I have had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Larry Palevsky speak in person last year in Blue Point.
He is amazing very informative...allot of great info..
Also this interview is 8 parts I have all of them on my youtube channel under a playlist " Vaccinations- listen Before you do it!!!
gina
From Dr Mercola's Website:
Dr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who, from my view, is actually able to compellingly and convincingly provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases.
The Difference Between What You Learn in School and What Works
Dr. Palevsky says:
“When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it.
Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught.
But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.
… and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.
… It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.
It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.”
Were Vaccines Really the ‘Savior’ Against Past Diseases?
Conventional medicine teaches that the polio and the smallpox epidemics went away because of the vaccines, and that most of the diseases that we faced in the 20th century in the United States were brought down because of the power, strength and the implementation of the vaccine policy.
Meanwhile, there are a significant number of studies in the medical literature that actually show there were many other reasons that these infectious diseases went away.
For example, one article published in 2000 in the Pediatrics Journal describes how, before the World War II, the majority of the infectious diseases the US was faced with – such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, measles, influenza, parapertussis, tuberculosis and scarlet fever – were all reduced before World War II and BEFORE there were antibiotics and vaccinations available to treat or to vaccinate against these diseases.
The reasons for the reductions in incidence rates and mortality of these diseases were predominantly due to the implementation of public health strategies, including:
Clean water
Better living conditions
Improved sanitation
Improved nutrition
There are many such examples.
Have the Proper Safety Studies Actually Been Done?
So, why is there such a vast difference among intelligent, scientifically oriented, committed and objective scientists and physicians about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals.
But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.
Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it’s injected into your body?
Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?
More and more studies are coming out to show that:
The proper studies haven’t been done
Antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain, and
There are foreign DNA particles that get into your body
For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied.”
What we currently have is a one-sided policy; a one way of thinking that is impossible to really allow for the appropriate debate. Science is truly a field where you ask a question, you find an answer, and you don’t have the biases or the influences that change the way an answer or a conclusion is made. We are not seeing that with vaccines.
On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally.
How a Conventionally Trained Physician Accepts that Vaccines Can Cause Harm
Dr. Palevsky began his investigation in earnest about 10 years ago because parents came to him with complaints, worries, and concerns that something had happened to their children after they were vaccinated.
Interestingly, this is the same way that I became enlightened about vaccines -- through the concern of a very patient mother whose family I was taking care of. She gently persisted in showing me the evidence and thank God I listened!
Tragically, most doctors are far too arrogant to even consider that there is any possibility that there might be something wrong with vaccines.
Most pediatricians are indoctrinated to simply tell parents that anything related to a bad outcome from a vaccine is a mere coincidence. But how come there are so many of these “coincidences”?
Says Palevsky,
“It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed asthma and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because they’re doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real.
The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age.
The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system.
Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction.
… When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards.
You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.”
When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.”
The NVIC Set to Create Groundbreaking Vaccine Safety Research
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) just raised $100,000 and continues to look for donations and sponsors to allow proper safety studies to be done by independent researchers, who aren’t going to influence the outcomes.
One study that looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children does exist.
Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in April 2005, that looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all.
All the investigators asked the parents to do was to report atopic illness. Atopic illness means allergies, asthma, eczema, hay fever. The investigators were blinded, meaning they didn’t know which category the participants belonged to.
When they assessed the data, they found that the largest number of reports by parents of children with atopic illness were in the kids who were fully vaccinated. The second highest reports were in the families who are partially vaccinated. And the lowest number of reports was in the children who were unvaccinated…
The investigators performed a statistical analysis to see if the data was based on chance or on real statistical differences, and found there were statistically significant differences between these groups. They couldn’t understand how this was possible, because the generally accepted consensus is that vaccines are completely safe, and completely effective.
Based on this initial finding, we clearly need to do follow-up studies to ask the same question over and over again; repeat this kind of investigation with different populations across different parts of the country, to unearth the truth!
Dr. Palevsky says:
“Certainly, the issue has been raised about the special interests, the money that’s tied, the policies, how much money the vaccine manufacturers stand to make, the doctors who make decisions on vaccines, and how much money they stand to make. But we need the science and not this conspiracy theory...
If we just stay with the science, and really start to address the need for the science, and look at the fact that there is a lack of science, we will definitely see that more needs to be done.
We have not done due diligence.”
Are Some Vaccines Safer Than Others?
Many may be surprised by Dr. Palevsky’s answer:
“… in my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we’re trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe.”
What most people don’t know is that a virus is not “alive,” per se.
It is simply a piece or strand of either RNA or DNA. And even of itself, a virus can’t “do” anything.
In addition it is so tiny that it can only be seen under an electron microscope. It is much smaller than bacteria, which can only be seen in the regular microscope. So viruses cannot be isolated when you make a viral vaccine. All that can be isolated is the tissue, whether it’s human tissue or animal tissue that is believed to have been infected by that specific virus that you’re trying to isolate.
So when a viral culture or a set of cultures are made including the specific virus, you’re going to have the DNA of people or animals who were already infected. Those cells are then taken and grown on animal cells, whether it's monkey kidney cells or chicken embryo cells.
When mixed together, these cells will splice and recombine, which means that DNA from animal cells are going to mix with DNA from the known infected cells with the virus.
So by definition, a viral vaccine contains foreign animal and, even possibly, foreign human DNA. That’s why if you have an egg allergy, you shouldn’t get certain vaccines because it is known that there’s going to be egg protein in the vaccine.
So the question is, how safe is it to inject viral material that is embedded into the DNA of foreign DNA cells?
What studies have been done to actually test whether foreign DNA is getting into your body; whether it stays in your DNA; whether it gets into your brain; and whether there are foreign animal viruses that are inherently present in animal DNA to begin with?
The Dangers of Adjuvants
Adjuvants are used in vaccines in order to create a sufficiently strong immunological response. Adjuvants augment your immunological response.
But there is clear evidence that adjuvants, like aluminum and squalene impair your immune system.
So while you may be getting the antibodies desired, you are, at the same time, damaging your immune system. Particularly in children, this can set them up to develop chronic illness.
Pushing for Informed Consent
So, does that mean you should never vaccinate against anything?
Dr. Palevsky says:
“That’s something that needs to be left up to the individual parent. I am truly a proponent of informed consent, and I’m truly supportive of families who have done their homework and who have been able to make the choice.
What is the possible risk of the illness? What is the possible health outcome if your child gets one of those illnesses?
And how much do you know about those risks versus how much do you know about the risks of the vaccines and the health outcomes of what may happen when children are vaccinated against single, or even multiple, vaccines?
And when parents are given both sides, it is up to them to make that informed choice.
It is no longer my role to tell them that they must do this vaccine but not that vaccine, because each parent has to make an informed choice based on their understanding of how diseases occur or don’t occur, what science we have available, and whether they feel comfortable with the devil that they know (the science and the outcomes of disease) versus the devil that they don’t know (science and the outcomes of the vaccine).”
What about the Swine Flu Vaccine?
Echoing many other health professionals, including myself, Dr. Palevsky’s concern is that there haven’t been sufficient amounts of scientific investigation to actually be able to say that the vaccines are safe, or even effective.
He says:
“Now if you read the packaging first of the swine flu vaccine, it specifically states that the swine flu or the H1N1 flu vaccine was manufactured in the same manufacturing process as the flu vaccine. Therefore since we believe that the flu vaccine has been sufficiently tested to be safe, we can then conclude that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.
But the public should know that even though our authorities are standing there and saying that the H1N1 vaccine is safe, the proper studies have not been done.
… And it’s unfair to say to parents or to the public that if you come down with a flu-like illness, it must be H1N1. In studies that have been done, people who did get the flu had their noses swabbed, and they were found to have H1N1.
What’s missing in these data is a population of healthy people who have not had any flu symptoms – to actually see if their noses contained H1N1 – because if someone is sick and has the presence of an H1N1 virus in the nose, it doesn’t mean that the H1N1 is causing the illness.
You really have to take an appropriate control group to see if people are colonized with that virus even when they’re not sick.
So we don’t have that data; we really don’t know. I don’t think we can say with good scientific certainty that people who are getting sick from the flu and who are being diagnosed with H1N1 are actually having H1N1 as the cause.”
Other Ways to Protect Yourself Against the Flu
Again, there’s clear evidence in the medical literature that shows proper hygiene, proper sleep, proper diet, proper supplementation with things like vitamin D (making sure that you get your vitamin D level done first), and perhaps vitamin C, can actually prevent you from getting the flu.
Many insist that vaccinated individuals “protect” the unvaccinated against the flu virus – in essence, reaping the benefit of the protection they refuse for themselves, while at the same time putting others in danger.
But how does that make sense?
Says Dr. Palevsky:
“How does vaccinating against the flu virus stop you from carrying the flu virus in your nasal passages?”
And yet, this is what many believe.
The Concept of Herd Immunity – BUSTED!
One of the primary arguments that is being used to justify this insane behavior is “herd immunity.”
The fact is that vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin, or in your body.
But many do not understand the significance of this fact, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses, and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated.
As it turns out, this belief is NOT based on scientific fact.
Dr. Palevsky explains:
“This whole concept of herd immunity is very interesting, because we were taught that herd immunity occurs because a certain percentage of a population gets an active illness. Therefore by a certain percentage of getting the active illness, they impart a protection onto the remaining part of the population that has not gotten the illness yet.
And so the herd that is getting the illness is shedding the illness and protecting those who have not gotten it.
In vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated. And that has NOT been shown to be true, because the true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE DISEASE, and we know that despite what we’re taught, vaccination does not mimic the natural disease.
So we cannot use the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease in the vaccination policy. But unfortunately, we do use it even though it cannot be used because it doesn’t have scientific backing.
What’s most interesting to me is that the entire concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the viruses and the bacteria all on their own, and that what turns them on and off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.
All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn’t infect 70 or 80 percent of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20 or 30 percent that didn’t get the disease.
This is because the virus itself had a life cycle of its own. And so it came and went without any percentage of the population being protected. There wasn’t herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.
We fail to include that viruses have a life cycle, and that they are in relationship to other organisms and to us. Something activates them and something actually stops them, and it has nothing necessarily to do with the percentage of people who would have the illness or who have been vaccinated.
… It is preposterous to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria or the viruses that they have been vaccinated against. If, in fact, children are vaccinated, then why are parents and public health authorities afraid that non-vaccinated children are somehow carrying something that their children are not, when they should feel comfortable that their children are vaccinated?
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.
It just doesn’t make any sense.”
The Difference between Natural Immunity and Vaccine-lnduced Immunity
It’s important to understand that the natural illness has greater influence on the health of your body. Says Dr. Palevsky:
“In medical school, the mentors that I had saw children in their practices in the 40s, 50s and all the way up to the 80s getting these flu-like illnesses who were properly treated with rest, fluids and proper supplementation.
Those kids had developmental growth spurts after the illnesses were over.
There is something to say for these viral illnesses that impart a certain boosting of the immune system of your children. And if we’re not letting them have these illnesses, what are we doing to their immune systems? Aren’t we actually hampering their overall health?”
You need to understand that there’s a significant difference between natural immunity and vaccination immunity.
When children are born, they develop natural immunity to hundreds, thousands, millions, and even trillions of microorganisms that they breathe in, eat, and touch through their skin. Their immune systems at the lining of their airways, at the lining of their intestines, and on their skin are actively protecting their body from the outside world.
Those immune systems that are intricately and specifically located in the linings are very important to create memory and protection to the organisms that they continue to breathe, eat, and touch.
That immune system response then has a domino effect on creating other memory and immune responses that give your body antibodies and protection.
That’s a very important step for how the immune system matures in our children. From the linings, the immune system receives information, sends out signals to all other parts of the immune system, and creates an immune response, memory, and antibodies.
On the other hand, when you inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line of defense.
With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural disease.
Some people will argue that this is why we have nasal spray vaccines.
However, again, you’re making the assumption that you have not already been exposed to the virus at some point, and you’re also making the assumption that exposure automatically leads to infection.
Exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot of it has to do with the overall status of your immune system.
The Dangers of Combining Vaccines
One issue that is frequently ignored is the potential harm from the synergy of combinations of vaccines, which have never been studied.
No one knows whether there’s interaction between the bacteria and the viruses in the vaccines administered as part of the childhood vaccination schedule, or if there is interaction in the trace thimerosal (which is still in some of the multi-vials of certain vaccines), or the large amount of aluminum that is in many of them.
Dr. Palevsky says:
“There is a scientist named Boyd Haley, who has actually looked into some of the vaccine ingredients and (1) what happens to nerve cells when you inject them in the lab to specific vaccine ingredients, and (2) what happens to the nerve cells when you keep adding another vaccine ingredient.
He specifically showed that in the presence of thimerosal, there’s a lot of damage to nerve cells. When you add aluminum to the thimerosal, you need less thimerosal to create the damage to the immune and nerve cells in the presence of aluminum.
Then when you add neomycin – an antibiotic in some of the vaccines – it potentiates the potency of nerve cell damage with aluminum and mercury together.
And when you culture the nerve cells and testosterone, versus estrogen, and you expose them to some of the vaccine ingredients like thimerosal, you actually see that the nerve cells that are exposed to testosterone are more damaged in greater amounts than the nerve cells that are bathed in estrogen.
That raises some concern because we do see that children with neurodevelopmental disorders are 4:1, boys to girls.
So you have to question whether testosterone actually makes children more vulnerable to exposure to toxins like mercury, aluminum or their combination?
None of these studies have been done in humans. People say, “We can’t do those studies.” And I say, “Why not?” They say, “It’s unethical.”
I say, “Well, if it’s unethical to do those studies on vaccine ingredients and combining them together, then it’s unethical to give the vaccines in general.”
So we’re missing a lot of important data that we won’t believe, and we’re also missing a lot of important data that we won’t accumulate because most of the studies that are done are by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.”
About Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., F.A.A.P.
Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician who utilizes a holistic approach to children’s wellness and illness. Dr. Palevsky received his medical degree from the NYU School of Medicine in 1987, completed a three-year pediatric residency at The Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC in 1990, and served as a pediatric fellow in the ambulatory care out-patient department at Bellevue Hospital, NYC, from 1990-1991.
Since 1991, his clinical experience includes working in pediatric emergency and intensive care medicine, in-patient and out-patient pediatric medicine, neonatal intensive care medicine, newborn and delivery room medicine, and conventional, holistic and integrative pediatric private practice at the Center for Health & Healing- an integrative and complementary care medical facility affiliated with the Beth Israel Medical Center in NYC. Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association (www.hpakids.org) and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association (www.holisticmedicine.org).
In his current practice in Northport, Long Island and Manhattan, NYC, Dr. Palevsky offers consultations and educational programs to families and practitioners in the areas of preventive and holistic health; childhood development; lifestyle changes; nutrition for adults, infants and children; safe, alternative treatments for common and difficult to treat acute and chronic pediatric and adult conditions; vaccination controversies; mindful parenting; and rethinking the medical paradigm.
Additionally, he teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents, and medical and allied health professionals, both nationally & internationally, and is available for speaking engagements worldwide.
For more information or to contact Dr. Palevsky, please visit www.drpalevsky.com or contact info@drpalevsky.com
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
(NaturalNews) Mike Adams-
When you publish a hard-hitting story containing links to lots of little-known documents, you never know what kind of bizarre blow-back you'll receive. The latest episode of reactive strangeness occurred following our publication of the story about SIGA Technologies and the conflicts of interest found in Dr. Mehmet Oz's holding of 150,000 option shares in that company (http://www.naturalnews.com/027451_D...) even while pushing vaccines on TV. Shortly after publishing this article, NaturalNews was contacted by a public relations firm called KCSA Strategic Communications, which represents SIGA as an "investor relations counsel." (http://www.reuters.com/article/pres...)
The Vice-President of this P.R. company rather forcefully informed us that SIGA Technologies had no involvement with vaccines, and that our reporting of such a false statement was potentially "libelous." They demanded we retract parts of our original story to eliminate any idea that SIGA was involved in vaccines in any way.
That's funny, I thought to myself, because in researching the story, I remember very clearly reading the title of this company's own home page, which reads, exactly:
Smallpox Antiviral, Drug Development and Vaccine Development - SIGA Human BioArmor
This is found in the title tag of their home page, www.Siga.com -- or at least it was as of this writing. (They will likely change the title as soon as this story hits the 'net, but I saved a copy for safekeeping.)
I don't know about you, but when I read the title of some company's web page, and it says, "Vaccine Development" in plain English, I sort of figure the company must be involved in -- guess what? -- vaccine development!
But no, I was told. That's completely wrong. SIGA Technologies had nothing to do with vaccine development. They only make anti-virals, we were told. Nothing to do with vaccines. Nothing. Nada.
So I took a moment to search a little deeper into their home page, and within less than five seconds, I found these keywords in their meta keywords tag:
Smallpox Antiviral, Smallpox Drug Development, Smallpox Vaccine Development, Infectious Disease Development, Biological Warfare Terrorism... [and so on]
Now, maybe I'm just seeing things because I haven't yet been vaccinated against H1N1, so perhaps I'm suffering from double vision or something, but when I see "Smallpox Vaccine Development" in a company's home page title tags, I sort of figure that company is somehow involved in -- wait for it -- smallpox vaccine development!
But no. The P.R. consultant for this company said I was totally off base, and that they had nothing whatsoever to do with vaccine development. The exact quote we were given on the phone was, "SIGA Technologies has nothing to do with vaccines..."
Well, maybe not, except for the fact that they claim to develop them right on their home page.
Crowdsourcing more research
In any case, I wasn't waiting around for these people to get their story straight, so I went to my Facebook page (http://facebook.naturalnews.com) where really cool NaturalNews fans hang out and discuss important subjects, and I posed this question to them: "Hey, this company SIGA is claiming they have nothing to do with vaccines. Can you find any additional documents demonstrating they do?"
This "homework assignment" was deemed altogether too easy for the NaturalNews Facebook crowd. It took them mere minutes to come up with all sorts of additional documents proving beyond all doubt SIGA Technologies' involvement in vaccine development.
For example, they found this description of SIGA Technologies on Hoovers.com (http://www.hoovers.com/siga-technol...), a Dunn & Bradstreet company, which says: (emphasis added)
"SIGA Technologies is trying to put itself on the front lines of US biodefense efforts. The drug company has a number of development programs for vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics for drug resistant infections; however, its main focus is on vaccines for bio-defense. The company's smallpox vaccine ST-246, which is intended both to prevent and treat the disease, has received Fast Track and Orphan Drug designations from the FDA. SIGA is also developing vaccines for use against hemorrhagic fevers and other infectious diseases and biothreats."
NaturalNews Facebook team members also discovered this Yahoo Finance link (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=SIGA) which describes SIGA Technologies as "...a biotechnology company [that] engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of anti-infectives, antibiotics, and vaccines for the prevention and treatment of serious infectious diseases."
Continuing with the financial research, this company profile at Morningstar.com (one of the leading financial ratings companies) describes SIGA Technologies as "...developing vaccines that may prevent strep throat and periodontal disease."
Our Facebook group also found this quote from Bloomberg.com, which describes SIGA as follows: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote...)
"SIGA Technologies, Inc. discovers and develops vaccines and antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of infectious diseases.
Once again, I don't know about you, but when I read that a company "develops vaccines and antibiotics," I sort of figure that those words mean... well, the company develops vaccines and antibiotics. The point of using words, after all, is that they carry some sort of consistent meaning so that when person A says "vaccines" then person B can magically hear "vaccines" and understand what's trying to be communicated.
But maybe SIGA operates in an alternate universe where the word "vaccines" doesn't mean "vaccines" and instead means the opposite of vaccines. Sort of like vaccine antimatter.
Maybe they're developing vaccines in conjunction with the physicists at the Large Hadron Collider, accelerating and smashing vaccine materials in order to find Dark Matter Vaccines that don't exist, and that's what they were really talking about. So when their P.R. person said they were NOT developing vaccines, maybe she really meant they were developing "NOT vaccines." (Get it? Like antimatter vaccines...)
It's tricky to deconstruct their claims, actually. As a bit of a linguist myself, I like to think that words convey fairly consistent meaning, but this SIGA public relations rep was essentially telling me that "vaccine development" doesn't really mean vaccine development. It's difficult to talk to people when they keep changing the definitions of the words they use.
Vaccines, vaccines and more vaccines
About this time, the research results from the Facebook group really started to pour in (yes, what we've printed above is just a fraction of the links we received from Facebook members).
We received these links about SIGA Pharmaceuticals being involved in vaccine patents with the U.S. Army (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...), and how they developed a cancer vaccine (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...), and how they have an amazing new vaccine delivery system (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...). The headline of that story is, "SIGA Technologies Reports Successful Trials for Vaccine Delivery System."
SIGA even received a $3 million research grant from the NIH just two months ago (http://www.globenewswire.com/newsro...). This award is described with the news headline, "Company to Research ST-246 as a Treatment for Adverse Reaction to Smallpox Vaccine." That announcement goes on to describe how ST-246 is used "as an adjunct to the current smallpox vaccine for prevention of smallpox vaccine-related adverse events."
Another press release from 2003 declares, "SIGA Technologies, Inc. Signs Definitive Agreement to Acquire Assets of Plexus Vaccine Inc." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms...). This indicates, of course, that SIGA acquired assets of a vaccine company, and those assets -- I'm just taking a wild guess here -- probably have something to do with vaccines.
A search on SIGA Technologies' corporate officers (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stoc...) reveals that the company's Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Dennis E. Hruby, "...specializes in virology and cell biology research, and the use of viral and bacterial vectors to produce recombinant vaccines."
Here's an announcement from 2004, bragging about how high SIGA's stock price has surged due to its smallpox vaccine. From the press release: "The stock of SIGA Technologies Inc. soared Monday after the biotechnology company reported favorable results for a trial of its smallpox vaccine on mice." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms...)
That same year, a Marketwatch.com article (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/si...) announces that "Shares of SIGA Technologies rose more than 7 percent... The company said it was named as the prime contractor by the U.S. Air Force to create systems to develop vaccines and therapeutics..."
And then there's SIGA's patent. As this BusinessWire story announces [emphasis added], "SIGA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced today that a United States patent covering its strep throat vaccine technology has been granted to The Rockefeller University. SIGA is the exclusive licensee to the patent." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/arti...).
The actual patent text from 2001 (click here to read) cites SIGA Vice President Dennis E. Hruby as one of the inventors. It includes 18 mentions of the word "vaccine" and is all about vaccine-related technologies and processes.
As you can see for yourself -- and there's much more to come, below -- for SIGA to claim they don't have anything to do with vaccines is sort of like PepsiCo claiming they don't have anything to do with soft drinks.
SIGA admits to vaccine development in SEC filing
It gets even better. We've barely scratched the surface of all the fascinating documents to be found on SIGA Technologies and their vaccine research project.
Here's SIGA's own 2003 filing with the SEC: http://investor.siga.com/secfiling....
In this document, they admit in plain English:
"SIGA is a development stage biotechnology company incorporated in Delaware on December 9, 1996. We aim to discover, develop and commercialize vaccines, antibiotics and novel anti-infectives for serious infectious diseases. Our lead vaccine candidate is for the prevention of group A streptococcal pharyngitis or "strep throat." We are developing a technology for the mucosal delivery of our vaccines which may allow those vaccines to activate the immune system at the mucus lined surfaces of the body..."
And then, in another section entitled, "Vaccine Technologies: Mucosal Immunity and Vaccine Delivery," SIGA Technologies goes on to explain:
"Our vaccine candidates use genetically engineered commensals to deliver antigens for a variety of pathogens to the mucosal immune system... Our commensal vaccine candidates use Gram-positive bacteria... We believe that mucosal vaccines developed using our proprietary commensal delivery technology could provide a number of advantages..."
I won't bore you with all the sentences in which SIGA Technologies discusses vaccines in their 2003 SEC filing document. Suffice it to say that I counted the number of times the word "vaccine" appears in the document, and it comes to a grand total of 105.
And just in case you think this particular document is some sort of fluke (or was planted there by the SEC in a conspiracy to fool the world into mistakenly thinking SIGA is involved in vaccine development), here's another SEC filing that includes this interesting sentence: (http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...)
"SIGA Technologies, Inc. is a development stage company with interests in biotechnology and the Internet. Siga Research Labs, (SRL), our biotechnology division, is focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of vaccines, antibiotics and novel anti-infectives for serious infectious diseases. SRL's lead vaccine candidate is for the prevention of group A streptococcal pharyngitis or 'strep throat.'"
If you want more examples (believe me, there are hundreds), here's a page from EvaluatePharma.com (a research site for the biotech sector) (http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Unive...) which details SIGA's financials for 2006, 2007 and 2008, then goes on to describe SIGA Technologies as having a "Chlamydia Trachomatis Vaccine Program", a "Periodontal Vaccine", a "Smallpox Vaccine Program" and a "Strep Throat Vaccine."
Again and again... vaccines!
The funny thing is that these published news stories, press releases, research documents and SEC filings all have two words in common: SIGA and Vaccines. There's that pesky word again... vaccines. It just won't go away when you're researching SIGA. In fact, it strangely shows up with a very high frequency for a company that so adamantly claims to have nothing at all to do with vaccines.Their denials just boggle the mind. It sort of reminds me of President Clinton's slicing and dicing of the English language in the midst of the Lewinsky saga when he actually questioned what the meaning of the word "is" was. (Classic, huh? Gotta hand it to him...)
So we asked the P.R. rep about this, and she actually tells us -- get this -- that "There is no SIGA Pharmaceuticals... only SIGA Technologies!"
Sort of like "there is no spoon" from The Matrix. That's when I pointed out this link that explains SIGA Pharmaceuticals changed their name to SIGA Technologies: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...
The headline reads, "SIGA Pharmaceuticals Changes Name to SIGA Technologies."
It's fairly straightforward. Not much wiggle room in that statement.
The P.R. rep kept talking. She said that SIGA underwent a management change way back in 2001 and since then they haven't been involved in vaccines.
Plain English translation
Got that? No vaccines since 2001. So why, then, do we find all these articles from 2003 and 2004 talking about vaccines? Case in point: An article in 2003 declares, "SIGA Technologies, Inc. Announces Positive Results in Safe Smallpox Vaccine Development." (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100...)
The SEC document cited above (http://investor.siga.com/secfiling....), which says, " We aim to discover, develop and commercialize vaccines, antibiotics and novel anti-infectives for serious infectious diseases. Our lead vaccine candidate is for the prevention of group A streptococcal pharyngitis..." was filed in 2003!
Importantly, note that these documents are all written in plain English. The words "Smallpox Vaccine Development" actually mean in English, believe it or not, "Smallpox Vaccine Development."
I know this for a fact because I went to the Google translation tool (http://translate.google.com/transla...), and chose an English-to-English translation, then pasted in the words "Smallpox Vaccine Development."
Astoundingly, the translation results came back as "Smallpox Vaccine Development." (http://translate.google.com/transla...)
This same Google tool also verifies that the word "vaccines" translates to, exactly, "vaccines."
At one point, we were so amazed by the insistent denials from SIGA's public relations firm that we just had to come out and ask the obvious question: "Do you categorically deny that SIGA Technologies has no involvement with vaccines?"
Their answer? They hung up on us.
Strange matter and not-so-clever denials
I'm not sure if the hanging up part was a yes or a no. In fact, I'm not even sure the P.R. rep we were talking to has any idea what their client actually does. It's one thing to say, "Well, we disagree with your article and we'd like to submit a rebuttal" or something along those lines (which we have published from time to time, depending on the request), but it seems completely outlandish out to call us up and claim the company in question has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines when "vaccine development" is right there on the home page, in perhaps the most important piece of text on any home page -- the title!
The whole thing really left me wondering: What's the real story here? Why would they lie about this?
Seriously. What's so important about distancing themselves from the vaccine projects they have obviously been involved with that they would be so insistent in their denials?
It reminds me of a child who just stole cookies out of the cookie jar, and you spot them in the kitchen with their hands behind their back and cookie crumbs on their lips, and you ask, "Have you been eating cookies?" And they say, "No. Not me." So you ask, "Do you know why the cookies are missing from the cookie jar?" and they answer, with an expression of sudden revelation, "Maybe someone took them!"
Let's imagine for a moment that SIGA Technologies doesn't research vaccines. But then why would they lie on their home page and say they do? Why would they file a report with the SEC claiming they're developing vaccines? Why would press releases, announcements and articles across the 'net explain that SIGA was involved in vaccine patents, vaccine testing, vaccine company acquisitions, vaccine research and vaccine technologies?
Here's an even better question: Why make a story out of a non-story by issuing a thinly-veiled denial that can be proven wrong in 8 minutes searching around on Google? I really had nothing more to write about SIGA Technologies until this denial came our way. It was the denial that made the story. Without the bizarre denial... no story!
In my years as NaturalNews editor, I've received some whacky phone calls. I've been threatened with lawsuits and attacked by hackers. I was even impersonated once by some goon trying to break into the NaturalNews offices. But I've never had a company's P.R. firm call me up and point blank lie to my face with such a flimsy, hilarious lie.
SIGA Technologies needs to get their story straight. If they really have absolutely nothing to do with vaccines, why wouldn't they just email us a statement containing these 8 simple words: "We categorically deny any involvement with vaccines or vaccine technologies." (The mathematically inclined among you will notice there are actually ten words in that sentence. But out of respect to SIGA Technologies, we're not counting "vaccine" or "vaccines.")
I sent them an email, by the way, asking these three simple questions:
1) Will you categorically deny any involvement with vaccines?
2) If so, when did SIGA's involvement with vaccines end?
3) Does SIGA have any plans to be involved with vaccines in the future?
The answer to these three questions? Nothing. Zip. Nada.
This is how the vaccine industry works, by the way: When anyone starts to ask questions, just shut them up and cut off all communication. If there's one thing I've learned in my years as a natural health journalist, it's that asking questions about vaccines is a dangerous business. There are simply too many secrets in the vaccine industry that certain companies don't want made public.
But that's my job: To ask questions. To think critically. To demand some answers on behalf of NaturalNews readers. And to ask for help from the NaturalNews Facebook crowdsourcing team, too, because they're great at coming up with amazing information.
Special thanks go to Brad, Carmine, Cassandra, Elaina, Lynnea, Patricia, Stephen, Josephine, Vanessa and especially Jennifer Lewis (http://fortheloveofmybugs.blogspot.com), who did such an amazing job that she should probably be working as an online private investigator.
Last call
By the way, as a matter of due diligence, NaturalNews made one more phone call to SIGA Technologies in an attempt to get clarification on these questions. A NaturalNews reporter called SIGA, identified herself as a NaturalNews reporter, and asked the phone receptionist if we could speak to someone about SIGA's vaccine development.
We were told -- get this -- that we could talk to their "investor relations" people. Yep... the very same people who had already hung up on us once before.
The real story
This crowdsourcing project shows the power of individual action to make a difference. Without the help of our Facebook fans, this article wouldn't have been possible. Thank you all for your amazing help! And keep up the awesome work to expose the blatant lies of pharmaceutical and vaccine companies.
The real story here, by the way, is how a big public vaccine company with Dr. Mehmet Oz on the Board of Directors tried to threaten and intimidate a tiny independent news organization (NaturalNews) into altering our story but got slapped into the corporate liars Hall of Fame by a crowd of volunteer Facebook fans.
Join our Facebook fan page, if you'd like, and participate in future crowdsourcing projects: http://facebook.naturalnews.com
When you publish a hard-hitting story containing links to lots of little-known documents, you never know what kind of bizarre blow-back you'll receive. The latest episode of reactive strangeness occurred following our publication of the story about SIGA Technologies and the conflicts of interest found in Dr. Mehmet Oz's holding of 150,000 option shares in that company (http://www.naturalnews.com/027451_D...) even while pushing vaccines on TV. Shortly after publishing this article, NaturalNews was contacted by a public relations firm called KCSA Strategic Communications, which represents SIGA as an "investor relations counsel." (http://www.reuters.com/article/pres...)
The Vice-President of this P.R. company rather forcefully informed us that SIGA Technologies had no involvement with vaccines, and that our reporting of such a false statement was potentially "libelous." They demanded we retract parts of our original story to eliminate any idea that SIGA was involved in vaccines in any way.
That's funny, I thought to myself, because in researching the story, I remember very clearly reading the title of this company's own home page, which reads, exactly:
Smallpox Antiviral, Drug Development and Vaccine Development - SIGA Human BioArmor
This is found in the title tag of their home page, www.Siga.com -- or at least it was as of this writing. (They will likely change the title as soon as this story hits the 'net, but I saved a copy for safekeeping.)
I don't know about you, but when I read the title of some company's web page, and it says, "Vaccine Development" in plain English, I sort of figure the company must be involved in -- guess what? -- vaccine development!
But no, I was told. That's completely wrong. SIGA Technologies had nothing to do with vaccine development. They only make anti-virals, we were told. Nothing to do with vaccines. Nothing. Nada.
So I took a moment to search a little deeper into their home page, and within less than five seconds, I found these keywords in their meta keywords tag:
Smallpox Antiviral, Smallpox Drug Development, Smallpox Vaccine Development, Infectious Disease Development, Biological Warfare Terrorism... [and so on]
Now, maybe I'm just seeing things because I haven't yet been vaccinated against H1N1, so perhaps I'm suffering from double vision or something, but when I see "Smallpox Vaccine Development" in a company's home page title tags, I sort of figure that company is somehow involved in -- wait for it -- smallpox vaccine development!
But no. The P.R. consultant for this company said I was totally off base, and that they had nothing whatsoever to do with vaccine development. The exact quote we were given on the phone was, "SIGA Technologies has nothing to do with vaccines..."
Well, maybe not, except for the fact that they claim to develop them right on their home page.
Crowdsourcing more research
In any case, I wasn't waiting around for these people to get their story straight, so I went to my Facebook page (http://facebook.naturalnews.com) where really cool NaturalNews fans hang out and discuss important subjects, and I posed this question to them: "Hey, this company SIGA is claiming they have nothing to do with vaccines. Can you find any additional documents demonstrating they do?"
This "homework assignment" was deemed altogether too easy for the NaturalNews Facebook crowd. It took them mere minutes to come up with all sorts of additional documents proving beyond all doubt SIGA Technologies' involvement in vaccine development.
For example, they found this description of SIGA Technologies on Hoovers.com (http://www.hoovers.com/siga-technol...), a Dunn & Bradstreet company, which says: (emphasis added)
"SIGA Technologies is trying to put itself on the front lines of US biodefense efforts. The drug company has a number of development programs for vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics for drug resistant infections; however, its main focus is on vaccines for bio-defense. The company's smallpox vaccine ST-246, which is intended both to prevent and treat the disease, has received Fast Track and Orphan Drug designations from the FDA. SIGA is also developing vaccines for use against hemorrhagic fevers and other infectious diseases and biothreats."
NaturalNews Facebook team members also discovered this Yahoo Finance link (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=SIGA) which describes SIGA Technologies as "...a biotechnology company [that] engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of anti-infectives, antibiotics, and vaccines for the prevention and treatment of serious infectious diseases."
Continuing with the financial research, this company profile at Morningstar.com (one of the leading financial ratings companies) describes SIGA Technologies as "...developing vaccines that may prevent strep throat and periodontal disease."
Our Facebook group also found this quote from Bloomberg.com, which describes SIGA as follows: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote...)
"SIGA Technologies, Inc. discovers and develops vaccines and antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of infectious diseases.
Once again, I don't know about you, but when I read that a company "develops vaccines and antibiotics," I sort of figure that those words mean... well, the company develops vaccines and antibiotics. The point of using words, after all, is that they carry some sort of consistent meaning so that when person A says "vaccines" then person B can magically hear "vaccines" and understand what's trying to be communicated.
But maybe SIGA operates in an alternate universe where the word "vaccines" doesn't mean "vaccines" and instead means the opposite of vaccines. Sort of like vaccine antimatter.
Maybe they're developing vaccines in conjunction with the physicists at the Large Hadron Collider, accelerating and smashing vaccine materials in order to find Dark Matter Vaccines that don't exist, and that's what they were really talking about. So when their P.R. person said they were NOT developing vaccines, maybe she really meant they were developing "NOT vaccines." (Get it? Like antimatter vaccines...)
It's tricky to deconstruct their claims, actually. As a bit of a linguist myself, I like to think that words convey fairly consistent meaning, but this SIGA public relations rep was essentially telling me that "vaccine development" doesn't really mean vaccine development. It's difficult to talk to people when they keep changing the definitions of the words they use.
Vaccines, vaccines and more vaccines
About this time, the research results from the Facebook group really started to pour in (yes, what we've printed above is just a fraction of the links we received from Facebook members).
We received these links about SIGA Pharmaceuticals being involved in vaccine patents with the U.S. Army (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...), and how they developed a cancer vaccine (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...), and how they have an amazing new vaccine delivery system (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...). The headline of that story is, "SIGA Technologies Reports Successful Trials for Vaccine Delivery System."
SIGA even received a $3 million research grant from the NIH just two months ago (http://www.globenewswire.com/newsro...). This award is described with the news headline, "Company to Research ST-246 as a Treatment for Adverse Reaction to Smallpox Vaccine." That announcement goes on to describe how ST-246 is used "as an adjunct to the current smallpox vaccine for prevention of smallpox vaccine-related adverse events."
Another press release from 2003 declares, "SIGA Technologies, Inc. Signs Definitive Agreement to Acquire Assets of Plexus Vaccine Inc." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms...). This indicates, of course, that SIGA acquired assets of a vaccine company, and those assets -- I'm just taking a wild guess here -- probably have something to do with vaccines.
A search on SIGA Technologies' corporate officers (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stoc...) reveals that the company's Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Dennis E. Hruby, "...specializes in virology and cell biology research, and the use of viral and bacterial vectors to produce recombinant vaccines."
Here's an announcement from 2004, bragging about how high SIGA's stock price has surged due to its smallpox vaccine. From the press release: "The stock of SIGA Technologies Inc. soared Monday after the biotechnology company reported favorable results for a trial of its smallpox vaccine on mice." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms...)
That same year, a Marketwatch.com article (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/si...) announces that "Shares of SIGA Technologies rose more than 7 percent... The company said it was named as the prime contractor by the U.S. Air Force to create systems to develop vaccines and therapeutics..."
And then there's SIGA's patent. As this BusinessWire story announces [emphasis added], "SIGA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced today that a United States patent covering its strep throat vaccine technology has been granted to The Rockefeller University. SIGA is the exclusive licensee to the patent." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/arti...).
The actual patent text from 2001 (click here to read) cites SIGA Vice President Dennis E. Hruby as one of the inventors. It includes 18 mentions of the word "vaccine" and is all about vaccine-related technologies and processes.
As you can see for yourself -- and there's much more to come, below -- for SIGA to claim they don't have anything to do with vaccines is sort of like PepsiCo claiming they don't have anything to do with soft drinks.
SIGA admits to vaccine development in SEC filing
It gets even better. We've barely scratched the surface of all the fascinating documents to be found on SIGA Technologies and their vaccine research project.
Here's SIGA's own 2003 filing with the SEC: http://investor.siga.com/secfiling....
In this document, they admit in plain English:
"SIGA is a development stage biotechnology company incorporated in Delaware on December 9, 1996. We aim to discover, develop and commercialize vaccines, antibiotics and novel anti-infectives for serious infectious diseases. Our lead vaccine candidate is for the prevention of group A streptococcal pharyngitis or "strep throat." We are developing a technology for the mucosal delivery of our vaccines which may allow those vaccines to activate the immune system at the mucus lined surfaces of the body..."
And then, in another section entitled, "Vaccine Technologies: Mucosal Immunity and Vaccine Delivery," SIGA Technologies goes on to explain:
"Our vaccine candidates use genetically engineered commensals to deliver antigens for a variety of pathogens to the mucosal immune system... Our commensal vaccine candidates use Gram-positive bacteria... We believe that mucosal vaccines developed using our proprietary commensal delivery technology could provide a number of advantages..."
I won't bore you with all the sentences in which SIGA Technologies discusses vaccines in their 2003 SEC filing document. Suffice it to say that I counted the number of times the word "vaccine" appears in the document, and it comes to a grand total of 105.
And just in case you think this particular document is some sort of fluke (or was planted there by the SEC in a conspiracy to fool the world into mistakenly thinking SIGA is involved in vaccine development), here's another SEC filing that includes this interesting sentence: (http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...)
"SIGA Technologies, Inc. is a development stage company with interests in biotechnology and the Internet. Siga Research Labs, (SRL), our biotechnology division, is focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of vaccines, antibiotics and novel anti-infectives for serious infectious diseases. SRL's lead vaccine candidate is for the prevention of group A streptococcal pharyngitis or 'strep throat.'"
If you want more examples (believe me, there are hundreds), here's a page from EvaluatePharma.com (a research site for the biotech sector) (http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Unive...) which details SIGA's financials for 2006, 2007 and 2008, then goes on to describe SIGA Technologies as having a "Chlamydia Trachomatis Vaccine Program", a "Periodontal Vaccine", a "Smallpox Vaccine Program" and a "Strep Throat Vaccine."
Again and again... vaccines!
The funny thing is that these published news stories, press releases, research documents and SEC filings all have two words in common: SIGA and Vaccines. There's that pesky word again... vaccines. It just won't go away when you're researching SIGA. In fact, it strangely shows up with a very high frequency for a company that so adamantly claims to have nothing at all to do with vaccines.Their denials just boggle the mind. It sort of reminds me of President Clinton's slicing and dicing of the English language in the midst of the Lewinsky saga when he actually questioned what the meaning of the word "is" was. (Classic, huh? Gotta hand it to him...)
So we asked the P.R. rep about this, and she actually tells us -- get this -- that "There is no SIGA Pharmaceuticals... only SIGA Technologies!"
Sort of like "there is no spoon" from The Matrix. That's when I pointed out this link that explains SIGA Pharmaceuticals changed their name to SIGA Technologies: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...
The headline reads, "SIGA Pharmaceuticals Changes Name to SIGA Technologies."
It's fairly straightforward. Not much wiggle room in that statement.
The P.R. rep kept talking. She said that SIGA underwent a management change way back in 2001 and since then they haven't been involved in vaccines.
Plain English translation
Got that? No vaccines since 2001. So why, then, do we find all these articles from 2003 and 2004 talking about vaccines? Case in point: An article in 2003 declares, "SIGA Technologies, Inc. Announces Positive Results in Safe Smallpox Vaccine Development." (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100...)
The SEC document cited above (http://investor.siga.com/secfiling....), which says, " We aim to discover, develop and commercialize vaccines, antibiotics and novel anti-infectives for serious infectious diseases. Our lead vaccine candidate is for the prevention of group A streptococcal pharyngitis..." was filed in 2003!
Importantly, note that these documents are all written in plain English. The words "Smallpox Vaccine Development" actually mean in English, believe it or not, "Smallpox Vaccine Development."
I know this for a fact because I went to the Google translation tool (http://translate.google.com/transla...), and chose an English-to-English translation, then pasted in the words "Smallpox Vaccine Development."
Astoundingly, the translation results came back as "Smallpox Vaccine Development." (http://translate.google.com/transla...)
This same Google tool also verifies that the word "vaccines" translates to, exactly, "vaccines."
At one point, we were so amazed by the insistent denials from SIGA's public relations firm that we just had to come out and ask the obvious question: "Do you categorically deny that SIGA Technologies has no involvement with vaccines?"
Their answer? They hung up on us.
Strange matter and not-so-clever denials
I'm not sure if the hanging up part was a yes or a no. In fact, I'm not even sure the P.R. rep we were talking to has any idea what their client actually does. It's one thing to say, "Well, we disagree with your article and we'd like to submit a rebuttal" or something along those lines (which we have published from time to time, depending on the request), but it seems completely outlandish out to call us up and claim the company in question has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines when "vaccine development" is right there on the home page, in perhaps the most important piece of text on any home page -- the title!
The whole thing really left me wondering: What's the real story here? Why would they lie about this?
Seriously. What's so important about distancing themselves from the vaccine projects they have obviously been involved with that they would be so insistent in their denials?
It reminds me of a child who just stole cookies out of the cookie jar, and you spot them in the kitchen with their hands behind their back and cookie crumbs on their lips, and you ask, "Have you been eating cookies?" And they say, "No. Not me." So you ask, "Do you know why the cookies are missing from the cookie jar?" and they answer, with an expression of sudden revelation, "Maybe someone took them!"
Let's imagine for a moment that SIGA Technologies doesn't research vaccines. But then why would they lie on their home page and say they do? Why would they file a report with the SEC claiming they're developing vaccines? Why would press releases, announcements and articles across the 'net explain that SIGA was involved in vaccine patents, vaccine testing, vaccine company acquisitions, vaccine research and vaccine technologies?
Here's an even better question: Why make a story out of a non-story by issuing a thinly-veiled denial that can be proven wrong in 8 minutes searching around on Google? I really had nothing more to write about SIGA Technologies until this denial came our way. It was the denial that made the story. Without the bizarre denial... no story!
In my years as NaturalNews editor, I've received some whacky phone calls. I've been threatened with lawsuits and attacked by hackers. I was even impersonated once by some goon trying to break into the NaturalNews offices. But I've never had a company's P.R. firm call me up and point blank lie to my face with such a flimsy, hilarious lie.
SIGA Technologies needs to get their story straight. If they really have absolutely nothing to do with vaccines, why wouldn't they just email us a statement containing these 8 simple words: "We categorically deny any involvement with vaccines or vaccine technologies." (The mathematically inclined among you will notice there are actually ten words in that sentence. But out of respect to SIGA Technologies, we're not counting "vaccine" or "vaccines.")
I sent them an email, by the way, asking these three simple questions:
1) Will you categorically deny any involvement with vaccines?
2) If so, when did SIGA's involvement with vaccines end?
3) Does SIGA have any plans to be involved with vaccines in the future?
The answer to these three questions? Nothing. Zip. Nada.
This is how the vaccine industry works, by the way: When anyone starts to ask questions, just shut them up and cut off all communication. If there's one thing I've learned in my years as a natural health journalist, it's that asking questions about vaccines is a dangerous business. There are simply too many secrets in the vaccine industry that certain companies don't want made public.
But that's my job: To ask questions. To think critically. To demand some answers on behalf of NaturalNews readers. And to ask for help from the NaturalNews Facebook crowdsourcing team, too, because they're great at coming up with amazing information.
Special thanks go to Brad, Carmine, Cassandra, Elaina, Lynnea, Patricia, Stephen, Josephine, Vanessa and especially Jennifer Lewis (http://fortheloveofmybugs.blogspot.com), who did such an amazing job that she should probably be working as an online private investigator.
Last call
By the way, as a matter of due diligence, NaturalNews made one more phone call to SIGA Technologies in an attempt to get clarification on these questions. A NaturalNews reporter called SIGA, identified herself as a NaturalNews reporter, and asked the phone receptionist if we could speak to someone about SIGA's vaccine development.
We were told -- get this -- that we could talk to their "investor relations" people. Yep... the very same people who had already hung up on us once before.
The real story
This crowdsourcing project shows the power of individual action to make a difference. Without the help of our Facebook fans, this article wouldn't have been possible. Thank you all for your amazing help! And keep up the awesome work to expose the blatant lies of pharmaceutical and vaccine companies.
The real story here, by the way, is how a big public vaccine company with Dr. Mehmet Oz on the Board of Directors tried to threaten and intimidate a tiny independent news organization (NaturalNews) into altering our story but got slapped into the corporate liars Hall of Fame by a crowd of volunteer Facebook fans.
Join our Facebook fan page, if you'd like, and participate in future crowdsourcing projects: http://facebook.naturalnews.com
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Enhance Strength, Increase Vigor, Support Sexual Stamina, and Relieve Stress
MACAFORCE
CAROB PEPPERMINT
THE MOST POWERFUL MACA IN THE WORLD!
Maca a Powerful Strength and Stamina Enhancer as well as Libido-Enhancing
*Energy * Strength * Healing * Hormones * Fertility*
Ancient Healing Food
The Full Potential of Maca
MacaForce™ takes Maca to its full potential. Whole Root with all of the nutrients Mother Nature Intended, yet contains the potency of an extract. Carefully Selected Enzymes, Probiotics, Herbs, & Energetics provide unprecedented full-spectrum bio-availability and therapeutic value never before possible, until now.
EXPERIENCE THE HIGHEST EVOLUTION OF THIS ANCIENT PERUVIAN SUPERFOOD OF THE GODS! ENERGY - STRENGTH - HEALING - HORMONES - FERTILITY
Maca has traditionally been used to enhance strength, increase vigor, support sexual stamina, and relieve stress.
Historical and Traditional Use of Maca
Archeological evidence has been found, that maca was domesticated over 2,000 years ago by the predecessors of the Incan people. Even today, for many indigenous inhabitants of the Andes, Maca is still one of the most vital and valuable of all commodities.
The maca root has been used over the ages for its nutritional and herbal qualities. Once harvested, the maca root was traditionally dried, then powdered. Once powdered it was either eaten or put into sacs and traded for other commodities. Oftentimes cacao nibs and beans (raw chocolate) would come up the Andes from the jungle and in exchange maca would go down from the Andes into the jungle. These two foods (maca and cacao) have a unique affinity and history which is evident when one tries eating them together. Both cacao and maca were used as money by ancient indigenous peoples.
Maca's Remarkable Reputation
Maca's reputation as a powerful strength and stamina enhancer as well as libido-enhancing food-herb stretches back into prehistory. Maca, like goji berries and ginseng, is a powerful adaptogen, which means it has the ability to balance and stabilize the body's systems (cardiovascular system, nervous system, musculature, lymphatic system, etc.). As an adaptogen, maca can provide more energy if it is needed, but if it is not, it will not overstimulate. Adaptogens also boost immunity and increase the body's overall vitality by 10-15% according to most studies. Rather than addressing a specific symptom, adaptogens are used to improve the overall adaptability of the whole body to diverse and challenging situations and stress.
During the height of the Incan Empire, legend has it that Incan warriors would consume maca before entering into battle. This would make them fiercely strong. But after conquering a city the Incan soldiers were prohibited from using maca, to protect the women from excessive sexual impulses.
The Scientific and Health Properties of Maca
Dried maca powder contains 60% carbohydrates, 9% fiber, and slightly more than 10% protein. It has a higher lipid (fat) content than other root crops (2.2%), of which linoleic acid, palmitic acid and oleic acid are the primary fatty acids, respectively. Maca is rich in calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur and iron, and contains trace minerals, including zinc, iodine, copper, selenium, bismuth, manganese and silica, as well as vitamins B1, B2, C and E. Maca contains nearly 20 amino acids and seven essential amino acids. Maca is also a rich source of sterols, including sitosterol, campestrol, ergosterol, brassicasterol, and ergostadienol. As a root crop, maca contains five times more protein than a potato and four times more fiber.
Maca Force is food, NOT a supplement. Take in any quantity desired!
”The quality, therapeutic concentration, and affordability of a nutritional product can, and often does, mean the difference between lethargy and energy, sickness and health, and (quite literally) Life or Death. I don’t want anybody to be sick, tired or dead because they could not obtain or afford the best possible product. If anyone in this business does not feel the same way, they should not be in the nutritional product business. I live and breathe this philosophy in both my personal and professional life, and constantly strive to evolve HealthForce products and offer them at the best possible value. I would rather die than compromise these principles” - Jameth Sheridan, N.D.
Ingredients: (100% TruGanic™)* - Magnetically Sanitized & Purified Carefully Dried to preserve enzymes, life force, & other heat sensitive elements
Ancient Superfood Sustenance:
Maca Root
Prebiotic Digestive Synergists:
Carob Pod • Agave Inulin
Lacuma Fruit
Yacon Root
Herbal Synergists:
Peppermint Leaf
Ginger
Enzyme Synergists
Protease
Amylase
Lipase
Cellulase
Bromelain
Papain
Alpha-Galactosidase
Probiotic Synergists:
Massive array of Implantable species and Natural Soil Organisms (N.S.O.’s), all laboratory grown.
Energetics:
Shilajit +
Magnetic
Homeopathic
Energetic & vibrational enhancements
Suggested Usage: 100% Food. Add any quantity to water, smoothies, Etc.
Suggested Adjuncts: A whole Food, organic, Vegan diet with emphasis on fresh, high water content, live/raw foods and juices (See the book- “Unncooking with Jameth & Kim”); other nutritional support products such as Vitamineral™ Green and Earth™, Spirulina Manna™ or Azteca™, exercise, fresh air, and anything healthful and sacred to you.
* 100% TruGanic™: TruGanic™ is a purist, hard-core quality standard significantly beyond organic. In addition to no pesticides being used anywhere in the growing process, TruGanic™ includes authentic standards for production, nontoxic cleaning agents and pest control, electromagnetic radiation, processing agents, additives, air quality, and actual verification of purity.**
** These statements have not been evaluated by the F.D.A. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.
MacaForce Carob-Peppermint
CAROB PEPPERMINT
THE MOST POWERFUL MACA IN THE WORLD!
Maca a Powerful Strength and Stamina Enhancer as well as Libido-Enhancing
*Energy * Strength * Healing * Hormones * Fertility*
Ancient Healing Food
The Full Potential of Maca
MacaForce™ takes Maca to its full potential. Whole Root with all of the nutrients Mother Nature Intended, yet contains the potency of an extract. Carefully Selected Enzymes, Probiotics, Herbs, & Energetics provide unprecedented full-spectrum bio-availability and therapeutic value never before possible, until now.
EXPERIENCE THE HIGHEST EVOLUTION OF THIS ANCIENT PERUVIAN SUPERFOOD OF THE GODS! ENERGY - STRENGTH - HEALING - HORMONES - FERTILITY
Maca has traditionally been used to enhance strength, increase vigor, support sexual stamina, and relieve stress.
Historical and Traditional Use of Maca
Archeological evidence has been found, that maca was domesticated over 2,000 years ago by the predecessors of the Incan people. Even today, for many indigenous inhabitants of the Andes, Maca is still one of the most vital and valuable of all commodities.
The maca root has been used over the ages for its nutritional and herbal qualities. Once harvested, the maca root was traditionally dried, then powdered. Once powdered it was either eaten or put into sacs and traded for other commodities. Oftentimes cacao nibs and beans (raw chocolate) would come up the Andes from the jungle and in exchange maca would go down from the Andes into the jungle. These two foods (maca and cacao) have a unique affinity and history which is evident when one tries eating them together. Both cacao and maca were used as money by ancient indigenous peoples.
Maca's Remarkable Reputation
Maca's reputation as a powerful strength and stamina enhancer as well as libido-enhancing food-herb stretches back into prehistory. Maca, like goji berries and ginseng, is a powerful adaptogen, which means it has the ability to balance and stabilize the body's systems (cardiovascular system, nervous system, musculature, lymphatic system, etc.). As an adaptogen, maca can provide more energy if it is needed, but if it is not, it will not overstimulate. Adaptogens also boost immunity and increase the body's overall vitality by 10-15% according to most studies. Rather than addressing a specific symptom, adaptogens are used to improve the overall adaptability of the whole body to diverse and challenging situations and stress.
During the height of the Incan Empire, legend has it that Incan warriors would consume maca before entering into battle. This would make them fiercely strong. But after conquering a city the Incan soldiers were prohibited from using maca, to protect the women from excessive sexual impulses.
The Scientific and Health Properties of Maca
Dried maca powder contains 60% carbohydrates, 9% fiber, and slightly more than 10% protein. It has a higher lipid (fat) content than other root crops (2.2%), of which linoleic acid, palmitic acid and oleic acid are the primary fatty acids, respectively. Maca is rich in calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur and iron, and contains trace minerals, including zinc, iodine, copper, selenium, bismuth, manganese and silica, as well as vitamins B1, B2, C and E. Maca contains nearly 20 amino acids and seven essential amino acids. Maca is also a rich source of sterols, including sitosterol, campestrol, ergosterol, brassicasterol, and ergostadienol. As a root crop, maca contains five times more protein than a potato and four times more fiber.
Maca Force is food, NOT a supplement. Take in any quantity desired!
”The quality, therapeutic concentration, and affordability of a nutritional product can, and often does, mean the difference between lethargy and energy, sickness and health, and (quite literally) Life or Death. I don’t want anybody to be sick, tired or dead because they could not obtain or afford the best possible product. If anyone in this business does not feel the same way, they should not be in the nutritional product business. I live and breathe this philosophy in both my personal and professional life, and constantly strive to evolve HealthForce products and offer them at the best possible value. I would rather die than compromise these principles” - Jameth Sheridan, N.D.
Ingredients: (100% TruGanic™)* - Magnetically Sanitized & Purified Carefully Dried to preserve enzymes, life force, & other heat sensitive elements
Ancient Superfood Sustenance:
Maca Root
Prebiotic Digestive Synergists:
Carob Pod • Agave Inulin
Lacuma Fruit
Yacon Root
Herbal Synergists:
Peppermint Leaf
Ginger
Enzyme Synergists
Protease
Amylase
Lipase
Cellulase
Bromelain
Papain
Alpha-Galactosidase
Probiotic Synergists:
Massive array of Implantable species and Natural Soil Organisms (N.S.O.’s), all laboratory grown.
Energetics:
Shilajit +
Magnetic
Homeopathic
Energetic & vibrational enhancements
Suggested Usage: 100% Food. Add any quantity to water, smoothies, Etc.
Suggested Adjuncts: A whole Food, organic, Vegan diet with emphasis on fresh, high water content, live/raw foods and juices (See the book- “Unncooking with Jameth & Kim”); other nutritional support products such as Vitamineral™ Green and Earth™, Spirulina Manna™ or Azteca™, exercise, fresh air, and anything healthful and sacred to you.
* 100% TruGanic™: TruGanic™ is a purist, hard-core quality standard significantly beyond organic. In addition to no pesticides being used anywhere in the growing process, TruGanic™ includes authentic standards for production, nontoxic cleaning agents and pest control, electromagnetic radiation, processing agents, additives, air quality, and actual verification of purity.**
** These statements have not been evaluated by the F.D.A. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.
MacaForce Carob-Peppermint
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Today, we bring you a story about Dr. Mehmet Oz....150,000 option shares in a vaccine company
(NaturalNews)- Mike Adams-
Dr. Mehmet Oz is a huge promoter of vaccines. He's been on television reinforcing fear about H1N1 swine flu and telling everyone to get vaccinated. But what he didn't tell his viewing audience is that he holds 150,000 option shares in a vaccine company that could earn him millions of dollars in profits as the stock price rises. It is in Dr. Oz's own financial interest, in other words, to hype up vaccines and get more people taking them so that his own financial investments rise in value.
Evidence describing these facts was delivered to NaturalNews by a private investigator named Joseph Culligan (http://webofdeception.com/oprah.html#oz). That evidence includes an SEC document detailing how Dr. Oz. bought options on stocks for SIGA Technologies in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. SIGA Technologies (stock symbol SIGA) is a vaccine technology company with many advanced developments whose success depends on the widespread adoption of vaccines. According to SEC documents, Dr. Mehmet Oz. currently holds 150,000 option shares on SIGA Technologies, purchased for as little as $1.35 back in 2005.
At the time of this writing, SIGA Technologies is trading at $7.10, making those options bought in 2005 worth $5.75 in profits today. If all the 150,000 options purchased by Dr. Oz. were exercised today, they would be worth roughly $180,000 in profits (they were bought at different prices, not all at $1.35). This is all revealed in what the SEC website calls an "insider transaction" document (link below).
These options won't expire until the years 2015 - 2019, and the higher the stock price of SIGA gets before then, the more profit can be realized when these options are cashed out. You can see the 2019 expiration date in this "insider transaction" form: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/...
If the stock price of SIGA Technologies could be pumped up even more -- say, from someone hyping up vaccines in front of a national audience -- these options could mathematically be worth millions of dollars. Just to clarify, by the way, SIGA Technologies doesn't currently manufacture a vaccine for H1N1 swine flu. It focuses on future vaccine technologies that could be applied to many different vaccines down the road.
Dr. Oz. isn't merely a holder of SIGA stock options, by the way: He's on the Board of Directors! As SIGA's own website explains, Dr. Oz has served on the board since 2001 and continues his role there today. This brings up the obvious question:
Is it right for someone talking about whether vaccines are safe on television to also be carrying stock options and serving on the board of directors of a vaccine company at the same time?
Just to make things a little more interesting, SIGA Technologies recently received a $3 million grant in taxpayer dollars from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of the grant money? To fund the study of a chemical adjunct named ST-246 to be used in future vaccines. So taxpayer money is now being used to fund a vaccine technology company whose stock price increases will financially benefit the very celebrity doctor who is hyping up vaccines to a national audience.
Something sounds fishy here...
Conflict of interest?
To my knowledge, Dr. Oz. has never disclosed to his viewing audience the fact that he owns 150,000 option shares of SIGA Technologies. And yet, with an audience of millions, Dr. Oz has continued to beat the drum of the vaccine industry, urging people to get vaccinated while implying that vaccines protect people from swine flu (even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back up that claim).
Here's a link to the SEC document detailing Dr. Oz's ownership of these 150,000 option shares:
http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp?act...
The current value of SIGA shares can be verified here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SIGA
Information about SIGA Technologies and their vaccine technology can be found on their website:
http://www.siga.com/index.php?ID=2
The press release announcing SIGA's receipt of $3 million from the NIH is available here:
http://www.siga.com/?ID=120
The RealAge Big Pharma front group
In addition to holding stock options in a vaccine technology company, Dr. Oz. is also a front man for the RealAge website, a sort of "health front group" for the pharmaceutical industry that uses information provided by RealAge members to solicit consumers with pro-pharma marketing message targeted by age or health condition.
Corporate sponsors of RealAge include most of the major drug companies and their most profitable pharmaceutical products such as Adderall, Ambien and Celebrex. The companies sponsoring RealAge include GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Wyeth and many others. RealAge is essentially a marketing platform for Big Pharma, disguised to look like a consumer health information service.
The New York Times calls RealAge "a window for drug makers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/t...) and explains, "The test has received widespread publicity because of its affiliation with Dr. Mehmet Oz."
This NY Times article goes on to explain how the RealAge scheme operates:
People come to the site, then provide an e-mail address to take [the RealAge test]. They are asked throughout the test if they would like a free RealAge membership. If people answer yes to any of the prompts, they become RealAge members, and their test results go into a marketing database.
RealAge allows drug companies to send e-mail messages based on those test results. It acts as a clearinghouse for drug companies, including Pfizer, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, allowing them to use almost any combination of answers from the test to find people to market to, including whether someone is taking antidepressants, how sexually active they are and even if their marriage is happy.
RealAge sends the selected recipients a series of e-mail messages about a condition they might have, usually sponsored by a drug company that sells a medication for that condition.
The RealAge ads seen all over the internet do not openly disclose that taking the RealAge test gets you signed up to be solicited by Big Pharma for medication advertisements. Dr. Oz's continued promotion of this service has exposed tens of millions of health consumers to this deceptive marketing front for Big Pharma.
How much has Dr. Oz earned from his affiliation with RealAge? He isn't saying.
Front man for Big Pharma?
In my view, Dr. Mehmet Oz. is a front man for Big Pharma and the vaccine industry. He's pushing vaccines for his own personal financial gain while championing one of the largest internet Big Pharma marketing scams yet concocted.
Dr. Oz. stands to profit millions of dollars from helping creating demand for vaccines, and yet he does not disclose to his audience this huge, blatant conflict of interest. Sadly, by catapulting his career from her own show, Oprah has inadvertently unleashed a vaccine pusher onto the general public and given him influence over millions of people who may now be corralled into services like RealAge that seek to sell more drugs to unsuspecting consumers.
I respect Oprah. She's an amazing achiever. But I don't respect all the wannabe celebrity leeches who use her to launch their own careers and then exploit their newfound popularity for financial gain at the expense of the public.
Shame on Dr. Oz. for his financial conflicts of interest and his strong affiliation with the deadly pharmaceutical industry. Through his actions, Dr. Oz. has aligned himself with precisely the evil corporations that are destroying health in America today. Does the man have no shame?
He may not have any shame, but he does have 150,000 stock options that could be worth millions in the years ahead.
Additional sources:
Joseph Culligan is more than just a private investigator; he's also an author. His book When In Doubt, Check Him Out is available on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/When-Doubt-Ch...
Dr. Mehmet Oz is a huge promoter of vaccines. He's been on television reinforcing fear about H1N1 swine flu and telling everyone to get vaccinated. But what he didn't tell his viewing audience is that he holds 150,000 option shares in a vaccine company that could earn him millions of dollars in profits as the stock price rises. It is in Dr. Oz's own financial interest, in other words, to hype up vaccines and get more people taking them so that his own financial investments rise in value.
Evidence describing these facts was delivered to NaturalNews by a private investigator named Joseph Culligan (http://webofdeception.com/oprah.html#oz). That evidence includes an SEC document detailing how Dr. Oz. bought options on stocks for SIGA Technologies in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. SIGA Technologies (stock symbol SIGA) is a vaccine technology company with many advanced developments whose success depends on the widespread adoption of vaccines. According to SEC documents, Dr. Mehmet Oz. currently holds 150,000 option shares on SIGA Technologies, purchased for as little as $1.35 back in 2005.
At the time of this writing, SIGA Technologies is trading at $7.10, making those options bought in 2005 worth $5.75 in profits today. If all the 150,000 options purchased by Dr. Oz. were exercised today, they would be worth roughly $180,000 in profits (they were bought at different prices, not all at $1.35). This is all revealed in what the SEC website calls an "insider transaction" document (link below).
These options won't expire until the years 2015 - 2019, and the higher the stock price of SIGA gets before then, the more profit can be realized when these options are cashed out. You can see the 2019 expiration date in this "insider transaction" form: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/...
If the stock price of SIGA Technologies could be pumped up even more -- say, from someone hyping up vaccines in front of a national audience -- these options could mathematically be worth millions of dollars. Just to clarify, by the way, SIGA Technologies doesn't currently manufacture a vaccine for H1N1 swine flu. It focuses on future vaccine technologies that could be applied to many different vaccines down the road.
Dr. Oz. isn't merely a holder of SIGA stock options, by the way: He's on the Board of Directors! As SIGA's own website explains, Dr. Oz has served on the board since 2001 and continues his role there today. This brings up the obvious question:
Is it right for someone talking about whether vaccines are safe on television to also be carrying stock options and serving on the board of directors of a vaccine company at the same time?
Just to make things a little more interesting, SIGA Technologies recently received a $3 million grant in taxpayer dollars from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of the grant money? To fund the study of a chemical adjunct named ST-246 to be used in future vaccines. So taxpayer money is now being used to fund a vaccine technology company whose stock price increases will financially benefit the very celebrity doctor who is hyping up vaccines to a national audience.
Something sounds fishy here...
Conflict of interest?
To my knowledge, Dr. Oz. has never disclosed to his viewing audience the fact that he owns 150,000 option shares of SIGA Technologies. And yet, with an audience of millions, Dr. Oz has continued to beat the drum of the vaccine industry, urging people to get vaccinated while implying that vaccines protect people from swine flu (even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back up that claim).
Here's a link to the SEC document detailing Dr. Oz's ownership of these 150,000 option shares:
http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp?act...
The current value of SIGA shares can be verified here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SIGA
Information about SIGA Technologies and their vaccine technology can be found on their website:
http://www.siga.com/index.php?ID=2
The press release announcing SIGA's receipt of $3 million from the NIH is available here:
http://www.siga.com/?ID=120
The RealAge Big Pharma front group
In addition to holding stock options in a vaccine technology company, Dr. Oz. is also a front man for the RealAge website, a sort of "health front group" for the pharmaceutical industry that uses information provided by RealAge members to solicit consumers with pro-pharma marketing message targeted by age or health condition.
Corporate sponsors of RealAge include most of the major drug companies and their most profitable pharmaceutical products such as Adderall, Ambien and Celebrex. The companies sponsoring RealAge include GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Wyeth and many others. RealAge is essentially a marketing platform for Big Pharma, disguised to look like a consumer health information service.
The New York Times calls RealAge "a window for drug makers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/t...) and explains, "The test has received widespread publicity because of its affiliation with Dr. Mehmet Oz."
This NY Times article goes on to explain how the RealAge scheme operates:
People come to the site, then provide an e-mail address to take [the RealAge test]. They are asked throughout the test if they would like a free RealAge membership. If people answer yes to any of the prompts, they become RealAge members, and their test results go into a marketing database.
RealAge allows drug companies to send e-mail messages based on those test results. It acts as a clearinghouse for drug companies, including Pfizer, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, allowing them to use almost any combination of answers from the test to find people to market to, including whether someone is taking antidepressants, how sexually active they are and even if their marriage is happy.
RealAge sends the selected recipients a series of e-mail messages about a condition they might have, usually sponsored by a drug company that sells a medication for that condition.
The RealAge ads seen all over the internet do not openly disclose that taking the RealAge test gets you signed up to be solicited by Big Pharma for medication advertisements. Dr. Oz's continued promotion of this service has exposed tens of millions of health consumers to this deceptive marketing front for Big Pharma.
How much has Dr. Oz earned from his affiliation with RealAge? He isn't saying.
Front man for Big Pharma?
In my view, Dr. Mehmet Oz. is a front man for Big Pharma and the vaccine industry. He's pushing vaccines for his own personal financial gain while championing one of the largest internet Big Pharma marketing scams yet concocted.
Dr. Oz. stands to profit millions of dollars from helping creating demand for vaccines, and yet he does not disclose to his audience this huge, blatant conflict of interest. Sadly, by catapulting his career from her own show, Oprah has inadvertently unleashed a vaccine pusher onto the general public and given him influence over millions of people who may now be corralled into services like RealAge that seek to sell more drugs to unsuspecting consumers.
I respect Oprah. She's an amazing achiever. But I don't respect all the wannabe celebrity leeches who use her to launch their own careers and then exploit their newfound popularity for financial gain at the expense of the public.
Shame on Dr. Oz. for his financial conflicts of interest and his strong affiliation with the deadly pharmaceutical industry. Through his actions, Dr. Oz. has aligned himself with precisely the evil corporations that are destroying health in America today. Does the man have no shame?
He may not have any shame, but he does have 150,000 stock options that could be worth millions in the years ahead.
Additional sources:
Joseph Culligan is more than just a private investigator; he's also an author. His book When In Doubt, Check Him Out is available on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/When-Doubt-Ch...
Investigation Exposed Animal Suffering at University of Utah Labs
For more than eight months in 2009, a PETA investigator worked undercover inside the laboratories of the University of Utah (UU) in Salt Lake City and documented miserable conditions for and terrible suffering of the dogs, cats, monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, frogs, cows, pigs, and sheep confined there.
Our investigator learned that homeless dogs and cats—obtained for a few dollars from area animal shelters through an archaic Utah state "pound-seizure" law, which requires government-funded shelters to turn animals over to laboratories that request them—were used in invasive, painful experiments and killed.
A pregnant cat pulled out of the Davis County animal shelter gave birth to eight kittens the very day she arrived at UU's laboratories. When the kittens were just 7 days old, a chemical was injected into their brains to cause fluid to build up. After the surgery, the distressed cat—who showed great affection for her kittens before they were taken for the experiment—stopped nursing her babies, and they all died.
In other experiments, a cat named Robert, who was also bought from the Davis County animal shelter, had a hole drilled into his skull and electrodes attached to his brain, and dogs bought from a local shelter had their necks cut open so that medical devices could be implanted inside.
Undercover Investigation Reveals Kitten Deaths and Other Animal Suffering. Learn More.
Undercover Investigation Reveals Cruelty and Neglect in Utah Lab
Mice and rats were given enormous tumors and painful, deadly illnesses. Rats had holes drilled into their skulls for invasive brain experiments. Monkeys were kept constantly thirsty so that they would cooperate in experiments for a sip of water. Sick and injured animals were denied veterinary care and left to languish and die.
Incompetence, indifference, and neglect forced many of the animals to endure severe trauma, prolonged suffering, and agonizingly slow and grisly deaths. These are only a few of the widespread instances of cruelty that PETA's investigator observed at UU.
Please be a voice for the animals suffering at the University of Utah. Urge the university to stop the experiments on homeless and unwanted animals, who depend on shelters for care and safety, immediately. Also, please call on administrators to release to the public complete records on all the animal-based experiments funded by tax dollars, including grant proposals, experimental protocols, veterinary records, and minutes of oversight committee meetings.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Join the Organic Consumers Association's national boycott of "organic cheater" brands
(NaturalNews)Mike Adams -
Many popular brands of personal care products use words like "organic" on their product labels or company names, but the products they're selling don't meet organic standards. So the Organic Consumers Association (www.organicconsumers.org) has been waging a public campaign to expose "organic cheaters" and encourage consumers to boycott those brands.
Late last week, a significant victory was achieved for organic consumers: the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted 12 to 1 to require personal care products touting the word "organic" to actually meet organic standards. (Previously, this was not required.)
This is big news because it means the USDA will now start cracking down on non-compliant brands that inappropriately use the word "organic" on their product labels.
"Brands that are using the word organic improperly should be on notice that USDA enforcement is imminent. Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan has said that she is going to get 'tough on crime' in the organic industry," said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the OCA. "I expect them to make organic cosmetics fraud a top priority. In the meantime, retailers should start cleaning up their body care isles. Whole Foods Market, for one, was a big supporter of the NOSB recommendation."
Boycott these "organic cheater" brands
NaturalNews encourages readers to join the Organic Consumers Association in its boycott of these brands of personal care products:
• Desert Essence Organics Body Care
• Organics by Noah's Naturals
• Giovanni Organic Cosmetics
• Nature's Gate Organics
• Amazon Organics
• JASON Pure Natural and Organic
• Avalon Organic
Until these companies clean up their labels and achieve full compliance with new USDA organic standards, this boycott will remain in effect. It's all part of the OCA's "Coming Clean" campaign that seeks to end labeling fraud in the personal care products marketplace.
Read more about the "Coming Clean" campaign at: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bod...
NaturalNews encourages readers to keep personal care product manufacturers honest by avoiding the purchase of any product labeled in a false or misleading way. Stay up to date by following the news on organic products at www.OrganicConsumers.org
Many popular brands of personal care products use words like "organic" on their product labels or company names, but the products they're selling don't meet organic standards. So the Organic Consumers Association (www.organicconsumers.org) has been waging a public campaign to expose "organic cheaters" and encourage consumers to boycott those brands.
Late last week, a significant victory was achieved for organic consumers: the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted 12 to 1 to require personal care products touting the word "organic" to actually meet organic standards. (Previously, this was not required.)
This is big news because it means the USDA will now start cracking down on non-compliant brands that inappropriately use the word "organic" on their product labels.
"Brands that are using the word organic improperly should be on notice that USDA enforcement is imminent. Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan has said that she is going to get 'tough on crime' in the organic industry," said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the OCA. "I expect them to make organic cosmetics fraud a top priority. In the meantime, retailers should start cleaning up their body care isles. Whole Foods Market, for one, was a big supporter of the NOSB recommendation."
Boycott these "organic cheater" brands
NaturalNews encourages readers to join the Organic Consumers Association in its boycott of these brands of personal care products:
• Desert Essence Organics Body Care
• Organics by Noah's Naturals
• Giovanni Organic Cosmetics
• Nature's Gate Organics
• Amazon Organics
• JASON Pure Natural and Organic
• Avalon Organic
Until these companies clean up their labels and achieve full compliance with new USDA organic standards, this boycott will remain in effect. It's all part of the OCA's "Coming Clean" campaign that seeks to end labeling fraud in the personal care products marketplace.
Read more about the "Coming Clean" campaign at: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bod...
NaturalNews encourages readers to keep personal care product manufacturers honest by avoiding the purchase of any product labeled in a false or misleading way. Stay up to date by following the news on organic products at www.OrganicConsumers.org
Will Anyone in Their Right Mind Actually Buy Into These Three New Vaccines
By- Dr Mercola
A storm has erupted over the announcement last month that an experimental AIDS vaccine tested in Thailand proved modestly effective. It was billed as a major scientific advance — the long-awaited hard evidence that it is possible to inoculate people against AIDS. But now the trial has been called into question in a way that is overblown and possibly destructive.
But this isn’t the first time the efficacy and safety of a vaccine has been called into question. The government recently announced that $10 million of stimulus money would be used to fund a phase 3 clinical trial of a promising anti-smoking vaccine produced by Nabi Pharmaceuticals of Rockville, Md. However, another company working on a similar vaccine has not been so successful.
Cytos Biotechnology Ltd. said this week that a trial of its nicotine vaccine had failed to reduce smoking behaviors. The study, which is continuing, involved 200 smokers who were motivated to quit. The researchers found that the vaccine, designed to bind nicotine in the blood and prevent it from reaching the brain, was safe and well tolerated. But apparently it did not stimulate high enough levels of antibodies to produce the desired response.
The moment evidence was found that obesity may be linked to a virus, opportunistic drug company researchers dove into developing an “obesity vaccine.” Now researchers say their obesity vaccine could be ready for market in five years. Searching for genetic clues to the obesity epidemic, in the hopes of developing a vaccine against it, is not the answer.
Sources:
New York Times October 18, 2009
New York Sun August 21, 2007
Los Angeles Times October 6, 2009
Bloomberg September 28, 2009
PreventDisease.com September 29, 2009
A storm has erupted over the announcement last month that an experimental AIDS vaccine tested in Thailand proved modestly effective. It was billed as a major scientific advance — the long-awaited hard evidence that it is possible to inoculate people against AIDS. But now the trial has been called into question in a way that is overblown and possibly destructive.
But this isn’t the first time the efficacy and safety of a vaccine has been called into question. The government recently announced that $10 million of stimulus money would be used to fund a phase 3 clinical trial of a promising anti-smoking vaccine produced by Nabi Pharmaceuticals of Rockville, Md. However, another company working on a similar vaccine has not been so successful.
Cytos Biotechnology Ltd. said this week that a trial of its nicotine vaccine had failed to reduce smoking behaviors. The study, which is continuing, involved 200 smokers who were motivated to quit. The researchers found that the vaccine, designed to bind nicotine in the blood and prevent it from reaching the brain, was safe and well tolerated. But apparently it did not stimulate high enough levels of antibodies to produce the desired response.
The moment evidence was found that obesity may be linked to a virus, opportunistic drug company researchers dove into developing an “obesity vaccine.” Now researchers say their obesity vaccine could be ready for market in five years. Searching for genetic clues to the obesity epidemic, in the hopes of developing a vaccine against it, is not the answer.
Sources:
New York Times October 18, 2009
New York Sun August 21, 2007
Los Angeles Times October 6, 2009
Bloomberg September 28, 2009
PreventDisease.com September 29, 2009
Silk brand Soy Milk -Bait and Switch Ploy...
(NaturalNews) Until early 2009, Silk brand soy milk was made using organic soybeans. But earlier this year, Dean Foods (owner of the Silk brand) quietly switched to conventional soybeans, which are often grown with pesticides. But they kept the same UPC barcodes on their products, and they kept the product label virtually the same, only replacing the word "organic" with "natural" in a way that was barely noticeable. They also kept the price the same, charging consumers "organic" prices for a product that was now suddenly made with conventionally-grown soybeans.
Many retailers and consumers never noticed the bait-and-switch tactic, so they kept buying Silk, thinking it was still organic. The shift on the product label from "organic" to "natural" wasn't well understood by consumers, either. Many consumers continue to think that the term "natural" is basically the same as "organic," when in fact they are almost opposites. The term "natural" is entirely unregulated, and almost anything can be claimed to be "natural" even when it's sprayed with pesticides or treated with other chemicals.
This bait-and-switch ploy continued throughout 2009 until a few watchdog organizations started to catch on to the covert switch. In late October, the Cornucopia Institute (www.Cornucopia.org) accused Target stores of misleading consumers by advertising Silk products using the old "organic" labeling even though the product being sold in stores was not organic. Cornucopia's Mark Kastel accused Target and Dean Foods for "blurring the line between organic and natural," thereby confusing consumers while boosting profits from the more lucrative sales of non-organic products sold at organic prices. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/10/o...)
Meanwhile, a Sunflower health food store in Texas also found itself caught up in the bait-and-switch tactic. It had been reordering Silk for months, thinking the product was still organic. But now, after discovering the scam, the store posts a hand-written sign in front of the Silk products, warning consumers with this message: "Silk is no longer organic."
"We don't want to be part of customer deception," said the store owner in a Star-Telegram interview.
According to that same story, food retailers in California, Delaware and Texas were also duped by Silk's bait-and-switch scheme, only discovering the switch to conventional soybeans months after the switch was covertly made. Dean Foods, you see, never bothered to tell retailers they had switched from organic to conventionally-grown soybeans. They just quietly made the switch but kept the same box design and UPC codes, perhaps hoping no one would notice. And the ploy worked!
"Dean has only added to the marketplace confusion between 'natural' and 'organic,' as they definitely do not mean the same thing, and 'natural' requires no verification whatsoever," said Consumer Reports senior scientist Urvashi Rangan (see Star-Telegram article link below).
Labeling deception
Dean Foods is one of the big food giants that serves processed, factory-made foods and beverages to the American people. It's the parent company of Horizon Organic, the so-called "organic" milk maker that's been caught up in a web of deception exposed by the Organic Consumers Association (http://www.naturalnews.com/021763_o...).
The company has pushed hard to lower organic standards so that it could market products as "organic" even though they might contain questionable ingredients. When Dean Foods bought out WhiteWave, the creator of Silk soy milk, WhiteWave founder Steve Demos soon left the company in disgust, saying that "green" values had been abandoned for the sake of profit.
Dean Foods even refused to participate on a "soy scorecard" investigation undertaken by the Cornucopia Institute (http://www.naturalnews.com/026294_s...). The last thing this company wants is scrutiny of its business practices, it seems. For example, in 2002, Dean Foods cut off U.S. soybean farmers and switched to soybeans grown in China (http://www.cornucopia.org/silk-whit...). And for years, the company has waged attacks on the Cornucopia Institute itself.
In my opinion, Dean Foods is the Enron of the food industry. It has no ethics, no moral code and no hesitation about deceiving consumers or hurting American farmers in order to maximize profits.
In America today, the big food companies are all about disinforming consumers. Rather than telling the truth on product labeling, they seek to confuse consumers with misleading information. That's why they want to weaken the definition of "organic" -- so that they can essentially grow conventional foods with pesticides, then misleadingly position them as "near-organic" products that are sold at organic prices.
Consumers end up buying products they think are organic but really aren't. And because the products are misleadingly positioned as "organic" products, they command a higher price. This, in turn, generates more profits for the food companies.
Lying about being organic pays well in the food industry today. Perhaps that's why so many companies continue to do it.
Dean Foods facts
From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...
• Dean Foods investors include Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart.
• Dean Foods controls 70% of all "organic" milk products sold in the U.S.
• Dean Foods brands include Hershey's, Folgers, Borden, Horizon milk, Stroh's ice cream and Silk soy milk.
• Dean Foods spent over $1 million on lobbyists in 2006.
• The CEO of Dean Foods, Gregg Engles, was paid $3.4 million in salary and nearly $58 million in exercised stock options in 2006 alone.
Additional sources for this story include:
Cornucopia Target complaint (PDF)
http://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/Targ...
Star-Telegram
http://www.star-telegram.com/local/...
Many retailers and consumers never noticed the bait-and-switch tactic, so they kept buying Silk, thinking it was still organic. The shift on the product label from "organic" to "natural" wasn't well understood by consumers, either. Many consumers continue to think that the term "natural" is basically the same as "organic," when in fact they are almost opposites. The term "natural" is entirely unregulated, and almost anything can be claimed to be "natural" even when it's sprayed with pesticides or treated with other chemicals.
This bait-and-switch ploy continued throughout 2009 until a few watchdog organizations started to catch on to the covert switch. In late October, the Cornucopia Institute (www.Cornucopia.org) accused Target stores of misleading consumers by advertising Silk products using the old "organic" labeling even though the product being sold in stores was not organic. Cornucopia's Mark Kastel accused Target and Dean Foods for "blurring the line between organic and natural," thereby confusing consumers while boosting profits from the more lucrative sales of non-organic products sold at organic prices. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/10/o...)
Meanwhile, a Sunflower health food store in Texas also found itself caught up in the bait-and-switch tactic. It had been reordering Silk for months, thinking the product was still organic. But now, after discovering the scam, the store posts a hand-written sign in front of the Silk products, warning consumers with this message: "Silk is no longer organic."
"We don't want to be part of customer deception," said the store owner in a Star-Telegram interview.
According to that same story, food retailers in California, Delaware and Texas were also duped by Silk's bait-and-switch scheme, only discovering the switch to conventional soybeans months after the switch was covertly made. Dean Foods, you see, never bothered to tell retailers they had switched from organic to conventionally-grown soybeans. They just quietly made the switch but kept the same box design and UPC codes, perhaps hoping no one would notice. And the ploy worked!
"Dean has only added to the marketplace confusion between 'natural' and 'organic,' as they definitely do not mean the same thing, and 'natural' requires no verification whatsoever," said Consumer Reports senior scientist Urvashi Rangan (see Star-Telegram article link below).
Labeling deception
Dean Foods is one of the big food giants that serves processed, factory-made foods and beverages to the American people. It's the parent company of Horizon Organic, the so-called "organic" milk maker that's been caught up in a web of deception exposed by the Organic Consumers Association (http://www.naturalnews.com/021763_o...).
The company has pushed hard to lower organic standards so that it could market products as "organic" even though they might contain questionable ingredients. When Dean Foods bought out WhiteWave, the creator of Silk soy milk, WhiteWave founder Steve Demos soon left the company in disgust, saying that "green" values had been abandoned for the sake of profit.
Dean Foods even refused to participate on a "soy scorecard" investigation undertaken by the Cornucopia Institute (http://www.naturalnews.com/026294_s...). The last thing this company wants is scrutiny of its business practices, it seems. For example, in 2002, Dean Foods cut off U.S. soybean farmers and switched to soybeans grown in China (http://www.cornucopia.org/silk-whit...). And for years, the company has waged attacks on the Cornucopia Institute itself.
In my opinion, Dean Foods is the Enron of the food industry. It has no ethics, no moral code and no hesitation about deceiving consumers or hurting American farmers in order to maximize profits.
In America today, the big food companies are all about disinforming consumers. Rather than telling the truth on product labeling, they seek to confuse consumers with misleading information. That's why they want to weaken the definition of "organic" -- so that they can essentially grow conventional foods with pesticides, then misleadingly position them as "near-organic" products that are sold at organic prices.
Consumers end up buying products they think are organic but really aren't. And because the products are misleadingly positioned as "organic" products, they command a higher price. This, in turn, generates more profits for the food companies.
Lying about being organic pays well in the food industry today. Perhaps that's why so many companies continue to do it.
Dean Foods facts
From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...
• Dean Foods investors include Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart.
• Dean Foods controls 70% of all "organic" milk products sold in the U.S.
• Dean Foods brands include Hershey's, Folgers, Borden, Horizon milk, Stroh's ice cream and Silk soy milk.
• Dean Foods spent over $1 million on lobbyists in 2006.
• The CEO of Dean Foods, Gregg Engles, was paid $3.4 million in salary and nearly $58 million in exercised stock options in 2006 alone.
Additional sources for this story include:
Cornucopia Target complaint (PDF)
http://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/Targ...
Star-Telegram
http://www.star-telegram.com/local/...
Monday, November 9, 2009
Read the disturbing truth about psych drugs and violence right here
(NaturalNews)Mike Adams
US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 others in a violent attack at a Texas Army base this past week. He reportedly opened fire at the Fort Hood army base without any particular reason or motivation. In fact, as a psychiatrist, he had counseled many other soldiers on how to cope with the consequences of extreme violence (losing limbs, mental anguish, etc.).
As an army psychiatrist, he was also allowed to prescribe powerful psychiatric drugs to both his patients and himself. Many psychiatrists self-medicate, and Hasan was extremely anxious about the possibility of being sent overseas by the army, according to statements from family members (Reuters, below). Although official confirmation will probably never be made, it seems altogether likely that Hasan was treating himself with powerful psychotropic medications.
The mainstream media, not surprisingly, has utterly failed to raise this question. But it's being raised by independent media like Prison Planet (http://www.prisonplanet.com/was-for...), where writer Paul Joseph Watson says, "Psychiatrists have a history of 'self-medication' because of the easy access they have to psychotropic drugs. In almost every major mass shooting over the past two decades, since anti-depressant drugs became popular, the killer has been on SSRI's – serotonin reuptake inhibitors."
An informative article in The Examiner also asks the same question: Was Major Hasan on mind-altering prescription medications when he opened fire? (http://www.examiner.com/x-8358-Detr...).
Meanwhile, a study in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics reveals that 16% of psychiatrists self-medicate (http://www.cchrint.org/2009/11/05/w...).
Given all the psych drugs linked to such acts in previous shootings, such a link seems not only probably, but likely.
Orlando shooter confirmed on psych drugs
It's been a busy week for violent, drug-induced outbursts in the USA. Orlando shooter Jason Rodriguez is now confirmed to have been on psychiatric medications when he went on a shooting spree in an Orlando office building last week, killing one person and wounding five others.
In a televised interview with Fox News, the former mother-in-law of Rodriguez goes on the record saying, "He was under medication ...for control of the brain." That video segment is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_LJ...
Mind-altering medications made Rodriquez "paranoid," she explains. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933...)
This paranoia and acting out of violence against others is a classic side effect of SSRI drugs typically used to "treat" depression. These powerful, mind-altering medications have been linked to nearly every major shooting that has taken place in the United States over the last twenty years, including the Columbine, Colorado school shootings.
Listen to my hip-hop song, SSRIs - S.S.R.Lies, which explains more: http://www.naturalnews.com/SSRIs_S_...
Why the shootings will continue until the psych drugs are banned
What's clear about both the Orlando shooting and the Fort Hood shooting is that there's a psychiatric drug connection to both. Neither of these men was acting rationally. Something "flipped a switch" in their brains. That something was almost certainly a psychiatric drug.
Until we halt the chemical holocaust being perpetrated against our world by the psychiatric drugging industry, we will continue to see more of these violent, drug-induced shootings take place. Count on it. Psych drugs cause violence. And the more psych drugs are prescribed, the more violence we'll see.
According to Medwatch statistics, 63,000 people in the U.S. have committed suicide while on antidepressant drugs (that's more than ten times the number of Americans who have died from H1N1 swine flu, by the way). (http://www.naturalnews.com/022930_d...)
The mainstream media absolutely refuses to tell you the truth about the link between psychiatric drugs and violent killings, but it's the obvious connection in nearly every single shooting that's taken place in recent memory: The Virginia Tech shooting (http://www.naturalnews.com/021798.html), the Stephen Kazmierczak Illinois shooting (Stephen Kazmierczak), the Omaha mall shooting (http://www.naturalnews.com/022330.html), and so on.
In December, 2007, I made this public prediction:
"There will be more. I hate to be accurate about this grisly prediction, because I grieve for the families of those lost to pharmaceutically-induced violence, but the truth is that until we stop drugging our children with psychotropic drugs, the shootings are not going to stop."
And indeed, there have been more. As long as these dangerous, mind-altering psychiatric drugs continue to be prescribed to patients, they will continue to drive people to violence. More innocent lives will be lost while Big Pharma pockets billions of dollars in profits from the very same drugs that are leading people to deadly violence.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (www.CCHR.org) is the leading group fighting this chemical holocaust. Check out the shocking videos on their website to learn more about the dangers of psychiatric medications.
Sources for this story include:
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMo...
The Examiner:
http://www.examiner.com/x-19632-Sal...
CCHR:
http://www.cchr.org
US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 others in a violent attack at a Texas Army base this past week. He reportedly opened fire at the Fort Hood army base without any particular reason or motivation. In fact, as a psychiatrist, he had counseled many other soldiers on how to cope with the consequences of extreme violence (losing limbs, mental anguish, etc.).
As an army psychiatrist, he was also allowed to prescribe powerful psychiatric drugs to both his patients and himself. Many psychiatrists self-medicate, and Hasan was extremely anxious about the possibility of being sent overseas by the army, according to statements from family members (Reuters, below). Although official confirmation will probably never be made, it seems altogether likely that Hasan was treating himself with powerful psychotropic medications.
The mainstream media, not surprisingly, has utterly failed to raise this question. But it's being raised by independent media like Prison Planet (http://www.prisonplanet.com/was-for...), where writer Paul Joseph Watson says, "Psychiatrists have a history of 'self-medication' because of the easy access they have to psychotropic drugs. In almost every major mass shooting over the past two decades, since anti-depressant drugs became popular, the killer has been on SSRI's – serotonin reuptake inhibitors."
An informative article in The Examiner also asks the same question: Was Major Hasan on mind-altering prescription medications when he opened fire? (http://www.examiner.com/x-8358-Detr...).
Meanwhile, a study in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics reveals that 16% of psychiatrists self-medicate (http://www.cchrint.org/2009/11/05/w...).
Given all the psych drugs linked to such acts in previous shootings, such a link seems not only probably, but likely.
Orlando shooter confirmed on psych drugs
It's been a busy week for violent, drug-induced outbursts in the USA. Orlando shooter Jason Rodriguez is now confirmed to have been on psychiatric medications when he went on a shooting spree in an Orlando office building last week, killing one person and wounding five others.
In a televised interview with Fox News, the former mother-in-law of Rodriguez goes on the record saying, "He was under medication ...for control of the brain." That video segment is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_LJ...
Mind-altering medications made Rodriquez "paranoid," she explains. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933...)
This paranoia and acting out of violence against others is a classic side effect of SSRI drugs typically used to "treat" depression. These powerful, mind-altering medications have been linked to nearly every major shooting that has taken place in the United States over the last twenty years, including the Columbine, Colorado school shootings.
Listen to my hip-hop song, SSRIs - S.S.R.Lies, which explains more: http://www.naturalnews.com/SSRIs_S_...
Why the shootings will continue until the psych drugs are banned
What's clear about both the Orlando shooting and the Fort Hood shooting is that there's a psychiatric drug connection to both. Neither of these men was acting rationally. Something "flipped a switch" in their brains. That something was almost certainly a psychiatric drug.
Until we halt the chemical holocaust being perpetrated against our world by the psychiatric drugging industry, we will continue to see more of these violent, drug-induced shootings take place. Count on it. Psych drugs cause violence. And the more psych drugs are prescribed, the more violence we'll see.
According to Medwatch statistics, 63,000 people in the U.S. have committed suicide while on antidepressant drugs (that's more than ten times the number of Americans who have died from H1N1 swine flu, by the way). (http://www.naturalnews.com/022930_d...)
The mainstream media absolutely refuses to tell you the truth about the link between psychiatric drugs and violent killings, but it's the obvious connection in nearly every single shooting that's taken place in recent memory: The Virginia Tech shooting (http://www.naturalnews.com/021798.html), the Stephen Kazmierczak Illinois shooting (Stephen Kazmierczak), the Omaha mall shooting (http://www.naturalnews.com/022330.html), and so on.
In December, 2007, I made this public prediction:
"There will be more. I hate to be accurate about this grisly prediction, because I grieve for the families of those lost to pharmaceutically-induced violence, but the truth is that until we stop drugging our children with psychotropic drugs, the shootings are not going to stop."
And indeed, there have been more. As long as these dangerous, mind-altering psychiatric drugs continue to be prescribed to patients, they will continue to drive people to violence. More innocent lives will be lost while Big Pharma pockets billions of dollars in profits from the very same drugs that are leading people to deadly violence.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (www.CCHR.org) is the leading group fighting this chemical holocaust. Check out the shocking videos on their website to learn more about the dangers of psychiatric medications.
Sources for this story include:
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMo...
The Examiner:
http://www.examiner.com/x-19632-Sal...
CCHR:
http://www.cchr.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)