Vaccine Studies

You may be thinking that OLM is “beating a dead horse” with this vaccine issue. But it’s a battle; one that we won’t quit fighting any time soon. I’m going to say something here that is going to piss off a lot of people: If you don’t think the vaccine industry is out of control, you are a brainwashed pawn, or better yet, a guinea pig. Until we have independent studies that are not funded by Big Pharma, that are published in scientific journals not funded by Big Pharma, that are conducted by scientists who do not rely on grants from Big Pharma to finance their university program or their next research project, we will not trust studies that tell us vaccinations are safe. So when you hear about a study that says there is no correlation between vaccines and neurological disorders, remember the swine flu shots given in 1976 and the thousands who contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). In little more than 2 months, 1/3 of the adult population was vaccinated for the swine flu. The following is from a court case resulting from a 1976 swine flu vaccination injury. Doesn’t this sound familiar? “So monumental and effective were the urgings of the government that it resulted in an unprecedented nearly 40 million citizens responding to the call. Both this plaintiff and untold others relied on the government’s assurances that the vaccine was both safe and necessary. A barrage of publicity aimed at overcoming the reluctance of citizens to participate included the unprecedented appearance of the President of the United States on national television to plead for a positive response. Against that background, it would be a travesty to suggest that people who hurriedly signed the standardized form presented to them were adequately informed of the risks.” [VERLIN G. UNTHANK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT]1 With each report of a death from H1N1, we must remember that the severity of H1N1 is significantly lower than that of seasonal flu. The news does not tell us each time a man, woman, or child dies from complications of seasonal flu, which claims the life of 35,000 Americans each year. Don’t let swine flu hysteria and the media frenzy affect your health decisions regarding vaccination.

Refusing a C-section – A Mother’s Right?

Many have blogged about the New Jersey mother who lost her parental rights for refusing a C-section and acting erratically during labor. What is unclear is whether she refused to sign permission for a C-section in the event one was indicated or if she refused when the baby was in distress and doctors wanted to perform one. It may be a moot point, considering the child was born vaginally and without complications, but still there is a clear distinction between signing a cart blanche permission to allow doctors to do whatever they want before the need arises, and refusing care when an unborn child is experiencing fetal distress.

The parents’ rights have now been terminated and the court cites chronic mental illness on both their parts as the reason. (The mother had received mental health care for 12 years prior to the incident.) Many blogs make the point that if the mother had not refused a C-section, her mental health would not have been in question. We don’t necessarily agree.

If this couple was receiving on-going care for chronic mental illness, Child Protective Services likely would have been notified about their case by their mental health worker. But so little is known about the actual facts in this case (and the links to the court ruling are broken on multiple sites), most of what is posted is assumption.

In another case in 2004, a mother was charged with murder for refusing a C-section for her twins. One was stillborn. This mother also had drug and alcohol issues. The case was plea bargained and the murder charge was dropped.

While both of these cases have extenuating circumstances, it is still quite clear that a woman no longer has the right to refuse an invasive procedure without facing parental termination or, in the case of a child’s death, murder charges.

Michael Edwards, Chief Editor – Was Accused of Child Molestation

The previous article is one of many appalling stories I’ve read since I’ve been the editor-in-chief of OLM. I used to believe that these stories were rare. Because of my own experience, I now pay more attention. I know horrific cases of injustice are all too common.

The day my daughter was born, I constantly argued with the doctors and nurses. They convinced my wife that she needed antibiotics. They told us several times that she might need a C-section. Once our daughter was born, they also convinced my wife that our baby might die if she did not receive IV antibiotics. They threatened to call child protective services if we didn’t comply. They later admitted the IV antibiotics were given as a precaution. In other words, they lied. Our whole experience was a nightmare. But that’s another story. That’s not what this article is about. This article is about my experience with our justice system.

When my wife and I separated, my daughter was two years old. The separation was a mutual decision, and at first we got along pretty well, but it wasn’t long before our relationship went from good to bad. It would take a book to reveal every important or significant detail of this story, which I am in the process of writing. For now, let me just say that I wrongly lost my parental rights; I am no longer recognized as my daughter’s father, and I am currently on probation for my “crimes.”

My daughter and I were very close. In fact, we were much closer than she and her mom. In the weeks prior to the allegation, she told everyone who would listen, “I want to go live with my daddy.” My daughter was four years old when, out of nowhere, my ex-wife accused me of child molestation. The court indicted me for rape, incest, aggravated child molestation, and child molestation.

It didn’t matter that I’d passed a polygraph to the contrary with flying colors, or that a psycho-sexual evaluation found that I was not a child molester. Nor did it matter that her hymen was fully intact with no scarring or tearing. In the first of many revelations that convinced me the world had gone mad, my lawyer told me the DA would find a doctor to testify that a child’s hymen can grow back. As crazy as this sounds, my attorney, himself a former DA, said such testimony was common practice. Can you imagine?

My daughter had a persistent rash. My ex-wife called and reminded me to check that rash on my daughter’s last visit. When she was examined 19 days later, she still had the rash—a red area, with one tiny “skin tear” a millimeter in size, halfway between her vagina and anus. When asked by the hospital social worker, “Did Daddy touch you down there?” she said, “Yes.” She was right. I had touched her “down there.” I had checked her rash.

A rash of this sort is typical in young children, caused by anything from bubble bath to not wiping well. In her case, rashes were the typical result whenever she ate refined sugar.

From the moment I was charged with this crime, I was ordered not to speak to my child or to my ex-wife. I spent a year in jail awaiting trial. My resources were drained. My family’s resources were quickly exhausted. I was assigned a lawyer. On the day my trial was to start, I was told that even though I had “raped my daughter” I could take a plea and walk out of the courtroom–go home that very day with time served and probation. I refused.

I wanted to go to trial. I argued with my attorney, insisting on a trial, but I was facing a maximum term of life plus 30 years in prison. Finally I was convinced that the risk was just too great, especially since my lawyer’s trial preparation had been minimal, at best. But I refused to lie and say I was guilty. I agreed to take a plea called “Alford v. South Carolina.” Through this plea, I could maintain my innocence. The judge agreed I could take this plea, but only if I agreed to a 6-month prison sentence in addition to time served. He also agreed to include “first offender status,” which means I will not need to register as a sex offender after my probation is completed. The felony will be hidden from most background checks. Unless I want to work a high security job like at an airline or a bank, no one need ever know about my conviction. That is, unless I tell them.

I will tell them.

I have never tried to keep this case a secret. I never intend to.

I’ve been told I was very, very lucky, that the DA didn’t think I was guilty. No one, from the parole officers who reviewed my case while I was in prison to the probation officers assigned to me since my release, can make sense of my initial charges and the resultant deal. “What exactly did you supposedly do here?” my probation officer asked me with a look of bewilderment. They all say I dodged a bullet. They all say I am lucky. But I don’t feel lucky. I lost my child.

My court-mandated therapist knows I’m not a pedophile, but we continue to meet; our sessions are included in the terms of my probation.

The law is on my side for a successful habeas corpus, but I don’t yet have the money to fight a successful court battle. If I raise the money before the deadline, I can show that the arresting police officer, who also interviewed my child, gave false information at the indictment. A habeas corpus could result in one of two things: the right to a new trial or the charges being dropped.

A habeas corpus would put me back at the beginning—as if I had never gone to prison or served any time on probation. I could be re-arrested, to await my day in court, to face a jury—twelve people who will have no idea I’ve already served my time. And then, I could win. Or I could lose.

I am still in a lot of pain. I am willing, but not yet able, to fight back. I may never get the ruling reversed. I may go to trial and win. But even if I were to prove my innocence and successfully sue the county for millions, I’m told there is no legal precedent that will allow me to regain my parental rights. I’m told, “They just don’t do that.” Win or lose, my daughter and I have already lost. This isn’t something either one of us will ever “get over.”

I am braced for the worst outcome. If we don’t conform like the sheep we are meant to be, our government, our society in general, is likely to hurt us. People have a tendency to sit on their high horses and look down on others for being different, for bucking the system. They can take everything away from you. Almost everything.

For now, I fight back in a different way. They took my freedom. They took my child. But they didn’t take my morality. They didn’t take my integrity. They didn’t break me.

I fight back by publishing a magazine the goes against the grain. I fight back by speaking out against what I firmly, in the bottom of my heart, believe are lies and injustice perpetrated against the American people. I fight against the degradation of our food supply. I fight for our health.

I come across too radical for some, but I know from personal experience that corruption in the name of money, power, ego, and social standing is everywhere—in business, in the pharmaceutical industry, in the agricultural industry, in government. This is why I publish OLM. This is why I work 80 plus hours a week. Right now, this is the only way I can fight back.

You may have heard the government is imposing their idea of health care on us. People may go to jail for refusing health insurance. People may go to jail for refusing vaccinations. People will undoubtedly lose their children for refusing these mandates. For those of you who worry about things like this, you have every reason to fear.

For those of you who have lost a child or children due to non-conformity, I feel your pain. For those of you who started a business selling health food and/or supplements and did everything you could to be in full compliance but were still ruined by the lawless FDA and/or the FTC, I know it happens. For those of you who have been forced to do something you were not comfortable with for fear of legal trouble, I understand completely.

It’s a tough world out there. I have no easy answers. I will tell my story. I will finish my book. I plan to start a non-profit one day to help fight injustice. Regardless, I know I will keep fighting. Even if I end up living under a bridge with nothing left, I will go to my local library and blog on their free computer. For right now, I am doing all I can do.

For those of you who have been a victim of our “justice” system or big business, I say fight back if you can, any way you can, even if it’s just through telling your story.

Clinical Trials and Scientific Studies

Clinical trials and scientific studies are held as the gold standard when it comes to health care, so how credible those trials and studies are ends up being a very important question. The truth, as it turns out, might surprise you.

The medical establishment likes to look at their studies as factual, evidence driven, and done with an impartial eye. But the truth is, the results of research studies can have multi-million or multi-billion dollar consequences for drug companies, so they can be about as biased as you can get.

It makes more sense when you understand that the drug companies with many millions or billions at stake are often funding the researchers or funding the universities for which the researchers work. And, of course, if the researchers’ studies produce the “right” results, they are more likely to continue to receive funding. Researchers who don’t get enough grant money from big pharmaceutical companies are likely to lose their university jobs. For some researchers, that can be reason enough to play along.

Playing along can mean a number of things. At its worst, playing along can result in complete fabrication or manipulation of the data and results.

It wasn’t long ago that Hwang Woo-Suk, South Korea’s once highly esteemed researcher, claimed a major breakthrough in stem cell research and his results were also published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed publication. It was later found that he fabricated the data, for which he publicly apologized. While his fraud made headlines around the world, the crime might not be as rare as you think.

In 2008, one in fifty scientists admitted they had fabricated, falsified or “doctored” a research study; that number is generally regarded as low since these researchers have an interest in keeping their frauds a secret. When these same scientists were asked if they knew a colleague who had fabricated the data or results, about one in seven said they knew someone who had done just that.

Questionable research practices fall below outright falsification of data and were found to be even more prevalent. When scientists were asked, about one in three admitting to having used questionable research practices; again, the number skyrocketed when asked if they knew a colleague who had. About seven out of every ten scientists said they knew a colleague who had used questionable research practices.

Questionable research includes practices like “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source” or cherry-picking the results for publication. To the FDA, the latter is even acceptable.

In fact, by FDA rules, pharmaceutical companies can conduct as many clinical trials as they want, and send only the favorable results to the FDA for review. To help you read between the lines, this means drug companies can bury the negative results of clinical drug trials so that you and your doctor Clinical Trials never know about them.

Eli Lilly was accused of hiding the risk of suicide and suicidal tendencies with their drug Prozac, a drug now accepted to increase suicidal risk. A Harvard psychiatrist alleged that during the clinical trials those with suicidal tendencies were asked to leave the study, so their results were not counted. The Harvard psychiatrist was able to produce Eli Lilly internal documents to support the accusation.

Internal documents also surfaced to support the accusation that Eli Lilly knowingly hid the risks of their drug Zyprexa. A former FDA official even testified in court that the drug giant hid the risks for the purpose of insuring profits.

Questionable research practices can also include tweaking the results to make them seem more definite than they originally were, ignoring conclusions that don’t meet the study’s needs, and concealing conflicts of interest.

Depending on whose numbers you trust, incidences of scientific fraud in the U.S., as counted by government confirmed cases, occur with one out of ten scientists at the high end, or at the low end, with one out of every hundred scientists. Either way, they’re high numbers, especially when you consider that millions of people trust this information then put unnatural chemicals inside their bodies.

Properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs have been found to kill 100,000 Americans and “seriously injure” another 2.1 million each year, and one has to wonder how much pharmaceutical and scientific manipulation and outright fraud is responsible.

To add to the dog pile, drug companies have been found to stoop to all sorts of tricks.

Merck was caught disguising in-house authors as independent researchers. To accomplish this, Merck wrote a key study used to popularize the now infamous Vioxx then paid a researcher to put his/her name on it.

In relation to Vioxx, the Wall Street Journal reported that “a prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies that claimed to show benefits from painkillers like Vioxx and Celebrex.” The studies were published in anesthesiology journals between 1996 and 2008.

Another tactic of the drug companies is to intimidate the scientists. Drug companies have been known to pressure researchers, even scientists at the federal agency that is supposed to regulate them.
Drug Overdose Pressure at the FDA to bow to the interests of their financiers, the drug companies, has gotten so out of hand that scientists at the agency recently wrote Congress and then president-elect Obama about the problems. They talked about being forced to “change their opinions and conclusions,” which is a pretty weighty accusation.

The medical world’s insistence that their drugs are both effective and safe, based on their “unbiased, evident-based” research and clinical trials, no longer sounds so reassuring, does it? Profit-driven would be a more accurate description.

Sources:

This Just In – Study Proves that 9 out of 10 Studies Mean Nothing!

In case you haven’t noticed, or this is the first OLM article you’ve read this month, this issue is primarily about studies. Many people rely on studies to tell them what they should and shouldn’t eat, drink, smoke, and purchase. People aren’t in tune with their bodies. People aren’t listening. They seem to have lost their common sense.

Do you need a study to tell you that it’s not good for you to drink a whole bottle of wine? Hopefully not. What about one glass? If you truly listen to your body, you’ll know if and how much that glass affected you. The signs are usually subtle, but they are there. We’ve spent so long ignoring our bodies that we are dependent on “experts” to tell us what we should already know—just by paying attention.

The following pages take a look at the studies involving milk, chocolate, red wine, and coffee, four foods the media now tells us are health foods. We, at OLM, do not consider them to be healthy, though our editor-in-chief admits he’s a “chocoholic,” and he also enjoys a glass of red wine every now and then.

The proceeding articles were not written to “convince” you to give up chocolate, milk, alcohol, or coffee. That’s up to you. We’re just looking at the so-called “expert studies” in a discerning manner and stating our opinions. Your opinion is your own, but we hope you will see the fallacy in relying on “experts” and their studies to tell you how to live.

Is Milk Good For You?

For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise stated, when we say milk we mean pasteurized, homogenized, conventional cow’s milk.

While I have yet to see an actual study that proves milk is good for you, there are countless studies out there that state that calcium is good for you and you can get it by drinking milk. This is true. Statements such as this sum it up perfectly: “Indeed, it is impossible in a diet based on conventional foods to obtain adequate intakes of calcium if milk and dairy products are not consumed.”1

They’re correct. But consider a conventional diet: microwaved dinners, cereal, and frozen vegetables at best. Maybe a salad made with pre-packaged iceberg lettuce, a few pieces of romaine lettuce, some shredded carrots and Hidden Valley ranch salad dressing when it’s supper time. With the soda most Americans drink, which leaches minerals including calcium from the body in order to keep the blood’s PH at 7.4, it’s no wonder milk can do a body good. So does this mean milk is good for you?

Most alternative health care practitioners and a growing number of conventional doctors say “no”. They know milk is a major source of allergen in people, especially children. Okay, so maybe a more realistic statement would be, “Milk is good for you, unless you are one of the millions who are allergic or intolerant.” On the other hand, milk allergy or not, on the holistic side of health, it’s not uncommon to have relief from other allergies when one stops consuming milk. In fact, most alternative health care practitioners will tell you before you do anything else, “Stop consuming dairy and refined sugars!”

There are so many studies. Some say milk may make you fat2, while others claim milk helps you lose weight. Some studies state that milk can help prevent heart disease3 while others claim the opposite is true4.

Many people advocate drinking raw milk, which is unpasteurized and non-homogenized. We at OLM are not fans of pasteurization or homogenization at all. And milk does contain a wide variety of vitamins and minerals and very easily assimilable protein. Some argue that it is not at all easy for humans to absorb the calcium from cow’s milk, but others say that you can if it’s raw.

So what’s our take on the milk issue? Cows have four stomachs. Humans have one. Raw cow’s milk from a healthy cow is a much better choice than the homogenized and pasteurized varieties, but there is still some minor risk of food poisoning (though if the cow and the human ingesting the milk are healthy, the risk is extremely low). This is what confuses many. “Healthy” and “Safe” are not the same things. Raw milk, provided it is not tainted with e-coli, is healthier than pasteurized milk. But the pasteurization of milk does make it safer to consume. For health, raw sheep’s milk is a better choice, and raw human milk is the best. Isn’t it silly that the idea of human milk is disgusting to many people, yet cow’s milk is the norm? Come on, guys, would you rather suck on a cow’s udder, or… Well, you know.

So how do you get enough calcium? You may have heard us say this before: At least 80% of your diet should be raw fresh fruits and vegetables, mostly vegetables. And if you want to get more vitamin D, we recommend sunlight.

If you are an animal lover, there is also the animal cruelty issue to consider when evaluating milk as a part of your diet. The intensive dairy practices for milking cows for any type of milk significantly reduce the animal’s lifespan. If you’re considering giving up cow’s milk all together and need a little extra push, check out the video on the right and this website for some more information.

Organic or not, a dairy cow’s life is not a pretty picture.

Editor’s Note:

As a child I was sick regularly. I had many allergies and other health issues. Eliminating milk made a huge difference in my quality of life. The last time I drank a glass of milk, years ago, it immediately made me feel terrible.

Is Chocolate Good For You?

Almost all of the recent studies on the health benefits of chocolate that we came across were positive. Findings ranged from improved function of cells to lower blood pressure.¹ Chocolate is touted as a superfood by some, but this doesn’t mean you should go out and buy Hershey’s chocolate by the box. First and foremost, all of the studies we found suggesting health benefits from consuming chocolate were related to dark chocolate1 ², not milk chocolate. Also, flavanols are the antioxidant that many researchers believe are responsible for much of chocolate’s health benefits, and it should be noted that manufacturers often remove the healthy element – the flavanols – because of their bitter taste.³

An addition, the sugar in chocolate is cause for concern. The study,Can a daily bar of chocolate cause brittle-bone disease?, states the following: “The researchers believe the findings may be because chocolate contains oxalate, which can reduce calcium absorption, and sugar, which is linked to calcium excretion.” ³

Editor’s Note

I must admit, I love chocolate. I eat chocolate on a regular basis. But I always make sure it’s fair trade, organic chocolate and I prefer to find it sweetened with a healthier sweetener like sugar cane juice, or maltitol. I would not venture to say that chocolate is good for you. I know it has some health benefits, but overall, it is not something that makes me feel healthier after I consume it. But if it’s organic, sweetened in a healthier way, and not consumed too often, I don’t think it’s a cause for concern.