Book Review: Oil Pulling Therapy – Detoxifying & Healing The Body Through Oral Cleansing by Dr. Bruce Fife

oilpulling
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
March 5, 2017

What is oil pulling?  Simply put, oil pulling is putting a spoonful of oil in your mouth and swishing the oil around, anywhere from a few minutes to twenty minutes.  After finishing, you then proceed to spit out the oil making sure not to swallow it.  That last part is integral, because all the toxins that leave your mouth will become part of the swished components that have seeped from your mouth after oil pulling, and you sure as heck don’t want that entering your system.

Oil pulling itself goes back a few thousand years.  In fact, it has its origins in Ayurvedic medicine in India, if not before.  Ancient Ayurvedic medical texts outlined this practice, and the practitioners found out that rinsing the mouth with vegetable oil ‘not only cleanses the mouth but restores health to the body.  In fact, this process is said to cure a few dozen system diseases.[1]

Because of those facts, Oil Pulling Therapy – Detoxifying & Healing The Body Through Oral Cleansing by Dr. Bruce Fife is a very important, and underrated book.

The reason Oil Pulling Therapy is important is because it gets at the heart of the matter regarding disease: the mouth.  Being a mirror to our bodies, if you have dismal dental health then you are undoubtedly going to experience a kaleidoscope of health problems.

Some of the conditions that are helped by oil pulling are acne, allergies, arthritis, asthma, back pain and neck pain, bad breath, bronchitis, chronic fatigue, colitis, crohn’s disease, constipation, dental cavities, dermatitis, diabetes, eczema, hypertension, hemorrhoids, insomnia, migraine headaches, mucous congestions, peptic ulcers, PMS, periodontal disease, bleeding gums, sinusitis, and tooth abscess.[2]

To continue along the same lines, an incisive passage in the book follows:

“In addition to the above-mentioned conditions, medical studies have indicated that the following can also be directly related to oral health and may respond to oil pulling therapy: Acidosis, Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome [ARDS], Athrosclerosis, Blood Disorders, Brain Abscess, Cancer, Emphysema, Gallbladder Disease, Gout, Heart Disease, Hyperglycemia, Infertility, Kidney Disease, Liver Disease, Meningitis, Nerve Disorders, Osteoporosis, Paget’s Disease, Pneumonia, Preeclampsia, Preterm/Low Birth Weight Babies, Psychotic Episodes, Stroke, Toxic Shock Syndrome, and many types of infectious disease.”[3]

Many people will instantly think, “But how is it possible that oil pulling can help so much?”  Excellent question.  As alluded to before, the mouth is the gateway to the body, and if the mouth exhibits poor dental health, so will the body.  Since the mouth is a breeding ground for all types of germs, it’s easy to see how these germs, if allowed to remain in the mouth, “can migrate to other parts of the body, cause infections, and alter body chemistry, leading the way to any number of infectious and degenerative conditions.”[4]

For me, personally, there have been quite a few benefits of oil pulling.  As someone whose oil pulled for nigh 3 years, it’s helped my health quite a bit.  Not only do my teeth feel clean, but they are also whiter. Additionally, I don’t experience the pain in my gums that used to happen in the past.  Although I can’t prove it, I do believe myself that oil pulling has also helped me tackle issues with Candida that have taken place in the past.  Furthermore, my regularly scheduled headaches went away, my gums don’t ache when biting foods and are much firmer and healthier, and also don’t experience allergies as much.

The great part about oil pulling is that it’s not only one of the most simplest methods to aid health, but also has nigh no side effects when compared to prescription drugs, which have many.  In fact, properly taken, FDA approved prescription drugs cause over 100,000 deaths yearly.  That’s certainly something you’ll never hear of coconut oil!  That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms however.

In addition, oil pulling, unlike brushing your teeth, gets into many crevices that the brush won’t get into.  This is because “brushing only reaches 60 percent of the surfaces of your teeth, leaving plague in hard-to-reach areas such as in-between teeth.”[5]

Ironically, although benefits of oil pulling go back a few thousand years, it is rarely known to most people.  That’s an intriguing conundrum, except when one realizes that modern medicine goes by the adage that for every ill there is a pill, then you start to see why oil pulling goes against the grain as the system pushes for pills, rather than lifestyle changes and as well as dietary changes.  These changes, ironically, are on par with what our ancestors did, which is why they were vastly healthier than we are as a ‘modern’ society nowadays.

All things considered, oil pulling is one of the cheapest, cost-effective, safe, and efficient ways to take control of one’s health.  Individuals of all ages can do this.   The question isn’t why SHOULD you do it, the question is, why NOT?  But don’t believe me, do your own research, and you will see the effects.
_________________________________________________
Sources:

[1] Dr. Bruce Fife, Oil Pulling Therapy – Detoxifying & Healing The Body Through Oral Cleansing, p. 86.
[2] Ibid., p. 12.
[3] Ibid., pp. 11-12.
[4] Ibid., pp. 89-90.
[5] Ibid., p. 18.
_________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.

Aluminum, Fluoride, and Glyphosate—A Toxic Trifecta Implicated in Autism and Alzheimer’s Disease

Glyphosate Poisoning
Via: Crookedbearcreekorganicherbs.com
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola

Aluminum is a known neurotoxin, and according to Professor Christopher Exley of Keele University, aluminum-containing products are likely fueling the rise in Alzheimer’s disease.1 In an article published in the journal Frontiers in Neurology,2 he writes:

“We are all accumulating a known neurotoxin in our brain from our conception to our death. The presence of aluminium in the human brain should be a red flag alerting us all to the potential dangers of the aluminium age.

How do we know that Alzheimer’s disease is not the manifestation of chronic aluminium toxicity in humans?”

People with aluminum toxicity display many of the same symptoms as those with dementia, Parkinson’s, ADHD, autism, and other neurological diseases, and mounting evidence suggests aluminum may play a significant role in the development of those (and other) diseases.

By taking steps to protect yourself, you can minimize your exposure while maximizing your body’s ability to rid itself of this toxic metal, which will move you toward a long and healthy life well into your senior years.

Other toxins to beware of include fluoride and glyphosate. All of these are toxic in their own right, but research suggests they may be even more hazardous in combination.

You May Be Exposed to More Aluminum Than You Think

Aluminum can be found in a wide range of consumer products, including:

  • Foods such as baking powder, self rising flour, salt, baby formula, coffee creamers, baked goods, and processed foods, coloring, and caking agents
  • Drugs, such as antacids, analgesics, anti-diarrheals, and others; additives such as magnesium stearate
  • Vaccines—Hepatitis A and B, Hib, DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), pneumococcal vaccine, Gardasil (HPV), and others
  • Cosmetics and personal care products such as antiperspirants, deodorants (including salt crystals, made of alum), lotions, sunscreens, and shampoos
  • Aluminum products, including foil, cans, juice pouches, tins, and water bottles

According to CDC,5 the average adult in the US consumes about seven to nine mg of aluminum per day in food, and a lesser amount from air and water.

Approximately one percent of the aluminum you ingest orally gets absorbed into your body—the rest is moved out by your digestive tract, providing it’s functioning well. The remaining aluminum can be deposited not only in brain tissue, but also in your nerves, bone, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle.

While one percent may sound like a tiny amount, your overall toxic load will depend on the total amount of toxins you’re exposed to over time. Your diet and digestive health will also play a role in how much your body is actually able to eliminate.

Occupational Exposure to Aluminum Raises Your Risk for Alzheimer’s

One recently published case study3 found high levels of aluminum in the brain of a man who was exposed to aluminum at work for eight years. He later died from Alzheimer’s disease.

According to the authors, it’s the first case showing a direct link between Alzheimer’s disease and elevated brain aluminum following occupational exposure.4

An earlier study5 suggested that aluminum from food and drinking water may be contributing to rising Alzheimer’s rates, noting that:

“In recent years, interest in the potential role of metals in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has grown considerably.

In particular, aluminum (Al) neurotoxicity was suggested after its discovery in the senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles that represent the principal neuropathological hallmarks of AD.

Al is omnipresent in everyday life and can enter the human body from several sources, most notably from drinking water and food consumption… [O]ther elements present in drinking water, such as fluoride, copper, zinc, or iron could also have an effect on cognitive impairment or modify any Al neurotoxicity.”

Indeed, dozens of studies have shown that fluoride causes brain damage and lowers IQ. Fluoride emitted by aluminum plants has also been implicated in animal disease.6

Farmers in Iceland, for example, claim their animals are being sickened by environmental fluoride contamination—some to the point of having to be euthanized. Others report higher rates of tooth damage and infertility among their livestock.

Another related study7 linked occupational exposure to aluminum to the development of pulmonary fibrosis, a condition in which scarring on your lungs make it difficult to breathe. In this case, the exposure occurred during sanding of Corian material.

All in all, it seems reasonable to conclude that the combination of aluminum, fluoride, and/or a number of other toxins can promote Alzheimer’s disease in addition to a number of other health problems.

Pesticides Can Also Wreak Havoc with Brain Function

Pesticides, for example, have also been shown to have an adverse effect on neurological function and brain health.8 In one study, farmers exposed to organochlorine insecticides had a 90 percent increased risk of depression compared to those who didn’t use them.

Exposure to fumigants increased risk of depression by 80 percent. People exposed to pesticides are also more likely to have Parkinson’s disease.

Clearly, when it comes to toxins, unless the chemical is acutely toxic, the real harm occurs when your body becomes chronically overloaded with them, and most people today are exposed to thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of different chemicals on a regular basis.

Farmers are not the only ones at risk for adverse effects from pesticide exposure. Glyphosate can be found in most processed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar beets, corn, and soy, and research shows glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other chemical residues and toxins.

While nearly one billion pounds of glyphosate is doused on both conventional and GE crops worldwide each year, genetically engineered (GE) crops receive the heaviest amounts. Meats from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) may also contain higher amounts of glyphosate residues, as GE soy is a staple of conventional livestock feed.

It’s quite crucial to understand that glyphosate contamination is systemic, meaning it is integrated into every cell of the plant, from root to tip. It’s not just an issue of topical contamination, as with many other agricultural chemicals sprayed on crops.

Normally, you need to thoroughly wash your produce to remove topical pesticide residues, but you simply cannot remove glyphosate from your produce. And neither can food and animal feed manufacturers who use GE ingredients in their products. This is part and parcel of what makes GE foods so harmful to your health.

Synergistic Poisoning from Aluminum and Glyphosate Implicated in Autism

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has been instrumental in educating people about the hazards of glyphosate. In the video below, she explains how aluminum and glyphosate act together as synergistic poisons that promote autism. Based on the current trend, Dr. Seneff predicts that by 2025, half of all children born will be diagnosed with autism. Clearly, we must identify leading environmental factors contributing to this frightening trend. Lack of vitamin D caused by inadequate sun exposure is one factor. Nutritional deficiencies caused by poor diet are another.

Environmental toxins must not be overlooked however, and some toxins—glyphosate and aluminum included—are far more hazardous and ubiquitous than others, and are therefore likely to contribute to a greater degree. As Dr. Seneff explains, glyphosate’s mechanism of harm renders it particularly problematic. Indeed, according to Dr. Seneff, glyphosate is possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies,” including but not limited to:

Autism Gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis, and Crohn’s disease Obesity
Allergies Cardiovascular disease Depression
Cancer Infertility Alzheimer’s disease
Parkinson’s disease Multiple sclerosis ALS and more

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

Nine Chronic Diseases Caused By Pesticides

Pesticides
Source: NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z.
June 24, 2016

By now, it is fairly common knowledge that pesticide exposure is associated with a disturbing number of life-changing illnesses. Yet, for some reason, pesticides continue to be used on a widespread basis, with people around the world feeling the effects of these harmful toxins. The wide reach and influence of agricultural firms like Monsanto is responsible for many of the health problems faced by people around the world today.

The advocacy group, Beyond Pesticides, has created a Pesticide-Induced Disease (PID) database that provides vital information about the many dangers of these chemicals. The list is depressingly long, and its warnings are particularly important for children. Here is a look at nine of the diseases with the strongest links to pesticide exposure.

1. Alzheimer’s Disease and dementia

This progressive brain-destroying disease reportedly affects up to 5.3 million Americans. The numbers have been rising recently in keeping with the rise in our nation’s pesticide use, and this appears to be more than a coincidence. Studies have found that people exposed to pesticides have not only a greater incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia, but also increased dysfunction in psychomotor, behavioral and cognitive skills. The link is particularly strong when it comes to insecticides.

2. Cancer

Many cancers have been linked to pesticides, including brain, bone, liver, pancreas, bladder and prostate cancers, as well as leukemia. Cancers of the lymph system, such as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, are particularly well-documented. These are the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancers in adults, and the third most common in children. In fact, children who live in agricultural areas have higher risks of several of these illnesses.

3. Birth defects

Birth defects in humans and animals alike have been noted with increasing frequency as pesticide use rises, particularly in agricultural areas. For example, gastroschisis, a birth defect in which a baby’s intestines and other organs develop outside the abdomen, occurs much more frequently in babies with mothers who live within 25 kilometers of sites where the pesticide atrazine was used. In fact, atrazine has been linked to nine different birth defects.

4. Endocrine disruption

In this condition, chemicals from pesticides as well as plastics, household cleaners and other chemicals make their way into the body and disrupt its hormonal balance, leading to disease, developmental problems and reproductive issues. The endocrine system, which includes the thyroid, and adrenal and pituitary glands, is vital for growth and development, and anything that disrupts it can have major repercussions on one’s overall health. Pesticides and other chemicals change the concentration of the body’s natural hormones and interfere with metabolism, hormonal synthesis, transport and excretion. Male hormones are particularly vulnerable, reports Scientific American.

5. Reproductive issues

Exposure to pesticides can affect the reproductive systems of men and women alike. In one study, men who had high levels of three different common pesticides in their urine were actually ten times more likely to have low sperm quality. Meanwhile, rats who experienced even very low exposure to pesticides developed reproductive problems. Several pesticides and fungicides are also known to impair the synthesis of testosterone.

6. Asthma and allergies

The rate of asthma has been climbing dramatically in keeping with the rise of pesticide use. It is estimated that around 16 million Americans suffer from asthma, which is not only chronic but can also be life-threatening. Pesticide use has also been linked to food allergies. An Agricultural Health Study of more than 25,000 farm women found a link between seven different insecticides and atopic asthma.

7. Diabetes

While an unhealthy lifestyle certainly plays a role in type 2 diabetes, the widespread exposure to pesticides containing organophosphate can induce obesity and spur diabetic reactions. In one of several studies into the connection, a North Carolina State University study found elevated levels of diabetes among women who were exposed to five different classes of pesticides.

8. Parkinson’s Disease

This common neurodegenerative disease affects more than a million Americans, whose brain nerve cells become so damaged that they are unable to control the movement of their muscles. Pesticide exposure has been identified as a leading cause of this, with one study finding that the frequent use of household pesticides boosted a person’s odds of Parkinson’s by 47 percent. Even more alarmingly, those who frequently used organophosphate pesticides had a 71 percent higher likelihood of developing the neurodegenerative disease.

9. Developmental and learning disorders

Because organs continue to develop throughout childhood, children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of pesticides, and one place this can be quite evident is in the brain. Even low levels of pesticide exposure have been found to affect intelligence and behavior. Children who live in areas subjected to aerial spraying of pesticides for mosquitoes are 25 percent more likely to experience developmental disorders and autism.

The problems caused by pesticides are so bad that the French town of Saint-Jean has banned their use within 160 feet (50 meters) of homes. The town’s deputy mayor, who also happens to be a doctor, summed it up: “Research shows that people living near areas where pesticides are used are more affected by some diseases: endocrinal hormone disruption, diabetes and obesity, hormone-dependent cancers, cancer of the blood, male and female fertility problems and birth defects.”

If only every town – especially those with or close to farming communities – could get on board and protect the health of its citizens in such a strong and fearless way.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

The Ultimate Antibiotic: Oregano…Why You Should Get Some Now To Help Protect You During Hard Times

Oregano oilSource: NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z.
June 10, 2016

Antibiotics have been getting a lot of bad press lately – and for good reason. Besides their many harmful effects, they are vastly over-prescribed, and are leading to the evolution of deadly superbugs that can’t be killed. This is leading many people to seek out natural alternatives, and one of the best herbs that boasts antibiotic properties is oregano.

If you’ve ever wondered how people survived before modern medicine, the answers can be found growing in the world’s mountains, forests and jungles. Native to the Mediterranean, oregano oil was first used for medicinal purposes in ancient Greece, where it was noted for its antiseptic, antibacterial, antiviral and anti-fungal properties. While some people only know it as a spice for pizza and other Italian dishes, it remains a popular treatment today, and can be used for a number of problems, including colds and flu, arthritis, ear infections, sore throat, diarrhea, tuberculosis and rashes, to name just a few.

Antibiotics and antioxidants in one

Oregano oil is a lot more potent than the dried version, but both carry health benefits. According to the USDA, oregano’s antioxidant capacity is somewhere between three and 20 times higher than all other herbs, and it’s believed to have four times the antioxidants of blueberries.

In one recent study, oregano easily beat the 18 antibiotics that are currently used in treating MRSA staph infections. It has also proven effective to treat norovirus. This food-borne illness is notoriously difficult to treat, but the carvacrol found in oregano can break down the virus’s tough external walls.

It has also been shown to help expedite the death of cancer cells, which means it shows some promising potential for cancer treatment.

Conditions that can be helped by oregano

Respiratory issues: Oregano oil can treat problems such as bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia and asthma. It can also get rid of sinus buildup.

Digestive problems: Oil of oregano can be used to treat food poisoning, which makes it a useful oil to carry when traveling. It can also be used to combat ulcers, bacterial infections and parasites.

Pain relief: Some people use the oil externally for muscle soreness and pain relief, and it’s particularly soothing for joint pain thanks to its warming properties. It should be mixed with a base oil first to avoid skin irritation.

Oral health: Oregano oil contains thymol, which is used in mouthwashes to fight bad breath, plaque and bacteria. Add a few drops to your toothbrush and brush away the bacteria!

Allergies:
The oil has antimicrobial and antiviral properties that can help the body fight against external allergens.

Immunity: If you want to boost your body’s defenses against sore throats and colds, take two or three drops daily mixed into water or juice.

Congestion: Oregano oil can be diluted in a carrier oil or lotion and then applied to the chest area to relieve congestion. You can also add a few drops of the essential oil to a handkerchief and inhale it to relieve nasal congestion.

Dandruff: A few drops of oregano oil can be added to shampoo to help eliminate dandruff, or it can be mixed with coconut oil to create an anti-dandruff scalp massage oil.

As you can see, oregano’s many healing properties make it ideal for tackling a number of different conditions. The next time one of these issues is plaguing you, why not give oregano oil a try? You could save yourself from taking medications that have some very scary side effects, and you might even be able to avoid taking antibiotics! Oregano is just one of many herbs that Big Pharma doesn’t want you to realize works just as well as its own toxic medications, but with none of the adverse effects.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Boston Glove Now A Big Biotech Monsanto Puppet…Says Honest Genetically Modified Food Labeling Is “Misleading Consumers”

Boston Globe
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
June 3, 2016

Mounting research suggests that human consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses innumerable risks, including a proclivity for food allergies, nutritional deficiencies, sex hormone disruption, immune-suppression, cancer and general toxicity. Agriculture reliant on GM crops and their associated pesticides generates environmental risks as well, including soil degradation, water pollution and significant harm to wildlife and essential plants.

Based on the aforementioned risks to humans and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to know whether or not their food contains ingredients that have been genetically altered to contain foreign DNA. However, the Boston Globe would beg to differ.

In March, the Globe published a despicable editorial waging an all-out assault on GMO-labeling and its supporters, which constitutes 89 percent of Americans. The piece, which is suspiciously missing author information, claims that GMO-labeling is “an impractical and potentially burdensome solution that will cause unwarranted alarm and needless expense.”

Boston Globe attacks American values

Yes, you read that correctly. The Globe believes that America’s call for clearly labeled foods is impractical and a burden to poison-pushing, multi-million dollar food companies – which by the way, have no problem spending money on meaningless “all-natural” labels attached to items such as Lays potato chips.

Not only does the Globe discount citizens’ quest for better health while favoring profit-driven corporations, but it actually encourages lawmakers to vote against the needs and wants of their constituents.

Referring to Massachusetts’s recent proposal to establish GMO-labeling, the Globe says simply: “Lawmakers should reject the bill.” Consumers interested in purchasing non-GMO foods can already do so, it adds, downplaying the need for all genetically modified foods to be labeled.

But what about people who cannot afford food that’s Non-GMO Project Verified or USDA certified organic? After all, such products are significantly more expensive than conventionally processed foods.

The Globe seems to be insinuating that individuals of lower socioeconomic status do not reserve the right to know whether or not their food contains highly controversial ingredients – products that have been rejected by numerous governments around the world due to their potential toxicity.

Audaciously, the Globe says that GMO-labels are misleading and will do nothing but confuse customers. Hmm. … Sound familiar? If you’ve followed this debate closely you are probably aware that this is one of Monsanto’s key talking points.

A Monsanto website addressing the growing demand for GMO-labeling links to a statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) explaining “why mandatory labeling could create confusion for consumers.”

AAAS of course, is a mouthpiece for Monsanto, as well as other major biotech companies.

A quick Google search using the keywords “AAAS” and “Monsanto” retrieves some pretty telling headlines, including a Grist.org story entitled “Is a major science group stumping for Monsanto?” a Huffington Post article entitled “Is AAAS Serving Science or Monsanto?” and a US Right to Know article entitled “Who’s Behind the Attacks on US Right to Know?”

You get the picture.

The Globe’s attack on GMO-labeling steals another Monsanto talking point when it falsely reports that there is a lack of scientific evidence distinguishing GMOs from non-GMOs. Not only is this untrue, but it is a downright lie.

Several studies have indicated that organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventional. In fact, the British Journal of Nutrition just released a study this year concluding that organic dairy and meat contain 50 percent more omega-3 fatty acids versus conventional.

“Omega-3s are linked to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and function, and better immune function,” wrote the study authors.

How the Globe fails to consider that a distinguishable trait between GM foods and non-GM foods is beyond me. But the truth is, they know the truth, and are simply concealing it from you because they sold their souls to powerful industries long ago.

Unfortunately, the Globe’s piece is one of many callous attacks on consumer rights, financed in full by the very industry seeking to destroy public health under the disturbing guise of humanitarianism. Nonetheless, their efforts have failed to stop the health food movement currently sweeping the globe.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Vaccines’ Dark Inferno: What Is Not on Insert Labels?

Vaccines' Dark Inferno: What Is Not on Insert Labels?
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
By: Gary Null, PhD and Richard Gale

Originally published on Townsendletter.com

The vast majority of scientists, physicians, nurses, and public health educators trust that the ingredients in a vaccine have been individually and synergistically proven safe and effective. The public believes that these vaccines, aside from their specified virus(es), are sterile solutions, free from undesirable contaminants not listed on the manufacturers’ package inserts. When the pediatrician injects a vaccine into the muscle of a child, the parents’ unquestioning faith is that this is the case. In other words, we want to believe that vaccines have been generated under perfect conditions for the safety of children and ourselves.

What Is Not on Insert Labels?

Our investigation shows that most people do not know what is actually in a vaccine: the active ingredients listed on product labels, the inert ingredients, and, most important, the hidden ingredients. Even more remote is taking the time to actually study the subject matter, review the scientific literature, and discover the truth for oneself. To our amazement, that truth was easy to find. But it is a truth that will scare the hell out of you.

Imagine sitting down to eat veal parmigiana, and a video is placed on your table and used as a living reality recipe instead of the actual meal. This video displays every step in the calf’s life, from its birth to the parmigiana on your plate. You witness how the little creature was starved of its natural nutrients, kept in a tiny stall, grossly malnourished and deformed, filled with antibiotics, diseased and suffering complete privation until finally slaughtered, cooked, and served on your plate. Would your appetite be the same? Would you still desire the parmigiana?

Conveniently, we rarely ask, where does our food come from? How and where was it grown? What was sprayed on it prior to our consumption? Thus we are going to re-record something that even most top health educators and opinion leaders on vaccines are unaware of: what goes into the making of vaccines, and what is hidden from you that should give you pause? Afterward, ask yourself: do you want vaccines in your body?

For the most in-depth, honest, scholarly, and objective examination of the methods by which vaccines and their hidden ingredients are prepared, we turn to award-winning British investigative medical journalist Janine Roberts, who paints an entirely different picture of the darker inferno in vaccines that does not appear on product labels. This is the same Janine Roberts who brought to the world’s attention blood diamonds, genocide in the Congo, and the destruction of aboriginal cultures by the Australian government.

Roberts’s account of conversations between high-level members from the World Health Organization (WHO), federal health agencies, and expert vaccine scientists who determine whether a certain vaccine will be approved, is horrid. Her investigations are based on official meeting documents and her attendance at emergency vaccine meetings, and confirm that our world’s vaccine and health experts agree that there is no solution in sight to resolve the potential threats posed by these hidden ingredients.1

The story begins with the vaccine industrial complex’s attempt to reduce manufacturing costs by seeking government approval to use cancerous cell lines in the development of vaccines. The industry’s rationale is that cancerous cells are “immortal.” Current vaccine methodology relies on animal cells, such as fertilized hen embryos and monkey kidneys, that die quickly in culture. Using cancerous cell lines is also much cheaper than relying on the purchase of animals, especially monkeys, that need to be sacrificed for vaccine substrates.

Roberts records two separate meetings – a meeting of the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on November 9, 1998, and a subsequent gathering of the Evolving Scientific and Regulatory Perspective Workshop less than a year later. The conversations were conducted at a scientific level between top officials and expert scientists from the FDA, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the WHO, and others, each providing evidence and/or confirmation that all vaccines are dangerously contaminated.

Conversations focused primarily on the influenza, MMR, and yellow fever vaccines, which rely on fertilized chicken eggs for their culturing viruses. Fertilized chicken eggs, while ideally suited for culturing certain viruses for vaccines, such as the influenza and MMR vaccines, are also living incubators for large numbers of known and unknown viruses in the animal kingdom. While these do not transmit from their animal host to humans naturally, they nevertheless are sequential genetic codes that, when injected into the human body, have the potential for any number of unpredictable adverse effects by interfering or merging with the codes of human cells.

Vaccine research is at best a primitive science, because it involves injecting into the bloodstream foreign substances, chemical and genetic, that would not otherwise naturally enter the body. When we bring into the equation the enormous amount of known and unknown genetic material and foreign proteins that vaccines introduce into the body, and then consider the rapid increase in epidemics raging through the American population – adult diabetes in children, large numbers of various inflammatory and immune deficiency diseases, asthma and new allergies, severe gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., leaky gut syndrome and Crohn’s disease), chronic fatigue syndrome, and many different neurological disorders (e.g., autism, ADD and ADHD, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s) – we must step back and reconsider their causes. We should avoid the kind of faith that the vaccine industrial complex has in its determinist, reductionist perspective of genetic materialism to find these answers without taking into account the bombardment of toxic chemicals such as vaccine adjuvants and preservatives, extraneous genetic material, pathogenic organisms, and foreign genetic fragments that assault our bodies from shortly after birth into old age.

For some time, it was known that the enzyme reverse transcriptase (RT) was present in final vaccine solutions. RT has been used to this day as an indicator that there is a presence of a retrovirus. During the meeting’s proceedings, the WHO decided to withhold public announcement of such genetic contamination, in this case concerning the MMR vaccine; not to remove it from the market; and, in the meantime, continue safety studies at various laboratories.

Roberts reports that Dr. Arifa Khan from the FDA confirmed:

The RT activity in the vaccine was associated with retrovirus particles from two separate viral strains: Avian Leuokosis Virus (ALV) and Equine Arteritis Virus (EAV). The former was especially disturbing because ALV is a leukemia cancer, and Dr. Khan stated: “There was a theoretical possibility that the virus [ALV] could … infect the [human] cell.”

In summary, this means the ALV genetic code could integrate with human DNA, hence causing some kind of cancer.

The FDA’s reassurance that the ALV RT activity was safe is based on laboratory observations that there was no viral–human DNA merger activity for “a full 48 hours.” This kind of assurance is almost nonsensical and flies in the face of scientific reasoning, since cancers can take years to develop!

As a side note, RT activity is one of the stalwarts of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. An article, “Influenza & Nursing Home Deaths” published by Canada’s Vaccine Risk Awareness Network, reports that some studies, and even some vaccine package inserts, “indicate that vaccinations increase HIV viral replication.”2 This means that all vaccines stimulate a strong suppressive effect on the immune system. Under stress conditions, viruses turn hyperactive and increase their ability to replicate.

The other risk stated by the FDA official was the possibility of the ALV sequence’s merging with the measles virus, hence creating a completely new, mutant, and dangerous virus. (This could also apply equally to the H1N1 swine flu and any other flu vaccines). As an aside, the world-renowned British geneticist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho from the Institute of Science in Society wrote:

“Vaccines themselves can be dangerous, especially live, attenuated viral vaccines or the new recombinant nucleic acid vaccines, they have the potential to generate virulent viruses by recombination and the recombinant nucleic acids could cause autoimmune disease.”3

During the meeting, Dr. Andrew Lewis, then head of the DNA Virus Laboratory in the Division of Viral Products, confirmed: “All the egg-based vaccines are contaminated. … These fertilized chicken eggs are susceptible to a wide variety of viruses.” The participants also realized that only a very small fraction of these small contaminants have been identified and there are likely hundreds more to be discovered.

Roberts found a 2001 CDC report showing that RT investigative studies for both the ALV and EAV retroviruses were conducted in 100 patients receiving the MMR vaccine. They found undesirable “RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested.” Their conclusion is that “this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles.”

In a separate National Institutes of Health transcript of a meeting, Dr. Conroy of the World Health Organization stated that EAV viruses are found in all fertilized chicken eggs. There appears to be little change in the scientific protocol for making the influenza, MMR, and yellow fever vaccines. The current release of intramuscular H1N1 vaccines for the global market relies on the use of fertilized chicken embryos. This includes each of the approved vaccines by CSL, Medimmune, Novartis, and Sanofi-Pasteur, as well as GlaxoSmithKline’s, if and when it is approved in the US.

A later meeting of the FDA’s Scientific and Regulatory Perspective Workshop, without the press, was convened on September 7, 1999, in Washington, DC, and attended by “representatives from all the largest public health institutions in the West.” The following are summaries of key points and statements raised during this meeting as recorded in Janine Roberts’s invaluable book Fear of the Invisible.

  • It was reconfirmed that vaccines are “widely contaminated by viral and DNA genetic code fragments, many viruses and proteins.” There was expressed concern that these may also contain prions (tiny proteins responsible for incurable diseases and neurological disorders in both humans and animals) and oncogenes (a gene that turns normal cells into cancerous ones). One attendee, Dr. Goldberg, stated, “There are countless thousands of undiscovered viruses, proteins and similar particles. We have only identified a very small part of the microbial world – and we can only test for those we have identified. Thus the vaccine cultures could contain many unknown particles.”
  • Dr. Andrew Lewis of the FDA said that a brand-new monkey-human mutant virus was created during the course of developing an adenovirus vaccine with adenvovirus-SV40 hybrid viruses. Dr. Lewis also worried that “foreign cellular DNA” common in childhood vaccines could include “viral oncogenes” capable of causing cancer.
  • The scientists presented a question to themselves as to whether an attenuated vaccine strain could revert into a variant virus capable of replicating so fast that it would cause AIDS. They agreed that they were unable to answer this question.
  • On the question of whether mutation events could occur in children after vaccination, the answer was: “Recombination among a variety of viruses [contaminant viruses] and cells co-infected in tissue culture is not uncommon.” What this basically means is that because it is “not uncommon” for genetic codes of both contaminant viruses and living cells to recombine and create mutations in laboratory cultures, this can certainly occur in a child’s body after vaccination.
  • Dr. Hana Golding, chief of CBER’s Laboratory of Retrovirus Research, raised the fear that although DNA fragment contaminants in vaccines may be thought dead, they could remain active and dangerous. This meant that the codes of these contaminants could combine in vaccines and create new mutant strains of pathogens.
  • Dr. Leonard Hayflick, a virologist at both Stanford and the University of California, San Francisco, raised a concern that the common primary culture used for making vaccines with animals and bird embryos has created a situation where it is “apparent that these cells contained many unwanted viruses, some of which were lethal to humans.” This was especially worrisome of those vaccines, such as polio, which still rely on monkey kidney cells that have contributed to widespread death and illness.
  • One of the UK’s leading vaccine experts, Dr. Phil Minor from the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, noted that some cases of polio vaccine are polluted with more monkey virus, SV40, than actual poliovirus. Although the uninitiated who are not informed about closed-door vaccine science have been led to assume that SV40 was no longer in polio vaccines at the time of this meeting, the conversations confirmed that it was still in use. This is another example of conspiracy at high levels among the vaccine industrial complex and government health officials to withhold information that directly affects the citzens’ well-being.
  • Dr. Rebecca Sheets, from the CBER’s laboratory responsible for monitoring vaccine safety, stated that the national health organi­zations had no control over how vaccines were made. In short, they could make recommenda­tions, but the vaccine industrial complex was free to act as it chooses.
  • It is impossible to remove DNA contaminants from vaccines. Although weight limits for contaminating DNA were set by the FDA as far back as 1986, vaccine makers have never been able to reach that goal. The CDC decided to limit its weight recommendation to cancerous cell lines and then increase the other DNA contamination allowance 100-fold. However, these limits are only “recommendations,” and therefore the FDA cannot enforce them. Vaccine manufacturers are still free to choose whether to take scientific measures to reduce contaminants.
    Remember, this contamination limit (10 nanograms) only applies to a single vaccine. Children today are inoculated with many vaccines before entering school, each with unique DNA and viral contaminants due to the specific cell substrates used for a given vaccine. This toxic genetic soup is what then flows through a vaccinated person’s body.
  • One government health official stated: “I chaired the committee that licensed the chickenpox vaccine, and it [residual DNA] was actually an issue that we considered at that time. We looked among recipients of the vaccine for evidence of an autoimmune response associated with the DNA included in that vaccine. … Actually, we didn’t look, we asked the company to look and they did not find one.” Well, of course, only such assurances can be convincing if in fact the company conducted the study, for which there was no compulsory reason to. Clearly, what the official is saying is that health authorities may not possess any documents that such a study actually exists.
  • Can vaccine DNA contamination cause cancer or autoimmune disease? A meeting participant responded: “When you consider that almost every one of these vaccines is injected right into the tissue … I think you couldn’t do much more to get the DNA expressed [to get contaminating DNA taken up by human cells] than to inject it into a muscle in the way it’s being done.”
  • Again, CBER’s Dr. Sheets: “I think that the vast majority of licensed vaccines, US licensed vaccines, have not been tested for residual DNA.”
  • A more frightening question was raised as to whether there has been any presence of foamy virus. Foamy virus (HFV in human form and its more widespread parent SFV from monkeys), although not infectious, is a deadly carcinogen. To the participants’ knowledge, no laboratory has ever searched for it in vaccine preparations.
  • The meeting confirmed that a particular cell, “which under many conditions is neoplastic [tumor causing],” has been licensed for the production of both injectible and oral polio vaccines in the US, Thailand, Belgium, and France. Therefore, these vaccines carry the high risk of containing cancer-causing oncogenes.

    Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com