Tag Archive | pharmaceutical industry

Toddler Permanently Brain Damaged by a Mystery Combination Vaccination That Her Parent’s Did Not Consent To*

Toddler Permanently Brain Damaged by a Mystery Combination Vaccination That Her Parent’s Did Not Consent To*

Jodie Marchant (centre) with her parents. Jodie became permanently brain-damaged after receiving mystery vaccine-combination without informed consent.

By Christina England

On May 17, 1993, Mr. and Mrs. Marchant took their daughter, Jodie, to the doctor for her 14-month check-up. Jodie was fit and healthy and meeting all her milestones, so her parents agreed for her to be vaccinated with the MMR vaccination, a decision that will haunt them forever. Mr. Marchant explained to us what happened the moment that Jodie received her vaccination:

“Jodie let out a high-pitched scream and appeared to be in a state of shock. Her eyes became vacant as if in a trance and she appeared to lose interest in eating and refused all food and we had to resort to giving her milkshakes. Jodie did not recognize anyone for a long time. Note, in 1997, her then-GP was able to confirm that Jodie was okay prior to vaccination and this confirms the records were available when the GP INSPECTED THEM.

Jodie stopped movement and would sit on the sofa rocking with eyes rolling and stopped talking.”

It appears that instead of receiving the MMR vaccine, as agreed, Jodie received a mystery vaccination, because according to her medical records, she received a combination of the following vaccinations: diphtheria/tetanus (DT), polio, pertussis, and the MMR 11.

I say this because it states very clearly on her vaccination card that these were the vaccinations that were given on the day that Jodie was vaccinated.  However, despite the fact that all of these vaccinations were recorded, her parents have stated that Jodie only received one shot at the time she was vaccinated.

There was also a mention of the Hib vaccination being given, a vaccine against Haemophilus influenza type B.

Furthermore, her parents have stated, that when they entered the doctor’s surgery, they were shocked to discover that the vaccination had been prepared by their doctor in advance.

CHILD HEALTH RECORD — VACC. a IMM. RESULTS

 

Doctors Found Guilty of Mixing Several Vaccines Together in One Syringe

If what her parents are saying is true and Jodie did only receive one shot on the day she was vaccinated, then we need to consider whether or not Jodie’s doctor decided to mix several vaccinations into one syringe without her parents’ knowledge or consent.

1-year-old Jodie Marchant

.

Whilst the majority of us would consider this to be not only unethical but also highly unlikely, remarkably, it is a possibility because, in 2013, the Globe and Mail reported that a paediatrician from Halifax was found guilty of doing the unthinkable.

They reported that:

Dr. William Vitale had a habit of mixing vaccines into a single syringe rather than administering them separately, and as many as 500 children will have to be re-vaccinated.

For example, at a year old, babies receive a four-in-one vaccine – measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella – along with two other vaccines to protect against meningococcal disease and pneumococcal disease. Dr. Vitale told investigators at the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons that he mixed the three shots in one syringe to reduce the number of needles children would get.”

What is even more shocking is that this doctor is not alone in his actions. In 2016, the Guardian reported on an equally disturbing story:

“Regulators have suspended the license of a doctor in Chicago who allegedly gave patients modified vaccinations containing cat saliva and vodka.”

They stated:

“After hearing complaints from health care providers that children were getting unapproved oral versions of childhood shots from Dr. Ming Te Lin, investigators visited Lin’s practice.

They found a cluttered, unsterile office and ‘a box filled with vials and tubes that [Lin] was using to make his own vaccinations.’”

They continued:

“Lin told investigators he had been preparing alternative vaccinations for children for more than a decade, according to the order.

Despite his unapproved methods, Lin is accused of signing state forms certifying he had given paediatric patients their conventional shots. Charts showed the patients who received unapproved oral vaccines included a seven-day-old infant.”

In fact, reports such as these are not as rare as we might imagine. During a now-censored YouTube video, the developer of Merck’s vaccine program, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, was filmed openly admitting that whilst working for Merck, the polio vaccines had been deliberately contaminated with SV40, a cancer-causing monkey virus from 1953-1963.

Although the original clip was censored, other copies are still in existence.

See: Dr. Maurice Hilleman, developer of Merck’s vaccine program, explains why Merck’s vaccines have spread AIDS & other plagues worldwide

Do We Actually Know What Our Doctors Are Vaccinating Us With?

In 2015, VacTruth reported on the story of Alisa Neathery, a mother who took her six-month-old unvaccinated baby, Bently, to the doctor to be examined for the first time. However, instead of treating Alisa with respect, the medical personnel emotionally blackmailed her into having her baby vaccinated with a lethal combination of 13 vaccines.

Alisa explained that:

“Prior to the shots being given, when the doctor was discussing the pros of getting vaccinated with me, he explained how he was from a village in Africa. That we were lucky in America to have the opportunity to receive vaccines because where he was from, the mothers had to have like 11 kids each since most would die off from disease because they were not as fortunate to receive vaccines like we are here in America. He really pushed them on me hard. He spent a lot of time convincing me to give Bently the vaccines, but when it was done, we never saw the doctor again.”

The report stated that:

Bently’s doctor decided to vaccinate this previously unvaccinated baby with a total of 13 vaccinations in one day, in what can only be described as a bid to catch up.

The vaccinations included:

  • Two doses of the DTaP – diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine
  • Hib – Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine
  • IPV- inactivated polio vaccine
  • Pneumococcal vaccine
  • Three doses of oral rotavirus vaccine

VacTruth reported that:

“Bently was also given three other vaccinations, which appear to be unidentified on his vaccination card, plus the hepatitis B vaccine and oral polio vaccine.

Little Bently died in his mother’s arms just five days later.”

For further information on this story, read: Six-Month-Old Baby Dies Just Five Days After Receiving 13 Vaccines.

Jodie’s Parents Had Only Consented to the MMR Vaccine

Jodie is now 25 years of age; she has no language, is doubly incontinent, still drinks from a bottle and suffers from a variety of disabilities similar to autism. Her parents have received no apologies, no compensation and no help for their disabled daughter. They believe that their case hinges on the following facts:

  1. They did not give their consent for her to receive any vaccine other than the MMR.
  2. They did not have sufficient information on this vaccination to make an informed choice on whether or not they wanted their daughter vaccinated with anything other than the MMR, which, according to the Montgomery Ruling, they must receive in full.
  3. By vaccinating Jodie with multiple vaccinations without her parents’ consent or knowledge, her doctor committed an offense which was a breach of both Jodie’s and her parents’ human rights.

I have met this family and have received their paperwork and I found the reports to be full of inconsistencies.

For example, a report referenced as JGB01/JGB01/213223, dated May 6, 2016, stated:

As you can see, each one of these statements states something entirely different and these inconsistencies continued throughout the paperwork.

 

Although the report did ascertain that Jodie suffered from autism, the report then stated she was not eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit, because after reading the medical evidence, it was not accepted that Jodie had been damaged by the vaccination. However, Mr. Marchant believes that this is not the case and his views were reiterated by Dr. Warner. from Southampton, who stated:

Letter from Professor J Warner, Southampton

 

Jodie is one of the most disabled adults I have met and this family has been left penniless and alone to cope. This case is even more tragic when you see the photos and reports of Jodie before she was vaccinated. Jodie was a healthy normal little girl who before vaccination was meeting all of her milestones.

In fact, her general practitioner, Dr. Jennifer Greenland, stated this in a letter addressed to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his team. The letter stated:

“Her diagnosis of autism was confirmed in May 1996 after a full assessment.”

Her words were repeated by Dr. Walker-Smith’s return letter, which stated:

“…then she stopped eating, started screaming and lost what words she had.”

Several Reports Stated that Jodie is Vaccine-Injured

In a draft report, titled Appendix A, Dr. Peter Fletcher, MB BS MSc Ph.D. FFPM, wrote the following statement:

Throughout his report, he makes it clear that, in his professional medical opinion, Jodie’s injuries were caused by the vaccinations that she had received.

Dr. Peter Fletcher, MB BS MSc Ph.D. FFPM wrote: “Jodie’s serious handicaps are causally related to vaccination.”

He continued his report by stating that in 2002, he was appointed as the Expert Medical Witness, by a firm of solicitors in an MMR litigation, and explained that the case involved approximately 1,200 vaccine-damaged children. However, the case was terminated by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) on the grounds that legal success for the claimants was unlikely.

Since then, he has witnessed literally hundreds of more cases and has been able to establish a clear clinical picture of seriously handicapped children. He explained that the list of injuries that he had witnessed was endless and he presented the list in full:

Provided by Dr. Peter Fletcher, MB BS MSc Ph.D. FFPM.

As you can see, this list is extremely extensive. Furthermore, Dr. Fletcher continued his report by stating that:

Statement by Dr. Peter Fletcher, MB BS MSc Ph.D. FFPM.

With this information in mind, it is difficult to understand why Jodie’s case was dismissed. Especially when you consider the fact that Jodie suffers nearly every one of the conditions that were listed.

Statement by Dr. Peter Fletcher, MB BS MSc Ph.D. FFPM.

In his summary, Dr. Fletcher stated:

“Evidence fully supports Jodie’s normal medical history prior to this administration of vaccines.”

What makes the whole situation even worse is the fact that Dr. Fletcher was not the only professional to submit a report stating that Jodie was vaccine-damaged. However, despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit (VDPU) and the fact that no consent was given for Jodie to receive multiple vaccinations, this family has been left alone to struggle.

Maybe the reason for this can be found in a letter written by the senior case manager for the Legal Services Commission, Mr. John Baker.

Mr. Baker wrote:

Written by Mr. Baker.

(Note: MPA is the abbreviation for Multi-People Action.)

To which, Mr. Miller replied with the following statement, in an email to Mr. Baker:

Written by Mr. Miller.

This is probably the single most damning statement written by any of these professionals because he went on to state the following information in a letter to Mr. Baker:

“Upon first considering our comprehensive letter of instruction, Dr. Geier confirmed that it may prove impossible to consider the combined effects of the alleged mixture of vaccines. There would be no documented study of how such a combination would react within a human body as it has never been accepted that it is appropriate to mix such vaccines together, such vaccines are already mixed by their manufacturers in a manner which is considered to be appropriate and safe for provision at the time. It is, therefore, clear that the original instruction of Dr. Geier has been unfulfilled as it seemed impossible to obtain appropriate evidence as to how such vaccines would have reacted together and reacted upon Jodie Marchant’s body.”

This was followed by another letter which stated:

Written by Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller is absolutely spot-on with his account of this case because no consent was ever given for Jodie to receive a single syringe containing a mixture of several vaccines. Mr. Marchant stated:

“The lack of consent should have been the obvious route to take. If it had been taken by our Legal Reps our case would have finished years ago. To ignore our consent refusal is criminal and an indication of the limits doctors will go to obtain their bonuses.”

It is for these reasons that Mr. Marchant has decided to represent his daughter himself, with or without legal representation. He has told Health Impact News that he believes that it is about time that the doctor who vaccinated his daughter is held accountable for her actions.

Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm

eBook – Available for immediate download

 

Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm. The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.

Dr. Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.

Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden’s research, we became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life’s work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone. This book summarizes his teaching and is a must-read for everyone who wants to learn the “other-side” of the vaccine debate that the mainstream media routinely censors.

Source*

Related Topics:

WHO Admitted Smallpox Vaccine Caused AIDS after Requesting It*

13 Year-Old Boy Permanently Disabled from Chicken Pox Vaccine Wins his Case in Vaccine Court*

Why You Should NEVER Sign ‘Refusal to Vaccinate’ Document*

Vaccine Induced Chronic Fatigue Syndrome*

Triplets Regress into Autism Following Flu Vaccine*

Polio Vaccine Refusal Cases among Well-educated People Baffle Officials in Pakistan*

Norwegian Study Links Flu Vaccine to Narcolepsy Risk*

Varicella Occurring From Chickenpox Vaccination*

H.R. 1313 Bill Would Require Medical Procedures Like Vaccines as Requirement for Employment*

DTP Vaccine Associated With 212% Increased Infant Mortality Risk*

Lab Report Analysis Found Round Up in MMR Vaccine*

Australian Prime Minister and Wife Tied to Pharma, Pushing Mandatory Vaccination*

How to Safely Detox Mercury and Heavy Metals to Increase Energy*

How to Safely Detox Mercury and Heavy Metals to Increase Energy*

Within the last 30 years, heavy metal poisoning has been increasing significantly. One of the major causes of this is the increase of adding heavy metals to commercial products. Some of these commercial products are agrichemicals (i.e., pesticide, herbicide). These toxic chemicals are some of the major causes of heavy metal contamination in soil, crops, and other food sources throughout the world. Another major causes of heavy metal toxicity is dental amalgams (silver fillings).

What are Heavy Metals?

In general, heavy metals are elements that have metallic properties and are harmful to the body, even in small quantities. The scientific definition of heavy metal is a metal with a density level greater than 5 g/cm3. Examples of heavy metals are mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), thallium (Tl), and lead (Pb).

Another metal that you should be wary of is aluminum, because it is one of the major causes of metal toxicity. In its pure form, this metal is very toxic to your body. Aluminum is not considered a heavy metal, but it does have heavy metal-like properties.

How Heavy Metals Harm Your Body and Symptoms of Heavy Metal Toxicity

Most heavy metals harm your body by destroying certain cells and weakening your body’s metabolism and neurotransmission process. This could lead to neurodegenerative diseases (i.e., Alzheimer’s) and other chronic health problems.

Heavy metals tend to bio-accumulate in the body and therefore the body has a hard time breaking them down into safe substances. Because of this, the amount of heavy metals in the body can increase to dangerous levels in a short amount of time.

Symptoms of heavy metal toxicity can range greatly. Some of the common symptoms are low energy, anxiety, depression, headaches, chronic pain, constipation, dizziness, and memory problems. Heavy metal toxicity is often not diagnose properly, because most people and doctors are not trained to detect symptoms of heavy metal poisoning.

How to Safely Detox Mercury and Heavy Metals

It is wise to detox harmful heavy metals on a regular basis, especially mercury because it is one of the most toxic neurotoxins on Earth. When detoxing heavy metals, it is best to do it in cycles. Doing this allows your body enough time to extract heavy metals that have bio-accumulated in your fatty tissues and organs, and release them into your bloodstream for excretion. Furthermore, it helps prevent major side effects due to having too much heavy metals in your bloodstream.

Before detoxing heavy metals, you should get a test done for heavy metal poisoning. One of the best tests available to the public is the Metals Hair Test or Hair Elements Test.

Another thing you should do before you start detoxing heavy metals from your body is to go on a proper supplementation program, so that you can supply your body with essential vitamins and minerals, such as magnesium, zinc, calcium, vitamin (B, C, and E), and essential fatty acids, and other essential nutrients. Without these nutrients, your body has a harder time detoxing heavy metals. Also, eat lots of organic plant foods.

Each heavy metal behaves differently in the body, so the method to remove it will vary. For example, when detoxing mercury, it is best to remove all dental amalgams (silver fillings) from your teeth before going on a mercury detox program. You should learn how to detox mercury for the reason that it is the most toxic heavy metal and it is one of the common causes of heavy metal poisoning.

Removing dental amalgams should be undertaken with the care from a medical professional in order to ensure that the process is done safely. Most dentists do not know how to do this, so you will need to find a dentist in your area who knows how to safely remove dental amalgams. A great website to search for dentists who know how to do this is IAOMT.org. If you want to learn more about mercury poisoning, visit MercuryPoisoned.com.

The Dangers of Dental Amalgam

If you want to increase your success rate of detoxing heavy metals and preventing heavy metal poisoning, you need to education yourself with the right knowledge. I recommend reading the book Amalgam Illness, Diagnosis and Treatment by Andrew Hall Cutler. This book is more concentrated on mercury poisoning, but it also has some great information about other heavy metals.

Another thing you may want to do to prevent heavy metal poisoning is to avoid vaccine shots. Many vaccines contain thimerosal, a mercury-based derivatives. The image below will show you evidence of this.

For ten tips to reduce your risk of heavy metal poisoning, read this informative article titled Ten Heavy Metal Toxicity Prevention Tips.

The Health Benefits of Detoxing Heavy Metals

After you detox heavy metals from your body, you should notice:

  • An increase in energy
  • An improvement in your thinking skills and memory
  • An improvement in your concentration
  • A decrease in body weight
  • Less muscle and joint pain
  • Less migraines and headaches
  • Less sleeping problems and mood swings
  • Less psychological problems
  • Better coordination skills
  • Best of all, you will feel ALIVE again!

Here are some great videos to help you learn more about mercury poisoning and amalgam fillings.

Safe Amalgam Removal by Dr Sarkissian

Safe Removal of Mercury Amalgam Fillings

Andrew Cutler, PhD: Diagnosis and Treatment of Amalgam Illness

 

Source*

Related Topics:

E.U. Bans Amalgam Fillings for Children and Pregnant or Nursing Women*

Social Engineering and an Inconvenient Tooth

Eight Ways to Safely Take Charge of Your Health While Avoiding Toxic Vaccines*

Pesticide Residues Detected in Almost all European Foods*

More People Suffer from Cardiotoxicity and Heart Damage after Chemotherapy*

How to Tune Your Endocrine System*

 

Cherokee Nation Sues Drug Companies and Retailers for Illegal Prescribed Opioids in the Cherokee Nation*

Cherokee Nation Sues Drug Companies and Retailers for Illegal Prescribed Opioids in the Cherokee Nation*

Today, the Cherokee Nation filed a lawsuit against McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen, CVS Health, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., charging the companies with failing to prevent the flow of illegally prescribed opioids to men, women and children in the Cherokee Nation.

This lawsuit is the first of its kind filed in the United States, as it seeks to hold distributors and retailers responsible for perpetuating the opioid crisis in the 14 counties in northeast Oklahoma that comprise the Cherokee Nation. Experts expect other jurisdictions to file similar claims as communities grapple with the financial and social burdens of the opioid epidemic.

“Tribal nations have survived disease, removal from our homelands, termination and other adversities, and still we prospered. However, I fear the opioid epidemic is emerging as the next great challenge of our modern era,” said Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Bill John Baker.

“As we fight this epidemic in our hospitals, our schools and our Cherokee homes, we will also use our legal system to make sure the companies, who put profits over people while our society is crippled by this epidemic, are held responsible for their actions.”

Pharmacies and opioid distributers, under federal law, have a responsibility to alert regulators of suspicious orders and illegitimate prescriptions. Suspicious activities would include: when a distributor fills a single pharmacy’s orders that are suddenly thousands of pills above the average or are disproportionate to the size of the area’s population; patterns of employee theft; and pharmacy customers seeking opioids for nonmedical purposes. When suspicious orders are filled, highly dangerous controlled substances are diverted into the hands of unauthorized users and the illegal black market, fueling the opioid epidemic.

According to the DEA, over 2.75 billion milligrams of opioids were distributed in Oklahoma in 2015. An estimated 845 million milligrams were distributed in the 14 counties of the Cherokee Nation. That averages out to between 360 and 720 pills per year for every prescription opioid user in the Cherokee Nation. Based on CDC reports, deaths from opioid-related overdoses more than doubled within the Cherokee Nation between 2003 and 2014. For adults within the Cherokee Nation, overdose deaths now outnumber deaths due to car accidents.

“These companies must be held accountable for their gross negligence, which has fueled the opioid epidemic. We deserve better,” said Cherokee Nation Attorney General Todd Hembree.

“They enabled prescription opioids to fall into illicit distribution channels, failed to alert regulators of extreme volume, and incentivized sales of these drugs with financial bonuses. We will not stand by while children are born addicted to opioids and our citizens die.

The Cherokee Nation is represented by special counsel Richard Fields of Fields PLLC and Boies Schiller Flexner partners Steve Zack and William Ohlemeyer.

“The defendants will need to answer for turning a blind eye to the grave harm they are causing individuals, their families and communities, which are left to pick up the pieces,” said Fields.

“We look forward to presenting this evidence to the Cherokee tribal court so that the citizens most harmed by the opioid epidemic can get the justice they deserve,” said Ohlemeyer.

The full complaint, which was filed in Cherokee Nation tribal court, can be found here: http://bit.ly/2pVQ4cq

Source*

Related Topics:

DEA Delays Ban on Kratom Amid Popular Protest Government Pushback*

Allah’s Medicine Chest: Kratom (Mitragyna Speciosa)

Banning Kratom: Dozens of Congressmen Speak Out against Tyranny on Health*

Pharma Execs Arrested in Conspiracy to Create Opioid Addicts for Profit*

Pesticide Residues Detected in Almost all European Foods*

Pesticide Residues Detected in Almost all European Foods*

By Marine Jobert

More than 97% of European food products contain pesticide residues, according to analyses carried out by the E.U.’s national authorities. EURACTIV’s partner Journal de l’Environnement reports.

The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) annual compilation of results from studies across the E.U. on the presence of pesticides in food products held no surprises. Of the 84,341 samples of produce from conventional agriculture analysed, 97.2% contained traces of one or more of 774 pesticides.

Very limited values

53.3% of the samples tested in 2015 were “free of quantifiable residues” – which does not mean they were pesticide-free – while 43.9% contained residues “not exceeding legal limits”. Meanwhile, 99.3% of organic food was free from residues or within legal limits.

To meet E.U. standards, the residues of any pesticide present in a product must not exceed two times the legal limit. But these values are highly contested, particularly for endocrine disruptors, which can be active at very low concentrations.

Bananas, the multi-residue champions

In 2015, the analysts’ shopping basket included bananas, aubergines, broccoli, virgin olive oil, orange juice, peas, peppers, raisins, wheat, butter and eggs. While some samples of each product were found to contain residues of multiple pesticides, the results for bananas (58.4%) and raisins (58.3%) were the most striking, followed by peppers (24.4%).

Unauthorised pesticides

Three quarters of the sample batch came from E.U. countries (plus Norway and Iceland), with the other quarter coming from unspecified third countries. These imports pose the greatest risk to consumers, with 5.6% found to contain pesticide residues above the E.U. limits. Among E.U.-sourced produce, 1.7% of samples were over the legal limits. One third of all the pesticides detected are illegal in the European Union.

Source*

Related Topics:

As Expected EU to Approve GM Corn

European Food Authority Concludes that “Glyphosate is Safe”

Cloned Cattle Entering the E.U.*

U.K. Gov’t Has Colluded with Monsanto by Treating Wales as a Monsanto Toxic Dump*

Scrubbed from Textbooks — The U.S. Government’s National Experiment in Extermination*

Scrubbed from Textbooks — The U.S. Government’s National Experiment in Extermination*

By Claire Bernish 

In desperation to make effective the floundering Prohibition on alcohol, the U.S. government — unable to convince the public consumption of booze constituted a moral transgression — intentionally poisoned the supply in a last-ditch attempt to enforce State-mandated sobriety.

This “chemist’s war of Prohibition” became, as outspoken opponent and New York City chief medical examiner in the 1920s, Charles Norris, hauntingly described, “our national experiment in extermination.”

Rather than keep people away from bathtub gin and the constant flow of liquor in hidden speakeasies — the State-sanctioned toxic experiment killed thousands of people who simply wanted to imbibe.

Alcohol poisoning in the time of Prohibition had become commonplace — anyone with a grasp on forced taboos will tell you government control of vice furiously fuels black markets — as home distillers, including those keen to profit unethically, concocted batches of booze made with questionable ingredients.

Hospitals accustomed to treating illnesses caused by bad batches of homemade alcohol — bootleg supplies not infrequently were tainted with metals and other contaminants — were not prepared for a spate of deaths in New York City over the Christmas holidays in 1926. This wasn’t, they realized, a typical case of toxic back-alley booze — in a mere two days, 23 people lost their lives.

People began dropping like flies, in fact, and a list of similar incidents quickly lengthened.

Thirty-three people perished in just three days in Manhattan in 1928 from tainted hooch believed to be wood alcohol — and by that time, the public felt federal intervention might be necessary. However, as TIME reported shortly afterward,

“Everyone expected the intervention and assistance of Federal forces, lately so loudly active in Manhattan. But no one expected what actually happened. The Federals announced that the government could do absolutely nothing. The statement of the Federal Grand Jury read as follows: ‘Inasmuch as wood alcohol is not a beverage, but a recognized poison (analogous to prussic acid or iodine) and its use and sale are not regulated by any of the Federal laws, we respectfully report that in those particular instances the subject matter is for the consideration of the State authorities rather than the Federal authorities. The State laws regulate the sale of poisons and provide for punishment for their improper use and sale.’”

By the time of the repeal of Prohibition in the December 5, 1933, ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, estimates surmise no less than 10,000 had perished as a direct result of the government’s horrendously ill-fated poisoning program. As Slate’s Deborah Blum reported,

“Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.”

In order to poison the supply, the government had to turn to the base ingredient commonly used by bootleg manufacturers, as TIME Magazine explained,

“For years, that industrial alcohol had been ‘denatured’ by adding toxic or unappetizing chemicals to it — the idea was originally so that people couldn’t escape beverage taxes by drinking commercial-use alcohol instead — but it was still possible to re-purify the liquid so that it could be consumed.

“So, as TIME reported in the Jan. 10, 1927, issue, a solution emerged from the anti-drinking forces in the government: that year, a new formula for denaturing industrial-grade alcohol was introduced, doubling how poisonous the product became. The new formula included ‘4 parts methanol (wood alcohol), 2.25 parts pyridine bases, 0.5 parts benzene to 100 parts ethyl alcohol’ and, as TIME noted, ‘Three ordinary drinks of this may cause blindness.’ (In case you didn’t guess, ‘blind drink’ isn’t just a figure of speech.)”

Prohibition had widespread support, and although not everyone agreed with the government’s new method of coercion meant to quash the nation’s obvious love affair with alcohol — TIME noted New Jersey Senator Edward I. Edwards called it “legalized murder” — those who did pontificated on the supposed amorality of drinking as justification for poisoning deaths.

“The Government is under no obligation to furnish the people with alcohol that is drinkable when the Constitution prohibits it,” asserted poisoning and Prohibition advocate, Wayne B. Wheeler. “The person who drinks this industrial alcohol is a deliberate suicide … To root out a bad habit costs many lives and long years of effort. …”

The Chicago Tribune strikingly editorialized in 1927, as cited by Slate,

“Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified.”

Myriad ruinous government programs, in particular prohibitions on alcohol and cannabis, have been implemented under the premise of protecting the people from some misbegotten ill — but, in practice, these efforts too often play out more disastrously than if the State had never intervened in the first place.

Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1919 meant a ban on the sale, manufacture, and transport of alcoholic beverages — and the subsequent passage of the Volstead Act provided the rules for enforcement of Prohibition when it went into effect in 1920.

Anti-alcohol organizations constantly sermonized on the evils of drinking, and though the notion seems almost quaint in 2017, the post-war atmosphere in the U.S. welcomed any movement to prevent further degradation of morals — or, more accurately, the morals of a specific group of people whose grandstanding centered around alcohol.

Unsurprisingly, vocal support for the platform overrepresented the reality — the business of banned booze immediately and decisively boomed. Blum wrote,

“Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade’s end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country’s defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.”

None of that shock nor the high-and-mighty stance from which the temperance movement preached moral uprightness ever targeted the government for recklessly condemning random alcohol drinkers to death.

When the State takes the reins of any flippantly righteous high horse, it’s a veritable guarantee the program is doomed to failure — and Prohibition was no exception.

Indiscriminately killing more than 10,000 people by deliberate poisoning, however, belies the less candid goal the government would never admit: control at any cost.

Source*

Related Topics:

Bayer and U.S. Govt. Knowingly Gave HIV to Thousands of Children*

CIA Mind Control: The Philadelphia Experiment on Americans

Rockefeller Music Project in the War on Consciousness*

Rockerfeller’s Flu Pandemic*

Hitler Never Gassed His Own People, but the U.S. Did*

Navy Secretly Conducting Electromagnetic Warfare Training on U.S. Public*

How the CIA Used LSD to Destroy the New Left*

 

Why You Should NEVER Sign ‘Refusal to Vaccinate’ Document*

Why You Should NEVER Sign ‘Refusal to Vaccinate’ Document*

THE REFUSAL TO VACCINATE DOCUMENT

The Refusal to Vaccinate document was created by the CDC or the American Academy of Paediatrics ‘legal department’ as a response to the growing number of toxic vaccines recommended by them and the growing number of parents who are becoming educated on this issue. According to CDC recommendations, our children should now receive 37 doses of vaccines between 0-16 years. [See Vaccine Schedule]

This document, now being used to overcome vaccine awareness, is the most diabolical strategy possible! It is unlikely that physicians have any idea what they are asking their patients to sign . . . or to sign away. It is essentially a signed confession. So please read and understand why no one should sign it and why it is really something other than what it appears to be.

TWELVE REASONS YOU CANNOT SIGN REFUSAL TO VACCINATE

Here are 12 reasons why no parent can sign this document unless they are interested in being statutorily charged with neglect or intentionally causing harm. Repeating more boldly: this document, if signed, could be used to have your child(ren) removed from your custody! It was created to stand up in court, which is why they require the parent’s signature to be “witnessed”?

#1
The document attaches a child ID # that will be identifiable in the electronic records system across the country. Everyone from the school to the NSA will be able to determine who is and who is not vaccinated.

#2
The scientific term for HPV vaccine is listed to discourage parents from making the connection to the dangerous vaccine for HPV called Gardasil. [See Gardasil: Former Merck Doctor predicts greatest medical scandal of all time]

#3
Establishing a vaccination history is part of the Police state registry system being set up to track your vaccination status.

#4
The CDC Vaccine Information Statement is pure unadulterated propaganda. The vaccination information coverup was documented and exposed in an extremely important paper Health Hazards of Disease Prevention (2011). Also see info about the CDC – #9 (below).

#5
Again the parent is misled to think the truth about vaccine risks is on the CDC web site.The doctor has the vaccine package inserts right in his/her office. Why is it not offered and explained to the parent? The physicians themselves may or may not have read them. However, physicians are certainly aware that if the parents read the ‘official risks’ put out by the drug corporations, they would refuse the vaccines. Full disclosure is almost NEVER a part of the process.

#6
“I understand the following: The risks and benefits of the recommended vaccine(s).”

This of course would be agreeing to a false statement. You cannot understand the risks without reading and understanding the package inserts, therefore how can you answer in the affirmative? And what about all of the vaccine facts that aren’t even listed in the package inserts that have been ‘covered up’ for many years?

#7
Parents are falsely told that without vaccines their children could suffer dire illnesses but are not told the dire illnesses/injuries the vaccines themselves could cause . . . including death.

#8
This refers to the “herd immunity myth” of 1933, which has been proven unscientific over and over and over again. Simply put: if other children have been vaccinated – and the vaccines work – they won’t contract a disease from your child.

#9
Entities are listed as “strongly recommending” the vaccine schedule. Again however, parents are NOT given full disclosure as to exactly who/what the entities are and what their motivations might be. Listed on the Refusal to Vaccinate document are the following entities and a brief description of their motivation:

  • The ‘physician’ – is rewarded for administering vaccines by higher reimbursements for his fees. His vaccine “rates” are checked to determine whether or not he/she is entitled to more money. Physicians, public health workers, and drug companies have all been given immunity from any possible lawsuits that may arise as a result of vaccine-caused injury or illness. In other words, if a vaccine harms your child or causes autism you cannot sue any of them. They all have a liability exemption.
  • The American Academy of Paediatrics which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF ILLINOIS – that receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their journal, etc. This organization relies heavily on what they falsely believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF KANSAS – that also receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their journal, etc. This organization also relies heavily on what they falsely believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
  • The Center for Disease Control (CDC) which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF GEORGIA. The CDC IS NOT PART OF A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT. Repeat: the CDC IS NOT PART OF A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT! It is a private for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet that is chartered under the umbrella of the private for-profit UNITED STATES corporation with extremely close ties to the pharmaceutical companies and a sordid history of corruption. [See: CDC Exposed]

Bottom line: all of the above “entities” make more money if they vaccinate our children and even more if our children get sick from the vaccines . . . including the paediatricians themselves.

#10
This is the broadest and most nefarious part of this document.

“Nevertheless, I have decided at this time to decline . . . I know that failure to follow the recommendations about vaccination may endanger the health or life of my child and others . . . I therefore agree to tell all health care professionals in all settings what vaccines my child has not received because he or she may need to be isolated or may require immediate medical evaluation and tests that might not be necessary if my child had been vaccinated.”

This is not only deceptive and untruthful [see numbers 2-8] it is asking you to confess that you know you are harming your child (and others) and don’t care. It is asking you to agree to inform any/all people who represent themselves as healthcare “professionals” (not defined) of your child’s vaccination record. You are also consenting to allow undefined healthcare professionals to remove your son or daughter from your care and place him or her in isolation for unproven or unknown exposure to a myriad of undefined communicable diseases – with or without testing.

#11
This is an admission that you understand this contractual document – and its significance – ‘in its entirety’. This means that you accept the false information sited as factual, chose NOT to do what you now know to be good for your child and others (are negligent), obligate yourself to embarrass and confuse your child by tracking and reporting on the vaccines you protected your child from, and give permission for your child to be tested or removed from your care and put in isolation for any ‘supposed’ exposure to any ‘undefined’ communicable disease by anyone calling themselves a healthcare worker. [Ohio Revised Code 3701.13]

In short, the form wants you to attest to the following . . . in writing and in the presence of a witness:

  • You understand you are signing a contract with performance requirements
  • You accept false information as factual and don’t care
  • You don’t care if your child or others are harmed by your decision
  • You agree to volunteer to all pretend healthcare workers your child’s vaccine record
  • You agree to allow others to test and/or isolate your child for unproven exposure to a disease

#12
Here is the kicker. As you are asked to sign, initial and date this document in front of a witness, should a custody dispute ever arise (either between parents or with Child Protective Services) this document could be used against the mother or father that signed it.

In defense of physicians, they have been told – via the instructions accompanying the Refusal to Vaccinate document – that parents could sue them should their sons or daughters come down with any of the diseases vaccines are supposed to prevent. Their fear of being sued is why physicians are so insistent that parents sign the Refusal to Vaccinate document.  An excellent alternative, for both physician and parent, is the Vaccination Notice.  This notice corrects misconceptions about vaccines, the herd immunity myth, and the CDC. It also brings the liability (or lack thereof) to the physicians attention. See The Vaccination Notice.

Source*

Related Topics:

Vaccine Induced Chronic Fatigue Syndrome*

How One Father Told His Paediatrician “No” to Vaccines*

Death from Vaccinosis and an Imprisoned Father*

H.R. 1313 Bill Would Require Medical Procedures Like Vaccines as Requirement for Employment*

Triplets Regress into Autism Following Flu Vaccine*

Polio Vaccine Refusal Cases among Well-educated People Baffle Officials in Pakistan*

Norwegian Study Links Flu Vaccine to Narcolepsy Risk*

Varicella Occurring From Chickenpox Vaccination*

DTP Vaccine Associated With 212% Increased Infant Mortality Risk*

Lab Report Analysis Found Round Up in MMR Vaccine*

Ontario give Doctors no Choice but to Refer Patients for Assisted Death*

Ontario give Doctors no Choice but to Refer Patients for Assisted Death*

MPP Jeff Yurek proposes a conscience rights amendment for Ontario physicians

 

By Lianne Laurence

A Liberal-dominated committee has refused to add conscience rights protection to Ontario’s bill regulating euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The finance and economic affairs committee voted down Progressive Conservative health critic Jeff Yurek’s proposed conscience rights amendments to Bill 84 on Tuesday.

The Liberal move leaves conscientiously objecting doctors with no protection against a College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s policy forcing them to give patients requesting euthanasia an “effective referral” — that is, to a willing and accessible colleague for the purposes of accomplishing the act.

The CPSO policy also forces doctors to effectively refer patients who request “medical services” as abortion or abortifacient contraception.

Doctors who refuse can be disciplined by CPSO and could lose their license to practise.

“We were very disappointed,” says Larry Worthen, spokesperson for the Coalition for HealthCare and Conscience.

“We met with various politicians that were involved and we described for them the ways that people could access medical assistance in dying without affecting conscience rights and yet they still voted to not include the conscience amendment,” he told LifeSiteNews.

The Coalition for Conscience had also launched a massive lobbying campaign for conscience rights in Bill 84, and 25,000 people sent letters to MPPs, Worthen said.

Moreover, 31 of the 42 oral presentations to the committee also asked for a conscience right amendment to the bill, he said. That doesn’t include the written submissions to the committee.

The Liberal refusal to protect conscience rights will cost them, says Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

“This is a crucial item,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“Liberal backbenchers are going to find it awfully hard to get elected in the next election if they don’t start supporting conscience rights and issues that matter to doctors and people in Ontario.”

Liberal intransigence on this point is a bit surprising to Monte McNaughton, the first MPP to speak up for conscience rights at Queen’s Park.

“Ontario’s still the only jurisdiction in the world that is moving forward with effective referral protocol,” the MPP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex told LifeSiteNews.

“You would think the government would look to other jurisdictions on how they protected conscience rights.”

Moreover, conscience rights protection has widespread support, he pointed out.

“I’ve raised this a number of times in the House, introduced petitions signed by thousands of concerned people right across Ontario,” McNaughton said, adding that there are

“a number of organizations and individual doctors who have been raising this for months now.”

That includes the Ontario Medical Association, which sent representatives to meet with McNaughton and other MPPs, and is “on the record wanting the government to move away from effective referral protocol and to ensure that conscience rights are protected.”

The OMA appeared before the the committee urging it adopt conscience rights protection, as did the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario, and Cardinal Thomas Collins, who spoke on behalf of the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience.

The Concerned Ontario Doctors, which represents 20,000 physicians, also came out backing conscience rights at an April 11 press conference.

But the “Wynne government is determined to move forward with this globally unprecedented effective referral protocol,” McNaughton said.

In doing so, the Liberals are

stripping a basic freedom from these doctors and health care practitioners, that is freedom of conscience.”

Worthen said the committee passed an amendment to set up a care coordination service, which is patient-accessed and connects a patient seeking euthanasia with a doctor who is willing to kill him or her.

However, “until the requirement for effective referral is struck down that doesn’t really help us in terms of protecting conscience,” he said.

The Coalition is now focused on the legal challenge to the CPSO policy that will be heard in Ontario’s divisional court June 13 to 15 in Toronto.

Five Christian doctors and three groups are arguing that the CPSO policy violates a physician’s Charter protected rights of religion and conscience.

The doctors are co-plaintiffs with the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, Canadian Physicians for Life, and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies

The Liberal government is intervening on behalf of the CPSO.

Meanwhile, MPP Yurek (Elgin-Middlesex-London) will table a private member’s bill on conscience rights on May 11.

Yurek’s amendments to Bill 84 would have protected doctors from civil liability and discipline by the CPSO.

Those amendments clarified that doctors with conscientious objections would not block patients’ access to euthanasia.

The amendments clarified that objecting doctors would provide, on request, information “about services that can provide access” to euthanasia; patient medical records, and would communicate “to the appropriate person in authority a patient’s request for a complete transfer of care so that the person in authority can facilitate the transfer.”

Worthen told the Catholic Register that the Coalition for Conscience backed Yurek’s amendments, which provided access to euthanasia “without negatively affecting conscience rights.”

“It’s important that people realize that we’re not trying to block patients from accessing this,” he told the Register. “What we’re trying to do is not be morally implicated in their decision.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Sex Abuse Victim Allowed Euthanasia as mental health problems Considered ‘INCURABLE’*

When Euthanasia Crosses the Line into Murder*

Canada’s Surgeons Harvesting Organs from Euthanised Patients*

VIDEO: Bioethics, Eugenics and the “after-birth abortion” of newborns