Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4th April 2011

Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn’t work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artefact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys
( unpublished data obtained by Freedom of Information application)

According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still been ignored by those promoting fluoridation – But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one to two years, would account for the small reductions claimed in all U.S. and, Australian studies, published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much, when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth and, by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted, there are a total of 128 tooth-surfaces. One tooth surface saved, amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now, even this small benefit has evaporated.

More on the history.

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that; “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries (cavities) rates, should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas, than in non- fluoridated areas.”

In 2000, the York Review pointed out, that none of the studies that they had reviewed, had controlled for “the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).

In 2005, Komarek et al. did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).

In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia, had a delay in “dental age” of 0.82 years, compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK.

However; the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay, and, the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.

2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found, and it is in the official statistics. ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter. According to Haines: “Surely this must end water fluoridation – If it doesn’t work – what’s the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water, and what reason can they possibly have, for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

However, this isn’t just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth, then the most likely mechanism for doing so, is fluoride’s ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review: “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett: “Lowered thyroid function in infants, would mean slower growth of their tissues and, could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and, exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and, Mexico.”

It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries, suffering from hypothyroidism, have had this condition caused or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water. Haines’ asks: “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years, what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply?

Australian media contacts mobiles – 0418 777 112 and 0403029077

Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc

The above week 51 data from Sweden includes at least three cases of vaccine breakthrough for pandemic H1N1.  Since the above data is incomplete, the number of categorized cases does not equal the total number of confirmed case, and a large portion of the categorized cases have an unknown vaccination status, the frequency of breakthrough is unclear, which is also true for the UK, where at least one case has been reported.

However, the rapid spread of H1N1 in the UK suggests that many who are infected this season were also infected last season, demonstrating the ability of the current virus to evade the host immune system primed by last year’s virus. Some of the sequences from the UK are derived from sequences circulating in Australia, where there were also reports of vaccine breakthrough and severe cases.

This type of immunological escape is not unusual.  It is part of the natural evolution of a virus that re-emerges in the following season.  The immunological escape is required for a robust return as seen in the UK, which raises concerns that the use of a vaccine target from early 2009 will have limited utility against a rapidly emerging H1N1 in 2011.

This natural evolution was largely discounted in the WHO proclamation in August declaring the end of the pandemic phase, and was also discounted by “experts” who maintained that immunity generate last season would lead to a milder season in 2010/2011.  The recent reports from the UK describe a more virulent H1N1 which is causing severe and fatal illness in a higher frequency of cases, which has severely strained health care delivery of ICU beds and ECMO machines.

The return of vacationing students and workers to schools and jobs raises concerns that the spike in severe and fatal cases seen during the holiday period will intensify in the upcoming weeks raising serious health care delivery issues.

The release of UK sequences from December severe and fatal cases would be useful.

SOURCE:  http://www.recombinomics.com/News/01031102/H1N1_Sweden_Vaccine.html

(Higlights added)

*****

NOTE: There was a great deal evidence coming out in 2009 to suggest that the H1N1 Flu outbreak that began in Mexico was a “man made” virus. Dr. Neiman also acknowledged this, but remains a vaccine proponent (being involved and invested in the industry, profiting from it).  Some references for evidence of the H1N1 being a “lab virus”:  Dr. Bill Deagle and Dr. Alexander S. Jones (though there are many others, very credible, and if you do some searching, you will find them). Deagle was adamant that this virus would recombine and become much worse over successive years, and vaccines would have no effect and cause harm.

NIH Whistleblower Alexander S. Jones talks about Henry Niman on …

We at CHF feel that vaccines are unnecessary, unproven and harmful, weaken the over-all functionality of the immune system, and contain toxins which cause many long-term, harmful side effects.

We predicted that the rapidly developed vaccine was not only going to be a flop, but that it would cause a lot of harm to uninformed citizens, and that there would be no accountability.  Within a few weeks of the vaccine being released, we created a page on this site for victims to report adverse reactions, and there have been many severe cases, and as we predicted, no acknowledgement of this, much less and investigation, nor accountability.

Please See:  “H1N1 Vaccine Side Effects – Canadians, Please Report Here!“

Reports are still coming in to us. The media has been silent on this (having heavily promoted the vaccine) and so we are sure that these reports are merely the “tip of the ice berg” and represent only  those who happened to find this page.

Vaccine Zombie Music Video, By HealthRanger

Vaccination rates fall among better educated families even while CDC keeps pushing vaccine quackery

Friday, November 05, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) Vaccination rates among children insured by commercial health insurance plans have dropped four percent between 2008 and 2009, says a new report by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. In its annual State of Health Care Quality report, the organization revealed that vaccine rates are falling sharply among high-education families.

This trend infuriates the vaccine industry and all the shills who push vaccines, of course. Despite all their high-dollar propaganda, expensive advertising and vaccine booths in airports, Wal-Marts and grocery stores, more and more people are coming to realize that many vaccines are dangerous for children and the seasonal flu vaccines in particular offer absolutely no scientifically-validated benefit whatsoever. They are pure quackery and nothing more.

The really interesting thing about this trend is that parents with a higher education are consciously choosing to protect their children from vaccines. Remarkably, the vaccine industry insists that “they’re the stupid ones” because they don’t believe the vaccine propaganda. But as it turns out, the American people are smarter than the vaccine industry thinks, and as they’re learning the truth about seasonal flu vaccines, they’re making informed, intelligent decisions to protect their children from such vaccines.

Seasonal flu vaccines simply do not work

It’s a scientific fact: Seasonal flu vaccines don’t work on at least 99% of the population (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…). You have to vaccinate 100 people, in other words, just to avoid flu symptoms in ONE person — and that’s if you believe the drug company’s own clinical trial data! (Which is almost certainly biased in favor of the vaccines.)

The second scientific fact the flu industry conveniently avoids talking about is that vitamin D offers far better protection against flu infections, and it’s cheaper, safer and easier to take! Children will gladly chew vitamin D tablets if it means avoiding a jab with a sharp needle.

Vitamin D makes the immune system work

Vitamin D, you see, activates the immune response to flu infections. Virtually everyone who suffers from the flu in the winter is vitamin D deficient. That’s why flu season is the winter, by the way: Because that’s when everybody is deficient in vitamin D! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029333_v…)

Most likely, the four percent of families who are choosing to avoid flu shots are supplementing their children’s diets with vitamin D and other immune-boosting nutrients. So they’re actually better off with vitamin D than they would have been with the vaccine!

Vitamin D, by the way, also prevents tuberculosis (http://www.naturalnews.com/021855.html), asthma, cancer, kidney disease and nearly a hundred other serious health conditions, including autoimmune disorders. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029605_v…)

Vaccines are only chosen by ignorant people

The vaccine industry is terrified of vitamin D because it knows if the truth about vitamin D becomes widely known, people will stop taking seasonal flu shots and the drug companies will lose billions of dollars.

It has already begun, in fact. In one year, natural health websites like NaturalNews have helped educate the public and reduce dangerous vaccination rates by an astonishing four percent. This is why the vaccine industry is in a panic this year, paying celebrities and TV doctors to appear on posters and television ads, trying to push more seasonal flu vaccines on a population that is increasingly rejecting them for good reason.

It’s all going to end up as follows: Within a few years, only the most ignorant people will even consider getting a seasonal flu shot. These are the same people who drink diet soda (a scam), who take diabetes drugs (another scam), who raise money for pink ribbon breast cancer events (an even bigger scam) and who eat processed junk food at every meal. They are the ones who will suffer from conventional medicine while the better informed individuals and families will increasingly reject conventional medicine and seek out healthier, more natural alternatives.

Your immune system is a nanotechnology miracle that already knows how to block viruses and stop the flu. All it needs is to be activated with the right nutrition. Vitamin D does for your immune system what vaccines can never do — it unleashes a biological miracle that can hunt down and eliminate invading microorganisms and viral fragments, protecting you from all the germs the drug industry wants you to be terrified of.

Don’t believe the vaccine quackery and fear mongering. Join the educated crowd that’s consciously and intelligently choosing alternatives to vaccines — alternatives that work better and safer at lower cost, too. With vaccines, remember that you always run the risk of being paralyzed or ending up in the hospital with a coma.

Read the truth about what happened in Australia with seasonal flu vaccines earlier this year: Children suffered vomiting, fevers and seizures. Read it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A…

As reported in that story:

“Perth mother of two Bea Flint said her 11-month-old boy Avery had a seizure after receiving the first dose of the two-dose flu vaccination on Saturday. Mrs Flint said that after the 9am vaccination she noticed Avery had a minor temperature about 2pm. At 7.45pm, Avery started whimpering and moaning. When Mrs Flint got to his cot the baby had vomited and was lying on his side having a seizure. ‘He couldn’t cry – his head was hanging down in the car seat and he couldn’t move. I was petrified – it was one of the worst experiences of my life.”

If that’s what you want for your children, go ahead and get them vaccinated. But if you’d rather them stay healthy and alive, give ‘em vitamin D instead.

What they won’t tell you about vitamin D

By the way, 400 IU of vitamin D is simply not enough. Most nutritionists today are recommending ten times that amount (4000 IUs) for adults, and half that (2000 IUs) for children. The 200 / 400 IU dosage was actually set as a deliberate tactic to keep the population in a state of vitamin D deficiency. And it has worked, too. 97% of black Americans are vitamin D deficient right now. This has caused a huge boost to the cancer industry, mostly at the expense of black men and women. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028119_v…)

The more you know about all this, the more amazing the real story about vaccines, vitamin D and cancer really becomes, you see. Keep reading NaturalNews to stay informed in a way the mainstream media will never cover. We cite the scientific sources and tell you the true story about how vitamin D makes seasonal flu shots irrelevant.

Don’t start a needle habit.

This flu season, choose nutrition, not a needle.

SOURCE  http://www.naturalnews.com/030299_vaccination_flu_shots.html

Over the past ten years or so, I’ve been an activist with one overarching concern, that of stopping Codex Alimentarius, a WHO brainchild, from foisting draconian rules for food safety on Canadians… including me. Codex has been on the table in one form or another since about 1962; it has been looming over us with a promise of useless potencies in natural supplements, ridiculously low allowable dosage limits, and the requirement of prescriptions for simple vitamins, for a start.

The rules go on and on, each of them removing some right or other to choose what form of nutritional supplement you want to take, and in what amounts, and all of them are to be synthesized under “Good Manufacturing Processes” to assure “quality”. This, despite the longstanding proven safety and efficacy of all these products, as well as the fact that anything synthetic is not well-tolerated by the human body.

Now, all along, we health freedom buffs (Health Canada once called us “Nutri-terrorists”) were aware that the Codex guidelines, once accepted by our government, would be enforced by trade sanction via the World Trade Organization. And because our nation is signed to the WTO Agreement, Canada could be dragged kicking and screaming into the morass of international food standards which do nothing for health but ensure its diminishment, or pay millions for our non-compliance.

This triggered a few stalwart individuals, this writer included, to spot the fact that Canada’s own health legislation would become meaningless under these guidelines, yet we were practically helpless to stop the process, being obligated by our signing of the trade agreement. I’ve said it before and will say it again: trade agreements are enforceable international contracts, not social clubs.

Boy, we thought we were smart. But we all got hornswoggled here, big time. That Codex freight train is not the only one on the track, and something else is appearing on our radar as a more immediate threat. It’s a whole other train, and we can already see the headlights.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Codex is not a threat. It definitely, absolutely, really, really is. But Codex is only half baked, and is not likely to be in any enforceable form for a good couple of years. Meanwhile, CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, currently under negotiation, has in its back pocket the European Union’s own version of Codex Alimentarius, guidelines as bad as Codex or worse, which have been in place since 2005.

Bear in mind, CETA has been much more than a twinkle in the eye of globalists everywhere for ten years now. It’s only recently that word got out about what was on the table: Opening up Canada’s water utilities to privatization by foreign bidders; privatizing Canada Post; energy plans by the provinces; domination by Monsanto of our agriculture and forced acceptance of genetically-modified seeds. When they said “comprehensive”, they meant it. But somehow, none of us even thought about those EU food guidelines, probably because we didn’t see a mechanism by which they could be applied to Canada…. until we heard about CETA.

You’ve got to understand how simple it is for multinational influence to worm its way into our governance system. One trade agreement = one enforceable contract = disappearing sovereignty. It’s easy. Wherever our laws run counter to what a trade group wants enforced, a majority vote at the table forces us to govern the sovereignty of our nation according to the wishes of the group, as the WTO forced the USA to alter its corporate tax law, some years back.

The World Trade Organization is indeed a prime example. There are about 193 nations in that group, and Canada has only one vote. Our delegate goes to the meeting, presumably (but not necessarily) to present the wishes of the Canadian people, translated by our MP’s, to the assembly. If more than half of the guys at that table, each presenting their own nation’s stance, happen to disagree with Canada, Canadians are forced, by law, to surrender to their decision, even if it means repealing or amending our laws. And remember, the WTO is the enforcement arm of Codex Alimentarius.

Now the rubber meets the road: Canadian legislation, shaped, ostensibly by our votes, is rendered obsolete and of no effect, the moment the group says something different. At that point, what happened to our sovereignty, our ability to decide and make and enforce our laws?

It’s as obsolete and toothless as that lost vote, by contract.

Consider this: Canada is signed to ten international trade agreements, and is negotiating twelve more, including CETA. What possible areas of our sovereign legislation might be overturned because of them? And when all these agreements are in place, of what use is your vote?

And this: For whose benefit are these “agreements” (contracts) signed? It sure isn’t ours. Hint: they’re called “trade” agreements. Since the government does not engage in trade, but only promotes it, and since if one wants to find a prime motivator, one should follow the money, only one group can possibly benefit, and that group is made up of multinational corporations. These are the same multinational corporations whose head honchos regularly consult with our elected “representatives”. Some are members of our Privy Council.

Now might be an appropriate time to mention an old quotation from the King of Fascism, Benito Mussolini: ““Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
So Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture triumph, and get to set their own rules, while we are left scratching our heads over how democracy has gotten so weird lately.

It isn’t weird. It’s non-existent. And it’s being rapidly swallowed by Mussolini’s dream, and our worst nightmare.

Back to CETA, and how it threatens, at the very least, our health freedom. And to cover all the bases, we need to examine how our own Health Ministry is opening the door to legitimizing CETA’s influence and those EU guidelines, through a clause in Bill C-36, soon to have its second reading in the House of Commons.

The Legislative Summary of Bill C-36* states: “the definition of ‘government’ in this bill encompasses not only federal and provincial governments in Canada, but also federal Crown corporations, Aboriginal governments in Canada, foreign governments, and international organizations of states, such as the United Nations.” (Emphasis is mine)

It also says, “Clause 3 provides the bill’s purpose, which is to “protect the public by addressing or preventing dangers to human health and safety” posed by consumer products. This clause expresses the federal government’s constitutional authority to enact this bill. Because it has a “public protection” purpose, Bill C-36 likely falls under the ambit of section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867,14 the federal government’s criminal law power.”

My lay person’s translation of all that is first, our Health Ministry is mandating itself to take direction from foreign entities (Notice, they mention the UN, but not trade groups… do you think they want you to grok that trade groups are “international organizations of states” too?), and second, since they’re talking about “public safety”, Constitutional rights don’t mean a whole hell of a lot either. In case that doesn’t sound familiar, you might recall the “notwithstanding” clause in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms: sounds like they just tacitly invoked it, to me.

This nation is a democracy, you say? How could it be, with our own government having kicked it into an early grave and shoveled dirt on the only thing that makes democracy possible, which is our sovereignty!
While we were sleeping, somebody stole our democracy. And I hate to tell you, but that “somebody” is us, just like the old Pogo cartoon said. You read right, we’re to blame here, because we not only slept like Rumpelstiltskin through the entire metamorphosis, but now are awakening to a fascist nightmare.

Bill C-36 must not pass. That doorway to health serfdom must be closed, and CETA must be stopped. Together, they pose more than a threat to our treasured, but waning, freedom to choose what is done to our own bodies, and those of our children, which by itself is a dismal enough outcome: they end a piece, a precedent-setting piece, of our democracy.

The clock alarm is blaring. Are you going to hit the snooze bar and roll over? Or are you going to remind our government that we never gave permission for anyone to sneak our democracy out the back door, and give them a broad hint that to you, it sounds a wee bit treasonous?

Choose it, or lose it.

*You can read the Legislative Summary of Bill C-36 for yourself here.

I recently received some news updates, via one of my non-main-stream news service web-sites. Quite often referred to by several people as “conspiracy theory websites” and, which happened to be related to a very controversial topic, r.e., “Harvard Study Finds Bisphenol A In Dental Fillings And Sealants, Media Spin Begins“–I then immediately started searching the “world wide web”, to see who else might be providing links to this serious issue, concerning “oral health” e.g., HEALTH CANADA, and or, the CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION perhaps.

My first attempted web search, involved using some of the same words from the actual title, and of the article as well…as per the web-page that hosted the article…the first time I had ever heard of this…or seen it.

I used the following search criteria, and of course, the controversial data mining search engine too…Google.

I entered my first search as such: “Harvard Medical School+Bisphenol A In Dental Fillings And Sealants”.
The first hit was not too surprising…it was from the same web-site-page I got my initial news from: [shatterlimits] – dated September 8, 2010.

Now…being the so-called conspiracy theory web-site that Shatter Limits would most likely be categorized as; they actually do a good job of trying to keep us informed of the seriousness of Bisphenol A (BPA), e.g., “BPA is an endocrine disruptor, mimicking the hormone estrogen, linking reduced fertility in men…being harmful to male hormone levels, even when handled“.

In 9th position on the first page of the first search attempt, was; [businessweek] – dated September 7, 2010. And, in the first paragraph of their feature…they wasted no time in trying to convince readers that there was not too much to be concerned about.

The 15th hit on page 2 of my first search revealed; a link to an excerpt coming from a pediatrics journal: [American Academy of Pediatrics] – dated September 6, 2010–They too, were also mentioning the evidence of endocrine-disrupting, estrogenic properties…but…concluded with…continued use with strict adherence to precautionary application techniques, was recommended?

After looking at 100 hits, or ten pages during my initial search, and not coming across any links to Canadian-Main-Stream-Media (MSM) news services, I abandoned using my first search criteria parameters, and tried some various other combinations of the title, or ‘key words’ from it.

After repeated situations of not finding anything by Canadian MSM services, which mirrored, or even coming close to my original source, I then entered the following search criteria: “Bisphenol A (BPA) banned in Canada,” of which yielded three hits on the first page…number one was HEALTH CANADA; they issued a News Release dated October 17, 2008 titled: [Government of Canada Protects Families With Bisphenol A Regulations].

6th on the list of that search was a link to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), dated April 18, 2008 and, simply echoed the first hit…having more to do with banning the import and sale of polycarbonate baby bottles, containing bisphenol A.

The 7th hit was a link to a an article by the [Toronto Star], dated August 25, 2010 and, the headline read: “In historic move, Canada to list BPA as toxic“…Canada is in the process of a historic move to add bisphenol-A to its list of toxic substances, Environment Canada confirmed Wednesday…91 per cent of people tested positive for BPA in their urine.

It was not until the 39th hit of that particular search, that I came across something that dealt with, or was connected to (oral health) dentistry.

The hit was for the [Canadian Dental Association] web-site; shown to be last updated on 10/4/2005 and, was at the same time, being very specific in their concerns, over Bisphenol A.

One of the questions asked…the second…was answered by Canada’s Dental Association as such: “The government’s report and recommendations places restrictions on the use of bisphenol A only in products for infants – such as baby bottles and infant formula cans. This is because the amount of exposure from these sources is relatively close to safety margins, and because of increased sensitivity in infants. No restrictions are planned for dental materials because they are well within safety margins.”

Should I therefore be worried about BPA fillings or sealants, in or on my teeth?…my conclusion is yes!

I feel,  that I should also be just as worried, if not more…very concerned for the health of children of Canada–Especially our male populations; who appear to be having lower sperm counts on a regular basis now…affecting the future populations of Canada…also reported on internet news.

Of the two Canadian sources we are supposed to count on, when it comes to oral health information…well…it could ‘hard-ly’ be found. And, when it was; it was dated from 2008.

The information then deals mostly with plastic bottles and other containers. And, when something was found on oral health, the message from the Dental Association only served to give us the impression, that any concerns were not warranted, And, as far as BPA in your mouth goes…it’s safe…with no restrictions.

I’ll end with this; it is equally unacceptable, as is that of HEALTH CANADA and, the CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION points of view, and science, when it comes to ‘them’ endorsing, a premeditated act of polluting Canada’s public drinking water, and its waste waters too…artificially adding Fluorides to the those waters.

It is also extremely well known, that that, which is added to our waters, is also a toxic (skull & bones poison) substance.

AstraZeneca, which bought MedImmune, but let the company keep its name. AstraZeneca is now trying to put some big pharma marketing muscle, behind FluMist. It’s kinda strange to see a big ad for a flu vaccine in the middle of summer. During last flu season, FluMist had $55 million in sales…a drop in the bucket for AstraZeneca.

MedImmune, Inc., today (September 19, 2007) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the expanded use of FluMist® (Influenza Virus Vaccine Live, Intranasal) in children two to five years of age. FluMist is now approved for immunization against influenza A and B viruses in individuals two to 49 years of age.

According the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–Each year, up to 60 million Americans get the flu, resulting in complications cause more than 200,000 hospitalizations and approximately 36,000 deaths in the U.S. annually.

Hey, what a great plug by the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce–FluMist® is the first vaccine in CANADA, that is administered as a gentle mist, sprayed into the nose–With the introduction of FluMist, it’s encouraging to see another vaccine option to help reduce the overall burden of seasonal flu.

Even the CBC has joined forces, it seems, and running a little marketing campaign of their own…they decided to you a rather bias poll…damned if you do style–Will having a spray option make you more likely to get vaccinated? Let us know.

Here’s a snap shot, of what’s really behind this big green curtain:

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal Manufactured by MedImmune, LLC Intranasal Spray Initial U.S. Approval: 2003

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS.

5.1 Risks in Children <24 Months of Age

5.2 Asthma/Recurrent Wheezing

5.3 Guillain-Barré Syndrome

5.4 Altered Immunocompetence

5.5 Medical Conditions Predisposing to Influenza Complications

5.6 Management of Acute Allergic Reactions

5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness–Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.

ADVERSE REACTIONS.

6.2 Postmarketing Experience– The following adverse reactions have been identified during postapproval use of FluMist. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.

Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome) – Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea – Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria) – Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy – Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis-Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash

DRUG INTERACTIONS.

7.1 Aspirin Therapy

7.2 Antiviral Agents Against Influenza A and/or B–The concurrent use of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist with antiviral agents that are active against influenza A and/or B viruses has not been evaluated.

7.3 Concomitant Inactivated Vaccines–There are no data on the concomitant administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal and seasonal trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccines.

7.4 Concomitant Live Vaccines–There are no data on the concomitant administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine <b>Live</b>, Intranasal and FluMist.

7.5 Intranasal Products–There are no data regarding co-administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist with other intranasal preparations.

8.1 Pregnancy.

Pregnancy Category C–Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist. It is not known whether Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.

8.3 Nursing Mothers.

It is not known whether Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist is excreted in human milk. Therefore, as some viruses are excreted in human milk and additionally, because of the possibility of shedding of vaccine virus and the close proximity of a nursing infant and mother, caution should be exercised if Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist is administered to nursing mothers.

12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY

12.1 Mechanism of Action–Immune mechanisms conferring protection against influenza following receipt of FluMist vaccine are not fully understood.

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility.

Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal nor FluMist have been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or potential to impair fertility.

14.5 Transmission Study.

FluMist contains live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients. The relationship of viral replication in a vaccine recipient and transmission of vaccine viruses to other individuals has not been established.

17.2 Vaccination with a Live Virus Vaccine.

Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider that Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is an attenuated live virus vaccine and has the potential for transmission to immunocompromised household contacts.

ASK YOUR DOCTOR: Is this medication right for me…would you (doctor), take this FluMist® yourself, and or, happily give it to your children?

Thanks CANADA.

Battle-worn health freedom activists waited six months for the shoe to drop, knowing full well that at any moment, their latest nemesis, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act called C-6, might reappear.

Last month, their impatience was rewarded, as Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq rose to introduce Bill C-36, complete with the same troublesome, rights-stomping provisions as in its momma. And of course, the same really, really nasty language making Canadians “subject to the dictates of foreign authorities”, the words that allow foreign committees (like trade groups) decide how we’re going to run things.

It’ll be their way, or the highway.

Witness the fact that the 106th US Congress voted to change American corporate tax law, not because it wanted to, but because it was ordered to – by the World Trade Organization. Now, if the WTO can yank the chains of the Yankees that easily, do we really think domestic Canadian laws are any less vulnerable?

There have been ten major trade agreements signed by Canada over the past sixteen years, and there are twelve more pending, including the “Free Trade Area of the Americas”. These trade obligations, signed eagerly by our successive governments, have Canada in shackles, and somehow, hardly anybody’s noticing.

Recently, master filmmaker Kevin P. Miller released a documentary showing Canadians how this has happened, in a dynamic retrospective leading to a dubious future: “A Question of Sovereignty” is now online for viewing at http://vimeo.com/13024940, and every red-blooded Canadian needs to see it, and now. It’s 23 minutes of jaw-dropping wake-up call.
Miller describes the film as “patriotic and sentimental” and I have to admit that it brings an uncomfortable lump to the throat as you watch our sovereignty being hijacked. But it also sets your couch on fire.

Miller’s take: “Quietly, over a period of many years, unconstitutional legislation encompassed in Bills C-51, C-6, and the current Bill C-36, have placed not only basic civil liberties and freedoms at risk, but Canada’s national sovereignty as well. The film shares how entangling alliances with groups like the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius, the United States and even multinational corporate interests have become so powerful that they literally threaten to make elected officials in Parliament irrelevant.”

I have to thank Kevin for saving me a whole lot of time explaining what’s going on, and let the film speak for itself, because it does. And it’s going to play an important role in how Canadian health freedom fighters will be approaching the nascent battle against Bill C-36, while proving especially valuable in rousing more Canadians from their sleepwalking state.

Take a moment to absorb the very real danger of Canada’s virtual absorption into a global trade network that hovers over this nation right now. Piece by piece, department by department, our self-rule is being eroded by obligations to committees where our vote doesn’t matter. For example, at the World Trade Organization, Canada is one out of nearly 200 nations. One. None of the other members really give a rat’s behind what we want. Worse yet, if we insist on doing our own thing, we face sanctions, in some cases cross-industry trade sanctions of millions per day, or quitting and being viewed as anathema by all the other suckers in the group.

So, no sovereignty, no health freedom. No freedom guaranteed at all. That candle is going out, bit by bit, as the trade groups meet and decide what the whole group will do, and if our laws conflict, too bad, so sad for our laws. And our self-rule.

Meanwhile, there are massive collisions set to happen. All these contracts with all sorts of terms, and what happens when they start to need enforcing? Gridlock. And what do you need when you have gridlock? A traffic cop. Do you see the platform for global government being “necessitated into existence” by the ongoing commitments of our governments, no matter which party was in power? Commitments to trading. To profit. Not to people. To share wealth, meaning spread what we have across the whole slice of bread while they retain the loaf. This is what Harper meant at the G8 when he spoke of “shared prosperity”.

And those were the exact words used by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth at the UN this past week.

Bill C-36 swings the doors to Canada wide open to outside domination by foreign authorities that we will never vote for and who could not care less what we want. These are the same foreign authorities waiting, butter knife in hand, to spread the wealth, which really means to bring the world equal-opportunity poverty.

Without sovereignty, we have nothing, and Bill C-36 takes away a sizeable chunk of it with Codex looming, as well as a big pact with the EU, where the food regulations are just as bad as Codex already. You need to understand the depth and breadth of what Codex will do, and how our government is absolutely committed to going there. (See www.thenhf.com for full details on Codex, and read constitutional lawyer and health freedom advocate Shawn Buckley’s analysis of Bill C-36 at www.nhppa.org)|

Bear in mind that Health Canada, with C-36, is asking to be granted police and judicial powers, the right to be judge, jury and executioner at will, to impose fines and imprisonment, without recourse to courts or recompense. But we’re supposed to be satisfied by the fact that they promise to call a judge for a warrant? These are the powers that Leona Aglukkaq says are necessary for her agency to “protect Canadians against hazardous consumer products”.

The posts at www.canadiansforhealthfreedom.org show what sort of “protection” Canadians got from their government when Health Canada foisted that particular hazardous product on the population. Bear in mind, they did so at the advice of whom? The same WHO that’s been exposed as being in a huge conflict of interest beneficial to Big Pharma for its re-jigging of the very definition of a pandemic in order to declare one, on the advice of people connected to Big Pharma, which made a gazillion dollars feeding the toxic stuff to people around the world, from which many people suffered severe health problems. People like the ones on that page.

This is the same Health Canada that is asking for quasi-judicial powers, to “protect Canadians from hazardous products”.

Remember Leona Aglukkaq, cajoling the Senate with portents of babies dying from faulty crib and playpen designs, if Bill C-6 didn’t pass? She’s trotted that one out already again for its doppelganger, C-36.

Now, unfortunately for Aglukkaq, there are actual dead babies which would today in all likelihood be alive, were it not for Health Canada’s following of foreign “suggestions” in the promotion of the largely-untested H1N1 vaccine to Canadians, with the full expectation of “collateral damage”. And this Minister wants us to believe that this agency could be trusted with police and judicial powers? This Minister wants us to believe that the agency honors the rights of Canadians, after the shameful raid against Dr. Eldon Dahl last year, holding his family at gunpoint for 11 hours because he sold some vitamins in a sting operation by the health police? Dahl had what looked to him like the G20 security force bash in his front door. This protects Canadians, how? In my humble opinion, it doesn’t.

Instead, it endangers the very fabric of our nation.

Thankfully, there is a new army being assembled against Health Canada’s assault on our sovereign right to health freedom, with the establishment of The National Health Federation (Canada). Its parent organization, the NHF (www.thenhf.com), is the world’s largest and oldest health freedom organization, with branches in nine nations and membership in thirty countries, and is a recognized International Non-Governmental Organization.

The move gives Canada, for the first time, standing as delegates to Codex Alimentarius with the right to speak to the committee, and to Canadians, the ability to speak truth to power. In addition, the organization’s international scope means that we speak with the voices of twenty-nine other nations behind us, sharing the same concerns. That’s more votes than Canada has at the WTO.

I am honored to be one of three Co-Executive Directors of the new NHF Canada, and am gleefully sharpening my teeth. My partners in crime are both heroines in health freedom: Marilyn Nelson, founder of Freedom of Choice in Health Care and veteran of decades of skirmishes with ministers of health; and Candace Hill, nutritionist, passionate educator, and master instigator of stuff happening. With us will be many of the health warriors from Canadians for Health Freedom who barraged the Senate last year with a demand they couldn’t refuse.

Bill C-36, the bitch, is back. We think that calls for neutering.

(View this article in Agora Magazine July 2010)

And I’ve got some lovely oceanfront property in Saskatchewan I’d like to sell them….

This is the same agency that foisted an untested and toxic vaccine on the entire country, and bearing witness to just how toxic are the scads of Canadians who have posted on our H1N1 Vaccine Adverse event reporting page.

While HC told them that the vaccine was safe, understated some risk factors and misled on others (eg. “squalene is a substance found naturally in the body”… true, but it doesn’t get there by injection, which makes the body allergic to its own squalene, causing all sorts of the symptoms listed on that page…), and promoted the vaccine across the country on that basis, now this same agency asks for expanded police powers to “protect Canadians from unsafe products”???

Now, after all the damage has been done (though the “pandemic” remains in effect), we find that there was egregious conflict of interest in the WHO’s pandemic declaration, which was lapped up by that great “protector” of Canadians, Health Canada, and served up on a platter as something where the “slight risks” were overwhelmed by the “benefits” of the vaccine (those being the reaping of humungous profits by vaccine manufacturers).

I received this in my email today. It’s not the first I’ve heard of it, but it really spells it out well. One of our team at CHF sent it to me from a subscription she has… get a load of this:

Hi folks, this is from today’s posting from Health Sciences Institute (HSI) newsletter, to which I have a subscription:

Dear Reader,

“This is one I would definitely like to see called in front of Judge Judy.

The Defendant: Dr. Margaret Chan, director of the World Health Organization (WHO). Dr. Chan recently observed the one-year anniversary of the H1N1 pandemic by announcing that H1N1 is still considered a pandemic.

Of course, this isn’t an old fashioned pandemic where people all over the world witness widespread disease, suffering, and hideous death rates.

No, this is a 21st century pandemic. Call it Pandemic Lite.

So how do you lighten up a pandemic? No problem. About a year ago, WHO officials simply changed the definition of pandemic. No explanation–they just changed it.

Before May 2009, the definition read like this: “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

The revised definition removed those last seven words: “with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

Judge Judy? Your take on this? “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!”

It’s raining.

Once the definition of pandemic was dramatically watered down, H1N1 was ready for prime time. And just a few weeks later, WHO made the announcement: H1N1 was officially a pandemic.

Now, one year later, we have Plaintiff Number One: The Council of Europe.

In a recent report, the CoE accused WHO of vastly overrating the seriousness of the pandemic, adding that WHO’s handling of H1N1 caused a “waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”

Plaintiff Number Two is the British Medical Journal. A recent BMJ investigation revealed that several experts who advised WHO in planning for an H1N1 pandemic just happened to have financial and professional ties to Roche and GlaxoSmithKline–two drug companies that stood to make huge profits from sales of antiviral drugs in the event of a flu pandemic.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., experts are predicting that H1N1 is going to be around for awhile.

One microbiologist told HealthDay News that the “new” H1N1 strain will become the “seasonal H1N1 virus.” Call it Seasonal Flu Plus. Just like the garden variety flu, seasonal H1N1 will arrive around Labor Day, linger past St. Patrick’s Day, and will help sell a boatload of seasonal vaccines in between.

So I guess it’s official. Thanks to WHO, H1N1 might not be an actual pandemic but it is a hugely successful worldwide franchise!

You don’t need Judge Judy to tell you we’ve all been scammed. “

What do YOU think? Should Health Canada be allowed ANY police powers, given that they participated up to their well-fed arses in this scheme? Should Bill C-36 be allowed to pass, to let this rogue agency use its influence to damage even more of us?

Or should we stand together and point our collective fingers at this fraud upon the people, to make sure that Health Canada is denied?

Personally, I hope the victims listed here, as well as those to whom the word spreads, are able to file a massive class action suit, to win justice for themselves and their damaged loved ones, over the dead body of Bill C-36!

By James Corbett

Global Research, April 13, 2010
The Corbett Report

Reports that the WHO is appointing an ‘independent’ committee to investigate its own conduct in the H1N1 panic of 2009 has been tempered by the fact that one of the committee’s members, John Mackenzie, was in fact one of the advisors who urged the WHO to declare a pandemic in the first place. He also has ties to vaccine manufacturers, making him part of the very charge being investigated: that the WHO relied on advisers with a financial interest in declaring a pandemic regardless of the facts on the ground.

Evidence continues to mount that the WHO declared a pandemic for the relatively mild H1N1 outbreak last year in order to trigger billions of dollars of automatic vaccine contracts for the benefit of WHO advisers with connections to Big Pharma. In the face of growing opposition and a loss of credibility due to the conflicts of interests among key WHO advisors, WHO Director Margaret Chan called Monday for a “frank, critical, transparent, credible and independent review of our performance” before entering a closed-door meeting with the “independent experts.” No photographers were allowed inside and press was allowed only occasional access to the meeting.

Hopes for a genuinely independent investigation into the scandal were quickly dashed, however, when it was discovered that one of the group’s members, Professor John Mackenzie of Curtin University in Australia, was a member of the very panel that advised the WHO to declare the H1N1 pandemic. In fact, Mackenzie is already on record with his assessment of his own actions: “I think we did everything right,” he told Der Spiegel earlier this year.

Clues to the likely findings and recommendations of the group in Geneva can be derived from other comments Mackenzie made to the German paper: “The system of pandemic levels needs to be revised,” he was quoted as saying. “We need to fine-tune phase 6 so that the severity of the disease is also taken into account.” Analysts are expecting the review to find that the WHO was a victim of fog of war and loose definitions for a pandemic and that no individual will be held responsible for the billions of dollars that have been spent around the world on vaccines that governments are now giving away and may ultimately have to throw out.

Also at issue is why the WHO changed its definition of a pandemic virus just as it was considering whether the emerging swine flu may fit that criteria. A definition available on the website before the panic specifically listed “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” as a criterion for declaring a pandemic. By April, the definition had been changed to specifically allow for “mild” pandemics.

The cover-up committee is being formed ahead of the final report of the ongoing Council of Europe investigation into the scandal. Just last month, the Council released a draft report of its investigation into the affair, delivering a blistering critique of the WHO and its motives for declaring the H1N1 pandemic:

Some members of these advisory bodies evidently have professional links to certain pharmaceutical groups – notably through receiving extensive research grants from the big pharmaceutical groups – so that the neutrality of their advice could be contested. To date, WHO has failed to provide convincing evidence to counter these allegations and the organisation has not published the relevant declarations of interest taking such a reserved position, the Organisation has joined other bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), which likewise, have still not published such documents. -“The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed”

The Council of Europe committee inquiry was spearheaded by Wolfgang Wodarg, the former chair of the Council’s health committee who made waves last year for saying that the WHO faked the pandemic to make money for vaccine manufacturers. The committee is expected to be quite critical of the WHO, leading many to speculate that the WHO-sanctioned group in Geneva is an attempt to get ahead of the damage and issue a limited hangout on the issue.

The independent group is expected to finish its meeting on Wednesday. No word yet if they will address the fact that flu vaccines actually increase the risk of contracting H1N1, or what the effect might be if a vaccine-pushing WHO ignores this information.

The H1N1 panic started last March, with the WHO estimating as many as two billion infections and millions of deaths. Newly released data shows that the 2009 flu season was actually much less deadly than the regular flu season.

DeeSpeak>:

If the foregoing isn’t enough to get you steamed, take a peek at our H1N1 Vaccine Adverse Reaction reporting page, and see a tiny piece of the suffering the WHO and our government were willing to cause, to secure profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Then consider that our government actually indemnified vaccine manufacturers against liability for damages from said vaccines.

Then add that the government had people sign waivers, affirming “informed consent” prior to administration of the shot, in a feeble attempt to indemnify itself from said liabilities!

To all those who have reported adverse reactions to the vaccine and have experienced a diminished quality of life since then, I say, call a lawyer now! The waivers were, according to information given me by a professor of law, a top liability expert, “not worth the paper they shouldn’t have been written on.”    I suggest someone go for a class action suit on contingency, recognizing there is a lot of monetary compensation due people who have suffered, and continue to suffer, as you all are.

Our government took liability for vaccine damage? Time they put their money where their mouth is.

We wish you all the best of luck, and please keep reporting here.

MEANWHILE, I MUST REPEAT OUR URGENT APPEAL FOR YOUR SUPPORT…. THE BATTLE FOR OUR HEALTH FREEDOM IS FAR FROM OVER AND WE ARE RUNNING ON FUMES….

PLEASE!  SEND WHATEVER YOU CAN AFFORD, EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS!   (Scroll Down for Donation Info)

IF 500 PEOPLE SEND ONLY $10 PER MONTH, WE CAN MAKE ALL EXPENSES AND BRING OUR FIGHT TO OTTAWA… PLEASE CONSIDER HELPING US TO HELP YOU!

THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONATED … NOW COULD YOU PLEASE CLONE YOURSELVES?  WE NEED YOU ALL TO HELP!!

A new Canadian-led study has added to a simmering scientific dispute over flu-shot campaigns, concluding that immunizing nursing-home workers does nothing to cut the number of confirmed influenza cases among the homes’ elderly residents.

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

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

Read more: Flu shots for nursing home workers futile: study

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;2:CD005187.
Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, UCMC, #1707-1632 14th Avenue, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, T2M 1N7.

Some Health Care Workers (HCWs) remain unvaccinated because they do not perceive risk, doubt vaccine efficacy and are concerned about side effects.

We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in Long Term Care Facilities (LTCFs).

Read more: Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly.

U.S.News & World Report – April 6, 2010
The traditional seasonal flu vaccine may have increased the risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 swine flu, according to the results of four new studies by Canadian researchers.

In one study, the researchers used an ongoing sentinel monitoring system to assess the frequency of prior
vaccination with the seasonal flu vaccine in people diagnosed with H1N1 swine flu in 2009 compared to people without swine flu. The researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 68 percent
increased risk of getting swine flu.

Read more: Did ‘Regular’ Flu Shot Up Risks for H1N1 Flu?