The business of cancer. 


The word called cancer is a lie…You might not believe this but cancer is not a disease; it is a business.Cancer consists of only a deficiency of vitamin B17. It is nothing else.Cancer has become widespread; it has affected the old, young, baby and everyone.Sharing this wonderful post will expose many of the hidden hands of the world’s manipulators and annoy them.
Do you know that the book “World Without Cancer” has up till now been prevented from being translated into many world languages?

Know this: there is no disease called cancer. Cancer consists of only a deficiency of vitamin B17. It is nothing else.

Avoid chemotherapy, surgery and or taking medicines with strong side effects.

You would recall that in the past, quite a large number of seamen lost their life to a named disease (scurvy); a disease that took the life of numerous people as well. And a number of people got an enormous income from it. Afterwards, it was discovered that scurvy was just a deficiency of vitamin C. That means it wasn’t a disease (illness).

Cancer is also just like that! The colonizing world and the enemies of humanity established the cancer industry and made it into a business. from which they earn billions in income.

The cancer industry flourished after world war II. To fight cancer, all these delays, details and enormous expenditures are not needed. They only go to line the pockets of colonizers, especially since the cure for the condition was found long ago.

The prevention and cure of cancer will be obtained simply through the following strategies:

Those who have cancer should first try to know what cancer is. Do not panic! You should investigate the condition.

Nowadays does anyone die of an illness called scurvy? No. Because it gets cured.

Since cancer is only a deficiency of vitamin B17, eating 15 to 20 pieces of apricot stone/nucleus (fruit stone) everyday is enough.

Eat wheat bud (wheat sprouts). Wheat bud is a miraculous anti-cancer medicine. It is a rich source of liquid oxygen and the strongest anti-cancer matter named laetrile. This matter is present in the fruit stone of apple and is the extracted form of vitamin B17 (Amygdalin).

The American medicinal industry has started implementing the law forbidding laetrile production. This medicine is being manufactured in Mexico and gets smuggled into USA.

Dr. Harold W. Manner, in a book named “Death of Cancer” has stated that the success of cancer treatment with laetrile is as high as above 90%.

Sources of Amygdalin (Vitamin B17)

The foods containing vitamin B17 include the following:

-The fruit stone or grain(seed) of fruits. This contains the highest amount of vitamin B17 in nature. This includes fruit stone of apple, apricot, peach, pear, and prune (dried plum).

-Common beans, corns(grains), which include bean, lentil sprout (lentil bud) Lima (Lima beans) and pea.

-Kernels: Bitter Almond (Richest source of vitamin B-17 in nature) and Indian almond.

-Mulberries: almost all mulberries such as black mulberry, blueberry, raspberry and strawberry.
-Seeds (Grains): sesame and linseed (seed of linen/flax seed).
-Groats of oats, barley, brown rice, groats of block wheat, linseed, millet and rye.
This vitamin is found in grains and fruit stones of apricot, brewer’s yeast, rough rice (paddy) and sweetmeat pumpkin.
List of Anti-Cancer Foods

•Apricots (kernels/seeds)

•seeds from other fruits like apples, cherries, peaches, prunes, plums, pears

•Lima beans

•Fava beans

•Wheatgrass

•Almonds

•Raspberries

•Elderberries

•Strawberries

•Blackberries

•Blueberries

•Buckwheat

•Sorghum

•Barley

•Millet

•Cashews

•Macadamia nuts

•Bean sprouts

All are the highest sources of absorbable vitamin B17.
Ingesting dish washing liquids (used in the kitchen) and hand washing liquid (used in the restroom) is the main cancer causing factor so your eating of them should be restricted.You will surely say that we do not eat them!

However, you daily wash your hands with hand washing liquid and wash your plates with dish washing liquid.The liquid is absorbed and will not leave the plate with washing. When cooking or eating food, the soap in the plate or dish gets attached to the hot food and so we end up eating the dish washing liquid with our food. Even if you rinse the plate hundreds of times, that will be of no use.
But the solution is to pour half of the dishwashing liquid and hand washing liquid and top it up with vinegar.

It is as simple as that.Do not eat blood cancer causing agents and also save your family from this danger.Similarly, seriously desist from washing vegetables with even a few drops of dishwashing liquid because irrespective of how much you would rinse them, the chemicals would have already entered the tissues of the vegetable and will not get rinsed away.Instead, soak fruits and vegetables with salt and then rinse with water. And to keep them fresh, add vinegar.

Denmark Doctors Declare Circumcision Of Healthy Boys ‘Ethically Unacceptable’


Except within the small Muslim and orthodox Jewish communities, people in Denmark wonder why on Earth any parents would want to have their precious newborn child held down to have a part of his healthy, yet immature, penis cut off. According to a nationally representative poll from the summer of 2016, 87 percent of Danes favor a legal ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys under the age of 18 years. So far, politicians have been hesitant, but increasingly willing to listen.

Doctors and medical organizations in Denmark, the other Nordic countries and, with one notable exception, elsewhere in the Western world agree that circumcision of healthy boys is ethically problematic. It is considered an operation seriously and patently at odds with the Hippocratic oath (”first do no harm”) and one that is in conflict with a variety of international conventions, most notably the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

The one Western country that is out of sync with its international peers is the United States, whose federal health authorities and national associations of pediatricians, obstetricians, family physicians and urologists endorse and perform most of these medically unnecessary operations in the country. Amputation of healthy infant foreskins constitutes the single most common surgical procedure in the United States ― a several hundred million dollars a year industry.

Internationally, several medical associations have issued policies and recommendations that contradict the popular belief in the United States that infant male circumcision is a harmless, health-promoting procedure. In fact, not one medical association in the whole world recommends circumcision of healthy boys.

In December of 2016, the Danish Medical Association published its revised policy on circumcision. Speaking on behalf of its 29,185 members, the new policy came out in an unusually clear voice. Its central passage goes like this (my unofficial translation):

Circumcision of boys without a medical indication is ethically unacceptable when the procedure is carried out without informed consent from the person undergoing the surgery. Therefore, circumcision should not be performed before the boy is 18 years old and able to decide whether this is an operation he wants.

Many Americans, who grew up in a culture whose medical authorities and mass media promote the view that an intact penis is dangerous, prone to infection, ugly and difficult to keep clean, may wonder what the penile health situation would be like in a country like Denmark, where few boys undergo circumcision. Of course, occasional intact men will encounter penile problems during their lifetime, just like people with natural teeth or appendices may develop cavities or appendicitis at some point later on. However, removing such healthy body parts on every child to prevent rare conditions in adulthood, that may be easily and effectively treated if and when they occur, is outright bad medical practice and ethics. So, why remove a healthy, functional and sensitive part of a child’s penis?

Indeed, a study published in Pediatrics in 2016 documented that only around one in 200 intact boys will develop a medical condition necessitating a circumcision before the age of 18 years. In other words, the chance is around 99.5 percent that a newborn boy can retain his valuable foreskin throughout infancy, childhood, and adolescence and enter adulthood with an intact penis. Simple information like this should urge parents to abstain from unnecessary infant surgery and let their sons decide for themselves about the size, sensitivity, functionality and appearance of their manhoods once they get old enough to understand the consequences.

In the fairytale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, a child too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense that the emperor is wearing costly, elegant clothes when, in fact, he has nothing on, blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing, and the cry is taken up by others. By speaking out frankly and without the usual diplomacy of such position papers, the Danish Medical Association impersonates that uncorrupted child shouting out against the falsehood, vanity and greed that has upheld the Empire of Circumcision for far too long.

In 2015, I urged U.S. parents to reconsider the moral acceptability of cutting a healthy, erogenous part off their sons’ penises. Now, at the beginning of 2017, I expand my call, and urge health professionals and payers, such as health insurers and Medicaid, to discourage circumcision of healthy boys and work to end the practice. No individual too young to provide informed consent to elective surgery should be subjected to an irreversible procedure that is painful, comes with risks, alters a natural, functional body part, has no relevant health benefits during childhood, causes pathological narrowing of the urethral opening in 5 percent -20 percent of boys, and – as stated by the Danish Medical Association – is ethically unacceptable.

 

Stem Cell Research: What Are Stem Cells And Why Is There So Much Controversy?


Stem cell research is often in the news both for its involvement in scientific breakthrough and the controversy surrounding its use. But while many of us are familiar with the term, when it comes to understanding exactly what stem cells are and what exactly they do, things can get a bit hazy. Luckily, YouTube channel Life Noggin put together a colorful video to outline the basics of stem cells.

Stem Cell Research: What Are Stem Cells, And Why Is There So Much Controversy? Here’s a quick overview of what makes stem cells so special and what exactly they can be used for. 

Stem Cell Research: What Are Stem Cells, And Why Is There So Much Controversy?

First off, all of your cells contain the same genetic code which is unique to you (unless, of course, you are an identical twin or triplet). What sets a skin cell apart from a brain, bone, or blood cell is the manner in which these genes are expressed or turned on. Stem cells are unspecialized, meaning their gene expression has not yet been set. It’s this factor that makes them so important.

Adult stem cells, also known as somatic cells, are used to maintain and repair cells in the tissue in which they are found. These types of stem cells are used in procedures such as skin grafts for burn victims. Researchers hope that eventually science will advance enough to enable these cells to regenerate whole organs and therefore lift some of the burden from organ transplant lists.

Controversial discussions involving stem cells usually refer to embryonic stem cells. Rather than being taken from adults, these cells are retrieved from fertilized embryos and can theoretically become any type of cell. This type of stem cell therpy is used in studies involving the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. The embryos are most often donated by women who are participating in in-vitro fertilization and have leftover embryos.

Despite this controversy, stem cells are at the forefront of treatment for everything, from Alzheimer’s disease to HIV, and are part of a truly exciting field of science.

Should pregnant women shun meat and lust?


Pregnancy advice

The claim: The Indian government is advising pregnant women to exercise, avoid eggs and meat, shun desire and lust, and hang beautiful photos in the bedroom.

Reality Check verdict: Some of the advice is good, some bad, and some downright ridiculous.

India’s Ayush ministry, which promotes traditional and alternative medicine, last week distributed a tiny 16-page booklet on Mother and Child Care to journalists. It’s three years old but it’s been dominating news since its re-release just ahead of the annual International Yoga Day, which is being celebrated on Wednesday.

Produced by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy, which is a part of Ayush, the booklet dishes out advice on the yoga exercises that pregnant women should – and should not – do; lists of food they should – and should not – eat; and also offers suggestions on what to read, what sort of company to keep, what sort of photos to look at, and so on and so forth.

Doctors in India say though there is merit in some of the advice, it would not be wise to follow the guidelines in their entirety.

Take for instance the advice on food.

The booklet prescribes a long list of items that pregnant and lactating women should take and that includes sprouts, lentils, fruits, leafy vegetables like spinach, dry fruits, juices and whole grain. All very good, say doctors.

Then it lists foods to be avoided – tea, coffee, sugar, spices, white flour, fried items and, rather controversially, “eggs and non-vegetarian” food.

An Indian woman makes an omelette in Kolkata

Critics say that is in keeping with India’s Hindu nationalist BJP government’s policy to promote vegetarianism, and that it’s dangerous advice in a country where malnutrition and anaemia among pregnant women has meant India has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the world.

Stung by the criticism, the Ayush ministry has issued clarification saying that their suggestion that non-vegetarian food may be avoided is because “yoga and naturopathy doesn’t advocate non-vegetarian food in its practice”. They have also accused the press of “selectively” highlighting the advisory on eggs and meat while forgetting to mention the unhealthy items on the list.

It’s not just the media though, doctors too have questioned their advisory.

“As a doctor I do not see any merit in advising a pregnant woman to not eat eggs or meat. Egg is the easiest and best source of protein,” Delhi-based gynaecologist Dr Sonia Naik told the BBC. “My advice would be that whoever is comfortable with whatever diet, they should continue with it.”

The advice is also at odds with the one offered by India’s health ministry on its website: “The foetus extracts iron from the mother, even if she suffers from anaemia, so iron rich foods such as meat, liver, egg, green peas, lentils, green leafy vegetables… should be encouraged to be taken by the mother.”

If many found the advisory on food unpalatable, the next few paragraphs of the booklet offered advice that seemed even more strange:

Although the Ayush ministry insists that it does not “prescribe” that “pregnant women in India” should “say no to sex after conception”, many say the words “detach… from desire and lust” appear to mean exactly that.

Although the health ministry is silent on the matter, doctors say there’s no harm in having sex during pregnancy.

In fact, Dr Naik says that “because of hormonal reasons, some pregnant women may want more sex than usual and we don’t tell them to abstain unless it’s a high-risk pregnancy”.

Indian women doing yogaImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

There is, however, one bit of advice the booklet offers on which there is general consensus – the benefits of yoga.

Although traditional wisdom believed pregnancy to be a delicate time and advised expectant mothers to rest and take it easy, over the years doctors have been advising mothers-to-be to build some form of exercise into their daily routine.

“We all live very sedentary lives now so yoga and exercise are healthy. In fact, we do recommend to women who come to us to do some form of exercise, we even hold prenatal classes for them,” Dr Naik said.

The health ministry too lists the benefits of staying physically active although it advises pregnant women to stay away from “activities in which you can get hit in the abdomen like kickboxing, soccer, basketball, or ice hockey” or “activities in which you can fall like horseback riding, downhill skiing, and gymnastics”.

Source:BBC

Scientists Found That The Soul Doesn’t Die – It Goes Back To The Universe


There IS life after DEATH: Scientists reveal shock findings from groundbreaking study.

The mystery of death is not to be told. It is something to be experienced. We all know one thing for sure: we are all going to die one day. And when we do die, we may not get the opportunity to come back and explain our experience.

Many religions believe in life after death. It is said the soul goes out of the body to live a new life in the spiritual realm. A wicked person is sent to hell to be tormented by a blazing fire, while a righteous person is sent to heaven to live an eternal and joyful life.

However, scientists believe that this religious interpretation of death is just a mythology. Some researchers have therefore devoted themselves to unraveling this mystery. The starting point: establish that there is some sort of life after death.

At the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom, researchers have confirmed in a new study that there is indeed life after death. The study has been published in the online journal Resuscitation.

The study is said to be the largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences. The study revealed that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely. A human being is pronounced clinically dead if the heart stops beating and the brain shuts down. The condition can also be called cardiac arrest.

According to the researchers, they spent four years examining more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, the United States and Austria. They found that nearly 40 percent of people who survived their resuscitation, described some kind of awareness during the time when they were clinically dead.

Of the 2,060 cardiac arrest patients studied, 330 survived and of 140 surveyed, 39 percent said they had experienced some kind of awareness while being resuscitated. Although many of them could not recall specific details, some themes emerged. One in five said they had felt an unusual sense of peacefulness, while nearly one third said time had slowed down or speeded up.

Source:/simplecapacity.com

Statins myth: thousands are dying because of warnings over non-existent side effects


False claims about the risks of statins may have cost the lives of tens of thousands of Britons, researchers have said, after a Lancet study found the drugs do not cause side-effects which have deterred many.

The research on 10,000 people found that if they did not know what drugs they were given, they were no more likely than those given sugar pills to report symptoms such as muscle pain, sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment.

Yet when participants in a second part of the trial were told the drugs were statins, rates of some reported side-effects shot up – with muscle pain appearing up to 41 per cent more common.

Last night the study’s lead author accused British medicines regulators of “jumping the gun” in ever listing such side-effects on drug packaging.

Prof Peter Sever, from Imperial College London, urged the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to now strip packets of such warnings, in order to save “tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives”.

There are people out there who are dying because they’re not taking statins, and the numbers are large, the numbers are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousandsProf Peter Sever, Imperial College London

He said it was a “tragedy” akin to the MMR scandal that high risk patients had been deterred from taking drugs which could save their lives. Urging patients not to “gamble” with the risk of heart attacks and strokes, he said “bad science” had misled the public, deterring many from taking life-saving medication.

The study of patients at risk of heart disease, found that those told that their daily drug was a statin were far more likely to think they were suffering side-effects.

Researchers said it illustrated a “nocebo effect” which meant patients were more likely to think they were experiencing side-effects if they expected them.

As a result, daily aches and pains were more likely to be attributed to statins.

The phenomenon is the opposite to the well-known placebo effect, the beneficial response sometimes experienced by those given “dummy” drugs as part of trials.

NHS guidance recommends the cholesterol-busting drugs for around 40 per cent of adults.

But a number of doctors have argued against “mass medicalisation” saying too many pills are being doled out instead of efforts to improve lifestyles.

The new study suggests millions of patients could benefit from high doses of statins

Prof Sever said many of those arguing against statins had exagerrated risks such as muscle pain, which were not backed by the new study, the largest ever research into their side-effects.

In 2009, the MHRA listed such side-effects on packaging for statins, after a series of observational studies suggested such links.

Prof Sever said the regulator should never have taken such action.

“There are people out there who are dying because they’re not taking statins, and the numbers are large, the numbers are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. And they are dying because of a nocebo effect, in my opinion,” he said.

“Many of us would say that the MHRA … did not make a profound value judgment based on the evidence,” the professor said.

“We would hope that the MHRA will withdraw that request that these side effects should be listed.”

He added: “These warnings should not be on the label … I would love to see these side effects removed.

A spokesman for the MHRA said: “The benefits of statins are well established and are considered to outweigh the risk of side-effects in the majority of patients.”

“Any new significant information on the efficacy or safety of statins will be carefully reviewed and action will be taken if required, including updates to product labelling.”

The study’s researchers said statins were not without any side-effects. Statins carry around a 9 per cent increased risk of diabetes, they said, with links to uncommon side effects such as myopathy, resulting in muscle weakness.

Even so, the benefits of the drugs in reducing risk of heart attacks and strokes “overwhelmed” the risk of side-effects, Prof Sever said.

Speaking of the nocebo effect, he said: “Just as the placebo effect can be very strong, so too can the nocebo effect.

“This is not a case of people making up symptoms, or that the symptoms are ‘all in their heads’. Patients can experience very real pain as a result of the nocebo effect and the expectation that drugs will cause harm.”

The study was funded by drug company Pfizer, which makes statins, but the authors said all data collection, analysis and interpretation of the results was carried out independently.

London cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who has argued against mass prescribing of statins, last night insisted the drugs had only “marginal” benefits for those with established heart disease, and did not save lives for lower risk patients.

Other research had found that more than half of patients put on statins abandoned them within a year, most commonly because of side-effects, he said.

He said the misrepresentation of the risks and benefits of statins would unfold to become “one of the biggest scandals in the history of medicine”.

 

Beware: The Real Truth About Colonoscopy Nobody Talks About.


Every year, over 14 million healthy people from the ages of 50 and up, are subjected to a colonoscopy to detect colon cancer.

This procedure has raked in millions to the industry, while this invasive procedure remains used. 
It’s a Painful and Dangerous Procedure
It’s being found that it is deadly and ineffective than they would like to accept. The Annals of Internal Medicine’s report on colonoscopies, estimated that 70,000 (0.5%) will be killed or injured by a serious complication from the invasive procedure. This rate is higher by 22% than yearly deaths from colorectal cancer, that it was made to prevent.

The Telemark Polyp Study I, found that colonoscopies can raise mortality rates by 57%, and for every person saved from a colonoscopy, 56 will suffer harm from it.

You can live quite a bit of time with colon cancer, but if a hole is punctured into your intestines, you will die very quickly. It has been clinically proven that you can be infected by HIV; Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Helicobacter pylori,; Hepatitis B and C; Salmonella; Pseudomonas and Aeruginosa; Flu Viruses and other common bacteria such as, E. Coli O157:H7, Creutzfeldt- Jakob Disease, and HPV (Human Papilloma Virus).

Colonoscopy Does NOT Prevent Cancer

The American Cancer Society says that up until 2009 “…there are no prospective randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy for the reduction in incidence of or mortality from colorectal cancer.” In 2006, the New York times published an article,“The patients in all the studies had at least one adenoma detected on colonoscopy but did not have cancer.
They developed cancer in the next few years, however, at the same rate as would be expected in the general population without screening.” Another study in 2006 had discovered that screened patients had colorectal cancer“at the same rate as would be expected in the general population without screening” in the next few years, even though all found polyps had been surgically removed.

Colonoscopy is a Scam

The AMA has done nothing but chase greed in enforcing colonoscopy screenings as a preventative care method for an insane profit. A colonoscopy has enough radiation similar to the atomic bomb in Hiroshima.

The National Cancer institute says, “Whether virtual colonoscopy can reduce the number of deaths from colorectal cancer is not yet known.” There is a non-invasive test out there than can be proven just as effective, a fecal immunochemical test.

How the “Anti-Vaccine” Movement Threatens Us All


Step back and take a good look. It’s a full blown, parent on parent brawl. I’m struck with an urgency that the vaccine discussion is perilously off track and acutely needs correction. The anti-vaccine controversy isn’t really about disease, public health, science, autism, or chronic illness. It’s not even about vaccines.

It’s about the role of government in our lives

As parents face off and hurl epithets, colossal special interests are having a field day codifying a set of laws that are systematically and comprehensively taking away our fundamental rights. It’s a massive overreach.

Will you grant government bureaucrats carte blanche to define and ultimately direct the education and welfare of your children across a broad spectrum of issues, and to allow your children to be taken away if you do not comply?

How-Anti-Vaccine-Movement-Threatens-All4

Yes, that’s exactly what this is about.

So stop saying whether you vaccinate

It doesn’t matter. And acting as if it does is a big part of the problem. Whether you choose all, some, or no vaccines, it’s way past time to quit publicly disclosing your family’s personal medical information as a badge of honor. Just because other people are asking doesn’t mean that you should do it.

There are myriad reasons that factor into each family’s decision, relating to matters that are simply no one else’s business. You shouldn’t have to explain or justify any of them. You shouldn’t open yourself to the possibility of needing to explain or justify any of them. It’s entirely feasible to have an educated and thoughtful discussion on vaccination without oversharing. In fact, it’s probably more effective that way.

For a bit of context only. Should couples with a family history of Down’s syndrome be permitted to have children? Should people reveal blood test results that provide a very early warning of Alzheimer’s? Or how about genetic markers whose expression will make you a less desirable employee, mate, or insurance risk? And so on.

This is precisely the point. If we don’t treat this critically important decision as the intensely private affair that it is, then we co-create a culture in which it’s legitimate, then appropriate, and ultimately imperative for others — bureaucrats, doctors, schools, employers, reporters, neighbors — to ask and then tell us what we must think and do. 

Discuss the topic responsibly

I’m definitely not saying we shouldn’t talk about vaccination. It’s very clear that this topic needs to be discussed a lot.

Let’s cultivate the knowledge, discipline, and mastery to talk about vaccination responsibly. This means doing the work to be in possession of the facts. Don’t exaggerate or wing it. Present the issues as someone who can stand in another’s shoes. Speak in a manner that is as calm and unemotional and even detached as possible. Don’t proselytize. And in the end, if necessary, agree to disagree.

This requires far more than just “book” learning. For many of us, it means a commitment to work on ourselves and to step away from activism as a form of therapy. Because, let’s face it, when the conversation gets tough, it’s far easier to say what we do and walk away and allow that to be the ultimate line in the stand.

It’s a deliberate distraction… it’s theater

Announcing whether you vaccinate sets the entire stage.

Parents judging parents is high drama. Parents feel sorry for those who aren’t doing their own research. Other parents, in turn, pity those who are looking for something to blame. None of us has the big picture. We are all actors, playing into a narrative. But it’s more than a narrative. It’s a play. It’s theater. And like most forms of popular entertainment, there’s a purpose.

It’s meant to distract the masses. That’s all of us, people.

We seemingly understand our roles and deliver them with brio. But have we really thought it through?

What are the other roles? It’s not our stage. It’s not our script. There are actors and directors we never see. Who are the producers? Do we agree with the moral of the story?

And here’s the kicker. The whole thing wouldn’t work without our participation. We aren’t just complicit. We’re indispensable. We’re on set and the cameras are rolling. We’re advancing someone else’s agenda.

It’s all enabled by the belief that we must share a private decision.

Backdrop #1: The anti-vaccine bucket

Every single person who declares that there’s something more to vaccination than meets the eye is unceremoniously dropped into the “anti-vaccine bucket.”

The name notwithstanding, it’s a rather nice bucket. It should really be called the “Green Bucket” or the “Wellness Bucket” or, yes, the “Fearless Bucket.” It’s filled with smart, passionate people that we enjoy hanging out with and learning from. We increasingly spend our time with people in the bucket. We go to doctors in the bucket. We buy products from businesses in the bucket. We work to make the bucket bigger. We fundraise for the bucket. We’re proud that we’re in the bucket.

We become attached to the inevitability that, one day, everyone will understand the wisdom of our bucket.

Backdrop #2: The conflict

We are perplexed by people who aren’t in the bucket… the many parents with no urgency to investigate before dutifully trudging to the pediatrician with their infant, baby, toddler, child, or teenager in tow and doing as they’re told by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. How can they not explore the science that links vaccines and their ingredients to chronic, autoimmune, or neurodevelopmental disorders, which already affect half of US children?

Many of these “no research” parents and their children are important to us — family, dear friends, loved ones. We venture outside the bucket to recruit and teach them. But most won’t give us the time of day here. They won’t read the books we recommend; watch the movies and docuserieswe want to share; or attend the events we beg them to consider. Some threaten to take drastic measures if we don’t shut up. We’ve lost precious relationships over this issue.

It makes us sad. Maybe we get frustrated or angry. We may even feel that their unwillingness to engage in this issue is now threatening our own families’ well-being. And, hey, some of these people are, gasp, actually in the bucket but pretend they’re not. That’s not right! Silence isn’t neutrality. It’s tacit approval.

But what can we do? We can’t enter another person’s will or change her path. It’s a relief, in a way. Live and let live. No one agrees on everything. No family is an island, after all. Better to quietly take an exemption and allow the movement to grow organically. Trust the unfoldment. We go back into the bucket and do our own thing.

Backdrop #3: The masses tune out

This is a messy debate with exceptionally high stakes involving all parents and our children plus the federal government, 50 state governments, the pharmaceutical industry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, thousands of medical doctors, and virtually all daycare centers and schools in the country.

Isn’t it odd that there is absolutely no forum for thoughtful, methodical, respectful engagement designed to raise the issues, hear the concerns, and advance the discussion?

None.

And isn’t it odd that this acrimonious thing just won’t go away?

As a result, the topic is experienced by most people as random, chaotic, confusing, and above all, unsafe for general conversation. It’s a hodgepodge of medical protocol, old science, new science, history, media headlines, conventional wisdom, individual stories, angry accusations, fear, psychology, habit, wishful thinking, and a deep, abiding desire to carve out some certainty in an uncertain world:

Vaccine injury is exceedingly rare.

There’s been a three-fold increase in vaccine doses since 1989.

It’s genetic. Most people are vaccinated and nothing happens.

The mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, is neurotoxic.

We need herd immunity or we’ll be overrun with diseases.

There’s a chronic enterocolitis that may be related to neurodevelopmental impairment that appears after administration of the combination MMR vaccine in some children.

Some children can’t be vaccinated.

Injection of aluminum adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.

Children are a vector for disease.

There’s a risk of DNA insertion via human diploid cells in MMR, chickenpox, and Hep A vaccines.

Everyone must be vaccinated because the vaccines don’t always work.

The autism changepoint year occurred around the time of the neonatal (day-of-birth) hepatitis B shot.

It’s like mandating seat belts and bike helmets, for the greater good.

Did you know that there are GMOs in vaccines?  

And we’re just warming up. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of people tune it out? Have you ever wondered if this is by design?

The vaccine minefield is really about the age old battle that our founding fathers understood all too well.

Vigilance against the expanding scope of power

We’re talking about authoritarianism and privacy and hidden agendas of powerful players whose interests are not aligned with ours.

Have you thought about Edward Snowden lately? From the Snowden movie:

CIA bigwig: Most Americans don’t want freedom. They want security. It’s a simple bargain… you pay the price of admission… Where’s the modern battlefield, soldier? [Everywhere.] What’s the first rule of battle? [Never reveal your position.] And if one unauthorized person knew? [If Congress knows, so would the enemy.] That, Mr. Snowden, is the state of the world. Secrecy is security. And security is victory.

Snowden: The people being able to question the government and hold it accountable, that’s the principle the United States of America was founded on… And when those in power try to hide by classifying everything, we will call them out on it. And when they try to scare us into sacrificing our basic human rights, we won’t be intimidated and we won’t give up. We will not be silenced.

There’s a reason that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written foremost as a call for vigilance against the expanding scope of government power and to protect individual rights.

Do we want government taking away our basic rights and messing in our personal and family matters? Should the state be allowed to judge our religious beliefs, constrain our exercise of conscience, and evaluate and override our parenting? Will we be so easily cowed and distracted, and give away the farm?

Stem cells – hope or hype?


Stem cell technology offers the promise of curing the incurable – but for the moment lives are being lost while the issue is mired in controversy.

After 21 years of unsuccessful heart treatments, including several heart procedures, 68-year-old Coenie de Jongh was desperate. So when his cardiologist suggested a last-resort experimental therapy, it represented a literal life line.

Coenie, from Bloubergstrand near Cape Town, had his first heart attack at the young age of 40. A bypass operation followed and his condition improved, but seven years later Coenie’s health started deteriorating again. More operations and more intense treatment followed, but in 2002 his health took a real turn for the worse.

His condition was so bad he struggled to find a cardiologist who was willing to perform another bypass operation. The procedure was eventually done, but it wasn’t as successful as they’d hoped.

At that stage, Dr Andre Saaiman from Kuils River Hospital was conducting research involving the use of stem cells*. He was inspired by the work done by Prof Philippe Menasche from France, who had figured out a way to inject stem cells derived from skeletal muscle into failing hearts.

After getting ethical approval from Stellenbosch University, Dr Saaiman decided to try out the novel therapy on Coenie, who by then was extremely ill and confined to a wheelchair. In December 2004, he called Coenie in and took cells from his upper leg, which he then cultivated in a laboratory. A month later, he injected the cultivated stem cells into 40 areas of Coenie’s failing heart.

The results were little short of miraculous.

In less than two weeks, Coenie’s condition improved dramatically. “He was a different person,” Marlene, Coenie’s wife, recalls.

“Before the operation, he had only 10 percent heart function; afterwards, his heart function shot up to almost 35 percent. It was amazing to see what he could do again. He started walking again, and could lead a relatively normal life.”

Tragically, due to medical complications unrelated to the stem-cell transplant, Coenie passed away on 10 February 2008.

Even though stem-cell transplants are still experimental and research into this field is in its baby shoes, for Marlene and Coenie this procedure was a miracle.


Coenie de Jongh, here with his wife Marlene and grandchildren,
had experimental stem cell therapy that repaired his ailing heart.

Medical miracle –and controversy
Stem cells are one of the most exciting advances to have happened in medicine in the last few decades. Researchers are inspired by the prospect of curing the incurable, and many positive results are already being seen.

The use of stem cells, particularly those of the embryonic type, is, however, mired in controversy, thanks largely to the position adopted by conservative political and religious groupings. Former US President George W Bush firmly opposed stem-cell research during his term, arguing that working with cells ‘harvested’ from human embryos is tantamount to taking life.

This has had two spinoffs: the first is that the presidential vetoing of a number of stem-cell research bills has led to severe limitation on funds for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines in the US. This, in turn, has greatly hampered the international research process.

The second issue is that the row has led to a global situation in which the potential use of stem cells is shrouded in excited confusion. This is alarming: even using stem cells in the current limited way, it’s calculated that one in every 200 people who reach the age of 70 will, at some point, develop a disease that could benefit from stem-cell transplantation. In other words, the concern about the ethics of stem cell technology could result in thousands upon thousands of unnecessary illnesses and deaths.

But while the debate is heated in the northern hemisphere, things are quiet at the southernmost tip of Africa – particularly with regard to research around the use of embryonic stem cells. According to Prof Michael Pepper, Extraordinary Professor in Immunology at the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Health Sciences, no basic research of note is currently being conducted here.

So what can be used?
Stuck in the middle of the international controversy are thousands of patients, many of whom anxiously await life-saving treatment.

While adult stem cells have been used for several decades in the treatment of disease – also in South Africa – the problem is that these cells aren’t as flexible as embryonic stem cells. They have fewer applications in the treatment of disease and they’re restricted to very specific tissues.

To compound the frustration, the use of adult stem cells is also quite limited. These cells have many important and wonderful applications (such as the way in which the technology was used to heal Coenie’s heart), but these are either in a legitimate experimental stage or are regarded as unethical, and aren’t accepted by the medical community as a routine form of therapy.

The South African government is in the process of producing regulations on stem cells, currently in draft form. “In the absence of regulations, doctors don’t have any local guidance at this stage, and have to rely on international standards and codes of practice,” Prof Pepper says.

While bone-marrow transplants are covered by the National Health Act, legislation that deals with human tissues, Section Eight, hasn’t been promulgated. In August 2009, the Financial Mail reported that, in its absence, researchers have to fall back on the Human Tissue Act of 1983. “This was published when many of the complex issues that require rules and guidelines were not yet part of the scientific landscape,” Razina Munshi writes.

“This also means that we don’t have a legal framework in which to work,” Pepper adds.

At this stage, adult stem cells are used in bone-marrow transplants only. This is applied in the treatment of several diseases, but mainly in the treatment of cancer. These cells make it possible for patients to receive very high doses of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy.

The way forward
Most experts agree that stem-cell technology holds enormous potential. We’re experiencing the benefits already. “The current reality is that close to 100 diseases can already be treated with bone-marrow transplants. Unfortunately, limited funds mean that it’s hugely underutilised,” Prof Pepper says.

A solution seems to be coming out of the alternative ways scientists are slowly finding to obtain embryonic cells. This could mean they might be able to circumvent any ethically controversial issues in future, paving the way to more research and, hopefully, more stem-cell-related treatment options.

In 2007, Japanese researchers managed to coax human and mouse skin cells into stem cells that are identical to those found in embryos – a discovery that has been hailed a major breakthrough. These results have also been replicated by scientists elsewhere. So, the future is looking bright.

Prof Pepper believes that the current excitement centred on curing a myriad of conditions is most certainly justifiable. Several potential uses of both adult and embryonic stem cells are currently being investigated, but are not yet a reality in a clinical sense – but he has no doubt that these applications will in the future become part of standard medical practice.

* Stem cells serve as a sort of repair system for the body – they are ‘immortal’ cells that can produce all the different cells in the body. Theoretically, they can divide and continue to divide, replenishing other damaged cells in your body for as long as you live. It’s hoped that scientists will one day succeed in replacing damaged genes or add new genes to stem cells in order to give them characteristics that can ultimately treat disease, according to the US National Institutes of Health.

Source:health24.com

Big Questions Around Facebook’s Suicide-Prevention Tools


Mental health researchers wonder if the social network’s intervention techniques will be effective.

Big Questions Around Facebook’s Suicide-Prevention Tools

Mental health researchers wonder if the social network’s intervention techniques will be effective.

Facebook Live will offer help if a viewer reports that a broadcaster seems to show suicidal or self-harming behavior.
It’s been almost a year since the general rollout of Facebook Live, which lets you broadcast live video to followers, and in that time several peoplehave killed themselves while sharing video of themselves—including a 14-year-old Florida girl who hanged herself in a bathroom in a foster home in January.

Facebook wants to avoid these tragedies, and on Wednesday it rolled outa handful of tools that it thinks may help. These include allowing viewers to report friends who are broadcasting via Facebook Live that appear to be veering toward self-injury or a suicide attempt; the broadcaster will then see a message—while still shooting the live video—that offers resources like the opportunity to contact a help line or talk with a friend. These are the same kinds of tools Facebook already offers to users when a friend on the site reports one of their status updates for similar concerns.

Can such an intervention be helpful, though? Joe Franklin, an assistant professor at Florida State University who runs the school’s Technology and Psychopathology Lab, says it’s a move in the right direction, but there’s no great scientific evidence that such things are particularly helpful.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing and I think we should study it,” he says. “But I would immediately have questions—I would not assume it would be effective.”

Willa Casstevens, an associate professor at North Carolina State University whose work includes studying suicide prevention, is hopeful that such intervention might be positively received by younger people in particular, since they’re used to interacting via social media.

“In the moment, a caring hand reached out can move mountains and work miracles,” she says. “The question would then be if they would still be in a position to take advantage of it.”

Facebook also said Wednesday that it’s testing the use of pattern recognition to figure out when a post may contain suicidal thoughts. A flagged post can then be reviewed by the site’s community operations team, which can decide whether to reach out to the person who wrote it.

Franklin, whose research includes studying how machine learning can mine health records to determine a person’s risk of attempting suicide, sees this kind of method as the future of spotting suicidal behavior, particularly because it is so easy to scale (and, he thinks, can be more accurate than reports from other people). But in his work he’s found that people often use words like “suicide” or phrases like “kill myself” colloquially, and it’s hard for algorithms to do a good job of distinguishing that from situations where someone really means it.

Still, he says, “it’s a great step forward in terms of trying to identify people who are thinking about or considering suicide.”

Source:www.technologyreview.com