someone who has spent twenty years on the development of the HPV vaccine, has publicly stated through a KPC News report that giving this vaccine to young girls is a "great big public health experiment," as this vaccine's safety and efficacy for young girls is unknown ((http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2007/03...) . She notes that HPV is a skin infection and can be spread in ways other than sex, and it's quite possible that tiny girls have already been exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine which would render the vaccine ineffective. She thinks the vaccine should only be offered to women 18 and older, and only if they have first tested negative for the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine. Of course, testing tiny girls with a vaginal swab to see if they've already been exposed would be wholly inappropriate. Harper has many other concerns, as outlined in the news report, but she is having trouble getting her views heard through mainstream media. Another concern voiced by Harper and many other doctors is that even if someone gets the HPV vaccine, regular pap smears are still needed, as the vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV.

The reason many doctors like this vaccine is because HPV can cause cervical cancer. According to the CDC, certain types of HPV can cause genital warts, and certain types of HPV can cause cervical and other cancers (http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm) . The types of HPV that can cause genital warts are considered low-risk and are not the same as the types that cause cancer. Again, genital warts will not turn into cancer. However, the CDC reports that in 90% of all cases of HPV, including both the wart-causing and the cancer-causing varieties, the body's immune system will clear the infection naturally within two years. In fact, the CDC maintains that most people who contract HPV will not have any symptoms at all.

But just how common is cervical cancer in the United States? To answer this question, it is useful to look at some statistics that Kaiser has posted on its website concerning the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States ((http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compare...) . The statistics are available by state and by ethnicity. For example, in the state of Maryland, 9.3 out of every 100,000 women contracted cervical cancer in 2003. Without considering any of the personal risk factors (like cervical cancer in the family), the general risk for someone living in Maryland would be 9.3/100000 or .0093% chance of contracting this disease. It is important to note that many people have pre-cancerous lesions that are treated by their doctors and that data is not reflected here. However, generally speaking, assuming that a woman gets regular pap smears, the risk for developing cervical cancer seems relatively small. Using the state of Maryland as an example again, according to the statistics provided by Kaiser, only 2.5 out of every 100,000 women or .0025% actually died from cervical cancer in the state of Maryland in 2004.

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 80% of all cervical cancer deaths happen in developing countries ((http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rel...) . The remaining deaths from cervical cancer are divided amongst all of the other developed nations. However, there is currently a big push in the United States for girls to have this vaccine. According to CorpWatch.org, Merck even lobbied to make the vaccine mandatory (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401
) . Given that each course of the vaccine would cost hundreds of dollars, Merck would stand to make billions if this vaccine were required for all young girls. After all of Merck's problems with its Vioxx drug that was taken off the market, this vaccine would certainly allow Merck to recoup its losses.

For all of these reasons and many more, parents naturally have grave concerns about this vaccine. Even girls who receive the HPV vaccine still need regular pap smears, because 30% of cervical cancers won't be prevented by this vaccine (and that's assuming the vaccine works all the time for the other types). Numerous doctors have also pointed out that just because a vaccine may seem to prevent precursor lesions from developing doesn't mean it will prevent cervical cancer –- this, along with many other long-term variables concerning the vaccine, won't be known for many years.

Given all of the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine and even the possibility of death, one has to question if young girls should be given a vaccine whose long-term effects are unknown in a country where women have good access to medical care and are able to get regular pap smears. This whole vaccine mentality is eerily reminiscent of the story told in Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring," which recounts the tale of a young maiden being sacrificed in pagan Russia as an offering to the gods in order to have abundant crops. Is the suffering and possible death of some girls for the purpose of "herd immunity" really worth it? Go ask Brittany.

American College of Physicians Endorses Medical Marijuana

by Adam Miller  

(NaturalNews) Transcending political controversy and stigma surrounding the subject, the second largest physician group in the country has endorsed the use, reclassification, and further study of medicinal marijuana. In a position paper issued February 14th, the American College of Physicians (ACP) makes the case that the red tape surrounding the medical use of cannabis has obscured good science for too long.

Several states including California have opened the door for legal use of medical marijuana, but this stands in opposition to the federal government's Schedule I classification of the plant. This discontinuity has led to legal obfuscation and obscurity as to what really is legal. Schedule I is a term used to describe drugs such as LSD and heroin, and translates to a substance having "no accepted medical use and being unsafe for use even under medical supervision."

With their newly defined position, ACP now joins the ranks of dozens of other national medical groups urging an ease on cannabis regulation in the face of what many consider overwhelming scientific evidence of its medicinal usefulness. "ACP urges review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance and reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions," the paper states.

Supporters hope that this will be the long-awaited nudge needed to tip the American Medical Association (AMA) in favor of reclassification and legal protection for medical use of the drug. The AMA urges further research, but so far it does not support reclassification of the Schedule I substance.

To date, the most serious argument for potential damage done by cannabis is harm to the lungs caused by smoking. The paper notes that this problem has already been overcome by a technology known as vaporization, in which the active constituents are efficiently released into the lungs without burning the plant.

Another myth dispelled by the paper is that marijuana acts as a 'gateway drug,' leading to the use of more harmful substances. "Marijuana has not been proven to be the cause or even the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse. Opiates are highly addictive, yet medically effective ... There is no evidence to suggest that medical use of opiates has increased perception that their illicit use is safe or acceptable," the group states.

The paper also cites significant evidence that cannabis relieves the nausea, vomiting and wasting that accompany cancer, AIDS and other diseases, while lessening the pain associated with multiple sclerosis and many other conditions.

Calling for further research, ACP points out that the period of validation has passed in more heavily researched areas. In these cases, the group makes clear their position that the time has come to roll out trials designed to determine proper dosage and method of delivery -- a step currently being stonewalled by the drug's legal classification.

The position paper can be found in pdf format at (http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/medmarinews.htm<
/a>).

Widespread Ghostwriting of Drug Trials Means "Scientific" Credibility of Pharmaceutical Industry is a Sham by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The discovery that drug companies have been ghostwriting scientific studies using in-house writers, then paying (bribing) doctors and high-level academics to pretend they were the author of the article is making shockwaves across conventional medicine. This latest revelation of scientific fraud exposes a massive, widespread system of fraud involving not only the drug companies, but also hundreds of different peer-reviewed, "scientific" medical journals that have published these ghostwritten articles. This scam is the latest embarrassment to conventional medicine; a system built on such a foundation of scientific fraud that the admission of dishonesty no longer surprises anyone. The pharmaceutical industry, it seems, is now supported almost entirely by fraudulent science fabricated by marketing personnel.

Remember, it is these studies -- the very ones now discovered to be ghostwritten by Big Pharma's in-house authors -- that the FDA uses to approve these drugs, unleashing them onto the public where potentially hundreds of millions of doses of the drug may be sold in just the first few years of its approval. But what we're learning now is that the whole system is an elaborate scam. For these studies, there's no real science involved at all.

To back this up, let me explain how this scam works in seven simple steps:

Step 1: A drug company runs an in-house study (using fraudulent study design from the start) to "prove" that their drug is both safe and effective. If the study produces negative results, it is thrown out. If it produces positive results, proceed to step 2.

Step 2: That same drug company use