Vaccine & Monsanto Lies ! Dec 1/13
Cdsapi's Added Comment: As we become bombarded with ever more of the constant propaganda "to VACCINATE, VACCINATE, VACCINATE" to protect the "HERD IMMUNITY", with punitive treats hanging over our heads for refusal, here are a few facts that you might want to consider and research.
We live in an era of "official lies" – and protecting ourselves with the FACTS is absolutely essential. Pay special attention to “definitions”, and also the research on "the adjuvants".
I am attaching once again the article of a contemporary of Dr. Jenner - which clearly shows how the whole vaccine program, way back then, was founded on lies, cover-ups and political chicanery. firstname.lastname@example.org
The Current Vaccine Reality: Disinformed Consent
We are living in the age of disinformed consent. Parents assume their doctors and their public health authorities are providing them with all relevant vaccine information, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Obviously, if vaccines can kill and cause serious and debilitating lifelong damage – which they can, and do – the vaccine administrator must provide that information to the client, in unambiguous fashion, regardless of the estimated size of the risk. It’s an ethical mandate that must be fulfilled, but it never is. There is a fundamental reason: medical schools don’t teach the history and nature of vaccine damage and death; nor do nursing and pharmacy schools. Yet doctors, nurses, and, these days, pharmacists, are the very ones who administer vaccines, and upon whom we rely for full information. Somewhere there is made a conscious decision to exclude the reality of serious vaccine damage from the curricula.
Most of the many doctors who have witnessed vaccine damage – thankfully, not all – lack the professional integrity to follow up with curiosity, let alone research. This is the most troubling of the array of vaccine contradictions; trained to observe, they nevertheless appear blind to even the possibility of causal relation.
There is a reason the CDC didn’t announce to the American public in 1999 the direct correlation between the amount of mercury in vaccines and the incidence of speech and learning disorders and autism it found in its own in-house study: a conscious, intolerable decision. 
There’s a reason Dr. Viera Scheibner’s cotwatch studies, which decades ago found a compelling link between vaccinations given to infants and the incidence of cot death – SIDS – is never mentioned by public health officials: a conscious decision. 
There is a reason the CDC never mentions that it was the radical changes they made to the definition and diagnosis of polio, right after the vaccine was introduced, that eliminated most cases of the disease, not the vaccine: a conscious decision to manipulate the public in their vaccine decisions.
Nor do they mention that once the vaccine was licensed, the CDC pulled all remaining diagnoses close to the vest, disallowing for automatic inclusion in annual polio statistics cases reported by private medical practices or local public health departments, and declaring that only they, the CDC, after ostensible thorough review and lab analysis, could officially validate a case. 
There is a reason that, concomitant with the diagnostic and labeling changes made, a radical change was made as well to the definition of a polio epidemic, from 20 cases in 100,000 to 35, potentially cutting almost in half the likelihood that any subsequent outbreaks would be so labeled – a change that seems totally haphazard, except for the effect of painting polio as somehow and suddenly less severe, or less contagious, or more contained: a conscious decision, to boost the illusion of vaccine effectiveness. 
There’s a reason the mainstream media in general will give no meaningful column space to truthful information about vaccine pitfalls and dangers: the conscious decision of the publishers.
There is a reason the vaccine industry does not discuss the fact that for years adjuvants like those used in most vaccines have been injected into lab animals to trigger rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases: a conscious decision to keep the public ignorant of the ethical dilemma of then recommending their use for injection into newborns, infants, and toddlers, as a macabre tradeoff for acute, temporary diseases. This same adjuvantal effect in humans has been established by immunologists, as well. [4, 5]
There is a reason that every doctor or scientist who has ever spoken out publicly against vaccines has been branded a quack, regardless of their unblemished reputation up to that point: a conscious campaign to maintain the myth of vaccine safety, effectiveness and necessity.
There is a reason the AAP over the last three decades has been sliding down the hellhole of castigation of parents who refuse vaccines, initially espousing acceptance, to occasionally endorsing statements labeling such parents as irresponsible and a threat to the vaccinating masses; a reason they provide vaccine refusal documentation for parent’s signature that speaks not a whit to the potentially catastrophic consequences of vaccinating, despite, again, being well aware of the record: a conscious decision.
There’s a reason Dr. Paul Offit personally reviewed and approved for publication on the website of The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia an article on the value of the chicken pox vaccine that states the shot is perfectly safe, despite the post-marketing reports of catastrophic reactions on the vaccine insert, including anaphylactic shock, encephalitis and Guillain-Barre, and the availability of the VAERS record: a conscious decision. [6-8]
There is a reason that nowhere in the mainstream have we seen mentioned the fact that when the team of doctors at the Royal Free Hospital treated the twelve Lancet kids for their bowel inflammations, their symptoms of autism were greatly alleviated – a dynamic and heartening bit of information that should have been trumpeted in headlines globally: a conscious decision, to support the claim that there is no connection between the novel bowel syndrome described by the team – now corroborated by pediatric gastroenterologist Dr. Arthur Krigsman – and autism. [9, 10]
There is a reason the vaccine industry will not respond to the disclosure that among the 50,000 unvaccinated clients of Homefirst Health Clinic in Chicago, the staff is aware of only a few cases of autism, and virtually no asthma, allergies or diabetes – poignant statistics all, with obvious, staggering implications. In a general population of the same size we’d expect to see 250 or 300 cases of autism or more, and thousands of incidents of the other mentioned autoimmune disorders. 
Likewise, there is a reason CDC doctors appear before a Congressional committee on autism ostensibly so ill-prepared to answer direct questions as to be farcical, and in such repeated fashion over the years that, in days of aulde, they’d have been booted out for contempt and tarred and feathered by the thousands of parents who have watched helplessly as their kids took their obvious first steps down the road of developmental regression to ultimate diagnosis of autism, immediately following a round of vaccinations: an obvious, conscious directive to remain obtuse. 
And there’s a reason the CDC will never respond to pleas to compare the health of the fully vaccinated against the never vaccinated; that they will claim it unethical to conduct such a study as double-blind, because it will deny the protection of the vaccine to the control group, when the rationale is circular, since it’s the very safety and effectiveness of vaccines at question, and when all that is really necessary is to analyze the available data on the million or more Americans who are not vaccinated at all, out of personal choice: a conscious decision to avoid ferreting out and revealing the truth.
The behavior of the vaccine industry – government, manufacturers, much of the medical establishment, and the mainstream media, devoid of investigative journalism when it comes to vaccines – is reprehensible.
Their calling cards are statistical manipulation, deception and fear. Well aware of the catastrophic damage done by vaccines, they steadfastly deny the reality and suppress the information, while knowing it is essential to every parent’s vaccine decisions.
Conscious denial of critical information is disinformation.
About the author: Shawn Siegel has enough common sense to recognize a con game when he sees one, thus was compelled to begin researching after discovering that immediately following the release of the polio vaccine the CDC radically changed the definition of the disease. He now hosts a weekly radio/internet show, The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, on the Logos Radio Network.
- David Kirby, Evidence of Harm, 2005, pp 127 – 131.
- http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html , do the following: Click on Request Form; group results by Event Category; under vaccine products, select Varcel; at number 5, select All Locations; and click Send.
- The first ten minutes of the following interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdwk6AdaD4w
- Start at 14:00 into the interview with Dr. Mayer Eisenstein: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfaISU0AmZ8
- Video of the first segment of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on autism, November 29,2012: http://thestir.cafemom.com/toddler/147700
"The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." -
(Thomas Huxley, 1825-1895)
“I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots.” - Albert Einstein
dsapi’s Added Comment: Most members of the public regard “publications in professional journals” as reliable resources for accurate scientific information.
The article below wields a death blow to that assumption. These corrupt research and publishing practices are not new, but the degree to which they now dominate the release of scientific information attacks the very foundation of Science – it is not only unprecedented, but devastating to the structure of our society and the decisions that are being made based on falsified science reports – most often to the detriment of the population, while satisfying the vested interests of Corporations and the Wall Street financial casino game. We are living in an era of “pseudoscience” and “science corruption” that is unequalled in history.
It is clear that “Sconce” has become - not what evolves from authentic research - but what Corporate vested interests demand it to be - “Science by Declaration” – devoid of substantiating research data – lies and deception elevated to the throne of “defacto Fact”..
Are we rapidly descending into an academic dungeon in which honest researchers don’t have a hope in hell of surviving either academically or professionally? Can a functional society survive when honesty and integrity in science are vanquished, punished and buried?
It is obvious that Monsanto’s genetically engineered foods will remain ‘”officially declared safe” as long as Monsanto can “buy control” over the scientific research and what is permitted to be published.
It also does not say much about our society when it produces from within its ranks so many people who are prepared to sell their souls, to lie and pervert –to willingly serve the evil agendas of evil corporations like Monsanto.
It will change when WE, the public reject this perverted “Science by Declaration” = when we stop swallowing the falsehoods, and start openly supporting and giving credibility to the independent researchers who have no vested interest other than the pursuit of truth.
“He who pays the Piper, calls the tune”. Monopoly corporations can no longer be permitted “to call the scientific tune”!
Monsanto Targets the Heart of Science: The Goodman Affair
Posted on: Friday, November 29th 2013
Written By: by Claire Robinson and Jonathan Latham, PhD
Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has jested that instead of scientific peer review, its rival The Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. On another occasion, Smith was challenged to publish an issue of the BMJ exclusively comprising papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. He replied, "How do you know I haven't already done it?"
As Smith's stories show, journal editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing.
The strategy, often with the willing cooperation of publishers, is effective and sometimes blatant. In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was simply a stuffed dummy.
Fast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. Both the herbicide (Roundup) and the GM maize are Monsanto products. Corinne Lepage, France's former environment minister, called the study "a bomb".
Subsequently, an orchestrated campaign was launched to discredit the study in the media and persuade the journal to retract it. Many of those who wrote letters to FCT (which is published by Elsevier) had conflicts of interest with the GM industry and its lobby groups, though these were not publicly disclosed.
The journal did not retract the study. But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new "Associate Editor for biotechnology", Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the "Séralini affair".
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company's GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).
Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?
To equate one journal with "science" may seem like an exaggeration. But peer-reviewed publication, in the minds of most scientists, is science. Once a paper is published in an academic journal it enters the canon and stands with the discovery of plate tectonics or the structure of DNA. All other research, no matter how groundbreaking or true, is irrelevant. As a scientist once scathingly said of the "commercially confidential" industry safety data that underpin approvals of chemicals and GM foods, "If it isn't published, it doesn't exist."
photo: Richard E Goodman, University of Nebraska
Goodman's ILSI links
The industry affiliations of FCT's new gatekeeper for biotechnology are not restricted to having worked directly for Monsanto. Goodman has an active and ongoing involvement with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI is funded by the multinational GM and agrochemical companies, including Monsanto. It develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.
ILSI describes itself as a public interest non-profit but its infiltration of regulatory agencies and influence on risk assessment policy has become highly controversial in North America and Europe. In 2005 US-based non-profits and trade unions wrote to the World Health Organization (WHO) protesting against ILSI's influence on international health standards protecting food and water supplies. As a result, the WHO barred ILSI from taking part in WHO activities setting safety standards, because of its funding sources. And in Europe in 2012, Diana Banati, then head of the management board at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), had to resign over her undisclosed long-standing involvement with ILSI (Robinson et al. 2013).