Thursday, May 31, 2012


"May 2, 2012 — Prenatal exposure to a pesticide used on many crops may be linked with abnormal changes in a child's developing brain, scientists report.

Compared to children with low prenatal exposure, those with high exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos had abnormalities in the cortex (the outer area of the brain), says Virginia Rauh, ScD, professor and deputy director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

The cortex helps govern intelligence, personality, muscle movement, and other tasks.

"In areas of the cortex, we detected both enlarged and reduced volumes that were significantly different from the normal brain," she tells WebMD. "This suggests the process of normal brain development has been disturbed in some way."

The study is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' Early Edition.

In 2001, the U.S. EPA banned the residential use of chlorpyrifos. It still allows it on crops. It can also be sprayed in public places such as golf courses.

Some environmental advocates have petitioned the EPA to ban agricultural use.

Prenatal Exposure to Pesticides: Study Details

Rauh's team selected 40 children from a larger group of 369 children, followed from birth.

All had been born between 1998 and 2001, before the household-use ban. Rauh had sent their umbilical cord blood samples to the CDC to analyze pesticide levels.

For this study, she selected 20 children with high prenatal exposure and 20 with low prenatal exposure. She took MRIs of their brains when they were about 6 to 11 years old.

Overall brain size did not differ much between the two groups. However, the high-exposure group had enlargements in many areas and reduced volumes in other areas.

The findings reflect those from animal studies, Rauh says.

In other studies, Rauh has found higher exposure to the pesticide is linked with lower IQs and a decline in working memory in children.

The pesticide works by blocking an enzyme needed by pests -- and people -- for proper nerve functioning. It belongs to a class known as organophosphates.

Chlorpyrifos and the Food Supply

In 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the EPA to cancel all agricultural registrations for the pesticide.The EPA is reviewing the role of chlorpyrifos in agriculture.

Symptoms of poisoning from the pesticide include nausea, dizziness, confusion, and sometimes loss of respiratory muscle control and death, according to the NRDC.

'Prenatal Pesticide Exposure: Two Perspectives

The new research finding is concerning, says Sonya Lunder, MPH, senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group. EWG supports a ban on the pesticide.

"Once you have changed the way the brain is born, and the structure, we are talking about things you can't offset with a good education or a good diet," she tells WebMD.

Meanwhile, industry groups say the pesticide should not be banned.

On a web page, "Chlorpyrifos Protects," Dow AgroSciences, its manufacturer, says: "Growers clearly need a trusted, well-established product to protect a wide range of crops from a diverse spectrum of damaging pests."

Since the pesticide was registered by the EPA in 1965, its use has become common in more than 50 crops, according to Dow. Among them are citrus fruits, apples, soybeans, sweet corn, and peanuts.

Research offers little support for claims that prenatal exposure could lead to reduced IQ scores, according to Dow.

Advice for Pregnant Women

Rauh advises women who are pregnant to avoid farming jobs.

Wash produce well before eating, she says. Buying organic produce is a good idea, she says, though not always practical. "It's a very expensive way to go and I think is out of reach of the average person," Rauh says."
Prenatal Pesticide Exposure May Harm Kids' Brains


I know this may come as a shock to many of you, but all animals are innocent and all animals feel pain. Animals suffer just like humans when they are tortured and mutilated in the name of science or religion. It is refreshing to know that at least one country has made the choice NOT to participate in evil. How about you America? Any chance you're ready to move into the light?
"India’s government has banned the use of live animals in educational and research institutions. According to the Times of India, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has ordered colleges, universities, research institutes, hospitals and laboratories to stop using live animals for dissection and experiments and to use alternatives including computer simulation and mannequin models. Only those engaging in molecular research are exempt from the ban.

The MoEF has said that universities and other institutions are “duty-bound to use alternatives to avoid unnecessary suffering or pain to animals.” Computer simulations and model mannequins are, says the MoEF, actually “superior learning tools in teaching of pharmacy or life sciences.”

India’s 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act established the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments and Animals (CPCSEA), which contributed to the guidelines. Mangal Jain, a nominee of the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) (which is appointed by the CPCSEA), gaves these details:

The animal experiments should be stopped in all institutes except for the purpose of new molecular research. Sometimes, in laboratories, a lot of work is repeated and animals become unnecessary victims. Only scientists researching on a new molecular theory can experiment on animals. In medical and pharmacy colleges, there is unwanted cruelty towards animals which can be avoided. These guidelines mention imprisonment for five years and monetary penalty.

As Jain’s statement makes clear, using animals in experiments and for activities such as dissection is simply “unwanted cruelty.” Too often, animals become “unnecessary victims” in such experiments. Now that we have technologies such as computer simulations, dissecting actual animals — a rite of passage for generations of high school biology students in the U.S. — simply isn’t necessary.

Hoshang Bilimoria, a nominee appointed by the CPCSEA, also says that the committee’s members should be able to “to inspect animals housed in educational institutes, experimentation centres or technical laboratories without prior intimation to the institutes,” in order to ensure that animals used for scientific research are treated ethically.

As Andrew Rowan, president of Humane Society International, also commented:

India’s decision to shift its reliance from harmful and often unreliable animal models to robust non-animal approaches for biomedical research and education is a major step in the right direction and they are on a path to leadership in replacing animals in experiments.

As the Human Society International also notes, in just one year some 100 million animals are “bred, injected, infected, cut open, genetically altered, force-fed drugs, chemicals and ultimately killed for scientific research, testing and education.” The society calls on governments across the globe to follow India’s lead and conduct “non-animal research” and use humane alternatives.

How can we advocate for universities and hospitals in the U.S. and around the globe to follow India’s lead?"
India Bans Live Animals In University and Hospital Research


OK - so let me see if I understand this correctly. First parents decide that they have the right to circumcise their sons and so they willfully hand their sons over to evil entities so that those entities can ritually sexual torture the newly born infant. Next, the evil ones strap the innocent infant down to a board so that he cannot move and then they proceed to clamp his penis. Next, they spend 5-7 minutes systematically slicing off the most sensitive part of the baby boy's penis with absolutely no anesthesia and a complete disregard for the infant's well-being. In addition to charging money for this heinous crime and parents willingly paying the fee, the hospital then makes more money selling the infant's mutilated body part to cosmetic companies. And then women rub that shit all over their face believing this will make them more "youthful."

Okey dokey then. It's all perfectly normal folks. Nothing to be alarmed about here.
"In the business of vanity almost anything goes. Creams, lotions, and cosmetics are reported to be made out many things that most people would be repulsed by. Fish scales in lipsticks, cow placenta in anti-aging products, crushed female cochineal insects in shampoo, and human foreskin in face cream.

Foreskin fibroblasts are used to grow and cultivate new cells that are then used for a variety of purposes. From the fibroblasts new skin for burn victims can be grown, skin to cover diabetic ulcers, and controversially it is also used to make cosmetic creams and collagens. One foreskin can be used for decades to grow $100,000 worth of fibroblasts.

Debate is growing over the ethics of using human foreskins for cosmetic purposes. One such cosmetic company, SkinMedica is raising a stir over their use of the growth hormone left over from growing artificial skin from foreskin fibroblasts. Dr. Fitzpatrick, who invented SkinMedica, works with a supplier that uses foreskin fibroblast to make injectable collagen. The foreskins that he receives the growth hormone for are used especially for cosmetics rather than for growing new skin for medical patients.

SkinMedica, which sells for over $100 for a 63-oz. bottle, was made famous by Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters. Winfrey in fact has promoted SkinMedica several times on her show and website. Discussions about the ethics of using human foreskins for vanity have been circulating on the web but there has not been a response from Winfrey on this debate.

Dr. Fitzpatrick says that using foreskins was simply a choice of convenience. "It doesn't matter if you get a fibroblast from the eyelid, the cheek, the foot or the foreskin," Fitzgerald said in an interview. "That cell is still a fibroblast; it does the same thing. Foreskins were used because that is a common surgery and the skin is thrown away, so why not use it for benefits? Twelve years ago when this was done, there would have been no objection to using foreskin tissue." But now that circumcision rates in Canada have dropped below 10 percent and rates in the United States are dropping foreskins are not as convenient anymore. Newborn foreskins are extremely valuable for fibroblasts. The tissue reproduces better, has more vitality, and is generally guaranteed to be healthy.

SkinMedica is not the only company profiting from human foreskins. Since the 1980's many hospitals have been providing infant foreskins to a number of bio-research laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, and of course cosmetic companies. In Mothering Magazine in the Winter of 1997 issue Paul M. Fleiss, MD stated that "the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multimillion-dollar-a-year industry." With inflation and the growing number of cosmetic companies using foreskin fibroblasts that number is surely even higher today."
Human Foreskins are Big Business for Cosmetics

Saturday, May 26, 2012


Please watch as returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan gather around the NATO Summit in Chicago to throw back their medals and end their collusion with evil.


For those who insist that it's perfectly fine to vaccinate their kids and feed them GMO foods, and who use pesticides on their lawn, and colognes, perfumes, hairspray, cleaning products, shampoos, soaps, laundry detergents, etc. that contain toxic chemicals... PLEASE KNOW YOU ARE CAUSING MUTATIONS IN YOUR CHILDREN THAT CAN BE SERIOUS AND PASSED ON FOR SEVERAL GENERATIONS. When your child becomes an adult that is infertile, or when your child develops asthma, allergies, autism, cancer, etc., you will have only yourself to blame for refusing to change your way of life to one that is non-toxic. IT IS DESPERATELY URGENT FOR PEOPLE TO WAKE UP!!!!
"(NaturalNews) Groundbreaking new science reveals that the harmful effects of exposure to synthetic chemicals are passed from generation to generation via "epigenetics," causing measurable damage to future generations even if those offspring are never exposed to the original chemical. The phenomenon of "Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance" (ETI) has now been demonstrated in live animals, and if the implications of this research are fully understood, it would force human civilization to radically rethink its widespread use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture, medicine, food, construction materials, personal care products and elsewhere.

The research, led by Dr. David Crews ( (and including colleagues Michael Skinner, Ross Gillette and others), is entitled, "Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered stress responses" and is published in the journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) (

The study, which was funded by a sub-group of the National Institutes of Health (, found that exposure to a common fungicide caused neurological and behavioral changes that were passed on to future generations of offspring, even when those offspring had no exposure to the original fungicide. Furthermore, the mechanism of "transgenerational inheritance" was epigenetic, meaning it was "above the genes." It was not coded into the DNA of sperm and egg, in other words. Instead, the expression of the DNA was altered and inherited through some mechanism other than DNA.

As the abstract of the study sums it up:

"We find that a single exposure to a common-use fungicide (vinclozolin) three generations removed alters the physiology, behavior, metabolic activity, and transcriptome in discrete brain nuclei in descendant males, causing them to respond differently to chronic restraint stress." (

Watch the video interview with Dr. David Crews

Because of the red alert importance of this breaking science news, we have completed an interview with Dr. David Crews today, and you can watch it at:

Read more about Dr. David Crews at his lab web page:

Why chemicals threaten the future of the human species

This groundbreaking research offers a sobering revelation about the age of industrial chemicals through which we are all now living. This "age of chemicals" ramped up roughly around World War II (late 1930's).

The conventional view of chemicals -- the view advocated by the chemical industry, the cancer industry, the FDA, the EPA, etc. -- is that the damaging effects of chemical exposure are NOT passed on to future generations (unless, of course, exposure happens during pregnancy). Chemicals are relatively safe, the regulators say, because the next generation is always born healthy and genetically intact.

But what this research by Dr. David Crews reveals is that chemical exposure accumulates and is inherited by offspring which then pass on the damaging effects of that exposure to their own offspring. This transgenerational "epigenetic" effect appears to go on indefinitely, forever altering the expression of the genetic code.

"I don't see a diminution. It's the nature of this kind of imprint. It will not disappear," he told NaturalNews. "We are becoming a different species," Dr. Crews told me on a separate phone call, meaning that modern humans, having been exposed to a heavy burden of synthetic chemicals for roughly 3-4 generations, now express their genetic code in a way that strongly diverges from the expression of someone living in, say, the 1920's.

We are, in essence, ChemHumans, forever imprinted with the toxic burden of all the tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals we have foolishly unleashed onto our world, our environment and our food supply.

Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance may help explain the rise in autism, obesity and infertility

Dr. Crews explained to me that the inherited, cumulative effects of chemical exposure may be a key element behind the causes of today's most worrisome disease epidemics: Autism, obesity, infertility and perhaps even cancer.

Autism has exploded in the last century, rising sharply from an estimated 1 in 25,000 children ( to an astonishing 1 in 88 children, according to the CDC. (

If this trend continues, we may be looking at a near future where every other child is autistic, and at that point questions about the long-term viability of the entire human race start to become unavoidable. Dr. Crews explains that although we cannot rid our world of toxic chemical pollution, we must at least be honest and accurate about the near-term and long-term damage caused by those chemicals so that we can take immediate steps to limit exposure.

"We have permanently contaminated our world, and we are never going to be able to clean up our world. We have to recognize this fact. We have poisoned the environment. There is no turning back, but that doesn't mean we have to continue poisoning the environment," he says.

Dr. Crews believes that part of the answer rests in the realm of "green chemistry" where toxic synthetic chemicals used in agriculture are replaced with far less harmful chemicals that don't trigger transgenerational (inherited) damage in humans or animals.

Watch my full interview with Dr. Crews at:

Urgent call to avoid all chemicals NOW

Anyone who fully grasps the implications of this research must immediately take urgent steps to radically and permanently reduce their exposure to synthetic chemicals.

"This recent ruling by the FDA not to ban BPA in the United States is, in my opinion, a disaster," says Dr Crews. "It is a fundamental mistake by a regulatory agency."

The most common sources of chemical exposure today include (this is my own list, not David Crews'):

• Foods - pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, food packaging
• Insect repellants such as DEET
• Personal care products (lotions, hand sanitizers, cosmetics)
• Plasticizers such as Bisphenol-A (BPA)
• Dioxins
• Hydrocarbons (gasoline, jet fuel)
• Medicines and pharmaceuticals
• Chemicals used in home construction materials (glues, dyes, formaldehyde, etc.)
• Chemical adjuvants in vaccines

Health Ranger analysis: The genopocalypse approaches

The realization that exposure to such chemicals can cause damage three, five or even ten generations down the line should be a red alert wake-up call for everyone interested in keeping their genes represented in the human gene pool. Chemical exposure causes not just changes in neurology and behavior, but even changes in fertility. As chemical exposure accumulates generation after generation, fertility rates plummet.

I have coined the coming collapse of the human gene pool the "genopocalypse." This term has not yet caught on across the 'net, as many people still don't realize what has already begun to unfold. We have already compromised our future as a species right now, even if BPA were banned tomorrow. The heavy chemical burden already unleashed on our world (and our population) will be felt for countless generations to come. And it may very well threaten the survival of not just our civilization, but our entire species.

That's my assessment of the situation, not Dr. Crews. I'm looking at the far darker long-term implications of his research because I remain concerned about the fact that humanity is killing itself through chemicals, nuclear power, GMOs and other serious threats to our survival.

I've even posted an S.O.S. to the world about this very topic:

S.O.S. means "Stop Out-of-Control Science," and it means that before we kill ourselves (and our planet) with runaway science conducted for the benefit of corporate interests, we must return to the precautionary principle and conduct science with a sense of caution rather than a drive for profit.

Do not misinterpret this as meaning in any way that I am against science. Real science is, indeed, crucial to the advancement of knowledge in our universe. The quest for scientific understanding is a journey out of the darkness of superstition and into the light of awareness. And yet too much of today's so-called "science" has been conducted with no regard for the safety of the human race, the planet's ecosystems or the integrity of reproductive systems in both plants and animals. Genetically Modified Organisms, for example, are a form of runaway genetic pollution that have entirely unknown consequences for the future of food crops on our planet.

GMOs, by any rational standard, are a dangerous experiment that should only be conducted in tightly controlled (indoor, clean-room) environments, not planted in open fields where their seeds are blown away by the wind. By the same token, the mass chemical inundation of our world today is another disturbing science experiment through which we are currently living. What will be the long-term impact of all these chemicals used in foods, medicines, personal care products and industrial processes? Nobody knows, and that's exactly what should scare us the most.

It is a crap shoot. A roll of the dice. And the stakes couldn't be higher: the future of human life on our planet may be either won or lost depending on the outcome. But instead of playing it safe, the chemical industry (and the FDA, EPA, etc.) have all jumped in bed with the American Chemistry Council, an organization whose sole purpose is to convince regulators, politicians and consumers that there's no such thing as a bad chemical! They're all good for you, and in fact the more you're exposed to, the better your life! (Better living through chemistry, remember?)

The research of Dr. Crews and colleagues gives us a stern warning that stands in great contrast to the persistent denials of the chemistry industry. Chemical exposure damages your offspring, and it then goes on to damage their offspring, generation after generation, through an unknown number of generations.

The pesticide-sprayed strawberries you eat today, in other words, may damage your great great great grandchildren. And that's if your offspring are even fertile in the first place, because at some point infertility may lead to a population collapse from which humans may be hard-pressed to recover.

Have we already destroyed ourselves?

The questions we would be wise to consider today include: How will life on Earth 500 years from now be impacted by our decisions today? Cities today continue to dump fluoride into public water supplies. Modern dentistry continues to absurdly insist on putting mercury fillings into the mouths of children. GMO seed companies are openly conspiring with the USDA to unleash yet more genetic pollution across our planet, even working to de-regulate "Agent Orange Corn" -- a variety of GM corn that would be immune to 2,4-D, a chemical that's 50 percent of the recipe for the plant-killing chemical weapon known as Agent Orange.

Make no mistake: We are poisoning ourselves at a level never before witnessed in human history. It is all being done for profit, to appease powerful corporations that have undue influence in government. Regulators, meanwhile, have sold out the People and betrayed us all in order to keep their corporate masters filthy rich. While corporate shareholders revel in their quarterly profits, they are precisely the same people whose children are being poisoned by the very companies fattening their bank accounts!

We are stuck in a cycle of self destruction from which the human race may not escape. And that's if we don't kill ourselves with nuclear accidents first (Fukushima, anyone?)"
Red alert for humanity: Chemical damage can be inherited by offspring through unlimited generations

Thursday, May 24, 2012


( – “Millions of Americans have come to distrust vaccines and mainstream medicine’s vaccine agenda. There is a growing movement in this country and around the world that questions the safety and effectiveness of all vaccines for obvious reasons.

Many childhood disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, SIDS and others have been linked to vaccines. Thousands of soldiers who served in the military have been severely disabled or in some cases even died after receiving their mandated shots. Vaccines are the most controversial subject in all of medicine.

The standard line heard from most parents once their eyes are open to the risks of vaccines is, “How will I get my child into day care or in school without their shots.” Those working in the healthcare field or soldiers in the military are faced with similar questions.
Dr. Tenpenny: “Vaccines are the backbone of the entire Pharmaceutical Industry (…)
The vaccinated children become customers for life!”

To help educate the people further about how to legally avoid all vaccines, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has put together a brand new book that is absolutely necessary to have in your possession if you or a loved one don’t want to vaccinate but are not sure how to get around it. As Dr. Tenpenny says on the back cover of her book, “Saying No To Vaccines is not intended to be a balanced view of vaccination literature. Pro-vaccine information is readily accessible through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, healthcare and government-sponsored organizations. This book balances the debate.”

Below is a copy of an interview Crusador editor Greg Ciola conducted with Dr. Tenpenny shortly after the release of her new book.

Crusador: What was the impetus for writing your new book “Saying NO To Vaccines”?

Parents needed a tool that did their homework for them. The evidence is there to support their decision to not vaccinate; you just have to do a little work to find it. Everyone seems to be so afraid of “bugs” and their potential ability to make us sick. But the reality is that we swim in “bugs” every day and we are not dropping over like flies.. The only “bugs” we seem to obsess over are associated with vaccines. Only two generations ago, measles, mumps and chickenpox were normal experiences of childhood. Why we have complete fear of these infections is media and money driven and unfounded.

If the focus of Public Health was on sleep, exercise, clean water and safe, non-GMO food, we would have a healthy society without vaccinesbut we would not have billion dollar industries employing millions of people to keep us “healthy.” The fact is, we are a very UNhealthy society with vaccines, so the Public health and argument that we must vaccinate ‘for greater good’ is a failure.

I put a large body of research into my first book, FOWL! and my two DVDS, documenting the dangers of vaccination. “Saying No To Vaccines” was the next logical step. It answers the question, “I’ve decided not to vaccinate, now what do I do?”

Crusador: What are some of the issues you cover in the book that aren’t covered in your two DVD’s “Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices” and “Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal”?

There is very little overlap between Saying No to Vaccines and the DVDs. The foundational premise of the book is to give answers refuting the 25 most common arguments used to promote vaccination. For example, parents are often told the vaccine-preventable diseases of childhood can be serious and if their child is not vaccinated, their child could die. I tell them how to refute that argument and give documentation from the medical literature to demonstrate that statement is nothing more than fear mongering. Parents are told by pediatricians there is “no evidence that vaccination harms the immune system” and there is “no evidence that vaccination can lead to chronic disease.” I used the medical literature to prove the opposite is true.

Crusador: What are the most common questions you get about vaccines?

The most frequently-asked question I get is about vaccination exemption, meaning, “How do I refuse the vaccine and still get my kids into school or keep my job,” so by design a large part of the book covers exemptions. I included a lot of detail on how to avoid vaccinations for school situations, including college, professional situations where a job may require certain vaccines, if you are in a nursing home, foreign adoption, the military, even if you are incarcerated. I have also included a chapter on frequently- asked questions about vaccination. Saying No To Vaccines has an entire section on “most frequently asked questions.”

Crusador: There is a huge divide in this country between those who think you should vaccinate versus those who feel you shouldn’t. The majority is still on the side of thinking that vaccines are THE answer to long-term immunity. When you do speaking engagements or radio interviews or simply talk to a pregnant woman about the need to question the safety of vaccines further, how do you present your information to make someone think twice?

Even though I strongly believe that vaccines cause more harm than the “good” they supposedly do, it is important for people to see the evidence of harm ­ from a scientific perspective ­ and not just take my word for it. All of my information, every slide and every paragraph in my book, is referenced from a highly reputable medical journal or from the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC. People can see for themselves the one-sided, biased view of the vaccine industry, promoting that vaccines are “safe” and “protective.” Almost 100% of the time, once people pull back the veil and see the rest of the story, they know that vaccination is not what the drug companies claim it to be.

Crusador: Do you feel that there is such a thing as a “safe” vaccine? If there isn’t, how do you counter the mainstream medical mentality that vaccines may not be entirely without risks, but those risks are far less than the risks we would face without vaccines at all?

I really felt that parents needed strong answers for when they decided to not vaccinate. Very few people are willing to say something. The risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease. The “Green Our Vaccines” movement was partially behind the reason I wrote this book. Many activists, people with very good intentions, hedge and put their support behind “safer” vaccines which are a chemical impossibility. People just need to SAY NO.

Crusador: Tell our readers a little more about the exemption clauses you discuss in your book. The medical establishment has done a terrific job of intimidating people into thinking they have to take vaccines and yet, rarely if ever will you hear about the ways to exempt yourself and family from taking vaccines.

A medical exemption is available in all 50 states but must be recommended by a doctor. The exemption can be difficult to obtain and often, it only excuses future vaccination with a shot that has already caused a severe reaction.

There are three exemptions available in this country ­ medical, religious and philosophical. As of now, 19 states accept a philosophical exemption. It is the easiest of the three to use. You request a form from the school nurse, state the reasons you don’t want to vaccinate your child, sign it and give it to the school. Generally, that’s it. However, different school systems have different rules. Some require the form annually, some require both parents to sign the exemption form, some require it to be notarized and so forth. You can find links to your state laws and more information by going to

Religious exemptions are available in all other states except West Virginia and Mississippi (which only have medical exemptions). Religious exemptions can be tricky and in some states, very difficult to obtain and defend. I often recommend that people consult an attorney for this type of exemption. Some states, such as New York and New Jersey, are difficult. New York has been known to use something called a “sincerity test.” Parents are literally interrogated by an attorney representing the school district regarding how sincere their religious assertions are for refusing a vaccine. A panel then decides if you are sincere enough in your beliefs to allow you to refuse vaccination on religious ground. I find these tactics absolutely appalling and akin to Inquisitioners of the Middle Ages.

Crusador: Where do you see the whole pro-vaccine movement going and what threats to our Constitutional freedoms do you see coming down the pike?

The dogged determination of those who oppose vaccines, and in particular mandatory vaccination, has gained traction at a grass roots level and garnered a lot of attention from the media. I feel that we have the pro-vaccinators on the ropes. Our arguments are hard to deny and the global autism epidemic can no longer be ignored. Pro-vaccinators are using manipulation, threats and fear tactics, trying to convince everyone that vaccines are not only safe but absolutely necessary. I see the vaccine industry like a wounded Tyrannosaurus Rex, gnashing its teeth and flailing its ugly head. It won’t die quickly and it will probably get worse before it gets better.

Crusador: There are many people in this country, myself included, who are concerned that there is an evil agenda to mass vaccinate the entire planet in the event of a health emergency. Do you feel that there are genuine reasons to be concerned and what might we expect to see unfold in an emergency?

Executive orders and recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been written that stop just short of allowing government-enforced mandatory vaccination for anthrax, smallpox and bird flu. The only way to change these policies is by standing together and boldly saying no.

Crusador: Are you still confident that with enough knowledge about the risks and dangers of vaccines enough people will wake up and say NO before Big Pharma forces its will upon the populace?

I’m not sure. People tend to be sheep ­ Americans in particular. Look what we have allowed a small number in the White House and 545 people in Congress to do to our country. And even those people who want to effect a change have little time and few resources to do so. No one wants to stand out, speak up and challenge authority. Whatever happened to those bra-burning activists of the 1960s? However, people really are involved now, more than ever. It only takes a small, vocal minority to really make a difference. As stated years ago by Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

Crusador: Thank you for your time, Sherri. These are excellent answers. I encourage everyone reading this interview to make every effort they can to get a copy of your new book and share it with their friends and loved ones because it is a great tool to give the average person confidence to SAY NO TO VACCINES.”
How To Legally Say ‘NO’ To All Vaccines – Dr. Sherri Tenpenny


What's that you say? There's fluoride in our drinking water and our toothpaste? Hmmmmmm..... You don't suppose they're DELIBERATELY trying to harm us do you?

Nah! That would be a conspiracy theory.

"NEW YORK, April 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults.

Randhu and colleagues measured serum fluoride levels in three equal groups of age-matched and sex-matched patients. Group one had osteosarcoma, group two had non-osteosarcoma bone tumors, and group three had musculo-skeletal pain.(1)

"Mean serum fluoride concentration was found to be significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to the other two groups," write Randhu's team. "(T)his report proves a link between raised fluoride levels in serum and osteosarcoma," they write.

This reinforces a 2006 published Harvard study by Bassin showing a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young boys.(2)

A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health study shows osteosarcoma rates higher among young males in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated regions of New Jersey.(3)

More studies link fluoride to bone and other cancers but are downplayed or ignored by government officials.(4)(5)

Bone defects similar to bone cancer were detected in fluoridated Newburgh, NY children as early as 1955. Newburgh is home of the first human health fluoridation experiment begun in 1945.

According to Christopher Bryson in The Fluoride Deception, "A radiologist, Dr. John Caffey of Columbia University, called the defects 'striking' in their 'similarity' to bone cancer... and seen more than twice as frequently among
boys in Newburgh as among boys in nonfluoridated Kingston [the control city]."(6)

In 2006, the prestigious National Research Council review of fluoride/fluoridation toxicology found a fluoride/bone cancer link plausible.

"If governments truly want to save money, stopping fluoridation is a no-brainer. It would save money, preserve health and teeth," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

In 2005, 11 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on fluoridation programs across the country and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.(7)

In addition, over 2,430 professionals urge the U.S. Congress to stop fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement:

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD 516-433-8882

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

Paul Beeber of NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, +1-516-433-8882,"
Another Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer

Does Fluoridation Up Bone Cancer Risk?

Suppressed Harvard Study Links Flouride to Breast Cancer,%20Bone%20Cancer..pdf


This is great article and I encourage everyone to read it. Despite its accuracy, I find it interesting to note that, while everyone acknowledges that women are subjected to abuse during hospital birth, very few people are talking about how the babies are being tortured. The amount of physical, psychological, and spiritual violence being inflicted on infants is insane. And for those who are interested in that conversation, I invite you to listen to this:

[Cohain JS. Mars Attack. Midwifery Today 2008:88:24, 66-7. Copyright Midwifery Today. Reprinted with the explicit permission of the author]

Abstract: "Mars Attack" is new term coined to describe unjustified violation of women by care providers at the time of birth, as well as the purposeful abandonment of the peer review system by major obstetric journals and the abandonment of the use of research evidence by ACOG in their latest protocols, in order to justify continued use of this form of violence against women.
"Birth rape has existed since the mainstream of doctors aggressively and systematically began their attempt to eliminate the power of midwives to assist at births 250 years ago. This change in the nature of birth assistance is symbolized by the way forceps was promoted around 1750. It was kept as the secret trick that doctors had over midwives.(1). Only MDs were allowed to see or use a pair of forceps. This ploy marked the genesis of doctors asserting power over women’s bodies and turning women into passive objects at the time of birth.

The term "birth rape" has appeared in this magazine and on some blogs (2), but is not well-accepted. Although the word rape has been used to mean abusive treatment and violation in contexts that do not involve intercourse, such as a rape of justice or soldiers raping the countryside, the vast majority of people are offended by application of the word rape to a medical procedure.

It is well-accepted that rape is not a sexual act, but an assault in which one person asserts power over the other by means of penetration of the vagina. This is exactly what happens when vaginal exams are performed against a woman’s will or when an episiotomy is done against a woman’s will. However, coercing a woman to take Pitocin, or prohibiting her from walking, or surgically cutting before the anesthesia takes effect may be thought of as medical assault, rather than birth rape.

The situation is complicated by the fact that, in such cases, the woman comes of her own free will to the doctor, nurse or midwife for birth services and willingly pays them to carry out these procedures. In some cases, she may even have understood them beforehand to be part of the services provided. This contradicts the accepted meaning of rape, in which the woman is clear from the start that she doesn’t want her vagina touched by the rapist.

Because of the strong negative reactions that most people have to the term birth rape, I have coined a new term to describe violence and violation of women at birth. I call it "Mars Attack," after the movie by that name.

For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, the plot is simple: Martians arrive on Earth. They’re an advanced culture, judging by the high technology of their flying saucers, and therefore are assumed to be peaceful by nature. The aliens learn quickly that the word peace is valued in this Earth culture and repeat the same slogan over and over in English in their computer-generated alien voices: "We come in peace; we come in peace."

The President is excited by the possibility of bringing intergalactic peace and calls a special welcome session of the Congress to greet the Martians. The aliens march into Congress, repeating their wonderful optimistic slogan, "We come in peace; we come in peace," proceed to smile and then pull out their very advanced weapons and instantly kill every last member of Congress and all bystanders who don’t run away in time.

Mars Attack is similar to doctors’ violence against women at birth because the reason for its high incidence is not understood. Why did the Martians want to kill everyone on earth? It’s unclear.

When insulin was discovered in 1920, it was immediately applied to save the lives of millions. It wasn’t kept secret and sold in limited quantities to increase someone’s reputation or to pad the bank accounts of doctors over midwives like forceps were.

Although episiotomy was determined in 1960 to result in poorer outcomes than natural tears, episiotomy—which is nothing more than a medical term for female mutilation (3)—continues, with no medical justification, at rates of 50–90% of first births.

It’s obvious that the high rate of cesarean surgery is causing more harm than good, but the rate of cesarean continues to rise.

Not one piece of medical evidence shows hospital birth to be preferable to attended homebirth for low-risk women, yet homebirth continues to become less and less accessible. The influential American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) goes out of its way to repeatedly declare, contrary to all scientific evidence, that in every case, attended homebirth for low-risk women is dangerous. It’s unclear what’s going on here. In every medical specialty other than obstetrics, the scientific method is applied to improve medical protocols.

If not always successful in the long term, cancer treatments closely follow the latest breakthroughs in science and are applied as quickly as money can be raised to pay for them. In the field of obstetrics, more expensive, less effective protocols are favored over cost-effective protocols that have better outcomes. When it comes to obstetrics, research-based evidence has been replaced by decision-based evidence making, i.e., published studies that draw conclusions unsupported by evidence provided in the article.

This year, I was involved in two cases of this myself. In one case, the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a study that showed that previous c-section (CS) causes an increase in stillbirths in the subsequent pregnancy, but skewed the data to show that the increase was not statistically significant.(4) The published conclusion: "Previous CS does not cause stillbirth." Although they published my letter to the editor pointing out the obvious illogical conclusion of the paper (5), the conclusion still rests. No retraction was offered.

In the second example, Obstetrics and Gynecology published a case study concluding that in one case the EPI-NO birth trainer caused a deadly air embolism.(6) The article presented no strong evidence that the woman suffered from an air embolism or that an EPI-NO was even used and made clear that if the EPI-NO was used, it was used in an unauthorized way that contradicts both the instructions and logic.

I was a peer reviewer on the article and pointed out the lack of evidence to support the conclusion, but they published the article anyway, with the faulty conclusion. Then they published my letter to the editor (7), which stated the same things that I rejected the article for during peer review. Why didn’t Obstetrics and Gynecology reject this nonsense in the first place? This is decision-based evidence making.

This is certainly a complicated playing field. Obstetric journals are lying to the public and then publishing letters to the editor that don’t appear on Medline or other research databases, thereby maintaining the false conclusions. Certainly not all doctors are Martians, but how can we distinguish which ones are, when they all say they come in peace to help us?

Birth and death are vulnerable times. It’s well-known that when you go to the funeral home, they’ll try to sell you the most expensive casket. Even if you fall for it, all you’ll lose is money. You won’t have an infected episiotomy with an antibiotic-resistance bacteria that might kill you or undergo dangerous abdominal surgery, with all its repercussions, for no reason.

Birth is a powerful time. Having a baby opens something inside of you. It’s ancient and animal. No matter how ready you are for it, it’s a surprise. A woman usually needs good support; but good support is hard to find. Most women no longer have extended family nearby.

Right inside the delivery room are Martians who stand ready to attack. They come with a friendly façade. They are technologically advanced and use scientific journals to pretend academic authority. They use their weapons to convince vulnerable women that they are acting in their best interests. They present themselves as kind health professionals, they get paid for entering your body and then they leave you emotionally dead and scarred for life. Why do they attack?

We don’t know. In the movie, Martians attack our planet and devastate everything because it's fun. They enjoy killing people and destroying buildings; they even play bowling with famous statues and pose for photos in front of temples before they blow them up. No one has a conclusive theory for current labor and delivery practice in America. The theory that it’s fun is just as good as any other theory. In 1750, no malpractice lawsuits were being filed, so avoiding law suits wasn’t the reason that doctors refused to share their forceps invention with midwives.

Will somebody find a way to stop the Martians or will everyone die in the war with these short, big-brained aliens? Thank goodness for Midwifery Today, fortifying women in its quiet way against Mars Attacks.

[For additional research visit the GreenMedInfo Natural Childbirth Research section]


1. Gelbart N. 1998. The King's Midwife: a History and Mystery of Madame du Coudray, . Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

2. Feministe. Medical Rape and the Medicalization of Childbirth.

3. Wagner, M. 1999. Episiotomy: a form of genital mutilation. Lancet 353(9168): 1977-78.

4. Wood, S.L., et al. 2008. The risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies following caesarean section in the first pregnancy. BJOG 115(6): 726–31.

5. "First comment on Woods 2008: 'The risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies following cesarean section in the first pregnancy.'" BJOG In press.

6. Nicoll, L.M., and D.W.Skupski. 2008. Venous air embolism after using a birth-training device. Obstet Gynecol
111 (2 Pt 2): 489-91.

7. Cohain, J.S. 2008. Epi-No birth trainer can be recommended without caution. Obstet Gynecol 111(6): 1444."

"Mars Attack": Violation of Women By Care Providers At Birth


"Vaccines are becoming really big business in the world of veterinary medicine, just as with humans. It’s interesting that animal vaccines can be “released without large controlled challenge studies that are necessary prior to the release of human vaccines.” [1] Really! and since when has there been large controlled challenge studies for human vaccines? Conversely, in the article “Animal vaccinations” by David Ramey, there is this candid admission:

Still, in general, animal owners must currently rely on the experience of individual practitioners, rather than sound science, for vaccine recommendations for their animals. [1]

How pathetic a statement! And one must ask why is there no sound science for vaccine recommendations for pets and animals? Furthermore, is there a similar form of science being manipulated with human vaccines?

There’s a heartbreaking story about a pet cat that was vaccinated near its tail and now has a cancerous tumor at the very site of the vaccination. [2] Plus, the veterinarian admits that the vaccine was the cause of the cancerous tumor! Okay, what does that portend? Can we start connecting some ‘inter-species dots’ for starters? Hozart, the tabby cat, is not an anomaly. More and more pets are coming down with cancerous tumors at vaccine injection sites, as confirmed by Dr. Patricia Jordan, DVM. Recommendations are being made to have pets vaccinated on a limb so that it can be amputated to save a pet’s life.

I sure hope they don’t recommend such a procedure for children. But one never knows with some of the ‘science’ that is emerging today.

Let’s take the ‘inter-species dot connecting’ a little further. According to the National Cancer Institute FactSheet,

Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children in 2004. [3]

What are the most common types of childhood cancer?

Among the 12 major types of childhood cancers, leukemias (blood cell cancers) and cancers of the brain and central nervous system account for more than half of the new cases. About one-third of childhood cancers are leukemias. The most common type of leukemia in children is acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The most common solid tumors are brain tumors (e.g., gliomas and medulloblastomas), with other solid tumors (e.g., neuroblastomas, Wilms tumors, and sarcomas such as rhabdomyosarcoma and osteosarcoma) being less common. [3]

If we can believe statistics cited by the NCI are correct and not ‘fudged’, since so many children now have childhood cancers—check all the children’s hospitals data,

Long-term trends in incidence for leukemias and brain tumors, the most common childhood cancers, show patterns that are somewhat different from the others. Incidence of childhood leukemias appeared to rise in the early 1980s, with rates increasing from 3.3 cases per 100,000 in 1975 to 4.6 cases per 100,000 in 1985. [3]

It is now 2012! What are the latest stats, please?

Notation should be made that the Autism Spectrum Disorder also increased dramatically during the past 20 years, as has the mandated number of vaccinations for children starting at birth, then at 2, 4, 6 months and up to 6 years of age, on into teenage years, even for admission into college. We must not forget to add ADD, ADHD, childhood diabetes, etc. also have skyrocketed. The medical literature does not document those dramatic instances of health problems for young children before the late 1980s.

Ironically, on NCI’s FactSheet, this question appears: What have studies shown about the possible causes of childhood cancer? There are numerous bulleted items with probable and/or improbable causes, but nowhere do we see vaccinations. However, what strikes this writer as patently ridiculous is that veterinarians are agreeing that vaccinations are causing cancerous tumors in pet animals but no correlations are being made to humans. Hellooooooo!

Somehow, I think, U.S. health consumers cannot ignore the push to vaccinate, which began in the 1980s, along with Congress passing the “get out of jail FREE” card exonerating vaccine makers from tort damage to children and adults from vaccines, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). By the way, most children damaged by vaccines are not compensated under this outrageously managed, or should I say manipulated program, I think. It’s a terrible shame what families have to deal with as a result of vaccine-induced damage to their innocent children. That must stop!

One demographic in U.S. society that does not embrace vaccinations, the Amish, have remarkable statistics that we need to consider further, e.g., the autism rate is one in 15,000! Plus, their children who usually work the farms in some way virtually have no allergies. Interesting?

When I shared those statistics with Dr. Paul G. King, PhD, he emailed back the following information that I think needs to be acknowledged and applauded:

Thus, in the non-mercury exposed Amish children (those who were not vaccinated or did not live near a coal-fired power plant), the number with “autism” was “0″ zero.

In the Home First children (Dr. Eisenstein’s practice in Chicago, IL) who are breastfed and not vaccinated, there were reportedly NO cases of autism and only 1 child with asthma in a population in excess of 30,000 [children].

But all of these are only “anecdotal” reports that the CDC dismissed instead of even trying to confirm their validity (for obvious reasons).

So now we have children and their pets coming down with what apparently are health anomalies from vaccines and vaccinations. When will Congress, the CDC, FDA, MDs, and public health agencies wake up? Isn’t it about time that parents demanded more for their tax dollars than government pandering to Big Pharma’s pseudo science?"
Pet Vaccinations Induce Cancerous Growths

Sunday, May 20, 2012


For the record - pitocin destroys families. Whenever a laboring mother is injected with synthetic oxytocin (or any hormone disrupting drug), her ability to produce natural oxytocin is undermined and so is her ability to love, bond, and breastfeed her child.

My advice... Avoid pitocin like the plague. And better yet, avoid hospitals altogether and birth your baby at home.

"Have you ever read the package insert for Pitocin? It’s a fascinating read. Did you know that the manufacturer of Pitocin, JHP Pharmaceuticals, actually wrote a really sensible list of recommendations and warnings for the use of this drug?

(major trigger warning on this one)

Given the current nationwide epidemic of Pitocin abuse, I started reading this document with my hackles up, expecting to be annoyed - but it wasn’t long before I became surprised by what I was reading. JHP Pharmaceuticals didn’t create this drug to hurry up the labor experience for normal, healthy women. In fact, the package insert warns against the use of Pitocin induction when it’s not medically indicated. The Indications and Usage section opens with a framed important notice that reads “Elective induction of labor is defined as the initiation of labor in a pregnant individual who has no medical indications for induction. Since the available data are inadequate to evaluate the benefits-to-risks considerations, Pitocin is not indicated for elective induction of labor.”

There you have it, straight from the manufacturer. Pitocin isn’t even meant to be used for induction when there’s not a medical need for it. According to these instructions, there are specific situations which warrant the use of Pitocin. Maternal diabetes, Rh problems, preeclampsia at or near term, certain cases of uterine inertia (ineffective contractions during true labor), or situations where the water has already broken are listed as examples when Pitocin may be used appropriately.

Here’s another warning from the package insert that caught my eye. “When properly administered, oxytocin should stimulate uterine contractions comparable to those seen in normal labor.” That was really surprising to me. I thought it was an unavoidable fact, that Pitocin-induced contractions are simply longer and stronger than naturally occurring contractions. That’s been the common knowledge among women I’ve spoken to about this subject. A huge percentage of women who have given birth naturally and also with Pitocin say that their Pitocin births were more painful. As it turns out, artificially long or strong contractions are associated with overdose of this drug, not the recommended dosage.

Here are 21 more reasons why most women should say no to Pitocin, brought to you by - the manufacturers of Pitocin. Each of these warnings comes from the package insert.

21. Induction with Pitocin requires constant fetal monitoring, but external monitoring is inaccurate. The best way to monitor the baby’s heart rate is by using an internal monitor called a Fetal Scalp Electrode that is attached the top of the head, through the cervix. It’s very invasive and can be quite painful (for mother AND for baby) to have one of these inserted, and there have been reports of babies being cut, scraped, and even receiving eye injuries from the device.

20. Pitocin should not be used when there is a predisposition to uterine rupture, as is the case when a woman has had uterine surgery such as a c-section. The sad fact, though, is that there are many hospitals and OBs that will not “allow” a woman to attempt a VBAC unless she agrees to an induction and close monitoring.

19. Nausea and vomiting are some of the most minor symptoms on the manufacturer’s list of possible drug reactions.

18. Pitocin, just like any drug, can cause a severe allergic reaction called anaphylaxis, which causes hives, difficulty breathing and swallowing, heart palpitations, and can lead to death.

17. There is an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage after Pitocin-augmented births.

16. Pitocin can disrupt the normal heartbeat of the mother, causing reactions such as cardiac arrhythmia or premature ventricular contractions.

15. Another risk of Pitocin is pelvic hematoma, a blood clot or even larger area of blood in the soft tissue of the pelvis.

14. Pitocin has an antidiuretic effect on the body, meaning it increases the absorption of water. This leads to the risk of water intoxication, especially when there are additional fluids such as saline in the IV or lots of water to drink. There have been cases of women suffering severe cases, including coma and even death, during labor.

13. Pitocin can cause a hypertensive episode in the mother. This basically means a sudden surge in blood pressure,and if the elevation is severe it can cause a heart attack or stroke.

12. Fatal afibrinogenemia is another listed side effect of Pitocin. In everyday language, this translates to slow, uncontrollable bleeding that results in death.

11. Women have died from uncontrolled high blood pressure, bleeding on the brain, water intoxication, hemorrhage, and uterine rupture after the use of Pitocin during the first and second stages of labor.

10. There have been no studies to examine the carcinogenicity or mutagenicity of Pitocin. In layman’s terms, we have no idea if this drug causes cancer or causes cells to change in any way.

9. We have no idea what kind of effect Pitocin has on a woman’s future fertility, let alone the fertility of her newborn baby.

8. The deaths of babies, for a variety of reasons, have been associated with the use of Pitocin during labor.

7. Pitocin has been associated with heart problems in the newborn, such as bradycardia (slow heartbeat), premature ventricular contractions, and other arrhythmias.

6. Cases of permanent damage to the newborn’s brain or central nervous system have been documented as a result of Pitocin-induced births.

5. Pitocin during labor is associated with low scores on the five minute Apgar test, the newborn exam that looks at alertness, respiratory, and circulatory health.

4. Retinal hemorrhage, a common symptom of shaken baby syndrome, can be caused by the physical force of a Pitocin-induced birth.

3. Increased risk of newborn jaundice is associated with Pitocin.

2. Hypertonic (excessively strong) contractions, and tetanic (prolonged) contractions are some of the most common side effects of Pitocin overdose. If the contractions are coming so fast that there’s no resting time in between, the dose is too high. And this leads to my number 1 reason to say no to this drug, because it seems that far too often an inappropriately high dosage is given.

1. Overdose of Pitocin is characterized by an even more frightening list of symptoms, including cervical and vaginal lacerations, deceleration of the baby’s heart rate, postpartum hemorrhage, fetal hypoxia (oxygen deprivation), and even organ failure and death in the mother or baby. It’s chilling to me, to realize that the long list of complications before this paragraph are in regards to normal doses of Pitocin, and there is a separate section to discuss the problems with overdosing.

Pitocin, just like any of the pharmacological drugs we have available to us, is an important and sometimes lifesaving tool, but like any drug or medical procedure, it must be used with caution. The list of dangerous or even fatal complications is very long, and this list doesn’t even mention some possible lifelong implications of this drug, such as the suggested link between Pitocin and autism. There are always risks when we interfere with the natural order of pregnancy and birth, and these risks must be considered carefully when an option like Pitocin induction is on the table. It’s almost always possible to wait a while longer to let nature take its course, but once the induction is underway the options become more and more limited as the urgency of the situation grows..."
21 Scary Reasons to Say No to Pitocin, According to the Manufacturer,0


So, how much is a child's worth? And why does it take 17 years for them to admit that vaccines are destroying lives?

"After 17 years the French State Council finally acknowledged the devastating injuries a five month old baby suffered after receiving a five in one vaccination from her doctor.

In 1995, five months old Ines received the Pentacoq vaccine as part of her regular scheduled childhood vaccinations. One week later the tiny baby was rushed to hospital with serious neurological complications said to have been caused by the vaccine, leaving her with 95% disabilities

The Pentacoq vaccine was given to French babies in the early 1990’s to protect them from whooping cough, haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diphtheria, tetanus and polio. However, in 1995 due to many children suffering from severe sides affects the vaccination was banned and later replaced.

According to the website ‘Prevent Disease,’ (1) at the time baby Ines was vaccinated, the vaccination was mandatory and therefore the MSA (French Farmers Mutual Insurance) paid her medical costs. The French State Council has now ruled that the Government, and more specifically the Ministry of Health, are to pay not only 3 million euros in compensation to this severely disabled young woman but also to compensate the MSA for all of the medical costs that they incurred.

Pre-2002, the French government assumed any risk linked to vaccinations, however, in 2004 this changed and the responsibility for vaccine related injuries shifted to ONIAM (French Medical Malpractice Compensation Authority) who are now required to pay vaccine-related benefits. Sanofi-Pasteur, the manufacturer of the Pentacoq vaccine, escaped scot-free.

Prevent Disease reported:

It will have taken the Courts 17 years to settle this claim. For the victim and her family, it has been 17 years of waiting and hoping for benefits while the Ministry of Health and Sport, now represented by Xavier Bertrand, dragged its feet; 17 years of lawyers’ time paid by the government, a.k.a. the taxpayer, in litigation against the victim and her family.

(Following the trail of links through, the original paper on the case in French can be found on (2))

According to the Easydroit report, the vaccinations baby Ines received in 1995 were mandatory and caused him to suffer from rhombomyélite. This has left him with permanent neurological damage (different translations are giving different genders). As a direct result of his injuries the medical bills for Ines which include specialist equipment have totalled a massive $ 47,412.18 now needing to be paid by the state.

Sadly, lessons have not been learned and the curse of the pentavalent vaccines still exists. It appears that the five in one wonder vaccine still causes death and disability wherever it goes. An open letter sent to Dr Margaret Chan, the Director General, of the WHO (3) by the ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’ reported that deaths caused by this vaccine were currently being recorded all over India. The letter entitled ‘Pentavalent Vaccine Related Deaths’ says:

‘As you would know, there have been several Pentavalent vaccine related deaths in Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Pakistan. Using the WHO approved classification of AEFI (Adverse Events Following Immunization) many of these deaths are ‘probably related to the immunization’ because no alternate cause for the adverse events has been found. However an expert panel looking at the deaths in Sri Lanka deleted ‘probably related’ and ‘possibly related’ from the classification of Brighton for purposes of their evaluation report, and then certified that the vaccines were ‘unlikely to be due to the vaccines’. (sic)

AIDAN wrote that despite the fact that the WHO had delisted a number of different prequalified pentavalent vaccines the problem had refused to go away. They said that the vaccine had been introduced into India at the end of last year, to evaluate its safety but according to an affidavit filed in the Kerala High Court by the Government of Kerala India four deaths had been reported in the first two months.

It appears that the letter made little impact whatsoever on Dr Chan’s conscience because recently it was reported that she and her colleagues have been introducing the vaccine to as many states of India as possible. It has now been reported that a total of six more states Gujarat, Karnataka, Haryana, Goa, J&K and Pondicherry have been earmarked to receive the vaccination. (4)

India is not the only country to have had problems with the five in one killer. At the end of last year a nine week old premature baby died in Belgium after she received 9 shots in one day which included the ill fated pentavalent vaccine. (5)

So how many vaccines are a safe number of vaccines?

History has taught us that young children’s immune systems do not cope with multiple vaccinations and yet we chose to keep on vaccinating them. The MMR and the DPT both have long tainted histories of causing death and destruction and yet despite this fact the pharmaceutical industries are happy to keep on developing more and more multiple vaccinations which are accepted onto the market with minimal testing. ‘The more vaccines in one syringe the better’’ seems to be the government’s motto, however, many professionals describe this as more of a cost cutting exercise than an exercise in safety.

Many of the ingredients used in vaccines are considered to be dangerous and different vaccinations contain different ingredients. Many of us are unaware that when these ingredients are combined, their toxic effects can multiply, making them potentially lethal. Donald W Miller describes this extremely well in his paper- Mercury on the Mind. (6) He says that:

“A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum.”

In other words the more vaccines a baby is given in one day the more toxic the multiple ingredients are likely to be. Chas M Higgins (7) once described vaccinations as BLOOD POISONING WITH INFLICTED DISEASE which he described as OFTEN MORE FATAL THAN NATURAL DISEASE’. With the amount of children dying after the five in one vaccine he could be right. Higgins described vaccinations as being so violent and dangerous that they have been frequently known to kill in as little as ten to fifteen minutes.

Higgins paper is probably the strongest outcry of protest against vaccination that I have ever read and it is certainly a must read for anyone who is contemplating vaccinations. Perhaps if more people had heeded his warnings in 1920 when this paper was published the situation we now face may never have reached this point. It certainly appears that the pharmaceutical industries hand in hand with our governments are on a mission to kill and maim as many innocent babies as possible and are targeting them from birth.

It is about time this madness stopped and instead of poisoning children with multiple vaccinations; children were allowed to develop their own natural immunity just as nature intended.


Prevent Disease – French Government Sentenced To Pay 3 Million Euros In Benefits For Vaccine Damage

Conseil d’État, 24 Avril 2012 N° 327915

One Click News – Open letter to DG, WHO, Pentavalent Vaccine Related Deaths

The Times Of India – Pentavalent Vaccines in Six More States

VacTruth – Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day

Mercury on the Mind – Synergistic toxicity by Donald W Miller MD

The Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated."
After a 17 Year Struggle, Baby Disabled From Vaccines Wins 3 Million Euros in Compensation


Baby Gives Back: The Fetus Is Capable of Saving Mom's Life

"It has been known for some time that during pregnancy, the placenta enables a two-way trafficking of immune cells between mother and fetus. Some of the exchanged cells are capable of establishing long-lasting cell lines that persist for at least half a century after birth and are immunologically active.

Known as microchimerism, two genetically distinct and separately derived populations of cells are present in the same individual or organ. While it can occur artificially, as with recipients of blood transfusions or bone marrow transplants, it occurs naturally during most pregnancies. For instance, approximately 50-75% of women after giving birth carry fetal immune cells,[1] and about half as many offspring carry maternal immune cells.

The bidirectional fetomaternal trafficking of cells through the placenta is known as "fetal microchimerism" when moving in the fetal -> maternal direction, and "maternal microchimerism" when moving in the maternal -> fetal direction.

While much of the focus on this phenomenon in the past 15 years has been on the possible pathological role that these fetal cells play in contributing to autoimmune diseases in the mother, i.e. the "bad microchimerism" proposed by Nelson JL in 1996,[2] a more positive perspective is beginning to emerge, also known as the "good microchimerism" hypothesis, which "…suggests that persistent fetal cells, instead of inducing a maternal immune response, provide a rejuvenating source of fetal progenitor cells that may have the capacity to participate in maternal tissue repair processes."[3]

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2004 and titled "Transfer of fetal cells with multilineage potential to maternal tissue," researchers discussed the role that fetal microchimerism may play in responding to maternal injury by developing multilineage capacity in maternal organs. They found evidence that male fetal microchimeric cells had differentiated into maternal epithelial tissues (thyroid, cervix, intestine and gallbladder," indicating their stem-cell like qualities and the possibility that they were contributing to repair and/or regeneration of those injured maternal tissues.[4]

More recently (2012), the journal Circulation Research published a remarkable article titled "Fetal cells traffic to injured maternal myocardium and undergo cardiac differentiation," which investigated the possible explanatory role that fetal microchimerism has in the clinical observation of the high rate of recovery from heart failure in peripartum (occurring during the last month of gestation or the first few months after delivery) cardiomyopathy patients.[5] Their stated objective was to "…determine whether fetal cells can migrate to the maternal heart and differentiate to cardiac cells." The researchers reported the following results:

"We report that fetal cells selectively home to injured maternal hearts and undergo differentiation into diverse cardiac lineages. Using enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP)-tagged fetuses, we demonstrate engraftment of multipotent fetal cells in injury zones of maternal hearts. In vivo, eGFP+ fetal cells form endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and cardiomyocytes."

This astounding discovery indicates that fetal stem cells are capable of differentiating into a variety of heart cell types, including "beating cardiomyocytes," and which may heal the mother's physical heart.

It appears that Nature made it possible for the unborn offspring of mammals to save their mother's lives by contributing stem cells which are capable of grafting into tissues, including bone marrow, potentially providing a lifelong source of new healthy cells to replace damaged or dysfunctional ones.

In a future article we will be investigating the role of placental stem cells in explaining the phenomenon of placentaphagy, i.e. the near universal practice of mammals consuming the placenta of their young.

[1] Maternal microchimerism in healthy adults in lymphocytes, monocyte/macrophages and NK cells. Lab Invest. 2006 Nov ;86(11):1185-92. Epub 2006 Sep 11. PMID: 16969370

[2] Nelson JL (1996) Viewpoint. Maternal-fetal immunology and auto-immune disease: is some autoimmune disease auto-alloimmune or allo-autoimmune? Arthritis Rheum 39, 191–194.

[3] Fetal cells in maternal tissue following pregnancy: what are the consequences? Hum Reprod Update. 2004 Nov-Dec;10(6):497-502. Epub 2004 Aug 19. PMID: 15319378

[4] Transfer of fetal cells with multilineage potential to maternal tissue. JAMA. 2004 Jul 7 ;292(1):75-80. PMID: 15238593

[5] Fetal cells traffic to injured maternal myocardium and undergo cardiac differentiation. Circ Res. 2012 Jan 6 ;110(1):82-93. Epub 2011 Nov 14. PMID: 22082491"

Friday, May 18, 2012


Birth Rape: Why is This Happening in Our Hospitals?

By Being Pregnant

"Before I start writing this post out, I want to take a moment to warn my readers about a story that contains graphic birth trauma. This could be a trigger for those of you who have had trauma, or bad experiences. I encourage you to read with caution.

Yesterday afternoon I caught a tweet about Birth Rape from one of the women I follow on twitter. Emily had a c-section a little over a year ago, and as time went on was not happy with her experience. While her blog is mainly about her son who is super cute, she posts some birth stuff, like the birth rape post.

We have all seen some serious doozies when it comes to birth stories on websites like Baby Center, or The Bump, but after reading this one myself, I literally cried for the mother, and wondered to myself, how is this happening in the United States?

The actions of the hospital in this case were illegal, and it often makes me wonder what kind of ego a provider has to have to batter a woman in this nature. The mother, Dawn, had wanted a VBAC, and had changed providers several times during her pregnancy to ensure she would have the most VBAC friendly provider and greatest option of having a Vaginal Birth after a Cesarean section which people take fore-granted in many parts of the country, because for some women, they are simply not that easy to get at all.

When I read the title of the post "VBAC Denied, Horrid Experience" I knew I needed to read this in more than one sitting.

Dawn arrived at the hospital on January 30th, in active labor and dilated to 4cm. Within a short time of her arrival, her water broke on its own, and she was then dilated to 6cm. Beautiful progress for a mother, especially with a previous c-section. Something most VBAC mothers hope for.

She shares in her own words:

Since I was laboring on a birthing ball, the midwife wasn't confident about the fetal heartrate monitor, it was showing decels, so I was asked to consent to an internal monitor (screws into the baby's scalp during labor). I refused the first time I was asked, then consented the second time they asked. I consented because I thought my husband was beginning to panic and hoped that it would ease his stress. When I consented to it, I looked at my husband & said "That is medical intervention #1″.

Clearly she was informed about her birth, and really knew and understood what she wanted. She was not blindly going into the hospital, she had done her research and really knew what she wanted, and what would possibly set her back. Something all VBAC mothers should be doing.

But this is where the story took a turn for the worse. Again, this is a warning for mothers before I continue!

After consenting to the monitoring, she continued to share:

Before the monitor was even plugged in, we were told that we were going to be moved to the OR "just in case" while being monitored more closely. The midwife had called an OB to consult & we expected to meet him in the OR.

On the way to the OR, my husband was sent to a dressing area to change into scrubs & I was sent straight into the OR. My husband & I were seperated.

Another warning sign, but sadly many women don't have any other options. It sounded like the mother was being prep'ed for a c-section but was not being told that. The only time a husband or partner is changed into scrubs tends to be for a c-section.

And then the worse imaginable form of mistrust I have read in a while happened…

As soon as I reached the OR, the staff began prepping me for surgery. I stated that I did NOT want a c-section. I demanded to see my husband and stated that IF I was to receive a c-section my DH & I would make that decision together. I was told that my husband was on his way. I was also told that my baby needed more oxygen & I was told to breathe deeply in a new mask because it had a better seal on my face (the oxygen I was breathing before was thru a smaller mask). The new mask wasn't oxygen, I was gassed against my will. I am unaware of what was done to me from the time I was gassed up until I awoke in recovery. I am assuming that I only had a c-section. Any further details have not been shared with me.

Not only was she lied to, but she was put under general anesthesia without consent. Alone, with no support from her husband, not knowing what was going on. One minute thinking she was getting some oxygen, and then the next thing she knows she is waking up in the recovery room after major surgery she never consented to!

Have you heard of something like this happening before?"

Here's the full story...

VBAC Denied, horrid experience...
By Dawn Luehrs

"After switching doctors several times during the course of my pregnancy, at the time I delivered I was under the care of an OB & Midwives group. I was told that I was a good candidate for VBAC, was offered water-birth if things went well, and believed that I was in the best possible circumstances to avoid surgery & any un-needed medical intervention.

I went to the hospital in labor on Jan 30th. I arrived at the hospital dialated to 4. An hour & a half later, my water had broken on it's own and I was dialated to 6.

Since I was laboring on a birthing ball, the midwife wasn't confident about the fetal heartrate monitor, it was showing decels, so I was asked to consent to an internal monitor (screws into the baby's scalp during labor). I refused the first time I was asked, then consented the second time they asked. I consented because I thought my husband was beginning to panic and hoped that it would ease his stress. When I consented to it, I looked at my husband & said "That is medical intervention #1".

Before the monitor was even plugged in, we were told that we were going to be moved to the OR "just in case" while being monitored more closely. The midwife had called an OB to consult & we expected to meet him in the OR.

On the way to the OR, my husband was sent to a dressing area to change into scrubs & I was sent straight into the OR. My husband & I were seperated.

As soon as I reached the OR, the staff began prepping me for surgery. I stated that I did NOT want a c-section. I demanded to see my husband and stated that IF I was to receive a c-section my DH & I would make that decision together. I was told that my husband was on his way. I was also told that my baby needed more oxygen & I was told to breathe deeply in a new mask because it had a better seal on my face (the oxygen I was breathing before was thru a smaller mask). The new mask wasn't oxygen, I was gassed against my will. I am unaware of what was done to me from the time I was gassed up until I awoke in recovery. I am assuming that I only had a c-section. Any further details have not been shared with me.

When my husband exited the dressing area & went to go to the OR, he was told that he couldn't go in because I was already being anesthetized for surgery. He was not asked to consent on my behalf. He was not told that I had refused consent. He was not told that I had requested his presence. He was not told WHY I was having surgery.

I found out that my son had been born, and that I had been operated on, when I woke up in recovery. No medical professional came to me and spoke to me about my surgery. I have never been told WHY I required a c-section. I only know the name of the delivering physician because it's on my son's birth certificate. I never met him. He never came to talk to me before or after surgery. I also never saw the midwife again after I was wheeled into the OR.

2 days after surgery, my wound 'opened' and bled enough to detatch the Tegaderm on one side. A midwife was stopping in to check me & informed me of the bleeding (it had just happened as she came in). She removed the Tegaderm completely & taped an absorbant bandage to my stomach. I was told that I would be given bandages & supplies needed to keep the wound bandaged at home.

My discharge paperwork doesn't include any information pertaining to surgery or wound care. It doesn't even mention that I had surgery. I was given no verbal would care instructions. I was given no supplies for would care at home. My son & I left the hospital about 46 hours after delivery.

The bleeding from my wound finally stopped completely after about 10 days. My wound is now "knotty" with a few stitches exposed on the right end.

I'm waiting to receive copies of my operative notes, so I can figure out what happened to me and how to live with it.

I'm having an extremely hard time coming to grips with having been lied to and operated on against my will. I love my son, but I did not give birth to him. I was not present at his birth. That moment in my life has been taken from me. I had a birth plan. It included my desire to bathe my son myself for his first bath. A nurse bathed him while I was knocked out. My birth plan included my desire to hold my son immediately upon birth. God knows how many medical professionalls held my son before I did. I've seen pictures of the first time I held him. I do not remember it. I don't know if I'll ever again be capable of trusting a medical professional to respect me as a whole person, instead of just a slab of meat ready for their whim. I thought that it was required of medical professionals to obtain informed consent whenever possible prior to performing surgery."