ACOG Says Forcing Treatment on Pregnant Women is Unethical

Doctors are warned that, because medical knowledge is limited and prognostic certainty even more so, the use of coercion is unacceptable both medically and ethically.

Original here:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) Committee on Ethics released a “Committee Opinion” [in June 2016] that outlines what doctors should do when a woman refuses the treatment recommended to her by an obstetrician.

A desire to protect the health and safety of the unborn baby may be at odds with the ethical obligation to safeguard a woman’s autonomy and right to choose what happens to her own body. In these cases, the Committee says, doctors are obliged to respect the patients decisions without attempt at coercion.

The authors brought up issues of bodily autonomy, gender equality, the power dynamic between doctor and patient, and basic human rights.

Even though the doctor may truly believe what s/he is recommending is best for baby and mother, using coercion, guilt, threat, or force is a discriminatory act and acts as a barrier to care. Essentially, it’s a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, and the authors of the Opinion hope to eradicate the practice from their profession.

The central issue is in the pregnant woman’s authority to make decisions about her care. Being pregnant, they say, does not negate the right a patient has to refuse treatment, even life-or-death treatment. No matter what, the woman should be assured that her decisions will be respected.

Doctors are warned that, because medical knowledge is limited and prognostic certainty even more so, the use of coercion is unacceptable both medically and ethically. A doctor cannot know for certain that the recommendation is absolutely the best course of action–and even if it were so, s/he shouldn’t force it upon you.

Continues here:

Buy the Vaxxed DVD


Original here:

PLEASE NOTE, The Vaxxed DVD is only available in the United States and Canada  we are negotiating with international distribution partners to release Vaxxed in more countries. Learn More


In 2013, biologist Dr. Brian Hooker received a call from a Senior Scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who led the agency’s 2004 study on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and its link to autism.

The scientist, Dr. William Thompson, confessed that the CDC had omitted crucial data in their final report that revealed a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Over several months, Dr. Hooker records the phone calls made to him by Dr. Thompson who provides the confidential data destroyed by his colleagues at the CDC.

Dr. Hooker enlists the help of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist falsely accused of starting the anti-vax movement when he first reported in 1998 that the MMR vaccine may cause autism. In his ongoing effort to advocate for children’s health, Wakefield directs this documentary examining the evidence behind an appalling cover-up committed by the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens.

Interviews with pharmaceutical insiders, doctors, politicians, and parents of vaccine-injured children reveal an alarming deception that has contributed to the skyrocketing increase of autism and potentially the most catastrophic epidemic of our lifetime.

Continues here:

Glyphosate in Vaccines as Well as Food?

Original here: toxic-spray-web-702x336

New evidence says yes. Action Alert!

report published last week found glyphosate in a number of childhood vaccines. Now more study is needed to learn more about the presence of other weedkiller ingredients in both our vaccines and our food.

Keep in mind that absolutely no studies have been done on the toxicity of weedkiller when injected into children. The US Environmental Protection Agency analyzed Monsanto’s self-serving safety studies on the potential toxicity when glyphosate is ingested, but not when it is injected. EPA documents studying how the body metabolizes glyphosate (that is, how it moves through the body)  found that glyphosate shows up in bone marrow thirty minutes after injection.

We are also starting to understand more about why glyphosate is linked to so many health problems. Glyphosate is chemically very similar to glycine, an essential amino acid. This is important because glyphosate may be displacing glycine when our cells create proteins. This would result in proteins not being formed properly and not being able to perform their usual functions. Researchers think this mechanism may be a factor behind the modern world’s explosion of disease, including obesity, diabetes, autism, mitochondrial disorders, liver disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases.

Glycine is a critical component of bone, cartilage, and collagen, which helps explain why glyphosate shows up so quickly in bone marrow and in gelatin products.

Glyphosate may be changing the biochemistry of our bodies, and this may happen at very low concentrations. One part per billion of glyphosate is 3,561,000,000,000 molecules of weedkiller, and each one of those molecules is capable of altering a protein’s structure.

The report finding glysophate in childhood vaccines was sponsored and released by Moms Across America. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup and other herbicides. The results showed that a DTap vaccine, a flu vaccine, a Hepatitis B vaccine, and a pneumonoccal vaccine all had levels of glyphosate. The MMR II vaccine had levels up to twenty-five times higher than the other vaccines.

Continues here:

Send letter to CDC, here:

Brazil Study Raises Major Doubts About Zika-Microcephaly Link

It seems like the science is being rushed…

by Marco Cáceres

Original here:

On Sept. 16, 2016, NBC News published an article by Maggie Fox titled “This Study Removes Any Doubt Zika Virus Causes Birth Defect”.1  The words “removes any doubt” are so strong, so conclusive sounding that one cannot help but be drawn to the article and the study on which it is based.

During the past nine months, however, I have written so much about Zika2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I was tempted to overlook Ms. Fox’s piece and take a short break from covering the issue, but I could not do it. The potential consequences of so many aspects of the Zika issue, including the rush to develop a Zika vaccine and the expansion of toxic pesticide spraying campaigns in the U.S., Puerto Rico and other countries to kill the mosquitoes believed to carry the virus, are just too serious to sidestep an article by a major mainstream news source that conveys a woefully inaccurate and potentially dangerous message. [emphasis added]

When you read Ms. Fox’s article, one of the first things you notice is the lack of detail about the referenced study. For example, there is no mention of the size of the study other than to say that it was “comprehensive” and that it included “all infants born with microcephaly at eight public hospitals in the northeastern Brazil region hit hardest by Zika from January to May of this year.”1 Ms. Fox writes that “80 percent of the women who had babies with microcephaly tested positive for Zika virus infection, compared to 64 percent of women whose babies had normal-sized heads.”1

The impression you get is that the study, led by Thália Velho Barreto de Araújo, PhD of the Federal University of Pernambuco in Recife, Brazil1 and published in the The Lancet on Sept. 15, 2016,26  was a very large one consisting of thousands of pregnant mothers and their babies—something on the scale of the Colombian study of 11,944 pregnant women with Zika done earlier this year. In that study, supported by the Colombian National Institute of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on June 15, 2016,27 there were no cases of infants born with microcephaly.28 

So, how many cases of pregnant women and their newborn babies were in the study undertaken by Dr. Velho Barreto de Araújo and her team of 26 researchers? A grand total of 94, including 32 infants diagnosed with microcephaly and 62 infants without microcephaly. The 62 infants without microcephaly served as the control group. Of the 32 cases of microcephaly, 24 of 30 mothers had been determined to have the Zika virus. Of the 62 cases without microcephaly, 39 of 61 mothers had Zika.

This is the study that Ms. Fox believes removes any doubt that Zika is the cause of the microcephaly cases in Brazil? A study that looks at 32 cases of microcephaly and a control group of 62 cases without microcephaly? If this is the study that proves a causal relationship between Zika and microcephaly, then what about the Colombian study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women  in which there were no infants born with microcephaly? Which study carries more weight, and who decides which is the more definitive work?

Continues here:

Anti-GMO But Pro-Vaccine?

anti_gmo_vaccineBy Sayer Ji

Original here:

The truth is that the GMO and vaccine agendas are the same; only, activists appear to think there is a difference.

Few things are as disturbing to me as the divide that exists between the GMO and vaccine awareness movements. If you look closely you’ll see the exact same concerns: the violation of informed consent, the neglect of the precautionary principle, predominance of industry propaganda over actual science, the revolving door between government regulators and legislators and industry, and the undermining of the fundamental right of bodily self-possession, the keystone of health freedom. And yet, these two groups behave as if they are fighting their own separate battles, with the end result that they usually are.

Non-GMO Blindspot

There are numerous examples of how these movements are lost without one another. For instance, the non-GMOs movement adamantly supports organic production methods, correct? But if you look at big players, such as Organic Valley and Horizon Organic, both openly utilize vaccines in their veterinary care practices, some of which either contain genetically modified components, adventitious retroviruses that alter host DNA sequences and/or expression, or utilize pathogens which have been genetically altered in a way that may result in altered genetic expression in the vaccinated animal and/or those who consume these animal products. These obviously non-organic practices and/or consequences to the consumer are perfectly legal: the USDA Organic standards not only permit vaccination, but consider it the only pharmaceutical product that should be administered to cows in the absence of obvious disease. Clearly, what is legal is not always right. Many companies are perfectly happy milking the muti-billion dollar organic market at the expense of haplessly loyal consumers who buy “organic-washed” products.

Even the Non-GMO Project, which while performing a valuable service of independently certifying foods as non-GMO, also generates a false sense of consumer security because many of these non-GMO foods still contain pesticides, and in the case of “non-GMO” oats, agrochemicals like glyphosate (Roundup). This is because non-GMO certification is radically different from USDA organic certification. And what really needs to happen is that non-GMO products must also be verified to be clear of common GM agrochemicals like glyphosate and its metabolite byproducts (AMPA).

The goal is to be assured we aren’t being poisoned by our food, is it not? 

If so, the non-GMO movement needs to shift its focus to a deeper appreciation and criticism of the institutional/systemic problems that subtend the relatively myopic fixation on GMO labeling initiatives to broader concerns with environmental destruction and widespread toxicant exposures that come with modern food production methods.

GMOs in Vaccines?

And then there is a topic few on the non-GMO side seem to want to tackle head on: the present-day vaccine schedule contains a wide range of genetically modified ingredients that are being injected directly into the most vulnerable infants and children in our population. The HPV vaccine, for instance, which is comprised of a genetically modified form of yeast containing HPV-like antigens, has the worst adverse reports events (some lethal) on record.  Mind you, it has never once been proven to prevent a single case of cervical cancer because proxy markers for efficacy and not clinical proof were all the FDA required for its approval. Where is the non-GMO uproar about this? How do the most vulnerable and victimized populations benefit from the non-GMO and non-vaccine movements turning away from one another, or claiming that the explosion of autism diagnoses is only caused by either GMO foods or vaccines, not both, which is the more obvious likelihood?

Continues here:

If Only Half of America is Properly Vaccinated, Where are the Epidemics?

Herd of sheeps in mountains on Georgia, Caucasus
While herd immunity may not exist, herd mentality most definitely does. Health authorities, media commentators, and schools and their parent–teacher associations waste no opportunity in perpetuating this myth.

by Gretchen DuBeau, Esq

Original here:

In 2014, an outbreak of whooping cough (pertussis) broke out in the San Diego area. Of the 621 individuals who were infected, nearly all of them were completely up to date on all preventive vaccinations. If vaccines are given to protect from disease, how could this happen?

San Diego public health official Dr. Wilma Wooten argued that the cause was related to a decrease in the protection offered by vaccines after the first year. This answer is most revealing, in that it speaks to the actual efficacy of vaccines. It also shows that the concept of herd immunity is largely myth—and completely misunderstood.

The theory of herd immunity states that when a critical mass of the population (usually stipulated at 95%) is vaccinated against a disease, the possibility of outbreaks is eliminated. This is the main argument that is used to shame parents who wish to refuse certain vaccinations for their children: by not vaccinating, they put the health of the “herd” at risk.

However, if vaccines start losing effectiveness after the first year, as Dr. Wooten says, then constant revaccination would be required, since the immunity offered is only temporary for most vaccines. Achieving the required rate of protection is virtually impossible under this paradigm.

Of course, if we look back over the decades and note the lack of rampant epidemics in our nation, while remembering that vaccine protection is in perpetual decline, the myth of herd immunity quickly unravels. Our society has never achieved this level of herd immunity, yet not a single major outbreak of disease has occurred.

Noted author and neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD offers this analysis:

It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

Continues here:

Lynching the Vaccine Freethinker Bob Sears

chess pieces practise lynching
Dr. Sears does not support mandatory vaccination laws that lack informed consent protections for parents, and he refuses to deny medical care to unvaccinated children. He is bucking the new trend by pediatricians to kick children, whose parents decline to give them every CDC recommended vaccine, out of their practice—a trend now blessed by the AAP.

Original here:

by Marco Cáceres

So, we already know that most medical doctors in the United States know next to nothing about vaccines and how they effect a person’s immune system, brain, and gut microbiome. We know this because it is an established fact that medical schools in the U.S. teach next to nothing about vaccines except how to blindly follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended child vaccine schedule. All you have to do is look at the four-year curriculum of any medical school in the country.1 2

It’s hard to believe, but it’s true—the people in the white coats who you thought were the “experts” when it comes to vaccines don’t know much about them at all. Ask pediatricians a question about the risks of any one of the 16 vaccines they insist your child must have and most of them get angry and refuse to answer. They simply repeat the CDC mantra that “vaccines are safe and effective” and talk about the miracles of the smallpox and polio vaccines.

Most of all, doctors want to talk about how important it is for your child to get all the doses of CDC recommended vaccines “on time”—no deviation from the recommended schedule—because that is what they were taught in medical school. “You’re taught the schedule, that’s really what you’re taught about vaccines. You’re taught the schedule and that it produces antibodies and that’s it,” says pediatrician Toni Bark, MD. Pediatrician Larry Palevsky, MD summarizes this well:

Do you know how much doctors learn about vaccines in medical school? When we participate in pediatrics training, we learn that vaccines need to be given on schedule. We learn that smallpox and polio were eliminated by vaccines. We learn that there’s no need to know how to treat diphtheria, because we won’t see it again anyway. We are indoctrinated with the mantra that ‘vaccines are safe and effective’—neither of which is true.

Those doctors who do happen to know something about vaccines have learned it through their individual initiative. They study and research on their own, and they learn what they should have been taught in medical school and during their residency training. One example of a doctor who has educated himself about vaccines is pediatrician Bob Sears, MD, who in 2008 published The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child.3

According to Dr. Sears:

I got interested in the topic of vaccines way back in medical school. A friend of mine convinced me to read a book about vaccines, and it ended up being a very anti-vaccine book. It was all about an old vaccine called the DTP vaccine that we don’t use anymore. But the book talked a lot about the risks and the dangers of that vaccine. The author of that book was calling for that vaccine to no longer be used.

A number of years later, it turns out that they did discover that vaccine was causing a lot of very severe, life-threatening, even fatal side effects, so they did end up taking that vaccine off the market.

So it kind of opened my eyes to the fact that there are some very severe, fortunately very rare, side effects to vaccines, and I wanted to learn more about this issue. I started reading a lot more books.4

Dr. Sears gives vaccines in his practice but is known for working with parents on how and when to vaccinate their children. He also provides care to unvaccinated children and he is careful to screen for vulnerable children, who have already experienced reactions to previous vaccinations that could make them more susceptible to serious harm if more vaccines are given.

Continues here: