Man on the Moon

If you believe they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

If you believe there's nothing up their sleeve, then nothing is cool

This is the repetitive, driving refrain that runs through REM's song "Man on the Moon". Should we believe that "they put a man on the moon"? Certainly the prevailing orthodoxy says we should. The question is in the news because an American basketball player, Stephen Curry, said he believed they hadn't. To quote from this online news source:

Curry was a guest on the Winging It podcast, hosted by Vince Carter and Kent Bazemore of the Atlanta Hawks. The Warriors guard was supposed to talk about the endless comparisons to dynamic rookie point guard Trae Young, but things veered off script. At one point, the players were talking about the sounds dinosaurs make when Curry abruptly changed the subject to his belief that human beings have never landed on the moon. 

"We ever been to the moon," he asked. 

The others agreed the answer was no. 

"They're going to come get us," Curry replied. "Sorry, I don't want to start conspiracies." 

If he's indeed serious, Curry joins an exclusive group of elite NBA ball-handlers who seem to believe the world has been spoon-fed science lies. The other star in that group: Boston Celtics flat-earther Kyrie Irving, who drew the ire of science teachers everywhere when he said he believes the world we inhabit is shaped more like a basketball court than an actual basketball.

Notice how Curry's querying the reality of humans landing on the moon is quickly linked to another basketball player's belief in a flat earth. NASA responded thus:

"We'd love for Mr Curry to tour the lunar lab at our Johnson Space Center in Houston, perhaps the next time the Warriors are in town to play the Rockets," a NASA spokesman, Allard Beutel, told the New York Times. "We have hundreds of pounds of moon rocks stored there, and the Apollo mission control. 

"During his visit, he can see firsthand what we did 50 years ago, as well as what we're doing now to go back to the moon in the coming years, but this time to stay." 

According to Popular Science, astronauts have brought back 842 pounds of moon rocks for study, including some that are 200 million years older than Earth's oldest rocks.

Well, the obvious retort to that is that you don't have to go to the moon to collect rocks from the moon. To quote from Wikipedia:

Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the United States Apollo program manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna programme unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface. The Apollo missions collected 2,200 samples weighing 382 kilograms (842 lb). Three Luna spacecraft returned with 301 grams (10.6 oz) of samples. More than 300 lunar meteorites have been collected on Earth, representing more than 30 different meteorite fall events (none witnessed), with a total mass of over 190 kilograms (420 lb). Some were discovered by scientific teams (such as ANSMET) searching for meteorites in Antarctica, with most of the remainder discovered by collectors in the desert regions of northern Africa and Oman. 

 Admittedly, the mass of lunar meteorites is only half the alleged mass of Apollo samples (420 pounds versus 842 pounds). Embarrassingly for the Russians, they collected less than a pound! Should we believe the Apollo astronauts collected this impressive weight of moon rock? The prevailing orthodoxy says we should.

And yes, it is almost 50 years since the first humans set foot on the moon. That's a long time. The landings took place at a time when Richard (Tricky Dicky) Nixon was President of the United States. He resigned in disgrace on August 9th 1974. No humans have visited the Moon since December 14th 1972. All the moon landings took place on his watch, at a time when the United States was losing the war in Vietnam and there was fiscal uncertainty due to the country abandoning the gold standard in 1971 and embracing the petrodollar in its place.

These facts hardly disprove that humans landed on the moon. However, like vaccinations, anthropogenic global warming or 9/11, there is no middle ground in the debate. You either believe the official story or you don't. There are certainly grounds for querying what really happened in the Apollo missions with a provenly corrupt President overseeing the operations. However, an impartial assessment of all the facts is certainly not what NASA wants. If you doubt the official narrative then you're no different from a flat earther denying that the world is a round. Even though NASA says that humans are going back to the moon "in the coming years", the fact is that it's almost exactly 46 years since the last humans allegedly landed on the moon.

It doesn't affect a basketball player's career to query the moon landings but that's not the case in other areas of employment. I would surmise that any teacher or academic who questioned the orthodoxy would not have her or his career prospects enhanced. Any scientist or person working in government departments, in the United States or elsewhere in the world, would be similarly disadvantaged. Notice I said "questioned" and not "challenged". To be branded a deviant thinker, a person simply needs to express doubt.

Of course, Stephen Curry is only one of many people around the world who do not believe the official narrative. Why should we believe what our politicians, scientists and government agencies tell us? Thankfully more and more are choosing not to or at least to question what they are being told. In doing so, it's important to avoid the dichotomy (belief or non-belief) that the powers-that-ought-not-to-be have cultivated. I really don't know if the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon or not but I have my doubts. That's all that's required: doubt. Doubt is healthy. Doubt begets doubt. It is a good thing to sow the seeds of doubt in others. Eventually it leads to people questioning the entire narrative.

Climate Orthodoxy

Temperatures on track for 5-degree rise
by 2100 after another hot year

Thus screamed the heading to an newspaper article that continued:

This year is on course to be the fourth hottest year on record, trailing only the three previous years, as rising levels of greenhouse gases warm the planet, the World Meteorological Organisation said. 

Up to October 31, mean temperatures in 2018 were an estimated 0.98 warmer than the average for 1850-1900, according the UN agency's provisional State of the Global Climate report. 

“We are not on track to meet climate change targets and rein in temperature increases,” said Petteri Taalas, WMO Secretary-General. “Greenhouse gas concentrations are once again at record levels and if the current trend continues we may see temperature increases 3 to 5 degrees by the end of the century." 

The WMO report comes days ahead of a global climate summit in Katowice, Poland, where nations will discuss progress on implementing the goals of the Paris climate accord signed three years ago keep temperatures to 1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Australia's delegation will be led by Environment Minister Melissa Price.

Figure 1

https://public.wmo.int/en

So the WMO Secretary-General says "we may see temperature increases 3 to 5 degrees by the end of the century", plucking the figures seemingly out of thin air. The heading of the Brisbane Times article thus includes the upper limit of his prediction with the intended result that anybody perusing the newspaper can hardly fail to miss this unsettling prediction.

For anyone who bothers to read the article, there is the inevitable graph included in a screenshot of a tweet from a so-called "climate scientist" Gavin Schmidt, described (source) as a "climatologist, climate modeller and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the award-winning climate science blog RealClimate".

Figure 2

The graph is below a photo of firefighters battling a blaze in England with the caption: Firefighters work on a wildfire on Winter Hill near Bolton, England. Extreme temperatures, particularly warm ones, have again been prominent in 2018, on course to be one of the hottest years in history.

Let's break the news article down into its components:

• overly sensational heading
• dire pronouncement from a prestigious international organisation (here the WMO)
• dramatic photograph of firefighters battling a conflagration
• suitably supporting graph from a climate scientist

I'm not attempting here to confront any details in the WMO report but just to focus on the highly biased manner in which climate news is presented by the mass media. Despite evidence to the contrary, the message being conveyed is clear: the world is getting warmer. You must believe this or else you are a climate denier who has chosen to ignore the irrefutable climate science and the climate facts as presented by the world's leading climate scientists. You must be a climate skeptic and a deluded fool.

Figure 3

As with vaccinations, there is no middle ground when it comes to man-made global warming. It's all or nothing. It is the prevailing orthodoxy to which you must adhere.

Clearly there is an agenda

Root Canals: Drilling For Dollars

The dental procedure known as root canal has become ubiquitous. Even if a person hasn't been subjected to it, that person is bound to know someone who has.

I never suspected that there were any health dangers associated with the procedure until one days, years ago, I did a simple search on the Internet linking root canal and health problems. Of course, a lot of the results addressed the potential health problems that a root canal could remedy. However, there were others that warned about its risks. Here is a 2015 video in which a person who underwent the procedure talks about the consequences to her health:

Generally, it's difficult to link later health problems directly to root canal because their onset may take years to manifest. You might think that, unlike vaccinations, this dental money-maker is performed only on adult teeth but you'd be wrong. Here is a quote from a pediatric dentistry website:

Root canal treatment is a safe and effective way to stop many kinds of tooth pain, and to keep a tooth from being lost due to decay or injury. But if a root canal is recommended for your young child, you may wonder why: Isn't that baby tooth going to fall out in a few years anyway? 

That's true — the primary (baby) teeth typically are shed between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Yet there are some good reasons for trying to save baby teeth for as long as possible with root canal treatment, rather than simply extracting any that are damaged by trauma or infection. 

For one, primary teeth have the same functions as adult teeth — and a missing tooth at any age can cause problems with speech and eating. Baby teeth also have another important role: They serve as guides for the proper placement of the permanent teeth. 

Without primary teeth to guide them in, permanent teeth tend to emerge in a crooked fashion, often becoming tilted or crowded because of inadequate space. This can result in bite problems that may require extensive orthodontic treatment later.

The 2007 scandal in the United States surrounding Small Smiles, a chain of Medicaid dental clinics for children, is an extreme example of how the lust for profits from baby root canals can get out of hand. To quote from the news article:

Parents weren’t allowed to sit with their children during treatment. Young children were routinely strapped to papoose boards, immobilised with Velcro straps. And she showed me a bonus check for beating production goals while acknowledging that she, like other dental staff, conducted x-rays on children even though they weren’t certified, a clear violation of Maryland law.

The key danger with root canal is the potential for bacteria, especially anaerobic, to proliferate in the tubules of the dentine and to later spread throughout the body. It would be a rare dentist who would ever warn a recipient of this danger. Like vaccinations, there is simply too much money to be made for the practice to be overturned anytime soon. The following story deserves to be quoted in full because it shows that some oral surgeons at least are aware of the dangers posed by root canals:

Root Canals and Heart Disease: My Personal Story

By: Dr. David Friedman

We’ve all known or heard of someone who died suddenly of a heart attack for no apparent reason. That 50 year old neighbour, seemingly healthy with no history of cardiovascular disease, found dead in his back yard after having a massive heart attack. What if this deadly heart attack could have been prevented by a simple visit to a dentist? Sadly, I could have been that man found dead on his lawn, had it not been for a dentist who saved my life. 

Those that know me say I make the energiser bunny look lethargic. I wake up each morning with vigour and I always embrace the day with zest. I believe in seizing life to its fullest. About a year ago that all changed. My zig no longer zagged. I started going to bed tired and waking up even more exhausted. I was experiencing headaches and having a hard time concentrating. I went to see my doctor who did a complete physical and he discovered I had developed high blood pressure!! What?! How could that be possible? I’m a nutritionist. I eat clean and I exercise regularly. When the results of my blood test came back, I learned that I had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP). CRP is produced by the liver and rises when there is inflammation throughout the body. CRP is considered one of the major predictors of a future heart attack. My CRP measured a staggering 9.8 mg/L! Anything above 3.0 is considered a very high risk for heart attack and stroke. 

The body produces CRP during the general process of inflammation which is why it is called the “marker” for inflammation in the body. Your level of CRP is a good indicator of how at risk you are for developing cardiovascular problems.   In fact, research shows CRP predicts cardiovascular risk more accurately than a person’s cholesterol levels. Data from the Physicians Health Study, a clinical trial involving 18,000 apparently healthy doctors, found that elevated levels of CRP were associated with a 300% increase in the risk of heart attack. 

In addition to an elevated CRP, my white blood cell levels were also high, meaning my body was clearly fighting some type of infection. This internal inflammation was causing a chronic low grade fever, high blood pressure of 170/110; normally my levels are 120/82, and a resting heart rate of 90; normally I’m at 50. With all these factors, I had “the perfect storm” for a massive heart attack! I immediately went to a cardiologist who performed a stress test, EKG and a nuclear heart scan. The findings showed my heart was normal and I had no blockage whatsoever. This was great news; however, I was anything but normal. As the months progressed, I felt even more miserable! No one could give me any answers. I only knew my body was suffering from systemic inflammation but I had no idea why. 

Then one day while at a writer’s convention in California I met a dentist named Dr. P. Piero, from Michigan. He had just authored a book and was sharing it with me. As I thumbed through the pages, I noticed a section on C- reactive protein.  I asked him why a dental book would have a section on this inflammatory marker? What he told me next would finally bring answers on why I was having so many health issues. Dr. Piero told me that the number one cause of elevated CRP is a bacterial infection in the gums (i.e. a tooth abscess). This creates inflammation inside the gums, which enters the blood stream and travels throughout the body. I explained to him that I did not have any tooth pain so this couldn’t be the culprit. He then asked me if I have had any root canals? I told him I’ve had three. Dr. Piero shared that in a root-canaled tooth, the nerve is destroyed so I may feel no pain. 

When I got back home, I made an appointment with an Endodontist who discovered one of my root-canaled teeth was so badly abscessed it had eaten away part of my jaw bone! I made an appointment with an oral surgeon who had to extract the entire tooth and cut out the infection in my jaw bone using a tiny saw. The excruciating pain I experienced was beyond words! He would later pack cadaver bone inside the hole in my jaw, which will need to sit for approximately 6 months before I can get a dental implant. 

The oral surgeon that performed the procedure explained that a root-canaled tooth is essentially “dead” which makes it silent incubators for highly toxic bacteria which can make their way into the bloodstream leading to a number of serious medical conditions—many not appearing until decades later.  Within two days of having this failed root canal removed, I felt alive again! My energy, drive, endurance was back to normal! My heart rate and blood pressure were normal. After getting another blood test, I was happy to see my CRP was now at a normal level of 1.4 mg/L! 

If you are told by your dentist that you need a root canal, there is a safer alternative. Instead of opting to keep a dead tooth that will rot in your mouth, opt for a dental implant. Trust me, it’s MUCH cheaper in the long run and safer! Had I not met Dr. Piero, I feel certain I would have ended up a healthy nutritionist found dead in my yard from a fatal heart attack. 

The next time you go to your doctor ask him to check your CRP level.  I believe this should be a routine part of everyone’s annual physical. There are two tests for CRP. One can show a non-specific elevation of CRP that occurs with general inflammatory changes in the body; the other test is called hs-CRP – highly sensitive CRP – which is a measure of inflammation in blood vessels. This is the test needed to help establish heart disease risk. Thankfully, more and more doctors are realising the importance of measuring hs-CRP levels along with cholesterol to determine the risk of heart disease and to evaluate disease progression and prognosis in those who already have cardiovascular disease. Be sure and ask your doctor for this test to determine if you are at risk.

I was about to quote from an article that appeared on a website belonging to the Toxic Elements Research Foundation (TERF), a non-profit research foundation dedicated to stimulating interest in the research community as well as informing the public to become aware of potential problems associated with dental materials and procedures. However, closer inspection revealed that TERF was simply a very basic website, last updated in 2009, and the work of a single person by the name of Jamie Tolle. There were good quotes to be had from the site and reference was made to a ground-breaking "study" that was soon to be released to a waiting world. However, it was clear that there was no research foundation. Sources always need to be checked.

The cruel reality is that, just as with vaccinations, there is no research being carried about the long-term effects of root canals. Where would the funding for this come from? There are too many vested interests involved to get anything meaningful research off the ground. It's medical orthodoxy that vaccinations are safe. Doctors who question that do so at their professional peril and it's dental orthodoxy that root canals are safe. Dentists who question that do so at their professional peril. Of course, not many will question the procedure, because it's never raised as an issue in their training.

Pneumonia: More Fear Mongering

Here is the header from an article that appeared in today's Jakarta Post:

Pneumonia to kill nearly 11 million children by 2030, study warns

The article was taken from NEWS DESK, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Paris, France on Tuesday, November 13th, 2018 at 03:04 am. The article goes on to say that:

Pneumonia will kill nearly 11 million children under five by 2030, experts warned Monday on a global day aimed at raising awareness of the biggest infectious killer of infants worldwide. 

While in the developed world the severe lung infection mainly affects the elderly, in developing nations it is children who bear the brunt, with hundreds of thousands dying each year from the easily preventable disease.

It continues:

A new analysis conducted by Johns Hopkins University and the aid group Save the Children using forecasts based on current trends showed more than 10,800,000 under-fives would succumb to the disease by the end of the next decade.  

Furthermore, a handful of countries are set to carry the highest burdens, with 1.7 million children set to die in Nigeria and India, 700,000 in Pakistan and 635,000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Yet there is some good news.  

The study, published on World Pneumonia Day, found that scaling up existing vaccination coverage, coupled with cheap antibiotics and ensuring good nutrition for children could save a total of 4.1 million lives. 

Of course, the article is intended to grab attention. Save the Children CEO Kevin Watkins, whose group operates health programs in some of the countries worst hit by the disease, called for prices of major existing pneumonia vaccines to be lowered "dramatically". It's unlikely that pharmaceutical companies will be lowering their prices. Instead the hope is that governments in developing countries will subsidise the cost from their health care budgets. Much needed funds are thus diverted from where they could be truly useful such as improving sanitation and nutrition.

In the nineteenth century, measles epidemics killed a great many children in England and other developed countries because families lived in vermin-infested, overcrowded and unventilated dwellings with primitive sanitation. Additionally, children ate poorly and sometimes not at all. When housing conditions and diet were improved, measles ceased to be a significant factor in childhood mortality.

It is the same of course with pneumonia which as the article admits "mainly affects the elderly in developed countries". In these countries, pneumonia does not take a significant toll of children because they are generally well-fed and adequately housed. It's a transparent ploy on the part of NGOs like Save the Children to attract funds but what organisations lie behind these NGOs. Well, the usual villains of course. One of this NGO's global partners is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), laughingly described on the NGO's website as "a science-led global healthcare company on a mission to help people do more, feel better and live longer".

Ah no, GSK is, according to Wikipedia:

a British pharmaceutical company headquartered in Brentford, London. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, GSK was the world's sixth largest pharmaceutical company as of 2015, after Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Hoffmann-La Roche and Sanofi.

Of course, nobody is going to donate money to a pharmaceutical company and so GSK and other Big Pharma companies hide behind NGOs like Save the Children and push a very straight forward agenda: marketing their products. Save the Children and its current CEO have been mired in controversy lately. In July, as reported in this article in The Guardian: "(British) MPs question Kevin Watkins on failing to investigate claims of sexual misconduct by senior charity staff". Specifically:

Pauline Latham MP questioned Watkin’s decision to use £114,000 in charity funds on lawyers “to try and stop reports [of inappropriate behaviour] coming out”, adding that such money was likely to have been taken from funds raised by volunteers in the UK. 

Clearly, when donating money to NGOs like Save the Children, one needs to seriously consider how the money is being spent. However, if one were casually reading the article under discussion in the Jakarta Post or elsewhere, the simple takeaway would be that the pneumonia vaccine can save the lives of millions of children. If only it were that simple.

Vaccines damage the immune systems of children throughout the world but in developing countries, children's immunity is further compromised by overcrowded living conditions, poor sanitation and inadequate diet. These children do not need vaccines and yet limited health care funds are being diverted to this end.

Melatonin Madness

'Bloody awesome': 

how melatonin is helping children fall asleep 

Many parents will be only too familiar with the problem of children tossing and turning for hours before they finally go to sleep. Rather than put up with it, a growing number of families are turning to prescribed melatonin to help children fall asleep. For many it’s a revelation ... 

Adults who have trouble getting to sleep or need to reset their body clocks to deal with jet lag or shift work have long sworn by melatonin, a synthetic version of the natural hormone that regulates your sleep rhythm. Now there’s enough evidence about safety and efficacy that doctors are prescribing it for children too, usually in low doses.

So said an article that appeared in today's Brisbane Times. As to whether it's safe for children, there has been no long term studies (18 to 24 months seem to have been the longest) so who knows? The pineal gland produces melatonin naturally so the idea of its long term administration to children is disturbing. Common sense suggests that some disturbance to the proper functioning of the pineal gland would result if this practice were to continue over a long period of time.

The headline atop this newspaper article however, presents the practice in a very positive light. This is yet another instance of mainstream media conniving with big pharma and big medicine to induce parents to purchase unnecessary medication for their children. In Australia, a prescription is necessary to purchase melatonin although in other countries it can be bought over the counter. It is regarded as a food supplement rather than a medication and so quality control and restrictions on its distribution are more lax.

The promotion of this supplement is purely for profit: doctors benefit because they need to write the script, pharmacists benefit by dispensing it and the manufacturers benefit by selling it to the pharmacists. Consider this glowing endorsement of Melatonin from a manufacturer:

Andrew Harb, general manager at wholesaler Medisca, said melatonin was a “godsend” for the whole family. One study done with children with autism showed children taking melatonin were getting to sleep half an hour earlier than those taking a placebo and this was measurably reducing stress for their parents.

It's a nice deal: induce autism via vaccinations and then buy Melatonin to combat some of the side effects. One is reminded of the similarly vaccine induced Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Ritalin that is prescribed to combat it. Hooking a child on Ritalin, Melatonin or whatever is a major goal of Big Pharma because it is likely to reap financial benefits for the lifetime of the individual.

Meanwhile, note the headline of this article:

Caesarean rates soar with doctors 

'less prepared to take risks'

At the midwifery expert had some telling comments to make on this shameful statistic and to disabuse those who think it has anything to do with doctors being "less prepared to take risks":

Professor Hannah Dahlen, a midwifery expert at Western Sydney University, said evidence suggested episiotomies were medically necessary in only about 10 per cent of cases – for example when the baby’s heart rate was at a critical level. “It’s not a minor operation. It causes people emotional distress. It causes them physical distress,” she said. “I haven’t done an episiotomy in 15 years and I’m still a practicing midwife. You don’t need to do them, except in rare circumstances.” Professor Dahlen said that private obstetricians in particular were encouraged to schedule more caesareans and inductions to avoid being called out every night of the week. She said obstetricians should be forced to declare their individual statistics “so we do identify the obstetricians with 90 per cent caesarean section rates – and they do exist in the country”.

How did things get to this point? Mothers are now given vaccinations while they are pregnant. The baby may well be induced or delivered by caesarean, and the vaccinations begin immediately after birth. The growing infant continues to be jabbed with a bewildering variety of vaccines for the next four years and beyond. It is likely to receive several unnecessary doses of antibiotics and other medications that are deemed necessary, including Melatonin. Yet, the reasons for the epidemics of Autism, Asthma, Allergy and ADHD remain a mystery supposedly to the medical profession. As Heather Fraser writes in her book "The Peanut Allergy Epidemic":

The mantra might well be:

VACCINATE 

MEDICATE

EDUCATE

One is reminded of the lyrics to "Mad World" that was sung originally by Gary Jules:

MAD WORLD 

All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for their daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
Their tears are filling up their glasses
No expression, no expression
Hide my head, I want to drown my sorrow
No tomorrow, no tomorrow 

And I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad
The dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had
I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take
When people run in circles it's a very very
Mad world, mad world 

Children waiting for the day, they feel good
Happy birthday, happy birthday
Made to feel the way that every child should
Sit and listen, sit and listen
Went to school and I was very nervous
No one knew me, no one knew me
Hello teacher, tell me what's my lesson
Look right through me, look right through me 

And I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad
The dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had
I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take
When people run in circles it's a very very
Mad world, mad world
Enlarge your world
Mad world

And so children, weakened and damaged by vaccinations, fluoridation, medication, are sent off to school and that's another nightmare ... perhaps it's time for children to get their own back. If you don't laugh, you have to cry.

The Big Picture

I was watching a YouTube video about the recent mysterious limousine accident in the United States. In the comments, I read the following:

KILL TV. Get past the cognitive dissonance & simply accept that the establishment & so called "government" are nothing but a glorified crime syndicate. Then it all makes sense & eliminates the need to endlessly analyze & speculate about TV "news". Even when local tragedies are real, you've got to realize there's a reason why some events get massive attention & others in different places are never even mentioned on mainstream news.

Quite an insightful overview I thought. It's easy to get bogged down in delving into this or not suspicious event and lose sight of the big picture which essentially is that we live in a psychopathocracy (the rule of persons who lack a basic ability to empathise with others, to feel their pain or to feel guilty about harming them) or at best a kakistocracy (a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens. The word was coined as early as the seventeenth century). 

I've written about psychopathocracy before: see this blog post (in May of 2008).

On further investigation, KILL TV turned out to be a new initiative aimed at bypassing Internet censorship (double click to enlarge image):

Here is a link to a video describing what the website is all about. At the moment, the founders are trying to collect US$150,000 to start things up. I've left my email address and will be notified of developments. 

Yesterday 108Morris108 made a reference to Chabad Lubavitch. I'd not heard of the group before so I had to do some investigation. I watched the following video that sheds some light on the influence that this group has in the world. Their influence is impressive.

Now that I'm aware of the group and their influence I can follow their activities more closely.

A Peanut Allergy Vaccine?

An article appeared in Medical News Today in April about a vaccine that is being developed in an attempt to suppress peanut allergies in children. It begins:

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deem food allergies "a growing food safety and public health concern." 

They estimate that 4–6 percent of all children in the United States are affected by food allergies, though other reports reveal that percentage to be much higher. 

Of all food allergies, those to peanuts are the most common. 

Food allergies do not yet have a cure, and allergic reactions can prove fatal. In fact, the only way to "prevent" allergies is to stay away from the allergen.

 The article goes on to say that:

A new study, however, offers hope for people with peanut allergies, as a vaccine that has been two decades in the making has just been proven successful in mice. 

The research — which has now been published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology — was carried out by scientists at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. They were led by Jessica O'Konek, a researcher at the university's Food Allergy Centre. 

O'Konek and team explain that food allergies are caused by a faulty immune reaction, wherein the body overproduces antibodies called Immunoglobulin E (IgE). 

This occurs as a result of a skewed immune response from immune cells called T helper 2 (Th2). In the new research, the scientists hypothesised that rerouting these Th2 cells might help to regulate the allergic immune response. 

To test this hypothesis, O'Konek and colleagues sensitised mice to peanut proteins so that their immune system produced IgE antibodies and their Th2 cells behaved in the same way that they would in an allergic reaction. 

When exposed to peanuts, the rodents thusly sensitised developed the same allergic symptoms, such as itchy skin and obstructed breathing, as humans. 

The researchers then administered the rodents one dose of the nasal vaccine per month for 3 months, and they measured their allergic response 2 weeks after the final dose. 

The vaccine successfully protected the rodents from exposure to peanuts, with tests showing decreased activity of the Th2 cells, as well as decreased IgE antibodies.

Food allergies have exploded in prevalence and incidence over the past two decades or so but there is seemingly no thought been given as to why this might be so. Could the reason be the damage caused to the immune systems of young children by vaccinations? The dramatic increase in the number of vaccines since 1960 is dramatically portrayed below (double click to enlarge):

A little investigation led me a book called The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Heather Fraser that was published in 2010. Here the review of the book that I came across. To quote directly from her book:

Medical literature has illustrated that the only means by which mass allergy has ever been created was by injection. With the pairing of the hypodermic needles and vaccines at the close of the 19th century, allergy and anaphylaxis made their explosive entry into the western world. Serum sickness from this new procedure was the first mass allergic phenomenon in history. Epidemic allergy to penicillin reminiscent of the ‘days of serum sickness’ emerged with its mass application following WWII. And with it came peanut allergy. Penicillin was administered using POB, the Romansky peanut oil formula. The continued use of refined peanut oil in drugs and vaccine adjuvants resulted in the slow growth of the allergy primarily in children until the late 1980s when its prevalence exploded. Extensive and sudden changes to childhood vaccination precipitated the new mass allergy to peanut.

Here is a recent video from January of 2018 in which she talks about the experiences that led her to write the book.

The influence of her book and her ongoing campaigning to make vaccination a choice seem to have had little effect on the medical establishment as this current push for a peanut allergy vaccine demonstrates. 

Well, it's depressing but hardly surprising. The following quotation from the same review is a good note to end on. 

Vaccines had proved to be very profitable for the pharmaceutical companies in the early years of the 20th century and, once they had been protected from litigation by those who believed they or their children had been damaged by vaccination by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme, the pharmaceutical companies ‘went back into’ vaccine manufacture with a will. 

But this time there was an added bonus. 

Although the connection between the two was never made, the increase in allergy across the board during the 1970s and 80s, including potentially fatal anaphylaxis, offered a whole new market to pharmaceutical companies and, indeed to the food industry. 

The development of the Epipen in the 1980s, delivering the only known antidote to an anaphylactic attack, proved to be a commercial goldmine while managing allergy presented endless opportunities for new drugs and new treatments 

Meanwhile, the ‘freefrom’ food industry (now, in 2010, worth billions of dollars world wide) was born – creating foods which would be free of peanuts, nuts, dairy, wheat and any of the any food products which were thought to cause allergy. 

I managed to get hold of Heather Fraser's book via the Internet Archive and I'm currently reading it online. Here is quote from the book:

The key phrase is "each society and every civilization creates its own diseases" struck a responsive chord in me. I thought of the Romans poisoning themselves with lead pipes and drinking vessels. The heavy metal poisoning causes by purgatives in the nineteenth century and now the autoimmune diseases exacerbated by vaccinations. I'll report further on the book once I finish it.

OVERDIAGNOSIS

It's was refreshing to read something this morning from the Medical Mafia, reported in the Brisbane Times, that makes some sense. It came from Australia's Chief Medical Officer Professor Brendan Murphy who said about overdiagnosis in the medical profession:

(it is) "a significant issue in all countries with advanced health systems. We know harm can come from overdiagnosis,” Professor Murphy said, from causing undue anxiety and labelling people with stigmatising disorders, to serious adverse effects from unnecessary aggressive or invasive treatments. There is no doubt we need some sort of approach to address it.

The Brisbane Times article goes on to say that:

Overdiagnosis is exposing healthy people to tests and treatments that are at best useless, and at worst trigger aggressive procedures with devastating side effects, a formidable alliance of peak doctors colleges, researchers, advocates and public health experts warned. 

The alliance - forged by the Wiser Healthcare research collaboration - is developing a world-first national action plan to curb overdiagnosis across the medical spectrum, from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to cancer. Reversing the harms of too much medicine was becoming a healthcare priority, members of the emerging alliance wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday.

The Wiser Healthcare collaboration states that:

Wiser Healthcare is a research collaboration involving The University of Sydney, Bond University, Monash University and international colleagues. We investigate the cause and size of the problem and test new solutions, in the areas of cancer, cardiovascular disease and musculoskeletal disorders, with a particular focus on overdiagnosis caused by imaging (like CT scans and MRI scans), testing biomarkers (for example, blood tests like the Prostate Specific Antigen test), and genetic tests. Here you can find out about our plans, read our work, see the evidence about overdiagnosis, and get help to make decisions, whether you are a clinician, policymaker, or citizen considering your own healthcare.

There's clearly no plans to address the scourge of vaccinations but at least it's a start. What it will achieve actually however, remains to be seen. At least the issue is being discussed and advice given to prospective victims of overdiagnosis. Here is some advice that is offered:

Keeping it short 

Short questions that have been shown to improve the quality of information that doctors provide about treatment options: 

What are my options?
What are the possible benefits and harms of those options?
How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?
What will happen if I do nothing? 

Choosing Wisely 

Questions recommended by the Choosing Wisely organisation in Australia, to help avoid unnecessary tests and treatments: 

Do I really need this test, treatment or procedure?
What are the risks?
Are there simpler, safer options?
What happens if I don’t do anything?
What are the costs?

The Choosing Wisely organisation professes to be helping healthcare providers and consumers start important conversations about improving the quality of healthcare by eliminating unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests, treatments, and procedures. It is facilitated by NPS MEDICINEWISE that purports to be making Australia more medicinewise, through digital health and data insights, health professional education and reliable health information for consumers.

The authors of the MJA Perspective wrote:

Cultural beliefs that more tests and treatments were always better, financial incentives to diagnose and treat in the health system and increasingly sensitive diagnostic technologies detecting minor abnormalities were likely major drivers of overdiagnosis. 

Doctors’ cognitive biases and the fears that they might miss something, coupled with the public’s expectation that the clinicians should “do something” also fed overdiagnosis.

Of course, there will be immediate reactions from those medical areas that feel threatened:

Chief executive of Cancer Council Australia Sanchia Aranda said any moves to curb overdiagnosis must not undermine national screening programs and the benefits of early detection. 

 Here is the link to the MJA article and also a link to some information about Alan Cassels (his website at www.alancassels.com doesn't seem to be working). This is some information taken from the footnotes to a YouTube video which I just watched and which I've embedded below:

Alan Cassels has been immersed in pharmaceutical policy research and healthcare journalism for the past 23 years, mostly studying and writing about how prescription drugs are regulated, marketed, prescribed and used. His niche is in exposing the large gap between the marketing and the science around prescription drugs, medical screening and other forms of disease creation. His books include Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning us All into Patients (co-written with Ray Moynihan), The ABCs of Disease Mongering: An Epidemic in 26 Letters, and Seeking Sickness: Medical Screening and the Misguided Hunt for Disease.

OXFAM

A report from Oxfam notes that:

Pharmaceutical companies behind some of Australia’s best-known brands avoided an estimated $215 million a year in tax in Australia over a three year period - almost four times the $63 million actually paid - Oxfam says. 

The report, ‘Prescription for Poverty’ looks at four of the world’s largest global pharmaceutical companies - Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck, Sharpe & Dome (MSD Australia), and Abbott – which in Australia are estimated to have unfairly avoided paying $215 million in taxes a year between 2013 and 2015.

No surprises there but Oxfam's CEO Helen Szoke went on to say, clearly ignorant of the irony:

“To put it in perspective, if this amount were invested in healthcare in these countries, this could pay for 10 million girls to be vaccinated against the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer and kills one woman every two minutes around the world,” Dr Szoke said. 

OXFAM IS A SCAM

Pay who? Oh, Merck, the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine Gardasil! Of course she also implies that Gardasil would reduce this alleged death rate from cervical cancer. Ah well, she's a doctor so she's bought into the whole vaccination mythology but the irony is that while she criticises the tax avoidance schemes of the pharmaceutical companies, she does not have the slightest hesitation is suggesting that money be given right back to them via one of the most notorious vaccine on the market.

Oxfam of course is one of those sham organisations that purport to be working toward alleviating poverty and improving health in developing countries. This quote from Oxfam's own website gives an insight into what it's really on about:

Vaccines have contributed to some of the greatest public health successes of the past century, averting 2.5 million child deaths every year and millions more bouts of illness and disability. Yet even as the demand for existing, new and planned vaccines grows in developing countries, financing for immunization in poor countries has reached a crisis point, and major problems in the vaccines market mean that access to existing vaccines and development of new vaccines will be impeded and delayed. 

That's what Oxfam sees as a way of improving the health of children in developing countries: undermine the already weakened immune systems of malnourished children by subjecting them to a barrage of vaccinations.

Let's not forget Oxfam is a Scam.

An Acne Vaccine?

There are seemingly no limits to the vaccine madness that has taken hold of the world. This article in today's online edition of The Jakarta Post reports on a study in the United States that looked into the possibility of vaccination to prevent acne.

"Current treatment options are often not effective or tolerable for many of the 85 percent of adolescents and more than 40 million adults in the United States who suffer from this condition," Huang said. "New, safe and efficient therapies are sorely needed."

Despite the damage caused to adolescents by Gardasil, the pharmaceutical companies would of course love to be able to promote an anti-acne vaccine to such a huge market. As with the production of all vaccines, clinical trials of potential candidates would be limited if not overtly fraudulent. The safety of vaccines will always be secondary to the need to maximise profits.

There's further information about a potential vaccine here. Having suffered from acne myself as a youth, I would have welcomed a cure and would have opted for a vaccine had one been available. Of course back in those days, I thought vaccines were safe and beneficial. I didn't much the safety of vaccines or the need for them until much later in life. My parents never questioned the vaccine propaganda of the times and told me how the polio vaccine had stopped the terrifying spread of poliomyelitis. This vaccine that I received was later found to be contaminated with a cancer-causing virus of simian origin.

I often wonder whether my youngest brother's acoustic neuroma wasn't caused by the additional vaccines that he received because he was born in 1960, eleven years after me. He was around four years of age when he suddenly developed strabismus.

I remember my mother being quite shocked at the discovery because this was certainly not something that he had from birth. This sudden onset of strabismus in toddlers and children is a classic sign of brain damage caused by the aluminium in vaccines as outlined in Forest Maready's book Crooked B (see my post about this). When my brother was diagnosed with his brain tumour (acoustic neuroma) at age 19, the doctors were of the opinion that, because of its size, it had been growing since he was two years of age. Of course, no one will ever know if his tumour was caused by vaccine damage but I am highly suspicious that this was the reason.

Link

Even after reading Maready's book, it was only now when writing this blog post that I remembered my own brother's sudden onset strabismus. That's how conditioned I was to not connect his condition to vaccine damage. Certainly at the time, there was never any question that his condition had been precipitated by a recent vaccination. It was just accepted and he suddenly had to wear spectacles with a patch over one of the lenses so that his misaligned eye would be encouraged to straighten up. While Tony's strabismus was the result of damage to the muscles controlling eye movement, his tumour may have been the result of impairment to the nerves related to hearing and balance.

It's too late now to know what his vaccination schedule was back then. The clinic where he would have received his shots is still there, I suspect, but my brother would have to request access to his records if they are available. He's not likely to do that and in fact he dutifully receives his flu shots every year and seems to have complete faith in the medical "profession". Almost certainly however, my brother was a victim of a war on his well-being. It is a war that was only ramping up when he was at his most vulnerable but it is now in full swing and gaining momentum.

Original Antigenic Sin

This book can be viewed or downloaded from the Internet Archive

I've just finished reading Suzanne Humphries book about the history of vaccination. The book really conveyed the awful living and working conditions that working people endured in the nineteenth century that allowed diseases like measles, diphtheria and whooping cough to take such a heavy toll of the population. Here is the Amazon review:

Not too long ago, lethal infections were feared in the Western world. Since that time, many countries have undergone a transformation from disease cesspools to much safer, healthier habitats. Starting in the mid-1800s, there was a steady drop in deaths from all infectious diseases, decreasing to relatively minor levels by the early 1900s. The history of that transformation involves famine, poverty, filth, lost cures, eugenicist doctrine, individual freedoms versus state might, protests and arrests over vaccine refusal, and much more. Today, we are told that medical interventions increased our lifespan and single-handedly prevented masses of deaths. But is this really true? Dissolving Illusions details facts and figures from long-overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers, and other sources. Using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases. If the medical profession could systematically misinterpret and ignore key historical information, the question must be asked, “What else is ignored and misinterpreted today?” Perhaps the best reason to know our history is so that the worst parts are never repeated.

Of course I'd heard before that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases but this book confirms the reality of that in meticulous detail. The author also introduced me to the term original antigenic sin explained by Wikipedia as follows:

Original antigenic sin, also known as the Hoskins effect, refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilise immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign entity (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections. The phenomenon of original antigenic sin has been described in relation to influenza virus, dengue fever, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and to several other viruses.

The vaccination process is so unnatural that the body's immune response to later exposure to viruses in the wild is impaired, thus accounting for the increased vulnerability of the vaccinated population. This idea was quite new to me whereas previously I'd thought that the vaccination process itself was valid and that any problems were the result of adjuvants and other foreign material.

The response of vaccine developers to the problems caused by original antigenic sin is to modify and enhance the vaccines, not to question the efficacy of the vaccination process itself. Big Medicine and Big Pharma have too much invested in the vaccination industry to abandon it now. It's encouraging that Suzanne Humphries is a qualified medical doctor so the criticism is coming from within the profession. Here is an excerpt from her website:

Dr Humphries is a conventionally educated medical doctor who was a participant in conventional hospital systems from 1989 until 2011 as an internist and nephrologist.  She left her conventional hospital position in good standing, of her own volition in 2011. Since then, she’s been furthering her research into the medical literature on vaccines, immunity, history, and functional medicine.

I've discovered that she has a YouTube channel with 40 videos uploaded so far. Interestingly, the view count for her videos seems ridiculously low. For example, her most recent video from two weeks ago has 40 views according to the thumbnails but 130 views once you actually click on the video. Here's the video: NOW TAKEN DOWN BY YOUTUBE

Suzanne Humphries has written an autobiography titled Rising From The Dead and I've read the Amazon preview but not yet the entire book. It's a very interesting read. Here is an excerpt from it:

A Lot of Hot Air

UK weather: Blistering heatwaves and tropical storms to last four years with 'abnormally hot' air until 2022

So touted the Mirror headline of an article from the 15th August 2018 edition. The news article was based on new research by a team led by Dr Florian Sevellec, of the University of Southampton. Brazenly she said: “Warming caused by greenhouse gas is not linear. It appears to have lapsed in the early 21st century". So wait a minute, she concedes that global warming has "lapsed" since the new century began eighteen years ago.

One might hope that this would have prompted the good doctor to review her assumption that the world is in fact warming. No way! She confidently asserts:

"A new method for predicting mean temperatures, however, suggests the next few years will be hotter than expected.” The system, developed with French and Dutch researchers, uses a statistical method to search 20th and 21st century climate simulations, find similarities to current conditions and then make forecasts.

Apparently, the "lapse" is now over and this new statistical technique ensures that from now on the world will be warming again. At least until 2022! No doubt her research was well funded by the usual interested parties and her academic career will benefit because the results obtained using this new technique support the current climate orthodoxy of relentless global warming.

This is "climate science" in the early 21st century and Dr Florian Sevellec would be regarded as an expert climate scientist. Where is the science in all of this? She admits that the globe has not warmed during the opening years of the new century and then she uses a new and clearly as yet unproven statistical technique to predict what will happen over the coming few years, based on "climate simulations"!

All that most readers will remember is that the next four years are going to be "abnormally hot". Even if they're not, I'm sure climate experts like Dr Sevellec won't be phased. They'll explain it away as a "protracted and atypical lapse" before the warming begins in earnest. They'll go off and tweak their statistical tools to take account of unforeseen variables and then reassure us that the next eight years are going to feel like a "furnace".

It's sad to see presumably intelligent scientists like Dr Sevellec abandoning the scientific method and making unfounded claims about the coming "blistering heat waves and tropical storms". It seems that all climate scientists must worship at the anthropogenic global warming branch of the Church of Climatology.