Health

Robert De Niro Challenges Media to Research CDC Vaccine Whistleblower

Gina Flores1 Comment

 

cdc-cover-up-1024x569-1-1024x569By Derrick Broze

In an interview on the Today show, Robert De Niro, actor and co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival, said he regrets pulling the documentary VAXXED from the festival.

Actor Robert De Niro has recently at the center of a storm regarding the decision to remove the documentary film VAXXED: From Controversy to Catastrophe from the Tribeca Film Festival in New York. Following the Tribeca cancellation, the film was also removed by officials with the Houston International Film Festival after being contacted by officials within the Mayor’s Office.

Robert De Niro had originally been very supportive of the film before ultimately deciding to pull it from the festival, stating, “after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.” De Niro also stated that there were “concerns with certain things in this film” that prevented the film from being played at the festival.

The film follows the story of a Center for Disease Control and Prevention research scientist, Dr. William Thompson. In August 2014, Thompson claimed that researchers involved in a study on the MMR vaccine “fudged numbers” to lower the number of black children who were adversely affected. Thompson is a senior scientist at the CDC and has been with the agency since 1998. On August 27, 2014 Dr. Thompson released a statement acknowledging that he and co-authors from a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics did in fact omit important information from a study on the link between vaccines and autism.

During the Today interview De Niro seemed to reverse his previous statements and spoke openly about his questions regarding the safety of vaccinations.“I think the movie is something people should see,” De Niro said. “There is a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies. There are a lot of things that are not said. As a parent of a child who has autism I want to know the truth.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7iPn39i08

De Niro also discussed the media blackout regarding the CDC whistleblower. “Everybody doesn’t seem to want to hear much about it. And you guys are the ones who should do the investigation,” De Niro challenged. Regarding another film about autism that is showing at Tribeca, De Niro said “it’s not questioning how some people got autism, how the vaccines are dangerous for certain people who are more susceptible. Nobody seems to want to address that, or they say it’s a closed issue but it doesn’t seem to be. There is more to this than meets the eye, believe me.”

When asked if he believes that science has shown there is no link between vaccines and autism, De Niro replied, “I believe it’s much more complicated than that. There is a link and they are saying there isn’t. The obvious one is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative. Let’s just find out the truth.” De Niro also questioned statistics that claim that parents who do not vaccinate their children will lead to a higher incidence of measles and other illnesses.

Despite the often repeated claim that VAXXED is anti-vaccination, Philippe Diaz, head of Cinema Libre, the distributor of VAXXED, says the film is not anti-vaccine but rather pro-safe vaccines. “It is not an anti-vaccination movie, people are judging the movie without seeing it first. Even Robert De Niro said the film was not anti-vaccination,” Diaz said. Indeed, De Niro has stressed that he is also not anti-vaccine and only interested in the truth. “There is something there, there is something there that people are not addressing. All I want is for people to see the film and people can make up their own judgement.”

Another interesting facet of the Today interview was a claim by Tribeca co-founder Jane Rosenthal that the sponsors of the film festival did not complain, but rather the filmmakers were upset. Despite Rosenthal’s comments, Diaz told AP that the sponsors were responsible for pressuring Tribeca to remove VAXXED.

“That’s exactly what happened. The Directors of Tribeca confirmed it to us,” Diaz said. “They had problems with sponsors. I think it created a horrible precedent, if you do not like what is in a movie, no matter the quality of the film you can pull it from a festival.”

Although VAXXED has brought Dr. William Thompson’s story to the mainstream, he originally did not want to go public with his information until it was revealed that conversations he had with Dr. Brian Hooker had been recorded. Dr. Thompson handed over thousands of pages of documents to Congressman Bill Posey’s office for review. Posey serves on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. There was very little chatter about the CDC whistleblower for quite some time until July 29th, 2015, when Congressman Bill Posey took to the floor of the House to discuss Dr. William Thompson and his documents. The debut of VAXXED has only increased the attention on Thompson’s claims.

Another controversial aspect of the Vaccine debate is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which eliminated any liability for pharmaceutical manufacturers, stating, “the number of recommended childhood vaccines has more than tripled and we have seen a decline in the health and vitality of our children with among the worst infant mortality rate in the developed world.”

Although pharmaceutical manufactures cannot be held liable for problems associated with vaccinations, the U.S. government does have a fund for victims of vaccines known as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Funds awarded through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are first processed through a special vaccine court. In December 2014, Ben Swann examined a report by the Associated Press which revealed that thousands of families with claims with the vaccine court are left to wait for years, sometimes decades before receiving help.

The AP studied hundreds of court decisions, performed more than 100 interviews, and studied a database containing more than 14,500 cases. The database was last updated in January 2013 with the government refusing to release any new updates. Officially known as the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the so-called vaccine court is a little-known system that is intended to address claims of Americans who believe their children have been harmed by vaccinations. The court is an established part of the federal judiciary system however the authorities over the cases are not called judges but rather “special masters.”

The AP investigation found several issues with the court. These include tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that has been paid to private attorneys who often practice “churning,” a practice described as filing a large number of claims regardless of the quality of the claims. In the private court attorneys are paid out whether or not they succeed in convincing the court. That fact has led to questionable billing practices and an increase in court claims.

The AP report also found that “expert” witnesses for the families and the government often have a lack of credibility or conflicts of interest. The report says that some of the experts are also involved in setting up nonprofits that question vaccine safety. Meanwhile, doctors hired by the government to testify in defense of vaccines have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

For more details on this court please watch Ben Swann’s report on the Vaccine Court and Autism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqpZqEP6gg

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Derrick is available for interviews.

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

A Crime Against Humanity – Organ Harvesting in China

NoFakeNews2 Comments

By Dr. John L. Reizer

Founder of NoFakeNews

There are plenty of terrible things presently happening in the world. If you are a regular visitor to this website, you already know that very bad people rule the world from the top down and that they have control over the corporations that continuously disseminate information to the masses which is referred to as news.

Since creating NoFakeNews four years ago, I have written about some truly disgusting events that have taken place or are currently taking place throughout the world. Many of these happenings are concealed from the public or made to look far less horrific than they actually are. As I have written on more than one occasion, those who control people’s perception of reality, for all intents and purposes, control the world. The most dangerous weapons of mass destruction are not bombs, bullets, and guns. The most dangerous weapons in the world are televisions, radios, and other devices that can broadcast the propaganda that is created and delivered to us by the powers that be.

In many instances, the powers that be can also keep people uninformed by hiding important information that affects all of us. Whether it is disinformation, misinformation, or the suppression of important data, the mainstream news controls our understanding of the world and our place in it.

I just returned with my family from a trip to Washington, DC and had an opportunity to meet a remarkable woman from China. She told my wife and I about the awful practice of Organ Harvesting that is currently taking place in her country. According to this woman, Organ Harvesting in China targets many prisoners of conscience, who are law abiding citizens that have been imprisoned for their beliefs. The woman also told me that the Chinese government agencies, civilian and military hospitals form a value chain and are the primary culprits in this lucrative scheme. The woman we met, a former practicing nurse in China, had been unfairly imprisoned for a number of years because she had the guts to speak out against this practice.

Innocent people from America and other countries have become unknowing accomplices to this crime against humanity. Patients, who were promised fresh organs in a few days or weeks, have flown to China for transplants. Hospitals and medical schools train Chinese surgeons who go back to China and harvest organs. Pharmaceutical companies perform clinical trials that also support this insane and corrupt practice.

In 2006, an independent investigation was conducted by former Canadian Secretary of State, David Kilgour and human rights lawyer, David Matas. Their report released in July, 2006 and later published in a book titled, “Bloody Harvest” states: “We have come to the regrettable conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.”

If you would like to help stop Organ Harvesting in China, visit the website www.StopOrganHarvesting.org and sign the petition to support H.Res.343. In addition, please share this post and the information in it on your social media page.

It’s time to call on the Chinese Communist Party to end Organ Harvesting from all prisoners of conscience and to allow independent investigations into organ procurement abuses to commence.

Thanks for your help and for your concern!

Dr. John

If Your Doctor Insists Vaccines Are Safe, Have Them Sign This Form

NoFakeNews3 Comments

By Dr. John L. Reizer

Founder of NoFakeNews

For many years I have listened to the ongoing public debate about the pros and cons associated with vaccines. On one side of the argument, traditional medicine claims that in order for human beings to be healthy they must receive a large number of synthetically prepared medicinal concoctions and that said medicines pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to the proper expression of human physiology.

On the other side of the fence, anti-vaccine groups have been coming out of the woodwork for years claiming that not only are vaccines useless in protecting people against various diseases, they also destroy the human immune system and cause the proliferation of diseases in future generations by passing on vaccine damaged genes to our children and their children.

During my professional career as a health care provider, I have read my fair share of research about vaccines. I made up my mind long ago not to receive these drugs in my own body. Very often I come across patients in my private chiropractic office that ask me for my opinion with regards to the alleged dangers tied to vaccines. I tell my patients that I am not a medical doctor and cannot advise them, professionally speaking, about taking drugs. I point them in a direction where they can read unbiased research and let them make their own decisions after becoming more educated about the facts.

Many of my patients often decide against vaccinating themselves and their children after reading published research because they arrive at a similar conclusion that the risks associated with the prescribed shots are far more dangerous than any possible benefits that might be derived from the products being injected into their bodies.

In many situations, medical doctors will not treat patients that have not received their vaccines. This is especially true in the case of pediatricians. Many pediatric practices have a standard policy that precludes the treatment of any children that are unvaccinated. This attitude and professional mandate by many medical practitioners often leaves patients and the parents of young patients in an uncomfortable situation.

My advice to any persons being placed in this very precarious situation, where a doctor is demanding that they must be vaccinated  before being accepted into their medical practice, is to get the medical physician in question to sign, THE PHYSICIAN’S WARRANTY OF VACCINE SAFETY. If you can find a doctor that is stupid enough to sign this document, then I guess you have to decide whether or not to proceed with the prescribed vaccine schedule. But I seriously doubt if any medical physician would ever sign such a document. To date, no medical doctor has ever signed such a waiver.

Please read the document below:

THE PHYSICIAN’S WARRANTY OF VACCINE SAFETY (By Ken Anderson)

I (Physician’s name, degree)_______________, _____ am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State/Province of _________. My State/Provincial license number is ___________ , and my DEA number is ____________. My medical specialty is _______________

I have a thorough understanding of the risks and benefits of all the medications that I prescribe for or administer to my patients. In the case of (Patient’s name) ______________ , age _____ , whom I have examined, I find that certain risk factors exist that justify the recommended vaccinations. The following is a list of said risk factors and the vaccinations that will protect against them:
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________

I am aware that vaccines may contain many of the following chemicals, excipients, preservatives and fillers:

* aluminum hydroxide
* aluminum phosphate
* ammonium sulfate
* amphotericin B
* animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
* arginine hydrochloride
* dog kidney, monkey kidney,
* dibasic potassium phosphate
* chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
* calf (bovine) serum
* betapropiolactone
* fetal bovine serum
* formaldehyde
* formalin
* gelatin
* gentamicin sulfate
* glycerol
* human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
* hydrocortisone
* hydrolized gelatin
* mercury thimerosol (thimerosal, Merthiolate(r))
* monosodium glutamate (MSG)
* monobasic potassium phosphate
* neomycin
* neomycin sulfate
* nonylphenol ethoxylate
* octylphenol ethoxylate
* octoxynol 10
* phenol red indicator
* phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
* potassium chloride
* potassium diphosphate
* potassium monophosphate
* polymyxin B
* polysorbate 20
* polysorbate 80
* porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
* residual MRC5 proteins
* sodium deoxycholate
* sorbitol
* thimerosal
* tri(n)butylphosphate,
* VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells, and
* washed sheep red blood

and, hereby, warrant that these ingredients are safe for injection into the body of my patient. I have researched reports to the contrary, such as reports that mercury thimerosal causes severe neurological and immunological damage, and find that they are not credible.

I am aware that some vaccines have been found to have been contaminated with Simian Virus 40 (SV 40) and that SV 40 is causally linked by some researchers to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and mesotheliomas in humans as well as in experimental animals. I hereby warrant that the vaccines I employ in my practice do not contain SV 40 or any other live viruses. (Alternately, I hereby warrant that said SV-40 virus or other viruses pose no substantive risk to my patient.)

I hereby warrant that the vaccines I am recommending for the care of (Patient’s name) _______________ do not contain any tissue from aborted human babies (also known as “fetuses”).

In order to protect my patient’s well being, I have taken the following steps to guarantee that the vaccines I will use will contain no damaging contaminants.

STEPS TAKEN: _________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

I have personally investigated the reports made to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and state that it is my professional opinion that the vaccines I am recommending are safe for administration to a child under the age of 5 years.

The bases for my opinion are itemized on Exhibit A, attached hereto, — “Physician’s Bases for Professional Opinion of Vaccine Safety.” (Please itemize each recommended vaccine separately along with the bases for arriving at the conclusion that the vaccine is safe for administration to a child under the age of 5 years.)

The professional journal articles I have relied upon in the issuance of this Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety are itemized on Exhibit B , attached hereto, — “Scientific Articles in Support of Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety.”

The professional journal articles that I have read which contain opinions adverse to my opinion are itemized on Exhibit C , attached hereto, — “Scientific Articles Contrary to Physician’s Opinion of Vaccine Safety”

The reasons for my determining that the articles in Exhibit C were invalid are delineated in Attachment D , attached hereto, — “Physician’s Reasons for Determining the Invalidity of Adverse Scientific Opinions.”

Hepatitis B

I understand that 60 percent of patients who are vaccinated for Hepatitis B will lose detectable antibodies to Hepatitis B within 12 years. I understand that in 1996 only 54 cases of Hepatitis B were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 year age group. I understand that in the VAERS, there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from Hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 year age group, with 47 deaths reported.

I understand that 50 percent of patients who contract Hepatitis B develop no symptoms after exposure. I understand that 30 percent will develop only flu-like symptoms and will have lifetime immunity. I understand that 20 percent will develop the symptoms of the disease, but that 95 percent will fully recover and have lifetime immunity.

I understand that 5 percent of the patients who are exposed to Hepatitis B will become chronic carriers of the disease. I understand that 75 percent of the chronic carriers will live with an asymptomatic infection and that only 25 percent of the chronic carriers will develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer, 10-30 years after the acute infection. The following scientific studies have been performed to demonstrate the safety of the Hepatitis B vaccine in children under the age of 5 years.
____________________________________
____________________________________ _____________________________________

In addition to the recommended vaccinations as protections against the above cited risk factors, I have recommended other non-vaccine measures to protect the health of my patient and have enumerated said non-vaccine measures on Exhibit D , attached hereto, “Non-vaccine Measures to Protect Against Risk Factors” I am issuing this Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety in my professional capacity as the attending physician to (Patient’s name) ________________________________. Regardless of the legal entity under which I normally practice medicine, I am issuing this statement in both my business and individual capacities and hereby waive any statutory, Common Law, Constitutional, UCC, international treaty, and any other legal immunities from liability lawsuits in the instant case. I issue this document of my own free will after consultation with competent legal counsel whose name is _____________________________, an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of __________________ .
_________________________ (Name of Attending Physician)
______________________ L.S. (Signature of Attending Physician)
Signed on this _______ day of ______________ A.D. ________
Witness: _________________ Date: _____________________
Notary Public: _____________Date: ______________________

************************************************************************************************

(Please let me know if you are successful in finding any medical doctor that is willing to sign this form.)

Eight Drugs Doctors Won’t Take When Dealing With Their Own Health Problems:

NoFakeNews3 Comments

By Dr. John Reizer

Founder of NoFakeNews

One of the biggest impediments to the average health care consumer’s good health is the plethora of synthetic prescription and over the counter drugs people constantly take. It’s a serious problem and one that does not get enough attention in the corporately owned mainstream media. Nevertheless, the problem continues to make sick people sicker.  This is a national epidemic in the United States.

I found an interesting article earlier today with regards to this topic and thought I would share it with our readers, Please click this link to read: Eight Drugs Doctors Won’t Take When Dealing With Their Own Health Problems 

A Snapshot of Sick Care in America

Gina Flores1 Comment

aa-dees-obamacare

Op-ed by Jillian Perkins

If you wanted to make sick people sicker, how would you do it?

Suppose, as a thought exercise, you wanted to make sick people sicker. Maybe you are a psychopath or sadist, or maybe you’re just curious. Well, if a bunch of people sat down and brainstormed some of the most effective ways of worsening an urgent illness or injury, they might come up with something like this:

• Make them wait intolerably long times in uncomfortable seats in a room filled with other sick people.
• Make sure that they pay, or agree to pay in writing, before you treat them. Make them fill out lots of paperwork, most of it irrelevant, and force them to stand at a desk for 15 minutes while entering every piece of data about them from birth onwards into an archaic computer system that assimilates information at the speed of a sloth.
• Make them wait even longer in little tiny airless rooms that have been filled with a variety of sick people, one after the other, all day long for years.
• Make sure the room is brightly lit with fluorescent lights and has no comfortable resting place.

• Ignore them completely while you busily assault them with a variety of tests that are mostly or completely irrelevant to whatever illness or injury they are suffering from. The more invasive the tests, the better. Make sure they are constantly in motion, whether to open a mouth for a thermometer, offer their arm to a blood pressure cuff, or to step on a scale.
• Don’t let them tell you what’s wrong. Ask a bunch of questions about what medications they are taking and maybe a few yes or no questions about specific symptoms. Act as if you are only interested in data points, and not at all in their experience.
• After they answer your questions, leave them again without any indication of whether or not they are going to get any help. Make them wait again, preferably as long as possible.
• When you come back, offer the following:

* A. the conclusion that their suffering is mostly in their heads, as the tests all came back negative. Berate them for wasting your time and send them away. Do not even consider the money they have spent and the hours they have waited and the suffering that is not relieved.
* B. a meaningless diagnosis that simply describes their symptoms. Offer medications that carry risks of serious side effects, which may very well make them sicker even while managing the symptoms. Make sure to be as patronizing as possible while explaining the treatment.

• Make it so that your “help” may bankrupt them.

If you want to make people sicker, the best kind of people to manage sick people would be people who have been indoctrinated to believe:

• That they are in a class of exalted people who know best all the time.
• That human bodies are machines; they are all alike, and they all work the same way.
• That diseases need to be treated with pharmaceuticals and surgery. There are no other tools available – anything else is quackery.
• That testing counts as a treatment.
• That the long-term effects of dangerous chemicals are worth the short-term benefits of concluding that you have treated your patient successfully.
• That good practice in medicine is completely objective, and doesn’t have anything to do with a patient’s feelings.
• That all patients should have to provide proof of their suffering that fits the standard (outdated) tests in common practice.
• That medical science understands all there is to know about the human body and its functioning, and is the pinnacle of human knowledge.
• That they have ultimate authority over you.

If you want to make people sicker, then by all means DON’T:

• Treat them gently and try to make them as comfortable as possible with a clean, comfortable, homey space that has soft resting places and gentle lighting.
• Work with them to understand what the problem is and then collaboratively decide what tests would help further that understanding.
• Acknowledge that as a unique human being, they know their body better than you no matter how much training you may have, and that they can provide the information that will be key to treating them.
• Empathize with their suffering, and seek to address the root cause of it regardless of whether it fits into a standard model.
• Look at possible treatment options that include nutritional choices, supplements, or even – God forbid – plant medicines.
• Explore treatment choices together, and discuss them as if you were partners.

A hundred years from now, we will look back at our medical system and recognize how barbaric and primitive it is. Modern medical schools and research have all been funded by pharmaceutical companies, which have engineered a standard medical philosophy and eviscerated any opposing views. Medical science is narrow and limited, with a dim understanding of the complexities of the human body/mind.

They have chosen to ignore the effects of consciousness, or even just psychology, on a person’s health, with the result being that most causes of illness are completely inexplicable to them. Because natural food and medicine cannot be patented, they do not play a role in medicine, regardless of how valuable they might be to healing. The only tools available are dangerous synthetic chemicals which have massive deleterious effects on the body that are poorly understood. Modern medicine is based on treating disease, not on supporting health.

Medical practice reflects the limited view of medical science, ignoring the patients’ actual needs in favor of churning people through standard treatment protocols to address symptoms that match established criteria. Curiously, the patient, who they are ostensibly trying to help, doesn’t really figure into it much, and their comfort doesn’t seem to matter. The entire process of western “healthcare” couldn’t possibly be better designed to make a patient feel worse, as outlined above. From the condescension of healthcare workers to unnecessary tests, getting caught in that system would be horrible on a good day. When you’re feeling awful, it’s pure torture.

Modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the United States. It’s time to open our minds; we don’t just need to refigure how we pay for and provide healthcare, we need to retool what healthcare is.

Image: Dees Illustration

Jillian Perkins is a writer and independent researcher out of Portland, Oregon, focused on helping to free the world of medical dogma, economic and mental slavery, and chemical poisoning. 

This article (A Snapshot of Sick Care in America) can be republished with attribution to the author and NaturalBlaze.com

Zika Virus or Tdap Vaccine Causing Microcephaly in Brazil?

NoFakeNews1 Comment

By Dr. John L. Reizer

Founder of NoFakeNews

Medicine has vehemently defended accusations that vaccines might be the cause of widespread diseases that have made their way through society. The most recent controversy connected to this subject has been the ongoing public debate by mainstream medicine and health care consumers about whether or not there is a link between vaccinations and Autism.

In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a study in the prestigious Lancet Magazine that linked Autism to the MMR Vaccine. There are many professionals in the healthcare industry that agreed with him. In 2010 the published study was retracted due to a claim, by the pharmaceutical industry, that Wakefield’s research was flawed. To this day, Wakefield stands by his research and conclusion that Autism and MMR are connected. And a lot of parents that have had children harmed by these shots believe Wakefield is correct as well.

A famous neurosurgeon, Russell Blaylock, M.D. has gone on record stating that vaccines harm a child’s brain development. His presentation is quite lengthy, but certainly worthy of our time considering the importance of the subject matter. See Video below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBcMYqlaDs

Enter the Zika virus. According to officialdom, the Zika virus is being blamed for an epidemic of women giving birth to babies with small heads/brains (microcephaly) in Brazil. Interesting to note, according to sources in the know, this is the same region of the world where in early 2015 a new mandatory T-dap vaccine was prescribed for all pregnant women.

In a nutshell, the powers that be don’t want all those brain damaged children linked to another deadly vaccine. It’s not very good for business. Instead, they concocted the story that the Zika virus, which can be transmitted by a mosquito, was the culprit. Read more about this latest medical scam by clicking here!

The Highly Profitable Vaccine Industry

Gina Flores1 Comment

By Melissa Reizer

Staff Writer at NoFakeNews
w-Melissa52_bwSome of the biggest profits earning corporations in the world are pharmaceutical companies. Add vaccines to the list of products a particular company offers to potential healthcare consumers, and those financial rewards are that much larger.

Regardless of your position on the controversial subject of vaccines, it’s easy to see that these medicinal concoctions continue to generate large sums of money for Big Pharma. There are enormous financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies to enter the vaccine arena.

According to an article that was published in Silent Crow News, the lucrative vaccine market is about to skyrocket to even higher levels and surpass the impressive financial rewards it’s previously provided for these monster petrochemical corporations.

Read more about this subject by clicking here!

Radiating Corruption: The Frightening Science and Politics of Cell Phone Safety

Gina Flores2 Comments

By Gary Null, PhD

In an article published in the New York Times last week entitled “At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk”, author Danny Hakim discusses the controversy surrounding the potential health risks of using cell phones. Hakim writes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines recommending “caution in cellphone use”, due to the potentially harmful effects of radiation emitted by the wireless devices on human health. Included in the guidelines was information about reducing exposure among children. Just a few weeks after the CDC’s publication, and amid rising concerns about cell phone safety, the CDC rescinded the advisory completely.

Today, the CDC website takes an ambiguous stance on the issue, stating:

Can using a cell phone cause cancer?

There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects. (1)

Hakim notes several agencies and individuals that have drawn stronger conclusions on the potential risks of such radiation. Among them is the International Agency for Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, which listed the radio frequencies emitted by cell phones as a “possible carcinogen” in 2011.(2) Hakim identifies several countries’ health authorities, including, Finland, the United Kingdom and Israel issuing public warnings about the potential hazards of non-ionizing radiation from cell phones.

As one of the foremost organizations tasked with ensuring the health and safety of Americans, it is troubling that the CDC has failed to warn us of the potential dangers of these devices. We find that even a cursory review of the scientific literature reveals a significant body of research that points to the harmful effects of cell phone radiation. Here is some of the most compelling evidence:

Health Issues in Children

1. According to research, radiation from cell phones is more easily absorbed by children than adults.

Wiart J, Hadjem A, Wong MF, Bloch I. 2008. Analysis of RF exposure in t
he head tissues of children and adults. Phys Med Biol 53(13): 3681-95.

Wiedemann PM, Schutz H, Clauberg M. 2008. Influence of information about specific absorption rate (SAR) upon customers’ purchase decisions and safety evaluation of mobile phones. Bioelectromagnetics 29(2): 133-44.

Wang J, Fujiwara O. 2003. Comparison and Evaluation of Electromagnetic Absorption Characteristics in Realistic Human Head Models of Adult and Children for 900-MHz Mobile Telephones IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 51(3): 966-70.

Gandhi OP, Lazzi G, Furse CM. 1996. Electromagnetic absorption in the human head and neck for mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 44(10): 1884-97

2. A Danish study surveying more than 13,000 children found an 80% increase the likelihood of behavioral problems among children who use cell phones and whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy.

Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. 2008. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology 19(4): 523-9.

Cancer/Tumors

1. Research indicates that long-term cell phone users run a significantly elevated risk of developing glioma, a brain tumor that is often cancerous. The research discovers the tumors usually appearing on the side of the head favored during cell phone conversations.

Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Schoemaker MJ, Christensen HC, Feychting M, et al. 2007. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries. Int J Cancer 120(8): 1769-75

Hours M, Bernard M, Montestrucq L, Arslan M, Bergeret A, Deltour I, et al. 2007. [Cell Phones and Risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours: the French INTERPHONE case
-control study]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 55(5): 321-32.

2. Long-term exposure to cell phone radiation is linked with a 60% higher risk of developing a condition known as acoustic neuroma, a benign brain tumor.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2009. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology: in press

Kundi M. 2009. The Controversy about a Possible Relationship between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer. Environ Health Perspec 117(3): 316-24

3. Heavy cell phone use increases the risk of benign salivary gland tumors by 60%.

Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, Cardis E, Deutch Y, Duvdevani S, et al. 2008. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors –a nationwide case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 167(4): 457-67

4. Radiation from cell phones produces reactive oxygen species, which may contribute to DNA damage resulting in inflammatory conditions such as cancer and heart disease.

Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. 2009. Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage.Pathophysiology 16(2-3): 79-88.

Boutros T, Chevet E, Metrakos P. 2008. Mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase/MAP kinase phosphatase regulation: roles in cell growth, death, and cancer. Pharmacol Rev 60(3): 261-310.

5. Brain cancer risk tripled among individuals who used cell phones for more than 15 hours monthly.

Hardell, L., and M. Carlberg. “Re: Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-control Study.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 72, no. 1 (2014): 79.

Infertility

The close proximity of cell phones carried in pant pockets to reproductive organs have led many to suspect a link between cellular radiation and infertility. Several studies point to the damaging effects of cell phone radiation on sperm:

1. Lower sperm quality among men who carried their cell phone in their pant pocket when compared to men who carried cell phones:

Kilgallon SJ, Simmons LW. 2005. Image content influences men’s semen quality. Biol Lett 1(3): 253-5.

2. Higher cell phone use linked with lower sperm quality.

Fejes I, Zavaczki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar S, Daru J, Kovacs L, et al. 2005. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl 51(5): 385-93.

3. Cell phone use associated with decreased sperm motility.

Davoudi M, Brossner C, Kuber W. 2002. The influence of electromagnetic waves on sperm motility. Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie 19: 19-22.

4. Men who used cell phones for more than four hours daily found to have lower sperm quality and 42% lower sperm count compared to those who didn’t use cell phones.

Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. 2008. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril 89(1): 124-8.

5. Analysis of semen samples exposed to radiation from cell phones show sizeable decreases in sperm count, quality and higher levels of inflammatory markers.

Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, Sabanegh E, et al. 2009. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril 92(4): 1318-25.

6. Cell phone wave exposure appears to decrease the potential for fertilization in semen samples.

Falzone N, Huyser C, Becker P, Leszczynski D, Franken DR. 2011. The effect of pulsed 900-MHz GSM mobile phone radiation on the acrosome reaction, head morphometry and zona binding of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl 34(1): 20-6.

7. Cell phone use linked with erectile dysfunction.

Al–Ali, B. M., Patzak, J., Fischereder, K., Pummer, K., & Shamloul, R. (2013). Cell phone usage and erectile function. Central European Journal of Urology, 66(1), 75–77. http://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2013.01.art23

Brain/Neurological Health

1. Electromagnetic frequencies from cell phones alter brain tissue activity by increasing glucose metabolism.

Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, Vaska P, Fowler JS, Telang F, Alexoff D, Logan J, Wong C. 2011. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. Journal of the American Medical Association 305 (8), in press.

2. Yale University researchers show that mice exposed to cell phone radio frequencies in utero exhibited impaired memory and hyperactivity.

Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. 2012. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep 2: 312.

3. Thirty minutes of cellphone use causes spontaneous low-frequency fluctuations in the brain.

Bin Lv, Zhiye Chen, Tongning Wu, Qing Shao, Duo Yan, Lin Ma, Ke Lu, Yi Xie. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Sep 4. Epub 2013 Sep 4. PMID: 24012322

4. Cellphone use may interfere with brain sleep patterns.

Arne Lowden, Torbjörn Akerstedt, Michael Ingre, Clairy Wiholm, Lena Hillert, Niels Kuster, Jens P Nilsson, Bengt Arnetz. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010 Sep 20. Epub 2010 Sep 20. PMID: 20857453

5. Exposure to electromagnetic cell phone frequencies damages fetal brains in study on rats.

Ji Jing, Zhang Yuhua, Yang Xiao-Qian, Jiang Rongping, Guo Dong-Mei, Cui Xi. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Jan 23. Epub 2012 Jan 23. PMID: 22268709

 

***

Why has the CDC– an institution with more than enough resources to thoroughly investigate such issues– failed to take into account the preponderance of evidence suggesting a link between cell phone use and health problems? And how can we explain the CDC’s quick retraction of their guidelines urging the public to be cautious with cell phones 18 months ago? Surely they wouldn’t have created such guidelines unless there was a scientific basis. Right?

The CDC and FCC: Kowtowing to the Wireless Industry

An investigative report published by the watchdog group Environmental Health Trust (EHT) digs deeper into the circumstances surrounding the CDC’s retraction of their guidelines on cell phone radiation exposure. The report, based on 500 pages of internal CDC documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), illuminates key information left of out the New York Times article and points to a cover-up by the CDC. Among the most startling revelations detailed is that immediately after publishing the new guidelines in June 2014 the CDC hired Kenneth Foster as a consultant to assist in the creation of future materials related to “non ionizing radiation matters”. (3) Foster has an established record of conducting research funded by the private wireless industry and has authored a number of studies with results that contradict the notion that children are more susceptible to cell phone radiation than adults.(4)

One such study published by Foster was recently scrutinized by EHT Senior Medical Advisor Robert Morris, MD PhD, and his peers in the journal IEEE. In the paper, the authors highlight the dubious and unscientific methodology used by Foster and his colleague in drawing their conclusions about children absorbing cell phone waves, pointing out “what appears to be a deliberate distortion of the science and a boldfaced effort to downplay potential risks to children using mobile devices.” (5) In addition, the CDC’s internal communications reveal that the agency considered including in their guidelines information about the potential hazards of cell phone towers located near schools, but chose to omit that information.(6)

By all indications, CDC officials aren’t immune to the influence of the cell phone industry, even when the health of Americans is at stake. The role of special interests in shaping government policy on wireless devices seems to extend beyond the CDC. An exposé by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released in 2013 documented a disturbingly similar case of federal regulatory agencies buckling under pressure from private industry.

The controversy began after the FCC, presumably in response to research demonstrating the dangers of cell phone radio waves, updated their website in November of 2009 to recommend that people “buy a wireless device with lower SAR”, referring to cell phones which emit less radiation.(7) Upon Reviewing FCC documents secured through FOIA, the EWG team discovered that over the next nine months, three meetings were held between FCC staff and wireless companies such as Nokia, AT&T and Motorola as well as Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), which lobbies on behalf of cell phone giants including Verizon, Sprint, TMobile and Cricket. The topic of discussion at the meetings revolved around the issue of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measurement of how much radiation the body absorbs from wireless devices. (8)

In September 2010, less than a year after the cautionary advice was first posted on the FCC website, the agency revised its language and adopted a dramatically different position on the issue. The revised text stated that:

● Accordingly, some parties recommend taking measures to further reduce exposure to [radiofrequency] energy. The FCC does not endorse the need for these practices.

● Some parties recommend that you consider the reported SAR value of wireless devices. However, comparing the SAR of different devices may be misleading. (9)

Once again it appears that our bureaucratic institutions prefer to submit to the whims of corporate lobbyists rather than protect citizens from scientifically-established health hazards. A closer examination of the FCC turns up further evidence of a revolving door between the organization and the telecommunications industry. A prime example of the conflicts of interest within the organization can be found in the current president and CEO of the aforementioned cell phone industry trade group CTIA, Meredith Attwell Baker. Baker served as a commissioner for the FCC from 2009-2011 and before that worked as the CTIA’s director of congressional affairs from 1998-2000. Remarkably, while acting as FCC commissioner in January 2011, Baker voted in favor of Comcast acquiring NBCUniversal, and left the agency just five months later to become Comcast-NBCUniversal’s senior vice president of government affairs.(10) Baker’s long history of hopping the fence between industry insider and government regulator raises serious questions about her loyalties.

Baker isn’t an isolated case. The current chairman heading the FCC, Tom Wheeler, previously worked as the president of the influential lobby group known as National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and served as the CEO of CTIA for more than a decade. And in a stunning role reversal, former FCC chairman Michael Powell is now President and CEO of NCTA.

A Global Push for Cell Phone Safety

As this alarming lack of US government oversight of wireless devices progresses, we witness governments around the world taking action to reduce wireless radiation exposure in their populations. Currently, the governments of France and Belgium mandate cell phone packages clearly display SAR values. National guidelines in Israel, Austria, and Australia advise reducing exposure to WiFi devices among children. The UK National Health Service recommends keeping phone calls short and keeping the phone away from the body, noting “children are thought to be at higher risk of health implications” (11)

Despite this global rise in awareness about the dangers inherent in our wireless technology, as of January 2016, the FCC website continues to reflect a seemingly dangerous ignorance on the subject, stating that:

Some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use may be linked to cancer and other illnesses, posing potentially greater risks for children than adults. While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used. (12)

A growing body of independent science shows that the issue of cell phone safety may have massive consequences on the health of our nation, especially our children. If we are to enact measures to protect against this dangerous radiation we must demand full accountability from the CDC and FCC. It is time that Americans stand up to the anti-science corporate profiteers running the show and rein in this invisible danger in our midst.

Endnotes

1. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._faq.html
2. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
3. http://ehtrust.org/information-the-new-york-times-left-out-of-its-expose-on-cdcs-retraction-of-cell-phone-radiation-warnings/
4. Ibid
5. Ibid
6. Ibid
7. http://www.ewg.org/fcc-dropped-cell-phone-caution-opposed-industry
8. Ibid
9. Ibid
10. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/washingtons-revolving-door-cellular-lobby-and-fcc-have-traded-leaders/
11. http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-radiation-3/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/
12. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns

 

This research article is by Gary Null, PhD of Progressive Radio Network.

He is an internationally renowned expert in the field of health and nutrition, Gary Null, Ph.D is the author of over 70 best-selling books on healthy living and the director of over 100 critically acclaimed full-feature documentary films on natural health, self-empowerment and the environment. He is the host of ‘The Progressive Commentary Hour” and “The Gary Null Show”, the country’s longest running nationally syndicated health radio talk show which can be heard daily on here on the Progressive Radio Network.

For more of Dr. Null’s Work visit the Gary Null’s Work Sectionor Blog.GaryNull.comIn addition to the Progressive Radio Network, Dr. Null has a full line of all-natural home and healthcare products that can be purchased at his Online Store.

Join him on Facebook and Twitter