Today, we are being sprayed globally almost on a daily basis and no one seems to get offended by it. Lou
E-Coli purposely sprayed on the UK public
Today, we are being sprayed globally almost on a daily basis and no one seems to get offended by it. Lou
E-Coli purposely sprayed on the UK public
By Emma Innes
19 July 2013
Scientists have found a new virus thought to be the biggest ever seen on Earth.
The virus, dubbed Pandoravirus, is one micrometre big – up to ten times the size of other viruses – and only six per cent of its genes resemble anything seen on Earth before.
This has led French researchers to believe the virus may have come from an ancient time or even another planet, such as Mars.
Scientists have found a new virus, Pandoravirus (pictured), which is the biggest ever seen on Earth. It is found underwater and is not thought to pose a serious risk to humans
Pandoravirus lives underwater and was found off the coast of Chile and in a pond in Australia.
It is thought to have emerged from a new ancestral cellular type that no longer exists.
It is about one micrometre meaning it is big enough to be seen under a normal microscope.
The virus lacks the regular shape normally associated with viruses.
Its genetic code is twice the size of the Megavirus, the biggest virus previously found.
Only six per cent of its genes resemble genes seen before on Earth.
The giant virus is only found underwater and is not thought to pose a serious risk to humans.
However, the researchers, who published their findings in the journal Science, believe that the virus opens up a range of questions about the history of life on Earth.
Dr Jean-Michel Claverie of Aix-Marseille University in France, who found the virus, toldNPR: ‘We believe that these new Pandoraviruses have emerged from a new ancestral cellular type that no longer exists.’
Many traditional viruses range in size from around 10 nanometres (nm) to around 500nm.
The Pandoravirus is around one micrometre big and there are 1,000nm in a micrometre.
This means the Pandoravirus is big enough to be seen under the most basic microscopes.
Dr Claverie explained that because the virus is very big and lacks the regular shape normally associated with viruses, he initially thought it was a small bacterium.
His team went on a hunt for giant viruses after a survey identified signs of them in seawater.
The scientists who found the Pandoravirus believe that it could have originated on Mars. Only six per cent of its genes resemble genes seen before in other organisms on Earth
They took sediment samples from the coast off Chile and from a pond in Australia.
They took the samples to their laboratory and put them in a solution packed with antibiotics in an attempt to kill any bacteria present.
The Megavirus, pictured, was previously thought to have been the biggest virus on Earth at 440nm – half the size of the new Pandoravirus
These bacteria-free samples were then exposed to amoebas knowing that if they died, there must be something else in the samples killing them.
This proved to be successful and large amounts of Pandoravirus were spawned.
When the team studied them they found that their genetic code was twice the size of the Megavirus, which was previously the biggest virus ever found at around 440nm.
However, they were in for more of a shock as only six per cent of its genes resembled genes seen before in other organisms on Earth.
Dr Claverie told NPR: ‘We believe that those new Pandoraviruses have emerged from a new ancestral cellular type that no longer exists.’
He went on to explain that it is possible that they have come from another planet, such as Mars.
The researchers do not yet know why this cellular form became a virus but they speculate that it could have evolved as a survival strategy.
Alternatively, its unusual genome could have developed as a result of it picking up genetic material from its hosts.
The researchers say that they now expect to find more giant viruses.
June 06, 2013
by: J. D. Heyes
The development of so-called “weather weapons” has been dismissed by many as paranoid hyperbole, the work of science fiction movie script writers and conspiracy theorists, but the fact is they have existed, at least in the laboratory, for decades.
None other than former U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, in fact, has talked about the development of weather-related weaponry – or, more specifically, techniques to create weather events to support offensive military operations. During a question-and-answer session at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center in Athens, Ga., in 1997, Cohen addressed them:
There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.
Shortly after Cohen’s testimony reports began to surface about contrails – plumes of condensation trailing behind aircraft that allegedly contain chemicals which made some people sick. From WorldNetDaily, which reported on the phenomenon in February 1999:
Specifically, the focus of this mysterious “sickness” is centered around the observance of contrails – trails of gaseous substances – left in the wake of jet planes flying high above certain areas of the country. Observers on the ground have discovered, after several “patterns” of contrails have been produced by numerous planes making dozens of passes over an area, that a colorless web-like sticky substance falls from the sky, often generating sickness for many who come in contact with it. In other areas no such substance is reported, but scores of people have become ill nonetheless, presumably because the planes forming the contrail patterns are literally spraying some sort of chemical in the air.
Word was these chemicals were part of an Air Force operation to “seed clouds” as part of weather modification experimentation. Officially, of course, the Air Force denied such allegations, but a number of residents in heavily “seeded” areas reported on several occasions that heavy rains would follow such seeding operations.
In addition to contrails, other reports have mentioned the Air Force’s HAARP initiative – High Altitude Auroral Research Project, located in Alaska in 1990 (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/). According to the project’s website, “HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes.”
The Air Force has denied that the project aims to modify weather, but is instead primarily focused on research. And yet, links between HAARP and weather control continue to crop up. From TheWeatherSpace.com website May 30:
HaarpStatus Facebook Page has released a statement claiming to be testing a tornado experiment on Oklahoma today. Their experiment states that frequencies have been turned up to the highest level and that people need to be aware.
Sounds like something out of science fiction. Can we really control the weather? No one knows exactly where and when tornadoes will strike, but this group is claiming that if deadly tornadoes strike Oklahoma today then HAARP was responsible for it. Now the question remains … Is the group secretly the actual HAARP facility?
Answers about HAARP’s real purpose, and those of weather weapons in general, remain elusive, but with Cohen’s admission more than 15 years ago that such technology exists is proof enough, even if we don’t know all of the details.
Sources for this article include:
You’re sick. Your nose is stuffy. Your body aches, You’re sweaty, coughing, sneezing and you don’t have enough energy to get out of bed.
It’s not the flu. It’s a conspiracy, according to Dr. Len Horowitz. His opinion is not based on conspiracy theory but on conspiracy fact.
Over the past 10 years, Horowitz has become America’s most controversial medical authority. A university-trained medical researcher, Horowitz, 48, charges that elements of the United States government are conspiring with major pharmaceutical companies to make large segments of the population sick.
The mainstream media is reporting that hospital emergency rooms are jammed with patients suffering from a bizarre upper respiratory infection that doesn’t quite seem like a virus. They are reporting that it’s a “mystery” flu and that the flu vaccines are ineffective against it.
“That’s all hogwash, bogus nonsense”, says Dr. Leonard Horowitz. “The fact of the matter is, we have seen this type of an epidemic since the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. People have been hacking and coughing with this bizarre illness that does not seem to follow any logical viral or bacterial onset and transition period.
If it was a really bacterial or a viral infection, it would have caused a fever but it didn’t It lasts for weeks, if not months. Sinus congestion, sinus drainage, cough, fatigue, general malaise. People have been feeling “off”.
The Armed Forces Research Institute of Pathology has registered a patent for the pathogenic micoplasma that is causing the epidemic. You can see the patent report in the book, Healing Codes for the Biblical Apocalypse.
Micoplasma is not really a fungus, it’s not really a bacteria, it’s not really a virus. It has no cell wall. It goes deep into the cell nuclei thereby making it very difficult to mount an immune response against it. It’s a man-made biological weapon.The patent report explains how it causes chronic upper respiratory infections that are virtually identical to what’s going on right now.”
CHEMTRAILS DESTROY YOUR IMMUNE FUNCTION
“I believe the chemtrails are responsible for a chemical intoxication of the public, which would then cause a general immune suppression, low grade to high grade, depending on exposure. The immune dysfunction allows people to become susceptible to opportunistic infections, such as this micoplasma and other opportunistic infections”, says Dr. Horowitz.
“I first began to investigate chemtrails when some were sprayed over my home in Northern Idaho. I took pictures of them, and then contacted the Environmental Protection Agency of the state who were clueless and referred me to the Air Force. They got me in touch with Centers for Disease Control Toxicology, and after about a week I received a letter from one of their chief toxicologists saying, indeed there was some amount of ethylene dibromide in the jet fuel.
Click on link—>>>PDF
Download USAF Academy “Chemtrails 131 Manual Fall 1990″
By Thomas Insel
on August 13, 2010
Hints that some mental illness may be linked to infectious agents and/or autoimmune processes date back to at least the early 20th Century. In the 21st Century, the field of microbiomics, which is mapping the microbial environment of the human organism, may transform the way we think about human physical and mental development.1 It is already clear that 90% of “our DNA” is microbial, not human. “We” are, in fact, “super-organisms” made up of thousands of species, many of which are being identified for the first time. And there are persistent individual differences in our microbial ecology established early in life.
Insights from microbiomics have proven important for understanding obesity2 and Type 1 diabetes,3 but microbiomics has not yet been a focus for research on mental illness. Yet, there are many clues linking microbiology and mental disorders, such as epidemiologic evidence of increased risk for schizophrenia associated with prenatal exposure to influenza. Probably the most compelling case for such involvement is children who develop obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and/or tic disorders “overnight,” following a strep infection. Despite continuing debate over its parameters, evidence is mounting in support of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections (PANDAS) — or at least a syndrome modeled on it.
Last month, the NIMH Pediatric Developmental Neuroscience Branch convened dozens of experts from the field — including prominent PANDAS critics — to update the science and attempt to achieve consensus on criteria defining the syndrome. The mere fact that the conference took place signals a change in the scientific climate. Until now, whether a child presenting with sudden onset of OCD and/or tic symptoms gets checked for possible involvement of strep has varied—often depending on which medical journals a practitioner happens to read. I am hopeful that will begin to change in light of the new evidence.
Interest in PANDAS has also been spurred by an increasingly vocal network of affected families and the clinicians who are treating their often severely-impaired children. Conference participants heard reports from the front lines by some of these clinicians, who largely corroborated key features of the syndrome, originally identified by NIMH’s Dr. Susan Swedo in the mid-l990s. These include sudden onset of mood swings, impulsivity, anxiety, impaired attention and poor handwriting in addition to obsessions, compulsions and tics. Dr. Swedo’s studies have identified brain mechanisms through which strep antibodies act. They have also demonstrated that cleansing the blood of the antibodies, via plasma exchange or intravenous immunoglobulin, significantly diminishes the symptoms.
Impetus for the July conference came, in part, from publication of two independent studies within the past year that lend new credence to the PANDAS concept.
In the first, Columbia University researchers demonstrated, for the first time, that strep-triggered antibodies alone are necessary and sufficient to trigger a PANDAS-like syndrome in mice.4 In an autoimmune-disease susceptible strain of mice, exposure to strep triggered OCD-like repetitive behaviors and antibodies that attacked specific molecules in the brain. PANDAS-like behaviors also emerged in naïve mice after they received antibodies from such PANDAS mice. These included impaired learning and memory and social interaction. As in humans with PANDAS, these impairments were more common in males than females.
In the second study, a Yale University research team reported that OCD and Tourette Syndrome (tic) symptoms worsened slightly following a strep infection in some affected children. Moreover, the strep infection triggered the worsened symptoms by increasing the impact of psycho-social stress.5 The findings suggest that a subset of children with these disorders may be at increased risk of strep infection, which could interact with stress to exacerbate the course, as is seen in other infectious and autoimmune diseases.
Granted, these new findings are still preliminary and need to be replicated. However, the data relating to PANDAS is compelling enough to warrant following up such leads. NIMH is preparing to launch a new trial of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment for PANDAS this Fall, with support from a NIH Clinical Center “Bench to Bedside” award. The intramural NIMH will provide the clinical care, while data analysis will be carried out by independent teams of investigators at Yale University and the Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center. Dr. Swedo and her team are hoping to recruit 50 children with clear-cut PANDAS. They are predicting that IVIG treatment will produce striking benefits for OCD and other neuropsychiatric symptoms, and will be most effective for those children who start out with the highest levels of strep-triggered antibodies that go astray and attack parts of the brain. Moreover, monoclonal antibodies derived from these patients will be used to develop animal models of OCD that could lead to improved treatments.
Do infectious agents influence the development of autism, anxiety, or mood disorders? This remains a frontier area for NIMH research. The increasing evidence linking strep infection to OCD in children suggests that microbiomics may prove an important research area for understanding and treating mental disorders.
1Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time.
Costello EK, Lauber CL, Hamady M, Fierer N, Gordon JI, Knight R.
Science. 2009 Dec 18;326(5960):1694-7. Epub 2009 Nov 5.PMID: 19892944
2A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins.
Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, Ley RE, Sogin ML, Jones WJ, Roe BA, Affourtit JP, Egholm M, Henrissat B, Heath AC, Knight R, Gordon JI.
Nature. 2009 Jan 22;457(7228):480-4. Epub 2008 Nov 30.PMID: 19043404
3Innate immunity and intestinal microbiota in the development of Type 1 diabetes.
Wen L, Ley RE, Volchkov PY, Stranges PB, Avanesyan L, Stonebraker AC, Hu C, Wong FS, Szot GL, Bluestone JA, Gordon JI, Chervonsky AV.
Nature. 2008 Oct 23;455(7216):1109-13. Epub 2008 Sep 21.PMID: 18806780
4Passive transfer of streptococcus-induced antibodies reproduces behavioral disturbances in a mouse model of pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infection.
Yaddanapudi K, Hornig M, Serge R, De Miranda J, Baghban A, Villar G, Lipkin WI.
Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;15(7):712-26. Epub 2009 Aug 11.PMID: 19668249.
5Streptococcal upper respiratory tract infections and psychosocial stress predict future tic and obsessive-compulsive symptom severity in children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Lin H, Williams KA, Katsovich L, Findley DB, Grantz H, Lombroso PJ, King RA, Bessen DE, Johnson D, Kaplan EL, Landeros-Weisenberger A, Zhang H, Leckman JF.
Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Apr 1;67(7):684-91. Epub 2009 Oct 14.PMID: 19833320.
I have posted this article previously but I feel that it should be re-posted for those of you pondering the question of the flu shot. Here where I live, it seems like there is a flu epidemic raging on.
Mike Adams, from the Natural News website, has written the most precise article presenting the case against the flu vaccine. He explains how the numbers are crunched to make them say whatever big pharma wants them to say. Lou
October 27, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”
This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn’t even bother to read the study itself (as usual).
NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these “scientific” studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.
What we found is that the “60% effectiveness” claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the flu!
Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.
This is utterly false.
In reality — and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” — only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!
See the abstract at:
Let’s start with the actual numbers from the study.
The “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.
The “treatment group” consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly “scientific” conclusion from this is rather astonishing:
Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html)
In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines “don’t work on 99 out of 100 people.” Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).
This is called “massaging the numbers,” and it’s an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say that 0.43 is “43% of 2.73,” and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a “57% decrease” in influenza infections. This then becomes a “57% effectiveness rate” claim.
The overall “60% effectiveness” being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are “60% effective,” what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you’ve probably already noticed that the mainstream media won’t dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are “60% effective,” whatever that means.
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these “relative numbers” are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is “50% effective at preventing breast cancer!”
But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a “50% breast cancer prevention rate!” And most consumers will buy into this because they don’t understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, “Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!”
And yet that’s utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don’t), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.
In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let’s suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:
“This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!”
You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality — scientifically speaking — you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don’t tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It’s very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines “work” better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer’s. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may “shrink tumors” in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as “cancer survivors” are, for the most part, actually “chemo survivors.”
If there’s any “good news” in this study, it’s that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.
So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).
This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)
The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called “Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine,” (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/annual_reports/1999_annual_report.p…) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/default/files/reports/report2004_iavi…).
Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:
Problem #1) The “control” group was often given a vaccine, too
In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the “control” groups were given so-called “insert” vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The “control” group, in other words, wasn’t really a proper control group in many studies.
Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children
It’s the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It’s no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against “never vaccinated” children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.
Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html). Read the article to see the actual “absolute” numbers in this study.
Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines
Vaccines are considered “effective” if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer’s two decades later? Is that still a “success?” If you’re a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer’s pills, too. That’s probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.
Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis
There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were “selected” for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.
Remember: Scientific fraud isn’t the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the “science” you read in today’s medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.
Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers
I haven’t had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I’m willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in “scientific” circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn’t been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don’t expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They’d rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.
Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we’re going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?
That’s a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?
Just for fun, let’s conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?
Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That’s the far more likely reality of the situation.
Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That’s why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask ‘em yourself this coming winter, and you’ll see.)
Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are “70 to 90 percent effective.” This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.
It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be “only” 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, “Vaccines don’t work as well as you might have thought.” These headlines were followed up with explanations like “Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!”
I hate to break it to ‘em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.
Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!
So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?
It’s truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit’s foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as “science” today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.
That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn’t difficult these days. Just shroud it all under “science” jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!
Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren’t for halting the flu. We’ve already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the “science” on that.
So what are flu shots really for?
You won’t like this answer, but I’ll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to “soft kill” the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated “public health” message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.
Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and “weed out” those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.
And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.
Also worth reading:
Flu Vaccines — The Mainstream Admits, We Want an Epidemic!
With thanks to The Real Food Channel http://www.therealfoodchannel.com
This demonstration from New Zealand shows how quick and easy it is to make healthy and delicious fermented vegetables at home. No fancy ingredients or special equipment needed.
Fermented vegetables are an excellent source of beneficial bacteria for the digestive system and provide all the health benefits of eating the fresh veggies.
A rare shower of red rain fell for about 15 minutes in the city of Kannur, Kerala, India, early on June 28. Local residents were perturbed, but this is not the first time the state has experienced colored rain.
This strange phenomenon was first recorded in Kerala a few hours after a meteor airburst in July 2001, when a space rock exploded in the atmosphere. More than 120 such rain showers were reported that year, including yellow, green, and black ones.
Astrobiologist Godfrey Louis, pro vice-chancellor at nearby Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), has studied samples of red rainwater in 2001 and discovered strange properties, including autofluorescence—light that is naturally emitted by cell structures like mitochondria.
Scientific analysis showed the striking red coloration is due to microscopic particles resembling biological cells, possibly originating from comet fragments.
Louis believes these cells could be extra-terrestrial because existing theories already hypothesize that comets may have a hot water core with chemical nutrients able to support microbial growth.
“Such comets can break into fragments as they near the sun during their travel along highly elliptical orbits,” he told The Epoch Times via email. “These fragments can remain in orbit and later can enter Earth’s atmosphere periodically.”
According to Louis, red particles in the atmosphere from a fragmented meteor probably seeded the red rain clouds.
“There can be roughly of the order of 100 million cells in one liter of red rain water,” he said. “The red rain can appear like black coffee if the concentration of the cells increases in the rain water.”
These “alien” cells resemble normal cells, but lack conventional biological molecules like DNA, and are expected to have different biochemistry.
Continue with story===>>>
23 April, 2012, 20:08
The International Space Station crew (L-R) John Pettit, Andre Kuipers and Dan Burbank, looking blissfully unaware of the bacteria all around them (February 20, 2012, Reuters/Mike Munden)
Seventy-six types of unregulated micro-organisms have been detected on the International Space Station (ISS). Though many are harmless, some are already capable of causing severe damage. And no one knows how they will mutate in space.
“We had these problems on the old MIR space station, now we have them on the ISS. The microflora is attacking the station. These organisms corrode metals and polymers and can cause equipment to fail,” Anatoly Grigoryev, the vice-president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Interfax news agency.
Despite extensive precautions, most of the microbes are accidentally brought to the space station with various cargoes.
One of the early Russian crews also carelessly released a fungus that was later allowed to spread.
Of particular concern is the Zarya – the first ISS module launched into space in 1998.
But the crew is also in potential peril.
“Uncontrolled multiplication of bacteria can cause infectious diseases among the crew,” said Grigoryev.
As stations grow older, microbe contaminations get worse.
On the predecessor of the ISS, the Russian MIR (Peace), there were 90 different micro-organisms in 1990, four years after its launch. By the time it was decommissioned in 2001, the number had risen to 140.
In the relatively sterile and temperature-controlled environs of the station, bacteria were allowed to spread easily.
Micro-organisms also evolved and became highly aggressive. Cosmonauts reported corroded illuminator glass, holes in the metallic casing of the control panel, and exposed leads, the insulation of which had been eaten away.
The ISS is expected to be in operation at least until 2020.
Russian scientists also believe that particularly resilient bacteria can survive for years in extreme conditions on the outside of the station, as several experiments have proved.
Whether their mutations could be dangerous if these are allowed to escape is not clear.
Currently, Russian cosmonauts are wiping down surfaces in their modules with anti-bacterial liquids, but it is not possible to reach all contaminated areas by hand. Russian scientists are planning to deliver a powerful anti-bacterial UV lamp in one of the next shipments to combat the growing problem.