Steven Gaal Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) EVAN BURTON 5,033 posts Gender:Male Location:NSW, Australia Posted Today, 08:54 AM *yawn* +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE ONLY REASON TO LIE IS THAT TRUTH IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE ..... Flashback: Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists (LINK) company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit oo#######################o###########################oo oo#######################o###########################oo Pharma Business Connections to Hysterical Mom’s Hate-Filled Tirade Against "Anti-Vaxers" http://investmentwatchblog.com/pharma-business-connections-to-hysterical-moms-hate-filled-tirade-against-anti-vaxers/ (see VIDEO LINK) ---------------------------------------------------------------- As German TV fakes footage of Russian tanks to push for war and LA passengers panic over a false gunman report, an hysterical mother’s tirade against "anti-vaxers" has stampeded the collectivist herd over the cliff. The Daily Mail reported that her son was fighting for his life, yet he never contracted measles. Some dedicated moms "who are DONE being SHAMED for poisoning our children with vaccines" did their own research and found the mom promoting vaccines has family connections to — you guessed it — pharmaceutical companies that sell vaccines. Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/pharma-business-connections-to-hysterical-moms-hate-filled-tirade-against-anti-vaxers/#0I7B2UYfcAzBFvTs.99 http://investmentwatchblog.com/pharma-business-connections-to-hysterical-moms-hate-filled-tirade-against-anti-vaxers/ THE ONLY REASON TO LIE IS THAT TRUTH IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE ......"YAWN" ============================== Facebook Must Shut Down the Anti-Vaxxers -- Time Magazine (LINK)===== THE ONLY REASON TO LIE (or shut up another persons idea) IS THAT TRUTH IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE ......"YAWN" Edited February 21, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Vaccines work. Period. Posted by David Gorski on December 2, 2013 (134 Comments) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-work-period/ Over my blogging “career,” which now stretches back nearly nine years, and my hobby before that of engaging in online “debates” on Usenet newsgroups back before 2004, I developed an interest in the antivaccine movement. Antivaccinationism, “antivax,” or whatever you want to call it, represents a particularly insidious and dangerous form of quackery because it doesn’t just endanger the children whose parents don’t vaccinate them. It also endangers children who are vaccinated, because vaccines are not 100% effective. The best vaccines have effectiveness rates in the 90%-plus range, but that still leaves somewhere up to 10% of children unprotected. Worse, because herd immunity requires in general approximately 90% of the population and above to be vaccinated against a vaccine-preventable disease to put the damper on outbreaks, it doesn’t take much of a degradation of vaccination rates to put a population in danger of outbreaks. That’s why, even though overall vaccine uptake is high in the US, we still see outbreaks, because there are areas with pockets of nonvaccinators and antivaccinationists who drive vaccine uptake down to dangerous levels. We’ve seen this in California and elsewhere. Other countries have observed even more dramatic examples, the most well-known being the way that fear of the MMR vaccine stoked by Andrew Wakefield’s bad science and the fear mongering of the British press led MMR uptake to plummet. The result? Measles came roaring back in the UK and Europe, from having been considered under control in the 1990s to being endemic again by 2008. As much as I get chastised by concern trolls for saying this, to antivaccinationists it really is all about the vaccines. Always. They blame autism, other neurodevelopmental conditions, and a wide variety of chronic diseases on vaccines, without evidence that there is even a correlation. They even falsely blame sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) on vaccines, even though there is no evidence of an association and, indeed, existing evidence suggests that vaccines likely have a protective effect against SIDS more thananything else. No matter what happens, no matter what the evidence says, antivaccinationists will always find a way to blame bad things on vaccines, even going so far as to claim at times that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for vaccine injury. One thing, however, that is often forgotten, is that they also do their utmost to downplay the beneficial effects of vaccines. One such tactic is for antivaccinationists to claim that the pertussis vaccine doesn’t work because we are seeing resurgences of pertussis even in the face of high vaccine uptake. For example, another common trope is what I like to refer to as the “vaccines didn’t save us” or the “vaccines don’t work” gambit, in which it is pointed out that the introduction of vaccines doesn’t correlate tightly with drops in mortality from various diseases. Julian Whitaker even used this gambit when he debated Steve Novella. The fundamental flaw in this trope neglects the contribution of better medical care to the survival of more victims of disease, which decreased mortality. If you look at graphs of disease incidence you will see a profound and powerful effect of the introduction of vaccines on specific vaccine-preventable diseases. In other words, vaccines work. Over the Thanksgiving long weekend here in the US, there appeared a study that simply emphasizes once again that vaccines work. More importantly, it estimates how well they work. I’ve frequently said that vaccines are the medical intervention that have saved more lives than any other, and this study by investigators at the University of Pittsburgh’s graduate school of public health, published on Thanksgiving Day in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and showing up on the news the day before provides yet more evidence to support my assertion. In one way, it’s a shame that it was published over a long holiday weekend here in the US, where it was unlikely to garner as much attention as it normally might have at another time. On the other hand, it was Thanksgiving, and if there is anything we should be thankful for it’s that so few children die of vaccine-preventable diseases anymore. This study simply underlines this. What the authors did was a massive undertaking that involved going back over case reports from before and after times when specific vaccines became commercially available. Boiled down to its essence, the study examined these reports and came up with estimates for cases of a disease prevented based on the drop in cases after the vaccine for that disease came into widespread use, and they did it all the way back to 1888. From the Methods section of the paper: In an effort to overcome these limitations, we digitized all weekly surveillance reports of nationally notifiable diseases for U.S. cities and states published between 1888 and 2011. This data set, which we have made publicly available (www.tycho.pitt.edu), consists of 87,950,807 reported individual cases, each localized in space and time. We used these data to derive a quantitative history of disease reduction in the United States over the past century, focusing particularly on the effect of vaccination programs. We obtained all tables containing weekly surveillance data on nationally notifiable diseases that were published between 1888 and 2011 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and its precursor journals from various online and hard-copy sources.21-24 We digitized all data available in tabular format that listed etiologically defined cases or deaths according to week for locations in the United States. Reported counts (weekly tallies) of cases or deaths and the reporting locations, periods, and diseases were extracted from these data and standardized. Then we selected eight vaccine-preventable contagious diseases for more detailed analysis and computed weekly incidence rates, deriving a quantitative history of each disease. We estimated the number of cases that have been prevented since the introduction of vaccines for seven of the eight diseases. (Since there were no data from the era before the introduction of the smallpox vaccine in 1800, we could not quantify the number of smallpox cases that were prevented by the vaccine.) We estimated the numbers of cases of polio, measles, rubella, mumps, hepatitis A, diphtheria, and pertussis that were prevented by vaccines by subtracting the reported number of weekly cases after the introduction of vaccines from a simulated counterfactual number of cases that would have occurred in the absence of vaccination, assuming that there were no other changes that would have affected incidence rates. We used the year of vaccine licensure as the cutoff year to separate the prevaccine period from the vaccination period. Counterfactual numbers were estimated by multiplying the median weekly incidence rate from prevaccine years with population estimates for vaccination years. Yes, you read that right: nearly 88 million reported individual cases. The New York Timesnews report on the study points out that this massive digitization of data was performed byDigital Divide Data, described as “a social enterprise that provides jobs and technology training to young people in Cambodia, Laos and Kenya.” However, getting the data digitized and organized into spreadsheets was only the first step. Massive databases and spreadsheets are not particularly useful if they aren’t in a form that can be queried to answer research questions. The data thus had to be standardized and sorted in order to allow for that. Once that was done, the investigators were able to conclude since 1924: Assuming that the difference between incidence rates before and after vaccine licensure for these diseases was attributable solely to vaccination programs, we estimated that a total of 103.1 million cases of these contagious diseases have been prevented since 1924 on the basis of median weekly prevaccine incidence rates. Estimates based on the 10th and 90th percentile of weekly prevaccine incidence rates were 72.3 million and 147.8 million cases, respectively. Of those hypothetical cases, approximately 26 million were prevented in the past decade. Sensitivity analyses that used different methods for imputing missing data and for simulating counterfactual cases resulted in estimates ranging from about 75 million to 106 million prevented cases. The number of cases that were prevented per disease depended on the incidence rate before vaccination and the duration of the vaccination program. If you delve into the paper, you’ll find a really cool interactive graphic about disease elimination in the US, specifically hepatitis A, measles, mumps, pertussis, polio, rubella, and smallpox. As you move your cursor to different points of the graph, different facts and statistics pop up. You can look at state level data. If you click on different lines indicating when a specific vaccine was first licensed, all the other lines representing the other diseases disappear, and you see the data only for that disease. For instance, if you look at when the measles vaccine was first licensed in 1963, you’ll see a brief blip upward in measles incidence well within the range of random variation followed by a drop to almost zero by 1968, a mere five years after the vaccine was licensed. The pertussis vaccine took a bit longer; after it was licensed in 1948 it took around 8 years before the disease incidence hit bottom. Particularly cool is a set of graphs in Figure 2 that show snapshots of disease elimination in the US for different diseases and the entire country divided up into ten different areas. It’s particularly striking and an effective way of demonstrating the effect of vaccines on infectious disease: The investigators were very conservative about their assumptions, as well. The authors point out in the discussion that their estimate of number of cases of diseases prevented is probably an underestimate. The reasons include an inability to include all vaccine-preventable diseases and to correct for underreporting of cases. They note that the underreporting rate was higher in the era before specific vaccines came into use and that they don’t always have the detailed historical demographic data, such as birth rates and age-specific disease incidence rates, that would enable them to make such adjustments. Unfortunately, such data are only available for a small number of locations and for limited periods of time. One weakness of the study is that the authors could not examine death rates in nearly as much detail as they could study incidence. They could only estimate the effect of various vaccines on death rates. Hence, they did not report death rates in the NEJM article because, according to the NYT article, death certificate data became sufficiently reliable and consistent only in the 1960s. They could, however, make a reasonable estimate of three or four million deaths prevented based on the known mortality rates of the diseases studied in the database. The real accomplishment of this project is not so much the first publication, but rather the open-source Project Tycho™ database, named after Danish scientist Tycho Brahe (1546—1601), who was known for his detailed astronomical and planetary observations. The reason for choosing Tycho Brahe becomes obvious if you know that Tycho could not use all of his data during his lifetime. However, his assistant Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) used his data to derive the laws of planetary motion. As the authors put it: Similarly, this project aims to advance the availability of large scale public health data to the worldwide community to accelerate advancements in scientific discovery and technological progress. And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAOJ4GyNMc (Continued next post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The database contains three levels of data. Level 1 data were the basis of the NEJMarticle, and “include different types of counts that have been standardized into a common format for a specific analysis published recently in the NEJM.” Level 2 data are defined thusly: Level 2 data only includes counts that have been reported in a common format, e.g. diseases reported for a one week period and without disease subcategories. These data can be used immediately for analysis, includes a wide range of diseases and locations but this level does not include data that have not been standardized yet. While Level 3 data are defined: Level 3 data include all the different types of counts ever reported. Although this is the most complete data, the large number of different counts requires extensive standardization and various judgment calls before they can be used for analysis. All of these data are broken down into diseases, states, and cities, as well as time periods. Level 1 data include eight diseases, 50 states and 122 cities from 1916-2009; Level 2, 47 diseases, 50 states, 1,287 cities from 1888-2013; and Level 3, 56 diseases, 72 disease subcategories, 3,000 cities, etc. from 1888-2013. Any investigator can establish an account to look at Level 1 and Level 2 data, although the University of Pittsburgh won’t give out Level 3 data to anyone, because the database contains “substantial number of counts for which the disease name, time period, or location has not yet been identified from contextual information.” To get an idea of the power of this database, it’s useful to take a look at a couple of short videos: And: As you can see, this is a fantastic resource that is likely only to get better with time as raw data are curated, organized, and put into a form that can be mined for correlations. Epidemiologists, vaccinologists, and infectious disease researchers will be able to use this resource to ask questions and look at historical comparisons in a way that they haven’t been able to do before because of the difficulty in reconstructing old disease patterns. No wonder the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded this work! There is one concern I have about the project, although it does not in any way outweigh the potential usefulness of this database. That concern derives from what I know of bad science generated by antivaccinationists. I can easily see antivaccine “scientists” mining this database in ways to look for correlations to support their agenda, particularly if they get their hands on the raw data, which, according to the authors, needs a lot of cleaning: These data have not been filtered or standardized and cannot be used for analysis. These data include a large variety of data counts and often varying types of information. In this level, multiple types of data counts are often available for one location, disease, and week. In some cases, different counts provide conflicting information on a location and disease. The use of data from this level requires extensive knowledge of the historical U.S. disease surveillance system and data digitization and quality control procedures. We continue to standardize data and will include newly standardized data in the level 2 data section of this website at regular intervals. These level 3 data are provided for those that are interested in contributing to the data standardization process. Can you imagine what Jake Crosby might do with such a data set? Or Mark and David Geier? Just take what they’ve tried to do with the VAERS database and the Vaccine Safety Datalink and put it on steroids. I rather expect that various antivaccine “scientists” have already registered accounts for Project Tycho™ and are furiously mining ever smaller slices of data trying to see if they can “prove” that vaccines don’t work or linking their work with other databases to try to correlate vaccine uptake with autism. Still, any database can be abused, as can any scientific tool. If the database is truly open source, then its creators are obligated to provide access to everyone who requests it. The benefits of such a resource far outweigh the risk that Jake Crosby, Mark Geier, Gary Goldman, or other epidemiologist wannabes might use it to produce nonsense. Besides, the correlations between the introduction of various vaccines and plunges in the incidence of the diseases being vaccinated against are so robust that I doubt the antivaccinationists can do any real serious harm, other than producing studies to use to preach to the choir with. Meanwhile, real scientists will be using the database to do real science and ask important questions about infectious disease and how it can be prevented with vaccines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) David Gorski is a closed minded atheist that many call rude. Now Japan's medical acumen and expertise probably surpasses Australia. ========================== We give lots of vaccines below 2 yrs of age kids. Japan almost ZERO under age two.....Evan is Japan stupid ??...or BIG PHARMA can trick a lot of people... STEVE GAAL SAID It is true that measles deaths had been dropping since the turn of the century. The measles death rate (deaths per 100,000 people) in the United States was: 1900 - 13.3 (about 7000 deaths) 1910 - 12.4 1920 - 8.8 1930 - 3.2 1935 - 3.1 1940 - 0.5 1945 - 0.2 1950 - 0.3 (468 deaths) 1955 - 0.2 (345 deaths) 1960 - 0.2 (380 deaths) 1963 - first measles vaccine licensed 1965 - 0.1 (276 deaths) 1970 - 0.0 (89 deaths) 1975 - 0.0 (20 deaths) 1980 - 0.0 (11 deaths) 1985 - 0.0 (4 deaths) ============== KEY HERE TO NOTE THAT THE in 1963 - first measles vaccine was licensed but the first wide spread use of the vaccine was in 1971. So the argument that the measles vaccine help bring down the disease is ultra weak via data above. ========================== We give lots of vaccines below 2 yrs of age kids. Japan almost ZERO under age two.....Evan is Japan stupid ??...or BIG PHARMA can trick a lot of people... STEVE GAAL NaturalNews) If flu shots are really as effective as the U.S. government claims they are, then why did nearly a quarter of the Navy crewmen aboard the U.S.S. Ardent earlier this year contract the flu, even though 99 percent of them had been previously vaccinated with flu shots? Japan versus USA infant vaccination policies: less is better. www.vaclib.org/basic/japanusa.htm Jun 21, 2000 ... The 2002 vaccination scehdule is below. Two 'immunization schedules' follow,the 1st is from Japan and the second is ... You will note that Japan recommends,in the first year of life: ... [Japan and Britian both proved that less vaccination ofinfants results in lower overall mortality figures in that age group.]. Japan suspends two vaccines after infant deaths (Update) - Phys.org phys.org/news/2011-03-japan-baby-vaccines-deaths.html Mar 7, 2011 ... The infants, aged from around six months to under two years old, died over athree-day period this month after receiving the vaccinations or in ... What Others Do? - Life Health Choices www.lifehealthchoices.com/the-center/.../vaccines/what-others-do In Japan, after two babies died of the vaccine in 1975, the Japanese ... Japanesebabies only receive 14 vaccines by two years of age compared with ... Theydramatically outperform us in infant mortality, under five mortality and longevity. [PDF] ... Excessive Vaccine Doses Cause High Infant Mortality Rates - Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/.../right-vaccine-dosage-for-babies.aspx Nov 3, 2011 ... However, also be aware that vaccine exemptions are under attack in every ..... In1991, my beautiful, healthy 3 1/2 year old son began having ...######################################################))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) http://everythingbir...ule-fact-sheet/ Delayed Vaccination Schedule Fact Sheet Given that: By the time our children are one year old, the CDC recommends 26 vaccine doses be administered to them, The United States vaccination schedule means that babies in the United States get more vaccine doses than any other babies in the entire world,[1] Babies in the United States also have an infant mortality rate that ranks 34th in the world, Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country on the planet, [2] 33 nations have better infant mortality rates than we do, I am choosing delayed vaccinations for my child. I am aware that there are many contributing factor that go into Infant Mortality Rates such as: Economic Factors Environmental Factors Diet Nutrition I understand that the Givens in this proof indicate no directly proportional evidence that vaccinating infants under two years of age is unsafe. However, when those same countries lessened their infant vaccination schedules and requirements, they saw their infant mortality rates change rapidly and directly. For example: In 1975, Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under two and that when that happened; their infant mortality rate plummeted so that it was the lowest in the world. In 1995, Japan started allowing infant vaccines, though on a very limited scale. Japan, with their very non-aggressive early vaccination schedule fell behind from the lowest mortality rate in the world to a still impressive 3rd place for awesomeness in the babies-living department. I find the following chart difficult to allow me any other choice but to delay vaccinations for my child: Furthermore… RE: SIDS and the Introduction of Recommended Infant Vaccines In the United States in the 1960s, campaigns urging national vaccination programs to be implemented for our infants were initiated. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of the vaccinations DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella. While “crib death” has always existed, it was always so infrequent; it wasn’t even listed on infant mortality rates because it was that rare. In 1969, however, just a few years after the implementation of wide spread vaccinations of our nation’s newborns, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome. [3] I understand that: The CDC states that vaccines are not attributed to cases of SIDS. Their evidence offered is that the back to sleep campaign has significantly reduced the numbers of SIDS cases. From 1992 to 2001, the SIDS rate did drop by an average annual rate of 8.6% during the implementation of the “Back to Sleep” campaign. However, during that same time period, other causes of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) increased. And so, I believe that the re-categorizing of infant causes of deaths has different results. For example: During this same period, the postneonatal mortality rate from suffocation in bed from 1992 to 2001 actually increased at an average annual rate of 11.2%. The postneonatal mortality rate in the categories of suffocation other, unknown and unspecified causes and due to intent unknown all increased during this period. Even with the “Back to Sleep” campaign, our babies’ rates of dying from inconclusive causes did not lessen as the CDC portrays.[4] I would like to reopen the vaccination discussion when my child has reached the age of two because while I know the CDC says that we have to vaccinate as infants because infants are more susceptible to these horrible diseases, when taking into account the Infant Mortality Rates among different countries, deaths due to all of these diseases still counted as an infant mortality. It is my understanding that the Infant Mortality Rates are just what they are, the rates of death, not the causes of death. And the very simple fact is that we have alarmingly unacceptable Infant Mortality Rates compared to other industrialized, modern nations. I have prepared a vaccination exemption form to be included in my child’s medical file. I would like a copy of this document entered into my child’s medical file as well. [1] CIA. Country comparison: infant mortality rate (2009). The World Factbook. www.cia.gov (accessed 13 April 2010) [2] Anderson GF, Hussay PS, Frogner BK, and Waters HR. Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Health Affairs 2005; 24: 903–91 [3] MacDorman MF and Rosenberg HM. Trends in infant mortality by cause of death and other characteristics, 1960-88 (vital and health statistics), Volume 20. Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Government Printing, 1993 [4] Malloy MH and MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992-2001. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247–1253 ############### ############### Measles vaccines kill more than measles CDC data shows no deaths from infection for 12 years Published: 02/07/2015 at 8:24 PM image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/02/measles.jpg WASHINGTON – While those opposing mandatory vaccination for measles are widely portrayed as ignorant and even dangerous by some officials, pundits and even news media accounts, Centers for Disease Control records reveal a startling truth – while no one has died of measles in the U.S. in the last 12 years, 108 have died as a result of the adverse effects of the vaccine in that same time period. The death statistics are recorded by Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, which captures only a small percentage of the actual number of deaths and other adverse reactions to the vaccine. In addition, 96 of the 108 deaths in that 12-year time period were a result of the MMR vaccine, now the preferred shot for measles immunization. In addition, CDC statistic show measles deaths were rare in the U.S. before the vaccine became widely used. The adverse reactions to the measles vaccines are much more widespread than death, points out Dr. Lee Hieb, an orthopaedic surgeon and past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who has studied vaccines and written about them in medical journals. In a recent commentary in WND, the author “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare,” revealed that since 2005 there have been 86 deaths from the MMR vaccine – 68 of them children under the age of 3 years old. In addition, there have been nearly 2,000 disabled, according to the VAERS data. As a result of her study, Hieb questions the zealous push for mandatory measles vaccination. “If you believe absolutely in the benefit and protective value of vaccination, why does it matter what others do?” she asks rhetorically. “Or don’t do? If you believe you need vaccination to be healthy and protected, then by all means vaccinate your child and yourself. Why should you even be concerned what your neighbor chooses to do for his child – if vaccination works? The idea of herd immunity is still based on the idea that in individual cases vaccines actually are protective Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/measles-vaccines-kill-more-than-measles/#0QxC2FgtGJ9LbOfw.99 = ############### ############### http://www.borgenmagazine.com/measles-outbreaks-signal-a-need-for-vaccines/ According to the National Institute of Infectious Disease in Japan, the country’s outbreak is the result of weak vaccination programs in need of restructuring. Japan was late to implement a program that required two vaccinations per person when it made this change in 2006, but this outbreak proves that there are still problems in the system. Japan saw 46 measles cases before January 26 of this year, compared to 18 in the same period in 2013. This grew to 171 cases by mid-March, though so far, there have been no deaths in the country. , there have been no deaths in the country., there have been no deaths in the country., there have been no deaths in the country , there have been no deaths in the country , there have been no deaths in the country Edited February 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) ============================= Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist): “Swine flu vaccine is bioweapon” Joseph Moshe, MOSSAD Sponsored by the Derma roller Today, the MSM are not talking about this case any more. Yesterday, they wanted us to believe that Joseph Moshe was a nutcase and a terrorist, arrested for threatening to bomb the White House. Interesting detail about his arrest (the “Westwood standoff”) was that he seemed to be immune to the 5 cans of tear gas and 5 gallons of law-enforcement grade pepper spray they pumped into his face. He very calmly remained in his car, as the video footage of his arrest shows. Professor Moshe had called into a live radio show by Dr. A. True Ott, (explanation of Joseph Moshe’s call at 06:00) broadcast on Republic Broadcasting claiming to be a microbiologist who wanted to supply evidence to a States Attorney regarding tainted H1N1 Swine flu vaccines being produced by Baxter BioPharma Solutions. He said that Baxter’s Ukrainian lab was in fact producing a bioweapon disguised as a vaccine. He claimed that the vaccine contained an adjuvant (additive) designed to weaken the immune system, and replicated RNA from the virus responsible for the 1918 pandemic Spanish flu, causing global sickness and mass death. Sources tell us that Bar-Joseph Moshe made no threat against the President or the White House. He did not mention any bomb or attack. He then proceeded to inform the White House he intended to go public with this information. When he noticed men in suits in front of his house and feared that the FBI was about to detain him, he packed some belongings into his car and, him being a dual Israeli citizen, tried to reach the Israeli consulate located in close proximity to the federal building where the standoff took place. The FBI and the bomb squad prevented him from reaching it. Who is this man? His profile on biomedexperts.com says he is a plant disease expert with many publications on his name involving the genetic manipulation of virii. Photographic evidence that Moshe is who he says he is can be found here. Joseph Moshe was soon after his arrest sent or let go to Israel. Nothing has been heard from him since. The Secret Service was not the agency involved in the surveillance of Moshe at his home in California. This was done by the FBI, who had orders to detain or arrest him. Mounted on top of a large black vehicle used in his arrest was a microwave weapon that possibly damaged the electronics in Moshe’s car as well as any communication devices he had which might have been used to contact the media or others who could help him. Moshe did not suffer the same effects of the gas and pepper spray that others would have because he had built up an immunity to such weapons as a by-product of his Mossad training. Moshe was not handcuffed because he was not placed under arrest. Does this sound like an insane conspiracy theory? Sure it does. Due to the scarcity and anonimity of the sources we would dismiss it as exactly that, if it weren’t for some uncomfortable facts: Baxter Pharmaceutical has been caught, red-handed, in spreading a live, genetically engineered H5N1 Bird flu vaccine as a lethal biological weapon all over the world, destined to be used for human vaccinations. This happened just a few months ago. And only luck prevented a global catastrophe of epic proportions. Baxter International Inc. had mixed live, genetically engineered avian flue viruses in vaccine material shipped to 18 countries. Only by sheer luck, a Czech laboratory decided to test the vaccine on a dozen ferrets, which all died in days. The World Health Organization was notified and catastrophe was averted. This was clearly a deliberate act on Baxter’s part, because they adhere to BS3, bio-safety level three. Baxter admitted a “mistake”. Such monumental screwups are totally impossible at that level. Many safety systems would have needed to be sabotaged, many key personell would have needed to be bribed. It simply can’t be done without direction from the inside. They did not send out the wrong vial – they produced dozens of gallons of biological-weapon agent (genetically engineered live H5N1 / Bird flu virus), then sent it out as a “vaccine”. Baxter knew full well that their vaccine was lethal, because the year before they had tested it on a few hundred homeless Polish people – dozens died as a result. Where’s the meat? Well – Baxter is now being sued for the deliberate, repeated contamination of vaccines with biological weapons designed – by them – to mass-murder people. Here is the complaint (PDF). By some kook nutcase? Not likely – Jane Burgermeister is an experienced, respected journalist. She is not the only one suing Baxter for planning and executing a plan for global genocide: Others are filing complaints as well. Read a well-researched complaint here (PDF). Qui bono? We think it may be profit-motivated or even sheer incompetence, but for the conspiracy-minded: The latter complaint alludes to intentional “culling of the herd”. Have you heard of the Georgia Guidestones? An enormous monument loaded with Masonic symbolism costing millions of dollars, it has been erected by unknown, powerful elites (multimillionaires with the clout to erect monuments wherever they please, obviously) around 30 years ago. It gives an “alternative ten commandments”, of which the first is the extermination of six and a half billion people from the face of the Earth. Half a billion will remain. This is the number of people the planet can sustain indefinitely, so that the descendents of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers can live in peace and affluence indefinitely. Slaves are needed to produce that luxury, but 500 million will do just fine. But how does one go about killing off most of the world? “Vaccinating” the planet with a bioweapon with near-100% mortality would do the trick. Baxter would provide both the bioweapon as well as the vaccine against it to “civilized” Western peoples. Result: We can plunder Africa, we have no more competition from SE Asia, the oil is for our taking and only Western and perhaps Chinese sheeple remain. Rockefeller said this in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” PNAC said something similar right before 9/11. ----------------------------0o0o0o0------------------------------ see http://www.unfictional.com/joseph-moshe-mossad-bioweapon-swine-flu-vaccine-westwood Edited March 5, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Six myths about vaccination – and why they’re wrong Recently released government figures show levels of childhood vaccination have fallen to dangerously low levels in some areas of Australia, resulting in some corners of the media claiming re-ignition of “the vaccine debate”. You can check how your postcode rates here. Well, scientifically, there’s no debate. In combination with clean water and sanitation, vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures ever introduced, saving millions of lives every year. Those who claim there is a “debate” will cite a series of canards designed to scare people away from vaccinating, but, if you’re not familiar with their claims, you could easily be convinced by anti-vaccine rhetoric. So what is true and what is not? Let’s address just a few of the common vaccine myths and explain why they’re wrong. 1. Vaccines cause autism The myth that vaccines are somehow linked to autism is an unsinkable rubber duck. Initiated in 1998 following the publication of the now notorious Lancet paper, (not-a-Dr) Andrew Wakefield was the first to suggest that the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine might be linked to autism. What he didn’t reveal was that he had multiple conflicts of interest including that he was being paid by lawyers assembling a class action against the manufacturers of MMR, and that he himself had submitted an application for a patent for a single measles vaccine. It eventually unravelled for Wakefield when the paper was retracted in 2010. He was struck from the medical register for behaviour classified as “dishonest, unethical and callous” and the British Medical Journal accused him of deliberate fraud. But once the idea was floated, scientists were compelled to investigate, particularly when it stood to impact public health so dramatically. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence to show that there is no link between vaccines and autism comes from Japan where the MMR was replaced with single vaccines mid-1993. Guess what happened? Autism continued to rise. We currently don’t know what causes autism. But we do know what doesn’t: vaccines. Image from shutterstock.com After this door closed, anti-vaxers shifted the blame to thiomersal, a mercury-containing component (not beconfused with the scary type that accumulates in the body). Small amounts of thiomersal were used as a preservative in some vaccines, but this never included MMR. Thiomersal or ethyl-mercury was removed from all scheduled childhood vaccines in 2000, so if it were contributing to rising cases of autism, you would expect a dramatic drop following its removal. Instead, like the MMR in Japan, the opposite happened, and autism continues to rise. Further evidence comes from a recently published exhaustive review examining 12,000 research articles covering eight different vaccines which also concluded there was no link between vaccines and autism. Yet the myth persists and probably for several reasons, one being that the time of diagnosis for autism coincides with kids receiving several vaccinations and also, we currently don’t know what causes autism. But we do know what doesn’t, and that’s vaccines. 2. Smallpox and polio have disappeared so there’s no need to vaccinate anymore It’s precisely because of vaccines that diseases such as smallpox have disappeared. India recently experienced two years without a single case of polio because of a concerted vaccination campaign. Australia was declared measles-free in 2005 by the World Health Organization (WHO) – before we stopped being so vigilant about vaccinating and outbreaks began to reappear. The impact of vaccine complacency can be observed in the current measles epidemic in Wales where there are now over 800 cases and one death, and many people presenting are of the age who missed out on MMR vaccination following the Wakefield scare. In many ways, vaccines are a victim of their own success, leading us to forget just how debilitating preventable diseases can be – not seeing kids in calipers or hospital wards full of iron lungs means we forget just how serious these diseases can be. 3. More vaccinated people get the disease than the unvaccinated Although this sounds counter-intuitive, it’s actually true, but it doesn’t mean that vaccines don’t work as anti-vaxers will conflate. Remember that no vaccine is 100% effective and vaccines are not a force field. So while it’s still possible to get the disease you’ve been vaccinated against, disease severity and duration will be reduced. Those who are vaccinated have fewer complications than people who aren’t. Image from shutterstock.com With pertussis (whooping cough), for example, severe complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis (brain inflammation) occur almost exclusively in the unvaccinated. So since the majority of the population is vaccinated, it follows that most people who get a particular disease will be vaccinated, but critically, they will suffer fewer complications and long-term effects than those who are completely unprotected. 4. My unvaccinated child should be of no concern to your vaccinated one Vaccination is not just a personal issue, it’s a community responsibility, largely because of a concept known as “community immunity”. This describes a level of vaccination that prevents epidemics or outbreaks from taking hold and spreading. Some people question the validity of this concept, sometimes referred to as herd immunity, but the impact of it breaking down can be easily observed in places where vaccination levels fall dangerously low – take the current measles outbreak in Wales, for example. The other important factor about community immunity is it protects those who, for whatever reason, can’t be vaccinated or are not fully vaccinated. This includes very young children, immunocompromised people (such as cancer sufferers) and elderly people. 5. Vaccines contain toxins A cursory search of Google for vaccine ingredients pulls up a mishmash of scary-sounding ingredients that to the uninitiated can sound like “franken-science”. Some of these claims are patently untrue (there is no anti-freeze in vaccines), or are simple scaremongering (aborted foetuses – in the 1960s some cells were extracted from a foetus to establish a cell line that is still used in labs today). Some of the claimed chemicals (and remember everything is made of chemicals) are present, but are at such low levels as to never reach toxicity. A pear has 600 times more formaldehyde than a vaccine. Image from shutterstock.com The simple thing to remember is the poison is in the dose – in high enough doses even water can kill you. And there’s 600 times more formaldehyde in a pear than a vaccine. Also, if you ever read the claim that “vaccines are injected directly into the blood stream” (they’re not), be sceptical of any other claims made. 6. Vaccines will overwhelm kids’ undeveloped immune systems The concept of “too many too soon” was recently examined in a detailed analysis of the US childhood immunisation schedule by The Institute of Medicine. Experts specifically looked for evidence that vaccination was linked to “autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders”, including autism. The researchers confirmed that the childhood vaccination schedule was safe. The amount of immune challenges that children fight every day (between 2,000 to 6,000) in the environment is significantly greater than the number of antigens or reactive particles in all their vaccinations combined (about 150 for the entire vaccination schedule). So the next time you hear these myths about vaccination, hopefully you’ll have some evidence up your sleeve to debunk them. http://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/education/tools/myths-and-realities/player.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) 6. Vaccines will overwhelm kids’ undeveloped immune systems The concept of “too many too soon” was recently examined in a detailed analysis of the US childhood immunisation schedule by The Institute of Medicine. Experts specifically looked for evidence that vaccination was linked to “autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders”, including autism. The researchers confirmed that the childhood vaccination schedule was safe. The amount of immune challenges that children fight every day (between 2,000 to 6,000) in the environment is significantly greater than the number of antigens or reactive particles in all their vaccinations combined (about 150 for the entire vaccination schedule). So the next time you hear these myths about vaccination, hopefully you’ll have some evidence up your sleeve to debunk them. // BURTON }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}0o0o0}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} again and again Burton wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!! GEE POST # 289 above answers you... = and= Same Mercury Used in Vaccines Conclusively Linked to Causing Autoimmune Disorders By Jonathan Benson Global Research, March 06, 2015 A new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives provides fresh insight into why millions of people living in the developed world today suffer from severe autoimmune disorders that were virtually unheard of before the advent of vaccines. Researchers from the University of Michigan Medical and Public Health Schools in Ann Arbor found that mercury, like the kind added to vaccines as a preservative, is a major trigger of autoimmunity in women of childbearing age. Dr. Emily Somers, Ph.D., and her colleagues looked at government data on women between the ages of 16 and 49, comparing their respective levels of mercury exposure to antinuclear antibody positivity, an indicator of autoimmune activity. Autoimmunity, as you may already know, is essentially an abnormal immune response in which errant antibodies attack the human body, causing systemic inflammation. The result is a variety of illnesses, often debilitating, that leave a person weak and unable to function normally. In women with high levels of mercury exposure, autoantibodies, or the antibodies responsible for triggering autoimmunity, were found to be more prevalent. A direct correlation between the two was observed, leading researchers to conclude that mercury is a major risk factor in autoimmunity. Mercury found to be “main risk factor” for autoimmune disease Based on the team’s findings, Dr. Somers concluded that exposure to mercury is actually the main risk factor for autoimmunity, which would explain why so many children who had been vaccinated according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines now suffer from various autoimmune diseases. “In our study, exposure to mercury stood out as the main risk factor for autoimmunity,” stated Somers, adding in her study’s conclusion that exposure to mercury “at low levels generally considered safe” can still lead to subclinical autoimmunity among reproductive-age females. “Autoantibodies may predate clinical disease by years, thus methylmercury exposure may be relevant to future autoimmune disease risk,” the team added. What this means is that exposure to mercury can cause long-term health problems that may or may not show symptoms in the short term. So a vaccinated child, for instance, could appear healthy and normal in the days, weeks or even months following vaccination, but several years down the road develop an autoimmune condition as a result of the vaccines. Multi-dose flu shots and other vaccines still contain mercury, which can trigger autoimmunity The way this critical study is being presented in the media, though (if it’s even being covered at all), only warns childbearing-age women to avoid things like tuna fish that are widely known to contain mercury. Nothing about avoiding vaccines like Novartis’ Fluvirin and Sanofi Pasteur’s Fluzone that still contain added mercury is anywhere to be found in the media reports. This is perhaps due to the fact that much of the mainstream media is currently in irrational denial of the fact that mercury is still being used in vaccines. The specious claim that “vaccines don’t contain mercury!” is patently false, and yet nearly every major news outlet is right now making this claim to deter free-thinking parents from making an educated decision against vaccines. “Mercury is a known neuro-toxin which can cross the placenta and blood brain barrier and concentrate in the blood and brain but can also affect the immune system, kidneys and lungs,” explains the National Vaccine Information Center. “Some autistic children have been found to have high levels of mercury in their hair as well as heavy metals, such as aluminum and lead,” that are also in vaccines. Sources : http://www.empr.com http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov[PDF] https://www.rheumatology.org http://www.naturalnews.com http://www.naturalnews.com http://www.nvic.org }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] The concept of “too many too soon” was recently examined in a detailed analysis of the US childhood immunisation schedule by The Institute of Medicine. Experts specifically looked for evidence that vaccination was linked to “autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders”, including autism. The researchers confirmed that the childhood vaccination schedule was safe. // BURTON again and again Burton wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!! =============== The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? BIG PHARMA HACKS = BURTON'S SOURCE The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? The Institute of Medicine ??????????????? = NaturalNews exposes secret vaccine industry ties and military www.naturalnews.com/033455_institute_of_medicine_vaccines.htmlCached Aug 29, 2011 - For starters, the IoM receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which is, of course, a total front for vaccines and Big Pharma. Institute of Medicine adverse reactions report admits MMR ... www.naturalnews.com/033447_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.htmlCached Similar Aug 28, 2011 - Remember, Big Pharma is a huge financial supporter of the IoM. ... the U.S. government and its various "medical" front groups (NIH, IoM, CDC, ... Action Alert: Is the Institute of Medicine in Bed with Big ... www.anh-usa.org/action-alert-is-the-institute-of-medicine-in-bed-with-bi...Cached Similar Dec 7, 2010 - Action Alert: Vitamin D Report Panelist Has Ties to Big Pharma. ... pharma As we reported last week, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) new and ... Psycho-Pharma Front Groups - CCHR International www.cchrint.org/issues/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/Cached Similar Big Pharma admits it gets more bang for its buck from funding these front groups .... Also of note: The Child Mind Institute is a psychiatric research and treatment ... TMAP: The Psycho-Pharma Front Business | CCHR ... www.cchrint.org/issues/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/tmap/Cached Similar The Texas Medication Algorithm (flow chart) Project (TMAP) was developed in ... of the collusion between drug companies, psychiatrists, psycho-pharma front .... Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], and the National Institute on Alcoholism and ... Big Pharma's Victor Dzau to Head the Institute of Medicine articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/.../03/.../victor-dzau-iom-president.aspxCached Similar Mar 5, 2014 - The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was established in 1970 as the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which was originally chartered ... Pharmaceutical industry - SourceWatch www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pharmaceutical_industryCached Similar Americans spent roughly 200 billion dollars on prescription drugs in 2002, ... 9.6 Pharmaceutical lobbies & front groups; 9.7 Medical research groups; 9.8 Drug ..... At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the ... Is the Institute of Medicine in bed with Big Pharma? naturespathways.com › Herb Blurb › January 2011Cached Jan 27, 2011 - I admit my bias in writing this article right up front. The Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) just released a report that raises... ================ ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] 5. Vaccines contain toxins (NO) // Burton again and again Burton wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!! = Mercury In Vaccines Was Replaced With Something Even MORE Toxic January 27, 2009 | 204,532 views The short, eye-opening eBook linked below is titled Aluminum in Vaccines -- a Neurological Gamble, by Neil Miller, director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. It documents the hazards associated with aluminum-laden vaccines. Children are receiving high concentrations of aluminum in their shots. This well-documented neurotoxin may be more dangerous than mercury.Vaccines containing high concentrations of neurotoxic aluminum were added to the child immunization schedule when several vaccines containing mercury were removed. Two-month old babies now receive 1,225 mcg of aluminum from their vaccines -- 50 times higher than safety levels! Although the FDA, CDC and World Health Organization are aware of the dangers, they expect parents to play Russian roulette with their children. Edited March 6, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21708#entry296644 5. They use the term term Big Pharma (or Big Anything) in all seriousness There are about a 1000 problems with the pharmaceutical industry, for sure. However, when your friend is talking about “Big Pharma” they are not usually talking so much about overpriced cancer medication as they are like, vaccines causing autism and things like that. Also, sane people, when discussing the problems with the pharmaceutical industry just do not say things like “Big Pharma” because they like being taken seriously. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21708#entry296647 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. // BURTON}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} again and again Burton wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ============================ Monday, February 16, 2015 = Are Your Medications Safe? -- The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. \ Agents of the Food and Drug Administration know better than anyone else just how bad scientific misbehavior can get. Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wildvideo. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—each of which catches a medical researcher in an unguarded moment, succumbing to the temptation to do things he knows he really shouldn’t be doing. Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching. That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn't get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public. Much of my research has to do with follies, foibles, and fraud in science, and I knew that the FDA wasn’t exactly bending over backward to correct the scientific record when its inspectors found problems during clinical trials. So as part of my investigative reporting class at New York University, my students and I set out to find out just how bad the problem was—and how much important information the FDA was keeping under wraps. We didn’t have to search very hard to find FDA burying evidence of research misconduct. Just look at any documentrelated to an FDA inspection. As part of the new drug application process, or, more rarely, when the agency gets a tipoff of wrongdoing, the FDA sends a bunch of inspectors out to clinical sites to make sure that everything is done by the book. When there are problems, the FDA generates a lot of paperwork—what are called form 483s, Establishment Inspection Reports, and in the worst cases, what are known as Warning Letters. If you manage to get your hands on these documents, you’ll see that, most of the time, key portions are redacted: information that describes what drug the researcher was studying, the name of the study, and precisely how the misconduct affected the quality of the data are all blacked out. These redactions make it all but impossible to figure out which study is tainted. My students and I looked at FDA documents relating to roughly 600 clinical trials in which one of the researchers running the trial failed an FDA inspection. In only roughly 100 cases were we able to figure out which study, which drug, and which pharmaceutical company were involved. (We cracked a bunch of the redactions by cross-referencing the documents with clinical trials data, checking various other databases, and using carefully crafted Google searches.) For the other 500, the FDA was successfully able to shield the drugmaker (and the study sponsor) from public exposure. It’s not just the public that’s in the dark. It’s researchers, too. And your doctor. As I describe in the current issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, my students and I were able to track down some 78 scientific publications resulting from a tainted study—a clinical trial in which FDA inspectors found significant problems with the conduct of the trial, up to and including fraud. In only three cases did we find any hint in the peer-reviewed literature of problems found by the FDA inspection. The other publications were not retracted, corrected, or highlighted in any way. In other words, the FDA knows about dozens of scientific papers floating about whose data are questionable—and has said nothing, leaving physicians and medical researchers completely unaware. The silence is unbroken even when the FDA itself seems shocked at the degree of fraud and misconduct in a clinical trial. = Source:http://www.slate.com...idden_from.html ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] Flashback: Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists (LINK) company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit #################################################################################################### = Pharma Business Connections to Hysterical Mom’s Hate-Filled Tirade Against "Anti-Vaxers" http://investmentwatchblog.com/pharma-business-connections-to-hysterical-moms-hate-filled-tirade-against-anti-vaxers/ (see VIDEO LINK) ---------------------------------------------------------------- As German TV fakes footage of Russian tanks to push for war and LA passengers panic over a false gunman report, an hysterical mother’s tirade against "anti-vaxers" has stampeded the collectivist herd over the cliff. The Daily Mail reported that her son was fighting for his life, yet he never contracted measles. Some dedicated moms "who are DONE being SHAMED for poisoning our children with vaccines" did their own research and found the mom promoting vaccines has family connections to — you guessed it — pharmaceutical companies that sell vaccines. = Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/pharma-business-connections-to-hysterical-moms-hate-filled-tirade-against-anti-vaxers/#0I7B2UYfcAzBFvTs.99 = http://investmentwatchblog.com/pharma-business-connections-to-hysterical-moms-hate-filled-tirade-against-anti-vaxers/ ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} CDC's Vaccine Safety Research is Exposed as Flawed and Falsified in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Substantial Scientific Evidence Exists that Vaccine Ingredient is a Developmental Neurotoxin http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-vaccine-safety-research-exposed-115600020.html = ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] Scholarly, peer reviewed research: Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, = 2015: Exposure to Mercury and Aluminum in Early Life: Developmental Vulnerability as a Modifying Factor in Neurologic and Immunologic Effects source: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/2/1295 full text: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/2/1295/htm Published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2014: Evaluation of synergistic effect of biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles and aluminum based adjuvant for improving vaccine efficacy. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24939616 Published in the Journal of Toxicology, 2014: Aluminum-induced entropy in biological systems: implications for neurological disease. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25349607 full text: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2014/491316/ Published in the World Journal of Pediatrics, 2014: Aluminum exposure and toxicity in neonates: a practical guide to halt aluminum overload in the prenatal and perinatal periods. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24801228 full text: http://www.wjpch.com/article.asp?article_id=643 Published in Imunologic Research, 2013: Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067 full text: http://katlynfoxfoundation.com/…/2013-Shaw-CA-LT-Imm… Published in Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2013: Autoimmune (auto-inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA)–animal models as a proof of concept. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23992328 Published in Communicative and Integrative Biology, 2013: Aluminum and the human diet revisited. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24505503 full text: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/cib.26369… Published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 2013: Administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23932735 Published in Frontiers of Immunology, 2013: Mechanism of immunopotentiation and safety of aluminum adjuvants. source + full text: http://journal.frontiersin.org/…/fimmu.2012.00406/full Published in Lupus, 2012: Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057 full text: http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/118.full.pdf+html Published in Entropy, 2012: Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure source + full text download: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227 Published in Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2011: Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe? source + full text: http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/…/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC… Published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 2010: Infants’ exposure to aluminum from vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months. source + full text: http://www.nature.com/…/jou…/v20/n7/full/jes200964a.html Published in Expert Review of Vaccines, 2007: Neurological adverse events of immunization: experience with an aluminum adjuvanted meningococcal B outer membrane vesicle vaccine. source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931164 full text: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565691_3 = Thank you to Terry Arrowood Edited March 7, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 They did forget one: Post in large font because it means its important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 Post in large font because it means its important! /Burton OH Mr. Burton wants something important !! }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} thousands of rabbis omit Isaiah 53 now THAT !! is coinspiracy !!----------------------oooo---------------------oooo--------------------------Jewish people ASK ?????------o------Posted in judaism by hearthappy45 2010-10-26------------------------------------Has Isaiah 53 been removed from the Synagogue liturgy?I have heard several rumors (I doubt they are true) that Isaiah 53 is not a part of the Synagogue rotation of Bible reading. That doesn't seem right to me, but I picked up a Jewish commentary in Borders and couldn't find a commentary for Isaiah 53. It went straight up to Isaiah 52 and then 54 after skipping 53. Is there a reason that the synagogues do not include the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in their rotation of reading through the Bible?===================oooooooo=========================================Why don't the Jews recognize the Messiah in Isaiah 53? Why don't they see that Jesus is portrayed there? Such questions are often asked by Christians who cannot understand how the Jews fail to recognize Messiah when they read this astounding and glorious prophecy. Here are some of the reasons:The majority of Jews are not acquainted with this prophecy of Isaiah 53, because it is carefully avoided in the synagogue. True, portions of Isaiah are read on Sabbath days, but this particular chapter is meticulously avoided in order not to provoke embarrassing questions and inquiries.######################## ######################## ANSWER ############ ### ANSWER #########--------------------------------------------------------The Jewish people consider Isaiah to be their greatest prophet. Although they read many of his chapters in the synagogue, Chapter 53 is not one of them. They do read a portion of Chapter 52.Those who are familiar with synagogue liturgy know that the Five Books of Moses are read in their entirety during the year. In addition, specified scriptures that relate to the chapters are included after certain portions. For example, Isaiah 47, 54 and 40 are read in that order at the completion of the first, second and third weekly portions of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. After readings from Deuteronomy, which is a review of the other four books, they read eight chapters from Isaiah during a period of eleven weeks.==================== posted in fair useIsaiah 53By The Late Rev. Sam Stern--------------------------------------Comments on Isaiah 53 with regard to the question, “Does this chapter refer to Israel delivering the Gentiles from sin or to a person who is the saviour?”Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way: and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.** All Scriptures are KJVThe Jewish people consider Isaiah to be their greatest prophet. Although they read many of his chapters in the synagogue, Chapter 53 is not one of them. They do read a portion of Chapter 52.Those who are familiar with synagogue liturgy know that the Five Books of Moses are read in their entirety during the year. In addition, specified scriptures that relate to the chapters are included after certain portions. For example, Isaiah 47, 54 and 40 are read in that order at the completion of the first, second and third weekly portions of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. After readings from Deuteronomy, which is a review of the other four books, they read eight chapters from Isaiah during a period of eleven weeks.Rabbinical OpinionThe most widely accepted rabbinical opinion on the meaning of Isaiah 53 is that the "he" referred to is the nation of Israel whom God chose to suffer for the sins of the Gentiles. This view is hard to comprehend because the Word of God never mentioned elsewhere that Israel would suffer for the sins of the Gentiles, either by Israel’s own volition or by God’s will. If this teaching were true, it would necessarily appear somewhere else in the Chumash (Five Books of Moses).On the contrary, God warned the nation of Israel that it was for their own sins that they would suffer — i.e., if they did not obey Him (Leviticus 26:14-41, Isaiah 17:10-14).The Bible disclosed that Israel will go through a purging of her sins against God and against His word:Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble: but he [Jacob] shall be saved out of it (Jeremiah 30:7).Why criest thou for thine affliction? thy sorrow is incurable for the multitude of thine iniquity: because thy sins were increased, I have done these things unto thee (Jeremiah 30:15).On the other hand, God will judge the Gentile nations according to how they treated Israel. Isaiah deals with the subject of God’s judgment of the nations (the Gentiles) in Chapters 13 and 24. In addition, Jeremiah warns:Therefore all they that devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee will I give for a prey (Jeremiah 30:16).God commanded Israel to believe that He is the only God and to testify of that fact to the nations:Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me (Isaiah 43:10).Although God called them to be His witnesses, they disobeyed Him and failed in their mission. They were to obey God as a holy nation and to preach to the Gentiles. God never called on Israel to suffer for the nations, but only to suffer for their own sins. Isaiah 53 speaks plainly, not about a nation, but about a Messiah who would voluntarily give his life for the sake of humanity.Another important point to consider is that the rabbis usually interpret the Bible literally. The Talmudic rule of interpretation is as follows:No scripture can be changed from the simple meaning.If one says a certain expression means something else regarding the Word, he is wrong.The Bible means what it says. It is not allowed to change its meaning.The Rambam (Maimonides) said in his thirteen tenets, which are included in the Siddur (prayerbook):I believe in the words of the prophets. They are the truth.I believe that the Bible was given to Moses.I believe that the Bible cannot be changed.In dealing with Isaiah 53, however, most Jewish interpreters depart from their literal view of the Bible and from the above-mentioned rules. Instead they consider this chapter as an allegory, metaphor or some other figure of speech in which Israel suffers for the sins of the Gentiles.Kimchi, Beuer Hainian and Joseph Caro, for example, follow this line of thought.On the other hand, the Talmudic book Sota, page 14b, interprets that Isaiah 53 means Moses, while Eben Ezra suggests that it could mean Jeremiah. These Jewish sages refuse to interpret Isaiah 53 as an allusion to the Messiah.In addition, some Jewish Bible expositors maintain that Isaiah 53 is a continuation of Chapter 52. They claim that the "he" of Isaiah 53 refers to the person mentioned in Chapter 52, but stop short of accepting that "he" is the Messiah.Further, some of these rabbis believe that there is no way to tell who the Messiah will be before he comes and that the Jewish people will have to wait until he rules in Jerusalem before they accept him. In this way, as we shall see, they negate the Biblical passages that God gave through His prophets. However, God revealed in His Word knowledge regarding the Messiah so that we would recognize him. He did not want us to rely on the philosophy that "Seeing is believing," but left us a whole body of Messianic Prophecy in His Word.Some of the messianic references follow:From the Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)A Prophet Like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15)A Descendant of King David (Jeremiah 23:5)Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)Born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14)To Die by Crucifixion (Psalm 22:14)To be Resurrected (Psalm 16:10)Regarding the relationship between Chapter 52 and 53 of Isaiah, Sota 14b also cites Isaiah 53:12 in its comment on 52:14, which reads as follows:Rabbi Simlai preached, Why did Moses want to enter the land of Israel? Did he want to eat the fruit of the land? Or satisfy himself with the bounty? But so said Moses, Many laws were given to Israel which can be done in Israel only. I will go to the land in order to fulfill the laws.The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, Only to receive the rewards? I ascribe it to thee as if you did it. As it is written, Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors [Isaiah 53:12].Here the Talmud ascribes Isaiah 52:14 to the person of Moses. It relates the verse to 53:12, which it attributes to the fact that when God threatened to destroy the Israelites for building the golden calf, Moses pleaded:Yet now if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written [Exodus 32:32].If we accept that the preceding comment in Sotah 14b speaks about a person and that it relates to Chapter 53, why can’t we accept that Chapter 53 describes a person? We must ask ourselves why Isaiah could not have written Chapter 53 to describe a person rather than the nation of Israel — more specifically the suffering Messiah who was to die for the sins of the world.Original Language and GrammarFurther, we cannot dismiss the crucial roles that the original language and grammar play in our understanding of the true meaning of Isaiah 53. On these counts, the rabbis’ interpretation that Israel would suffer for the Gentiles breaks down. We must pay special attention to the pronouns used in this chapter of Isaiah. For example, the prophet speaks about the "him" in the third person when he says in verse 6:All we [Jews] like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all [emphasis added].Isaiah is Israel’s greatest prophet. Since he wrote as a Jew, he would not suddenly write as a Gentile. The "we" (anachnoo) refers to the Jews: We Jews have gone astray. The LORD, therefore, has laid on "him" (oto) the iniquity of us all. If the Bible means that the nation of Israel was to suffer for the Gentiles, the verse would read: The LORD has laid on us (the Jews) the iniquity of them all.The original Hebrew of Isaiah 53:4 reads as follows:Ochain chalooyenu hu nasah, which literally translated means:Therefore our grief he carried.oomachoveinoo sevalom, which literally translated means:And our sorrow he suffered.Vaanachnu chashavnoo nogua mookeh Elohim umooneh, which literally translated means:And we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.The next verse, Isaiah 53:5, reads as follows in the Hebrew:Veehu mecholul meepshaenoo, which literally translated means:And he was wounded for our sins.Medooka meavonoteinoo, which literally translated means:bruised for our transgression.moosar shlomeinoo alloy, which literally translated means:The chastisement of our peace was upon him.Ooyachavoorato neerpa lahnoo, which literally translated means:and with his stripes we are healed.Since Isaiah was a Jew, the "we" referred to in his Chapter 53 means the Jews. The distinction is made between "we" (us, our) the Jews, and "he" who bore our sins. The "he" is an individual, someone other than the Jewish nation as a whole.Further, Isaiah 53:12 reads in part:ha-erah lamavet nafshaw, which literally translated means:he poured to death his soul.The above verse refers to the death of Jesus on the cross. These numerous passages show that the most consistent and convincing interpretation is that "he" is a person, the Messiah, who suffered and died for the sins of Israel and of the world.Why Did The Jewish People Suffer?The comment of Radak (David Kimchi) typifies the rabbis’ attempt to get around the above interpretation regarding the Messiah:…Why then did the Jews suffer? It was not for their sin because they had the right religion, and we Gentiles who had a false religion did not live a good life of peace, so the Jews suffered the pain the Gentiles were supposed to suffer, so that with the suffering of the Jews, we Gentiles are healed and our sin is forgiven. The Jews became our kaporah [sin-forgiver]. Israel suffered not for their sins, but for our sins…Kimchi insists that Israel did not sin, although the Bible teaches that Israel did sin and that God would punish her for her transgressions. The commentators’ attitude of neither admitting Israel's sins nor repenting of them leads to an incorrect interpretation of this chapter. In advancing the idea that following the right religion makes a person righteous, Kimchi neglects to point out that the Jews did not follow their religion righteously and that the Word of God itself is replete with God’s warnings of the consequences to Israel of her sins.Another Jewish rabbi, Eben Ezra, comments on Isaiah 53:3, emphasizing the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Gentiles:He is despised and rejected of men. The Jews are despised and rejected of men, Gentiles. A man of sorrow and acquainted with grief. The Jews are suffering from the Gentiles. And we hid as it were our faces from him. The Gentiles don’t want to look as the Jews are being persecuted; they hide their faces. They hate the Jews even when they [the Jews] suffer.Eben Ezra seems to take into account only the suffering of the Jews at the hand of the Gentiles and sees no further teaching in Isaiah 53. Similarly, Beuer Hainian, in his comment on Isaiah 53:5, says that the sin of the Gentiles is to cause the Jews to suffer. Both commentators, Eben Ezra and Beuer Hainian, avoid the issue of Israel’s sins.The Jewish commentators in general insisted that Israel was a righteous nation that suffered for the sins of the Gentiles, an idea typified by the following comment made by Joseph Caro on Isaiah 53:5:God created a righteous nation to carry the sins of the world so that the world could exist.In other words, some of the rabbis believe that the Jews suffer for the healing of the nations. Perhaps a nation that is pure could purge the idolatrous nations. But the nation of Israel itself failed to keep God’s commandments. Hence, the most plausible view is that God sent the only One who could save the world: the Messiah.The learned rabbis know their own rule that the writing of prophecy can refer to the past, present or future. A Biblical prophet may speak in the past tense, but the pronouncement can apply also to the future. Isaiah 53 is just this kind of pronouncement about the future—a prophecy by Israel’s greatest prophet of the coming of the Messiah to suffer and die for the sins of the world.Commentators See More Truth in Isaiah 52Biblical commentaries on Isaiah 52 come closer to the truth than those applying to Isaiah 53; some even mention the Messiah:Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (Isaiah 52:13, 14).The Targum interprets Isaiah 52:13, quoted above, as follows:Behold my servant will succeed. The Messiah will be lifted up and very strong.Here the Targum calls the servant the Messiah, not the nation of Israel, not Moses, not any Jewish king!On the very same verse, Eben Ezra, taking controversy into consideration, presents two contradictory views:Behold my servant…This passage is very difficult. Some of our adversaries say that this speaks of their God. They interpret that "my servant" means the body, but this is not right because the body has no wisdom even when he is alive. My servant is Israel. Every Jew who lives among the Gentiles is God’s servant.Eben Ezra continues his comment on Isaiah 52:13, giving the contradictory view that "my servant" means Messiah:However, most of the rabbis say that "my servant" means the Messiah. Our forefathers, blessed be their memory, said that in the same day when the Holy Temple was destroyed, the Messiah was born.On the other hand, Rabbi Joseph Caro does not identify the servant as the Messiah referred to in Isaiah 52:13, 14 when he makes the following comment:My servant Israel will be lifted up. Our rabbis in the Medrash say, He will be higher than Abraham …greater than Moses…greater than the angels.Who else can be higher than Abraham, Moses and the angels, but the Messiah, who in the person of Jesus was despised and rejected of men?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -oops !!!!!!!!!!! oops !!!!!!!!!!!#######################oooooooo######################also see http://www.thebookwu...om/isaiah53.htmand http://jewsforjesus....s/13_6/isaiah53 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 08/03/2015 - RF EMFs produce clear co-carcinogenic properties You can also download this story as a printable .pdf file ======= On the same day that the EC's SCENIHR released their long-awaited report [1] that concluded that we should not worry about any adverse health effects of EMF/RF fields, a new well conducted replication study [2] shows that long-term 3G/UMTS microwave exposure can act as a co-carcinogen and statistically significantly increase cancer growth at very low exposure levels, 50-fold below currently permitted levels. Everyone using a 3G mobile phone or iPad or other tablet will be exposed at higher levels than this (0.04 W/kg). This study flags a big and important "wake up alarm call". These are levels that many, if not most, of our children are now being being exposed to WiFi at school, when using laptops and tablet PCs. Modern WiFi signals use RF modulation schemes that are similar to UMTS. It is vital that this study is repeated using similar exposure levels with various types and frequencies of WiFi. We call on the UK Department of Health to authorise funding for this work to be done as soon as possible - especially as their Public Health England organisation's website currently supports schools in their use of WiFi for children of all ages. We have long believed that this is unethical and have repeatedly called for WiFi and health research which, to our knowledge, has not been done by any official organisation. The team was led by Professor Dr Alexander Lerchl and funded by a grant from the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), Salzgitter, Germany. The funding agency defined the principal study design which was further developed with Dr Lerchl. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. In the past Dr Lerchl has been outspoken in his belief that current science had shown that low levels of microwave RF exposure could not be carcinogenic, so publication of this new, well conducted, study that shows the opposite is to his credit. The authors write:"Previously published results from a pilot study with carcinogen-treated mice, however, suggested tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF (Tillmann et al, 2010). We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels (0 (sham), 0.04, 0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR)... Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. A clear dose-response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure." "Our study confirms and extends the previously published observations of tumor-promoting effects of life-long RF-EMF exposure... Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones." "The fact that both studies found basically the same tumor-promoting effects at levels below the accepted (and in most countries legally defined) exposure limits for humans is worrying. Although animal experiments are generally not easily transferable to the situation in humans, the findings are a very clear indication that - in principal - tumor-promoting effects of life-long RF-EMF exposure may occur at levels supposedly too low to cause thermal effects." Some details of the study:In 2010, Tillmann and colleagues published a study [3] showing tumour-promoting effects of life-long exposure to microwave RF from 3G (UMTS) at moderate exposure levels in mice treated with a carcinogen while in-utero. Those results were potentially influenced by an unexpected infection. Their data showed clear effects of RF-EMF exposure on the incidences of lung and liver tumours. The exposed mice also had double the number of metastasising lung tumours compared with the non-exposed mice. SCENIHR 2015 does mention the Tillmann, et al, study on page 85 and say that a further study "might be informative", but also state that peak exposures were high (5 W/kg), implying that there might be some thermal effect. Lerchl's team have replicated this study with higher numbers of mice per group in order to clarify whether the previously reported results could be confirmed. In addition, two additional SAR levels of exposure (low and high) were included in this well designed new study in order to investigate possible dose-response relationships. What they have found are co-carcinogenic promotional effects at all levels of UMTS RF/microwave exposure. In fact, the lowest level of exposure shows the highest, statistically significant, promotional effect. Please see the Figure (above) reproduced from the paper. The paper is available from the journal's website, linked below. It is a pity that BfS did not fund the Open Access publication of this paper. Most public and Charity funded research now has a stipulated requirement for the results to be published as an Open Access (freely downloadable) paper. This only involves the funders paying a few thousand euros (or USD) to the publishers, which is a small sum compared with the cost of the actual research. References1/. » The 2015 SCENIHR Opinion (PDF download) 2/. » A. Lerchl, M. Klose, K. Grote, A.F.X. Wilhelm, O. Spathmann, T. Fiedler, J.Streckert, V. Hansen, M. Clemens, Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.151 3/. » T. Tillmann, H. Ernst, J. Streckert, et al., Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 86 (2010) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 ' 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21708#entry296644 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 A wall of text is an excessively long post to a noticeboard or talk page discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wall_of_text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts