Another reason to avoid all vaccines [Glyphosate]

vaccine030415-800x500Original here:

There are a host of reasons to avoid vaccines, and I have written about them over the years. Vaccines are contaminated with aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and monkey viruses. They cause autism, Guillian-barré Syndrome and cancer. They destroy natural immunity, and on and on.

Here’s another reason to add to your list. Vaccines have been found to contain glyphosate.

Research scientists Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, who have been writing a series of peer-reviewed papers on glyphosate, collected a number of samples of various vaccines and sent them to multiple labs for testing. What they found was that many of the vaccine samples tested contained glyphosate.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, RoundUp®. Many genetically modified crops – including soybeans, rapeseed, corn, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa – are made to be resistant to RoundUp so that fields can be sprayed to knock down weeds without harming the crops.

Monsanto claims — and the Food and Drug Administration concurs — that glyphosate is harmless and excreted from the human body, despite numerous studies showing  that it causes health problems.

Studies are finding that glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides are accumulating in humans and other animals and creating a toxic overload of possibly cancer-causing agents and toxins. And it is that process of accumulating in animals that is leading to vaccine contamination.

Vaccines contain animal by-products like chicken egg protein or gelatine that comes from bones. And if those vaccine makers are using animals that come out of factory farms, chances are they are fed GMO and glyphosate- laced feed

If so, they would pick up glyphosate into their system and any egg protein and gelatine made from these animals would also contain glyphosate.

So it’s not enough to just get glyphosate from crops and from run-off water, now people and animals vaccinated with these products would have glyphosate directly injected into their systems, and will in due course have glyphosate initiating a host of diseases.

Read more here:

Immunocompromised? What About the Vaccine-Compromised?

Vaccine-compromised children are the victims whose parents followed the rules without questioning, and paid the price.
Vaccine-compromised children are the victims whose parents followed the rules without questioning, and paid the price.

Original here:

We often hear about immunocompromised children as the primary reason new mandatory vaccination laws have become necessary. Certain legislators and media are pushing the idea that every single child needs to be fully vaccinated with 34 doses by Kindergarten to protect the very small group who can’t vaccinate.

But do you know who we don’t hear the government, media, or those same legislators talk about protecting? The Vaccine-Compromised. Not a single word is spoken about a fast-growing population of children injured by pharmaceutical side effects—adverse reactions that parents are supposed to be warned about when their doctor gives them informed consent, but no doctor ever does. Things like seizures, paralysis, and neurological disorders. These are the same reactions that doctors ignore, pretend can’t happen, or write off as “coincidental,” despite being listed very clearly in the pharmaceutical company’s product warnings. Vaccine-compromised children are the victims whose parents followed the rules without questioning, and paid the price.

Now laws are taking away these children’s right to a public and private education in an effort to instead protect the immunocompromised. This is primarily because the medical establishment refuses to even acknowledge vaccine-compromised children exist, despite thousands upon thousands coming forward to tell their stories. Unless these reactions are so severe they match the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) limited description of a contraindication, the majority of these injured children will not receive a medical exemption from further vaccines, and therefore will be denied entry into any school.

Why does the safety of one group take precedence over another? Why are the lives of vaccine-compromised children somehow less valuable? And what does it say about medical organizations and our own government that they would turn their backs on innocent victims of the very program they created and are now trying to make mandatory? More importantly, why is no one talking about this?

Continues here:

CDC Aims for Unprecedented Expansion of Policing Powers

Where exactly would this new authority to control communicable diseases stop?

by Marco Cáceres

Original here:

With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on Aug. 15, 2016,1  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to dramatically expand the power of the U.S. government over the lives of the American people. This may be the clearest example to date of an agency gone amok.

In a recent commentary on the NPRM, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), observed:

Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been before, to confront the expansion of government authority over our bodies and the bodies of our children, specifically the exercise of police power to take us into custody and isolate us without our consent whenever public health officials believe we are sick or could become sick.2 

The CDC, with its NPRM, is seeking to “restrict the freedom of a person entering the U.S. or traveling between states if they believe the person is infected or could become infected with certain kinds of communicable diseases.”2 

Would this new authority open the way for the U.S. government health officials to eventually restrict travel via automobile, bus and train from state to state? Could state public health authorities eventually prevent me from walking across the street or riding my bicycle from one town to the next if I were found to have a cold or the flu? Where exactly would this new authority to control communicable diseases stop?

The NPRM calls for airline and cruise ship personnel to increase surveillance of travelers into the U.S. and those traveling between states, but states have the greatest authority under the Constitution to use police powers to control infectious diseases within state borders.  The CDC also provides substantial funding to states to maintain high uptake of all federally recommended vaccines.  So, as Fisher points out, the NPRM indicates the CDC plans to enlist the “participation of federally funded state health departments”2 —which means that state policing authorities could eventually be doing a lot more detaining, isolating and quarantining of people in the U.S., who appear “unwell” but are otherwise simply going about minding their own business.

So, how would all of this work in real life in the event I had a rash or coughing fit while running into a federal or state public health official in the supermarket or at the gym? Were the NPRM to be implemented, it is certainly possible that we could, indeed, be “vulnerable to detention and quarantine if health officials decide you are, or could become, a transmitter of measles or other infections.”2

Continues here:

Bill in Congress threatens religious exemptions — Stop Joseph Kennedy’s H. R. 5272

needle-row-web-702x336Original here:[capwiz:queue_id]

Religious exemptions from vaccine mandates in all states are under threat from legislation in Congress that would severely curtail Americans’ ability to exercise our First Amendment rights. House Resolution H. R. 5272, introduced by Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy (D-MA-4), seeks to limit The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, purportedly to prevent discrimination against one person by another person for religious reasons. But the bill is so broadly drawn that any exercise of religious belief that conflicts with any federal policy, whether based on law, regulation or executive order, could be considered discrimination and therefore illegal. Kennedy’s bill in effect repeals the idea that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Click on the Take Action link above and to the right [[capwiz:queue_id]] to send a message to your member of the House of Representative and your two US Senators expressing your opposition to H. R. 5272.

In what can only be a perverse pun, Kennedy named the bill the “Do No Harm Act” turning on its head the proscription to physicians associated with the Hippocratic oath to “First, do no harm” to patients under their care.

Among other provisions, H. R. 5272 prohibits using religious reasons as a basis to deny “access to, information about, provision of or coverage for, any healthcare item.” There is no reason why this language could not be used to argue that a religious exemption is an illegal use of religious beliefs as a basis to deny a child a “healthcare item.”

Kennedy’s bill would allow anyone who feels threatened, or even offended, by anyone else’s child (or an adult) foregoing a vaccine for a religious reason to claim the exemption is a form of discrimination. The bill states religious freedom “should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes meaningful harm, including dignitary harm, on a third party. ” “Dignitary harm,” we believe this term os so vague that your First Amendment rights could take a backseat to some busybody getting in a snit.

Forty-seven still states have religious exemptions. Rep. Kennedy’s bill may provide the grounds to challenge state exemption laws in federal courts as a form of religious discrimination.

Kennedy’s bill has gathered 30 co-sponsors so far. No similar legislation has been introduced in the US Senate yet. You can read the bill here:

Please share this message with friends and family and please share on social networks.