Raw milk is inherently dangerous, and the only way to make it safe for human consumption is to pasteurize it — this popular mantra, in one form or another, is one that you may have heard someone say in response to the idea of drinking unpasteurized milk. And while many people still cling to this belief as absolute truth, it holds no basis whatsoever, scientific or anecdotal, in actual reality. And federal agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to marginalize this health-promoting “superfood” by publicly repeating such lies against it.
Both the FDA and CDC continue to allege that raw milk is dangerous and that it leads to disease, all while propagating the false notion that the only safe milk is pasteurized milk. They often cite seemingly-scientific numbers and data about outbreaks allegedly related to raw milk in defense of these claims, and many people eat up this misinformation without giving it a second thought. As a result, a general public bias against raw milk has been firmly established and in motion for many decades now, despite the fact that the parents and grandparents of many of those who today decry raw milk actually drank raw milk when they were growing up (and many lived healthy, vibrant lives as a result).
CDC Manipulated and Covered up Scientific Data Showing link Between Vaccines Containing Mercury and Autism
Deniers of the link between mercury-laden vaccines and autism are going to have a hard time denying the latest findings by the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD). The nonprofit group has obtained critical documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that exposes the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) role in deliberately lying about and manipulating a key Danish study that showed a clear link between vaccines containing mercury and autism. (more…)
Evidence-based medicine is little more than a marketing ploy. Both JAMA and the Cochrane Collaboration agree that little of what’s done in clinical medicine has anything to do with evidence. Studies are hidden when they don’t provide desired results, and what’s reported tends to be selective. The result is that patients are routinely treated based on what Big Pharma wants to sell.
Nearly two years ago, Gaia Health predicted that the plans of JAMA and the Cochrane Collaboration would go nowhere … and that’s just what seems to have happened. Here’s what was said back then:
The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association and the Cochrane Collaboration have jointly and officially concluded, albeit tacitly, that evidence-based medicine does not generally exist. To counter that lack, they are suggesting voluntary changes in how medical studies are reported.
JAMA’s article on the subject, “A Model for Dissemination and Independent Analysis of Industry Data“, starts with the statement:
Each day, patients and their physicians make treatment decisions with access to only a fraction of the relevant clinical research data. (more…)
Parents of vaccine-injured children call for a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So the CDC has come up with a study that, at first glance, appears to provide just that. But that’s just the first glance. A closer view shows that it looks more like another attempt to obscure the truth.
by Heidi Stevenson
A study claims to do what should have been done decades ago: identify the background rate of mortality so that an accurate rate of vaccination risk can be determined. It’s fairly obvious that such information would be of great value. If you know how many people die in an unvaccinated population, then the rate of death after a vaccine is introduced can beidentified fairly accurately. This study, though, suffers from a multitude of problems that negate any possibility of providing a genuine background rate of mortality to determine a vaccine’s risk.
Most Obvious Flaws (more…)
Health Impact News Editor Comments: In the vaccine debate currently raging in modern society, seldom, if ever, is the basic presupposition that vaccines prevent diseases ever questioned. It is assumed by the government and the medical system that this presupposition is a scientific fact. Without this presupposed “fact”, the justification to force people to receive vaccinations completely falls apart. The acceptance of sacrificing certain children and others due to vaccine harm for “the greater good” also loses its justification, if vaccines actually do not prevent disease. So it is easy to see why those who profit from vaccines, which includes both the manufacturer and the U.S. government, do not want to debate this issue.
What is the actual history and science behind this belief in vaccines? Dr. Viera Scheibner has done everyone a favor in critiquing the current scientific rationale for such a belief, taking a comprehensive look at history and peer-reviewed studies on the subject. We have extracted this from her 50 plus page response to the Australian Academy of Science pro-vaccine report entitled: A critique of the 16-page Australian pro-vaccination booklet entitled “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers” – You can read the entire report here.
We have extracted the relevant information regarding the history and science of vaccines, so that the comprehensive report by Dr. Scheibner can be used by anyone interested in the topic. This is the research you want to print out and give to your doctor if they are uneducated on the facts and science of vaccines. If you are involved in a lawsuit over refusing mandatory vaccines, you will want to give this to your attorney who can enter the information into the court record and start educating judges. (more…)
The CDC has produced junk science that demonstrates absolutely nothing, but claims it shows no connection between autism and the vaccine schedule. It’s now spinning it as if it proves that there’s no link between the modern day nightmare of autism and the vaccines that they push for Big Pharma. Here’s the evidence.
Junk, by Daniel Y. Go, cropped and with word Science superimposed
by Heidi Stevenson
The CDC has produced a study, claiming that it proves that there’s no link between autism and the number or timing of vaccinations. The mainstream news has been covering it with its usual unquestioning cheerleader approach. Worse, they have—with the assistance of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—conflated the study with the more basic question of whether vaccinations cause autism. Of course, their implied conclusion is that it doesn’t, and that now parents should simply accept their claims that there’s no connection between vaccines and autism. (more…)