If ever there was a company that stands for everything Organic Lifestyle Magazine stands against, it’s Monsanto. To us they are the villain, a company that embodies virtually everything we at OLM believe to be wrong with big business today. We would be hard pressed to find a company whose products have done more to harm our planet.

• Click here to read part II
• Click here to read part III
• Click here to read part IV

Many argue that Monsanto’s potential to devastate life as we know it is second only to producers of atomic bombs. Ironically, Monsanto was also heavily involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb.

Monsanto started in 1901 as a chemical company. Their first product was saccharine, a coal tar product, which has had a controversial history. You may know it as Sweet‘N Low, the artificial sweetener sold in little pink packages.

Though saccharin was their first, Monsanto is also well known for many other chemical and chemically based products including Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCBs), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), and RoundUp.

Today, Monsanto is a leader in the bio-tech industry selling RoundUp ready GMO seeds. Its main crops are soy, cotton, sugar beets, and canola. Its controversial bovine growth hormone, rBST, was sold to the Eli Lilly Company earlier this year.

We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.

“I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.

“…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”

Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”

History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,

The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”

Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).

Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.

GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.

Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.   “I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.

…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”

Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”

History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,

The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”

Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers.  The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).

Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.”  Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.

GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.

Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

When we asked Mr. Mitchell if he was familiar with this statement, he said he thought the statement had been made by a Monsanto foreman and that it was taken out of context. “I don’t know the gentleman, but I do know the general feeling here. There is nobody here at Monsanto that I know that says, ‘Screw safety, that’s not our problem, it’s FDA’s.’ I think what the gentleman quoted is referring to is that when it comes down to it, the law, by the law, it’s FDA’s responsibility. I don’t know a single person at Monsanto who does not believe that we have the responsibility. But if you want to look at the law, the final say on this, and the final arbiter, and the people legally charged with safely stating whether it’s safe or not is not Monsanto, it’s FDA.”

Mitchell tells us he and Monsanto’s scientific team have never seen a study that shows any significant risk associated with GMO foods.

I’ve worked with our scientific affairs team, so when studies come out to do analysis and that sort of thing, we have yet to see a study which we think shows us any significant risk with these things. So, those studies are best addressed on a one-on-one basis, and I would say that there are just as many studies, independent as well, that show (chuckles) that there are not risks with them [GMOs].”

He argues that the oft referenced study by Árpád Pusztai showing GMO potatoes was flawed. “My understanding is that there were only six animals in each control group, so statistical significance is pretty weak there.” In addition, he states that Pusztai did not go through the basic safety processes. “The premise of biotech safety in virtually every country that allows these things is something called substantial equivalence. You compare a genetically modified potato to a non-genetically modified potato against a whole bunch of parameters on stuff they contain. And essentially if it doesn’t cause any physiological or physiochemical differences in the potato, they’re deemed to be substantively equivalent, which means that they are pretty much the same with the exception of the protein that’s expressed in the genetically modified one. …Now the ironic part is that Pusztai, when he did his test, never analyzed the potatoes for substantial equivalence. And in fact there is very good evidence that snowdrop lectin [used in the study] will actually—the protein itself, will change the physiology of that potato where it would not meet the standards of substantial equivalence. So he’s testing a GM product that was never commercialized, that has never even been even through the most basic level of safety, with a poor study, that basically shows and basically came to the conclusion that all genetically modified crops have risks, when he hasn’t even done the basic tests that genetically modified crops go through before being approved.”

In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were hired by Fox Television as the researchers and stars of a new investigative news show, called The Investigators. Akre says they were told, “Do any stories you want. Ask tough questions and get answers.”  One of the first stories they proposed was an expose on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, rBST, also known as Posilac. Their investigation revealed that Canada refused to approve Posilac, citing health concerns, that Posilac was linked to cancer, and that the FDA had rubberstamped the product without proper testing.

While Monsanto’s publicity stated, “Posilac is the single most tested new product in history,” Wilson and Akre’s investigation revealed that the longest test Monsanto had done for human toxicity was for 90 days on 30 rats.

Legal threats from Monsanto prompted Fox to kill the story and set in motion a chain of events that resulting in Fox firing Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for insubordination after several attempts failed to convince them to kill the story, re-write the story, or out and out lie about its contents.  Fox even attempted to bribe the pair, offering them the rest of a year’s salary in exchange for their silence about the story and Fox’s part in it.

Brad Mitchell stated, “We would still contend that Monsanto [rBST] is a safe product. The FDA would support us on that. It’s still being used, albeit by a different company.”

Mitchell also tells us recent Internet rumors that Monsanto was opposed to or tried to prevent the labeling of milk as rBST free were absolutely untrue.

What we were trying to prevent was misleading labeling of milk as being rBST free. And many of the milk companies out there who were labeling it were doing so in a way that was in violation of FDA guidelines and made it basically sound like our product wasn’t safe, and the scientific consensus, at least in this country, was that it is.

“You know, we obviously would prefer that it wasn’t labeled that way, but our gripe was not against people who were labeling milk as rBST free; our real concern was people who were labeling it in opposition to what FDA guidelines set. And the vast majority of the state legislation and the things you saw really were just forcing milk labelers to label in accordance to those guidelines.

“I’ll give you an example, where some milk labels said it’s hormone free. Well, no milk is hormone free. It’s just misleading to say so. Now, if you want to say it’s rBST free, that’s better. What the FDA suggested was that it says this milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. Obviously we would prefer that people didn’t put that in writing and that people didn’t see a problem with our products. But if they were labeling milk accurately, we would not have had an issue with them.”

This company Highlight is continued in our next issue. Click to read Monsanto Company Profile Part II, Monsanto’s Turn. We will discuss Monsanto’s stand on patent infringement lawsuits and high yield potentials of GM crops, Europe’s attitude toward GMOs, and more.

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Monsanto part II
• Monsanto part III
• Monsanto part IV

It’s unfortunate, but true. Medical doctors tend to attribute disease to a cause-and-effect paradigm that absolves the patient of responsibility. If you get sick, well, there’s a flu or a virus going around. If you get diabetes, sorry, but you are genetically programmed to get it. You can’t help it. If you have cancer, well, we never know why these things happen to some and not to others.

While these aren’t direct quotes from any specific doctor, this is the mindset of conventional medicine. There is very little accountability for health these days, along with a belief that most of our health issues are incurable and a resignation that we should accept the side effects of conventional treatment. While most people do resign themselves to this belief system, others, like Mark Hyman, M.D., do not.

Mark Hyman is a brilliant man, one of those people who can multitask, easily remember, and just plain excel in whatever task relies on his intelligence. But when he was in medical school, he did what many interns are forced to do—he pushed his body to unreasonable limits, working shifts up to 60 hours. Then he went to work in China for a year, breathing in the coal-soaked, mercury-laden air. After he came back to Massachusetts, he again lived with sleep deprivation when working crazy shifts in an inner-city emergency room. Then he realized he could no longer remember things easily. Sleep became problematic. He was drained—mentally, emotionally, and physically. Depression and anxiety became familiar parts of his life.

Unlike so many doctors who look for the “one thing” that caused the problem and the one treatment to alleviate the symptoms, Dr. Hyman recognized that his problem had more than one cause. In his book he says, “It was everything piled higher and higher until my brain and body couldn’t take any more.”

The Ultra Mind Solution title is a bit misleading, but at the same time, it’s perfect. If your brain is not working right, many health problems will arise. On the other hand, if your body is overburdened with toxins, lack of quality sleep, and a lack of nutrition, at some point the whole system is going to break down. Mark Hyman took a holistic approach. He decided if his brain was broken, his whole body was in trouble. He learned that many of today’s

Magic Bullet – Letter From the Editor

Readers Write – Vaccines

Dr. Tim O’Shea Responds to Vaccine Letter

Monsanto Tries to Block Study

Emotional Freedom Technique

Théra Wise Product Review

For My KIDS Product Review

Intentional Chocolate Product Review

How to Make a Tincture

My Journey into Organic Farming

Foot Bath Detox Review

How to Start an Organic Garden

Eggs – Free Range, Cage Free, Organic, What’s the difference?

Oceana Company Highlight

Household Toxins

Is Agave Nectar Healthy?

In a recent conversation Dr. Tim O’Shea said, “I learned a long time ago, almost everyone who is sick is coming to me for the ‘magic bullet’. They’re saying, ‘Doc, what can you give me, so that I won’t feel this anymore? So I can go about my life continuing my destructive habits and unhealthy lifestyle?’”

Most of us know there are many herbs, supplements, and treatments for everything from the common cold to cancer. Vitamin C and zinc can help reduce the length and severity of a cold. Vitamin E can kill warts. Apple cider vinegar will knock out a sore throat. Quick fixes do have a place. But magic bullets and quick fixes don’t make us healthy. They don’t reverse diabetes. They don’t cure cancer.

We can continue to live destructive lifestyles and run to the doctor when symptoms of disease become uncomfortable or unbearable. We can accept a diagnosis of an “incurable” or “chronic” disease. Or we can choose health. We can choose to make a radical change in lifestyle.

We agree with Raymond Francis when he says, “There is one disease – malfunctioning cells. There are two causes – lack of nutrition and toxicity.” It really is that simple.

If you’ve been sick for a long time or you are extremely toxic, consider the aid of a naturopathic practitioner. You will probably benefit from some direction and may need supplements to regain your health. But remember, no one else can do it for you. No one can give you the magic bullet. It doesn’t exist.

If you choose health, you need to detox. You need to feed your body nutrient-dense, organic food. You need to choose an organic lifestyle.

Michael Edwards

Editor in Chief

Our readers respond to our previous magazine issue:

I really liked the vaccine articles. Our two-year-old daughter never had vaccinations and we are not planning to get them in the future. At the same time, we have a responsibility to protect her from ‘what if’. Reading this article helped us believe we made a right decision. This article needs to be shared. I also liked the review of LUSH products. I am not sure if you have been to a LUSH store before. I can’t stay more than 30 seconds because of the STRONG artificial fragrance that they use.

“Thank you Dr. Tim O’Shea for your article, Vaccine Injury Awareness. I really enjoyed this article and went to your website immediately after reading it. I found a plethora of great information that you have available for free.” – Blair

OLM’s stance on vaccinations is sad. Your articles are full of opinions with no scientific studies to back them up. I have unsubscribed. Too bad. I was really enjoying Organic Lifestyle Magazine.

“I thought Raymond Francis’s article What About Vaccinations was great! The article has evidence, and statistics, and he helped us to make our decision in regards to our children. Thank you OLM.” – New Mom & Dad

Ok, seriously, don’t you guys know they don’t put mercury in vaccinations anymore? Why don’t you do some homework before reprinting old articles?” – Jason

Actually, they do. Keep reading.

It was fantastic to see how you guys reviewed Lush cosmetics and The Morocco Method Hair Care! It’s nice to find a magazine that is not just here for its advertisers. When I read about Terressentials I thought that all of the product reviews you did were just paid advertising masquerading as actual reviews. Now I see that you guys really are reviewing these products and putting your honest opinion out there.”

“I have doneaA little bit of research on vaccinations and decided not to vaccinate our son, but I was concerned that I had not made the right decision. It was a constant fear for me, as I’m sure any mom can imagine. After rewarding your articles in the last issue I felt some relief. I then checked out Mike Adam’s, Dr. Tim O’Shea’s, and Raymond Francis’s websites. I was really excited to see so much free and easily accessible information. I just wanted to personally thank you, OLM, as well as these three health advocates for their wisdom.” – Tera

I was disheartened to read the rather ironically titled article, “The Psychology of Vaccine Injury Awareness”, published in the December 2008/January 2009 issue of your magazine. Dr. O’Shea’s article was a misleading assemblage of opinion stated as fact, unsupported assertions, and outright untruths.

“First, Dr. O’Shea casually mentions mercury toxicity without also mentioning that childhood vaccines in the U.S. no longer use the mercury containing preservative thimerosal, what was previously the target of the outrage of the anti-vaccine movement. Nor did he mention that in the 7 years since the preservative was removed, childhood autism rates have continued to rise. The debate as to whether mercury in vaccines is causing the autism epidemic is dead.

“Second, Dr. O’Shea’s assertion that the increase in autism seen in this unnamed “backwoods” community is “very likely the textbook example of hot lot damage” is simply ludicrous. Even if one takes at face value his dubious assertion that this community has a vastly elevated rate of autism, a claim that is uncited and unverifiable in the absence of a place name, his indictment of vaccines as the obvious culprit cannot be supported. There is no reason to think that a vaccine “hot lot” would result in any geographic clustering. As he stated, vaccine lots can include anywhere from 20,000 to millions of doses of vaccine. These doses are distributed nationally and internationally. Therefore deleterious effect from any alleged “hot lot” would be geographically dispersed, not clustered in a single small town. Furthermore, it has been shown that 90% of vaccine from a given lot are used within 5-9 months of distribution. If this increased rate of autism were caused by a single lot of vaccine, the cases would all have occurred in a terribly short time span in children of the same age cohort. But Dr. O’Shea has done nothing to show that this is the case.

“Third, he states that “there is overwhelming scientific evidence of their [vaccines] potential for permanent neurological and developmental damage”, backing this statement up only with a tantalizing reference to his own book, the contents of which the reader would conveniently have to purchase in order to verify. This statement, however, is patently false. There has been no single article published in a reputable peer reviewed journal establishing a link between vaccines and neurological damage; a fact that Dr. O’Shea would no doubt chalk up to the vast conspiracy that hides such abominable evidence. The simple truth is that the few studies that have been done that have drawn the conclusions he alludes to, most of which were conducted by Dr. Geier, who is also quoted in his text, were not published by reputable journals because they suffered from poor methodology, weak analysis, and far too strong conclusions drawn from limited results.

“Fourth, he mentions the 1700% increase in autism across the U.S. without mentioning that an unknown, but substantial proportion of that increase is likely the result of expanding diagnostic criteria and a vast increase in awareness among both mental health practitioners and the population in general. While it is likely that there has been a real increase in autism over this period, baldly stating the increase statistics without also mentioning the known caveats is alarmist and irresponsible.

“Fifth, his reference to the “shocking increase in the number of vaccines since 9/11” is laughable. No such shocking increase has occurred for the ages during which autism typically develops. There has been a single added series, a three dose schedule against rotavirus, plus a booster dose of MMR and varicella added over this time period. These changes clearly do not represent a precipitous increase in the vaccine burden. Furthermore, there were no changes made to the recommended childhood immunization schedule as a result of the events of 9/11. Slyly linking vaccines to those events only serves as a naked attempt to tap into people’s fears and paranoias.

“Sixth, Dr. O’Shea vaguely links childhood vaccines to “the sharp increase in childhood cancer and diabetes”, with no supporting evidence or even discussion. The fact is, we know that the cause of the diabetes epidemic is the corresponding childhood obesity epidemic resulting from sedentary lives fed by junk food and soda. Mentioning childhood diabetes in the same breath as vaccines is completely absurd.

“This kind of pabulum is a slap in the face to the epidemiologists who study this and other important health issues, obsessing over every decimal point, and painstakingly and ever so carefully drawing conclusions in the causal relationships they study. But far more importantly, it undermines the good public policy that is supported by their findings, endangering the public health by feeding a movement embedded in misplaced anger, misinformation, bad science, and paranoia. I suggest you do some more research before publishing articles with such far reaching public health implications.” – Andrew Horvath

Epidemiologist
Marin County, California

We sent this final letter to Dr. Tim O’Shea. His response is on the next page. OLM

Originally I trashed this response to my article The Psychology of Vaccine Awareness because it was so uninformed and poorly conceived. On further consideration, I realized that the author pretends to harbor many misconceptions similar to many of the general public who have never really looked at the vaccine issue beyond what they are told in the glossy magazines, popular media and from the evening newsreaders. Following standard propaganda in this way, having no information on the underlying science, low- end copy like this email will result. Which is OK as long as the individual is the only one who loses. But it is for the children of the people this misinformed that I will try to respond to these confused comments and try to set the record straight.

I class this type of response in the Hand Holding category, which I usually don’t do. It means that these issues are set straight very clearly and incontrovertibly in the new 2009 edition of the book The Sanctity of Human Blood. Even though this book is very short and very reader friendly, I realize most people will not take the time to absorb the minimal information it contains before they make one of the most important decision they will ever make for their child.

The author of the email attacking my article comes up with nothing new- no new ideas, no fresh insight, no worthwhile assertions. His comments are a very average-level parroting of standard media propaganda which has formed the public perception of vaccines for the past 200 years. The same phrases, the same mantras, the same disregard for scientific fact, physiological processes and actual historical events. So Average Parrot here has put no special effort into researching the areas on which he is holding forth; merely repeating back the same timeworn phrases he has passively absorbed during a lifetime of standard conditioning through popular media. It’s all rhetoric, all chatter, notable for its complete lack of supporting references. This is one of the hallmarks of mundane propaganda – no documentation.

In his opening paragraph Average Parrot makes the same charge at me about unsupported assertions, etc. The ideas in the article in question The Psychology of Vaccine Injury Awareness are excerpted from the book The Sanctity of Human Blood, 13th edition, which contains over 350 medical, legal and scientific references covering every single fact and statistic stated not only in the book but in this short article as well. To that list then do I direct any reader looking for documentation of the position I represent.
    The first chattering about how mercury is gone from vaccines sets the tone of the letter.  It’s going to be the usual line, mercury is gone now from vaccines so everything’s fine, etc. So let’s get this straight: mercury is not gone from vaccines. Either I’m right about this or Average Parrot is right.  We can’t both be right. One of us is wrong.  Clear?  On the 2009 CDC website we see that there are currently 19 flu shots mandated before age 18.  In the 2008 PDR the manufacturers of the influenza vaccines tell us that thimerosal (50% mercury) is added.  They also state that thimerosal is put into Twinvax.  On the FDA website in 2008 mercury levels permitted in current vaccines read as follows:

In addition to all this, remember that mercury was never made illegal, nor will it ever be. Vaccines never expire, so all those millions of old stockpiled doses of mercury vaccines may still be given out, any time any place. Which they are, every day all over the country. The other fact Average Parrot glosses over is that it wasn’t 7 years ago that manufacturers started to try to cover their tracks. Until 2004 thimerosal was still being admitted as a preservative in 4 different vaccines on the mandated schedule.

All these facts are just the tip of the thimerosal iceberg. What about the Kennedy Report, what about the secret meeting in Simpsonwood Georgia, what about the Institutes of Medicine report…? But all this is even a smokescreen– mercury isn’t the only problem with vaccines– it’s not the only thing that makes vaccines suppress the immune systems of children. At least let’s not pretend that the problem has been taken care of when thousands of kids in the US every day are still loading up with the third most toxic substance known to man: mercury in vaccines.

The debate about mercury is dead, Average Parrot is correct. What he missed is that his side lost. The etiology between mercury and autism is incontrovertible. He just never did the research. Guess it never came up on Oprah.

All these references are listed in the 13 edition of the new book.

Next, with respect to the community I discovered with the abnormally high rates of autism, Average Parrot is right. No one can prove that was a vaccine hot lot I witnessed up there, and indeed no one will ever gather the real statistics of autism incidence in that isolated community. Because studies like that would take huge money and the only one with money like that is the drug industry. And this is the exact reason why legitimate estimates of the true number of autistics in this country not only have never been undertaken, but have been routinely blocked and prevented by every possible method. But don’t worry, you’re safe Mr AP. Those backwoods people didn’t get it, they never understood what Haley and Yazbak and I were talking about so no one will ever follow up on that lead. As far as vaccine hot lots, you are correct again — bad lots are dispersed geographically for that exact reason — to protect the vaccine manufacturers from liability. But remember — they only re-distribute lots after there is a problem: an abnormally high incidence of deaths and reactions. Then they redistribute. All I was suggesting is that we may have been observing that first outbreak in a new lot, before redistribution.

Considering that in this location the injuries all did come up in the same age group within the same very short time period, that is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. But again don’t worry, Mr AP. No one will ever follow up, and your autistic population is guaranteed never to go after your employers. The locals did report it so that it could be studied, but all that Washington did was to send them another Average Parrot like yourself, who literally ran out of the meeting room when the crowd became upset at the condescending mantras he was offering them about why their kids were now permanent defectives. Same rhetoric as you’re chanting here. Perhaps you’d like to take a shot at explaining things to these ordinary people yourself. Sure, you should try it. As long as you have no aversion to tar and feathers.

We see how narrow is the scope of Average Parrot’s academic purview by pretending that the only studies ever showing a connection between mercury and vaccines damage came from Dr Mark Geier’s work. Again this is typical in the world of propaganda– take one reference out of hundreds and pretend like that summarizes the whole field of enquiry. My statement about the overwhelming scientific evidence for neurological damage as a potential result of vaccines stands, and will always stand. But the individual has to be capable of looking a little beyond the texts that are written by his employers, the drug companies. He must look into mainstream scientific literature and be willing to go wherever the data leads. Average Parrot won’t do that. He’s not allowed.

Surprisingly Average Parrot admits the 1700% increase in autism in the past decade, but then predictably ascribes it to the same boring explanation E.L. Bernays media has been using during that whole period: we’re better at diagnosing it now. More autistics now because we’re better at diagnosing it now, right? This impotent dismissal is easily refuted: as Dr Yazbak and others ask, then where are the 40 year old autistics?

Dr Wakefield explained long ago how the diagnostic criteria for autism had not changed as the numbers skyrocketed.

You people really need some new material. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, stop saying it.

As far as deliberate misdirection and misstatement of fact, Average Parrot really goes over the line when he states that there have been no changes in the number of vaccines since 9/11. Is this a joke? What country was he living in during this period? Anyone paying the slightest attention to the Mandated Schedule of childhood vaccines in the past 2 decades saw the increase:

This is not really subject to a difference of opinion. These are the numbers of vaccines we gave our kids during those years.  No amount of double-talk by Average Parrots or even good parrots can change the fact that the number of autistics and the number of vaccines have risen sharply since 9/11. Don’t even need my book for that. This is what I mean about these pedestrian-level would-be pedagogues and their education.  They don’t even try and follow historical events. Average Parrot here wants to read one article by Geier and pretend to understand the argument, and make all these unwarranted pronouncements about this and that,  but is frightened to death to be confronted with a review of the literature known all over the world that holds more than 350 references, which taken together are irrefutable.

The epitome of the academic ivory tower: the difference between seeking the truth and preventing the truth from being known.

Average Parrot’s comment about lack of scientific evidence linking vaccines and diabetes really tips his hand about his own education. In the 13th edition there are abundant clinical studies since the 1980s showing a strong connection between vaccines and infant diabetes. But again, one must take the time to actually read the studies. Much easier to say there aren’t any such studies, because the 2 minute google search they might have done didn’t turn up any.

Just a few of the researchers who have documented the connection between diabetes and vaccines:

– Robert Mendelsohn MD in his 1985 book showing how diabetes was an effect of the new MMR vaccine

– all the 1997 peer reviewed journal articles in the US, UK and in Finland showing the connection between the new HiB vaccine and infant diabetes, as cited in the 13th edition.

– Bart Classen MD has an entire website showing scientific connection between diabetes and vaccines www.nccn.net

Indeed it was the high incidence of diabetes from the HiB vaccines which banned the shot forever from Finland. We still give 4 doses to our kids. And what is the incidence of childhood diabetes in the US in the last 10 years?

There was virtually no such thing as childhood diabetes before 1960. That was when vaccines began doubling and redoubling. At least it is suspicious as a risk factor alone.

The amount of documentation connecting vaccines with diabetes is overwhelming, but one must actually look at it.

Currently there is a vaccine in the developmental pipeline for diabetes!

We have run to the end of my allotted hand holding time. Except one final comment to unmask Average Parrot and show whom he represents.

Epidemiologists are part of one of the new pseudo-sciences that have popped up in recent years pretending some scientific veneer, but beneath it all found to be just shills for the drug companies, or having some specific political agenda. These would include sociology, social science, psychiatry and several other non-sciences. What they share in common is a dependence on a very structured though unfounded rhetoric, sloganeering, and simplistic phrase-mongering.

In the new book, there is a whole section explaining this new phenomenon which is trying to pass itself off as scientific, using epidemiological studies. Here is the excerpt:

“Epidemiological studies also called population studies, are the poor cousin of true clinical trials. They are not controlled studies done under set scientific conditions, but rather attempts at verifying a hypothesis just by counting the incidence of a certain disease or condition within a certain population. The problem is that results from epidemiological studies are subject to widespread interpretation, depending on who’s doing the counting, who decides the criteria for what gets counted, who’s paying for the study, who publishes the results, etc. For this reason, epidemiological studies can be used to “prove” two opposite hypotheses.

In the exploding vaccine industry today, epidemiological studies are quickly becoming the standard to validate our need for more vaccines, because they’re faster, cheaper, and capable of supporting practically any required outcome.”

For this reason we can see why Average Parrot is threatened by the article The Psychology of Vaccine Awareness and especially by the new vaccine book, which he will certainly never read, being beyond his permitted scope. Even though I have directed some comments in this response to Average Parrot, I’m really addressing it to the average educated parents who are struggling with the idea of vaccines today and trying to make up their minds whether or not there is anything to all this noise they hear about problems with vaccine risks and dangers.

To those parents I’m saying yes, follow your instincts, it’s not as simple as your pediatrician and as Average Parrot here would pretend. The issue is not who wins the argument or who is the cleverest at word games like this. The outcome affects your child and his chances of developing a normal immune system. In the modern world today with its Clintons and Bushes and Roves and Obamas, it’s about protection — protecting ourselves from propaganda and the science of lying, protecting the blood of our children from processed foods, contaminated air and water, and specifically from experimental vaccines being shot into their formative immune systems during infancy. It is for them that the parent owes a little investigation — from sources other than those making a living off the selling of vaccines. If the parents have a lot of time they can do their own research. If they want to save months of time they can look at the new book: the 13th edition The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination Is Not Immunization. Don’t believe the book, believe the references. And believe in your child’s future.

Tap Into Your Natural Healing Ability

Once there was a man, let’s call him Richard, who was terribly afraid of spiders.  Simply seeing a spider make the slightest movement sent Richard in the other direction, shivering in fear of being bitten. Walking into spider webs elicited a frantic whirlwind of the arms, as he’d desperately try to rid himself of the web and its fanged owner. 

Richard’s first vivid “spider memory” came from his childhood. He was hiding in a bush during a game of hide-and-seek when he realized that the little white flower on his hand wasn’t a flower at all, but a large, too-well-camouflaged spider. He watched in horrificfascination as it bit him! Decades later, he would smash spiders as they crawled across his bedroom wall, leaving their broken, lifeless bodies as silent warnings to other eight-legged pests.

One day, Richard came across an innovative technique that was supposedly quite effective for a range of ailments, including stubborn phobias. He stumbled through the motions, following a free “try it yourself” version of the process, naming his fear of spiders as theintended target. At the end of the self-led session, his skepticism in full swing, he put away the materials and went back to the daily grind.

It wasn’t until a week or two later that Richard realized something had indeed changed. He watched with interest as a spider scuttled across the wall. After it hid behind a bookcase, Richard’s awareness gave a clarion call: I didn’t jump up and smash it! A few weeks later, to his own disbelief, he found himself “rescuing” a spider by cupping it in a glass and carrying it outside to be released into his garden. And last night – several years after that single, self-led and incidental “therapy session” – while sitting at an outside concert, he watched a spider scurry across a metal bar in front of him and wondered if it would tickle to have that “little guy” run over his arm.

There had been no medical intervention, no endless hours with a psychotherapist, and no medications involved, yet Richard’s decades-old fear of spiders had virtually vanished. Could that one non-supervised self-help session have eradicated Richard’s life-long fear of spiders? Some scoff at the proposal, but new research, and arguably even more compelling personal experience, suggests that such rapid and long-term healing is possible. What’s more, it is the result of literally tapping into a system of energy that already exists within each of us.

Too good to be true? I’m sure it seems that way. But Richard’s story is actually my own. This was my initial and quite surprising encounter with an ancillary therapy called Emotional Freedom Techniques or EFT.

Ancient Roots, Modern Branches

EFT is one of a body of alternative therapies within a growing area of specialty called “Energy Psychology,” which focuses on how your body’s unique energy can dramatically affect your emotional health, your success in the world, and your level of personal joy and wellbeing. As a field, Energy Psychology is both relatively new and well-received. The journal Clinical Psychology called it “an exciting and rapidly developing realm,” concluding that “emerging research suggests that [Energy Psychology’s] methods are very effective indeed, extremely rapid, and thoroughly gentle.” ¹

Most techniques that fall under Energy Psychology’s umbrella – and certainly this is the case with EFT – are at least partially founded on the ancient Chinese medicine theory involving the circulation of energy in the body. Just as there are fluids that flow through your body (i.e., blood, lymph), there is an unseen system of energy that circulates as well. Eastern medicine has long acknowledged the presence of this energy flow and has, over 5,000 years, steadily perfected its approach to utilizing these energies to affect health and healing. Acupuncture and acupressure, two well-known and respected natural health therapies, are part of this long legacy. The latest “cousin” in the family, EFT, is rapidly gaining respect and validity as a tool for quick, efficient, and relatively painless healing.

One of the primary principles of EFT is that all emotional disturbances are caused by a disruption in the body’s energy system. It follows that smoothing out or “fixing” that disruption should “heal” emotional troubles. This makes EFT an excellent ancillary therapy for issues such as depression, anger, jealousy, phobias, paranoia, addictions, performance anxiety, low self-esteem, and a host of other mental and emotional ailments.

But EFT also connects the brain with this dynamic energy system. In their groundbreaking book The Promise of Energy Psychology, authors David Feinstein, Donna Eden, and (EFT creator) Gary Craig explore the connection between the human brain and emotional health. Their conclusion is that “every thought or emotion that you experience causes a reaction in a specific area of your brain.”2 Through EFT, practitioners help their clients shift their brains’ responses to both external and internal stimuli. The result is that the things that used to emotionally disturb a person suddenly elicit a more rational emotional response. (Remember my spider phobia?)

As EFT started its undeniable and inevitable blooming into the world of holistic and natural health, practitioners and clients alike noticed another startling fact: EFT hasthe capacity to help with many physicalailments as well! People suffering from conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, neck pain, backache, headaches, PMS, toothaches, migraines, IBS, the common cold, high blood pressure, and many other health concerns can find relief through this new and exciting technique.

In large part, this may be due to the mind-body connection, which has been the focus of many studies in recent years. It’s become an undeniable fact that our minds can affect our bodies in both positive and negative ways. As we discover and heal mental “triggers,” many physical issues can clear up seemingly on their own.

Another reason EFT may help heal physical maladies is due to its unique ability to smooth out the energy system in the body. People with significant health issues may have developed an energy system disturbance that has actually, in time, become part of the problem itself. Recalibrating the energy flow with regard to the particular illness or disease in question may actually allow the body to more easily heal and rejuvenate itself. This is, after all, the aim, function, and success of acupuncture, which has a long and distinguished history of helping a wide range of physical ailments.

All of the above boils down to something like this: EFT allows people to change both brain chemistry and energy patterns surrounding psychological problems, which in turn “disarms” emotional and mental triggers and can rapidly and effectively help treat emotional, mental, and sometimes even physical issues. Positive results are often rapid, painless, and long lasting.

It does sound too good to be true, doesn’t it? Well, for once, it’s not.

Granted, EFT may not cure every ailment and may not work in every situation, but the ease of its use, the painlessness of its delivery, and the odds of its success certainly make it worth investigating. But let’s nip the skepticism in the bud. Most people assume that if EFT works at all it’s due to the “power of suggestion,” some kind of subtle hypnotism, or perhaps even the charisma and enthusiasm of the practitioner. While these are understandable arguing points, the truth is that EFT recalibrates a person’s energy system around negatively charged thoughts so that undesirable emotional responses are eliminated. In fact, EFT’s effectiveness with infants, children, and even animals has been documented. In these cases, it certainly isn’t a placebo effect at work or hypnotherapy. Rather, it’s the direct action of EFT on the recipients’ energy systems.

Incredulous? That’s fine! I didn’t believe it myself, at first. And in my opinion, that only adds to EFT’s credibility: you don’t need to believe in it for it to work. EFT can affect positive changes in people who have zero faith in it. How can this be? Because your energy system and your brain’s neural pathways don’t rely on your value judgments to perform. As an Advanced Practitioner, I will certainly suggest that a positive outlook or “hope” may increase a client’s rate of success due to the power of intention, but I have yet to see proof that incredulity keeps EFT from working its magic on at least some level.

The Basic Recipe

Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of EFT is how very simple and non-invasive it is. At the center of EFT is a working knowledge of what are called the body’s acupoints. There are at least 360 acupoints distributed throughout the body, tiny areas of the skin that, when stimulated, send signals directly to areas of the brain that are connected with our emotions and our bodies’ energy system. MRIs have demonstrated that “stimulating specific points on the skin not only changed brain activity; it also deactivated areas of the brain that are involved with the experiences of fear and pain.” 3 Further, working with acupoints has been shown to increase the release of serotonin (a natural, beneficial neurochemical), necessary from a neurochemical standpoint to minimize depression, addictions, and mood disorders.
   Acupuncture uses needles to stimulate various acupoints, while acupressure rubs them, sometimes intensely. EFT, on the other hand, uses a series of gentle taps with two or three fingertips on only a handful of these points to provide an incredible healing journey. In short, you take two fingers of one hand (typically the index and middle fingers) and use them to tap on various acupoints located on the upper body (and sometimes also on the hand). To the right, you see a picture of some of the most common acupoints stimulated in EFT.

The tapping itself is gentle; there’s no need for a forceful or high-pressured approach. Practitioners typically aim for about seven taps on each of the points, though far less attention should be paid to how much tapping is happening at each point than to what is being said during the tapping sequence.

Perhaps just as important as the tapping itself is the Set-Up Phrase used to isolate and address the issue in question. This phrase is typically comprised of two parts: the statement of the problem and a positive affirmation. For example, if you are working with a fear of spiders, you would start with the phrase:
“Even though I am terrified of spiders…”

This establishes the problem and helps trigger your body’s subtle energies surrounding this issue. The next step in the Set-Up Phrase process, however, is to tell your body/mind that, regardless of the issue, it is loved and accepted:

“…I deeply and completely love and accept myself.”

This entire phrase – “Even though I am terrified of spiders, I deeply and completely love and accept myself” – simultaneously addresses the issue and primes the energy system for what I like to think of as “recalibration.” Essentially, you allow your body to slip into the negative energy pattern (by calling out the problem) then offer yourself love and acceptance in spite of the perceived negative response.

This statement is repeated a few times while tapping on a point on the hand, then the rest of the tapping sequence commences. What stands out to most EFT newcomers is that when tapping on each of the acupoints, they are asked to repeat the problem indicated by the Set-Up Phrase (e.g., “I’m terrified of spiders!”).

In my practice, most clients ask why we don’t instead repeat the positive affirmation. “Aren’t I just tapping the problem in even deeper?” is the question I usually get. Quite the contrary, by repeating the problem while stimulating the acupoints, the body is sent a signal to release the disruption in the energy system around that particular issue, in effect “recalibrating” it so that the problem (e.g., fear of spiders) no longer sends the energy system into shock.    

It’s like a massage therapist rubbing out a knot in your back – she doesn’t work just on the parts of you that are fine, she works right on the problem area. Of course, EFT is much gentler than massage, and you can do it yourself at just about any time and just about anywhere.    

The result of all this tapping and problem-repeating? The fear of spiders is reduced – sometimes dramatically and often very quickly – and what’s called a cognitive reframe occurs. That is to say that the circumstances haven’t changed – spiders still exist! But the way the client perceives them shifts dramatically. Often, fear gives way to curiosity, as people start to wonder what they were so afraid of to begin with. This, in turn, can even bloom into appreciation as other aspects of the problem shift into focus.    

Remarkably, EFT has the ability to release emotional, mental, and even physical pains that far surpass simple fears. Indeed, it has been known to help with sports performance, reduce many body aches and pains, and even disarm traumatic memories and events such as abuse and rape. The power of EFT is only now starting to become widely recognized, and I foresee its use in many situations as a first-response approach to a wide array of emotional and physical issues.

What, Where, & How?

What you can expect from a session may vary widely from practitioner to practitioner. In part, this is due to the fact that anyone can learn EFT. Many EFT practitioners are trained psychotherapists and doctors, while others are lay people convinced they have found something worth sharing with others. Naturally, that doesn’t mean all EFT practitioners are equally good at facilitating healing. Nor should one assume that only a degree-carrying practitioner can achieve lasting results. Quite the contrary, varying degrees of knowledge, skill, intuition, and finesse can be found just as assuredly in a home office as a doctor’s office.

Probably your best bet when looking for a qualified EFT Practitioner is to look for one who is certified (or certificated) on at least a basic level. Look for a practitioner who evidences some kind of proficiency: Has she written articles on the subject? Does he have a sizeable clientele? Has she been practicing long? Does he have an official “business” (including a business license from the city)? Feel free to call or email the practitioner and ask how long he or she has been using EFT with others, as well as any other questions you may have.

A well-trained EFT practitioner will help you become comfortable and adept with the technique within a session or two. Your questions about EFT and what you can expect during the healing process should be answered during the first session, and you should experience some kind of identifiable emotional or psychological “movement” with regard to the problem for which you’re seeking EFT help (i.e., easing of anger, removal of guilt, lifting of embarrassment, etc.). Initial sessions should include an introduction to EFT, to the tapping points and the Set-Up Phrase, and several runs through the system targeting your specific issue.

When my clients leave my office after an initial visit, they not only have used EFT, they feel comfortable trying it out on their own, too. This is one of the most surprising and fantastic aspects of EFT: once you learn it, you can use it in your daily life without the help of a professional. While it may take a seasoned and skilled EFT Practitioner to help with some issues, many people can learn EFT effortlessly and use it successfully in their own lives when they need it most. This unique combination of ease and effectiveness promises to make EFT a popular technique with anyone who is eager to explore and tap (quite literally!) the healing power within.

For a free manual on EFT, and to learn more about this dynamic healing technique go to www.emofree.com

¹Phil Mollon, Review of Energy Psychology Interactive. Clinical Psychology42 (2004): 37-39

²David Feinstein, Donna Eden, & Gary Craig, The Promise of Energy Psychology: Revolutionary Tools for Dramatic Personal Change. (2005): 13

³David Feinstein, Donna Eden, & Gary Craig, The Promise of Energy Psychology: Revolutionary Tools for Dramatic Personal Change. (2005): 21

EFT In Action

Laura had an intense  fear of heights.

The first time we walked out onto the balcony of a local concert hall, she held onto both the railing and me with a white knuckled grip, her fear of falling so severe she’d get sick from looking down.

“After we had reached our seats, and with only ten minutes before the start of the concert, I asked her if she’d like to lose her fear of heights. She was incredulous but open to the idea and proceeded through the basic steps of EFT with me as her guide.

“After only two rounds of the technique, a peculiar look crossed her face and she said, ‘It’s gone.’ To prove it, she grabbed the railing in front of us and bent over so far that I was uncomfortable! During intermission and after the concert, she tested the results and was able each time to lean over the railing without any hint of the crippling fear she’d experienced earlier.

“To this day – and that was several years ago – her fear of heights in such settings has stayed a thing of the past. So much so, in fact, that she hardly remembers what it was like before our quick, impromptu EFT session.”