Former Merck Rep: Mandatory Vaccination Is For Profit, Not Public Health


Investment Watch
by Carol Adl

In this video a former Merck rep, who is also a concerned Mother, explains how mandatory vaccination is making big profits for big pharma at the expense of our children.

‘Brandy Vaughan is a former sales rep for Merck & Co. – a vaccine maker – and she details how vaccine companies are using vaccines as a vehicle for massive profit and not public health.
Brandy researched the safety of vaccines and found that not only do vaccines contain known toxins that can cause neurological damage, but that vaccine makers do not create the same safety studies for vaccines as they do for other drugs.

This lack of true safety research of vaccines combined with the known adverse reactions to vaccination has helped Brandy to decide to never vaccinate her own child.

Brandy says giving children a vaccine is like playing Russian roulette with our children and that mandatory vaccination is simply a way for vaccine makers to profit off of our children. Don’t be fooled: we do not need mandatory vaccination.’

Is the Medical-Pharmaceutical-Regulatory Cartel Assassinating Physicians?

Memory Hole Blog
by James Tracy

Over the past several weeks no less than seven established doctors have either been killed or died under unusual circumstances (e.g. here and here). What do these physicians have in common and what remedies are they researching or advocating? Do any of their proposed treatments pose a threat to the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical cartel? If so, would government agencies and/or private contractors be commissioned to harass and perhaps even assassinate such individuals?

The answer may lie in an understanding of nagalese, a protein made by cancer cells and viruses. Nagalese is a primary cause of immunodeficiency given its ability to block the body’s production of GcMAF, otherwise known as “Vitamin D binding microphage activating factor,” a naturally-produced immune regulating compound that aids in fighting what are traditionally considered terminal diseases. Some researchers suggest that nagalese is one of many toxic components found in the immunizations commonly administered to children, including the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine.

Read more here

FDA Approves GMO Apples And Potatoes

Modern Farmer

Amazing non-browning GMO apples and potatoes from two different companies have officially passed FDA inspection. They are as safe and nutritious as non-modified versions, says the agency. Will customers agree?

When people think of genetically modified foods (or GMOs, the O standing for organisms), a common thought is of beastly, unnatural items: basketball-sized fruits that won’t spoil, pigs with chicken hearts, who knows! Scary stuff! But typically the real reasons to go into the DNA are much more mundane. Take the six new types of GMO potatoes and two new types of GMO apples that the FDA approved for consumption [in mid-March of this year]: they look just like regular produce! Except they won’t brown after you cut them.

Arctic Apple, which we’ve covered before, is the brand name for the two varieties of apple that have just been approved. You’ll be able to get either a Granny Smith or a Golden Delicious version, both of which have been modified to remove the enzyme that turns an apple brown after it’s been exposed to oxygen in the air. The enormous agribusiness corporation J.R. Simplot is responsible for the potatoes, which will be marketed under the name Innate and have been modified in a similar way—except with the addition of reducing acrylamide, a substance that shows up when you fry potatoes for chips or french fries and that may cause cancer (nobody’s quite sure yet).

The FDA is generally pro-, or at least not anti-GMO, and noted in Friday’s announcement that “people have been modifying plants for thousands of years through breeding and selection.” The agency also stated that after researching the new apples and potatoes, they are confident in stating that the produce is “as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts.” That means they’re safe to sell, though it’ll be up to the states to regulate further (Vermont, for example, wants mandatory labeling on all GMO products.)

The debate over GMOs isn’t likely to end with this announcement, but it does mark a new chapter: these are easy-to-understand modifications, and they’ll be available on store shelves. Whether people will buy them is yet to be seen.

Western doctors now euthanize patients as a ‘treatment’ for depression and psychiatric conditions

Natural News

Claiming that she has wanted to die ever since childhood, a 24-year-old Belgian woman thinks that suicide is the only answer. This summer, she is getting help from her psychiatrist. The suicidal Belgian woman is about to receive, in her mind, the ultimate treatment for her psychological condition.

No, the psychiatrist isn’t going to help the woman cope with the voices in her head and the traumatic experiences she may be dealing with.

No, the psychiatrist isn’t going to help the woman conquer the conflict in her head to help her live a life of purpose.

Instead, the psychiatrist is encouraging Laura to end it all. The psychiatrist is giving Laura the option to end her life by euthanasia. This is how insane Western medicine and psychiatry has become. Doctors are now dishonorably viewing euthanasia as a “treatment” for depression and psychiatric conditions. People who feel they were born to take their own life are being accepted for who they are and allowed to commit suicide in a hospital setting.

Doctors now assisting suicidal patients to kill themselves

The assisted suicide case of the healthy 24-year-old Belgium woman is told in a book Libera Me by Lieve Thienpont. Thienpont is the psychiatrist who is making a way for the healthy 24-year-old Laura to end her life through euthanasia. Laura, who appears normal, who enjoys theater, coffee and the company of good friends, says she has wanted to die since childhood. “Life, that’s not for me,” she says. Thienpont accepts the woman’s plea to die and is making a way for her to end her precious life this summer.

All treatment and care are being thrown away. All hope is lost. Laura’s life will not be preserved. Psychiatrists are agreeing that it is too late, that it’s time to let this woman decide to die. Laura will join a new wave of psychiatric patients who are legally being assisted to kill themselves. She will be given the “treatment” of euthanasia as psychiatrists accept her for who she was born to be.

Of course, this is not who Laura was born to be, even though she claims she has wanted to die since childhood. As doctors validate her reasons to die and go along with the voices in her head, they have become the monsters telling her that it’s okay to pull the trigger on life.

Assisted medical suicide growing around the world
The case is not unique. A healthy 64-year-old Belgian woman named Godelieva De Troyer was put down through euthanasia because she was living with depression. A 44-year-old woman known as Ann G. was euthanized when psychiatrists declared that her psychological pain could not be overcome. (She was sexually exploited by a previous psychiatrist who was treating her for anorexia.) Deemed a hopeless case with no chance of recovery, psychiatrists agreed with Ann that she should end her life.

There are now 50 to 60 cases of euthanasia for psychiatric patients in Belgium each year. In the Netherlands, federal laws permit euthanasia for psychiatric reasons too. Ninety-seven dementia patients were put down this way in 2013, and another 42 were allowed euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Canada is heading in the same direction. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled on February 6 that patients can assist their own death if they are experiencing physical or psychological pain.
All three countries now allow assisted suicide based on personal subjective reasoning.

Western medicine has become so separated from mind, body and spiritual wellness that it now resorts to catering to patients’ death wishes. In a way, psychiatrists are now holding the hand of their patient and saying, yes, go ahead and kill yourself. If you feel the pain is too much to overcome, we’ll help you pull the trigger.


Obama Admin Wants Medicare Doctors To Talk About Death With Patients


by Tami Luhby

The Obama administration wants to pay Medicare doctors who talk to their patients about death.

This highly controversial proposal to foster end-of-life planning discussions — which Sarah Palin and Republican lawmakers decried as creating “death panels” in 2009 — would pay doctors to have 30-minute meetings with patients and family members to discuss so-called advance directives. This includes specifying the patient’s wishes concerning medical care and life support measures and designating a health care proxy if the patient is unable to make decisions.

“Today’s proposal supports individuals and families who wish to have the opportunity to discuss advance care planning with their physician and care team, as part of coordinated, patient- and family-centered care,” Dr. Patrick Conway, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ principal deputy administrator, said Wednesday.

About 4 in 10 Americans ages 65 and older lack written instructions for their end-of-life treatment, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. This can leave family members and doctors scrambling to figure out what the patient would want.

Currently, Medicare — which provides coverage for about 54 million people — only covers such discussions in certain circumstances. The administration has tried several times to revise the rules to facilitate end-of-life planning, only to encounter severe backlash. The issue sparked a furor in 2009 when former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused President Obama of wanting to set up panels of doctors that would ration care when patients are near death as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Obama defended the proposal at the time, saying he was not trying to “pull the plug on Grandma,” but it was subsequently removed from the health reform law.

The American Medical Association, which has strongly backed expanding end-of-life discussions, applauded the proposal.
“This issue has been mischaracterized in the past and it is time to facilitate patient choices about advance care planning decisions,” said Dr. Andrew Gurman, the association’s president-elect.

The proposed rule is now open to comment. A final decision will be issued by November 1.