Forced medication of anyone in North America is illegal. It violates both the US and Canadian Constitutions and is a Human Rights violation as well. It’s a Nazi tactic and there’s no way to argue that anyone (of sound-mind) should be forcefully medicated.

For a long time my children were vaccinated and I even fought with their mother about it. One time I angrily scolded her for not knowing what she is talking about because she didn’t go to Doctor-school so how could she possibly argue against a Doctor. Man, I feel like a total idiot now. She was completely right. It took me far too long to even consider looking at the facts and idea that vaccinations are not good for anyone, but this post is not here to explain those details. Parents’ Place, Dr. Mercola’s site and countless other sites and resources are out there to counter the propaganda your TV, Doctors and Politicians have been feeding us.

Part of the problem we face as parents is the lack of available choices available to us. We did not know that we could choose NOT to vaccinate. They (the medical community/government) NEVER EVER tell you about the option NOT to vaccinate. We were delighted when we finally discovered this option, and we enforced our right to say now immediately. Our children are now legally exempt from immunizations and vaccinations. You can do the same.

Download this PDF and get a lawyer to notarize it (with their embossed seal) and send a COPY to the Health Department. YOU keep the original copy in a safe location, along with the rest of your child’s important documentation. Never give away originals!

DOWNLOAD THIS: Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief Affidavit

http://parentsplacedot.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/form-2.pdf

Stand up for yourself and protect your children against this forced medication (forced child endangerment)!

If you want more information on this, read the other articles posted to this site and follow the links provided. REMEMBER: if you vaccinate you are 100% guaranteeing your child will get something (chemicals) from the vaccine. If you do not vaccinate you are taking a chance that your child will get something from nature. I choose to live smart, eat right and protect my children through education and proper eating and cleaning habits.

Also, consider the fact that the deseases these vaccinations are ‘protecting’ against have been on a steady decline over the course of human history/evolution.
We now know that human waste should not be near our living space,
That food goes bad and to not eat it,
To keep ourselves clean and so on.

Intelligence moves us forward while vaccines toxify our brains and bodies.

The residents of Waterloo, Ontario in Canada have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water supply. The decision has been welcomed by anti-fluoride campaigners.

The incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association, Dr. Harry Hoediono, has condemned the decision, claiming that people are unaware of the dental health benefits of fluoride. Campaigners against fluoride believe that adding the chemical to the water supply can cause health problems including cancer, thyroid disease and arthritis.

Cosmetic Dentistry Guide reports:

“Most councilors… voted in favor of stopping [fluoridation] to support public opinion… health officials had failed to run an effective campaign”.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Major congratulations are in order for the Canadians!

Waterloo stopped adding fluoride to their tap water at noon November 29, 2010 at four water treatment sites, after 33 years of fluoridation.

Wisdom finally won over ignorance and greed, and an important step has been taken toward safeguarding the health of their children. Two years of advocacy and hard work by anti-fluoridation community members led to a winning campaign.

The battle over fluoride, which was first introduced into the water supply in Canada in the 1940s, is part of a growing movement across North America. In the early 2000s several communities in British Columbia voted to get rid of fluoride, as did Whitehorse in 1998.

But setbacks do happen. In 2007, a group of 200 dentists unsuccessfully lobbied Congress to have this toxic chemical banned from the U.S. water supply.

The battle rages on and appears to be gaining traction as more health-conscious Americans and Canadians become educated about the dangers of fluoride to their health.

Many dentists are simply seriously misinformed about fluoride, warning that cavities and public health costs will rise and that low-income children are at special risk. The American Dental Association has had tunnel vision on the fluoride issue for decades, paying no attention to ample evidence of the damaging systemic health effects of fluoride.

How You Can Help Get Fluoride Out of U.S. Water Supplies

I’ve joined forces with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) to help end water fluoridation poisoning in Canada and the United States.

In the United States, we’re likely not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be a Presidential mandate or even a statewide elimination. This change will occur one community at a time.

So stay tuned, as we will be working to devise a complete game plan to tackle this issue head on. Once we reach the tipping point, which may be as little as 5 percent of the population, we will be able to reverse the policies of water fluoridation.

Until then, you can remove about 80% of the fluoride from your drinking water using a reverse osmosis (RO) filter. It is really hard to remove all of it with virtually any commercial filter. If you are concerned about fluoride the BEST solution is to help the Fluoride Action Network in their campaign to remove it from the water supply.

The Fluoride Action Network is holding their annual fundraising event right now, and their goal is to raise $50,000 by midnight December 31 to edge closer to the final victory we all want: an end to fluoridation worldwide.

All donations are welcome no matter how large or small — even $5 or $10 can make a huge difference — and all donations are tax-deductible. You can show your support for the Fluoride Action Network, and help get this toxin out of our water supplies, by making your donation now.

The Growing Grassroots Movement Against Water Fluoridation

Fortunately, we also have people like Dr.Paul Connett leading this revolution. Professor Paul Connett is an environmental chemist and a key leader in the movement to get fluoride out of the water. He co-authored (with James Beck and H. Spedding Micklem) a new book, The Case Against Fluoride.

Paul and I agree that water fluoridation should be ended as soon as possible. However, we also believe there is little chance for meaningful action from the Federal government to end a practice the Department of Health and Human Services has endorsed and enthusiastically promoted since 1950.

We need your continuing help to put pressure on legislators to end this practice, one community at a time. Grassroots activism CAN work, as you can see from the decision in Waterloo—it was people like you who made the scales tip in the right direction.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), headed by Connett, has been an extraordinary resource for engaging people in individual towns and states into a grassroots movement against fluoridation. As a result, FAN now has point persons in several states, towns and communities.

Three locations were recently selected for special attention: San Diego, California; Austin, Texas; and the province of Ontario, Canada. And in fact, it was these focused efforts in Ontario that led to the successful Waterloo campaign.

Why San Diego and Austin Were Targeted

San Diego was targeted because it has twice voted to keep fluoridation out, but is now being forced to fluoridate under a state law passed in 1995.

The following brave pioneers have led the local efforts in that city:

• Patty Brooks, editor of the Presidio Sentinel
• Dr. David Kennedy, local dentist and former president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)
• Dr. Richard Sauereber, Professor of Chemistry at College and at the Weston Price Foundation
• Dr.Paul Connett has given several presentations in San Diego, as well as holding several book-signing events there

Austin, Texas was chosen because it already had a very active anti-fluoridation campaign. The local coordinator of these efforts is Rae Nadler Oelnick, assisted by Linda Greene and Dr. Neil Carman, among others.

Paul Connett visited Austin in November 2010, with a side visit to San Antonio. He gave talks at two local universities, as well as a short presentation to the Austin City Council.

What Happened in Ontario Should Not Stay in Ontario

Ontario was selected because several cities there have already stopped fluoridation over the last few years.

Meanwhile, very few communities are still fluoridating their water in Quebec and British Columbia. It is believed that if one or two more cities in Ontario were to stop this practice, it could produce a domino effect that would bring an end to fluoridation in the key cities, Ottawa and Toronto.

With this in mind, Paul Connett gave presentations in Toronto, Oakville, and Waterloo, which overlapped the launching of his book and a review that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on October 17, 2010.

What followed was an exciting victory when citizens narrowly voted out fluoridation in a referendum held in the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener, which is being hailed by fluoridation opponents as fluoridation’s “Waterloo.”

The Ontario Dental Association Whines Over Sour Grapes, but has Only Itself to Blame

Not surprisingly, the Ontario Dental Association (ODA), which actively campaigned to keep fluoridation in Waterloo, was bitterly disappointed by this defeat, complaining in recent newspaper articles that the vote represented the efforts of a dedicated but poorly informed minority.

However, the ODA has only itself to blame.

On October 7, 2010, the organization had the opportunity to debate Professor Connett along with geologist Heather Gingerich in Waterloo—but refused to do so. Arrogant, overconfident, and condescending, the ODA shot itself in the foot and lost the battle.

Who is REALLY Poorly Informed?

Just who has the real FACTS in this debate? Is it the ODA, or is it the “dedicated but poorly informed minority”?

As it turns out, challenging the science about the “benefits” of water fluoridation has become much easier, thanks to the publishing of The Case Against Fluoride. This enlightening book by Connett, Beck and Micklem has received several glowing reviews, praising its readability and the comprehensive way it covers the science to date.

For the ODA and other proponents of fluoridation to salvage any credibility for this misguided practice, the onus will be on them to produce a response to this book with the same level of scientific documentation as that delivered by Connett, Beck and Micklem.

How long will you have to wait for the other side of the story?

If the grassroots movement is so “misinformed,” it should pose no challenge at all for health policy makers to publish “The Case FOR Fluoridation,” based on whatever evidence they feel exists to support their position.

But don’t hold your breath on that one.

If such a book has not appeared within a year, most reasonable people are entitled to conclude that promoters do not have a scientific case to present.

Meanwhile, more and more scientists, who are independent of the influence of fluoridation’s endorsing agencies, are no longer supporting this practice, as you can see in the above video. Sadly, too many promoters have endorsed this practice for so long that they don’t know how to admit they are wrong.

Recapping the Main Arguments Against Fluoridation

The issue of fluoride in drinking water has a 60-year history that is far too involved to recount in its entirely here. But the main points are summarized below:

1. Administering a drug to the masses in a “one-size-fits-all” approach is a major assault to your freedom of choice.Once you put it in the water, there is no way to control the dose, or who gets it and how much they get. There is no oversight. Everyone is essentially forced to take the same medication, with an uncontrolled and unmonitored dose.

   No other drug is administered in this “one size fits all” way. Fluoride in water is not even regulated by the FDA—even though it does regulate fluoride in toothpaste and other oral care products.

   It is also important to understand that fluoride is being used as a drug and no other drug has ever been administered as a public health measure. It really is a major intrusion on an individual’s freedom of choice as fluoride is really difficult to filter out of the water once it is added.

   Forcing you to ingest fluoride in your drinking water is a careless and dangerous public health practice, and it’s simply bad medicine. There is NO OTHER DRUG that is forced upon the public in this way. It’s a major assault on your freedom of choice.

2. Fluoridation is unnecessary and avoidable. Fluoride is a nonessential nutrient, meaning not required by your body. No disease develops in humans when they are “deprived” of fluoride. Even the promoters of fluoridation have finally conceded the benefits of fluoride are only topical—it works from the outside of your tooth, not from inside your body.

   So why swallow it?

   Forcing people to ingest a topical drug is ineffective and unethical.

   Most European countries don’t fluoridate their water—including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, etc., and their teeth are as good as ours or better.

3. Fluoridation is ineffective. It does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay.There is practically no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that fluoridate a high versus low percentage of their water.

   Populations with diets low in processed sugar have virtually NO tooth decay, such as Korea—even among communities practicing minimal dental hygiene!

   A WHO study involving 12-year olds found tooth decay rates have decreased as fast in non-fluoridated areas as in fluoridated areas.

   The reason for this is that tooth decay is not caused by lack of fluoride, but instead by acids in the mouth produced by bacteria that are metabolizing sugar. The acid attacks the enamel, allowing the bacteria into the enamel, resulting in tooth decay.

   As Paul Connett said, reducing the rates of dental caries requires education, not fluoridation.

4. Fluoridation is probably causing harm.Dental Fluorosis

   Thirty-two percent of American children now have signs of dental fluorosis (mottling of the teeth), indicative of enamel damage. Dental fluorosis signifies overexposure to fluoride. Fluoridation promoters claim this is just a “cosmetic effect.”

   But this is far more than a cosmetic effect—it’s an indication your body has been overexposed to fluoride.

   If fluoride has damaged developing tooth cells, then there is every reason to believe it has had damaging effects on other cells in your body. Your teeth are the “window” to your bones—you can SEE your teeth, but you can’t see your bones, so bone damage can go unnoticed.

   Skeletal Fluorosis

   The first signs of fluoride poisoning are arthritis-like symptoms such as joint pain, as evidenced by studies in regions of India and China with naturally high fluoride levels. Despite this, no study has ever been conducted in the U.S. to investigate whether there’s an association between people living in fluoridated areas and higher arthritis rates.

   It is a known fact that 50 percent of the fluoride you ingest accumulates in your bones over your lifespan.

   Fluoride in bones increases brittleness and bone fractures. Bones appear denser on x-ray, but this density does not mean they are stronger—they are actually weaker because they are more brittle.

   Brain Development

   Fluoride is known to interfere with basic functions of nerve cells in your brain. There are now 30 animal studies demonstrating the damage fluoride inflicts on your brain, including your pineal gland.

   Which is more important—protecting your children’s teeth or protecting their brains?

   Thyroid

   Fluoride also lowers thyroid function. Fluoride was used in European medicine during the 1930s through 1950s to treat patients with overactive thyroid glands. This is a very real and significant concern today as millions of people suffer with low thyroid function.

   The levels of fluoride people are now getting from fluoridated water (and other sources) now equal the levels used in Europe to suppress overactive thyroid glands. [From page 234 of “Fluoride in Drinking Water” (2006), National Research Council]

   Infants/Children

   No one is more susceptible to fluoride’s effects that infants and children. Their blood-brain barrier is immature, allowing more fluoride to flow into and accumulate in their brains.

   Twenty-three studies from four different countries, one being China, have indicated that moderate exposure to fluoride islowering children’s IQ.

   Many of these studies have been peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.

   In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to refrain from using fluoridated tap water for making infant formula. A few days later, the CDC followed suit. But neither of them openly informed the public!

   So there are millions of parents out there using tap water to make up formula, oblivious to the fact that the agencies promoting fluoridation in this country have issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose.

   Major disconnect here—it’s absolutely bizarre!

   Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, many low income families are doomed to fail at protecting their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information, because they can’t afford water filtration systems or bottled water.

   There is a great deal of evidence that fluoridation can damage other body systems.

   For example, one study linked fluoride to anemia in pregnant women. If you have kidney disease, you are especially prone to a buildup of fluoride in your body because your kidneys excrete about 50 percent of your daily fluoride intake. Elevated fluoride consumption in childhood has also been shown to cause kidney damage. And fluoridation has been linked to some forms of cancer.

   For more about the dangers of fluoride, I invite you to review my article from May of 2010, and download my free report on water fluoridation.

5. The type of fluoride being added to your water supply is NOT pharmaceutical grade fluoride, but rather an industrial waste product.It is important to make a distinction between the fluoride your dentist applies topically to your teeth, and the type of fluoride added to your drinking water. They are radically different.

   The type of fluoride your dentist uses is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride. If pharmaceutical grade fluoride were added to municipal water, it would be cost prohibitive.

   So, they came up with a cheap and convenient substitute—a widely available toxic waste product they cleverly marketed as a health product.

   The type of fluoride added to your water is actually a toxic byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry called hexafluorosilicic acid, or its sodium salt (silicofluoride). In other words, this form of fluoride comes from toxic gases captured by industrial wet scrubbing systems.

   This is NOT a pharmaceutical fluoride but instead a noxious combination of industrial byproducts, including arsenic and heavy metals… fluoride ala smokestack.

   Silicofluoride cannot be dumped into the sea by international law. It can’t be dumped locally because it’s too concentrated. But if someone buys it, it’s no longer a hazardous waste—it’s magically a health product.

The public water utilities buy this stuff and put it in your drinking water. It’s completely absurd.

What You Can Do

Essentially, you can help by educating yourself and staying involved. The best central source of information is the Fluoride Action Network (www.FluorideAlert.org). Their statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide now been signed by more than 3,200 professionals, and again you can help further their mission by making a tax-deductible donation during their annual fundraising event now.

If you are a medical or science professional, I also encourage you to sign their statement.

I also highly recommend your picking up a copy of the book The Case Against Fluoride.

We’re not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be a presidential mandate or even state statutes. This change will occur one community at a time.

U.S. milk producers treat their dairy cattle with rBGH because it boosts milk production. But this artificial growth hormone also increases udder infections in cows, leading to pus in the milk along with excessive use of antibiotics in the cows, which is triggering the creation of antibiotic-resistant superbugs and leaving residues of antibiotics in your dairy.

Worse still, milk treated with rBGH also contains higher levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), a hormone linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers in humans.

How Was This Cancer-Causing Hormone Ever Approved?

You may be interested to know, especially before you go out to buy your next pint of ice cream or gallon of milk, that rBGH is NOT a hormone that’s commonly used around the world. On the contrary, it’s been banned in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and all 27 nations of the European Union.

Dr. Shiv Chopra, who spent 17 years in the Human Safety Evaluation of Drugs given to food-producing animals in Canada, explains his first reaction when a drug safety review for rBGH landed on his desk.
“I was concerned,” he said, “so I raised some questions, because it was a growth hormone … The questions I raised were very simple, normal scientific questions.

If you’re going to give something to food-producing animals, then under the laws of both the countries [Canada and the US], the company must demonstrate that it will produce no harm, ultimately, to people who consume that product.

They said no, they don’t want it tested, and there is no need to test it because it’s the same hormone, although it’s genetically engineered, that the cow produces.

I said it doesn’t matter. Even if it’s naturally produced hormone obtained from the cows, if you give an excess of it, just like if you take too much insulin for yourself, you can die…

I said, “You must test it in laboratory animals as required under the law.” They did not want to test it…”
Dr. Chopra never received any of the studies he’d requested to make a determination about the safety of rBGH in Canada, and therefore refused to approve it.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however, went ahead and approved rBGH for use in the early ‘90s, despite nationwide protests by consumer groups. The FDA didn’t even require that rBGH be adequately tested before allowing it on the market.

Normally, a standard test of new biochemically produced products and animal drugs requires 24 months of testing with several hundred rats. But rBGH was tested for only 90 days on 30 rats.

What Prompted the FDA to Approve rBGH?

Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy and chief lobbyist at Monsanto, which makes rBGH, is now the Deputy Commissioner of Foods for the FDA.

Who is Michael Taylor?

He is the person who not only “oversaw the creation of GMO policy,” according to Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods, but also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s rBGH.

The hormone was approved in the United States while Taylor was in charge at the FDA. Shortly thereafter Taylor left the FDA to become Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist, although today he is now back at the FDA.

Taylor’s decision to approve rBGH was one of the most controversial the FDA has seen, and was made against the advice of numerous scientists (some who even worked at the FDA), farmers and government leaders.

As Smith wrote:
“Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.”
Taylor’s white paper, which again was untrue as even FDA scientists acknowledged differences in the rBGH milk, allowed Monsanto to sue dairies that labeled their products rBGH-free!

That’s right … milk producers who are committed to providing healthier milk are not allowed to say it’s “rBGH-free” — without adding a big disclaimer saying there are no known health risks of rBGH …

But, then, this is entirely untrue.

Why I Suggest Avoiding All Dairy Products that Contain rBGH

The scientific evidence of the dangers of rBGH milk is explained in great detail in Dr. Epstein’s book What’s in Your Milk?. Samuel Epstein, MD, a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is one of the top experts on cancer prevention, and he has been speaking out against rBGH in milk, the so-called “crack for cows,” for years.

As Epstein wrote:
“This [rBGH milk] contains very high levels of a natural growth factor known as IGF-1…

IGF-1 stands for Insulin-like Growth Factor 1. So growth factor 1 is a natural growth factor and is responsible for normal growth but when you drink rBGH milk, you have very, very high levels of this natural growth factor.

When you drink it, the IGF-1 survives digestion and is readily absorbed from your small intestine, into your blood.

Increased levels of IGF-1 have been shown to increase risks of breast cancer and we have about 20 publications showing this; risk of colon cancer [shown] by about 10 publications; prostate cancer by about another 10 publications.

And a further concern: increased levels of IGF-1 block natural defense mechanisms against early cancers, [mechanisms] known as ‘apoptosis.’”
The risks are quite glaring and explain why the United Nations Food and Safety Agency, which represents 100 nations worldwide, decided NOT to set safety standards for rBGH milk in 1999, which essentially banned U.S. milk from all of Europe.

That’s right. You will not find Europeans, or Australians, Japanese, or Canadians, drinking rBGH milk because the health risks are just too great.

Unfortunately, if you live in the United States you can find rBGH milk in most supermarkets, not only in milk but also in ice cream, cheese, yogurt, sour cream, and just about any other dairy product you can think of.

You Can Help Prompt REAL Change in the Food Arena

You very well may be drinking rBGH milk and not know it, as no labels are required. This is despite the fact that nearly every American wants it labeled, but the government, as usual, bowed to industry lobbyists and, amazingly, does not require this on the label.

However, as increasing numbers of people and dairies choose to avoid rBGH, you can find labels that say “rBGH-free” or a similar variation. Organic milk is also rBGH-free.

This is certainly preferable to milk and dairy products that contain this dangerous hormone … but I still don’t recommend drinking any milk, organic or otherwise, that is pasteurized.

You can avoid both the risks of rBGH and pasteurization by only drinking raw milk that comes from a small farmer you know and trust. This is the only way to drink milk if you’re interested in protecting your health.

I do realize, of course, that many of you may treat yourself on occasion to a bowl of ice cream as well, but in so doing you’re likely exposing yourself to rBGH. As with milk, you can avoid this risk by making your own homemade ice cream using raw milk as a base, but if you purchase ice cream from one of the major brands like Breyers or Dreyer’s it will contain rBGH.

Well, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) has organized a major drive to get these two large ice cream producers to stop the use of rBGH.

Even though I don’t advise eating these desserts for anything other than a very occasional treat, if at all, each additional corporation that stops the use of rBGH is a victory for the health of the American public.

If you’d like to contact Breyers and Dreyer’s and ask them to stop the use of rBGH, PSR explains exactly how you can do so. So far major corporations ranging from Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s to Yoplait and Dannon have stopped using rBGH in response to consumer demand. Hopefully, and with your help, the trend will continue until Monsanto’s rBGH is driven out of the food market entirely.

Related Links:

Did You Know All the Drugs in Your Milk?

Monsanto Attacks “Hormone-Free” Milk Labels

The Pennsylvania Government Thinks You Are Too Dumb to Make Your Own Shopping Choices

Canadians departing for active service in Europe during the Second World War, 1940. (National Archives of Canada C-38723)

I’ve thought quite a bit about this day, November 11th 2009. While I do not agree with war, nor the politics that lead us into wars, 11/11 is not about war or politics.

The fact is that well over 1,500,000 Canadians have served in the Armed Forces, and well over 100,000 of them have died in doing so. Remembrance Day is about us showing our appreciation to our fellow humans, who set out with a goal that they believed to be greater than themselves – not for their benefit, but for the benefit of their families, friends and nation under which they lived.

Today, your task is simple: At 11am, stand up… And say thank you to your fellow man, for standing up for what they believe in. I hope that one day we all can stand up for what we believe in too.

Coming at the end of the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, the review of previous studies calls for stepped-up research into alternative, lower-tech ways to combat the virus, such as improved hand washing.

The new paper’s co-author is Dr. Tom Jefferson, a British epidemiologist who heads vaccine research for the respected Cochrane Collaboration — and who has earned a reputation as a scientific dissident for his outspoken criticism of flu vaccination.

In media interviews last year, Dr. Jefferson was quoted as saying he “can’t see any reason” for vaccinating anyone against flu — arguing the shots did nothing to save lives — and that most influenza-vaccine studies are “rubbish.”

Sources:

National Post March 11, 2010
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews February 17, 2010;2:CD005187

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Related Links:

Flu Shot Facts — Battling Influenza

Do Flu Shots Work? Ask A Vaccine Manufacturer

Avoid Flu Shots With the One Vitamin that Will Stop Flu in Its Tracks

Racism is not right, but more often than not you will find someone you know and care about harbours some form of race-related concerns. The Jewish and Palestinians, the blacks and the whites, the idiots and dumbasses. Yes, racism can go as far as war so it’s not a good thing, but like I said,  you know someone who has some race-related issues.  So, if the spectrum of racism is so broad then it stands to reason that merely being racist is no immediate cause of concern. That black friend of yours doesn’t really like white people as much as he likes black people, but he isn’t going to kill any whites. Or, to be fair, that white friend of yours doesn’t like all Arabs, but he isn’t going to kill or beat any Arabs.

That line of thinking is exactly what perpetuates racism. We need a logical approach to this instead of an emotional one. Case in point -the video above. The parents are racist and as a result their children have parroted the parents at school. That led to the Province taking the children away from them. So now we have the Province playing moral judge and jury on racism, which is the same as the province itself being racist. The parents are discriminating against a group of people and now so is the province.

If you’re going to do that then where is the line drawn? This is the thought police. This is 1984. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as a Constitution. You should read these documents because what Canada has done to these parents is against it’s own laws of the land. If they can do it to one group, then they certainly can do it to any other group. Need I point to the Natives?

Stand up Canada!

Read the Label.

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/swineflu/article/728601–batch-of-h1n1-vaccine-recalled-for-severe-reactions

A GSK spokesperson admitted, straight up, that they expect people to have severe reactions and some to die from every mass vaccination campaign. They expect it.

How does it feel to head to work every morning, fully knowing that what you do it going to kill someone, put people in wheel chairs and ruin lives? Does that make you feel good? It would make me physically sick.

“A batch of swine flu vaccine is being pulled back for investigation after it appeared to cause higher rates of severe allergic reactions than other lots.

GlaxoSmithKline Inc., which is producing the Canadian order of H1N1 influenza vaccine at its plant in Ste-Foy, Que., said it asked provincial and territorial health authorities Wednesday to stop using doses from a specific lot shipment distributed late last month.”

Read the Label. Thiomersal = Thimerosal. Don't be fooled.

An H1N1 clinic in Ottawa gets the message across in this file photo from Nov. 13, 2009.

Link: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/swineflu/article/728291–h1n1-reaction-product-of-hype-or-prudence

I’ve been pointing out for weeks now that the H1N1 mortality rates are far lower than the seasonal flu, yet everyone wanted to believe that they absolutely needed the vaccine. Congratulations – that attitude just lined the pockets of the pharma manufacturers while simultaneously toxifying your system without just cause.

A Toronto Public Health Nurse loads syringes with H1N1 vaccine at Metro Hall, Nov. 18, 2009.

Link: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/swineflu/article/730812–public-health-reports-24-cases-of-h1n1-flu-shot-reaction

Typical media – uses shocking headline to draw you into the article and then obfuscate the issue once you start reading. A man died after getting his flu shot and the only reason you’re hearing about it is because he was in his 80′s and they can wash it over by saying it’s not clear what killed him.

What about all the other stories about people who died after the flu? When it’s in the favor of the vaccine they say the flu killed them, straight up and no one asks the same question as above – what exactly killed them?

No, it’s just fear tactics to push the drug.