Chikungunya virus, and the Wolbachia Effect.

Since its discovery in Tanganyika, Africa, in 1952, chikungunya virus outbreaks have occurred occasionally in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, but recent outbreaks have spread the disease over a wider range.

In December 2013, chikungunya was confirmed on the Caribbean island of St. Martin with 66 confirmed cases and suspected cases of around 181. This outbreak is the first time in the Western Hemisphere that the disease has spread to humans from a population of infected mosquitoes. By January 2014, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported that cases were confirmed on the British Virgin Islands, Saint-Barthélemy, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. In April 2014, chikungunya was also confirmed in the Dominican Republic by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). By the end of April, it had spread to 14 countries in all, including St. Lucia, and Haiti where an epidemic was declared.

By the end of May 2014, over ten imported cases of the virus had been reported in the United States by people traveling from areas where the virus is endemic to Florida.

Chikungunya was one of more than a dozen agents the United States researched as potential biological weapons before the nation suspended its biological weapons program.

Reference Link:

Chikungunya virus is spread by two mosquito species: Aedes aegypti (primarily) and Aedes albopictus, both found in Florida. While the virus is not currently found in the state, introductions are possible if a CHIKV infected visitor or returning traveler is bitten by Florida mosquitoes in the early stages (the first week) of their illness. Infected mosquitoes can then spread the virus to other people they bite.

Reference Link:…

What is the current situation?

In December 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported local transmission of chikungunya in Saint Martin. Local transmission means that mosquitoes in the area have been infected with chikungunya and are spreading it to people. This is the first time that local transmission of chikungunya has been reported in the Americas.

Reference Link:

A painful mosquito-borne virus spreading quickly through the Caribbean is causing alarm in Haiti and neighboring Dominican Republic, where health officials are scrambling to respond to a surge of new patients.

Chikungunya, a virus more commonly found in Africa and Asia and transmitted by the same daytime-biting aedes aegypti mosquito that causes the more deadly dengue fever, was first detected in the eastern Caribbean five months ago.

“These mosquitoes know no borders,” said Phyllis Kozarsky, a physician with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Reference Link:…

Wolbachia as a biological control agent against mosquito-borne diseases

A number of recent independent studies have shown that wMelPop and other Wolbachia strains can also confer resistance against a wide range of insect viruses as well as important human pathogens such as dengue and chickungunya viruses, Plasmodium gallinaceum, Plasmodium berghei or Brugia pahangi (Hedges et al. 2008, Teixeira et al. 2008, Kambris et al. 2009, 2010, Moreira et al. 2009a, Glaser & Meola 2010).

Integrating community concerns in the scientific approach

“Community acceptability is critical to the future use and success of this program and public engagement, collaborative partnerships and community and regulatory authorisation have been recognised as an ‘ethical requirement’ of this type of project.” (Newman et al. 2006, Lavery et al. 2008, D McNaughton, unpublished observations).

The most common community concerns related to the safety of the approach and its capacity for transfer, namely: is the Wolbachia approach safe for people? Is it safe for animals and other organisms? Is it safe for the environment (D McNaughton, unpublished observations)?

Can Wolbachia affect/be transferred to humans? Baseline data

A major concern the community repeatedly expressed was whether Wolbachia could be transferred to humans through the bite of infected mosquitoes (D McNaughton, unpublished observations). Wolbachia are specialized endosymbionts that infect insects as well as spiders, mites, terrestrial crustaceans (Breeuwer & Jacobs 1996, Bouchon et al. 1998, Taylor & Hoerauf 1999, Oh et al. 2000, Bandi et al. 2001, Rowley et al. 2004). Wolbachia have never been found in humans or other mammals, neither in birds, reptiles or fish. When Wolbachia were first discovered in the 1930’s they were suspected of being potential human rickettsial pathogens and were tested accordingly (Hertig 1936).

To implement or not to implement?

Assessing experimentally the potential consequences that could happen over a long-term period and large geographic scale could be a daunting task. Many questions related to long-term consequences can only be assessed once the release is done.

Reference Link:…

So, will these scientist be able to get the proverbial genie, back into its bottle, once it has been released?

Unfortunately, no peer-reviewed scientific proof of the safety of such biotechnologies can be offered. Long-term effects have not been at all measured, and once these insects are released, they can not be recalled. Here are but a few of the questions and issues regarding GM mosquitoes (or any GM insect for that matter). For Oxitec:

Will Oxitec need to acquire the free and informed consent of residents in Key West for the release of the GM mosquitoes? With the previous release of the mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, there was no public consultation taken on potential risks and informed consent was not given from locals.

What could happen to the ecosystem and local food chain with the major decrease in the Aedes aegypti mosquito population?

The truth is that we have no idea what the future holds for genetic modification and the potential impacts it has on the environment and public health. We know that the Wolbachia mosquitoes contain Wolbachia to replace the naturally occurring mosquito population, but what does that really mean for humans? We simply do not know the potential outcomes that could arise from such experiments.

Reference Link:…

Genetically modified mosquitoes were released in East End on Grand Cayman in 2009 as part of a research study on the eradication of dengue fever by the UK-based company Oxitec in partnership with the Mosquito Research and Control Unit. Although there was some local notification in the district and a GIS TV programme was produced about the release the experiment remained very low profile with very little information about the project in the public domain.

Reference Link:…

Luke Alphey, chief scientific officer of Oxitec, says he “completely rejects” the notion that there was anything secretive about the trial, which was well-known within the island’s population of 50,000, he says, “but just not picked up internationally.”

Reference Link:…

“The fact that Oxitec is hiding data from the public has undermined its credibility,” said Eric Hoffman of Friends of the Earth US. “Oxitec’s assertions cannot be trusted. Trials of its mosquitoes must not move forward in the absence of comprehensive and impartial reviews of the environmental, human health and ethical risks. Such trials must also await the establishment of a clear and well-designed regulatory framework, which does not yet exist.”

Reference Link:…

Oxitec is a customer of Ansteadbrook management consultancy, established in 2004 by Colin Ruscoe, former site manager at Syngenta Crop Protection. Ruscoe is Chairman of the British Crop Production Council. Ansteadbrook’s other customers include Syntech Research (where Ruscoe is Director for Europe and Africa) and Syngenta Seeds.

Syntech Research provides product development and regulatory services to the agricultural, biotechnology and food industries as well as government bodies and agricultural commodity suppliers.

In June 2005, Oxitec was awarded US$4.8m as part of an international consortium within the Grand Challenges for Global Health initiative, led by the Gates Foundation (in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, US Foundation for National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes for Health Research)

In 2005 Ruscoe joined the Executive and Scientific Committees of the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) to develop commercial partnerships and apply grants (including $50m from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) to discover and deliver new chemical products and information systems for elimination ofinsect vectors of malaria and dengue. Oxitec obtained it s consortium funding from the Grand Challenges in Global Health, led by the Gates Foundation, in 2005

Reference Link:…

Bombshell on Water Fluoridation – Read all about it.

FAN-Australia drops a bombshell on Water Fluoridation.

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

H1N1 Flu coming back far worse in spite of last year’s vaccine

H1N1 Vaccine Breakthrough In Sweden
Recombinomics Commentary, by Dr. Henry L. Niman, PhD
January 3, 2011
Since the start of the season in week 40, with 65 cases of A (H1N1) reported in 2009. A large proportion of patients (46 pc) were not vaccinated against the influenza pandemic, 16 were missing data on vaccination status and only three patients reported that they were vaccinated.

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.


(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.

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

Vaccine Zombie

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) 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 (…). 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! (…)

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 (, asthma, cancer, kidney disease and nearly a hundred other serious health conditions, including autoimmune disorders. (…)

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:…

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. (…)

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.


While we were sleeping…

By Dee Nicholson
National Health Federation of Canada

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.

Is Bisphenol A (BPA); another doctor recommended poison?

By: Christopher-Peter: Maingot

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 safewith 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.

Either you SNORT it, or you SHOOT it?

On Wednesday; AstraZeneca-Canada, was proud to announce that it’s (MedImmune), ‘LIVE‘ – 2009 SWINE FLU VIRUS loaded (Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine live) FluMist Intranasal vaccine, received approval from the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA; Also Traded as HEALTH CANADA.

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 CommerceFluMist® 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


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.


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


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.


12.1 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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers