The shocking ingredients in flu vaccines

Vaccines

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
November 14, 2016

The push for widespread flu vaccination is something that happens year after year. In fact, it seems as though the mainstream medical community is becoming even more demanding and aggressive about their vaccination agenda than ever before.

Just this past September, the CDC updated their flu vaccination guidelines so they could encourage people with egg allergies to get the flu vaccine. As many people are aware, in the past having an egg allergy exempted you from having to get the vaccine because this particular shot contains traces of eggs. Seems perfectly reasonable and logical, doesn’t it? Well, they’re throwing logic out the window with their new suggestions.

People with minor allergic reactions, like hives, are called upon to be vaccinated as usual, at any location of their choosing. For those with more severe reactions – like anaphylactic shock, which can kill you – it is suggested that they get vaccinated at their doctor’s office, a hospital or other medical facility. That way, when the person’s throat closes up, hopefully someone will be able to save their life. That seems perfectly reasonable to ask someone to do, don’t you think?

Apparently having a life-threatening food allergy is no longer enough to allow people to be remiss in their civic duty to be injected with harmful substances.

To be perfectly honest, for the average non-allergic person, eggs in the flu vaccine are really the least worrisome ingredient. There are things in vaccines many times more toxic than egg whites could ever hope to be.

Mercury, for example, is a toxic heavy metal. Despite industry claims that mercury is not used in vaccines, it still seems to have quite the presence. In 2014, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, revealed that laboratory testing showed quite a different story about the mercury content in flu shots. Using ICP-MS technology, Adams found that Fluval – a common flu shot – contained mercury at a level of 51 parts per million. The Health Ranger notes that this volume of mercury is more than 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury allowed in drinking water, as per the standards set by the EPA.

Adams writes, “In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we’ve ever tested in contaminated fish.”

Sodium deoxycholate is another concerning ingredient that is also featured in many flu vaccines. This chemical is actually a water-soluble ionic detergent and bile salt, and it is also known to promote cell death. Sodium deoxycholate has been shown to weaken the blood-brain barrier, and subsequently lead to seizures. It’s thought that the chemical can also induce DNA damage. Synergistic toxicity has also been seen when combined with certain medications. Researchers from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine found that the toxicity of sodium deoxycholate created an inflammatory response that persisted for 10 days following exposure.

Neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B are two antibiotic agents that are often featured in flu vaccines. Supposedly, these antibiotics are added to vaccines during manufacturing to prevent bacterial contamination. One would hope that the conditions under which an injected substance is created would be clean and sterile enough not to warrant the addition of antibiotics for “safety,” but apparently that may not be the case. Furthermore, given the growing concerns over antibiotic resistance in humans, it stands to reason that injecting antibiotics into uninfected individuals is probably not the best idea.

There are, of course, many other toxic aspects to flu vaccines. Some have alleged, for example that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, may be present in a number of vaccines.

Vaccines are not what the mainstream medical world wants you to believe; they are filled with harmful chemicals that no person would willingly inject into their body. The prevalence of pro-vaccine science truly showcases the increasing need for independent science.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

CDC.gov

NaturalNews.com

PreventDisease.com

CHOP.edu

NaturalHealth365.com

Rense.com

Monsanto’s Roundup Could Cause Cancer At Concentrations 4,000 Times Lower Than Typical Exposure Levels

Roundup
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
February 19, 2016

Studies have conclusively proven that the popular herbicide Roundup causes birth defects, and an increasingly robust body of data linking the toxic chemical to cancer is also emerging. One of the most disturbing findings of this research is that the chemical may be carcinogenic in doses up to 4,000 times lower than what people may be exposed to during normal use of the chemical.

These findings have serious implications for those living near agricultural fields or in other areas with Roundup spraying.

Roundup is the trade name of Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide glyphosate. It is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, in large part because Monsanto has engineered genetically modified (GM) varieties of alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, soy and sugar beets to resist the chemical concoction. This has led to a surge in Roundup spraying on agricultural fields worldwide.

Cancer rates skyrocket in GMO-growing regions

Some of the earliest evidence of Roundup’s connection to cancer came from the “Soy Republic,” a region of several South American countries that now has 125 million acres devoted to GM soy production. Doctors in these regions have noticed such a sharp uptick in cancer cases since GMO cultivation took off that they have formed an organization, Doctors of Fumigated Towns, and held a conference in 2010. Studies have now confirmed what these doctors long suspected: Towns with more Roundup spraying have higher cancer rates.

“The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases,” said Argentinean pediatrician Medardo Avila Vazquez, who specializes in environmental health. “We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before.”

Perhaps the most damning verdict for Monsanto came in April 2014, when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a review of 25 years worth of research into pesticides and a type of cancer called and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The study found that organo-phosphorus herbicides, including Roundup, were associated with a higher cancer risk. A 2009 study in the United States also found a doubled risk of brain cancer in children whose parents were exposed to Roundup up to two years prior to the child’s birth.

Regular exposure causes DNA damage

Because correlational studies cannot prove causation, scientists have conducted numerous studies to see if Roundup does indeed produce the cellular and genetic changes that lead to cancer. The evidence is clear: It does.

Numerous studies have confirmed that Roundup causes DNA damage in a wide variety of animal species. Other studies have shown that human cells exposed to Roundup turn cancerous.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Growing Doubt – A Scientist’s Experience With GMOs

GMOs
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
January 17, 2016

Scientific misconduct and fraud: most of us have no concept of how they influence our food. Jonathan Latham, a scientist with a master’s degree in crop and a Ph.D. in plant virology, sheds much-needed light on this issue.

Together with his wife, Allison Wilson, who is also a scientist, he founded the Bioscience Resource Project, an organization with a mission “to provide the highest quality scientific information and analysis to enable a healthy food system and a healthy world.”

He’s also the editor of Independent Science News.

Part of his career was spent doing medical research in the genetics department at the University of Wisconsin. He also worked in the U.K., where many of his coworkers were proposing ambitious research projects designed to alter soil microbiology and cure plant viruses using novel transgenic techniques.

As explained by Latham in the video, when you make a transgene, you take different parts of genes from different organisms, and you put them together to (hopefully) get them to do what you want them to do.

Once a transgene performs according to expectation, it is used to develop commercial transgenic plants carrying that particular feature. However, Latham noticed that the end results were frequently potentially very dangerous, both to plants and people, which made him question the purpose of it all.

“There were people proposing ideas in molecular genetics and genetic engineering that were incredibly ambitious and interesting to think about from an intellectual perspective, but really quite scary if you thought about what would happen in the real world,” he says.

U.S. Regulatory System Allows Unsafe Products to Be Brought to Market

Eventually he became quite concerned about the potential implications the commercialization of genetically engineered plants might engender.

“I saw these ideas people were having, which had potentially major implications for human health or for the soil, and were risky in my opinion.

I didn’t worry about them too much because I imagined no serious person would take up these ideas, and the regulatory system would work as advertised …

But when I moved to the genetics department, I started looking at the regulatory system in the United States.

I came to realize that the regulatory system was intellectually bankrupt and also corrupt. It wasn’t asking questions that it should’ve been asking. And they were perfectly happy with answers they shouldn’t have been happy with …

Between people making products that I was really unhappy with, and the risk assessment process that wasn’t functioning intellectually … it didn’t take me long to realize that you can put 2 and 2 together here and see that bad products are going to come on the market. 

Scientific Profession Is Ruled by Secret Culture of Fear

It’s not uncommon for people to be fired from their academic positions or blackballed in the scientific community when disagreeing with the status quo, but fortunately that did not happen in Dr. Latham’s case.

He decided to resign instead, in the late 1990s, after becoming dispirited with the scientific profession. He did see it happen to another virologist however.

“He published a couple of papers, skeptical of the idea that you can put virus genes into transgenic plants and expect nothing to go wrong. He was hounded out of his position and had to take a position in a completely different branch of science to still get grants.

This is a real thing that scientists are facing: professional intimidation, harassment, and personal effects.

Sometimes they lose their jobs over these issues. So there’s a culture of fear in the scientific community. Scientists don’t like to discuss it because it implies all sorts of things about academic freedom and so on. But it’s a real thing.”

After quitting his job with the Genetics department at the University of Wisconsin, he and his wife worked on an organic farm in England and raised a child. Still people would ask him to get involved in GMO issues, asking him to give talks and explain various issues to laypeople.

He eventually got drawn back in when the British government was setting up field trials under false pretenses.

“They were trying to bamboozle people with scientific information that, in my opinion, was incorrect,” he says.

“They were trying to convince the legal system, the media, and the rest of the public that these projects were perfectly well-understood scientific experiments, and that there was nothing to worry about — most of which I disagreed with, so I ended up getting drawn back into all these issues.”        

Genetic Engineering Is an Imprecise Science

Latham and Wilson,ended up writing a scientific paper,1 published in 2006, which reviews what happens when you put a transgenic DNA into the genome of a plant.

Prior to that, no one had ever collected the data to show whether or not the biotech industry was correct in saying that the process of genetic engineering was precise.

“They wanted to argue that this is much more precise than conventional plant breeding, in which you don’t know what’s going on because you’re just crossing plants together. They wanted to argue that their methodology was very precise. We wanted to test that thesis,” he says.

Together with Wilson, he collected a vast amount of data showing the process of plant transformation through genetic engineering was making a mess of plant genomes.2 The process caused:

  • Unexpected gene mutations
  • Movement and activation of transposons
  • DNA damage

Moreover, most genetically engineered (GE) plants contain more than one transgene: some of the plants they evaluated had as many as 40 different transgenes in them.

They even discovered that some of the now commercially available GE plants had transgene insertions that were so complicated the companies themselves had actually given up trying to get to the bottom of how much damage had been done to the plant’s DNA. It was simply too difficult to do so.

“The more complex and damaging the DNA effects are, the more difficult it is to do the research. We published this in the peer-reviewed literature. It was very important in our view because the whole risk assessment process, and the whole of the reassurance process for the public, depends on the idea that we know what we’re doing, and that what we’re doing is precise. None of those things were true,” he says.

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com