September 23, 2017

8 Damn Good Reasons Not to Get the Flu Shot – “Into the Labyrinth: Discovering the Truth about Vaccination” Free E-Book – True Democracy Party

thimerosal-mercury-based-preservative-autism

8 Damn Good Reasons Not to Get the Flu Shot

Every year the mainstream media war drum beats for you to get vaccinated against the flu. They rarely discuss anything but the benefits of the vaccine.

Why?

Maybe it is because many people are already skeptical about the flu vaccine.

I’m going to be very up front with you here. You rarely hear about the adverse reactions or about the toxic chemicals being injected into you. My goal is to get you to investigate vaccines more closely. Here are eight reasons to question the flu shot.

Let’s begin…

*** REASON #1: NEUROTOXIC INGREDIENTS

A common urban myth is that the mercury has been taken out of vaccines. This is not true.

Several of the flu vaccines contain a neurotoxic ingredient called thimerosal (mercury). Each one of the flu vaccines listed below contains 25 micrograms of mercury. [1] The vaccines are:

Afluria CSL (Limited for Merck)
FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline)
Fluvirin (Novartis)
Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur)

Keep in mind you are being told conflicting stories.

After parents and scientists discovered that mercury was present in the vaccines, they had concerns about the substance causing neurological problems in children.

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control have told you mercury in the vaccines isn’t bad for us, but as a precaution, it will be taken out of the vaccines.

Now the same organizations are telling parents if mercury isn’t kept it in the vaccines, millions will suffer. Why? Removing the mercury from vaccines would cause a major disruption in the manufacturing and supply of vaccines.[2]

Much of the evidence on the toxicity of thimerosal was swept under the rug at a secret meeting held by the Centers for Disease Control in Simpsonwood, Georgia. I’d like to invite you to read a few quotes from the meeting. I think you will see why the Centers for Disease Control wants to keep the lid on thimerosal.

Here are three important quotes from the Simpsonwood Document:

“…the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000

“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” – Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000

“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” – Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 [3]

We at VacTruth encourage you to investigate what is being injected into your child.

*** REASON #2: 4250% INCREASE IN FETAL DEATHS REPORTED

Speaking of mercury being unsafe — if you’re pregnant, beware of doctors using aggressive fear tactics pushing you to get vaccinated. Here’s why…

On September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published a study by Dr. Gary Goldman reporting a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4]

That year the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had recommended the double-dosing pregnant mothers with two flu shots spiked with mercury.

In his abstract, Goldman said:

“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.” [4]

How can injecting these filthy vaccines into pregnant mothers be remotely safe?

*** REASON #3: VACCINE-INDUCED NARCOLEPSY

Do you recall the vaccine-frenzied media telling us to get our flu shots during the H1N1 pandemic? What they didn’t tell you are the possible long-term side effects of those vaccines that are now being revealed.

Recent news about the flu vaccine suspects one of the experimental vaccines causing narcolepsy in about 800 European children. [5]

Specifically, two studies in Finland directly point the finger at the vaccine. [6, 7]

The conclusion of one study states:

“We observed a 17-fold increase in the annual incidence of narcolepsy in 2010 as compared to previous years in children aged under 17 years of age. A common feature in the history of our 54 newly diagnosed childhood narcoleptic patients was that 50 children had received an adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine (Pandemrix) within 8 months before the onset of symptoms. In most cases, the development of symptoms was fast. We consider it likely that Pandemrix vaccination contributed to the increased incidence of narcolepsy in Finland…” [7]

The children’s misfortune is they now have to deal with an illness that all but destroys their once normal life. Do you think the pharmaceutical companies will take any responsibility?

*** REASON #4: “THEY ARE PROTECTED” … FROM YOU!

I’m not sure about other countries, but in the United States, if your child is harmed by a vaccine, there is little action you can take legally.

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed was to protect pharmaceutical companies from anyone claiming a vaccine injured their child. Under this law, no parent can sue a vaccine manufacturer. [8]

If you decide to vaccinate your children, you do so at your own risk. No vaccine manufacturer is liable for your child’s vaccine-related injury or death from a recommended vaccine, regardless if the FDA or CDC helped get an untested flu vaccine approved.

*** REASON #5: IF YOU GET VACCINATED, YOU SHED THE VIRUS

If getting injected with neurotoxins or suffering from narcolepsy isn’t enough, expect to shed the flu virus and likely infect others if you decide to get the nasal spray vaccine.

Information from the Centers for Disease Control website indicates “that both children and adults vaccinated with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses.” [9]

In one study of children in a daycare setting, 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains for an average of 7.5 days. [9]

*** REASON #6: IF YOU GET THE FLU VACCINE, EXPECT TO GET THE FLU

This might be a shock to you – if you investigate the vaccine carefully enough, you’ll discover that getting vaccinated can actually predispose you to getting the flu!

One particular study surprised researchers when they discovered “a significant positive association between the seasonal influenza vaccine and lab confirmed H1N1 was observed.” [10]

As anecdotal evidence, you may or may not have seen what happened to television host Piers Morgan. If you didn’t, here is the condensed version.

Piers Morgan went on the Dr. Oz television show to get injected with the toxic flu vaccine in front of a live audience. Days later he came down with the flu. [11]

Did the flu vaccine cause him to get the flu? You can decide for yourself on this one.

*** REASON #7: EVERY YEAR THE EXPERTS GUESS

Do you know how the flu strain is picked to put into the vaccine every year? The “experts” guess.

Every year, the influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected through calculations about what flu viruses are most likely to cause illness in the coming season. The FDA, acting in concert with the CDC, decides what vaccine strains for influenza vaccines to be sold in the U.S. [12]

What happens if the virus mutates or the “experts” guess incorrectly? Please see Reason #1…

*** REASON #8: THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL’S RECIPE FOR GENERATING FEAR

Many people believe the Centers for Disease Control is beyond using propaganda ploys. You might get a different impression from the information I’m about to share with you. It may seem as if the CDC fears you into getting vaccinated, much like doctors do.

What do I mean and where is this recipe?

Some years ago, the associate director for communications for the national immunization program, Glen Nowak, made a presentation entitled Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis.

I am going to include the entire “recipe” so you can see the complexity of the propaganda being regularly used on you to get vaccinated.
Vaccines-BHP-copyneedles
The slide on page 27 of the presentation reads:

“Recipe” that Fosters Higher Interest and Demand for Influenza Vaccine

1. Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)

2. Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:

–Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes

–Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors)

–In cities and communities with significant media outlets (e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)

3. Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)–and urge influenza vaccination.

4. The combination of ‘2’ and ‘3’ result in:

A. Significant media interest and attention

B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)

C. Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people–helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.

6. Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)

7. References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza– along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.” [13]

The message is extremely familiar. You see it played out every year on the news channels. To be clear, what you just read is a recipe to sell more of Big Pharma’s toxic vaccines.

References

1. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

2. http://vactruth.com/2012/12/23/mercury-in-vaccines/

3. http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html

4. http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.abstract?rss=1

5. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-narcolepsy…

6. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033536#close

7. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033723

8. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

9. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/laiv-shed.htm

10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001885

11. http://www.infowars.com/piers-morgan-falls-ill-days-after-receiving-flu-vaccine/

12. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm

13. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/2004flunowak
– See more at: http://vactruth.com/2013/02/01/8-damn-good-reasons/#sthash.ZTUVw7ae.dpuf

SOURCE: [ vactruth.com/2013/02/01/8-damn-good-reasons ]

***

vaccines medic6

Free E-Book: “Into the Labyrinth: Discovering the Truth about
Vaccination”

***

Thimerosal-Hed

[ THIMEROSAL: Autisms Daddy – Jon Christian Ryter ]

***

ONE SODA PER DAY EQUALS DIABETES! PERIOD!: Diet Soda, Reg. Soda, Sweetened Teas, Energy Drinks – True Democracy Party

coke pepsi

Google banned this Post/Article from…Google. So we are Re-Posting it on…Google. F-Google!

Why do we have this Diabetes causing Junk in our Schools?! Are we starting young, trying to build a Diabetic Nation?!

There are thousands of articles that back up this Post!

Google it. – T.D.P. Admin.

***

Dr. Joel Wallach, in his video ‘Dead Doctors Don’t Lie”, reported on a Major Health Study that stated; “Just one 12 oz. carbonated drink per day of any kind, sweetened or diet, would increase Diabetes Risk by 77%. And 2 carbonated drinks per day would increase Diabetes Risk to 100%!”

The studies on this are all over the place from 1 drink per week equals a 33% diabetes risk increase to 1 drink per day equals 25% risk increase.

But the bottom line is, who drinks only one per day or one per week?

We simply took the “1 drink per week equals a 33% diabetes risk increase”, and increased the rate to by a factor of 5, or 5 drinks per week. If 1 drink per week increases risk by 33%, then 5 per week should equal 100% or more!

Here are the articles and video:

***
sodas_xlarge_xlarge_xlarge

Even 1 Soda a Day Can Hike Your Diabetes Risk

It’s not just soda, either. A study fingers energy drinks, sweetened tea, and other sugary beverages

By HANNA DUBANSKY

A soda a day? That’s not so bad—a 150-calorie blip, burned off with a brisk half-hour walk. But it’s not only your waistline that’s at stake. A study released today in the journal Diabetes Care found that people with a daily habit of just one or two sugar-sweetened beverages—anything from sodas and energy drinks to sweetened teas and vitamin water—were more than 25 percent likelier to develop type 2 diabetes than were similar individuals who had no more than one sugary drink per month. Since the overall rate of diabetes is roughly 1 in 10, an increase of 25 percent raises the risk to about 1 in 8. One-a-day guzzlers in the study also had a 20 percent higher rate of metabolic syndrome, a collection of indicators such as high triglyceride levels suggesting that diabetes is not far off.

“Previous studies have shown that sugar-sweetened beverages are strongly associated with weight gain,” says lead author Vasanti Malik, a research fellow in the Harvard School of Public Health Department of Nutrition, who says the decision to examine the relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of diabetes was “the logical next step.”

[To Cut Diabetes-Related Heart Risks, Diet and Exercise May Beat Drugs]

The researchers conducted a study of studies—a meta-analysis—to reach their conclusions. They identified eight studies with enough data to let them check for a link between sugary drinks and type 2 diabetes and three similar studies of metabolic syndrome. The largest diabetes study, which followed more than 91,000 American women ages 24 to 44 for eight years, made the strongest case for a relationship, and it wasn’t just because higher consumption of sweetened drinks added excess calories that turned into pounds. While weight gain is a known diabetes risk factor, the diabetes-beverage link persisted even after adjusting for that. “Other factors independently put you at risk for developing diabetes,” says Malik.

The main one is spikes in blood glucose and insulin because sweetened drinks are often consumed quickly and in large quantities and their sugar content is rapidly absorbed. Frequent spiking can lead to insulin resistance, inflammation, and hypertension—often precursors to diabetes. High-fructose corn syrup, the sugar in many sweetened drinks, is emerging as possibly riskier than other sugars because it seems to produce more belly fat. Fat that accumulates around the middle is closely tied to high blood pressure and other cardiovascular problems.

Americans love sweetened drinks. Consumption climbed to an average of 142 calories a day, or nearly one 12-ounce can of soda, in 2006, from 65 in the late 1970s. And many people down far more than that, notes Frank Hu, a senior author of the study and a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard, which puts them at a much greater risk of diabetes. A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released earlier this week projects that by 2050, 1 in 3 Americans will develop the disease. “Soft drink consumption has significant public health implications in terms of the diabetes epidemic,” says Hu.

[Why Diabetes May Triple by 2050]

Earlier this year the American Heart Association issued a recommendation advising consumers to set a limit on sweetened drinks of 450 calories a week, or three 12-ounce sodas, in a 2,000-calorie diet. Calorie-counting is a convenient way to keep track, but it can be misleading. “Consumers are overly focused on calories,” says Constance Brown-Riggs, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association, who would like people also to understand that a 12-ounce can of soda contains the equivalent of 15 teaspoons of sugar. “They think it’s not that bad, without taking into consideration the other components that are putting them at risk.”

Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome aren’t the only risks of a one-a-day habit. In a 2004 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 88,000 women followed for 24 years, those who guzzled two or more sugary drinks a day had a risk of coronary artery disease 35 percent higher than non-guzzlers, even after adjusting for other unhealthy lifestyle factors. “You receive no benefits out of drinking these beverages,” says Malik, who lists additional hazards from dental cavities to gout. “It’s a wake-up call for the American public.”

[Know Your Diabetes Risk: Take a Self-Assessment]

[ SOURCE: U.S. News Health ]

***

diet-sodas

Study: Diet Soda Increases the Risk of Diabetes. Why Do We Still Drink This Stuff?
By Lylah M. Alphonse, Senior Editor, Yahoo! Shine | Healthy Living – Fri, Feb 8, 2013

Yet another study confirms what people have been saying for ages: Stop drinking diet soda. Like, right now. Drinking just one 12-ounce can of an artificially sweetened fizzy drink per week can increase your risk of Type 2 diabetes by 33 percent, French researchers found. And given that most people don’t stop at a single weekly serving, your real risk for diabetes could actually be much higher.

Diet Soda May Increase Risk of Depression
The study, which was announced Thursday and will be published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, was conducted by France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research and covered 66,118 middle-aged women whose dietary habits and health were tracked from 1993 to 2007.

Diet Soda May Be Making You Fat
The results were unexpected. Though it’s well-known that people who consume a lot of sugar are more likely to develop diabetes, the researchers found that participants who drank “light” or “diet” soft drinks had a higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes than those who drank regular, sugar-filled sodas. Those who drank 100 percent natural squeezed fruit juices instead had no additional risk.

Women who choose artificially flavored soft drinks usually drink twice as many of them as women who choose regular soda or juice—2.8 glasses per week compared to 1.6 glasses. “Yet when an equal quantity is consumed, the risk of contracting diabetes is higher for ‘light’ or ‘diet’ drinks than for ‘non-light’ or ‘non-diet’ drinks,” the researchers, epidemiologists Francoise Clavel-Chapelon and Guy Fagherazzi, said in a statement. Women who drank up to 500 milliliters (about 12 ounces) of artificially sweetened beverages per week were 33 percent more likely to develop the disease, and women who drank about 600 milliliters (about 20 ounces) per week had a 66 percent increase in risk.

Drinking sweetened beverages increases the risk of becoming overweight, which is itself a risk factor in developing diabetes. But the study didn’t find that the results were the same even among overweight women. So how can artificially sweetened drinks be making the problem worse if they’re fat- and calorie-free?

“With respect, in particular, to ‘light’ or ‘diet’ drinks, the relationship with diabetes can be explained partially by a greater craving for sugar in general by female consumers of this type of soft drink,” the researchers explained. “Furthermore, aspartame, one of the main artificial sweeteners used today, causes an increase in glycaemia and consequently a rise in the insulin level in comparison to that produced by sucrose.”

Translation: Drinking artificially sweetened drinks makes you crave other sweet things (hello, chocolate!). And your body reacts to aspartame—also known as NutraSweet and Equal—much in the same way that it reacts to plain old sugar.
According to the American Diabetes Association, about 25.8 million children and adults in the United States have diabetes—about 8.3 percent of the population.

The disease is the leading cause of new cases of blindness in people age 20 and older, and can also cause heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, kidney disease, and damage to the nervous system. Type 2 diabetes—which can be controlled by diet and exercise rather than a daily insulin injection—is the most common form of diabetes in the United States.

The study’s authors cautioned that more research was needed in order to prove a true causal link between diet sodas and Type 2 diabetes. “Information on beverage consumption was not updated during the follow-up, and dietary habits may have changed over time,” they admitted in their report. “We cannot rule out that factors other than ASB [artificially sweetened beverages] are responsible for the association with diabetes.”

[ SOURCE ]

***

Natural-Healthcare-Store13

Dr. Joel Wallach – The Best of Dead Doctors Don’t Lie

For Optimal Health We Need, 60 Minerals, 16 Vitamins, 12 Amino Acids, 3 Essential Fatty Acids (Omega 3 & 6 are essential) Lack of these essential nutrients weakens the body’s ability to rebuild itself and increases the potential for 900 Nutritional Deficiency Diseases.

Order of Lecture:

1. Veterinary health care

2. America’s longevity (4:25)

3. Dead doctors don’t lie (8:01)

4. Age beating conditions (11:44)

5. Salt & high blood pressure (17:31)

6. Cholesterol & heart disease (20:50)

7. Arthritis & osteoporosis (23:10)

8. Early warning signs (27:43)

9. Copper & aneurysms (31:25)

10. Athletes (35:22)

11. Calcium (37:30)

12. Essential nutrition (40:41)

13. Joint injuries (45:01)

14. Athletes (46:27)

15. Arthritis (48:56)

16. Bone spurs/osteoporosis (51:24)

17. Cancer (51:55)

18. Diabetes (55:28)

19. Alzheimer’s/cholesterol (57:13)

20. ADD/ADHD (59:39)

21. Pregnancy/birth defects (1:02:24)

22. Asthma/ allergies (1:04:29)

23. Safety of supplements (1:08:14)

24. Fibromyalgia (1:09:25)

25. Infant formulas (1:10:52)

www.youngevity.net
888-441-4184

[ If you watch this video on youtube, all the chapter (Links) are enabled. ]

RELATED:

sea-salt (1)

[ THE TRUTH ABOUT NATURAL UNREFINED SEA SALT “IT DOES A BODY GOOD!”: Natures Mega Multi Vitamin /Chemical Analysis of Natural Unrefined Sea Salt ]