One-third of FDA-approved drugs were later found to have safety risks, according to a recent analysis of drugs cleared by the agency between 2001 and 2010.
According to the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Among 222 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2001 through 2010, 71 (32.0%) were affected by a postmarket safety event.”
A postmarket safety event includes “(1) withdrawals due to safety concerns, (2) FDA issuance of incremental boxed warnings added in the postmarket period, and (3) FDA issuance of safety communications.”
The researchers, many of them from Yale University, found these events were more common among biologic and psychiatric drugs, as well as those granted access to the FDA’s expedited approval process. The Washington Postsummarized the researchers’ findings:
Three of the drugs were withdrawn from the market. The FDA also required 61 new black-box warnings — the agency’s most serious safety alert, included in the drug’s packaging — and issued 59 safety communications to inform doctors and consumers about newly identified concerns. Some products had more than one boxed warning added or safety communication issued over the time of the study.
According to lead researcher Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, one of the main reasons for these failures is the public’s desire for quick access to pharmaceuticals.
“We seem to have decided as a society that we want drugs reviewed faster,” he told the Post, adding that for this reason, it’s vital “that we have a strong system in place to continually evaluate drugs and to communicate new safety concerns quickly and effectively.”
Further, according to a 2014 study published in the British Medical Journal, the industry directly funds the FDA, and this is likely a factor in the agency’s willingness to approve pharmaceutical drugs. That study explained:
In 1992, because of widespread concern that the US Food and Drug Administration was taking too long to approve drugs, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was enacted, authorizing the FDA to collect user fees from drug companies to expedite the approval process. Besides providing funding for an increased FDA staff, the act established performance goals during the approval process to ensure more rapid review.
The analysis noted that “As of the current fiscal year (October 2013 to September 2014), $760m (£450m; €570m) in drug industry money is allocated to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, comprising a large proportion, more than 60%, of the center’s drug review expenditure.”Though it is highly questionable that pharmaceutical companies directly fund the FDA, that study concluded it could not establish a definitive causal relationship between industry funding and increased safety issues. Still, it acknowledged “that the faster post-PDUFA drug approvals were associated with a higher rate of subsequent safety withdrawals and black box warnings.”
Perhaps another reason for the FDA’s inability to prevent drugs with adverse health effects from reaching the market is its acceptance of industry-backed research. For example, the agency recently approved a new drug for multiple sclerosis, Ocrevus (the generic version is called ocrelizumab), based on two studies. One of those studies was sponsored by Roche, the company that owns ocrelizumab’s manufacturer, Genetech. That study was conducted by scientists who disclosed financial ties to Roche and countless other pharmaceutical companies. STAT News reported that this study provided the bulk of the agency’s decision to approve the new drug.
The FDA acknowledged that side effects of Ocrevus include “upper respiratory tract infection, skin infection, and lower respiratory tract infection.” Another potential side effect is cancer, which the FDA failed to note in its press release touting the drug’s approval. Further, as CBS News reported, “the new drug only modestly slowed decline” in symptoms of MS but was still considered a breakthrough.
Keeping with the findings of the recent analysis published in JAMA, this study was granted fast-track approval process and priority review.
These conflicts of interest are even more glaring in light of the fact that the FDA — the very same agency that evidently approves drugs that often ultimately prove to be harmful — refuses to acknowledge that cannabis is an effective medicine.
Despite ever-growing volumes of research — usually conducted with moldy, low-quality weed provided by the government — the FDA refuses to budge.
Rather, in fact, the agency has approved synthetic cannabis produced by pharmaceutical companies — one of which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against cannabis legalization in Arizona last year and also manufactures fentanyl, a powerful opioid painkiller.
Meanwhile, despite the lack of serious side effects cannabis causes in individuals who find relief from it, last year the FDA actually advised the DEA to keep it on the list of Schedule I drugs, which are designated to have no medicinal value.
As the failures of the FDA continue to mount — including the pharmaceutical industry’s infiltration of the department — Americans have increasing reasons to avoid trusting their government and to do their own research before consuming potentially dangerous treatments.
By: Higher Perspectives As more and more people are starting to realize, the pharmaceutical industry is basically one big legal drug ring.
Just as people get addicted to heroin and methamphetamine, pharmaceutical companies push drugs with slightly altered chemical compositions deemed legal by the government.
The one good thing to come of this is the increased demand for natural and alternative treatments that lie outside the domain of ‘Big Pharma.’ One substance, in particular, has been seen to hold great medicinal potential, and that’s cannabis (marijuana).
In fact, some organizations have started making cannabis-infused products to treat a variety of highly painful ailments and symptoms.
The Foria Relief Company has created vaginal cannabis suppositories using cocoa butter as the perfect alternative to pills like Vicodin, Midol and Ibuprofen. The suppository helps relax muscles, preventing or soothing menstrual cramps.
The cannabis capsule is made from the extract of cannabis flower, all of which are pesticide-free. The active ingredients are processed without microbials and then packaged with a specific mix of 60 mg of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and 10 mg of CBD (cannabidiol).
The combination together creates the perfect effect to relieve pain. The THC helps send happy feelings to the brain, while the CBD helps promote relaxation of the muscles. This helps reduce muscle spasms as well as inflammation.
After taking the suppository, one woman described the area from her waist to her thighs as “floating in some other galaxy.” It helped ease up any clenched, tense muscles and completely got rid of all of the pain in her midsection.
Unfortunately, this product is only purchasable in California at the moment, and it has not been approved by the FDA (Food & Drug Administration). However, if you think this product might be for you, please consult with a doctor before trying it, just to be safe!
In today’s highly controversial and aggressive world, virtually anything can present a threat to the life of a human being, not just wars, climate change, or short-sighted and often criminal actions of certain politicians.
As it has been shown by a number of scientific studies, the activities of a number of American corporations present a very real threat the well-being of the population mainly due to the use of genetically modified substances in their products while manufacturing substandard health and beauty aids. The truth is that it’s the people of developing countries that are being affected by these fraudulent business practices the most, since Western corporations try to suppress any information about the health effects of their products to obtain maximum profit.
At the end of the twentieth century British scientists have come to a sensational conclusion that parabens are capable of penetrating the skin barrier and are being accumulated in the tissues of the body, causing cancer, hormone system failures, endocrine system suppression, and skin diseases. Research made this finding while studying malignant tumors in breast tissue, all of which contained parabens, Later on, these findings were confirmed by Canadian and French scientists.
Parabens are artificial preservatives that are often used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry by a number of Western corporations. Even though they are effectively increasing the shelf life of a product, while remaining relatively cheap to use, parabens pose a serious threat to human health and well-being. From time to time one can come across articles on the harmful effects of parabens in Europe and the United States, forcing certain companies to replace parabens with less harmful preservatives. However, the markets of developing countries, especially those with hot and humid climates, are flooded with Western cosmetic products that contain the dangerous substance.
In order to attract international attention to this danger, the French Le Monde went as far as to publish a list of the 400 Western pharmaceutical products containing parabens and that are, therefore, dangerous for use or consumption. In this list one may find the baby cream Biafine, such cough medicines as Clarix, Codotussyl, Drill, Hexapneumine, Humex, Pectosan, and Rhinathiol, stomach relief medicine such as Maalox, Gaviscon, Josacine, and antibiotic Zinnat, along with a list of other drugs produced by Western corporations and actively advertised for mass consumption.
As it has been pointed out by French journalists, numerous studies have shown that drugs from this list compromise the functioning of the hormone system, especially the reproductive ability of men and women, and may result in cancer.
At the same time, scientists are stressing the danger of hydro-alcoholic gels which were brought to the market in the wake of the artificially created hysteria around the “danger” of the so-called “bird flu,” the H1N1. These gels are advertised as the ultimate solution for sanitizing hands and body in the absence of soap. A study carried out by the University of Missouri and published in the Plos ONE journal shows that hydro-alcoholic gels make a person more susceptible to Bisphénol-A.
In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially recognized that Bisphénol-A is harmful to human health due to the negative effect it has on brain functions and the reproductive system. It also causes a number of cancers (in both women and men) – in particular, prostate cancer, breast cancer as well as autism, depression, reproductive and endocrine systems failure, delays in brain development, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.
Yet another study conducted in Argentina showed that 85% of the women’s hygienic pads presented a serious threat to women since they contain the chemically hazardous substance known as glyphosate. This fact was revealed by researchers of the National Argentine University of La Plata at a recent congress of physicians in Buenos Aires, upon examining sanitary towels and sanitary pads produced with the use of genetically-modified cotton that was grown using Roundup herbicide of the American company Monsanto-Bayer. As we learn from this study, after the use of this herbicide, all cotton products contain this carcinogenic substance. For this reason, there’s been a massive movement in many countries through the collection of signatures to force such producers as Tampax or Always to state the composition of their products.
Jean Périer is an independent researcher and analyst and a renowned expert on the Near and Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
More than 20 studies have linked the use of talcum powder around the genital area to ovarian cancer in women. Cornstarch is a safe substitute that can do the job of absorbing moisture
In February 2016, a jury found Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder contributed to a 62-year old woman’s ovarian cancer, awarding her $72 million in damages
In May 2016, another woman was awarded $55 million in damages after talc embedded in her ovaries was found to have contributed to her cancer
Nearly 13,000 chemicals are used in cosmetics, of which only an estimated 10 percent have been evaluated for safety. Many do not realize that cosmetics can be brought to market without having to undergo an approval process.
Cosmetics are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but they’re not FDA-approved. This means that only AFTER a product is deemed harmful, adulterated or misbranded will the FDA take regulatory action.1 The only cosmetic ingredients requiring FDA premarket approval are color additives.
So who is responsible for ensuring cosmetics and personal care products are safe? The answer is the companies that manufacture and market the products. It’s a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse, which puts us all at serious risks.
Not only do FDA regulations not require specific tests to demonstrate safety, but companies are also not required to share whatever safety information they might have with the FDA. This poses an obvious conflict of interest, and as recent lawsuits show, this can have serious consequences for public health.
Baby Talcum Powder Increases Woman’s Risk of Ovarian Cancer
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is a well-known and trusted “baby friendly” brand, producing a range of baby products and feminine hygiene items. Unfortunately, J&J has failed the public trust yet again. And the lack of regulations relating to cosmetics is what helped them bury the dangers of one of its flagship products.
In 2008, I warned women to cease using talcum powder. I noted there were several studies showing that applying talcum powder to the genital area might raise a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer if the powder particles were to travel up through her vagina and get lodged in her ovaries.2
As noted by Robinson Calcagnie Inc., a legal firm representing talcum powder victims, more than 20 such studies exist.3 Some date back to 1971, when British researchers found talc particles embedded in a majority of the ovarian tumors investigated.4
While the measure of risk varies from study to study, the results suggest women may increase their risk for ovarian cancer anywhere from 30 to 90 percent by applying talcum powder to their genital area.5
A 2008 study concluded that using talc as little as once a week raised a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer by 36 percent. Daily users faced a 41 percent increased risk.6
Johnson & Johnson Faces Legal Challenges Over Carcinogenic Talcum Powder
According to Robinson Calcagnie:
“The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] has designated ‘perineal [genital] use of talc-based body powder is possibly carcinogenic to humans.’
However, manufacturers of talc-containing products, such as [J&J] and its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products, have refused to acknowledge the link between talc and ovarian cancer and have failed [to] adequately warn consumers of the risks.
Now, more than 1,000 women across the country have filed lawsuits against [J&J] and its talc distributor Imerys, claiming the companies knew of the association between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer yet failed to adequately warn consumers.”
Johnson & Johnson to Pay $72 Million in Damages to Ovarian Cancer Victim
In February, 2016, a jury found J&J’s talcum powder had contributed to 62-year old Jacqueline Fox’s ovarian cancer, awarding Fox $72 million in damages.7
Ten million dollars was awarded for compensatory damages. Another $62 million in punitive damages was awarded to her family members, as Fox died last fall, succumbing to the disease after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer three years ago.
Fox’s deposition was delivered via a prerecorded statement, in which she said she’d been using J&J’s talcum powder and Shower to Shower body powder for 35 years. She now believed these products were responsible for killing her. Fox was the first to receive financial compensation.
Waiting for their day in court are another 1,200 women who, like Fox, claim J&J knew about the risks yet failed to warn them about the dangers of its talcum products. One Missouri-based law firm was contacted by 17,000 individuals after hearing about Fox’s case, so the number of plaintiffs is likely to increase exponentially with time.8
The second defendant in the case, Imerys Talc America, was not found to be at fault. According to the jury foreman, Krista Smith, internal J&J documents clearly showed the company was hiding their knowledge about the products’ risks.
“All they had to do was put a warning label on,” Smith told Bloomberg.9 In a statement, J&J responded to the verdict saying:10
“We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff’s family but firmly believe the safety of the cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence.”
J&J Hid Dangers of Talc for 40 Years
Two additional court cases have tied J&J’s talcum powder to ovarian cancer. On May 2, 2016, jurors awarded Gloria Ristesund $55 million in damages. Ristesund, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011, had used J&J’s talcum products for 40 years.
After her hysterectomy, doctors did indeed find talcum powder in her ovarian tissue. According to the Huffington Post, internal documents and memos sealed the deal for jurors in this case as well, proving the company “tried to cover up and influence the boards that regulate cosmetics.”11
Talcum powder is a magnesium trisilicate mineral. In the 1970s, concerns were raised when talc was found to contain cancer-causing asbestos. In 1973, it was written into law that all talcum powders must be asbestos-free.
However, the ovarian cancer connection is actually not related to the asbestos but is an independent risk factor. As reported by the Huffington Post:
“In 1993, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presence of asbestos-like fibers.
In response to the federal NTP study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). Johnson & Johnson was a member of the trade lobby and was the primary actor and contributors of TIPTF.
The stated purpose of TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companies in an effort to collectively defend talc use and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry.”
The Talc Cover-Up
As many other dangerous industries have done, TIPTF hired scientists to produce biased research that was then used to give consumers a false sense of security.
This worked for a number of decades, but then, in 2006, the Canadian government classified talc as a D2A substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. D2A substances are considered “very toxic” and “cancer causing.”
That same year, J&J’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc, started adding warnings to the talc sold to J&J, providing safety information not only from the IARC but also the Canadian government.
J&J never passed these warnings on to consumers, and still don’t, claiming the scientific evidence supports its safety.
J&J also continues to “educate” consumers about the safety of talc on its website, making no mention of having been found guilty of negligence by two separate juries, or the 1,200 pending cases charging talcum powder contributed to ovarian cancer.
Some Talc May Still Be Contaminated With Asbestos
BASF and its lawyers are also facing fraud charges related to talc — in this case asbestos-contaminated talc. A class action lawsuit filed against them alleges the parties “conspired to hide and/or destroy evidence of asbestos exposure to prevent lawsuits.”
As it turns out, while asbestos-containing talc has been banned since 1973, a company called Engelhard sourced talc from a mine in Vermont that contained asbestos. Engelhard was later acquired by BASF, which inherited the company’s liabilities. According to the law office Bergman Draper Ladenburg:12
“Three Engelhard officials testified in depositions that there was in fact asbestos in the talc and that company officials hid this fact.”
J&J Has a Long History of Malfeasance
You may be surprised to realize that J&J actually has a long history of corporate malfeasance. AllBusiness.com named J&J as one of the Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s13 for deliberately destroying documents related to a criminal investigation of one its products. In the last three years alone the company has spent more than $5 billion to settle lawsuits related to its products.
2010 was a particularly bad year for J&J. First it was discovered the company hid drug manufacturing problems, and instead of recalling its defective Motrin tablets, it sent undercover agents disguised as regular shoppers to buy up remaining stock.
That same year, the government of British Columbia, Canada, filed suit against J&J, claiming they aggressively marketed the Ortho Evra contraception patch without disclosing serious side effects like blood clots, pulmonary embolism, strokes, heart attacks and deep vein thrombosis. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also accused the company of paying tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare Inc. to buy and recommend J&J drugs.14
Investigations also revealed J&J’s No More Tears baby shampoo contained two potentially cancer-causing chemicals: quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde (a skin, eye and respiratory irritant, and a known carcinogen), and 1,4-dioxane, known to be a likely carcinogen. After several years of pressure from consumer advocates, J&J finally removed these dangerous ingredients from its baby shampoo in 2014.15
How Many Chemicals Does Your Beauty Routine Expose You to?
The average American woman uses 12 personal care products and/or cosmetics a day, containing 168 different chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG). While most men use fewer products, they’re still exposed to about 85 such chemicals daily, while teens, who use an average of 17 personal care products a day, are exposed to even more.16 Clearly, such chemical exposures are not insignificant, especially when they occur virtually daily for a lifetime.
When EWG tested teens to find out which chemicals in personal care products were found in their bodies, 16 different hormone-altering chemicals, including parabens and phthalates, were detected. There are other chemicals risks as well.
In the report “Heavy Metal Hazard: The Health Risks of Hidden Heavy Metals in Face Makeup,”17 Environmental Defense tested 49 different makeup items, including foundations, concealers, powders, blushes, mascaras, eye liners, eye shadows, lipsticks and lip glosses. Their testing revealed serious heavy metal contamination in virtually all of the products:
1. 96 percent contained lead
2. 90 percent contained beryllium
3. 61 percent contained thallium
4. 51 percent contained cadmium
5. 20 percent contained arsenic
Your skin is your largest organ, and anything you put on it should contain only the best and safest ingredients from nature. So before slathering lotion or body wash on your skin, take a look at this infographic on toxic chemicals found in personal-care-products.
How to Reduce Your Chemical ExposuresThe EWG has a great database to help you find personal care products that are free of potentially dangerous chemicals.18 Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients. Beware that products boasting “all-natural” labels can still contain harmful chemicals, so be sure to check the full list of ingredients.
It’s important to remember that your skin is your largest and most permeable organ. Just about anything you put on your skin will end up in your bloodstream and distributed throughout your body. Once these chemicals find their way into your body, they tend to accumulate over time because you typically lack the necessary enzymes to break them down.
When it comes to talcum powder, my recommendation is to avoid it altogether. Also remember that adult women are not the ones most commonly exposed to talc. Most parents generously apply baby talcum powder to their baby’s bottom at each diaper change.
A safe substitute that can absorb moisture is cornstarch. In 1999, following reports of talcum dangers, the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition (NOCC) came out with the recommendation to use cornstarch-based products in the genital area in lieu of talcum powder.19
Corporate profit takes the front seat again! Even something as natural and historically revered as honey has to be processed until it is no longer the thing it used to be.
Food Safety News conducted tests of honey sold at various outlets in 10 states and the District of Columbia. The honey was analyzed for pollen content by a leading mellisopalynologist (investigator of pollen in honey). The results? 76% of total samples had all pollen removed. 100% of samples packaged in small individual portions had all pollen removed. In contrast, all of the honey bought at farmers markets, co-ops and natural food stores had the full, anticipated, amount of pollen.
Why does this matter? Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that any product that has been ultra-filtered to remove all pollen is not honey. Not that that matters, as the FDA is a good friend to industry and does not actually check for pollen.
Bee pollen is full of protein, vitamins, minerals, lipids, and carbohydrates. Besides this nutritional value, it is said to help with stomach ailments, allergies, anemia, low energy, and other problems. Pollen from flowers is packaged by the honey bees with nectar and enzymes which turns it into a superfood.
The fact that pollen is removed by honey packers seems bizarre, considering that it costs money and reduces quality. One company spokesman said “North American shoppers want their honey crystal clear” (a useless sound bite) and another said “processed honey…lasts longer on the shelves” (admitting it’s about the money).
It is about the money, and it goes far deeper than shelf life. Removing all pollen makes the origin of the “honey” undetectable. This allows packers to take honey from anywhere in the world, including China. A few years ago it was found that imported Chinese honey was contaminated with chloramphenicol and other dangerous animal antibiotics. U.S. packers import about 120 million pounds of honey from Asian countries, several of which are known laundering points for Chinese honey.
Regular filtering to remove bee parts, wax, and debris is a normal process. There is no reason to do ultra-fine filtration except to remove pollen. Without the pollen there is no sure way to tell where honey comes from. The big-name companies like the Sioux Honey Association which markets Sue Bee, Clover Maid, and others do not care to even comment on the issue.
However, Golden Heritage Producers, the nation’s third largest packer, says they take precautions to avoid laundered Chinese honey. A spokesman said, “The brokers know that if there’s an absence of all pollen in the raw honey we won’t buy it, we won’t touch it, because without pollen we have no way to verify its origin.” However, Golden Heritage still removes all pollen in order to, as they say, increase shelf life.
So it seems that the big corporations selling their “honey” on grocery store shelves don’t want pollen in the product. Is it any coincidence that lack of pollen leaves the origin undetectable, and that only one packer said they take precautions to avoid laundered Chinese honey?
It seems a terrible shame to subject honey—an amazing natural product valued for centuries—to the greed of corporate manufacturing, removing the thing that makes it real honey.
We can combat this practice by buying honey made from local beekeepers and buying from packers that pledge their devotion to healthy, pollen-rich honey.
“It’s time to take your medicine, honey.” “But Mom, it’s making me feel weird and horrible, and I’m not getting any better.” “Well, it’s what the doctor prescribed, so it’s what we have to do.”
Have you ever been told to listen to your gut? There’s a reason for that. Actually, several reasons.
Many “Western” medicines are made in laboratories using chemicals and are highly experimental, and worse yet, they’re never tested on humans, except when they’re actually prescribed, applied, or injected into them.
Humans are the ultimate guinea pigs in America, while Big Pharma pockets trillions in profit. How did this all come to be?
Simple answer: After WWII, Nazi scientists were hired fresh out of prison to work on pharmaceuticals, vaccines, chemotherapy, and chemical food additives, in order to fuel the most insidious business on earth–allopathic medicine.
It’s no conspiracy theory either. The horror that took place at the Holocaust in Germany was continued, on a lesser scale, in the United States, for money.
Think about it. There is NO OTHER REASON our U.S. based pharmaceutical companies hired convicted mass murderers to fill the highest positions at Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst.
Fritz ter Meer, convicted of mass murder, served just 5 prison years, then conveniently became the chairman of Bayer’s supervisory board (yes, THAT Bayer–that makes children’s medications and the most popular aspirin).
Kurt Blome, who admitted to killing Jews with “gruesome experiments,” was hired in 1951 by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to work on chemical warfare. Get it?
In other words, Big Pharma’s evil seeds, which the FDA calls medicine, were first planted in the United States 65 years ago.
Many of the “mad scientists” who tortured innocent human beings in the Holocaust were hired and promoted by U.S. Presidents to catapult what we call “Western Medicine,” and its ultimate goal of creating sickness, and then treating its symptoms for profit.
Take heed, my friends, because THESE are the 8 most DANGEROUS MEDICINES on Planet Earth. It’s called the “War Against the Weak.”
War Against the Weak
#1. SSRIs – highly experimental, never proven safe or effective, and can completely block serotonin, leading to thoughts of suicide and even homicidal and suicidal acts of horror.
#2. MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella) – associated with causing autism and other central nervous system disorders and a myriad of health issues. When the LIVE measles virus gets into the body, the immune system is severely compromised, and the other chemical adjuvants and genetically modified ingredients attack the child, causing permanent and sometimes fatal results.
#3. Influenza vaccine (flu shot) – contains up to 50,000 parts per billion of mercury, in addition to formaldehyde, MSG, and aluminum. Can cause pregnant women to abort and have miscarriages
#4. Antibiotics – annihilate good gut bacteria and therefore severely decreases immune system. Doctors inappropriately prescribe antibiotics for viral infections and make matters much worse!
#5. HPV vaccine (human papillomavirus) – known to send teens into anaphylactic shock and comas. Thousands of families have sued the manufacturers for millions of dollars for chronic and permanent health damages.
#6. Chemotherapy – annihilates the immune system and often leads to the body forming new cancers, especially in the blood. Nazi scientists knew in the 1950s that chemotherapy only makes cancer temporarily recede, only to come back with a vengeance in other parts of the body! (Still, Western Medicine calls this successful)
#7. “RotaTeq” rotavirus vaccine – extremely toxic (oral) vaccine contains LIVE rotavirus strains (G1, G2, G3, G4, and P1), plus highly toxic polysorbate 80 and FETAL BOVINE SERUM. Also contains parts of porcine circovirus – a virus that INFECTS PIGS.
#8. Polio vaccine (oral and injected with needle) – It’s a cold, hard, scary fact that millions of Americans were injected with CANCER when they got the polio vaccine. Plus, the oral and nasal versions of the vaccine have been spreading polio in India and leaving many children paralyzed for life.
Sure, people are paranoid of infectious diseases and for good reason. The American medicine industry has exacerbated the WORST cases on record to scare the living hell out of everyone into injected their known carcinogens for “protection.”
It’s racketeering and it’s illegal, but the vaccine manufacturers are immune to lawsuits, protected by a massive slush fund and their own secret court of law.
If you or your child is severely injured by vaccines, you CANNOT sue the vaccine manufacturer. You will have to take that case to the Office of Special MASTERS of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which is commonly called the highly secretive “Vaccine Court.”
This corrupt “court” administers a no-fault compensation program (yes, you read that correctly), that serves as an alternative to your Constitutional rights.
Established back in 1986, after drug companies lost massive profits in high-profile lawsuits due to vaccines severely damaging a number of children, who suffered seizures and brain damage, linked to the DPT vaccine.
Before you EVER consider swallowing or injecting chemical toxins called “medicine” again, visit at least one Naturopathic Physician and find out if the health problem or problems are nutritional based, because odds are, they are!
Forbidden Fruits: Whatever Medicinal Foods The F.D.A. Forbids Written by Sarah C. Corriher Category: Reports Published: November 28, 2009 “Drop the almonds! NOW MISTER!” Vitamin B-17, Raw Bitter Almonds, and Apricot Seeds In 2007, bitter almonds were becoming popular throughout alternative medicine for their vitamin B-17 (laetrile) content. Health food stores had stopped selling B-17 in the form of apricot seeds in 2002, due to armed raids. The F.D.A. openly banned apricot seeds and laetrile extracts, because they had been published as a cure for cancer. Curing cancer is illegal in America. The British government followed suit, and did the very same things during 2002. Innocent people in both countries were arrested and wrongfully charged as criminals for merely selling apricot seeds, a carrier of vitamin B-17.
Bitter almonds were later discovered to be the highest source of this vitamin. Vitamin B-17 was still somewhat a newly-discovered vitamin, and it is rare in nature. In fact, there are organizations that are affiliated with orthodox medicine which still refuse to officially recognize laetrile as a vitamin. The reason for the exploding popularity of vitamin B-17, and thereby bitter almonds, was due to the fact that vitamin B-17 has dramatic and miraculous tumor-killing properties. While alternative medicine has had other effective and non-toxic cancer cures since the 1930’s, this new vitamin really looked like the magic bullet. There were reports everywhere of cancers being killed merely from patients eating bitter almonds daily. Soon there would be almond extract capsules, so that these same patients would only need a cheap, non-toxic pill per day. This did not bode well for the most lucrative segment of the medical industry. Hundreds of billions of dollars were expected to be lost in the oncology market.
In September of 2007, the F.D.A. made the claim that raw almonds had been linked to two salmonella outbreaks in five years, and that all almonds needed to be pasteurized for safety. Almonds had suddenly become “dangerous”. The salmonella outbreaks were not due to organic almonds, which is reminiscent of the many meat recalls. Salmonella and e-coli are present in our foods only because of grossly unhygienic factory conditions; not because our foods are inherently putrid. For bitter almonds, the required pasteurization would bring forth only one significant change to them. It would neutralize the vitamin B-17, and that was their agenda. Pristine bitter almonds are the most easily accessible source of vitamin B-17. They are illegal now by F.D.A. fiat. The bitter almond tree had already been banned from the U.S. in 1995. They even went so far as to make the tree itself illegal.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone