Flu Outbreak Across America – Really?

MedicalStudies

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 5, 2017

The press is playing up two angles this winter: the seasonal flu vaccine may only be 10% effective; and there is an outbreak of flu across 37 states, at last count.

Underneath these claims, something far different is going on.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), revealed the monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

What are typical flu symptoms? Fever, chills, cough, sore throat, muscle aches, headache, fatigue. Well, these symptoms can be caused by a variety of circumstances.

Immediately calling them flu is an unwarranted assumption. And as it turns out, respiratory samples from patients, sent to labs, are going to come back with no sign of the flu, in the overwhelming percentage of cases.

But the mainstream press can’t report any of this.

It would topple the flu-treatment money machine.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

A Totalitarian Society Has Totalitarian Science

drugs
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
August 23, 2017

Over the past 35 years, I’ve exposed as least as much fraudulent science as any reporter around. That’s just a fact.

I mention it, because one would expect I’ve learned a few lessons in the process.

And I have.

Government-backed science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population.

We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’

I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences and buildings out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.

Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the 300 so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the agents of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist or not proven to cause human illness (SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves as a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by official science.

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.

Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive antibody test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.

Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.

However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.

In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).

This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.

It carries over into every disease for which an antibody test is administered. If a vaccine against disease X is given, it delivers immunity, because it produces antibodies. But if a diagnostic test for disease X reveals the presence of the same antibodies, naturally produced in the body, this is taken as a sign of illness.

Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.

This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.

It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.

From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.

The most useful politicians—as far as official science is concerned—are those who automatically promote its findings. Such politicians are lifted into prominence. They are champions of the Science Matrix. They never ask questions. They never doubt. They never make waves. They blithely travel their merry way into new positions of power, knowing they have enormous elite support behind them. When they need to lie, they lie. They are taught that those who question or reject official science are a tiny ‘demographic’ who can be ignored during election campaigns. ‘Don’t worry about them. They don’t count.’ These politicians are never in the trenches with the people on issues of health.

The elite Plan is universal collectivism, in which all citizens are atoms of a giant molecule. Many lies need to be told in order to make that dream/nightmare come true. If some of those lies are about science, so much the better. People believe in science.

Think about the agendas behind universal vaccination, climate change, universal psychiatric treatment, GMO food, and other ‘science-based’ frauds. They all imply a model, in which individuals give up their power in exchange for ‘doing good’ and becoming members of the largest group in the world: ‘disabled’ people with needs that must be addressed and satisfied.

Instead of supporting the liberation of the individual, the controllers want to squash it. Why? Because they fear individual power. It is forever the unpredictable wild card. They want a society in which every thought an individual thinks connects him to a greater whole—and if that sounds attractive, understand that this Whole is a fiction, intentionally faked to resemble a genuine oceanic feeling. The elite Whole is ultimately a trance-like fiction that will slow down time to a crawl, and shrink space to a sliver, and focus attention on a single mandate: wait for the next instruction from above, content in the knowledge that it will benefit all of humanity.”

This program has many agents.

Some of them are agents of official science.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines

New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
August 13, 2017

Originally published on worldmercuryproject.org.

A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines.

Instead of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.

Researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative significance.

Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a new drug against a “pharmacologically inert” placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines, pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine injuries.

Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups. Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups allowed industry researchers and government regulators to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of “significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.

The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain, they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.” In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate on their often-troubling findings.

Abbreviated Trial Times

Typically, FDA requires drug companies seeking approval for a new drug to observe health outcomes in both the placebo and study groups for 4-5 years. Vaccine manufacturers take advantage of FDA regulatory loopholes that allow fast-tracking of vaccines and cut that period down to a few weeks or even a few days. This means that injuries that manifest, or are diagnosed, later in life—most neurodevelopmental disorders, for example—will escape attention entirely.

Further Smokescreens

Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra point to clinical trial data posted on the FDA webpage for the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine approved in 2006. Those clinical trials deployed a panoply of the kind of cunning deceptions used by industry and government researchers. Unlike many of the other HPV vaccine clinical trials, these clinical studies employed a true saline placebo.

Across the Gardasil clinical studies, a group of 15,706 females ages 9-45 and males ages 9-26 received the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine. A control group of 594 individuals received an inert saline placebo. The industry researchers never explain the tiny relative size of the saline placebo group; it’s noteworthy that small size would have the effect of keeping unwanted signals weak. But a second control group of 13,023 received a so-called “spiked” placebo loaded with an aluminum adjuvant (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate or AAHS). The large size of this “spiked placebo” group suggests that the decision to keep the saline placebo group small was strategic.

Putting aside the thorny ethical question of whether study participants were told that they were being injected with a neurotoxin with probable associations with Alzheimer’s, dementia and other forms of brain disease, the inclusion of both saline and aluminum placebos provided these researchers a chance to do some genuine science. But the FDA webpage shows the troubling gimmick that was then employed by the FDA and Merck, which seems deliberately designed to blur datasets in order to mask adverse effects during the clinical trials. The table showing relatively minor injection-site adverse reactions—one to five days post-vaccination—displays three distinct columns for the three groups: Gardasil recipients, the aluminum “placebo” recipients, and saline placebo recipients (see table below). In the table, “Intergroup differences are obvious,” in the words of the Mexican researchers. For example, roughly three and a half times more girls/women experienced injection site swelling in the Gardasil group compared to the saline group (25.4% vs. 7.3%). In fact, by all five measures, both the Gardasil recipients and the aluminum placebo recipients fared two to three times worse than the saline recipients.

New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines

When it came time for Merck to report on the occurrence of more serious reactions, “Systemic Adverse Reactions” and “Systemic Autoimmune Disorders,” for example, the company scientists switched to a very different format. In these tables, the third column that reported results for the saline placebo recipients disappears. Instead, Merck combined the groups receiving the spiked aluminum placebo into a single column with the group receiving the genuine saline placebo (see example below). The merger of the two control groups makes it impossible to compare results for Gardasil versus the saline placebo or the aluminum placebo versus the saline placebo. In this way, Merck’s researchers obliterated any hope of creating a meaningful safety comparison.

New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines

Risks and Benefits

Given aluminum’s known neurotoxicity and its association with debilitating autoimmune conditions, it is unsurprising that there are no observable differences between the Gardasil and AAHS/saline groups. But, despite the researchers’ efforts to paper over adverse effects, they were not able to conceal the devastating health injuries to their human guinea pigs. The bottom line of these trials reveals a shocking truth: An alarming 2.3% of both their study and control groups had indicators of autoimmune diseases! These data are even more alarming when one considers that the observation period was curtailed after only six months. With this level of risk, it would seem that no loving parents would allow their daughter to receive this vaccine—particularly given the comparatively low risk posed by HPV in countries with appropriate cervical cancer screening tests. Even in countries such as India, where cervical cancer mortality is high due to late detection, leading Indian physicians argue that comprehensive screening should be the country’s top priority rather than the “panacea” of HPV vaccination.

Consider the math: According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an estimated 2.4 women per 100,000 die of cervical cancer in the US each year. On the other hand, the FDA’s Table 2 (above) shows that 2.3 per 100girls and women developed an “incident condition potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder” after enrolling in the Gardasil clinical trial. It is difficult to understand how any rational regulator could allow more than two in 100 girls to run the risk of acquiring a lifelong autoimmune disorder, particularly when Pap smears are already doing an effective job of identifying cervical abnormalities. The NIH notes that the incidence and death rates for cervical cancer in the US declined by more than 60% after introducing Pap smear screening.

Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra make their own effort to illustrate the zany risk-benefit ratios associated with these vaccines when discussing the results of one of the 16 clinical trials. That study compared approximately 14,000 women who received either Gardasil 9 or the original quadrivalent Gardasil. Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

Implications for Aluminum Adjuvants

Merck found that astronomical casualty counts were equal among both Gardasil and aluminum “placebo” recipients. The inescapable implication is that aluminum adjuvants may be a principal culprit in the flood of injuries reported for the various HPV vaccines. This conclusion, if true, requires reevaluation of the use of aluminum adjuvants in several other vaccines, including some given to infants. Aluminum adjuvant levels have mushroomed since the 2003 removal of thimerosal from three pediatric vaccines. The following chart, prepared by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, illustrates the stunning amount of aluminum in vaccines.

New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines

Multiple peer-reviewed studies have connected aluminum exposures to a range of autoimmune and neurological disorders, including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, that have become epidemic coterminous with these aluminum exposures. A review in the European Journal of Clinical Nutritionwarns of dangerous accumulation of aluminum in the brain when, as in the case of vaccination, “protective gastrointestinal mechanisms are bypassed.” It’s time to go back to the drawing board on HPV vaccines and aluminum adjuvants. More importantly, FDA needs to start requiring the same rigorous pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines that it has long required for other drugs. All existing vaccines, particularly those containing aluminum, should be safety-reviewed according to these more stringent standards.

Learn more from RFK, Jr., and 30 other experts at the free screening of the Truth About Vaccines.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

Drug ‘distributors are nothing more than pill pushers’ – America’s Lawyer

Source: RT
August 17, 2017

Deaths among opioid users continue to climb, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some states have brought legal action against pharmaceutical companies. RT America’s Mike Papantonio, host of America’s Lawyer, joins “News with Ed” to discuss big pharma’s legal liability.

Breaking: Interview With Vaxxed Producer Who Was Banned From Australia

censorship
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
August 9, 2017

Polly Tommey, producer of the famous documentary, Vaxxed, has been banned from Australia. If that sounds quite insane—it is.

Vaxxed has been screening across the world. It is an explosive revelation about egregious fraud at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The film focuses on the 2014 public confession of a long-time researcher at the CDC, William Thompson. Thompson admits that he and his colleagues committed a crime, by manipulating data to give the MMR vaccine a free pass, “proving” it had no connection to autism—when in fact, as Thompson states, the vaccine does raise the risk of autism in children.

Here are a few statements from the The Sydney Morning Herald’s report, headlined: “Anti-vaccination advocate ‘banned from Australia’ after documentary tour.”

“The producer Polly Tommey behind a controversial anti-vaccination film which has been touring Australia has been banned from returning to the country for three years, she claims.”

“Ms Tommey spearheaded a sold-out national roadshow of the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe organised by the Australian Vaccinations-Skeptics Network.”

“In a video, posted to Youtube on Tuesday, Ms Tommey claimed authorities seized her phone and copied her emails as she left Australian soil to continue the New Zealand leg of the film tour.”

“’They (Australian Border Force) told me I was banned from Australia for three years and that I would be getting a letter to confirm this,’ Ms Toomey said.”

“A number of secret screenings of the documentary and Q& A sessions were hosted in Australia, including one last week at Village’s Crown casino cinemas in Southbank and another in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs.”

I contacted Polly Tommey, and she sent me this statement, quickly typed on her phone as she was heading to New Zealand:

“After a very successful 2 week tour of Vaxxed in Australia with packed out venues including the Australian National University I went through passport control in Adelaide airport on route to New Zealand, I was traveling with Anu Vaidya, our social media director—he was allowed straight through (we are both on the same business visas and both do the same work, Q&As and stories from parents via social media) I was detained.”

“They took my phone and asked for my password which I gave them (I have nothing to hide) they screenshot emails between AVN [Australian Vaccinations-Skeptics Network] and Vaxxed. They grilled me on Vaxxed and who made money from the documentary, they asked me about Andy Wakefield [also involved in the film’s production].”

“They told me I was banned from Australia for 3 years and I would receive an email to explain in due course. They then gave me my phone back and let me board a plane to New Zealand.”

“Australia’s press did this, they promoted Vaxxed and our tour. We barely filled the venues before they wrote endless articles with quotes from health ministers saying how Vaxxed is dangerous lies. From that moment on the venues were packed with waiting lists, they are their own worst enemies.”

“I don’t need to go back to Australia, the people are strong and know what to do. They are as angry as the rest of the world at the death and destruction of our babies and loved ones.”

Doctors, medical bureaucrats, and government officials in Australia are foaming at the mouth, releasing statements against Vaxxed and warning how “dangerous” the film is, and how it should not be shown and seen.

These Orwellian lunatics want to cancel the public’s right to have access to information. “Don’t think, obey.”

Here is their strategy in a nutshell: they want to equate certain information with shouting fire in a crowded theater and, therefore, claim the right to free speech and free assembly is canceled.

Actually, and quite literally, they’re the ones shouting fire in a crowded theater. Because they want to empty the theaters.

The content of Vaxxed is all about exposing the lies of official science.

Toxic vaccination is destroying the brains of babies and children.

Whether you agree or disagree with that last statement, trying to outlaw conversation about it and intimidate people who want the conversation is sheer totalitarian madness.

Polly Tommey is a woman who stands for what she believes and puts everything on the line. She has delved deeply into the protected secrets of the medical establishment. She has emerged with a film brimming with knowledge.

In a half-sane world, she would be hailed as a hero.

Obviously, the customs agents who detained and questioned her, as she was leaving Australia, who told her she was banned from the country, were acting on behalf of higher-ups.

Those medical, political, and pharmaceutical higher-ups want silence.

From you.

They want you to shut up and close your eyes and march straight ahead into the future they are laying out for you.

A future ever more toxic.

Are you going to give in? Are you going to abandon your natural right to search for the truth? Are you going to suck on the teat of the State and thank your betters for the morsels they hand you?

Are you going to believe this surrender to the State has no danger?

Are you going to stop worrying and learn to love Big Brother?

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Guide To Paying A Small Fine & Making Billions

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
July 30, 2017

The key factor is: be a drug company.

In this case, Celgene. Their drugs are Thalomid and Revlimid. They are approved for multiple myeloma, one type of cancer.

Here’s the thing. Doctors can decide to prescribe drugs for uses which are not approved by the FDA, but the manufacturers can’t promote those “off-label” uses to doctors. That’s illegal.

A long-running suit against Celgene, launched by Beverly Brown, who used to be the company’s sales manager, contends that:

Celgene trained its sales team to promote off-label uses to doctors;

Celgene sales people intentionally lied about studies, claiming the studies showed the off-label uses were beneficial to patients;

And the company omitted vital warnings about the drugs’ uses from the drugs’ labels.

Back in 2014, the judge in the case, George King, slammed Celgene for trying to convince him to dismiss the case. King pointed out that the plaintiff, Beverly Brown, appeared to have direct knowledge of the scam, because company higher-ups laid out the details to her.

Finally, now, the lawsuit has been settled. Celgene will pay out $280 million.

But wait. Revlimid, one of the two Celgene drugs named in the suit, garnered a whopping $5 billion in sales, in 2015. FiercePharma, a website dedicated to industry news, predicts the drug will rake in $15 billion in 2022.

On top of all this, Celgene admits no wrongdoing in the lawsuit settlement.

Nice work if you can get it, and Celgene can.

There is an easy formula at work, if you’re a drug company.

Misrepresent the uses of a drug.

Promote it to the sky, to doctors, for purposes for which it wasn’t approved.

Therefore, make billions of dollars.

Get sued, go to court, force the case to drag on for years.

And finally settle up for chump change, admit nothing, promise nothing, and walk away, free as a bird.

That’s a plan.

That’s a workable plan, UP FRONT.

Before the drug is ever approved.

“Let’s see. We’ve got a drug for cancer. Hey, it’s highly toxic and it causes cancer in some people and, at best, it doesn’t really prolong survival in the patient for more than a few months of extreme suffering and pain—but we aren’t even talking about that. We’ve got a cancer drug, and we can get it approved for treating one type of cancer. Once that happens, we can promote it like hell to doctors for treating other cancers. That’s illegal, but who cares? Even if the federal government gets involved in the case, the most we can expect is a fine. Nobody will go to jail. So, BY SUCCESSFULLY PROMOTING THE DRUG FOR ILLEGAL USES, A VERY NECESSARY STEP, our profit picture will look great. Eventually, we’ll get sued. So what? We’ll pay a small fine, the drug will still be on the market, and life will be good. For us.”

Get it?

A drug company isn’t scrambling after the fact of getting sued, trying to figure out how to proceed. That would be fake news.

No, the company has the whole scenario figured out from the beginning.

“Dear Drug, when you were just a gleam in your parents’ eye, we knew your birth would be a wonderful event. And dear child, you’ve made us proud. With a push from us, you’ve exceeded all our expectations. You’ve grown up to be a winner. Here’s to you.”

By the way, if you want a good example of crony capitalism, as opposed to actual capitalism (in which buyer and seller voluntarily engage in commerce, the product does not cause harm, the people involved are honorable, the exchange of value for value isn’t regulated), you’ve just found one:

A medical drug’s manufacturer, and the federal government, and even the prescribing doctors, all know a drug is useless for off-label purposes, and also creates harm. But all the parties (cronies) feign ignorance, while protecting each other, and no law-enforcement agency charges any participant with a crime. All parties involved pretend, when the suit is filed and the settlement is reached, that justice has been done. One hand washes the other.

And, at the same time, if a researcher or doctor or layperson happens to come up with a non-toxic method of treating the disease for which the drug in question is the preferred option, and if that innovative natural method does no harm, and if responsible adults want to try the method…

The house comes down on the researcher’s head. The full force of “experts” and government enforcement agencies and mainstream doctors and the MSM press comes into play.

The “experts” and cronies, of course, trumpet concern for people’s health and lay claim to righteousness and ethics and science.

Sure. They’re messiahs, taking us into the medical promised-land.

Or, to put it slightly differently:

They’re scum of the Earth.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Does This Make Vaccines and Prescriptions More Dangerous?

Source: iHealthTube.com
July 25, 2017

How much do you really know about potential side effects of prescription drugs and vaccines? This video with Dr. Suzanne Humphries will surprise you! You’ll be amazed at how often doctors report adverse reactions to both. This might change how you see vaccines and prescriptions.

How Big Pharma Hides Vaccine Deaths

How Big Pharma Hides Vaccine Deaths
Source: InfoWars.com
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
July 19, 2017

Vaccine scientists and the public health community cautiously and occasionally will admit that vaccines can cause adverse reactions just like “any other medication or biological product.”

Although experts are less willing to openly disclose the fact that adverse reactions can and do include death, one has only to look at reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to see that mortality is a possible outcome. From 1990 through 2010, for example, VAERS received 1,881 reports of infant deaths following vaccination, representing  4.8% of the adverse events reported for infants over the 20-year period. Moreover, analysts acknowledge that VAERS, as a passive surveillance system, is subject to substantial underreporting. A federal government report from 2010 affirms that VAERS captures only about 1% of vaccine adverse reports.

On the international frontier, the public health community—with the World Health Organization (WHO) in the vanguard—previously used a six-category framework to investigate and categorize serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI), including death. Guided by this tool, public health teams examined temporal criteria and possible alternative explanations to determine whether the relationship of an AEFI to vaccine administration was “very likely/certain,” “probable,” “possible,” “unlikely,” “unrelated,” or “unclassifiable.”

In 2013, the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety discarded the prior tool, ostensibly because users “sometimes [found it] difficult to differentiate between ‘probable,’ ‘possible,’ and ‘unlikely’ categories.” The WHO enlisted vaccine experts to develop a “simpler” algorithm that would be more readily “applicable” to vaccines. The resulting four-category system now invites public health teams to classify an AEFI as either “consistent,” “inconsistent,” or “indeterminate” with a vaccine-related causal association or as “unclassifiable.” Despite the patina of logic suggested by the use of an algorithm, “the final outcome of the case investigation depends on the personal judgment of the assessor” [emphasis added], especially (according to the tool’s proponents) when the process “yields answers that are both consistent and inconsistent with a causal association to immunization.”

In a 2017 letter in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Drs. Jacob Puliyel (an India-based pediatrician and member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization) and Anant Phadke (an executive member of the All India Drug Action Network) raise important questions about the revised tool. They describe an Orwellian Catch-22 situation wherein it is nearly impossible to categorize post-vaccine deaths as vaccine-related. This is because the revised algorithm does not allow users to classify an AEFI as “consistent with causal association with vaccine” unless there is evidence showing that the vaccine caused a statistically significant increase in deaths during Phase III clinical trials. By definition, however, any vaccine not found to “retain safety” in Phase III trials cannot proceed to Phase IV (licensure and post-marketing surveillance). The result of the algorithm’s convoluted requirements is that any deaths that occur post-licensure become “coincidental” or “unclassifiable.”

Drs. Puliyel and Phadke describe what happened in India when the country’s National AEFI committee assessed 132 serious AEFI cases reported between 2012 and 2016, including 54 infant deaths that followed administration of a pentavalent all-in-one vaccine intended to protect recipients against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type b infections. For babies who survived hospitalization, the committee classified three-fifths (47/78) of the AEFI as causally related to vaccines (with 47% of the incidents viewed as “product-related” and 13% as “error-related”), but they rated nearly all (52/54) of the deaths as either coincidental (54%) or unclassifiable (43%) despite mounting evidence that pentavalent and hexavalent vaccines are increasing the risk of sudden unexpected death in infants.

…doctors who “naïvely” accept biased reports on vaccine safety “are losing the trust of the public and in the process…endangering public health.

The absurdity and negligence inherent in the ultimately subjective WHO checklist have not escaped the attention of others in India and beyond. In a series of comments published in the journal Vaccine in response to the 2013 publication of the revised tool, commenters issued the following scathing remarks:

  • “Even if a healthy child dies within minutes following vaccination and there is no alternate explanation for the AEFI, even then the powers that be could easily declare that death as coincidental and not due to the vaccine, thanks to the new AEFI. This is dangerous ‘science’.”
  • “Amongst the 20 items of their checklist, no less than 15 (75%) are devoted to refute a vaccine-induced causality [emphasis in original]…. After all and as the authors confess with an astonishing ingenuousness, the main point is to ‘maintain public confidence in immunization programs.’”
  • “People understand that there are no true coincidences—only events that have been made to appear to be coincidental by either a genuine lack of understand[ing] of the overall facts leading to the ‘coincidence’ reported or by the deliberate suppression of the facts, including when…AEFIs that result in death are made to ‘disappear.’”
  • “It seems that huge business in [the] vaccine industry is affecting [the] science of vaccines and we are developing various ways to promote the business at the cost of human lives. …Going for a less sensitive tool for safety concerns is not only illogical but risky for the children of the world.”

Unfortunately, many vaccine proponents appear to be more concerned with forestalling “misconceptions” and “erroneous conclusions about cause and effect” than they are about preventing and identifying adverse events following vaccination. The result, as Dr. Puliyel argues, is that doctors who “naïvely” accept biased reports on vaccine safety “are losing the trust of the public and in the process…endangering public health.”

Read More At: Infowars.com

Antibiotics: Side Effects and Alternatives

antibiotics
Source: KellyBroganMD.com
Kelly Brogan MD
July 15, 2017

We use a lot of antibiotics. For coughs, cuts, urinary tract infections, and many times “just in case.” You could be considered reckless or ignorant if you opted to not use them. “But you could die of a deadly infection that could kill you!” chants the choir of voices entrained by a system that sees dangerous enemies lurking behind every life experience.

What may surprise you is that the real danger could lie in assaulting your body with an “anti-life” (the actual meaning of the word!) chemical that could very well be a Russian Roulette of unintended harms. Some of these harms are so significant that they could change the course of your entire life as you know it. Given that, I bet that if you knew that there were effective, safe “alternatives,” you’d seriously consider them.

To make your own decisions about health, you must inform yourself. Informed consent around medical interventions involves exploration of the risks, benefits, and alternatives. In our reactivity, however, we are accustomed to focusing only on the promise – knock that infection out and feel better quick! – without any meaningful information around the full breadth of scientifically-evidenced risks and treatment options.

The Benefits

Antibiotics obviously work, right? Well, we are learning that our dogmatic assumptions about the sacred cows of conventional medicine may be leaning on a house of cards. Or a house of placebos to be more exact. The reality is that infections have a natural course with an inbuilt capacity for robust recovery, so we may be giving undue credit to antibiotics. This appears to be possible based on the published literature. For instance, this study[1] on rhinosinusitis concluded:  “…the risks of potential side effects need to be weighed against the potential benefit that antibiotics give to the patient. This is especially pertinent as usage of the placebo has shown to be almost as efficacious as using the antibiotic therapy, and also much safer.”

WIth rising rates of antibiotic-resistant infections (which have resulted from rampant antibiotic use), and fewer novel medications in the pipeline, it seems we are coming to a point of reckoning around our belief that the rampant extinguishing of life is a health-promoting practice.

The Risks

“Catherine, you have an upper respiratory infection. We aren’t sure whether it is necessarily bacterial, but you should go ahead and take that Z pack just in case…oh, and it’s unlikely, but it’s possible that you could be left bed-bound from neurological damage, develop a serious opportunistic infection, and possibly even a brand new psychiatric diagnosis like Bipolar Disorder. Hope you feel better soon!”

Microbiome-dependent risks

With the discovery of the microbiome, conventional medicine as we know it should have gone back to the drawing board. With the understanding that an inner ecosystem drives our epigenetic expression, ranging from nutrient production to metabolic health to hormonal balance to immunity and inflammatory response, the ‘body as machine’ model became obsolete. We need to better understand what makes a microbiome healthy and what hurts it.

So far, we have been left with many questions and few answers[2]. We have looked at super healthy modern hunter gatherers to try to quantify their gut health, we have studied the beneficial effects of probiotics, and we have learned that chemicals like Monsanto’s Roundup wreak havoc on our bugs. We have learned that the transfer of bacteria occurs well before birth, and continues throughout breastfeeding, setting the stage for adult health by age 2. And it has almost become common knowledge that the indiscriminate killing of bacteria through the use of antibiotics may come with a cost. But will the cost really be anything more than a yeast infection or a bout of diarrhea?

Perhaps. We have ample evidence that antibiotics take out the “good” with the “bad” bacteria and leave a trail of imbalance that leaves the patient more vulnerable[3]. A 2017 review[4] references the increased risk of foodborne infection, including antibiotic-resistant strains, in those who took antibiotics during travel, with unpredictable recovery rates that seem to get dismally worse with repeated antibiotic exposure:

Even short antibiotic exposures disrupt the gut microbiome up to a year or more, and repeated exposures appear to attenuate recovery from ever occurring.”

Similarly, up to a one-third reduction in biome diversity can persist longer than 6 months, even after one short course of the popularly-dispensed antibiotic, Cipro.[5] This decrease in diversity can, itself, be a precursor to new illness. For instance, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is one of several chronic illnesses associated with low levels of beneficial bacteria[6]. Dysbiosis (imbalanced gut bacteria) is also a precursor to autoimmunity,[7] obesity, and weight gain[8].

Yeah, we all should be using less antibiotics – but what if we have to take an antibiotic? Then can’t we just take a probiotic afterward?

There is, unfortunately, scant evidence to support this seemingly logical integrative medicine practice. While hamster studies suggest recovery of damage is possible[9], the broad spectrum of antibiotic effects and probiotic options makes personalization of this support method challenging. Most probiotics contain only a few bacterial species, and our gut contains thousands.

Microbiome-independent risks

As if that weren’t enough to slow your pace to the CVS pharmacy counter, there is a growing body of literature focused on the non-microbiome-based risks of antibiotics. From slowed fracture healing[10] to acute liver injury[11], antibiotics have effects at the cellular level beyond simply inducing dysbiosis. These include changes in up to 87% of gut metabolites[12] functional in the gut, injury and destruction of mitochondria (the energy centers of the cell), and damage to gut tissue.

Of significant interest to me are the known and well-documented psychiatric risks of antibiotics. I imagine there are few patients consented for acute onset psychosis or suicidality before being prescribed an antibiotic. An excellent 2017 review by Zareifopoulos and Panayiotakopoulos[13] suggests that patients should be told of these risks including irritability, confusion, encephalopathy, suicidality, psychosis, and mania. These researchers conclude:

“The neuropsychiatric effects of antimicrobial drugs are extensively documented in the literature. A number of antimicrobial drugs have the potential to exert CNS effects and many are associated with stimulant, psychotomimetic and epileptogenic properties, mediated by GABA antagonism (beta-lactams, quinolones and clarithromycin), NMDA agonism (D-cycloserine, aminoglycosides, and perhaps quinolones), MAO inhibition (linezolid, metronidazole and isoniazid weakly) as well as more exotic mechanisms, as in the case of trimethoprim, isoniazid, ethambutol, rifampicin and the tetracyclines.”

In fact, the term ‘antibiomania’ has been coined around the potential for antibiotics to induce manic symptoms. In a recent review, two-thirds of the mania-inductions were in male subjects[14]. The resolution of acute-onset mania with charcoal suggests that these psychiatric risks may be both microbiome-dependent and independent. Relatedly, data suggests that there is a dose-dependent risk of new-onset depression; the higher the antibiotic exposure, the higher the risk of depression[15].

If you don’t know to connect these dots, then you could end up believing that your “mental illness” is an entirely new diagnosis requiring lifelong treatment.

The Alternatives

Fortunately, many alternative strategies exist that resolve bacterial imbalances without the side effects of pharmaceutical antibiotics. Even better – many of the plant-derived therapies can be easily incorporated in your everyday meals as a tasty preventative approach to resiliancey.

Colloidal Silver

Also called silver nanoparticles, colloidal silver has been used for over 2,000 years to resolve bacterial infections[16]. As such, silver is commonly used in intravenous catheters, dental fillings, wound dressings, and bone implants[17]. Though the exact antimicrobial mechanisms are still debated, colloidal silver generally works by damaging the cell membranes of pathogenic bacteria. Depending on the surface charge of the silver nanoparticles and the type of bacteria, bacteria can be killed by the formation of free radicals, accumulation of nanoparticles in bacterial cell walls, or depletion of cell membrane components[18]. Colloidal silver is effective both as a topical treatment for skin infections, like MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus)[19], as well as an oral antibiotic[20].

Botanical Herbs

For centuries, botanical herbs have been used as antibiotics. Since there are countless herbal remedies for various types of infections[21],[22],[23], I’ll just list a few common herbs that have been validated by modern research. For example, the herb Inula helenium, also called elecampane, was shown to be 100% effective against 200 isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (commonly known as “staph infection”).[24] Similarly, a study that evaluated Alpinia galanga, a plant in the ginger family that has been traditionally used in Asian countries, found that this herb was effective against Salmonella typhi and E. coli, as well as against other drug-resistant bacterial strains.[25] Extract from Nigella sativa, a flowering plant native to south Asia, kills MRSA,[26] while cinnamon and oregano are potent selective antibiotics against many drug-resistant species[27]. Similarly, easy-to-find spices like cumin[28] and rosemary[29] are powerful antimicrobials, as are child-friendly options like elderberry[30],[31]. Many high-quality herbal products combine evidence-based herbs such as oregano[32],[33], echinacea[34],[35],[36], and goldenseal[37],[38],[39] into an effective immune support formula.

Probiotics

A great way to prevent imbalances from making you sick is by strengthening your beneficial bacteria, also called probiotics. Incorporating probiotics improve your metabolic and immune functioning while also crowding out pathogenic bacteria. Probiotics can resolve bacterial infections ranging from oral gingivitis[40] to H. pylori-mediated gastric infections[41] to bacterial vaginosis[42]. As one of the earliest and richest sources of probiotics is breastmilk, it isn’t surprising that breastmilk probiotics have been shown superior to antibiotics to treat mastitis, a common infection during lactation[43] (just another reason to breastfeed!). I recommend that people get probiotics through fermented foods like kimchi and sauerkraut[44], as these contain many more complementary bacterial strains than supplements for daily prevention.

Garlic

‘Let food be thy medicine,’ decreed Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine – and he would have ranked garlic as one of the most medicinal foods. Numerous studies have shown the antimicrobial effects of garlic, including a report in which researchers tested garlic-water against 133 multidrug-resistant species, showing remarkable antimicrobial properties[45]. A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that garlic was more effective than a standard antibiotic, metronidazole, for bacterial vaginosis. Authors remarked that garlic provided both increased therapeutic efficacy as well as decreased side effects[46]. Garlic is an effective treatment for stomach infections caused by H. pylori[47] and C. difficile,[48] as well as for pneumonia[49] and other lung infections[50]. Amazingly, consuming garlic not only protects against bacterial infections, but also lowers blood pressure[51],[52], stabilizes blood sugar[53], and decreases cancer risk.[54]

Manuka Honey

Raw Manuka honey is one of the tastiest ways to stay healthy. This honey comes from bees in New Zealand who pollinate the Manuka bush, and it has been used for thousands of years by various cultures to promote wellness. This high-antioxidant golden honey is a popular ingredient in high-end skin care products, as it is broadly anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial[55]. Inside the body, manuka honey can cure antibiotic-resistant C. difficile infection[56],[57], Strep throat[58],[59], urinary tract infections[60], and MRSA[61]. A bonus of eating honey is that it can include propolis, a mixture of bee saliva and wax known as “bee glue,” which contains over 300 therapeutic compounds that fight cancer[62],[63] as well as harmful bacteria[64],[65].

Here is where I recommend purchasing high quality supplements.

Make a Truce

It requires a mindset shift to stop fighting. Stop fighting each other, stop fighting nature, and stop fighting our own bodies. We need to break out of our patterned programs of control and domination and understand that this only strengthens our perceived enemies. We need to reconnect to the sacred complexity of pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding as the origin of our health resiliency rather than a time to throw pharmaceuticals into the black box of undisclosed risks. The microbiome itself has taught us – through the poetry of biology – that we are inextricably connected to and dependent upon the web of the natural world. And that it is not possible to simply pull one thread of that web while leaving the rest of it intact. Remember that symptoms give us an opportunity, and perhaps the next time you have an antibiotic prescription dancing in your sights, you might see what it feels like to bring your body love and support rather than the detonation of grenades.

Visit the research dashboard on greenmedinfo.com to do your own exploration of risks, benefits, and alternatives to conventional pharmaceuticals. 

References

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25756071
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831151/
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831151/table/Tab1/
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28520993
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19018661
[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12583961
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15158604
[8] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/abs/nature05414.html
[9] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28529928
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15688263
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22891208
[12] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661812001661
[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28197902
[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28550767
[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26580313
[18] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17379174
[19] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18372271
[20] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854209
[21] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27899152
[22] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4030608/
[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28377931
[24] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20095126
[25] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19501283
[26] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19610522
[28] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20548937
[29] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17900043
[30] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28198157
[31] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395702
[32] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27994215
[33] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27051475
[34] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748859
[35] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398593
[36] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9043936
[37] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22814821
[39] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11509983
[40] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27829746
[41] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22452604
[42] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16697231
[43] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20455694
[44] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18979556
[45] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15383227
[46] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4166107/#A19118R8
[47] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27761418
[48] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28489336
[49] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12602248
[50] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339933
[51] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25837272
[52] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24035939
[53] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693740
[54] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21473867
[55] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28474502
[56] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28417271
[57] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28257905
[58] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22294681
[59] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23043914
[60] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27787156
[61] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28438282
[62] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472978
[63] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28358699
[64] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28358806
[65] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28603105

_______________________________________________________________________________
“© Kelly Brogan MD. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Kelly Brogan MD. For more articles, sign up for the newsletter at kellybroganmd.com.”
_______________________________________________________________________________

Kelly Brogan, MD

Kelly Brogan, M.D. is a Manhattan-based holistic women’s health psychiatrist, author of the New York Times bestselling book, A Mind of Your Own, and co-editor of the landmark textbook, Integrative Therapies for Depression. She completed her psychiatric training and fellowship at NYU Medical Center after graduating from Cornell University Medical College, and has a B.S. from MIT in Systems Neuroscience. View full bio. Want to share this article on your own blog? View our reposting guidelines.