Is What You Know Based On Knowledge Or Belief?

QuestionEverything2

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
June 30, 2016

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”
– George Bernard Shaw

“Dangers lurk in all systems.  Systems incorporate the unexamined beliefs of their creators.  Ad opt a system, accept its beliefs, and you help strengthen the resistance to change.”
– Frank Herbert

Knowledge is a wonderful thing.  Knowledge allows us to apply our bests selves forth,  it allows us to glean an understanding in to situation we otherwise could not if we were ignorant, and even better, it allows us to live life to the fullest, among other things.

In its simplest form, knowledge is defined as:

acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 

Ultimately, how knowledge is applied is up to the individual.  Be it for righteous or nefarious purposes, knowledge itself is a tool.

Then there is the concept of belief.  Belief is interesting term.  Belief, like knowledge, can be used for countless things, positive or negative.

Belief is defined as:

something believed; an opinion or conviction

By its very nature, if something is believed it is not fact.    There is no problem with that as long as an individual can understand the tenet wholeheartedly.

The problem arises when people substitute belief for knowledge.  That can be overwhelmingly detrimental.

By way of personal example, well over a decade ago, it was my belief that vaccines were safe and effective.

What was this belief based on?   It was based on the constant repetition of this belief by doctors, media, and even parents.    Predictably, in the media, no studies were ever discussed at length if at all, nor are they now.  Some might know that as a clue.

This entire belief structure followed by doctors, nurses, teachers, parents, etc. all hinged on the honesty of the pharmaceutical representatives, which hinged on the ‘honesty’ of the scientists and corporations running the studies.  In hindsight, that’s a prodigious amount of belief stemming from one source, and nobody dared question it.

The unfortunate part is, that this is exactly how the system still operates today.  Everyone taking everyone’s word, nobody ever doing any investigation.  Except thankfully there are medical insiders that have realized the entire medical system is built on a house of cards and have spoken at length about it, such as Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot, author of [The Medical Mafia], Dr. Kelly Broggan [author of A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression], Dr. Peter Breggin [author of Toxic Psychiatry], Dr. Russell Blaylock [author of Natural Strategies For Cancer Patients], Dr. Suzanne Humphries [author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines & The Forgotten History], Dr .John Abramson [author of Overdo$ed America – The Broken Promise Of American Medicine] and countless others.

All roads led to more questions, and that fueled my personal quest for truth.  A search for knowledge hasn’t stopped. 

The deeper the search done by me went, the more it was embarrassingly apparent that everyone was just repeating what everyone else was just saying:  that vaccinations were always safe and effective.  But was it really true?  Did any of these individuals questioned at the time by me ever look at studies or read books extensively on the subject?  Negative.  Not one.  Even these days in the information age it’s rare when people actually research something at more than a cursory glance.

Of course, those who have done their homework realize this pervasive belief system stems from the very apex of the Medical Industrial Complex.

My presumption at the time was that all of these people in society knew what they were talking about.  Everyone that wasn’t doctors [parents, public officials, teachers, etc.] were just regurgitating the information they were told.  Nobody every looked at the data.  And the Doctors?  They were just repeating what they were told by the pharmaceutical representatives, who were just being told what to say by the scientists.  Nobody was reading studies or seeking to learn information. 

That’s the power of knowledge belief; everyone thinks they know.

After it became apparent to me that Big Pharma was responsible – at least in part – for the inculcation of such a belief, it fueled me to no end.  Big Pharma should be helping the populace, not lacing propaganda in every direction with questionable data at best, and downright deception at the worst.

The question still remained: why was a belief in vaccines being safe and effective, at its core, a belief?  Because it can’t satisfy the parameters of knowledge.

How is that so?  If we know that knowledge is the acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation, then it had to be possible for me to show the inefficiency and lack of safety of vaccinations.

Through extensive research, this is exactly what took place.

The more the veil of deception was pierced, the easier it was to see how convoluted the whole system of Big Pharma was inherently constructed.

Instead of asking people what they believed, it became apparent that it was up to me – the individual – to seek the knowledge that was to be gleaned, to either confirm, or deny, that vaccinations were safe and effective.  Such was only prudent given that the health of a possible future child at the time could be affected forever.

At any rate, the first major blow that began deconstructing Big Pharma’s credibility was becoming familiar with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act [NVCIA].

What did the NVCIA entail?  At its core, it’s a law that was passed to protect Big Pharma from damages arising from vaccine-related injury or death associated with vaccinationsIt essentially grants Big Pharma immunity from prosecution.  That’s called a BIG CLUE.

When querying a Doctor many years ago, she stated that the issue at the time – and this has been mentioned by many other sensible doctors/individuals – was that pharmaceutical companies were getting far too many lawsuits from vaccinations.  Had the subject not been known to me, it would seem odd, because the belief was that vaccinations are safe.  But having already dug up evidence that such was not the case, beginning with autism, it made a lot of sense that some large impetus would be the case for why the NVCIA was passed.  It was all about money.  Billions in fact.

Its ironic, because if vaccines were really safe, government protection via law would not be needed.

Delving further into the subject, another part of the system that became known to me was the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS].  This system is run by the FDA and the CDC.

However, how many people know that this reporting system even exists?  It wasn’t known to me, nor anyone that was queried at the time, and it rarely is known today, except with people who have looked thoroughly into the subject.

What’s the problem with not knowing about VAERS?  If parents/people don’t know about this system, how can they ever make a reliable adverse reaction report about vaccinations?  If they can’t make a reliable report, how can we know the efficacy of vaccinations on the whole?  They can’t.

A salient example shared in one of Jon Rappoport’s blogs  [NoMoreFakeNews.com], which couples with the info at hand, was reported by Barbara Loe Fisher:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”
http://www.whale.to/a/moth.html

As you can see, due to the infrequency of the reporting within the VAERS, the number of adverse reactions to vaccinations could be prodigious.

Consequently, it’s impossible to know how big the issue is.

This was yet another example which  helped me as an individual glean a modicum of truth where only beliefs stood.

Having conducted my own research, which is still ongoing to this day, it has become blatant that what was passed off as knowledge, was in fact based on belief.

The great thing is that information is becoming available every single day for those willing to search for it.

In fact, a more recent book that has added more fuel to the fire is, Thimerosal – Let The Science Speak – The Evidence Supporting The Immediate Removal Of Mercury – A Known Neurotoxin From Vaccines by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  The book has hundred of data points reflecting the ongoing issues with vaccinations containing thimerosal, which unfortunately is a neurotoxin.

Sifting methodically and relentlessly through all the information available, regardless of the topic, is the only sensible way an individual can go from believing something, to knowing it.

That makes all the difference in the world.

After all, as an inquiring individual, do you want to believe something works?   Or do you want to know?

Advertisements

The Free Individual Vs. The Deep State

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
June 30, 2016

The people who run society are engaged in bringing systems and structures into interlocking alignment, in order to create larger and larger machines of control.

I keep returning to this territory, because the whole thrust of modern civilization is making the individual extinct.

Powerless, badly educated, adrift in technology, viewed as a unit tied to a massive collective—this is the picture of the individual.

Let’s go back to square one. The individual is fundamentally at odds with the State. The State wants control. The State wants loyalists, adherents, joiners, conformists. The individual wants freedom, if he has any inkling of his own power.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Victory! Judge Closes Industry Loophole, Barring Pesticides From Compost Used In Organic Food Production

USDA
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
June 30, 2016

In a victory for organic consumers, a federal judge has tossed out a rule change by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that permitted the use of compost containing synthetic pesticides in growing organic foods.

“The court’s decision upholds the integrity of the organic standard and is an incredible victory for organic consumers, organic farmers and the environment,” said George Kimbrell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “On the flipside, the decision is a resounding defeat of industrial food actors trying to sell out organic integrity to pad their own pocketbooks.”

The nonprofits, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, and Center for Environmental Health, had sued the USDA, claiming that the agency violated the law by implementing the change by means of a “guidance,” and without any public input or participation.

“We applaud the Court’s decision to protect the integrity of the organic program,” said Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health. “We will continue to watchdog the USDA to ensure that the program meets consumers’ expectations for meaningful organic standards.”

Collusion by ‘Big Organics’

Before the USDA’s quiet rule change, the federal organic standard prohibited the use of any compost containing any substance not allowed in organic farming, which included synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. This rule had never been challenged by the composting and waste management industry, until California organic regulators banned several composts from organic use, after finding them to be contaminated with pesticides. The National Organics Program supported this action.

The waste management industry hit back, with the predictable support of the pesticide industry and the more surprising support of the Organic Trade Association, a trade group for large-scale organic producers. The industry asked the USDA to change the rule, and the USDA did so, by issuing a “guidance” on how to interpret the existing organics rules. By doing this, the USDA avoided having to initiate a publicly accountable process on a rule change.

The organic watchdog groups sued, alleging that the “guidance” was actually a rule change and, under federal law, required a public process. The waste management industry and its allies asked the court to dismiss the case, but the court refused.

The industry groups then asked the court to leave the rule in place, even if it was found to have been passed illegally!

The fight is not over!

However, the judge declined to play along. The court ruled that the USDA had in fact violated the law in implementing a rule change via “guidance” without public participation. And it ordered the new rule struck down.

“The court decision upholds an organic industry that has been built on a foundation of consumer and farmer investment in ecologically sound practices, principles and values to protect health and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “USDA has violated a basic requirement of public accountability in the standard setting process, which is fundamental to public trust in the organic label and continued growth in organic production.”

Of course, opponents of the organics movement are not resting. The very day after this victory, the Senate Agriculture Committee introduced its newest version of the anti-GMO-labeling Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. This “compromise” bill would allow the labeling of GMO ingredients, but only in the form of “smart labels” and QR codes only accessible to those with smartphones or via a 1-800 number or website.

“This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “This kind of labeling system is inadequate and inherently discriminatory against one third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even moreso [sic] against rural, low income, and elderly populations or those without access to the internet.

“We are appalled that our elected officials would support keeping Americans in the dark about what is in our food and even more appalled that they would do it on behalf Big Chemical and food corporations. We will work to defeat this DARK Act just as we have before.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Iodine-Rich Foods Fight Breast Cancer

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2016

Iodine-Rich Foods Fight Breast Cancer
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Margie King, Health Coach
June 27, 2016

Women with iodine deficiencies are more likely to develop breast cancer. Eat more of these iodine-rich foods to reduce your risk.

The myth persists that a mammogram is the number one way to avoid breast cancer.

But the truth is that mammogram radiation can cause cancer… mammograms don’t prolong lives… and breast cancer screenings result in over-diagnosis and over-treatment.

Real breast cancer prevention starts with attention to diet, exercise, stress reduction, and environmental toxins.

And when it comes to diet, one of the best nutrients to help ward off breast cancer is iodine.

If you think about it at all, you probably associate iodine with your thyroid.  Too little of this element can lead to a painful swelling of the thyroid known as a goiter.

But iodine also plays a crucial role in women’s breast health.  In fact, a woman stores more iodine in her breasts than in her thyroid.[i]

It’s nature’s way of protecting babies. Iodine is critical for brain development in infants.  Storing iodine in the breasts insures a good supply of this essential brain mineral in breast milk.

But when a woman’s supply of iodine is low, it’s not just a nursing baby who’s at risk.  Women with iodine deficiencies are more likely to develop breast cancer.

What’s the link between low iodine and breast cancer?

When iodine levels are low, the ovaries produce more estrogen.[ii]  Higher circulating levels of estrogen raise the risk of reproductive cancers like prostate, endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancers.

In addition, low iodine increases the sensitivity of estrogen receptors in breast tissue.[iii]  The breast starts taking up even more estrogen.  That spikes breast cancer risk even more.[iv]

Dr. Bernard Eskin was a pioneer in iodine research.  He discovered that iodine-deficient breast tissue is more likely to have pre-cancerous changes and that iodine could reverse those changes.

In lab studies he showed that iodine up-regulated 29 genes and down-regulated 14 genes in breast cancer cells, leading to cellular death[v] and suppression of tumor growth.[vi]  Other animal studies show iodine can reduce breast tumor rates by 2.5 times.[vii]

And while iodine speeds the death of cancer cells, it leaves normal cells alone.

Epidemiological studies support the importance of iodine in breast health.

In Japan breast cancer rates are about 66% lower than in the U.S.[viii] At the same time, Japanese women consume between 3 and 13 milligrams per day of iodine.[ix]

But the U.S. Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) for iodine is only 150 micrograms per day (or 290 mcg if you’re pregnant or nursing).

By some estimates, Japanese women are getting about 25 times more iodine than the average American woman.[x]

But when Japanese women move to the U.S. and start eating a Western iodine-deficient diet, their breast cancer rates spike to American levels.[xi]

Since the 1920s Americans have gotten most of their iodine from iodized salt.  That’s thanks to a government push to add iodine to salt to prevent goiter.

But in recent decades anti-salt propaganda has led to women cutting salt – and therefore iodine – from their diets.  Since the 1970s rates of iodine deficiency have quadrupled.[xii]

Environmental toxins have also led to lower iodine levels. A group of chemicals known as halides binds to receptors inside your cells that are meant for iodine. They block the body’s ability to absorb and use the iodine.[xiii]

These halides include perchlorate, a chemical used for rocket fuel. Perchlorate now contaminates our groundwater, soil, and food supply.

Chlorine and fluoride in drinking water also block iodine.  So does bromine in flour, bread and baked goods.

If you’re deficient you can still boost your levels and ward off many health dangers – including breast cancer.

But your body can’t make iodine.  You have to get it from food or supplements.

Good food sources of iodine are:

  • Seafood (salmon, scallops, lobster, tuna, cod, and shrimp)
  • Yogurt
  • Cranberries
  • Potato (unpeeled)
  • Navy beans
  • Eggs

But hands down the richest source of iodine comes from seaweed.  It has 10 times or more iodine than other foods.

And it’s powerful against breast cancer. A Japanese study found seaweed more potent than the chemo drug fluorouracil for breast cancer.[xiv]

Look for wakame, nori, arame, dulse, kombu, or kelp in Asian food markets and health food stores.

Add dried seaweed to the pot when cooking soups, grains, or beans.

And Maine Coast makes organic kelp granules that you can add to your (un-iodized) salt shaker or just sprinkle on your food before serving.

For more information visit Green Med Info’s Health Guide on Breast Cancer.

References

[i]Patrick L, “Iodine: deficiency and therapeutic considerations.” Altern Med Rev. 2008;13(2):116-27.

[ii] David Brownstein, MD “Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It” 2nd Edition,  Medical Alternatives Press, Michigan, 2006.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Stadel BV “Dietary iodine and risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.” Lancet. 1976; 1(7965): 890-91.

[v] Frederick R. Stoddard II, Ari D. Brooks, Bernard A. Eskin, Gregg J. Johannes “Iodine Alters Gene Expression in the MCF7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: Evidence for an Anti-Estrogen Effect of Iodine.” Int J Med Sci 2008; 5:189-196.

[vi] Shrivastava A, Tiwari M, Sinha RA, et al. “Molecular iodine induces caspase-independent apoptosis in human breast carcinoma cells involving the mitochondria-mediated pathway.” J Biol Chem. 2006;281(28):19762-71.

[vii] Garcia-Solis P, Alfaro Y, Anguiano B, et al. “Inhibition of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-induced mammary carcinogenesis by molecular iodine (I2) but not by iodide (I-) treatment Evidence that I2 prevents cancer promotion.” Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2005;236(1-2):49-57.

[viii] Deapen D et al. “Rapidly rising breast cancer incidence rates among Asian-American women.” Int J Cancer. 2002:10;99(5):747-50.

[ix] Yamagata N, Yamagata T. “Iodine content of thyroid glands of normal Japanese.” J Radiat Res (Tokyo). 1972;13(2):81-90

[x] Aceves C, Anguiano B, Delgado G. “Is iodine a gatekeeper of the integrity of the mammary gland?” J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2005;10(2):189-96.

[xi] Ziegler RG, Hoover RN, Pike MC, et al. “Migration patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian-American women.” J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(22):1819-27.

[xii]Hollowell JG et al. “Iodine nutrition in the United States. Trends and public health implications: iodine excretion data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys I and III (1971-1974 and 1988-1994)” J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83(10):3401-8.

[xiii] Greer MA, Goodman G, Pleus RC, Greer SE. “Health effects assessment for environmental perchlorate contamination: the dose response for inhibition of thyroidal radioiodine uptake in humans.” Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(9):927-37.

[xiv]Hiroomi Funahashi et al. “Seaweed Prevents Breast Cancer?” Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 92, 483–487, May 2001

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
________________________________________________________________
© June 27, 2016 | GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.
________________________________________________________________
Margie King is a graduate of the Institute for Integrative Nutrition®. A Wharton M.B.A. and corporate attorney for 20 years, she left the world of business to pursue her passion for all things nutritious. Margie is the author of Nourishing Menopause: The Whole Food Guide to Balancing Your Hormones Naturally. She is also a professional copywriter and natural health, beauty and nutrition writer. To contact Margie, visit www.IntegrativeMenopause.com.

Anthony Wile: Colombia Grants First Cannabis Processing License, Country Poised For Greatness

cannabis-plant
Source: TheDailyBell.com
Anthony Wile
June 28, 2016

In the long-running global war on drugs, arguably no country in the world has suffered more than Colombia, where I have been doing business and living part-time for over 15 years. Violence, poverty, fear, destruction of families and communities, political upheaval, economic chaos – the black market has wreaked havoc throughout this beautiful land.

But today, the courageous and forward-looking leadership of Colombia has taken another giant step on its path to turning a drug that was previously so damaging into a force for global good. The Ministry of Heath has granted the nation’s first license for the production and manufacturing of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes. This first license was awarded to PharmaCielo Ltd., a Canadian corporation with operational headquarters in Colombia. As long-time Daily Bell readers and those following my work at The Wile Group know, I am a director of the PharmaCielo Foundation and a private investor in PharmaCielo Ltd.

For a number of significant reasons, it makes perfect sense for Colombia to embrace the burgeoning medical cannabis industry now, during its infancy, when the regulatory structure that will eventually frame the entire global market is just being developed. Colombia is in position to create the standard for high-quality, low-cost, standardized medicinal cannabis cultivated using environmentally net positive practices, processed using pharmaceutical-grade techniques, and shipped internationally safely and securely.

First, Colombia is an ideal place to naturally cultivate and process cannabis in an environmentally net positive manner. Temperatures are ideal for open-air greenhouse production, rainfall is plentiful and regular, allowing growing facilities to use their own natural water reserves rather than drain localized water tables, and, being located at the equator, the daily 12 hours light/12 hours dark cycle – exactly the light requirement cannabis needs to properly flower – is consistent, year-round. The diverse microclimates within Colombia also facilitate cultivating a wide variety of strains, each of which thrives best in slightly different growing environments.

Second, a tremendous amount of support exists within Colombia to facilitate the rapid development of a cannabis industry, from the world-class university system, agricultural/research organizations and leading engineering firms. The University of Antioquia is renowned for its third-party testing lab services that help companies extend their R&D capabilities and its impressive work to identify and investigate the nation’s diverse flora, Universidad EAFIT has an exchange partnership with Purdue’s School of Industrial Engineering and Universidad de La Salle has an innovative sustainable agriculture program for young farmers in rural Colombia, to mention just three examples.

Colombia’s agricultural success is supported by research organizations such as Corpoica, the Colombian Corporation for Farming Research, a quasi-private public agricultural research and technology organization. The nation’s massive cut-flower industry ascribes to the high environmental and social standards of the Florverde Sustainable Flowers certification as well as those set forth by the association of flower producers, Asocolflores. Finally, international trade security is guided by BASC, the World Business Alliance for Secure Commerce, which facilitates trade through internationally recognized standards and procedures.

The engineering expertise needed to develop cannabis processing facilities, required because Colombian law only allows export of cannabis oil extracts, is readily available from internationally recognized firms like Indisa S.A. This strong, broad infrastructure is part of the reason companies like Kimberly Clarke, IBM, Hewlett Packard and Citibank and have relocated or expanded into Colombia. It’s not surprising Colombia has long been an area of interest to big pharmaceutical companies for research and clinical trials, conducting initial investigations and investigating initial indications for new products.

Already the world’s second largest exporter of cut flowers, Colombia has a work force of 94,000-plus with extensive experience in the industry as well as the infrastructure and relationships in place for global exportation through major channel distributors – in many cases, the same ones who will most likely be distributing medical cannabis in markets worldwide – both of which can be smoothly transitioned to include medical cannabis as well. With coasts on two oceans, Colombian ports facilitate lower-cost sea shipping throughout the world. Air freight, already highly efficient due to the massive volume of cut flowers being exported, allows for direct, expedient shipments of goods to Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Continue Reading At: TheDailyBell.com

Flu Vaccines Facts They Don’t Want You To Know About

Flu shots
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
June 30, 2016

The vaccine pushers in traditional medicine circles and Big Pharma have often gone out of their way to shield from consumers the dangers associated with vaccines, as Natural News readers are well aware of. The chicanery and obfuscation continues with the influenza vaccine.

As reported by Dr. Brent Hunter at Blogs.NaturalNews.com in November 2013, just as the influenza season was beginning that year the media and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had already begun ramping up the propaganda about how important it was to get the flu vaccine, despite the fact that the shot itself had been deemed extremely toxic, ineffective and very unsafe.

“Did you know that the 2013-2014 influenza vaccines contain dangerous levels of mercury?” he wrote. “The vaccine contains 25,000 times more mercury than the safety limit for drinking water!”

He also noted that infant and child deaths from influenza were actually on the decline until 2003 when the pediatric flu shot was introduced, though no one from CDC or the mainstream media – which is beholden to the advertising dollars of Big Pharma – has the decency to report that. What’s more, after the child flu vaccine was introduced, the pediatric death rate not-so-coincidentally rose dramatically, prompting Hunter to recommend that parents become educated about the flu vaccine before subjecting their kids to them.

But perhaps the most important advice Hunter conveyed is that our bodies are “intelligently designed” to combat the hundreds of influenza viruses in circulation. Most immune systems are very well-equipped to prevent colds and flu – and even cancer. And even if you are stricken by the flu, you can nevertheless recover.

That said, some of the facts about these flu vaccines that Big Pharma and the medical community don’t want you to find out include:

— There are more than 200 viruses that can cause flu – it’s very hard to tell which strain to protect against;

— At present there are no studies tracking people who get a flu shot and still get sick anyway;

— Death rates from flu are partially hidden because they are combined with people who are immuno-compromised anyway;

— Prior to the pediatric flu vaccine introduction in 2003 mortality rates from flu for kids was decreasing.

All of this said, one of the best ways to bolster your immune system is through nutrition, however – and that’s the easy part. In fact, there are a number of superfoods you should add to your diet that will significantly boost your ability to fight off disease.

As we reported in October 2013 that there are four key superfoods that specifically help your body defend against influenza:

Garlic: Obviously a great-tasting additive to many dishes, garlic is also a key immune system-boosting superfood.

According to Natural Life, garlic “has been nicknamed ‘Russian penicillin,’ due to its anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-yeast properties.”

Green tea: Another superfood you should add to your immune-boosting regimen is green tea. In writing for Eating Well, Prof. Rachel Johnson, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.D., says, “My colleague Mingruo Guo, Ph.D., a professor of food science at the University of Vermont and an authority on the immune-boosting potential of foods, always has a pot of green tea for brewing. He drinks five to six cups a day, convinced that it has immune-enhancing effects along with other health benefits.”

Chlorella: Packed with a complete protein, dozens vitamins and minerals and 18 amino acids (including the essential ones), chlorella is what we call “a perfect superfood”?that not only boosts your immune system but it may help your body naturally eliminate heavy metals consumed from dietary sources?and make you look more youthful and radiant.

Spirulina: This is one of the world’s most powerful whole foods, a superfood that everyone can enjoy. This amazing food has even more antioxidants than blueberries – another awesome superfood that help support your immune system.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com