http://www.myheritage.com/collage |
http://www.myheritage.com/collage |
http://www.myheritage.com/collage |
http://www.myheritage.com/collage |
http://www.myheritage.com/collage |
http://www.myheritage.com/collage |
Nationwide Revolt continues to grow as Presidential candidate denounces FDA and forced immunization
| | |
Steve Watson |
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has spoken out against forced vaccination and the federal government's eagerness to dictate what Americans may and may not put into their bodies.
The Congressman, a fully qualified obstetrics and gynecology doctor, made his position plain in an interview with the Huffington Post's election reporter James Freedman:
"I don't think anything should be forced on us by the government, [and] immunization is one thing that we're pressured and forced into," he said.
"A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."
Besides certain laws that apply only to government medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the mandatory use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical treatment is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment, the reason Ron Paul, a strict Constitutionalist, is so directly against it.
However, some in Washington seem determined to ignore the Constitution and to make some vaccinations (usually the most profitable ones) mandatory.
There has recently been a spate of cases where officials, with the assistance of directed media propaganda, have attempted to cajole parents into believing that laws require vaccination.
Last February one such media hoax fooled parents in Texas and other areas of the country into believing that the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed as untested and has continued to be linked to dangerous side-effects, is now required by law and that young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals hit the headlines after it was revealed that the company was set to capitalize on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick Perry, while children were put at risk.
Last November we reported on a case in Prince George's County, Maryland, where parents of more than 1600 children were told they could be put in jail for failing to get their kids vaccinated. At the time a local Fox News affiliate reported, "A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine," which was a total lie. A state prosecutor involved in the case then admitted that there is no law that mandates any vaccine.
In addition there is a plethora of examples where vaccines containing mercury, live HIV virus, live cancer and other horrors have wrought misery after victims were bullied into taking them by government mandates that they were deluded into thinking was the law.
Concerned parents across the U.S. are leading a nationwide revolt against unnecessary, untested and dangerous vaccines as CDC records show a growing amount of religious exemptions on vaccine forms. Adults too are turning away from personal vaccination.
Ron Paul also spoke of the dangerous precedent being set in allowing the FDA strict controls over the health of Americans and how such a scenario is a dream come true for the big pharmaceutical corporations the FDA shares a bed with:
"If we accept this notion that the federal government is going to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then it leads to the next step: that the government is going to regulate everything that is supposedly good for us. That's where they are. They have an FDA that won't allow somebody who's dying to use an experimental drug which might speed up the process of finding out which drugs are good and which drugs are bad and the federal government comes in and dictates that they want complete control over vitamins and nutritional products and I just think the whole principal of government telling us what we can take in or not take in is just a dangerous position to take... it's related to the drug industry because they'd like to control all of this."
Paul is right to point out that the relationship that now exists between the FDA and big pharma is tantamount to a business partnership.
The FDA now effectively protects and nurtures the monopoly of big pharma in the name of regulating its activities.
It is well known that the giant pharmaceuticals routinely fix and mark up prices of prescription drugs as much as 500,000% over the cost of the raw ingredients, and they engage in monopolistic, mob-like behaviors to block competing, lower cost drugs from other countries.
All of this is effectively sanctioned by the FDA.
Presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards advocate a continuation of this monopolistic status quo via their visions for a FDA state-managed socialized health care system where every citizen in the U.S. would have to enroll for regular check ups, including mandatory mental screenings, a practice Ron Paul also speaks out against:
"The other thing they're doing right now is the government's doing this mental health testing of everybody in school and they're putting a lot of pressure, in a way forcing kids to be put on psychotropic drugs, which I think are very, very dangerous. So anything medical that is forced on us I think is bad."
The Congressman is the only candidate who has envisioned a health care system without strict federal regulation and without the resulting big pharma monopoly. As consumer health advocate Mike Adams at newstarget has pointed out:
Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes in health freedom. All the other candidates would support the status quo in health care today: Big Pharma dominance, FDA censorship, monopoly prices in medicine and the assault and imprisonment of individuals who dare to tell the truth about the healing properties of the superfoods and nutritional supplements they sell. The other candidates may talk about "reforms," but all they're really talking about is a shell game of shifting who pays for all disease in this country.
Only Ron Paul believes in genuine health freedom. He's the creator of the Health Freedom Protection Act, a bill that would reestablish Free Speech provisions for makers of superfoods, herbs, nutritional supplements and other natural remedies. Under the HFPA, those individuals would be able to state scientifically-validated facts about the health benefits of their products right on the bottle! Today, the FDA doesn't allow that. All truthful statements about nutritional supplements are presently censored! (It's a way to protect Big Pharma and keep the American people ignorant about how plant-based medicines can prevent and even cure degenerative disease.)
The establishment candidates are promoting a huge monopolistic and federalized profit machine when it comes to health care in America, while once again Ron Paul is truly speaking to the needs and desires of the people in accordance with Constitutional law.
It may feel as if the world is pushing back pretty hard against you right now -- and it is! But there's an upside to this pressure: You know you're doing something right and your persistence should help you win.
PARENTS got a fresh warning yesterday that food additives could trigger hyperactivity in children.
Many children, and not just those suffering from extreme hyperactive conditions, can become more impulsive, inattentive and hyperactive from the cocktail of artificial extras found in drinks, sweets and processed foods, according to research published in the Lancet.
In the biggest study of its kind, scientists at Southampton University recorded the responses of 153 three-year-olds and 144 eight to nine-year-olds to various drinks and found that artificial food colour and additives were having "deleterious effects".
The youngsters drank a mix that reflected a UK child's average daily additive intake.
Professor Jim Stevenson, a psychologist who led the research in the study commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), said: "We now have clear evidence that mixtures of certain food colours and benzoate preservative can adversely influence the behaviour of children.
"There is previous evidence that some children with behavioural disorders could benefit from the removal of certain food colours from their diet.
"We have now shown that for a large group of children in the general population, consumption of certain mixtures of artificial food colours and benzoate preservative can influence their hyperactive behaviour. However, parents should not think that simply taking these additives out of food will prevent all hyperactive disorders.
"We know that many other influences are at work, but this at least is one a child can avoid."
The children, chosen as a snapshot of the general population, were all put on additive-free diets. None suffered from a hyperactivity disorder.
Each day for six weeks, they were given drinks that either contained one of two mixtures of food colours and benzoate preservative or just fruit juice. All the drinks looked and tasted the same.
The study builds upon tests conducted on the Isle of Wight in 2002, which were inconclusive about the possible links between additives and hyperactivity. The first mixture was similar to that used in the 2002 study. The second mixture contained the current average daily consumption of food additives by three-year-old and eight to nine-year-old children in the UK.
The children's different reactions were rated by teachers and trained observers in the classroom and by their parents at home. The older children also took computerised attention tests.
Professor Ieuan Hughes, the chairman of the Committee on Toxicity, made up of independent scientists, described the £750,000 study as "robust" and said it "added weight" to a possible link between certain artificial food colours and preservatives having a bad effect on children's behaviour.
The FSA is now sending the findings to the European Food Safety Authority, which is currently reviewing the safety of all European Union permitted food colours.
It could increase pressure on manufacturers to stop using certain food colourings, but there are no plans to call for a ban.
Parents who are confused over what might be bad for their children are left with a simple message: read the label.
They will have to do the groundwork to find out what is in their children's meals as some foods such as school dinners or those served at children's parties do not come with labels.
Julian Hunt, of the Food and Drink Federation, said: "As a responsible industry, we shall be studying the detail of the research and companies will clearly take account of these findings as part of their ongoing review of product formulations."
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1420232007
Last updated: 05-Sep-07 00:54 BST