Dr. Mitchell L. Gaynor, a 59-year-old oncologist and author, was discovered dead at his property in Hillsdale, NY on Tuesday, September 15th. Investigators for the county sheriff ruled his death a suicide, although further information has yet to be released.

Dr. Gaynor lived a life rich in accomplishments. He was the founder and president of Gaynor Integrative Oncology and the director of medical oncology at Weill Cornell Medical College’s Center for Integrative Medicine. He is most known for his work exploring and integrating alternative health modalities into his cancer treatment protocols. His interests led him to author six books and record three albums (with jazz-pop pianist Jon Regen) that topped the Billboard magazine New Age charts after an appearance on the influential Dr. Oz show.

His Work

Dr. Gaynor’s interest in alternative medicine was sparked during his postdoctoral work at Rockefeller University when he came across research looking into nutrient-gene interactions and the immune system. He was inspired by the idea that what we eat and our environment play a role, if not the most significant role, in our health, an idea that many conventional doctors still have difficulty embracing. This research manifested in his practice through his focus on the immune system, nutritional supplementation, and a desire to find the root cause of diseases instead of merely treating the symptoms. Inspiration struck again in the early 1990s, when Dr. Gaynor treated a Tibetan monk who gifted him with a traditional Tibetan singing bowl. Dr. Gaynor viewed the inclusion of behavioral therapies like music, meditation, chanting, and breathing exercises to be an essential part of overall health and wellness, as they lower stress hormones and blood pressure and increase the function of the immune system. His first books, published in 1999, helped him build a successful practice and presence in the alternative and conventional medical fields.

The Alternative Health Field Grows More Intriguing Every Day

While it’s easy to dismiss the growing number of deaths in the alternative medical community as coincidence and those concerned as conspiracy theorists who need to put away their aluminum foil hat (if only for something more eco-friendly!), the fact remains that that death rate has either been unusually high since June or more people are actually paying attention to alternative health.

The death of autism research specialist Dr. Jeff Bradstreet was ruled a suicide after authorities found him floating in a North Carolina river with a gunshot wound to the chest. This in itself isn’t necessarily worthy of commentary, but over the next few weeks case reports of health practitioner suicides and murders rolled in, resulting in a total of 8 dead and 5 missing in the Southeastern United States over the course of late June and July. That strange micro trend left an uneasy feeling rippling through the alternative health community, but it was largely pushed aside until September when 29 people identified as naturopaths attending a seminar in Germany were hospitalized for symptoms such as hallucinations and breathing difficulties.

Is The Trend Continuing?

Dr. Mitchell Gaynor was not located in the Southeastern U.S. or Germany. He was, however, firmly entrenched in the alternative medical community, practicing what some detractors have labeled as pseudoscience. With the limited information currently available, it’s impossible to determine whether these incidents and deaths are coincidences or a disturbing pattern. Even without a sinister organization pulling the strings for these results, the trend of suicide in a community with potentially more than average resources to deal with it should be cause for alarm. Dr. Gaynor chose health through diet, meditation, and alternative therapies, and left a legacy for others seeking their own health.

Sources:

• Mitchell L. Gaynor, 59, Manhattan Oncologist and Advocate for Alternative Treatments, Dies – NY Times
• Controversial Autism Research Doctor Found Dead, Deputies Say Suicide by Gunshot to Chest – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• Psychedelic drug emergency at seminar near Hamburg – Deutsche Welle
• Another Florida Doctor Murdered, Bringing Total to 8 Dead & 5 Missing in Just the Last Month – The Free Thought Project

Sometimes trusting your instincts is better than trusting the experts. Too often as parents we ignore our gut instincts, and we are duped into following bad advice, the kind of expert advice that has been backed up with faulty research.

Research is often flawed. In years past, the main problem was bias. In modern times, bias it still a problem, but more often problems arise from conflicts of interest. Instead of pursuing objective results, research is commonly twisted to support corporate agendas. Ultimately the scientific method is self-correcting, but this can take a long time. Life is too short to trust the experts and take harmful advice to heart. There is no substitute for doing your own research.

Cry It Out Method

Culture influences science in many ways and so do changes in family structure. In most parts of the world, parents share caretaking with other adult relatives. In America during the late 1800s, extended families were often broken up and the typical American family became a smaller unit. During this transition, new parents had to cope with raising children on their own, a highly independent but unnatural approach to child rearing. This is the cultural backdrop that gave birth to the crying it out method.

It was falsely believed that parents would spoil their children if they were too attentive to their needs. This belief wasn’t based on real evidence, but it was later supported by several poorly conducted studies. This behaviorist view became ubiquitous, and even the government echoed the same advice.

An old U.S. government pamphlet told mothers that babies should never inconvenience adults and that catering to the needs of a baby was a serious waste of time. The goal was to teach a baby as young as 6 months to quietly sit in its crib.

Letting your infant “cry it out” can cause brain damage, actual neurological harm as well as psychological harm. It is not a way to make a child more independent; it makes a child more dependent. By meeting babies’ needs early on, they become much more independent later in life. And interacting with infants is not a waste of time; it is a highly educational and productive activity. Entertaining your baby stimulates their neural development.

Infant Nutritional Advice

From the late 1800s through the 1960s, many pediatricians’ recommendations were either abusive or negligent, depending upon your point of view. As a matter of fact, following their advice today would most likely result in very sick infants, the loss of parental rights, or both.

Sir Frederick Truby King, and Walter W. Sackett were two widely followed “expert” doctors who were champions of bad advice. Sackett’s books are still being sold.

King believed in enforcement parenting. He advocated feeding babies every four hours during the day and never feeding them at night. He recommended placing infants in their own room and leaving them alone in the garden for long hours in order to “toughen them up”. He also firmly believed that cuddling should never be done to excess. Ten minutes a day was his recommended maximum allowance for physical affection. To him, parenting was about routine and discipline, not affection or bonding. Sadly, his advice was widely taken to heart.

Walter Sackett also advocated a four-hour daytime only feeding schedule. By his own admission, this schedule was enacted for the convenience of the hospital. He recommended the introduction of solid foods for infants who are 2-3 days old beginning with cereal and introducing meat at 14 days. He argued that, “Research has shown that baby’s digestive tract will not be harmed by any food he can swallow.” Of course, modern research refutes this harmful advice. He believed you could give a hungry infant water instead of food. He even recommended giving coffee to six-month-old infants!

Many doctors also recommended formula over breast milk. This recommendation, like so many others, was inspired more by corporate payoffs than by scientific findings.

Obviously, these days we know better. Breast milk is the best food for our babies, and other foods should be introduced one at a time. We recommend starting at the earliest with fruit at six months of age. Foods that are common allergens, such as strawberries, should be delayed. Infant formula should be avoided if at all possible. Many formulas contain GMOs, MSG, and other harmful substances. Even the healthiest infant formula pales in comparison to nature’s super-food, breast milk.

The reason that foods should be delayed at least this long is a baby’s gut is highly permeable. This is known as a virgin gut (in an adult a highly permeable gut is known as leaky gut syndrome). When breast milk seeps through the gut, this is not harmful. Permeability with other foods can result in allergies and other health issues.

Separate Sleeping

It is an American notion that children should be left to sleep in their own room, and if they don’t like it (none of them do), they can just cry themselves to sleep. Throughout most of our history as human beings, and throughout most of the world, infants have always slept with their parents.

WEB MD, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other medical authorities warn against co-sleeping. Web Med states the following:

Sharing the bed with your baby multiplies the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) fivefold, according to a 2013 study. The American Academy of Pediatrics cites the dangers of SIDS and suffocation, and recommends that parents keep their baby out of their bed, especially during the first 3 months of life.

Colson encourages room sharing. To lower SIDS risk, follow two rules when you do put your baby down in his crib or bassinet. “The most important thing is that the baby is always put to sleep on his back, and that there isn’t anything around the baby like pillows, heavy blankets, or bumpers.”

Many Americans are convinced by their recommendations. In reality, co-sleeping predates SIDS. Before it was known as SIDS it was called crib death, and for good reason. Babies forced to sleep alone (made to sleep in cribs) are more likely to die from the stress, and babies need their mothers in order to take cues for breathing. A breast-fed baby almost never dies of SIDS, and when they do, they are usually well vaccinated and left to sleep alone.

SIDS was so rare prior to 1950 that it isn’t even mentioned in the statistics. Mass vaccinations began after the 1950s. . Forcing a baby to sleep alone is an unnatural arrangement for the baby and the mother. Infants who are fed formula, who are forced to sleep alone, and who are well vaccinated run the greatest risk of SIDS. The SIDS rate in America has fallen with the rising popularity of breast feeding, but there is so much more we can do to protect our children.

Dr. James J. Mckenna shares his research on co-sleeping.

…Touching infants changes their breathing, body temperature, growth rate, blood pressure, body temperature, stress levels and growth itself. In other words, the mother’s body is the only environment to which the human infant is adapted. As Dr. Winnecott, the famous child psychologist put it, “There is no such thing as a baby, there is a baby and someone.

… sleeping alone in a room by itself and not breastfeeding are now recognized as independent risk factors for SIDS, a fact that explains why most of the world never heard of SIDS.

…the breathing of the mother and infant are regulated by the presence of each other — the sounds of inhalation and exhalation, the rising and falling of their chests, and the carbon dioxide being exhaled by one and inhaled by the other expediting the next breath! I have argued in scientific articles that this is one more signal to remind babies to breathe, a fail-safe system should the baby’s internal breathing transitions falter.

…Holding, carrying and sleeping with a baby is not just a nice social idea, but also an important contribution to their well-being.”

Many new parents are worried that they will forget their baby is in the bed with them and roll over on them. This is a remote possibility. New parents are ablaze with hormones (both mom and dad) and it is highly unlikely they will forget the presence of their child, even when sleeping. But a poor diet and environmental toxins can disrupt hormones; making this nightmarish scenario more likely. Co-sleeping is not without risk, but leaving the infant to cry it out and just “get over it and self soothe,” abandoned and alone in its room, is a more dangerous option. Forcing a baby to sleep alone guarantees some harm to the infant, while co-sleeping carries no guarantee of harm.

Child Protective Services and other similar but differently named state agencies do not look kindly on co-sleeping. Many parents who co-sleep still have baby rooms set up, with cribs and all, even if they never intend to use them, just in case overzealous social workers show up on an anonymous tip.

A co-sleeping crib or a co-sleeping basinet is a possible middle ground, as long as the baby can maintain physical contact with his/her mother.

Precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of a co-sleeping infant. Falling off the bed onto the floor can be fatal. To prevent this, many co-sleeping parents simply put their mattress on the floor with no frame and no box springs. Other parents pile up pillows around the bed as a way of breaking a baby’s fall should they roll off the bed.

Circumcision

Since the 1800s, experts have promoted circumcision as prevention for a laughable list of medical conditions from excessive masturbation to crossed eyes, nervousness, and epilepsy. Dr. John Hutchinson, a dedicated advocate of circumcision in the 1890s, states the following in making his case for genital mutilation.

It is surely not needful to seek any recondite motive for the origin of the practice of circumcision. No one who has seen the superior cleanliness of a Hebrew penis can have avoided a very strong impression in favour of removal of the foreskin. It constitutes a harbour for filth, and is a constant source of irritation. It conduces to masturbation, and adds to the difficulties of sexual continence. It increases the risk of syphilis in early life, and of cancer in the aged. I have never seen cancer of the penis in a Jew, and chances are rare”.

Circumcision is an unnecessary, painful, traumatizing operation performed on newborn infants that can lead to infection and death.

Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary non-therapeutic operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves. Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one may be seeing only the “tip of the iceberg,” with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision. CIRP

Conclusion

Bad parental advice from the experts is undoubtedly still ubiquitous. On many issues such as co-sleeping, experts are divided on what is best for our children. In times past, there often was more of a consensus on what should be done, but this was still no guarantee that the experts were right, not when the prevailing views of experts were to toughen up our children by abandoning them for extended periods of time and not holding them for more than ten minutes a day.

Other controversies concerning parenting still abound, such as whether or not to vaccinate. If you’re researching what is best for your child, your research should be thorough. Include a look at what other countries practice to gain a more complete understanding. For example, American children are the most heavily vaccinated in the world, and they are also the most chronically ill.

If an expert says something you agree with or disagree with, investigate further and learn all sides of the argument. All children are unique and each family is unique. Ultimately, we decide what is best for our children. Knowledge is our best defense.

Recommended Reading:

• Circumcision, the Primal Cut – A Human Rights Violation
• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Five Things You Can Do to Help Your Child Manage ADHD Naturally
• Children, Cell Phones & Health
• Surprise, Surprise: Soft Drinks Cause Behavioral Problems in Young Children, Research Proves

Sources:

• Dangers of “Crying it Out” – Psychology Today
• Six childcare gurus who have changed parenting – BBC News
• Bringing up babies; a family doctor’s practical approach to child care. – Walter W. Sackett.
• Co-Sleeping With Your Baby Is Risky – Web MD
• My Conversation With Co-Sleeping Expert James McKenna – Huffington Post
• Hutchinson on Circumcision -History of Circumcision
• Circumcision Deaths – CIRP

It turns out, that old adage is true – money does not buy everything. For some, money does not buy a clear conscience. Despite earning high incomes, these former pharmaceutical employees left their jobs and are now sharing the truth of what goes on behind the curtain.  Many of them have written books, participated in documentaries, and shared their stories through online videos. Here are a few.

Dr. Peter Rost, Former Vice President of Pfizer

Dr. Rost, a former anesthesiologist and pharmaceutical VP, is the author of The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman. Dr. Rost is an expert witness on Big Pharma in the areas of patent infringement, pharmaceutical marketing, drug product liability, drug marketing and promotion, and drug sales.

Universities, health organizations, everybody that I’ve encountered in my former career as a pharmaceutical executive, are out there with their hands out. You know everybody’s begging for money, nobody has any money. The government doesn’t have any money. The universities don’t have money. Nobody has money. The only ones that have money are these big multinational corporations, and they have lots of money. And they use that money to basically buy influence. And the way it’s done is – number one, you give these organizations and institutions grants, grants for various kinds of research. You develop research together with them. You establish friends. You make sure that they become beholden to you. And you also pay individual professors and doctors – researchers – directly. You may pay them as speakers to travel around the country, a thousand, two thousand dollars per day, sometimes more.  

You give them money for programs, the educational programs, where they can make a profit and then they put on these programs, as they’re supposed to be third-party independent from the company. Which is all fine, but as you and I can both imagine, if you have a promotional budget, at a corporation you’re probably going to give that money to the universities that do the programs that most support your drug, and the ones that don’t, or are critical in any shape, way, or form, they are not going to get anything. And everybody obviously knows that this is how things work.

And that means even if you can officially claim “… this is arms-length we didn’t have anything to do with it. We just gave them a grant. They can do whatever they want with it.” Reality is they’re not going to continue to get money unless they’re saying what you want them to say. They know it. You know it. It’s only maybe the public that doesn’t know it. And that’s how you influence the medical establishment – simply with money.

Dr. John Rengen Virapen

(The following has been edited for clarity)

Dr. John Virapen is plagued by a guilty conscience. After completing his medical training, Dr. Virapen started in the pharmaceutical industry as a salesman. Eventually, he rose to the top ranks and became the general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in Sweden. He admits he participated in bribery, giving false information and deception to launch and market several popular drugs. After becoming a father at age 62, he grew a conscience. He has vowed to dedicate his remaining years to speaking out against the very industry that made him a wealthy man. Here are some quotes from his videos.

I have spent 35 years of my life working in an industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and they do nothing but annihilate the population of this world. Why do they do that? Because they want to make money, money, money, money, money…They don’t care about your lives. They only care about their wallets.

Now, whatever I tell you here today, is not something that I dreamed about, or observed somewhere. It’s something that I have done myself. I have been just as criminal as they are. My hands are just as dirty as these people.

 Now all of you sitting here, answer me a question. When you go to the doctor, he looks at you, stethoscope, laboratory tests, machine tests. Those tests by the way, are to make money. Then he tells you you’re sick here is a prescription. “Go to the pharmacy and take this medicine, one tablet three times a day.” What do you do?…You go to the pharmacy and you get your medicine, and you take it like a good citizen.

But when you go to the car company to buy a car, you ask the salesman questions. If you don’t get what you want, you don’t buy the car. So tell me, why don’t you ask that doctor? What is it that he is giving you? The reason I’m telling you this is because only all of you have the power to stop these criminals with what they’re doing in the pharma industry. Because you are not sick people. You are consumers. You are consumers and the pharma industry makes money because they tell everybody that you are sick.

…The almighty power blessed me and my wife with a child. I was 62 years old. This child is now 4 ½. When this child was born he went to the pediatrician after six months for a checkup. That doctor checked the boy and said, yeah he’s healthy, he’s fine. Now we need to give him his mandatory vaccine cocktail. Now, I have told my wife, nobody, not a doctor, not a professor, nobody gives my child any kind of medication unless they discuss it with me and I approve it. Now this this doctor well apart from being lucky that I wasn’t there, she threw my wife and child out at the clinic and said, “We only treat vaccinated children.”

…How dare she refuse, to have my child come to this clinic, and she’s practicing as a doctor. What happened to Hippocrates, the oath of Hippocrates when you become a doctor you swear the oath! “Primum Non Nocere”-Above All Do no Harm. The patient comes first.

…So I researched this lady and I found that she was sitting in a committee, or on a committee with a politician and members of the pharmaceutical company that made the IMP, the vaccine. And they’re advocating to the government in Germany to introduce mandatory vaccination. So I started to do some research on what’s going on in Germany.

 …I found out also that general practitioners, just like this woman and other doctors, were prescribing psychotropic drugs to children. Shortly after that, I read in an article that was posted from the European Medical Association that they were going to approve the drug Prozac to give to children.

Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau, Pharmaceutical Sales Rep for 10 Years

Kathleen is the writer and director of the film Side Effects starring Katherine Heigl. She helps to explain the difference between cutting edge marketing, and scientific progress.

(The following has been edited for clarity)

The psychiatric market is huge and every company out there wants a little piece of that pie because it is so lucrative. We did a lot of lunches and dinners and we brought in speakers and those speakers were obviously paid by us and we would we wave, you know, renowned studies at them from renowned journals but of course we would never say that these studies were paid for by our company and that it was written by a ghost writer who is paid by our company or that our company tends to do a ton of advertising within that particular medical journal.

 We would never say that it’s the psychiatric meds that are so easy to expand into all of the problems of our life. So right now we see the industry… over the past several years we’ve seen the industry medicalizing, you know, so many different things throughout our life. If you’re shy, here, take a pill. If you’re a little anxious, you know, take a pill. If you have road rage, we’ve got a pill for that, too!

 … through direct to consumer advertising and the beautiful drug ads that are on television they have been able to play off of our deepest insecurities as human beings, and it’s so effective. It’s marketing. This is marketing. This is not science. This is incredibly effective marketing. It has nothing to do with science.

 We’re being bombarded left and right with these beautiful ads on the screen, painting this lovely Norman Rockwell life on the screen of beautiful, smiling, happy, sexy people and we all want a little piece of that.

 …to produce the ad would be somewhere probably in the million dollar range. And then to air these ads, to buy the air time slots, again depending on what time of day they’re airing or what type of show their airing on, can cost anywhere from tens of thousands per 30-second ad up to close to a million dollars. In the most recent campaigns, over last year or so, you’re hearing so much “Ask your doctor, or talk to your doctor about…” and when you hear that on the screen it sounds so nice.

 It sounds like they really care and want you to discuss this with your doctor. But what the studies have shown is that if you actually bring up a brand-name drug with your doctor by name, you’re significantly more likely to walk out the door with that drug. So they do that for a reason. The industry is responsible to Wall Street, and Wall Street first. They have to please Wall Street because they are private industry. And so when you have that scenario, you have to make profits your number one goal.

 We have billions of dollars being spent right now in terms of marketing, in terms of PR.

Gwen Olson, a 15-Year Sales Rep Who Worked For Johnson & Johnson, Syntex Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott Laboratories and Forest Laboratories

Over time, Gwen had what she describes as a spiritual awakening as she observed the harm that pharmaceuticals caused people. This led her to come forward and to speak out against the pharmaceutical companies. She explains what their priorities really are.

What the pharmaceutical industry is in the business of doing is disease maintenance and symptoms management. They are not in the business to cure cancer, to cure Alzheimer’s, to cure heart disease, because if they were, they would be in the business of putting themselves out of business. And that in fact doesn’t make sense.

 …It’s really important to understand the motivation behind all the current maintenance drugs that are on the market. Even, for example, drugs such as cholesterol-lowering drugs. And what we are in fact finding now is that cholesterol drugs are lowering cholesterol excessively and causing other disease states as a consequence.

 …what was found was the information that activists and other researchers have known for decades was that antidepressants are no more effective than a placebo. No more effective than sugar pills but yet, they’re over 44 million people that have been taking these anti-depressants.

 …Another recent study that was released showed that exercise was in fact more effective than either placebo or the anti-depressant drug.

 …The clinical data has been contrived or that their patient populations have been cherry-picked or that the side effects have been minimized and reported in such a manner that it doesn’t present the information correctly.

 …I’m here to tell you that the industry has run amok. That we are at a severe crossroads in this nation and that we have got to take our power back and we have got to start making the pharmaceutical industry accountable for their actions and for the defective products that they’re putting on the market. It won’t be long before every American is affected by this disaster.

 …You need to get yourself educated and understand that there are options, and those options are much more effective than drugs. You need to look into the nutritional aspects of your diet and your lifestyle.

Scott Cooper, Award Winning Salesman For Merck

Like so many other well-informed parents, Scott didn’t struggle with whether or not to vaccinate his child. His experience in the pharmaceutical industry convinced him not to vaccinate. His challenge was convincing his wife and doctor that vaccines are not safe or effective.

My child was born in ’91. He’s now going to be 24 this year. He was never vaccinated. He grew up very, very healthy. Rarely if ever sick and always much healthier than his peers. When they were all running around all the kids had runny noses, drank a lot of milk, were all vaccinated. My child was always healthy, runny nose free, always very, very healthy and smart.

If I can digress a little bit this was 1990 so the Internet wasn’t really available. I had read numerous books on vaccines, and like most people I grew up believing in vaccines from what I was told in school. And it became a real shock to me when I started reading and learning that vaccines were not only ineffective, but also there are major risks involved with vaccination.

When I found out my wife was pregnant, I had a discussion with her about not vaccinating and, of course, she was pro-vaccine, and so I made her a deal. At the time, I worked for a very large pharmaceutical company as a sales rep, and so I made her a promise. I said I’ll go to the library I’ll bring home everything I can find pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine. You can read for yourself, and then you can make a decision. That’s what I did. I went and scoured the periodicals in the libraries.

…I just gave them to her and let her make up her own mind. I would come home from work and she would be reading the stuff and crying from what she was reading. By the time our child was born we were both on the same page about vaccination.

And it was interesting because I had my OBGYN or my wife’s OBGYN sit me down in his office and say, “Look, you work for a large pharmaceutical company, what do you mean you’re not vaccinating?”

My company actually made a lot of the vaccines and we had a vaccine division and everything else, and I told them, I told them flat out, why we went, had a huge discussion about it. He didn’t agree. We still went to the course that I wanted.

… do your own research, all right? If you’re on the fence about vaccines or wondering at all, whether to vaccinate your child. Please, please do your own research. There are a ton of resources available out there. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, she has a site that is full of resources.

Thousands of pages are published, medical studies showing the inherent risks that are involved with vaccines. There are a ton of books out there showing this over and over again – the vaccine damage that has been done by these vaccinations. If you believe what you’re told by the AMA and the CDC and your doctor, you’re not doing enough research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YVPkCQxqz4

Brandy Vaughan, Former Sales Rep for Merck & Co.

Now a mother, Brandy refuses to vaccinate her own child. She explains how the pharmaceutical companies prioritize profit over public health, in a big way.

My first involvement with the pharmaceutical industry was as a pharmaceutical sales rep for Merck back when Vioxx was on the market. I used to rep Vioxx for Merck. When it came out that Merck had falsified safety data and Vioxx actually had twice the increase in heart attacks and strokes… it really made me realize that that there was a lot of corruption behind the scenes and that just because something is on the market, a drug is on the market, doesn’t mean it’s safe.

 After working for Merck, I was pretty disillusioned over the whole scandal. I lived in Europe for 8 years and I had my son over there. I brought him back vaccine-free at 6 months to San Francisco. When I went to a well visit, they pushed for vaccines. At that point I hadn’t done a lot of research in it, but I knew enough not to trust pharmaceutical drugs.

I asked to see a vaccine insert and the doctor got very upset at me and claimed I didn’t trust him. He stormed out of the room and the nurse let me know that I wasn’t really welcome back in that clinic anymore. That was a huge red flag for me, knowing what I knew from being a pharmaceutical sales rep before. I started to do my research into vaccines and the ingredients, and the flawed safety data.

What came to light was many things, but one of them was that aluminum is the main adjuvant in vaccines, in childhood vaccines. I had experience with that, with researching that, and the toxicity of aluminum, because my grandmother had breast cancer.

The doctor biopsied her tissues and there were high levels of aluminum. He told us that she needed to get off traditional deodorant and that the aluminum in there was linked to breast cancer. It was carcinogenic. That was a big red flag for me when I realized those were in childhood vaccines. I couldn’t believe it, actually. Then I started to do more and more research and I realized that the U.S. gives twice as many vaccines on the childhood schedule than most developed countries, and the real health crisis is the fact that our kids are sicker than any other country in the developed world. This is despite spending more per capita on healthcare. We have highest rates of SIDS, asthma, food allergies, ADHD, childhood leukemia, diabetes type one. This to me was the true health crisis.

The more I dug into this, what I realized was vaccines are not for public health. It’s really about profit, pharmaceutical company profit.

 The thing about vaccines is that you don’t have to do the same rigorous safety studies as you do for other pharmaceutical drugs because they’re classified as a public health measure vs. a pharma drug. For vaccines, they have a totally different type of safety study. It’s very short in duration. It’s not double-blind placebo-based, which is the gold standard for pharmaceutical drugs, and vaccines aren’t held to the same rigorous safety studies.

If you look into them, it’s very easy to manipulate the data and present that as something that’s safe. If you really look into the studies and look into the toxicity of the adjuvants and the additives, you realize that the safety studies are not proving safety at all. In fact, there are a lot of studies on the other side showing that a lot of the additives in vaccines are very toxic, especially to children who have very immature immune systems.

As I dug more into the safety studies and saw how flawed they were, it really raised a red flag for me. My son is now four and a half and he’s vaccine-free. I really got motivated to get more into this fight when I realized the mandatory vaccination bills that were sweeping the country, over 100 in 38 states.

 …pharmaceutical companies don’t have any liability for vaccines, in fact [one of] the only products in the U.S. that has no liability so you cannot sue them if there’s injury or death. So you put those two things together and what you have is vaccines as a pharmaceutical drug with the highest profit margin available. If you make those mandatory and you keep increasing the schedule, it’s basically using our children to profit off of.

The pharmaceutical company is using vaccines as a new driver for profit. This is really what’s behind the mandatory vaccination bills. One of the things that I’m often asked is why do we not hear about this if this is true? One of the things that I’ve found out in my research is that the U.S. is one of only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers.

I’m sure we’ve all seen the media and advertisements for the pharmaceutical drugs. That happens there is that it allows pharmaceutical companies to basically dictate what is shown to the media. Because when you give the media 30 to 40% [Author’s note: presently the number is closer to 70%] of their advertising dollars, you basically control what they say.

There have been a lot of journalists and stories that have been censored, including the CDC whistleblower that came out in the end of 2014 basically saying that the CDC has covered up data showing that the MMR vaccine does in fact cause neurological damage, AKA autism.

Recently there have been a lot of stories of different countries suing vaccine makers for injury and death, and even pulling vaccines off of the schedule like Gardasil in Japan and Prevnar in China, rotovirus vaccine in France, and Spain has a lawsuit against Merck for Gardasil as well.

…We have a very broken system. Our vaccine system in the U.S. is broken. We cannot mandate something when there are so many unanswered questions and so many things that are going on behind the scenes that people aren’t aware of, including vaccines ingredients, like when the pediatrician didn’t want to show me the vaccine insert. There’s good reason for that.

There’s aluminum, formaldehyde, fetal cells, animal cells. There are a lot of things in there that other countries A, ban from being ingested and therefore have vaccines that don’t include these ingredients, and B, have unknown consequences that we have no data on right now. It’s basically playing Russian roulette with our children.

Pharma is saying it’s all about public help and public safety, and I’m saying why don’t we have more data on what this really will do, long-term studies on what this is doing inside of our bodies and to our children. Because right now we have the sickest children in the developed world. Something is going on here.

It’s probably not just vaccines. It’s a chemical cocktail of pesticides and pollutants in our water and air, but vaccines are often a trigger because genetically we need a trigger to express these kind of diseases and issues that we have. Vaccines are often what does that because the chemicals are injected into our bloodstream, so they don’t go through a lot of the bodies natural detox process. They go straight to the brain past the blood-brain barrier.

We need to ask these difficult questions. Until that, until we have more information, we absolutely cannot mandate vaccines. There has to be a choice. If there’s a risk, there has to be a choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUduiwgHMQs&sns=fb

Further Reading:

• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• How to Detoxify From Chemotherapy and Repair the Body
• How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

Sources:

• Peter Rost: Influencing The Medical Establishment – One More Girl Excerpts -You Tube
• Peter Rost – Blog
• John Rengen Virapen (1/4) Big Pharma Whistleblower Speaks Out at the AZK in Germany – You Tube
• Ex-Pharmaceutical Rep: Billions Spent on Drug Ads – You Tube
• Pharma Not in Business of Health, Healing, Cures, Wellness – You Tube
• Former Salesman For Vaccine Maker Merck & Co. Wouldn’t Vaccinate His Son –You Tube
• Former Merck Rep Says Mandatory Vaccination Is For Profit and Not Public Health – You Tube

The evidence is mounting – GMOs are a danger to health. Long-term studies have revealed organ damage, cancer, and reproductive damage in second and third generation animal studies. There are doctors who are willing to publicly take a stand against genetic engineering. Here are a few of them.

Dr. Mehmet Oz

Dr. Mehmet Oz is a renowned heart surgeon and the host of the popular television show, The Dr. OZ Show.

Whether you support genetically engineered crops or not, the freedom to make an informed choice should belong to consumers. The bill in Congress this month proposing to block states from independently requiring labeling offers a coup to pro-GMO groups.

As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves, but I am worried about why they were created. Highly toxic herbicides would kill crops unless they were genetically modified, but with the genetic upgrade, these plants can be doused with much higher doses, with potential complications to the environment. The WHO believes that glyphosate is “probably a human carcinogen.” Perhaps we are all showing “disdain for science and evidence-based medicine,” but I would argue that unleashing these products creates a real-time experiment on the human species. Sure, we will eventually know if these pesticides are a problem, but at the expense of the pain and suffering and disease in real people. I owe my kids more. And so do you.

Dr. John H. Boyles

Board certified in the American Environmental Medicine and the American board of Otolaryngology, Dr. Boyles currently practices medicine in Centerville Ohio at the Dayton Ear Nose & Throat Surgeons, Inc.

This exchange of DNA between the species is totally against nature.  We simply don’t know what it will produce.  We don’t know if it is safe, and it has not yet been proven to be safe.

We do not fully understand how gene splicing works within a single species.  We certainly can’t predict how it will work when attempting to combine more than one species.

Yes, the means by which to prove safety was developed around the year 2000. No companies performing the gene splicing will use the procedures, because if their product were to be proven unsafe, then they cannot sell that product. 

Patients at Dayton Ear, Nose, & Throat Surgeons, Inc. were tested for allergies with organic and genetically modified varieties of foods. Some of the patients tested reacted both to the organic soy and the altered soy. Other patients reacted to the GMO soy, but had no reaction to organic soy.  Another group tested positively to the organic, but had no allergic reaction to the GMO soy.  And some patients had no allergic reaction to either the GMO soy or the organic soy.

It has come to our attention that by altering genes, scientists are creating a separate allergy to foods that did not exist in patients before. By changing or altering the structure of the plant, GMOs can cause separate reactions from the same food.

 You owe it to yourself and your family to make healthier food choices. Any allergic person can benefit from a diet with increased organic foods. Control what you can, and steer clear of GMO foods.

Dr. Emily Lindner

Dr. Emily Lindner is an internist with a dual practice of Internal Medicine and Complementary/Integrative Medicine. She is certified in Functional and Nutritional Medicine.

I tell my patients to avoid genetically modified foods because in my experience, with those foods there is more allergies and asthma. … And what emanates from that is everything. Lots of arthritis problems, autoimmune diseases, anxiety… neurological problems; anything that comes from an inspired immune system response.

When I change people from a GMO diet to a GMO-free diet I see results instantaneously in people who have foggy thinking and people who have gut symptoms like bloating, gas, irritation. In terms of allergies, it might take two to five days. In terms of depression, it starts to lift almost instantaneously. It takes from a day, to certainly within two weeks.

Dr. Robin Bernhoft

Dr. Robin Bernhoft is a surgeon who retrained in environmental medicine after suffering from an environmental illness caused by the toxic skin scrubs used before surgery. He has since regained his health.

“…all physicians should prescribe non-genetically modified food for all patients, and that we should educate all of our patients on the potential health dangers, and known health dangers of GMO food.”

Dr. Mercola

Dr. Mercola is an osteopathic physician and an entrepreneur. He is known for being a strong proponent of alternative medicine.

Monsanto and other biotech companies claim genetically modified (GM) crops have no impact on the environment and are perfectly safe to eat.

Federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety,” but rather have taken the industry-conducted research at face value, allowing millions of acres of GM crops to overtake farmland.

These foods, largely in the form of GM corn and soy (although there are other GM crops, too, like sugar beets, papaya and crookneck squash), can now be found in the majority of processed foods in the US.

In other words, if you eat processed foods, you’re already eating them… and these crops are already being freely planted in the environment. But what if it turns out that Monsanto was wrong, and the GM crops aren’t actually safe?

Monsanto is the world leader in GM crops, and their Web site would have you believe that they are the answer to world hunger. Thanks to their heavy PR campaign, if you’ve been primarily a reader of the mainstream press, you’ve probably been misled into thinking GM crops are, in fact, the greatest thing since sliced bread, that they provide better yields of equal or better quality food, pest and weed resistance, reduced reliance on pesticides, and more… But thankfully, the truth is unfolding and the tide is finally beginning to turn.

Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon. He practiced medicine for 25 years before pursuing his nutritional studies and research full time. He now owns a nutritional practice, and is a health practitioner, lecturer, and author. He is known for confronting controversial issues in medicine and backing up his arguments with impeccable research. He warns that most of the studies on GMOs are terminated within or at ninety days and test animals are destroyed – with good reason. The following comments are in response to a long-term GMO study published in the journal, “Food and Chemical Toxicology.”

Virtually all of these studies use rats and are terminated at 90 days.This study clearly shows that most of the harmful effects of GMO foods occur after 90 days.

In this study, animals were fed the GMO corn for two years in concentrations commensurate to what people would eat. What they found is beyond shocking.

The animals fed GMO food died two to three times more often than the animals eating a normal diet. Male rats demonstrated liver damage 2.5 to 5.5 times more often than control rats.

Of extreme concern was the finding that the females developed massive breast tumors at a high rate in the GMO-fed animals.

Even more frightening is that almost half of all babies are now being fed soy-based formula. This is not the only study to find problems with GMO foods, but it is the most damning.

In my estimation, all GMO foods should be removed from stores, and GMO crops should be destroyed. The implications of this disaster is almost beyond belief and GMO crops are being heavily promoted all over the world by the IMF, Council on Foreign Relations, and other international organizations.

Dr. Richard Lacey M.D., Ph.D

Dr. Lacey is an expert in food safety issues who served for four years on a U.K. government advisory panel on food as it relates to human and animal health. In 1989-1990, he warned against the practice of feeding cattle rendered meat from sheep and other animals, predicting the “mad cow” epidemic before it occurred. He has written five books on food safety, including one published by Cambridge University Press in 1994 containing a detailed discussion of genetically engineered food. He does not believe GMOs are safe and clearly reminds us that their safety has never been established.

It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques. It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety.

Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods. Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism’s genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multi-faceted. Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value. Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems — and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient — it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism.

…To the best of my judgment, neither genetically engineered foods as a general class nor any genetically engineered food in particular is generally recognized as safe among those experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate their safety…

…In my opinion, the number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. Second, there is insufficient evidence to support a belief that genetically engineered foods are safe. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Few properly designed toxicological feeding studies have even been attempted, and I know of none that was satisfactorily completed. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty. Rather, they are primarily basing their claims on a set of assumptions that, besides being empirically unsubstantiated, are in several respects at odds with the bulk of the evidence.

The main assumptions are: (a) that producing food through recombinant DNA technology in itself entails no greater risks than producing it through sexual reproduction between members of the same species and (b) that the same safeguards commonly employed by breeders using conventional techniques will suffice for genetically engineered foods.

As far as I can ascertain, the current policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is primarily based on these two assumptions. Therefore, although it claims to be “science-based,” this claim has no solid basis in fact. The only way to base the claims about the safety of genetically engineered food in science is to establish each one to be safe through standard scientific procedures, not through assumptions that reflect more wishful thinking than hard fact.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine

This is an official statement from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

Genetically Modified Foods

According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally.” This technology is also referred to as “genetic engineering”, “biotechnology” or “recombinant DNA technology” and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.

Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, “GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.” 

Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of “substantial equivalence” such that “if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food.” However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.  The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. 

…Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans. 

In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: “The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.”  However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements. 

Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. 

…With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

• Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
• Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
• Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
• For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Conclusion

In America, there is a fascination and an appreciation of most new technologies. Before GMOs were widely adopted more medical professionals and scientists marveled at the technological advancements making genetic engineering possible; this awe and wonder was widespread long before the downsides of GMOs became well known. It turns out they are worse than almost anyone thought.

Now that GMOs have been widely adopted in the American diet, more and more doctors are discovering that GMOs are devastating to our health. It is becoming more common for doctors to advise their patients to avoid GMOs. Recently, members of Sermo, an online community of physicians, were surveyed as to whether or not they support GMO labeling. The majority, 68% of them are in favor of requiring food manufacturers to label products containing GMOs.

For years, there has been a tired argument that if you’re against GMOs then you’re against science, but just because we have the technology to do something, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should. The majority of new technologies are abandoned due to flaws that become painfully apparent after they have become widespread. At present we are feeling that pain.

Be sure to check out Doctors Against Vaccines and Understanding and Detoxifying from GMOs.

Further Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Foods That Are GMO
• Celebrities Who Have Spoken Out Against Vaccines
• GMO Science – Understanding How GMOs Are Created, and What Prominent Scientists Are Saying

Sources:

• A Majority of Doctors Favor GMO Labeling – Robyn O’Brien
• Doctors prescribe – No Genetically Modified Foods – Natural Health 365
• Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Foods – Institute for Responsible Technology
• Genetically Modified Foods – American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Genetically Modified Foods and Health Risks – Disabled World
• GMOs – What you know, what you don’t know, Intro – Dayton Ear, Nose & Throat, Inc.
• Scientists Speak – SAY NO TO GMOS
• Why GMOs Can Never Be Safe – Mercola

There are three reasons people take vitamins: to prevent illness, to treat illness, or to recover from strenuous exercise or injury.

Vitamins are not, and never will be, a substitute for a good diet. Whole, fresh, raw, foods; clean, pure water; sunlight; exercise; and sleep – these are the basic needs of the body.

Whole foods provide the nutrients needed by each and every cell.

Water bathes the cells and helps remove waste as it provides the medium for the cells’ chemical reactions.

Sunlight allows the body to make vitamin D, which is necessary for many functions, including the immune system and strong bones. Lack of vitamin D is associated with many diseases including cancer, diabetes, and depression.

Exercise is needed for strength and stamina, but it is also essential for lymphatic circulation. The lymphatic system is more than the primary components of the immune system; it is also vital in removing waste and toxins from cells. If the lymph doesn’t circulate, the toxins and waste back up and are not properly removed from the body.

During sleep, the brain cells are cleansed, damaged cells are repaired, and hormones are released.

What Are the Problems With Vitamins?

Aside from the ridiculous notion that you can maintain a poor diet and make up for it with vitamins, there is a major problem with many vitamins: poor quality, synthetic ingredients, and vitamin poisoning.

Synthetic Vitamins

The debate continues with some scientists convinced that synthetic vitamins are just as effective as whole food vitamins. Others argue that the body is unable to properly utilize synthetic vitamins because it can’t regulate their absorption or optimize their levels. Synthetic vitamins may also trick the body into believing it has all the vitamins it needs and does not need to utilize the vitamins present in food. Synthetic vitamins are alien to the body – they are drugs that can disrupt normal metabolic functions.

Toxicity of Synthetic Vitamins

Vitamins A, E, D, and K are all fat-soluble vitamins, meaning the body stores excess vitamins, which makes it much easier to reach toxic doses. Each of these vitamins can reach a toxic level (though it is rare for vitamin D levels to reach a toxic level). Toxic levels of vitamins K and A can damage the liver. Vitamin K poisoning is associated with cancer. Vitamin E toxicity inhibits blood coagulation, increases hypertension, and decreases the life span.

Whole Food Vitamins

Whole foods include nutrients and phytonutrients we are just beginning to understand. And nature combines these nutrients in a way our body can best utilize them. The best source of vitamins and minerals is through whole foods. When additional targeted nutrients are needed, be sure to learn the optimal amount for your health needs. Check out Make Your Own Vitamin C, Homemade Calcium and Magnesium, and How To Make Your Own Homemade Multivitamin and Mineral Formula.

Sources:

• Vitamin Poisoning: Are We Destroying Our Health with Hi-Potency Synthetic Vitamins? – Organic Consumers Association

The general public shares a common misconception – that all doctors, or all “real doctors” support vaccination. Although it is true that the majority of doctors support vaccines, not all do.

Most doctors blindly support the recommendations of the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Doctors are trained in administering vaccines, not in how they are made. There are some doctors that choose to do the research themselves in order to develop an informed opinion on the subject. These doctors who become knowledgeable about vaccines usually become anti-vaccine. A little knowledge goes a long way.

Without a doubt we live in the age of autism, but it is also the age of chronic illness. One in eighty-eight children are diagnosed with autism, while half of all children now struggle with chronic illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, ADHD, etc. This rise in illness correlates with the dramatic increase in vaccines given to our children along with a growing exposure to other toxic chemicals.

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Blaylock is a man who wears many hats. He is a board certified neurosurgeon who owns a nutritional practice. Dr. Blaylock is a health practitioner, lecturer, and author. He practiced medicine for 25 years before pursuing his nutritional studies and research full time.

What Happens to the Brain With Vaccination?

It seems the brain is always neglected when pharmacologists consider side effects of various drugs. The same is true for vaccinations. For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.

You see, the brain has a special immune system that operates through a unique type of cell called a microglia.

These tiny cells are scattered throughout the brain, lying dormant waiting to be activated. In fact, they are activated by many stimuli and are quite easy to activate. For our discussion, activation of the body’s immune system by vaccination is a most important stimuli for activation of brain microglia.

Numerous studies have shown that when the body’s immune system is activated, the brain’s immune cells are likewise activated. This occurs by several pathways, not important to this discussion. The more powerfully the body’s immune system is stimulated the more intense is the brain’s reaction. Prolonged activation of the body’s immune system likewise produces prolonged activation of the brain’s immune system.

Therein lies the danger of our present vaccine policy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice have both endorsed a growing list of vaccines for children, even newborns, as well as yearly flu shots for both children and adults. Children are receiving as many as 22 inoculations before attending school.

What Happens When the Brain’s Immune System is Activated?

The brain’s immune system cells, once activated, begin to move about the nervous system, secreting numerous immune chemicals (called cytokines and chemokines) and pouring out an enormous amount of free radicals in an effort to kill invading organisms. The problem is–there are no invading organisms. It has been tricked by the vaccine into believing there are.

Unlike the body’s immune system, the microglia also secrete two other chemicals that are very destructive of brain cells and their connecting processes. These chemicals, glutamate and quinolinic acid, are called excitotoxins. They also dramatically increase free radical generation in the brain. Studies of patients have shown that levels of these two excitotoxins can rise to very dangerous levels in the brain following viral and bacterial infections of the brain. High quinolinic acid levels in the brain are thought to be the cause of the dementia seen with HIV infection.

The problem with our present vaccine policy is that so many vaccines are being given so close together and over such a long period that the brain’s immune system is constantly activated. This has been shown experimentally in numerous studies. This means that the brain will be exposed to large amounts of the excitotoxins as well as the immune cytokines over the same period.

Studies on all of these disorders, even in autism, have shown high levels of immune cytokines and excitotoxins in the nervous system. These destructive chemicals, as well as the free radicals they generate, are diffused throughout the nervous system doing damage, a process called bystander injury. It’s sort of like throwing a bomb in a crowd. Not only will some be killed directly by the blast, but those far out into the radius of the explosion will be killed by shrapnel.

Normally, the brain’s immune system, like the body’s, activates quickly and then promptly shuts off to minimize the bystander damage. Vaccination won’t let the microglia shut down. In the developing brain, this can lead to language problems, behavioral dysfunction, and even dementia. In the adult, it can lead to the Gulf War Syndrome or one of the more common neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia, or Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Dr. Jay Gordon

In 1980, I abandoned the recommended vaccine schedule. I received dozens and dozens of phone calls from moms and dads reporting that their child had received shots a couple of days ago and they were acting a little different. They couldn’t quite put their finger on it but their child was just not acting quite the same as before I gave the shots. They’d ask if this was okay…was it normal? Initially, as I was trained to do, I replied yes. After dozens and dozens and dozens of phone calls, I decided that I had better listen to these moms a lot more.

I stopped some vaccines. I delayed others.

No, I am not ‘anti-vaccination.’

I am aware of the public health implications of completely abandoning our current vaccine schedule, and I certainly don’t advocate that. What I really want is an honest discussion of the risks and benefits of each vaccine and combinations of vaccines for your child. Just your child. My experience is that many parents don’t have the opportunity to discuss these concepts and these details with their doctors.

As you can see, Dr. Gordon really isn’t all that anti-vaccine. He’s been made famous because he is the doctor that is treating Jenny McCarthy’s son, and she isn’t all that anti-vaccine either. Dr. Gordon has earned himself a reputation for being anti-vaccine because he is against some vaccines and the current recommended vaccine schedule.

Recommended:

Dr. Suzanne Humphries

I am a conventionally educated medical doctor who was a participant in the conventional system from 1989 until 2011.  During those years I saw how often that approach fails patients and creates new diseases.

I left conventional medicine to research the many problems with mainstream medical theory.

I do not consider it my place to tell anyone whether to vaccinate or not. It is my place to understand as much as I can about vaccines and give people a more complete understanding from which to make their choices. This has never been a priority to the public health services. In fact there is ample documentation that the priority was quite the opposite, and actually to quell ‘any possible doubts, whether well founded or not’ regarding vaccines.

The following document is the American 1984 DHHS federal register, which listed final rules pertaining to the polio vaccination campaigns in USA after three decades of scandal and misinformation.

That priority has placed many lives in jeopardy as major problems with vaccination were and are overlooked by vaccine policy makers.

There are many problems with the science that underpins vaccine information. I’ve yet to meet a pediatrician who is informed enough to offer informed consent. Infant immunity has been misunderstood by immunologists, as the immunology literature admits to. Only recently have some important questions been answered about why infant immune systems don’t function like adult ones. There is good reason for the tolerance that an infant has, and the answer is not to interrupt the program with aluminum and vaccines to ramp it up. That is now known to have long term consequences.

There is a paucity of studies comparing never vaccinated children, with partially or fully vaccinated children. In terms of safety studies, a major issue is that most vaccine studies use another vaccine as the control placebo, or use the background substance of the vaccine.  There is only one recent study (Cowling 2012) where a true saline placebo was used, rather than another vaccine or the carrier fluid containing everything except the main antigen. That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated. It is no small wonder more true placebos are not used in vaccine research.

Dr. Tenpenny, D.O.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is ardently anti-vaccine. She has spent countless hours researching the vaccine debate, and she is familiar with all of the arguments for and against. She is adamantly against vaccines. She, like the other doctors on this list, has been accused of cashing in on vaccine fears, but which side of the debate is really making more money?

It continually breaks my heart that people have to personally experience a severe vaccine injury – or observe a serious reaction in someone they love  – before they wake up to the absolute truth: vaccines can and do cause harm. They have heard the arguments and the stories from others. They ignored the pleas about risks and poo-pooed the concerns about vaccine reactions put forth by concerned friends. Instead, they trusted their uninformed pediatrician or caved under the pressure of their badgering RN mother-in-law.

And now, they are left holding the bag, so to speak: a terrible tragedy and a lifetime of medical care and medical bills, as they watch their loved one’s health deteriorate before their helpless, regretful, angry eyes. Gardasil alone has had more than 38,000 adverse events reported through March, 2015. And that number is estimated to be only 10% of all actual adverse events. SaneVax.org  documents case, after expensive case, of injured girls with huge medical bills after this vaccine – and Gardasil is only one of 16 vaccines given to children. How many dollars are actually spent on vaccine injuries, looking for a diagnosis, paying for medications and desperately trying to find a way to reverse the damage? The true cost of vaccination is more than the cost of buying and administering vaccines. The untold tens of millions spent on injuries are not included in the calculations.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist and researcher who followed the evidence where it lead him. In 1998, Wakefield, Prof. John Walker Smith, Dr. Simon Burch, and 10 other co-authors published a paper in the Lancet, a British Medical Journal, which showed a possible correlation between the MMR vaccine and resultant gastrointestinal dysfunction along with developmental delays and autism. Though the paper did not state a conclusive causal effect, it did state the need for further study into the possibility that the MMR shot was to blame. Wakefield went on to publicly bring attention to the possibility, criticizing the MMR shot and calling for separation of the three vaccines.

Read any pro-vaccine article that disputes the link between vaccinations and autism and chances are Andrew Wakefield and this fraudulent study will be mentioned. His offense wasn’t so much being a vaccine separatist so much as him questioning the vaccine dogma. This also made him big pharma enemies.

Dr. Wakefield was accused of fraud, and subsequently lost his medical license. Dubbed the father of the anti-vaccine movement, Wakefield has been both revered and vilified, depending on which side of the argument uses his name. The bizarre thing is, he is not anti-vaccine. He is, however, a critic of the MMR vaccine and has publicly stated that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines should be given separately.

In 1999, I proposed that the MMR-autism risk may, in part, be a function of age of exposure: the younger you get the vaccine the greater the risk. Why? Because, the younger you get measles, the greater the risk of an adverse outcome. This idea was shared with the CDC. They tested the hypothesis in children in the Atlanta Metro area and they found it to be true.

They found beyond a shadow of a doubt that two subgroups of children were at risk: children who were in effect developmentally normal to age 1 and black boys. They concealed this risk for 13 years and deceived everyone, putting millions of children at risk. In the words of Dr. William Thompson, the senior scientist responsible for this study, for the data analysis, and for disclosure of the fraud: I was involved in deceiving millions of tax payers regarding the potential negative side effects of vaccines.

I have filed a formal complaint with the Office of Research Integrity detailing the fraud. It is provided for you to examine. The matter is currently under investigation by the US Congress with the prospect of hearings later this year.

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky

I did not turn my back when I heard parent after parent – in the dozens, in the hundreds, and then in the thousands – start to say that their children were fine, then they got vaccinated, and then something really bad happened to them acutely or within days, weeks, or even months. Those parents were told 100 percent of the time by the conventional medical system, ‘It’s a coincidence. It couldn’t possibly be related to the vaccine.

As a person who’s curious about science and questioning, it became obvious to me that there may not be a coincidence here and that something more may be going on.

The literature is pretty supportive of the fact that vaccines have much greater adverse outcomes on the genotype of the body, the immune system of the body, the brain of the body, and the intracellular functions of the body than we are willing to tell the public about.

Pro-vaccine advocates argue that there are thousands of studies that prove that vaccines are safe. Dr. Palevsky explains why those studies are flawed.

…in order for us to really delve into those studies, we have to look at who supported the studies. What was the study design? What were the control groups? How big was the actual number of kids or adults that was used in those studies? I think we will see that in most of those studies, the actual safety has never really been proven.

One of the reasons that I think we can fairly say that is that the vaccine manufacturers and the conventional medical organizations have not done studies that compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. In order for us to really know if children who were vaccinated are having an adverse effect from a vaccine, we have to use a placebo group that’s given an injection of maybe normal saline to evaluate whether or not they developed the same symptoms that children who were vaccinated may develop after they’re injected with the vaccine.

Those studies are not done. They’re not done because the conventional medical system says it’s unethical to leave kids unvaccinated for any length of time. But, most of the vaccine safety studies that are being done last anywhere between one and four weeks anyway. The kids are followed within those one to four weeks. Then, they’re not followed in a very detailed way to recognize whether any of their health outcomes could be related to the vaccine that they got one to four weeks ago.

What ends up happening is they compare the incidence rates of these vaccine reactions or these symptoms that kids get after they’re vaccinated to how often those symptoms are seen in the general population, to check and see if this vaccinated group is in any way getting an increased incidence of these symptoms than the general population would get. But the fact of the matter is that the general population is vaccinated, so they’re comparing a vaccinated group with a vaccinated group.

Dr. Buchwald, M.D.

The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and hunger.

Dr. Glen Dettman

It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.

Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D.

Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measles occurred before the introduction of immunizations and antibiotics.

Dr. Mendelsohn, M.D.

My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.

Peter Baratosy, M.D. PhD, Australia

I see many children in my practice. I see the difference between the immunized and the non-immunized. The non-vaccinated are much healthier and have less infections, colds, otis media, and tonsillitis.

John B.Classen, M.D., M.B.A.

My data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general. This question can only be determined by proper studies, which have never been performed. The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long-term follow-up and chronic toxicity was not looked at. The American Society of Microbiology has promoted my research…and thus acknowledges the need for proper studies.

Raymond Obomsawin, PhD

Delay of DPT immunization until 2 years of age in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six-year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death.

Dr. Howard Weiner, Immunologist, Harvard Medical School

If a person has a tendency towards a disease, at a certain age, a vaccine might make him/her more susceptible later when other challenges come along.

Philip Incao, M.D. Testimony on the Hepatitis Vaccine, Ohio 3/1/99

A critical point, which is never mentioned by those advocating mass vaccination is that children’s health has declined significantly since 1960 when vaccines began to be widely used. According to the National Health Interview Survey conducted annually…a shocking 31% of US children today have chronic health problems… In my medical career, I’ve treated vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and the unvaccinated were far healthier and more robust. Allergies, asthma, and behavioral and attention disturbances were clearly more common in my young patients who were vaccinated.

Mary N. Megson, M.D.

Autism may be a disorder linked to the disruption of the G-alpha protein, affecting retinoid receptors in the brain. A study of sixty autistic children suggests that autism may be caused by inserting a G-alpha protein defect, the pertussis toxin found in the D.P.T. vaccine, into genetically at-risk children.

Guylaine Lanctot M.D.

The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are changing our genetic code through vaccination.

Dr. Kalokerinos, M.D.

It was similar with the measles vaccination. They went through Africa, South America and elsewhere, and vaccinated sick and starving children…They thought they were wiping out measles, but most of those susceptible to measles died from some other disease that they developed as a result of being vaccinated. The vaccination reduced their immune levels and acted like an infection. Many got septicaemia, gastro-enteritis, etcetera, or made their nutritional status worse and they died from malnutrition. So there were very few susceptible infants left alive to get measles. It’s one way to get good statistics, kill all those that are susceptible, which is what they literally did.

Conclusion

The AMA has always been corrupt. Just look back at their old recommendations for smoking tobacco. The AMA has also been sued for maintaining an illegal boycott of chiropractors. Their expert advice has always been for sale to the highest bidder. The CDC is no different. Recently they’ve been outed for covering up the link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American children. Their advisory board is filled with industry insiders promoting their own self-interest. The AAP seems to be working primarily for vaccine manufacturers.

There are two kinds of pro-vaccine experts; those who regurgitate pro-vaccine rhetoric and those who are getting paid by pharmaceutical industries. Most regulators are the second kind of expert. (We all know money talks, and big money yells). You cannot do all of the research and come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe. Those that do the research invariably reject all vaccines, or refuse many of them.

Want to read what more smart physicians have to say? Check out More Doctors Against Vaccines. And be sure to check out How To Detoxify From Vaccinations.

Further Reading:

• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Influenza Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness of the Flu Shot
• The MMR Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview Of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness
• How Plumbing, Not Vaccines, Eradicated Disease
• Autism and Vaccines: CDC Whistleblower Exposes Vaccine Dangers, Lies, and Cover-ups

Sources:

• Vaccine Truth – Dr. Blaylock
• An Open Letter on Vaccinations – Triple the Fun Plus 2
• Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History – Dissolving Illusions
• Defending the Right to Poison – Dr. Tenpenny
• Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Palevsky – Mercola
• Vaccine Induced Diseases – Vaccines Uncensored
• Lots of Great Vaccine Quotes – Vaccination Liberation
• What Wakefield Would Have Told Oregon Health Committee – Age of Autism

Gluten is the common protein molecule found in wheat, barley, rye, kamut, and spelt. Gluten is a sticky, storage protein that binds to the small intestinal wall where it often causes digestive and immune system disorders. The most common condition associated with a gluten sensitivity is celiac disease where the small intestinal villi are flattened. However, the immune reaction that takes place with gluten sensitivity can affect many different tissues, and when it does, it is termed non-celiac, gluten sensitivity (NCGS).

NCGS is an epidemic that is a major factor in inflammatory disorders of the brain and nervous system.  Studies have found associations between gluten sensitivity and disorders in every part of the neurological system including the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves. ¹

Gluten and Major Neuropathic Disorders

Gluten is a significant trigger in psychiatric disorders, movement disorders, sensory ganglionapathy, ataxia, neuromyelitis, multiple sclerosis, cerebellar disease, cognitive impairment, dementia, restless leg syndrome, migraines, apraxia, neuropathy, myoclonus, hearing loss, and virtually every other neurological disorder. ^2,3,4,5,6

For many individuals, their immune system gets so overworked from gluten sensitivity and other environmental challenges such as toxins, parasites, vitamin D3 deficiencies, and trauma they can have severe immune reactions that last months after one provoked exposure. This means that consuming gluten on one day can cause an inflammatory assault that could last for 2-3 months. ⁵ This is why it is so critical to be as strict as possible when avoiding gluten and other inflammatory irritants.

The Complexity of Gluten Sensitivity

Gluten is made up of a sticky portion called glutenin and a protein portion called gliadin. Gliadin can be broken down into alpha, omega, and gamma gliadins. Most lab tests only look at alpha gliadin antibodies but this is only a very small component of the total molecule. Often times this lab comes back negative, but the individual is reacting to some of the other components of the gluten molecule.

Glutenin gives wheat dough strength and elasticity and is very commonly used in the baking process due to these desirable characteristics. Many people have severe reactions to this molecule, but it never shows up on the basic gliadin antibody testing.⁶

The food processing industry very often deamidates the gladin molecule to make it water soluble. Deamidated gliadin has been shown to trigger severe immune responses in many individuals. This never tests out for gliadin antibodies.⁷

Gluten Based Opioids

When the body metabolizes gluten, it creates opoids in the form of gluteomorphin. One can have a blood test to see if the body produces antibodies to gluteomorphin and the building block prodynorphin.⁸

When someone has an opioid sensitivity, going gluten free can cause severe withdrawal symptoms that are similar to coming off of opioid drugs such as heroin. These symptoms include depression, crazy mood swings, nausea, and vomiting, as well as abnormal bowel activity. This can last anywhere from several days to weeks.

Cross-Reactivity Immunology & Nervous System Dysfunction

Immune cross-reactivity happens when the immune system mistakes one protein for another. The gluten protein is similar to protein structures in the nervous system and the thyroid tissue. When the body creates antibodies for gluten, it may also produce antibodies to the body’s own nervous tissue or thyroid.⁹ This cross-reactive effect leads to damage to the brain, thyroid, and other neurological tissue when the individual consumes anything with even the slightest bit of gluten.

The most common area of cross-reactivity is through a family of proteins located on neurons called synapsin. These proteins help to regulate neurotransmitter release. This is most common in the cerebellum, which can cause problems with vertigo, motor control, balance, and anxiety.¹⁰

Further Reading:

• Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases
• No More Gluten – How I Found Health After MS
• Understand Hypothyroidism – Prevention and Natural Remedies
• Is Wheat Poison? What’s Behind the Rise of Celiac Disease and Gluten Intolerance

Sources:

1. Functional and metabolic disorders in celiac disease: new implications for nutritional treatment. – Pub Med
2. Gluten sensitivity presenting as a neuropsychiatric disorder. – Pub Med
3. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. – Pub Med
4. Gluten-related neurologic dysfunction. – Pub Med
5. [Gluten-related disorders and demyelinating diseases]. – Pub Med
6. [Neurological disorders associated with gluten sensitivity]. – Pub Med
7. Dispersion in the presence of acetic acid or ammonia confers gliadin-like characteristics to the glutenin in wheat gluten. – Pub Med
8. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: literature review. – Pub Med
9. Salivary antigliadin and antiendomysium antibodies in coeliac disease. – Pub Med
10. Sporadic cerebellar ataxia associated with gluten sensitivity. – Pub Med