Donate

Free newsletter



Site Manager

Tami Dickson

Follow Us





Follow Unittus
Search

Custom Search
GMO’s Weapons & Australia Health Shame!Mar 15/12 Print E-mail
Wednesday, 14 March 2012 16:20

GMO’s Weapons & Australia Health Shame!Mar 15/12

The Future of Food

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/gmo_food_genetically_modified

Genetically Engineered FOODS seem to have become “biological weapons of Mass Destruction”  Note that animals fed Genetically Engineered Feed fail to reproduce healthy young, if any young at all. In humans, it is already connected to a drastic drop in sperm count and sperm quality.  Any species that cannot reproduce healthy offspring is doomed.  It is genocidal.
(Anything that is derived from corn, soy, or canola in North America is probably GMO.)

There are several questions that we should be asking our government.
1.  Why is the Canadian Government protecting and promoting the TOXIC FOOD SUPPLY that is GMOs?

2. Why is the government refusing to protect the health of Canadians from the health-destructive consequences of eating health-destroying GMOs?

2.  Why is the Canadian Government using Trade Agreements to FORCE other countries that want no part of GMOS to accept the importation, marketing and promotion of these TOXIC GMO FOODS and crops within their borders.

3.  Why are Canadian and USA consumers deprived of the right to know whether or not they are eating genetically engineered foods because the government refuses to allow, let alone mandate, GMOs to be labeled?

4. Why are Genetically Engineered crops and toxic foods being permitted to be foisted on the people of Africa – under the camouflage of charity and assistance by the likes of Monsanto and Bill Gates - when much of the African population is already nutritionally compromised and very ill.  Is this a “depopulation” strategy? (Note: Bill Gates is heavily invested in Monsanto.)

5. Why does a “corporation’s right to market” trump “the citizens’ right not to buy”?

6 Why is the Canadian Government a primary source of propaganda and scientific misinformation regarding genetic engineering and GMOs?

7. Why is the Canadian Government willing to sacrifice the ecology, including the critically important bee population, in order to protect and promote the corporate vested interests of Monsanto - that has produced nothing so far in all its history that has not been detrimentally harmful to life and the environment?  Why are “ill-gotten profit potentials” permitted to trump health, survivability and sustainability?

Interesting note:  Monsanto serves “organic food” in its cafeteria because its employees will not eat GMOs – they know what they do!.  The Elites also guarantee for themselves a supply of “organic food” – and avoid GMOs whenever possible.

GMOS and patented genetically engineered food crops HAVE TO GO!
It is up to all of us
to use our “consumer purchasing power” to hasten their demise.

Let food-processing companies know that you will boycott their products as long as they won’t guarantee that they will not use GMO ingredients in their products.
Let supermarkets know that you will boycott their stores until they can guarantee that they will not market GMOs, or products with GMO ingredients.

Support your local farmers and producers – they are your food security.

Recommended

Genetic Engineering: Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup
by Rady Ananda

Genetically Manipulated Crops: The GMO Catastrophe in the USA. A Lesson for the World
by F. William Engdahl

Mounting Opposition to GMO Crops: The World’s People Reject Genetic Pollution of Food and the Environment
by Rady Ananda

The Destruction of Canada's Family Farm
by Arthur W. Macklin

Monsanto and Gates Foundation Push Genetically Engineered Crops on Africa
by Mike Ludwig

Australian Nazi Health Shame Mar 8/12

Australian Government Moves To Quickly Pass Laws To Sterilize, Electroshock, And Restrain Children Without Parental Consent
http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030512_Australian-Government-Moves-To-Quickly-Pass-Laws-To-Sterilize-Electroshock-And-Restrain-Children-Without-Parental-Consent.shtml


Another draft mental health bill, this time in Australia is mirroring global efforts in what is now an international and deliberate surge by government officials to remove parental consent.  If passed, the shocking new law will allow children who are considered sufficiently mature, to be subjected to horrifying procedures including sterilization and electroshock.

An important message by the Director of Applied Scholastics in Western Australia based in Perth, Alison Tarrant was sent to the public on behalf of The Athena School.  "Some very disturbing information has come across our path in relation to a Draft Mental Health Bill which concerns our precious children and our rights as parents," said Tarrant in a statement in the February 29, 2012 letter.

Tarrant initially thought the information lacked authenticity and was later astonished when she found out the document was legitimate.  "When I read it I was quite shocked and thought someone was playing a joke on me but then I went onto the main website http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au which is the Government Department of the Mental Health Commission and looked at the actual Draft Bill," she added.

PreventDisease.com recently reported that vaccinating without parental knowledge will soon become the norm across the world.  There is now a confirmed global initiative to remove any consent parents have to safeguard their children's health while simultaneously removing any chance of informed consent by those who are considered of "mature" age regardless of their status as a child or teenager.  These proposed bills are poised to become law and their frequency is increasing, especially in the U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia.

Some of the more disturbing clauses draft mental health bill include:

CHILDREN OF ANY AGE TO CONSENT TO STERILISATION:  If a psychiatrist decides that a child (under 18 years) has sufficient maturity, he or she will be able to consent to sterilisation.  Parental consent will not be needed.  Only after the sterilisation procedure has been performed does it have to be reported and then only to the Chief Psychiatrist. [Pages: 135 & 136 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]

12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO PSYCHOSURGERY:  Banned in N.S.W. and the N.T., psychosurgery irreversibly damages the brain by surgery, burning or inserting electrodes.  This draft bill proposes to allow a 12 year old child, if considered to be sufficiently mature by a psychiatrist, to be able to consent to psychosurgery.  Once the child has consented it goes before the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) for approval.  Parental consent is also not needed for the MHT to approve the psychosurgery. [Pages: 108, 109, 110, 197,198, 199, 213]

12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO ELECTROSHOCK (ECT): Electroshock is hundreds of volts of electricity to the head.  Any child aged 12 and over, whom a child and adolescent psychiatrist decides is "mature" enough, will be able to consent to electroshock.  Also, once consent is given, there is no requirement for parents or anyone, including the MHT, to approve the electroshock.  Electroshock should be banned.  Its use on the elderly, pregnant women and children is especially destructive. [Pages: 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105]

RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF CHILDREN:  Children can be restrained in a psychiatric institution, with the use of mechanical restraint (manacles, belts, straps etc.) and bodily force. Chemical restraint - the use of psychiatric drugs to subdue and control the person - is not covered in the draft bill, so there are no legal safeguards to prevent its application.  Death can result from all forms of restraint. [Pages: 122, 121, 113, 246]

INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN:  A psychiatrist can involuntarily detain any child for up to 14 days if "suspected" of mental illness.  Parents will not be able to discharge their child during this period and take them home.  The psychiatrist can then make a "continuation order" to continue the detainment for up to 3 months and thereafter for each subsequent 3 month period.  During detainment, the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock if over 12 and could be put into a ward with adults.  Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment, including the child being placed on a legal order to continue to receive drugs at home. The MHT hold hearings on the detainment of a child, but there is no guarantee the child will be able to go home.  In 2010/11 there were 1,248 hearings for all ages and only 58 people had their status changed from involuntary to voluntary. [Pages: 21, 22, 35, 19, 107, 36, 53, 54, 183 -185, 190, 191, 213, 214,18, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75-77]

WHO WILL BE ABLE TO DETAIN A CHILD IS NOT FULLY KNOWN:  An "authorised mental health practitioner" can also detain a child or adult in the draft bill.  Exactly who an authorised mental health practitioner is, is not defined by the draft bill.  The Chief Psychiatrist can literally give anyone or any profession the power to detain someone just because he considers they are qualified and by publishing the decision in the Gazette. This clause must be removed from the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011.  Only a judge or magistrate should have the power to order someone be detained, and only with full legal representation for the person facing depravation of liberty [Pages: 246, 247, 21, 22]

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DRAFT BILL?: The Western Australia Mental Health Commission (MHC) were responsible for writing the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011, with Mental Health Commissioner and clinical psychologist, Mr Eddie Bartnik overseeing the process.

Tarrant suggests everybody write a letter saying exactly what you think of this absurd legislation.  Write expressing your objections to the Mental Health Commission and to your state legislator.

Email: on contactus@mentalhealth.wa.gov.au or

Mail: GPO Box X2299 Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847 Â

Send a copy of your objections to the Mental Health Minister, Health Minister and your local Member of Parliament.

Find their addresses at: www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WAllMembers

Please don't let your citizenship stop you from speaking out against these human rights violations.  This destructive movement against humanity is global and it's a pressing concern of grand proportions.  If we don't speak out now, the health and safety of future generations are in serious jeopardy.

--------------------------------------------
Vaccinating Without Parental Knowledge Soon To Become The Norm Across The World
http://preventdisease.com/news/11/092811_Vaccinating-Without-Parental-Knowledge-Soon-To-Become-The-Norm-Across-The-World.shtml


Health officials in the U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia and around the world are officially crossing into dangerous territory with parents when it comes to vaccinations.  Not only are public health entities habitually and deliberately failing to inform the public of their right to refuse vaccines in both school and work settings, but they are working towards mandatory vaccination protocols which will allow officials to conduct childhood vaccinations without any parental consent at all.

It was just a little over one year ago when the pharmaceutical industry, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control allocated millions of dollars in funding to establish vaccine clinics in public schools, causing a huge uproar from concerned parents.

The RAND Corporation, paid by Sanofi Pasteur, outlined how to turn schools into vaccine clinics, which critics claimed will inevitably poison children with multi-dose vaccines.

These school based health centers (SBHCs) are located in school settings that claim to provide children and adolescents with comprehensive primary, acute, and preventive care for physical and mental health conditions.  The following report Are We 'Making the Grade' With Our Children is a concise overview of school based vaccination centers and their objectives.

SBHCs are becoming a matter of routine in other countries such as Australia, where the focus has been to implement the same HPV vaccination programs.  Queensland Health has so far finalised arrangements with approximately almost 800 schools to offer the HPV vaccine to students.

Naturopathic Doctor and vaccine researcher, Dave Mihalovic stated that public health agencies are pushing the centers in the guise of preventive medicine, when they will effectively promote the opposite. "The centers are providing an entry portal for pharmaceutical giants to access student health records and provide dangerous treatments such as untested drugs and vaccines without the full informed consent of parents."

Consent packets are sent home by the school, completed by a parent/guardian, and then returned to the school.  Vaccines are provided during the school day by nursing staff.  Parents are not required to be present.

The consent forms are a one-time process, meaning parents will not have to submit consent more than once regardless how many vaccines their child receives.  "This leaves the door open for the injection or administration of any drug treatment to the child which the school's health staff deems appropriate, without any informed consent by the parents on the treatment's effects, contraindications or consequences," said Mihalovic.

"It's certainly an incredibly advantageous position for big pharma," said Mihalovic.  The decisions will ultimately be between parents and the respective policy makers of school system, however the responsibility to make the right decision will lie solely with the parents.  "Any parent who would not sound the alarm at a policy that does not inform them of every single injection, drug or treatment to their child is simply not paying attention to the potential consequences," concluded Mihalovic.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry recently came under fire from the public and his opposition for an executive order mandating the HPV vaccine as a requirement for young girls without their informed consent or that of their parents.

One of the most concerning issues relating to Perry's executive order is that HPV has been repeatedly shown not to cause cervical cancer, and that it is the persistant infection, not the virus, that determines the risk.  More than 90% of women initially infected with a particular strain of HPV will not show the same strain four menstrual cycles later making the vaccine useless.  Another astonishing fact, as shown by a CDC study, is that HPV types 16 and 18, the two HPV vaccine-relevant strains, are NOT the prevalent types in American women.  Three published papers on HPV prevalence in the U.S., indicated that types 62, 84 and 52 are the most prevalent.  None of these are targeted in either approved HPV vaccine, and type 52 is an accepted high-risk "carcinogenic" strain of HPV.

SANE Vax, Inc. recently informed the FDA that the Gardasil HPV vaccine currently on the market has been found to be contaminated with residual recombinant HPV DNA.  This hitherto unknown contaminant may have provided a scientific basis for Gardasil-induced autoimmune-based inflammatory diseases in various tissues, including inflammation in the joints and central nervous system.

SANE Vax contracted with an independent lab to test for contamination and found HPV recombinant DNA (rDNA) in 13 vaccine vials.  The Gardasil vials with different lot numbers were from New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Poland, France and three states in the U.S.  100% of the samples tested positive for the presence of the genetically modified HPV DNA.

The state of California recently passed bill AB499, permitting minors as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with vaccines such as Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent.  The worst part is that parents will still be legally and financially responsible for their child even if severe damage results from the secret vaccinations without parental consent.

The overbearing reach of public health officials extends far beyond the United States.  As vaccine examiner noted last year, a 'demonstration project' conducted by PATH International in cooperation with ICMR and the Indian state governments and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was called to an abrupt halt amidst allegations of unethical conduct.

58 various health advocacy groups took it upon themselves to conduct an independent fact finding mission when reports of 4 unexplained deaths and 120 girls suffering from debilitating new illnesses after being vaccinated against the HPV virus.

In Canada, health officials routinely ignore the fact that there are no laws that can force a person to be vaccinated against their will.  Parents are often pressured to vaccinate their young infants with the threat that the child won't be allowed in school -- even though most provinces don't have acts legislating compulsory vaccination.

In the three provinces (Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba) that have legislation for school-entry vaccinations, parents are rarely told that exemptions for reasons of conscience and/or religion exist within these laws to allow their children to opt out of having any shots.

Although there is no specific law in British Columbia that governs vaccination for school entry, the Infant's Act gives health officials a veritable carte blanche to perform medical procedures on children without parental knowledge and consent. The Vaccine Risk Awareness Network (VRAN) has been contacted on several occasions by parents whose children were hauled in by school nurses and vaccinated against their will despite the child's protest that they were not to get any vaccines.

In Burnaby, BC, parents have been infuriated by the lack of parental consent obtained by health authorities.  A Burnaby mom was one of those parents upset that her 13-year-old daughter was vaccinated for HPV without her parental consent.  "She didn't bring home any forms or anything," said Rosemary Reid.  "I had absolutely no idea."

The BC based Fraser Health Authority states they try to get parental consent, and if the girls don't bring the forms back, it's up to a public health nurse to decide if they are mature enough to give informed consent.  "This informed consent thing, I don't think I agree with it.  I think it should still be up to the parents.  You can take some kids into a room and brainwash them," she said.  "They're only 13 and 14." Fraser Health spokesperson Lisa Thibault said kids can overrule parental objection if they're deemed mature enough by a public health nurse, and it's the nurse's responsibility to make that assessment.

At issue, of course, is whether 12-, 13- or 14-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the alternatives.

On a broader level, the vaccine situation involving nursing students, students in teachers' college, dental tech students, health care workers and workers in nursing homes is fairly grim.  These people are often threatened with expulsion and job loss if they refuse to submit to hepatitis B, tuberculosis tests or flu shots.

Health workers who refused the flu shots have been laid-off their nursing home jobs without pay when cases of flu have broken out.  Those who do agree to get the flu shot are required to sign a waiver that absolves the institution, the union and the pharmaceutical company from any liability for damages should health injury or disabilities occur from vaccine reactions.

In the U.K, nurses regularly disregard the wishes of parents relating to the health and welfare of their children.  U.K department of health does not deny that parental consent is desirable but not essential.  Family rights campaigners called for a change in the law one year ago after it was revealed that girls as young as 12 can be given the cervical cancer vaccine without their parents' consent.  Doctors and nurses have been told they are under no legal obligation to seek the permission of the parent or guardian.

Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, said: ‘Giving the vaccination to girls without the consent of their parents is unethical and a recipe for disaster.  "It is sending out the message that girls under 16 have a right to a private sex life and is treating parents with contempt."

U.K Doctors have reported that girls aged just 12 and 13 have suffered paralysis, convulsions and sight problems after being given the HPV vaccine.

Family doctors in the U.K have even been accused of administering the MMR jab by stealth to children coming into their surgeries to receive other vaccinations.  At least 50 horrified parents have complained that their GPs have 'mistakenly' given their children the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, it has emerged.

Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical giants continue to embark on several qualitative and quantitative research projects to show biased results on how to assess the competency of consent from children for vaccinations.  BMC Public Health published a study in 2009 which claimed to demonstrate that health providers have a duty of care to girls for whom no parental consent for HPV vaccination has been given, and in the UK, this includes conducting, and acting upon, an assessment of the maturity and competence of an adolescent minor.

The British Journal of Cancer published a clinical study on HPV vaccination among ethnic minorities in the UK: knowledge, acceptability and attitudes, to assess what they refer to as unique opportunities for the "primary prevention" of cervical cancer.  The background statement alone was erroneous and false before the study was even initiated.  Vaccination has never been proven on any scientific grounds to be a primary prevention tool for cervical cancer.

Regardless, the quantitative study assessed ethnic differences in knowledge and acceptability of HPV vaccination in the UK to attempt to validate informed consent and refusal of HPV vaccination in ethnic communities.

The study further demonstrates how desperate vaccine manufacturers have become to obtain public acceptance for bypassing informed consent.  The need to initiate a study to derive data on the differentiation between ethnicity, religion and other factors to define acceptability of informed consent is not only immoral, but also shows a complete disregard for what consent represents as a human right.

The right to "informed consent" when considering any medical procedure or drug, is a fundamental human right and a key medical ethic that governs medical law in almost every country in the world. This ethic has grown from the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It forbids human experimentation and the use of force or intimidation in medical procedures.

The institutions that are using these strong-arm tactics are in violation of fundamental medical ethics and must be challenged forcefully if we are to preserve what remains of health freedom for humanity. The unions who have conspired with the various institutions to enforce vaccination must also be called to task for failing to protect children and workers' rights from medical coercion and battery.

At the pinnacle of defending our health freedoms, we need to muster strength in numbers as the majority to secure amendments that will guarantee freedom of choice in health, and protection from enforced medication at all costs.

Sources:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
canada.com
dailymail.co.uk
sanevax.org
alive.com
nature.com
huffingtonpost.com