Statin Drugs Are A Scam. You Need Cholesterol.

The Edgy Truth

The Big Pharma madness machine churns out roughly $29 billion a year. That’s an insane amount of money, and if there is anything we know about Big Pharma, they are driven by money, certainly not by our improving health.

Heart Disease is the number one killer in the United States, even surpassing cancer. Big Pharma produces a series of drugs called “statins” which target cholesterol by lowering it. The idea that is being pushed by Big Pharma is that higher cholesterol leads to heart disease. Almost 25% of people in the United States are on a statin regimen. So often times we are focused on the mass prescribing of antibiotics, SSRI’s, and weight loss concoctions that we forget about the insane market share statins possess.

The problem is two-fold: 1) Cholesterol is not the villain it is pitched to be. 2) Statins have health ramifications that often times aren’t discussed.

Read more…

Autism Increased 30% in Just Two Years: Now It’s 1 in 68

Daily Sheeple
by Melissa Melton

According to new government figures just released today, autism in the U.S. has increased by a whopping 30% in just two years. The new estimate is that one in every 68 kids in America falls somewhere on the autism spectrum now.

Health officials claim that this is not because more kids are autistic these days, but that it is recognized more even in kids with fewer symptoms:

Much of the increase is believed to be from a cultural and medical shift, with doctors diagnosing autism more frequently, especially in children with milder problems.

While that may account for the increase over the last two years, can that explanation really account for the overall autism increase trending over the last two decades?

The prevalence rate for autism before 1990 was only three children per 10,000. When the CDC began surveillance of the study population above in 2000, figures clocked in at one child in every 150. Since then, autism diagnoses have been steadily increasing each year.

One trend that has remained the same is the five times higher prevalence of autism in boys, at one in every 42, over girls, at one in every 189.

Some have pointed to a wealth of studies that show possible correlation and causation of the continued rise in autism to the continued increase in vaccines. The U.S. currently has the most aggressive vaccination schedule of any country on the planet. New vaccinations have been steadily added to the average American child’s vaccine schedule each decade for several decades now:

In the early 1950s, there were four vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and smallpox. Because three of these vaccines were combined into a single shot (DTP), children received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit.

By the mid-1980s, there were seven vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and polio. Because six of these vaccines were combined into two shots (DTP and MMR), and one, the polio vaccine, was given by mouth, children still received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit.

Since the mid-1980s, many vaccines have been added to the schedule. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit.

Vaccines contain a vast array of potentially dangerous ingredients, including antibiotics, formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate (MSG), bovine fetal tissue, polysorbate and heavy metals like aluminum and the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal. When these are shot into the bloodstream, they bypass the majority of the body’s natural immune system which resides in the gut.

A new study recently released by Scientists from the University of California has put forth evidence that autism actually begins in utero during pregnancy and it not the result of a child’s environmental and social factors (such as childhood vaccines):

“Building a baby’s brain during pregnancy involves creating a cortex that contains six layers,” said Eric Courchesne, neurosciences professor and director of the Autism Center of Excellence at UCSD, in a statement. “We discovered focal patches of disrupted development of these cortical layers in the majority of children with autism.”

While many media outlets are saying this proves conclusively that vaccinations aren’t causing autism (the story quoted above was titled, “Autism Awareness: Disorder Begins Before Brain Is Fully Developed, Making Risks From Vaccinations Impossible”), that’s more media spin than reality.

In fact, this particular story goes on to contradict its own title.

As the story itself says:

But these trends aren’t reflected in other parts of the world. Asia, Europe, and other parts of North America display far lower prevalence rates, sometimes as low as one percent, which presents U.S. researchers with a curious challenge. There are no blood tests to diagnose autism, and behavioral observation is by nature imperfect. Some say we over-diagnose, especially on the higher-functioning end. Some say America’s obsession with vaccinations is to blame. So the question remains: How do stop something if we don’t fully know what it is?

And then:

This doesn’t rule out maternal exposure during gestation or earlier, but it does go a long way toward quieting many of today’s critics. [emphasis added]

Did you catch that?

Pregnant mothers are consistently told they need to get all kinds of vaccines in the U.S., including flu shots, one of the vaccines known to still contain thimerosal. How can something be “impossible” if it hasn’t entirely been ruled out?

The debate, then, rages on.

NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”

The Ethical Nag

Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. But more to the point, she’s also the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably one of the most respected medical journals on earth. But after reading her article in the New York Review of Books called Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, one wonders if any medical journal on earth is worth anybody’s respect anymore.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Dr. Angell cites the case of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital. She explains:

“Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose, and none of which were approved for children below ten years of age.”

Biederman’s own studies of the drugs he advocates to treat childhood bipolar disorder were, as The New York Times summarized the opinions of its expert sources, “so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive.”

In June 2009, an American senate investigation revealed that drug companies, including those that make drugs he advocates for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid Biederman $1.6 million in “consulting” and “speaking” fees between 2000 and 2007.

“Two of Biederman’s colleagues received similar amounts. After the revelation, the president of the Massachusetts General Hospital and the chairman of its physician organization sent a letter to the hospital’s physicians expressing not shock over the enormity of the conflicts of interest, but sympathy for the beneficiaries: “We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them.”

Biederman’s failure to disclose his Big Pharma payments to his employers ar Harvard (as is required for all Harvard employees) has been under investigation* for the past two years by Harvard Medical School, in as journalist Alison Bass describes this: “what must be the longest investigation in that school’s history”).

Dr. Angell’s article contains bombshell after bombshell, all gleaned during her tenure as NEJM editor. For example, on the subject of doctors who are bought and paid for by Big Pharma, she writes:

“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top 9 U.S.-based drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year in North America alone.By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”

Revelations like this from medical profession insiders cast serious doubt on more than what’s printed on the pages of these medical journals.

Your physician reads these journals, treatment decisions are changed, care is affected, drugs are prescribed – all based on Big Pharma-funded medical ghostwriter-prepared journal articles from physicians who fraudulently claim to be the study authors. Then you walk out of your doctor’s office with a prescription for a drug that may or may not kill you, based on treatment protocols written by doctors like Biederman who are on the take from Big Pharma.

A very recent example of the sad reality over at the once-prestigious New England Journal of Medicine is their decision to publish a drug company-funded review article. This review attempts to discredit emerging research suggesting that many years of using Merck’s Fosamax or Procter & Gamble’s Actonel (both osteoporosis drugs in a class called bisphosphonates) could actually result in more leg bone fractures.

Not surprisingly, drug manufacturers of bisphosphonates are fighting back ferociously against this emerging (independent) research. A Merck-funded review paper published in the NEJM on March 24, 2010 concludes:

“The occurrence of fracture of the subtrochantericor diaphyseal femur was very rare, even among women who had been treated with bisphosphonates for as long as 10 years.”

Sounds promising for Big Pharma. But if you look very, very closely, the article’s fine print confesses:

“The study was underpowered for definitive conclusions.”

You might justifiably ask yourself why a medical journal would stoop to publishing a meaningless scientific paper that the paper’s own authors admit lacks any conclusion. Even more troubling than a journal article that was itself bought and paid for by Merck, is the conflict of interest disclosure list at the bottom of this NEJM article. It reads like a Who’s Who of Big Pharma.

Of the 12 study authors listed in the NEJM article, at least three are full-time employees of Merck or Novartis. Each one of the other nine admit owning equity interests in or receiving cash, travel expenses, or “consulting and lecture fees” from companies including Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Roche Nycomed, Procter & Gamble, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronics, Nastech, Nestle, Fonterra Brands, OnoPharma, Osteologix, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Tethys, Unilever,Unipath, Inverness Medical, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, OSIProsidion, or Takeda.

Why is the New England Journal of Medicine or any other credible medical journal accepting for publication articles submitted by paid employees of pharmaceutical companies?

As a cardiac patient, I’m gobsmacked by what appears to be this systemic corruption of not only medical journals who continue to publish what they clearly know is tainted research linked to drug marketing, but of the very doctors whom patients trust to look out for us.

Since my heart attack in 2008, I take a fistful of cardiac meds every day, and I have no clue which of them were prescribed for me based on flawed research or tainted medical journal articles funded by the very companies that make my drugs.

And worse, neither do my doctors.

Happily, there are other decent physicians out there who, like Dr. Angell, are just as outraged as she is. Her targets are not just guilty of unethical conflict of interest – they are criminals who should be charged with endangering our health while padding their wallets.

Read Dr. Angell’s article from the New York Review of Books, called Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

* NEWS UPDATE: “Massachusetts General Hospital Discloses Sanctions against Three Psychiatrists for Violating Ethics Guidelines”, July 1, 2011: The Boston Business Journal said today that three psychiatrists have been sanctioned for failing to adequately report seven-figure payments they received from drug companies.

Drs. Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens disclosed the disciplinary actions against them in a note to colleagues. According to a copy of the note made public upon request by the hospital, the three doctors:

• must refrain from “all industry-sponsored outside activities” for one year

• for two years after the ban ends, must obtain permission from Mass. General and Harvard Medical School before engaging in any industry-sponsored, paid outside activities and then must report back afterward

• must undergo certain training

• face delays before being considered for “promotion or advancement.”

The three doctors have been under the political microscope since June 2008 when Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, began investigating conflicts of interest involving clinicians. Biederman and Wilens have since admitted to accepting $1.6 million from drug companies whose drugs they were promoting; Spencer took $1 million.

Senator Grassley said, according to an online version of the Congressional record:

“These three Harvard doctors are some of the top psychiatrists in the country, and their research is some of the most important in the field. They have also taken millions of dollars from the drug companies.”

Save Our Supplements: “Do You Believe in Paul Offit?”

by Alison Rose Levy

The Medical Establishment’s “Favorite” Doctor and His Crusade Against Supplements and Alternative Medicine

Paul Offit’s new book and media blitz pretend to be objective, but really offer one-sided bashing of natural healthcare.

Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at
 Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has authored a new book, Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine (Harper, 2013 ). Now on the stump, he encourages thinking more critically about healthcare treatments. Too bad his is a one-sided view. And that his intended audience is unlikely to be convinced because health information has been increasingly available over the last 25 years. Nor do many physicians and prominent medical organizations subscribe to his views (although a few legislators do).

“People are systematically choosing to manage their own health in a way that is unprecedented,” points out James S. Turner, chairman of Citizens for Health, a health advocacy group with over 100,000 members. “The conventional treatments that Offit champions are often very helpful. The problem is that the industry has oversold them, and more and more people see that now.”

If Offit’s book had aimed to explore all health options even-handedly for their upsides and their downsides, it might have truly advanced the conversation about how to better health and lower healthcare costs. (And ranking below 16 developed nations across the lifespan and for all income levels, while stuck in the midst of a polarized debate over costs and coverage, the U.S. sorely needs that conversation.) But instead, in his book and media tour, Dr. Offit plays the predictable role of debunker, single-mindedly championing his own medical brand. Unfurling an arch skepticism about the use of herbs and other nutritional supplements, for example, Offit presents himself as the stalwart for science. But it’s instructive to see what happens when he encounters someone conversant with the health literature.

In a radio exchange with NPR reporter Ira Flatow and Victoria Maizes, MD on Science Friday, Offit targeted St John’s wort. Based on a single study, he dismissed its efficacy. Maizes, the executive director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and a professor of medicine and public health
at the University of Arizona countered with a 2008 review of 29 trials—including 17 that compared SWJ to standard antidepressants, and found it just as effective for moderate depression, with fewer side-effects.

Upon hearing this key finding, Offit never paused for breath before he redirected to attack some other hapless herb. There is an extensive scientific literature on St. John’s wort (and other nutrients available in supplements) but Offit cherrypicks the few studies that validate his concerns that supplements are dangerous.

Say your body needs lycopene and the lycopene content typically found in tomatoes has been depleted by conventional agriculture practices. If you get lycopene from eating a tomato, or even five tomatoes, you’re not trespassing onto the sacred ground of medicine. But if you take a lycopene capsule, you have stepped over a line, Offit and company claim. If conventional medicine were producing such terrific results, perhaps more people would be eager to see what pharmaceutical research would do with that lycopene, beyond spending millions on a special extraction of the active ingredient to make it available only by prescription at skyhigh prices.

The 1994 battle for the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was fought to protect the public right to access low harm supplements. It is one of the most successful citizen-driven movements of the late 20th century, which activated nearly two million people to contact their legislators. The popular will has thus far opposed and defeated Big Pharma in its ongoing campaign to regulate supplements as drugs.

The Rationale for Supplement Use

With an obesity epidemic and millions of people eating sweets, soda and fast foods, there’s little reason to pretend that all Americans consume a healthy diet. Moreover, USDA data reveals that the nutrient quality in even healthy foods has declined due to depleted soils. A comparison of nutrient values in food grown in the years 1950 and 1999 reveals declines of key nutrients and protein in 43 foods.

This is due in part to conventional agricultural practices. “In hundreds of studies, scientists have shown that incrementally higher levels of fertilizer negatively impact the density of certain nutrients in harvested foodstuffs, hence the name, the ’dilution [of nutrients] effect,’” said Preston Andrews of Washington State University in a 2009 presentation on the impact of conventional agricultural practices on food quality.

Alan Gaby, an expert on supplementation and the author of The Natural Pharmacy: Complete A-Z Reference to Natural Treatments for Common Health Conditions, says that “people who consume foods grown on deficient soils may not obtain sufficient amounts of trace minerals like selenium, iodine, chromium, or manganese in their diet.”

Gaby further points out that many common foods contribute to nutritional depletion. (So do drugs.) According to several studies, caffeine consumption can contribute to calcium loss. which can be mitigated by calcium supplementation other research found.

High sugar consumption prompts urinary excretion of chromium, one study found, while a USDA study found that chromium intake helped to improve glucose tolerance in people with diabetes.

These are just a few examples of the extensive literature that reveals both the reasons many may have nutritional deficiencies, and the benefits of using micronutrients from foods to correct them.

Who Takes Supplements

In 2008, the CDC and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) found that that natural nutritional products are the most commonly used “integrative” health approach. A 2007 Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) survey found that 68 percent of adults (over 150 million Americans) report taking nutritional or dietary supplements.

Medical opinion has converged on some supplementation as essential. “For women of childbearing age, every single national medical organization agrees,” says Maizes. “The US Preventive Task Force, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology all advise that women of childbearing age should be taking a multivitamin with folic acid to prevent neural tube defects, heart defects, skeletal defects, and cleft palate.”

According to Maizes, who is also the author of Be Fruitful: The Essential Guide to Maximizing Fertility and Giving Birth to a Healthy Child (Scribner, 2013), “The Nurses’ Health Study found that among those taking a multivitamin six times per week, there was 41% less infertility, fewer miscarriages, and less cancer in their children.” She points out that, “The CDC says that 75% of Americans don’t get enough folate. Dr. Offit is out there countering a science-based public health message.”

What causes Offit’s disquiet? He quotes Yale neurologist Steven Novella on herbal remedies: “Herbs are drugs and can be studied be studied as drugs.” He would like to see supplements studied and regulated as drugs.

The FDA does regulate supplements as food products, and they are currently the most highly regulated food products. The FDA cannot regulate either BPA or mercury because they are “grandfathered” into use. The FDA chooses not to regulate personal care products or cosmetics. The FDA does not bother to study the safety of GMOs, or the chemicals used in fracking, but according to Offit’s book, certain FDA officials are miffed that they can’t regulate vitamin C, a component of food found in many fruits and vegetables, as a drug.

Before conferring the special status of drug-hood on an herb (or other food ingredient), it’s fair to ask whether drugs and nutrients are equivalently dangerous and therefore require the same extensive and costly drug trials to assure their safety for use.

Take too much vitamin C and you might get a loose bowel movement. Take too much of a statin drug and you might get liver damage or kidney failure. That’s just one example of the difference in risk between high-harm and low-harm ingredients. Drugs are heavily studied and regulated because they are high harm— highly toxic single novel chemicals devised in a lab for a high-potency targeted use with mechanisms of action and side effects new to the human organism. Basic nutrients from foods and plants are low-harm because they are natural complexes of ingredients with long histories of biological compatibility with humans.

It’s therefore not surprising that the number of adverse events reported to the FDA due to the use of pharmaceuticals number a total of 2,739,254 for the years 2008 through 2011, while those for supplements number 6,307 for the same years, according to a March 2013 report by the General Accounting Office. (This data cannot tell us what any given report was about, or its validity.)

Nevertheless, in an apparent quest to reassert the conventional monopoly on health authority, Offit wants every nutrient to be vetted like a drug by an RCT—the randomized controlled double-blind trial considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. In his view, just like drugs, vitamins, minerals and herbs are dangerous until proven innocent.
There are three key problems with Offit’s caring caution. What he’d like to see is:

1. Impossible. Conducting an RCT of every edible component in nature will never happen because going through the FDA study and review process typically costs $100 million per component. No one with the money to spend has the incentive to study natural substances that cannot by law be patented.

2. Unnecessary. RCTs came into use to assess the benefits/risk ratio of novel highly toxic chemicals, namely drugs. An existing and growing body of literature studies nutritional supplements for their utility and efficacy in less costly ways.

3. It’s colonial. Unless every edible natural substance in existence, many safely consumed or used by humans for millennia, can be colonized and vetted by a recently devised process designed to test drugs, they are assumed to be harmful? That’s empire building, not empirical science.

According to Jim Turner, “Dr. Offit’s form of science is like taking a flashlight into the attic and shining it on an old photo album. That’s good. But Dr. Offit goes off track when he contends that there’s nothing else up there in the attic. It’s a specific belief system: He believes that all that exists is that which falls into the range of his flashlight.”

According to Maizes, many kinds of health levers will never be visible within the range of that flashlight. “We can’t do a double blind study on the effects of yoga. People know if they are doing yoga or not. We can’t expose one group to toxic chemicals in order to study the effects on them. Nor can we put people into a nutrition lab for decades to see if eating a specific diet makes a difference. Therefore, we need observational trials and that means we have to be open to other kinds of scientific data.”

Maizes maintains that it makes sense to use a hierarchy of evidence—the more harmful the ingredient the stricter the assessment of safety for use.
Offit claims that he accepts all health treatments that work and even deigns to dub those that do “medicine.” Nevertheless, he devotes an entire book chapter to deploring the inclusion of integrative medicine into medical centers nationwide. He chides the public for influencing their doctors to consider integrative approaches, and is piqued by doctors listening to patients.

Some of the most prominent medical institutions don’t share his view.
When the Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine first formed in 2000, there were eight centers with active programs. Over a dozen years later, there are 56, nearly half of the nearly 125 medical schools in North America, which belong to the Consortium and have integrative programs. Harvard, UCLA, Duke, Michigan, Albert Einstein and more, all have programs with the strong support of their medical college deans. Hardly a rejection of integrative health approaches. Moreover, many doctors use these approaches themselves.

A 2007 study conducted by the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) found that 72 percent of physicians and 89 percent of nurses personally use vitamin, mineral, herbal, and other supplements. Eighty-five percent of these providers recommend supplements to their clients. Among the 28 percent of physicians who don’t personally use supplements, 62 percent recommend them to their patients.

With or without RCTs, both the scientific and clinical evidence— and their own health experiences— appear to be persuasive. Are the parameters for evidence-based medicine expanding, even though some holdouts (like Dr. Offit) haven’t gotten the memo?

“There are no guarantees in medicine. You can do every aggressive treatment for cancer and still die. No one would tell anyone that they have a 100% chance of survival with any treatment,” Maizes says. “There’s a multibillion-dollar industry implanting stents in people when studies show it does not enhance survival.”

Despite the recurrent rallying call to evidence based medicine, less conventional practice is based upon it than people realize. A 2009 study published in JAMA  found that only 19 percent of the most basic cardiovascular treatments (or devices) are based on RCTs.

“There’s a double standard when it comes to integrative approaches, bolstered by the myth that everything in conventional medicine is proven and nothing in integrative medicine is. But the reality is subtler,” says Maizes. “In healthcare, we always need more study. If a study only goes up to people aged 65, is it relevant for an 80-year-old? We can’t say for sure. For years we only had studies on men and told women to do the same thing even though women respond differently. We will never have all the evidence.”

In this context, with plenty of standard medicine used in practice failing to meet this exalted RCT standard, Offit’s demand for it sounds much more like a call to brand loyalty. And if he’s truly interested in seeing more science on nutrients, he can always look into the existing literature.

American Academy of Pediatrics Wants to Keep Dangerous Mercury in Vaccines

by Melissa Melton

Why would pediatricians who have taken an oath to help, not harm, kids go on record to say that vaccines need to contain poisonous mercury?

Just before Christmas, Reuters reported “Pediatricians Call to Keep Thimerosal in Vaccines,” citing that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) agreed with a United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) committee that the mercury used as a preservative in vaccines “should not be banned as an ingredient” because it “should not be considered a hazardous source of mercury.”


This odd defense of mercury in vaccines goes against the fact that a multitude of scientific studies have shown the detrimental effects that mercury has on the brain, and much research has been done on the correlation between mercury-laden vaccines and the autism epidemic, among other health effects. Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labels mercury a hazardous substance with a multi-step process for disposal to avoid the potentially devastating effects of mercury exposure.

Despite clear evidence that mercury is bad for us, the media continues to trumpet claims that mercury is good for developing children’s brains as they have done in the past.

Childhood vaccine market profits are projected to reach $16 billion by 2016, and the United States has one of the most aggressive vaccine schedules in the world. The CDC now recommends 69 shots of 16 different vaccines by age 18. When it comes to mercury’s “safety”, it seems one only needs to follow the funding.

While a series of influential studies which have been used by WHO to inform vaccine policy have concluded thimerosal poses little risk to full-term infants, the head researcher in these studies has admittedly received grants from top Big Pharma companies including Eli Lilly (the company that developed thimerosal), Merck, and Pfizer among many others.
The logic we are fed on why we should inject ourselves and our infants and children with mercury is that thimerosal is somehow safe because it is made from ethyl mercury, which has a shorter half-life in the blood than its supposedly much more hazardous cousin methyl mercury.

Unfortunately, this makes little sense, common or otherwise. In a 1985 comparative toxicology study in which rats were treated with both types of mercury, little difference in neurotoxicity was found, yet those treated with ethyl mercury suffered more widespread damage.

More recently, a 2005 study on brain concentrations of both methyl and ethyl mercury compounds found that monkeys dosed with ethyl mercury had double the levels of inorganic mercury in their brains.
According to this study, “inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year.” Many claims that thimerosal is safe are based on how long the mercury compound stays in the blood, but mercury accumulates and stays in the brain — where much greater damage is done — longer than in the blood.
How can inorganic mercury accumulations in the brains of growing children for more than a year even remotely be considered safe?

According to the EPA, “high exposures to inorganic mercury may result in damage to the gastrointestinal tract, the nervous system, and the kidneys.” Symptoms of inorganic mercury exposure can also include memory loss, mental disturbances, and muscle weakness among other negative health effects. If these are the effects of a high dose, why would anyone take their chances with a what has somehow been deemed a “healthy” dose or, frankly, any dose of mercury?

The United Nations Environment Program is in the process of banning mercury as a global health hazard, which would also mean a ban on thimerosal. The Reuters article goes on to quote AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases member Dr. Walter Orenstein as saying that thimerosal should have a special exception “because thimerosal is so vital for protecting children.”
This is not the first time the AAP has appeared to bow to corporate interests.

In October 2011, the organization made the recommendation that children as young as four could be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and those children could be prescribed pharmaceuticals such as Ritalin for it. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International reported that, not only was the chairman in charge of this “recommendation” a consultant for multiple Big Pharma companies including Eli Lilly, but AAP had received thousands in pharmaceutical company contributions from Merck, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and many others in recent years.

Mere days before Proposition 37, the genetically modified food labeling initiative, went for a vote in California, AAP also went on record to state that organic food was not healthier for children. The report claimed that there were no “meaningful nutritional benefits” from eating organic food, and co-author Joel Forman was actually quoted by USA Today as saying, “the needed long-term studies do not yet exist to show that eating pesticide-free food makes people healthier.”

Far too many AAP members also hold or have held positions with Big Pharma and Big Agra companies (for just a few examples, see here, here, here, here, and here). Isn’t this an apparent conflict of interest that could potentially put children in danger? Other examples include when former head of the CDC Dr. Julie Gerberding was later hired as Merck’s Vaccine Division President, and the fact that during the H1N1 scandal, WHO advisors were caught receiving kickbacks from vaccine manufacturers. The lines between government and corporations are continuously blurred in a widespread trend that seems to go beyond any individual or single organization.

Profits are not only being put ahead of people, but ahead of common sense as well.

Get Your Flu Shot or Get Fired: Media Hails New ‘Safety’ Policies Forcing Shots on Workers

Natural Society
by Anthony Gucciardi

Don’t want to be injected with the seasonal flu vaccine due to concerns over ingredients like MSG, antibiotics, formaldehyde, and aluminum as admitted by the FDA on their own website? Well then you may lose your job for refusing a ‘safety’ measure, as more and more major corporations are forcing the flu vaccine (among others) on workers in order to keep their job.

But how is this being enabled? Despite being met with massive resistance as vaccination rates are actually declining across the board due to concerns by citizens worldwide, mainstream media organizations like the Chicago Chronicle have been running numerous hit pieces on those who reject the flu vaccine as ‘uninformed’ and just plain old silly.

These articles also champion in the ‘safety’ measures of forced vaccination within mega corporations like Alexian Brothers Health System with unquestioning loyalty towards the companies. Dismissing any legitimate civil or health concerns with a laughable ‘oh, stop’ and no actual response, this mainstream media article was actually published to the tens of millions that read the Chicago Chronicle each month.

Media: ‘Stop’ Questioning Corporations!

When addressing the real concerns regarding how a corporation can force an employee to inject themselves with MSG, antibiotics, aluminum, and other contaminants, the Chicago Chronicle just dismisses it without question. The article reads:

“If your employer can order you to inject or inhale a vaccine, the reasoning goes, what else might it require? Oh, stop. A hospital isn’t out of line when it tells its employees to get vaccinated — or get fired.”

Just as the Chronicle states, the corporate media desperately wants you to please stop asking virtually any questions. After all, it makes whitewashing the news and propagating literal fabrications very challenging. Even the European Union Food Safety Agency asked scientists and consumers to please stop studying genetically modified organisms following the breaking report that GMOs had been linked to tumors.

Of course media pieces like these are actually a bi-product of resistance from the people. As more and more individuals refuse the carcinogen-packed flu shot on a yearly basis, vaccine manufacturers are in a panic. Big Pharma as a whole is in trouble, and the only way they know how to perform damage control is through spending millions upon millions in PR runs.

All of the PR runs and media campaigns to dismiss legitimate concerns (without ever actually addressing them beyond a sarcastic or satirical discount like ‘oh, stop’) cannot, however, stop the emergence of real information to the public regarding GMOs, the contaminants within the flu shot, and other items.

The mainstream media and mega corporations would like you to please stop questioning their actions, but they will never get their wish.