Wednesday, December 17, 2014


Source Article:
Scientific Fraud and Vaccines

Here is a recent letter written by Congressman Dave Weldon, MD, to Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, regarding a fraudulent CDC-sponsored study purporting to show no link between mercury-laced vaccines and autism:

Dave Weldon, M.D.
15th District, Florida
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

October 31, 2003

Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30333

Dear Dr. Gerberding:

I am writing to follow up on our conversation about the article (Verstraeten et. al.,) that will be published in the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics. I have reviewed the article and have serious reservations about the four-year evolution and conclusions of this study.

Much of what I observed transpired prior to your appointment a year ago as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am very concerned about activities that have taken place in the National Immunization Program (NIP) in the development of this study, and I believe the issues raised need your personal attention.

I am a strong supporter of childhood vaccinations and know that they have saved us from considerable death and suffering. A key part of our vaccination program is to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that these vaccines, which are mandatory, are as safe as possible. We must fully disclose adverse events. Anything less than this undermines public confidence.

I have read the upcoming Pediatrics study and several earlier versions of this study dating back to February 2000. I have read various e-mails from Dr. Verstraeten and coauthors. I have reviewed the transcripts of a discussion at Simpsonwood, GA between the author, various CDC employees, and vaccine industry representatives. I found a disturbing pattern which merits a thorough, open, timely, and independent review by researchers outside of the CDC, HHS, the vaccine industry, and others with a conflict of interest in vaccine related issues (including many in University settings who may have conflicts).

A review of these documents leaves me very concerned that rather than seeking to understand whether or not some children were exposed to harmful levels of mercury in childhood vaccines in the 1990s, there may have been a selective use of the data to make the associations in the earliest study disappear. While most childhood vaccines now only have trace amounts of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs), it is critical that we know with certainty if children were injured in the 1990s.

Furthermore, the lead author of the article, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, worked for the CDC until he left over two years ago to work in Belgium for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer facing liability over TCVs. In violation of their own standards of conduct, Pediatrics failed to disclose that Dr. Verstraeten is employed by GSK and incorrectly identifies him as an employee of the CDC. This revelation undermines this study further.

The first version of the study, produced in February 2000, found a significant association between exposure to thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism and neurological developmental delays (NDDs). When comparing children exposed to 62.5 ug of mercury by 3 months of age to those exposed to less than 37.5 ug, the study found a relative risk for autism of 2.48 for those with a higher exposure level. (While not significant in the 95% confidence interval for autism, this meets the legal standard of proof exceeding 2.0.) For NDDs the study found a relative risk of 1.59 and a definite upward trend as exposure levels increased.

A June 2000 version of the study applied various data manipulations to reduce the autism association to 1.69 and the authors went outside of the VSD database to secure data from a Massachusetts HMO (Harvard Pilgrim, HP) in order to counter the association found between TCVs and speech delay. At the time that HP's data was brought in, HP was in receivership by the state of Mass., its computer records had been in shambles for years, it had multiple computer systems that could not communicate with one another (Journal of Law, Ethics and Medicine Sept. 22, 2000), and it used a health care coding system totally different from the one used across the VSD. There are questions relating to a significant underreporting of Autism in Mass. The HP dataset is only about 15% of the HMO dataset used in the February 2000 study. There may also be significant problems with the statistical power of the HP dataset.

In June of 2000 a meeting was held in Simpsonwood, GA, involving the authors of the study, representatives of the CDC, and the vaccine industry. I have reviewed a transcript of this meeting that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Comments from Simpsonwood, NJ meeting include: (summary form, not direct quotes):

* We found a statistically significant relationship between exposures and outcomes. There is certainly an under ascertainment of adverse outcomes because some children are just simply not old enough to be diagnosed, the current incidence rates are much lower than we would expect to see (Verstraeten);

* We could exclude the lowest exposure children from our database. Also suggested was removing the children that got the highest exposure levels since they represented an unusually high percentage of the outcomes. (Rhodes)

* The significant association with language delay is quite large. (Verstraeten);

* This information should be kept confidential and considered embargoed;

* We can push and pull this data anyway we want to get the results we want;

* We can alter the exclusion criteria any way we want, give reasonable justifications for doing so, and get any result we want;

* There was really no need to do this study. We could have predicted the outcomes;

* I will not give TCVs to my grandson until I find out what is going on here.

Another version of the study - after further manipulation - finds no association between TCVs and autism, and no consistency across HMOs between TCVs and NDDs and speech delay.

The final version of the study concludes that "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes," and that the lack of consistency argues against an association. In reviewing the study there are data points where children with higher exposures to the neuortoxin mercury had fewer developmental disorders. This demonstrates to me how excessive manipulation of data can lead to absurd results. Such a conclusion is not unexpected from an author with a serious, though undisclosed, conflict of interest.

This study increases speculation of an association between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. I cannot say it was the author's intent to eliminate the earlier findings of an association. Nonetheless, the elimination of this association is exactly what happened and the manner in which this was achieved raises speculation. The dialogue at the Simpsonwood meeting clearly indicates how easily the authors could manipulate the data and have reasonable sounding justifications for many of their decisions.

The only way these issues are going to be resolved - and I have only mentioned a few of them - is by making this particular dataset and the entire VSD database open for independent analysis. One such independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, has already been approved by the CDC and the various IRBs to access this dataset. They have requested the CDC allow them to access this dataset and your staff indicated to my office that they would make this particular dataset available after the Pediatrics study is published.

Earlier this month the CDC had prepared three similar datasets for this researcher to review to allow him to reanalyze CDC study datasets. However when they accessed the datasets - which the researchers paid the CDC to assemble - the datasets were found to have no usable data in them. I request that you personally intervene with those in the CDC who are assembling this dataset to ensure that they provide the complete dataset, in a usable format, to these researchers within two weeks. The treatment that these well-published researchers have received from the CDC thus far has been abysmal and embarrassing. I would also be curious to know whether Dr. Verstraeten, an outside researcher for more than two years now, was required to go through the same process as Dr. Geier in order to continue accessing the VSD.

You have not been a part of creating this current situation, but you do have an opportunity to help resolve this issue and ensure that confidence and trustworthiness in the CDC and our national vaccination program is fully restored. I would ask that you work with me to ensure that a full, fair, and independent review is made of the VSD database to fully examine this matter. I would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to move this process forward.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on this urgent matter of great importance to our nation's most precious resource, our children.

Dave Weldon, M.D.
Member of Congress

Here is some correspondence Thinktwice! recently received from a research analyst who spent 7 years working for the CDC to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the chickenpox vaccine. This analyst quit in disgust when he found that his data proving serious problems with this vaccine was suppressed.

Q. Dear Editor, I have read with great interest various items on your website. First of all, please let me introduce myself. I have served as Research Analyst on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project, one of three sites supported by a grant from the CDC, for the past 7 years. I recently resigned from this position as I encountered deleterious effects of the varicella vaccine (including increasing incidence of Herpes Zoster among children with prior wild-type varicella experience) which appeared to be suppressed by my supervisors and the CDC; while all positive results were published.

I have three manuscripts that have much technical merit, however, like other manuscripts that support increased incidence of HZ among adults by Brisson et al and Thomas et al, the major U.S. journals (such as Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) will not consider them for publication. Do you have any recommendations on other journals, even European ones that might be more objective?

Is there an appropriate manner in which to have the manuscripts objectively peer-reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. Dr. Philip R. Krause, head research scientist of the Biologics Lab of the FDA, had done a preliminary review of one of my manuscripts and suggested there was indeed some merit to the hypotheses presented.

I have also, unbelievably found great manipulation of data by CDC suggesting "no increases in herpes zoster at this time." Yet, they utilized a study that had insufficient power and too small of a sample size to detect increases in incidence less than 400%.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide.

A. Dear ----, As you must know by now, it will be very difficult to have your papers accepted in mainstream medical journals. We would be interested in publishing your research online.

Q. Dear Editor, I have completed three manuscripts which were submitted to major U.S. journals and which were rejected. The reasons for rejection were just amazing. For example, I was told I needed additional years of data to show a trend. Interestingly, Dr. Hope Simpson's manuscript was published, including his figure on herpes zoster incidence based on 6 cases of herpes zoster encountered during 16 years in a town of 510 children in Cirencester, England. My study had 15 times greater the observation time of this study and was on par with most other studies of herpes zoster incidence.

Recognizing that the U.S. journals might not publish, I have currently submitted them to another prestigious peer-reviewed journal and the manuscripts are being reviewed at this time. I have just completed a 4th manuscript, Why herpes-zoster incidence among school age children is paradoxically high despite seven years of universal vaccination: Preliminary Data and Hypotheses. Should I receive a negative response regarding publication in the journals I would consider online publication that you kindly mention. Why did you seem so certain that major U.S. journals were not going to publish the paper?

[Furthermore,] I have worked at one of the three varicella active surveillance sites in the nation for the past 7 years. While all my positive results were published, the negative results appeared to be suppressed -- thus, due to ethical concerns I resigned as Research Analyst. I have specific, quantified details concerning, for example, the VAERS reporting [the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System jointly operated by the FDA and CDC] and how the published data of herpes zoster indicates 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses. The actual figure that was measured during active surveillance for herpes zoster during a two year period in a community of 320,000 residents was approximately 44 per 100,000 doses, thus, the VAERS rate represented only a little more than 5% of the true value.

I could provide many other details to you and am pursuing publication of 4 manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.

There is something with which you can help me. I recently wrote a manuscript entitled, Why herpes-zoster incidence among school age children is paradoxically high despite seven years of universal vaccination: Preliminary Data and Hypotheses. Would you have any experiences of school nurses and or other healthcare professionals who have actually noted and increase in the number of herpes-zoster (shingles) cases in recent years relative to the prelicensure era? Will be back in touch with you soon. I will check out the reference you have provided.

A. Dear ----, If you'd like, I'll send you a complimentary copy of our booklet on chickenpox. It includes a few case histories and other pertinent information on chickenpox and its vaccine. Tell me where to send it.

Major journals generally support vaccination programs. Therefore, they often reject papers that show vaccines in a poor light.

Q. You are so very right about publishers accepting research with a positive bias. All I was attempting to do is be very objective -- presenting both the postive aspects of vaccination (which were all published) along with the negative aspects (which were suppressed for one to two years). I am an objective researcher, neither for or against vaccination. I only report numbers and analyze data. I do this very well and attempt to make a balanced presentation based on solid facts with appropriate confidence intervals!

Thank you very much for sending the case histories concerning chickenpox and shingles (herpes zoster). I will keep you informed of additional details -- especially if my manuscripts are published.

Here is some correspondence Thinktwice! received from a high level employee working for the State Health Department. He read a secret CDC bulletin acknowledging that flu shots from 1993 to 1996 were "dirty." When he tried to get a copy of this Bulletin, his efforts were met with great resistance.

Q. My family has been in crisis mode for the better part of 5 1/2 years. My wife has been diagnosed as the worse Myasthenia Gravis patient in New Mexico -- besides one other man who tried to treat himself by overdosing on steroids after getting his diagnosis. [We believe the flu vaccine caused her condition.] Our situation is particularly complex, as my wife has been the state medical director for Children's Medical Services for over 17 years, and continues to try and hold onto her job by working at home a few hours a week. I work in the Office of Epidemiology for the state, and have a rather high level technology position. So you see, both of our jobs could be jeopardized immediately by political forces if confidentiality was breached. I was privy to a bulletin put out by the CDC around 1998, or 1999, stating that they had acknowledged that the flu shots from 1993 to 1996 were considered 'dirty'. When I went back to get a copy of this bulletin last year (so that my wife could take an early retirement), no one admitted to the existence of such document. Believe me, I have contacts all over the country, including Atlanta. I realize now that the ranking members of CSTE are privy to information that not even EIS Officers in Atlanta know about. We are looking for ways to get a copy of that bulletin, or any related documents, just so that my wife can retire...not for any other purpose. I look forward to hearing from you, and would like to get whatever information you can provide. Thanks.

A. Thanks for the brief explanation of your situation. Apparently you believe that your wife's condition resulted from a flu vaccine. I would be interested in hearing more of the details. I would also like to see that bulletin. If others in your field suspect that you and your wife blame vaccines for her condition, they will remain cautious around you and will not provide you with information. We publish a small booklet documenting hazards of the flu vaccine. I can send you a copy if you'd like. Please email me with a mailing address. Best wishes.

Sunday, December 14, 2014



Source Article by Heidi Stevenson
Tetanus Vaccine Causes a New Disease Known as Antiphospholipid Syndrome - See more at:

The vaccine junta is not only unconcerned with vaccine-induced diseases, it’s massively gearing up this vaccine arms race against the human race. It’s known that tetanus vaccine causes a new disease, antiphospholipid syndrome. New adjuvants are composed of phospholipids, a potential disaster.

The tetanus vaccine causes a new disease known both as Hughes syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). It’s an autoimmune condition that can attack any part of the body, though is best noted for heart attacks and killing fetuses. It’s likely that APS will become more common with the new generation of vaccine adjuvants now being produced.

The sufferers of (APS) are mostly women, and its diagnosis is often made as a result of multiple pregnancy losses. As is typical of new diseases, research is focused on finding a genetic cause, in spite of the fact that the connection with vaccines is well known and documented.

As the name implies, APS is a condition in which phospholipids, natural and necessary substances required by every part of the body, is seen as an infectious agent by the immune system. So, this substance that exists in every cell becomes subject to attack. Symptoms include:

Deep vein thrombosis (clots in veins)
Thrombocytopenia (deficiency of blood platelets, causing bleeding & bruising)
Pulmonary embolus (clots in the lungs)
Heart valve abnormatilies
Headaches & migraines
Neurological disorders:
Chorea (sudden uncontrollable jittery movements)
Transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord)
Multiple sclerosis
Cognitive dysfunction
Skin disorders, including mottling, ulcers, and necrosis

APS can also be diagnosed—more accurately, misdiagnosed—as lupus erythematosus, which is another vaccine-induced condition.
APS and Vaccines

One study calls Hughes syndrome the “classical antiphospholipid syndrome”[1]. That study refers to similarities between plasma protein beta-2-glycoprotein-I (β2GPI), which is attacked in APS, and the tetanus vaccine. That is, the tetanus antigen has parts that are virtually identical to β2GPI, which is found virtually everywhere in the body.

Another study documents how APS can be induced in laboratory animals with tetanus vaccination[2]. Many large number of other studies document and investigate the connection between vaccines and antiphospholipid syndrome[3,4,5,6,7,8].

These studies leave little doubt that APS is caused by vaccines. That should come as little surprise, since it was first identified as a disease during the 1980s. If this disease existed prior to vaccines, it was so rare that it was unknown. Now, it can take its place among a growing list of vaccine-induced conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, macrophagic myofasciitis, multiple sclerosis, autism, and siliconosis. The list keeps growing and many believe that all these conditions should be included under a single name, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, or ASIA.
Why New Generation Vaccines Are Especially Worrisome

Phospholipids are a primary part of your body, forming part of the membrane of every cell, among other functions. They’re under attack in APS. As can be seen with regard to tetanus vaccine, APS can be induced by the antigen when the epitope—the part of the antigen forming the pattern that autobodies are designed to attack—is similar to a particular part of the body.

What’s frightening is that phospholipids are becoming a primary ingredient of vaccines in the form of a new generation of adjuvants made via recombinant DNA by diddling with a part of pathogenic bacteria called outer membrane vesicles (OMVs). You can read more about them in New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?

OMVs allow for designer vaccine antigens and adjuvants. OMV adjuvants are, of course, being promoted as the safest ever developed. That safety claim is based on the fact that they’re so much like the body already. This is the same claim that’s been used to promote squalene, which, as we’ve recently seen with the tragic cases of narcolepsy in children after the squalene-laced flu vaccine, Pandemrix, was unleashed in Europe, can devastate lives. Gaia Health explained the issue in How the Flu Vaccine Causes Narcolepsy.

Squalene is a lipid. That’s what makes it so dangerous. OMVs are even more precisely analogous to human tissue, because they are not only lipids, they are phospholipids—which are precisely what the body attacks in APS. Therefore, we can anticipate that there will be ever-more cases of APS as we see the approval of ever-more OMV-based vaccines, which are in the pipeline now.

Have no doubt: these vaccines will be approved. The first one, Cervarix, is already out there—and it’s been deemed safe, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

People with APS are suffering from phospholipid antibodies that are erroneously destroying parts of the eye, cardiovascular system, brain, nerves, skin, reproductive system—in short, any part of the body. This self-destruction is induced by vaccine technologies. These technologies are presumed safe without adequate, if any, testing. Just how many people must suffer before this travesty is ended? When will the clearly mad purveyors of these technologies step back and question what they’re doing?

The fact is that there are not just one, but several generations of people who don’t even know what good health is. Worse, each successive generation is growing sicker than the previous one. And worst of all, the vaccine junta is not only unconcerned, it’s massively gearing up this vaccine arms race against the human race.


When APS (Hughes syndrome) met the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA)”, Lupus, M Blank, E Israeli, Y Shoenfeld, doi: 10.1177/0961203312438115.
Vaccine model of antiphospholipid syndrome induced by tetanus vaccine, Lupus, L Dimitrijević, I Živković, M Stojanović, V Petrušić, S Živančević-Simonović, doi: 10.1177/0961203311429816.
β2 glycoprotein 1 (β2GPI), the major target in anti phospholipid syndrome (APS), is a special human complement regulator, Blood, Katharina Gropp, Nadia Weber, Michael Reuter, Sven Micklisch, Isabell Kopka, Teresia Hallström and Christine Skerka, doi:10.1182/blood-2011-02-339564.
Anti-β2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) autoantibodies recognize an epitope on the first domain of β2GPI, PNAS, G. Michael Iverson, Edward J. Victoria, and David M. Marquis.
Anti-phospholipid antibodies following vaccination with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, Clinical and Experimental Immunology, J Martinuč Porobič, T Avčin, B Božič, M Kuhar, S Čučnik, M Zupančič, K Prosenc, T Kveder, and B Rozman, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2005.02923.x
Immunomodulatory and physical effects of phospholipid composition in vaccine adjuvant emulsions.
‘ASIA’ – autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
Infections and vaccines in the etiology of antiphospholipid syndrome.
Hughes Syndrome Foundation
Antiphospholipid syndrome
Learning About Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS)
The antiphospholipid syndrome (Hughes’ syndrome)
APS Foundation of America

Vaccines cause autoimmune disorders!

Read the full article here:



Explores the Violence of Modern Medicine
and the Abuse of Mothers and Babies During Hospital Birth

Dear Friends — I am pleased to announce the completion of my first book in which I share my own personal story of severe birth trauma and a multitude of information about the dark side of hospital birth. This book exposes the violence of modern medicine, especially as it pertains to the ritual abuse of mothers and infants during technologically managed pregnancy and childbirth. It covers a wide array of topics including ultrasound, birth rape, induction, pitocin, cesarean section, neonatal intensive care units, circumcision, and more. There is also pertinent information concerning prenatal trauma and the impact it has on our psyches and lives. The book is an intense read, but the revelations presented in the book are so important that I hope many people will read it.

I want to let you all know that there is a pre-publication PDF version available right now for about half the price of the published version. If you’d like to read the book now, getting the PDF version might be a good option. You can get the PDF by ordering here...

FYI – I am working furiously to get the paperback edition of the book released before Christmas and will keep you informed as things progress. So far, I’ve gotten some really positive feedback about the book. Here’s what some people are saying:

I just read your book in a single reading. I couldn’t stop reading it. Wow. This is very powerful…. I’m familiar with much of what you’re explaining about medical abuse, but the way you put it together is so clear. I like the way that in telling your own story you’re telling the story of what has happened to our entire culture. I hope this book reaches a lot of people. I’m going to read it again in a few days. I need to process some of my own feelings about this first. I think a lot of people are going to be very moved and impressed by what you’ve done with this book. Congratulations.
— Kerth Barker, Author of “Angelic Defenders and Demonic Abusers”

WOW WOW WOW I just finished reading your book I could not stop reading your book. I read it in about two hours. This is an excellent book about birth trauma and it opens one’s eyes to the medical field and how some doctors, nurses, midwifes really do not care… The imagery is incredible the poem is well written – more so because it is from your heart and your pain. I love the way you had a few pages before your book started of what you can do to make yourself feel better… I just love the layout of the book — Mixing in stories with your take on it… As a volunteer of the Postpartum Resource Center I have read several books on PPD and a mom’s journey thru it. And there are also many medical books explaining it. But I can honestly say yours is a different kind.
— Geri O’Keefe, Author of “The Stork’s Revenge: My Struggles and Triumphs over postpartum depression”

I have no words. Such a powerfull book.. Wow. Wow. I know the cruelty of the birthing machine very well but you gave words to it in a wonderful way. It will open the eyes of many. Thank you for being you, for bringing this into the world, so so needed and necessary. Thank you for all the effort you put in this work, and helping women, men and babies to create a different world.
— Eugenie van Ruitenbeek, Author or “Raising Children in an Insane World”

This book will have you clutching your own body as you recognize and understand how you have come to be. The author, having gone through the fire herself, has given us this tremendous visionary’s gift. As a friend of mine said, ‘Jeanice Barcelo has got to be one of the most perceptive people on the planet.’ Jeanice lays out amazing, ground-breaking information, along with her own personal story — an absolute MUST READ!
— Sofia Smallstorm, Creator of “Unraveling Sandy Hook” and “From Chemtrails to Psuedo-Life: The Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology

Pre-publication PDF Version Available Now

To purchase the PDF version for the low price of $8.99, simply click on the following link. Your book will be sent to the email address you use to make the purchase.

Saturday, December 13, 2014


Photo Credit:

Source Article:
9 Surprising Facts About the Cord Around A Baby's Neck

A nuchal cord (cord around the neck) is one of many things that mothers-to-be fear about childbirth. The thought of their precious baby being ‘strangled’ by their umbilical cord can cause so much worry.

Luckily, unborn babies get nutrients and oxygen via the umbilical cord, not by breathing it in through their nose and mouth, which may eliminate some fear right there. They don’t need their neck to breathe.

This is one of the many reasons why it’s important to leave a baby’s umbilical cord intact (uncut) for at least 2 minutes after the birth, because it’s the life support system for the baby until his head is born. It’s the very same reason why babies don’t drown during a water birth, because they have an oxygen supply already attached, and don’t take their first breath until they are stimulated by air. You can read more about why it’s important to delay cord clamping here.

Here are some interesting facts about nuchal cords that every mother-to-be and father-to-be must know before they give birth…

1. Up To One Third Of Babies Are Born With The Umbilical Cord Around The Neck

It’s common to hear stories of babies being born with the cord wrapped around their neck – and the reason for that is because it’s quite common! Some doctors and midwives don’t even mention it during childbirth, because they tend to loop the cord over the baby’s head when he or she is crowning, and it’s no big deal. Ideally the cord should be left alone during the birth to prevent further compression or complications.

Studies report figures of up to one third of babies being born with a cord around their neck – thats 1 in 3 babies, which is the same number of babies born by caesarean section in Australia and the United States. Hardly a rare event.

Cords come in a range of lengths, and in this study, cord length ranged from 19 to 133 centimetres. However, the average umbilical cord length is around 50-60 centimetres long.

The above study stated: “In this study, the long umbilical cords seemed to be associated with the increased rate of multiple nuchal cords and true umbilical knots…however long umbilical cords did not contribute to adverse perinatal outcomes by themselves. In theory, fetal movement produces a tension on the cord that creates ample free length for delivery plus the length of the wrapped cord. Although an entangled cord may be at risk for intermittent or partial occlusion [blockage] of umbilical blood flow as previously reported, the excessively long cord may have self-protective effects to protect the fetuses from the risk of decreasing umbilical blood flow.”

"All 3 of my babies had the cord wrapped around their necks even wrapped twice around 2 of them"
— Jessica, BellyBelly Fan

So with a longer cord, some babies just like to play skippy in their mother’s uterus.

2. A Healthy Umbilical Cord Is Protected By A Slippery, Soft Coating

The human body is ever surprising with its clever design, which has been built to ensure our survival as a species. Even the umbilical cord has it’s party tricks!

A normal, healthy umbilical cord is and thickly coated in Wharton’s jelly, a soft, gelatinous substance which protects the blood vessels inside the cord. This substance makes the cord slippery, protecting the cord against compression as a result of the baby’s normal movements.

If a medical condition was impacting on the amount of Wharton’s jelly around the cord, then perhaps this may cause complications. However, the umbilical cord is carefully designed for uterine life.

“My first baby had the cord around her neck, her waist and her ankle. The midwife didn’t remember the last time she saw a cord that long!” — Anna, BellyBelly Fan

3. A Nuchal Cord Does Not Get Tighter As Labour Progresses

In her fantastic article Nuchal Cords: The Perfect Scapegoat, midwife and lecturer Rachel Reed explains:

“The baby is not ‘held up’ by the cord because the whole package – fundus (top of the uterus), placenta and cord are all moving down together. The uterus ‘shrinks’ down (contracts) moving the baby downwards, along with their attached placenta and cord. It is not until the baby’s head moves into the vagina, that a few extra centimetres of additional length are required. However, when a c-section is done for ‘fetal distress’ or ‘lack of progress’ during labour, the presence of a nuchal cord is often used as the reason… “ah ha, look – your baby was stressed because the cord was around his neck” or “…the cord was stopping her from moving down”. The cord is unlikely to have had anything to do with the stress or lack of progress.”

Some women say that their baby’s heart rate was dropping when they were pushing. Studies have proven that this is normal behaviour for a baby experiencing pressure around the head.

One study concluded:

“There was a very high incidence of abnormal FHR [fetal heart rate] during the second stage of labor, however, the most cases were response to parasympathetic stimulation due to umbilical cord or fetal head compression by mothers over push and descent of fetal head, or temporal diminishing of uterine placenta blood flow. It suggests that it is unnecessary to interfere immediately, unless truly fetal distress.”

Giving birth in an upright position can help – being on your back can make it worse (and more painful).

“3 of my 4 babies had cord around their neck, no problems. My last 3 had delayed cord clamping too.” — Jessica, BellyBelly Fan

4. A Cord Around The Neck Is Not Associated With Adverse Outcomes

This may be hard to believe or hear, especially if you’ve lost a baby and his or her cord happened to be wrapped around the neck. Understandably you want answers. However, several studies have reported that a cord around the neck is unlikely to be the main cause for adverse outcomes.

This study concluded:

“Nuchal cord is not associated with adverse perinatal outcome. Thus, labor induction in such cases is probably unnecessary.”

Another study came to the same conclusion.

The cord may be around the baby’s neck (which is very common as stated above) but many other issues can cause adverse outcomes which may be unknown at the time, making it very easy to blame the cord around the neck. Stillbirth is still an area of much research, and even doctors and researchers themselves can’t be certain what causes all cases.

5. Even With A ‘Tight’ Nuchal Cord, There Isn’t An Increased Risk Of Cord Accidents

Even a tight nuchal cord isn’t uncommon. A recent study found a tight nuchal cord occurred in 6.6% of over 200,000 consecutive live births, where they classed ‘tight’ as being unable to manually unloop the cord over the baby’s head.

In their findings, they state:

“Those with a tight nuchal cord were not more likely to have dopamine administered or blood hemoglobin measured on the first day, nor were they more likely to receive a transfusion or to die.”

“My baby boy has it wrapped around his neck 2 times. I freaked at first when my dr told us but I fed off his calmness which helped me settle down. Figured if he wasn’t panicked I shouldn’t be.” — Robin, BellyBelly Fan

6. Nuchal Cords Are Not An Indication For A Caesarean Section

The College Of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom advise that there is no reason to perform a caesarean section due to a nuchal cord.

They state, “No studies were identified of the effectiveness of caesarean section in the presence of umbilical cord around the fetal neck.”

Rachel Reed agrees there is no reason to perform a caesarean section ‘just in case’ due to a nuchal cord. “They very rarely cause a problem. Why not wait and do a c-section if/when a problem occurs? If you really want to avoid complications relating to cords then don’t rupture the membranes as this to avoid cord compression – a much greater risk than a nuchal cord. Incidentally when the cord is around the neck it is often protected from compression.”

“My first baby had her cord around her neck, it must have been around it for quite some time as I had to have an extra scan at 32 weeks because they couldn’t get a clear view of her left hand. She was born with her hand wrapped up in the cord too. Protecting herself before she was even born!” — Shauna, BellyBelly Fan
h3. 7. Nuchal Cord Accidents Are Very Low

Sadly, in a very small percent of births, cord accidents do happen – and they are not all due to the cord simply being around a baby’s neck.

According to a recent report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1 out of every 135 (0.74%) babies born in Australia is stillborn. In the United Staes it is 1 in 160 births. While the classification of a stillbirth varies around the world, in Australia, a ‘stillbirth’ is classed as ‘the birth of a baby who shows no signs of life, after a pregnancy of at least 20 weeks gestation or weighing 400g or more’.

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that placental issues (for example placental abruption) were the leading cause of stillbirth at 26%, which was similar to a study in Sweden. A further 14-19% of stillbirths were due to infection. As for cord abnormalities, 10% were due to (or assumed to be due to, as doctors don’t always know why stillbirth occurs) cord problems. The range of cord problems included vasa previa, cord entrapment, evidence of occlusion [blocked], fetal hypoxia and prolapse. They stated:

“Nuchal cord alone was not considered a cause of death. This important cause of stillbirth has been somewhat overlooked in prior studies because of the difficulty in differentiating between harmless nuchal cords and cord conditions associated with pathophysiology leading to stillbirth.”

When you do the maths, the likelihood of a genuine cord accident due to being wrapped around the baby’s neck is very small – and in fact may not even be the underlying problem at all.

“My son had the cord wrapped around his neck when he was born at home in water september 2013. No big deal and i unwrapped it myself! I was also wrapped at birth and so were my brothers. It’s normal” — Guðrún, BellyBelly Fan

8. Even Multiple Loops Aren’t More Harmful

The number of loops is not important, remembering from above that the uterus, placenta and cord all move down with the baby during labour.

Rachel Reed says: “… as long as the cord is long enough to get the baby’s head out (i.e. the length of the vagina – which is not long when stretched into a baby’s head shape) then the rest of the baby can come out. It is extremely rare – but possible – that the cord is too short to allow descent of the baby. Then you would get a lack of progress and eventual fetal distress… often these babies get into a breech position before labour.”

A study found that the number of nuchal loops varied from 1 to 4, and the presence of 2 or more loops of cord around the neck was reported to affect between 2.5% to 8.3% of all pregnancies. They stated “0.1% of babies have 4 or more loops of nuchal cords and the maximum reported number was 9”. The study also mentioned that most babies in the study had Apgar scores of 7-10 (where 10 is the best score) after one minute, and only eight babies had an Apgar score of less than 7 after five minutes (5.20%), suggesting that any possible effect is only transient."

“My baby had his cord around his neck and under his arm. Absolutely no complications and it wasn’t scary for us. It can be okay!” — Ashley, BellyBelly Fan

9. It’s Usually Another Intervention Which Causes Fetal Distress… Then The Caesarean

Inductions of labour, especially with synthetic oxytocin (syntocinon in Australia or pitocin in the US) can cause fetal distress. Once you’re hooked up to the drip, it will remain on until you give birth. The majority of mothers accept an epidural (or other pain relief) after an induction of labour with this method of induction, because it can make the uterus work very hard – it doesn’t act like natural labour contractions. In this time, the mother-to-be can’t feel a thing and has no idea what’s going on inside of her. The blood and oxygen supply become compressed (even moreso because the mother is now immobilised, flat on her back) which eventually can cause the baby to become distressed… requiring an emergency caesarean. However, if there happens to be a cord around the neck, this may be used as the reason for the caesarean.

Take a look at the clip below from the MUST WATCH documentary, The Business of Being Born. It explains how an induction with pitocin/syntocinon can result in fetal distress and caesarean section.

Pitocin clip-Business of Being Born

How To Reduce Your Risk Of A Stressful Situation At Birth

The best things you can do if you want to avoid extra stress and complications (for example fetal distress) when your baby is being born, is to avoid inductions of labour and being on your back during labour and birth (which is inevitable if you have an epidural, and common if you have an induction with synthetic oxytocin).

Also, if you have an epidural, you’ll be stuck in bed and can’t move your body, so your baby doesn’t have help to move down into the most optimal position. This may result in difficulties being born, requiring forceps or vacuum, or worst case, caesarean section. Getting informed with good information, and not just what you hear from friends or family, is crucial to set yourself up for the best outcome. We research our major purchases before we buy them; we need to research major life events which we’ll never forget too. Having a doula can reduce the incidence of many interventions.

Read our articles about the risks of induction of labour, the risks of epidurals and the benefits of doulas.

Remember: Sometimes, Doctors and Midwives Just Don’t Know

It may be the last thing that you want to hear (and the last thing that care providers want to say) but sometimes doctors just don’t know why complications have occurred. It can be especially hard when it looks to be as obvious as a cord around the neck, and parents are understandably emotional and desperate for answers.

Conception is a magical, mysterious thing. It’s complicated yet simple at the same time – and the same goes with birth. All we can do is trust the process. While life sometimes throws some distressing events our way where things just don’t work out as we hoped and dreamed, sometimes there is no-one or nothing to blame. But don’t let that get you down, because Mother Nature works beautifully the vast majority of the time – the population of the planet is proof of that.

A cord around the neck is not to be feared.

The Unassisted Hospital Birth of Clay

Watch as this mom gently unwraps the umbilical cord from around her baby's neck. Note: It was wrapped around the baby's neck FIVE TIMES and the baby was perfectly OK.


Source Article:
Doubt They're Evil? About The Umbilical Cord, and The Profitable Procedure For Premature Deliveries

"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the cord ceases. As otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to have been in the child."
-- Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia, 1801

The modern hospitalized birthing process usually goes something like this in the U.S.. The mother gives birth to a child, while being thoroughly drugged, and the child's umbilical cord is immediately clamped. Soon after; male children are circumsized (usually without any pain killers) and then given a round of vaccines on his first day of birth. This is the modern version of birthing.

There was a time when the umbilical cord was not cut until the cord stopped pulsating. This would take somewhere between 2 and 20 minutes. Nowadays, that practice has been abandoned, but it is not due to health considerations. Early cord clamping provides no known medical benefits to either the child or the mother. With most deliveries, the cord blood is taken to be sold, because it contains valuable stem cells, including hematopoietic cells. These are sold for scientific research. Before this highly lucrative market developed, the blood was allowed to travel to the infant to help him become stronger. Instead, it is now stolen from him by the hospital staff. This practice has become such a standard procedure that whenever the blood is not to be saved, it is just thrown away.

Early cord clamping restricts blood that was intended for the infant. There is usually about a cup of blood transferred through the umbilical cord to the infant at birth. A huge number of studies show that early cord clamping is a dangerous procedure, which weakens a newborn, and can eventually lead to brain and lung problems (if not immediately). If the umbilical cord is attached, and the infant is receiving the highly-oxygenated blood, then there is not an urgency to immediately get the infant breathing. The oxygen from the blood will ensure the survival of the infant.

Waiting for the cord to stop pulsating has become unusual in American hospitals. Although, there was a time when an infant would have breathed well, and his skin color would have become normal before his cord was clamped. An infant will naturally begin breathing without any assistance or encouragement if the cord is not immediately clamped. However, the cord is now clamped long before the infant takes his first breath; producing obvious problems that stem from cutting off his oxygen supply.

Just Sign This Form

Parents usually have no clue that the blood of their child is being taken for research, and this is not accidental. Parents usually sign the fine print allowing their hospital to "dispose" of the cord blood and placenta, which is actually saved, and then sold to the highest bidder. Late cord clamping does not go well with the profit agenda. Ironically, the aim of the research is often to find cures for disorders which are caused by this early cord clamping. In other words, should we hurt John to help Luke? We can be sure that early cord clamping is, in some cases, creating future life-long 'customers' of the medical establishment, but this seems to be the normal pattern with allopathic medicine. Since the cord blood can contain one quarter of the total blood volume of an infant, the loss is a huge blow to his immune system.

Known problems with early cord clamping

Brain lesions
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (S.I.D.S)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome (R.D.S)

Premature Deliveries: Here's Where It Really Gets Evil

The cord blood of pre-term infants contains more stem cells than normal infants, and interestingly; early cord clamping is particularly promoted for these infants by the medical establishment, due to its higher market value. The welfare of the child is not even considered. For the hospital, this blood is a premium sales item because it contains more nutrients and stem cells than are normal. These are desperately needed by the weaker infants. This need is ignored, and the cord blood is literally stolen from the sickly child (by his own doctors -- no less), and then sold for maximum profit. There is no doubt that this cord blood would result in much healthier premature newborns.

The great majority of people believe that there is no harm in delayed cord clamping, so would it not be wise to leave it attached until it stops pulsating? Sometimes, the cord is clamped immediately for the convenience of the doctor, who desires to get in and out of the delivery room as quickly as possible, and back into his golf game. Doctors do have priorities, after all. Spending an extra 20 minutes in the delivery room would likewise make the customers less profitable for the hospital.


When we combine this sort of "health care" with the onslaught to the immune system by dozens of completely unnecessary and unsafe vaccinations, then it is a wonder that most American babies survive. In fact, the U.S. is ranked 33rd in infant survival, according to the United Nations; meaning that there are 33 countries with less infant fatalities by percentage of births. America with its supposed "best in the world medicine", is in actuality, outdone by such nations as New Caledonia and Brunei. It's beyond sad. The delusional mythology behind it all is almost as pitiful. The topic of vaccinations has been covered throughout this website, and there is no need for more elaboration.

Friday, December 12, 2014


Source Article by Dr. Mercola
Worst Endocrine Disruptors Revealed, and They Could Be Raising Your Family’s Cancer Risk

Common household goods, personal care products, and even food and water, are major sources of chemical exposure that can lead to an accumulation of toxins in your body. For obvious reasons, children are at greatest risk for adverse effects.

Many common household chemicals are known as endocrine disruptors, a number of which are found in plastic products. These chemicals are similar in structure to natural sex hormones such as estrogen, thereby interfering with their normal functions.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently published a list of the 12 worst hormone-disrupting chemicals you may be coming into contact with on a regular basis. As stated in their report:1

"There is no end to the tricks that endocrine disruptors can play on our bodies: increasing production of certain hormones; decreasing production of others; imitating hormones; turning one hormone into another; interfering with hormone signaling; telling cells to die prematurely; competing with essential nutrients; binding to essential hormones; accumulating in organs that produce hormones."

The 12 Worst Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals

The EWG report includes many of the most well-known hormone wreckers, but also contains some that may surprise you, such as lead, mercury and arsenic. While these are known for other harmful health effects, hormone disruption is not typically discussed in relation to them.

In all, the EWG's "dirty dozen" list for the 12 worst endocrine disruptors are the following.2 I've written about many of these in prior articles, so for more information about any particular one, please follow the links provided.

Bisphenol-A (BPA)
Fire retardants
Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)
Organophosphate pesticides
Glycol ethers

Landmark Report Links Common Household Chemicals to Human Disease

Earlier this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced3 a new report co-produced with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), titled: "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals." The report suggests that outright banning endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) may actually be needed to protect the health of future generations...

The joint study has been touted as the most comprehensive report on endocrine disrupting chemicals to date, and it too flags several of the most common culprits, including Bisphenol-A (BPA), PCBs, phthalates and agricultural pesticides. According to the report, a wide variety of health problems are associated with exposure to these pervasive chemicals, including:

Non-descended testes in young males
Developmental effects on the nervous system in children
Prostate cancer in men
Developmental effects on the nervous system in children
Attention deficit hyperactivity in children
Thyroid cancer

According to the report:

"The diverse systems affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals likely include all hormonal systems and range from those controlling development and function of reproductive organs to the tissues and organs regulating metabolism and satiety.

Effects on these systems can lead to obesity, infertility or reduced fertility, learning and memory difficulties, adult-onset diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as well as a variety of other diseases."

Are Personal Care Products Driving Up Breast Cancer Rates in Younger Women?

The connection between endocrine disrupting chemicals and cancer is of particular concern, especially when it comes to children, whose exposure to these chemicals from a young age may predispose them to cancer at increasingly earlier ages. This is precisely what we're seeing, as record numbers of women under the age of 50 are now being diagnosed with breast cancer. Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general and plastic surgeon specializing in breast reconstructive surgery due to mastectomy, has also discussed how her patients kept getting increasingly younger... Could exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals be to blame?

A study published last year suggests that parabens from antiperspirants and other cosmetics indeed appear to increase your risk of breast cancer.4 The research, which was also reviewed in an editorial published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, looked at where breast tumors were appearing, and determined that higher concentrations of parabens were found in the upper quadrants of the breast and axillary area, where antiperspirants are usually applied.5

Quite shockingly, the paraben residues were found at concentrations up to 1 million times higher than the estrogen (estradiol) levels naturally found in human breast tissue! Clearly these chemicals are accumulating at alarmingly high concentrations, likely because of their widespread and persistent daily use. Previous research has shown that women absorb an estimated five pounds of chemicals a year from their daily makeup routine alone.

While parabens are not included on the EWG's list of the worst endocrine disrupters out there, there's plenty of evidence showing that parabens—which are some of the most widely used chemicals in personal care products—can wreak havoc on your health. Parabens inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, and are used as preservatives in countless consumer products, including:

Deodorants and antiperspirants
Shampoos and conditioners
Shaving gel
Lotions and sunscreens
Make-up / cosmetics
Pharmaceutical drugs
Food additives

Hormone Levels May Predict Your Breast Cancer Risk

In related news, preliminary research suggests that hormone levels might in fact serve as useful markers to help predict a woman's risk for developing breast cancer.6 According to the study's author, postmenopausal women with high levels of estrogen, androgen and prolactin are at increased risk of invasive breast cancer.

A woman's hormone levels are currently not included in conventional cancer risk prediction models. The author of the study suggests that checking the levels of estrone sulfate, testosterone and prolactin "may provide the biggest improvement in risk prediction for breast cancer." While the research is still considered preliminary, and more studies need to be done to ascertain the accuracy of this theory, the finding is "quite logical" according to Dr. Myra Barginear, a breast medical oncologist in New York State, who said:

"If the study's findings are validated and confirmed, a simple blood test to evaluate hormone levels, as the Investigators did in the study, would be a very useful, additional tool to evaluate a woman's risk of developing breast cancer."

Simplify Your Life and Reduce Your Toxic Burden

In 2004, a six-month study was done about personal care product use. More than 10,000 body care product ingredients were evaluated, involving 2,300 participants. One of the findings was that the average adult uses nine personal care products each day, containing 126 different chemicals. The study also found that more than 250,000 women, and one out of every 100 men, use an average of 15 products daily.

Does this sound like someone you know? It's important to remember that your skin is your largest, and most permeable organ. Just about anything you put on your skin will end up in your bloodstream and distributed throughout your body. Once these chemicals find their way into your body, they tend to accumulate over time because you typically lack the necessary enzymes to break them down. This is why I'm so fond of saying "don't put anything on your body that you wouldn't eat if you had to."

If you insist on buying commercial products, you've got a little bit of work cut out for you in terms of researching the ingredients. Still, it can be done. I recommend using the EWG's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database7 to research the potential toxicity of ingredients. Products bearing the USDA 100% Organic seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients. Beware that products boasting "all-natural" labels can still contain harmful chemicals, so be sure to check the full list of ingredients.

Another alternative—and perhaps both the safest and easiest one—is to make your own personal care and household cleaning products. Coconut oil, for example, is a multipurpose powerhouse that can be safely used on your body from head to toe. When absorbed into your skin, coconut oil helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by helping to keep your connective tissues strong and supple. It also helps exfoliate the outer layer of dead skin cells, making your skin smoother. Coconut oil is also great for nurturing and conditioning your hair, and many rave about the oil's ability to prevent "the frizzies" in humid weather.

Baking soda is another inexpensive basic that can replace multiple products.8 You can use it in lieu of shampoo9, face and body scrub, and toothpaste, for example. It's also a natural odor neutralizer, so rubbing a pinch of it into your armpit may be all you need to replace your toxic antiperspirant.

As for household cleaning products, tried and true items such as liquid castile soap, hydrogen peroxide, white vinegar, baking soda, and lemon juice can get the job done just as well -- sometimes even better -- than their commercial counterparts. To learn more, please see my previous article on this topic. You can also search EWG's Healthy Cleaning Guide10 for safety ratings on more than 2,000 different cleaning products.

More Tips to Help You Avoid Toxic Chemicals

Implementing the following measures—many of which are included in the EWG's recommendations for avoiding the worst endocrine-disrupting culprit11—can also help you protect yourself and your children from toxins from a wide variety of sources.

1. As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic meats to reduce your exposure to added hormones, pesticides and fertilizers. Also avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST).

2. Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity. Wild caught Alaskan salmon is about the only fish I eat for these reasons.

3. Buy products that come in glass bottles rather than plastic or canned, since chemicals can leach out of plastics and into the contents. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a serious concern; make sure plastic containers and canned goods are BPA-free.

4. Also store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.

5. Use glass baby bottles and BPA-free sippy cups for your little ones.

6. Eat mostly raw, fresh foods. Processed, prepackaged foods (of all kinds) are a common source of chemicals such as BPA and phthalates.

7. Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.

8. Filter your tap water—both for drinking and bathing. In fact, if you can only afford to do one, filtering your bathing water may be more important, as your skin absorbs contaminants. To remove the endocrine disrupting herbicide Atrazine, make sure the filter is certified to remove it. According to the EWG, perchlorate can be filtered out using a reverse osmosis filter.

9. Look for products that are made by companies that are Earth-friendly, animal-friendly, green, non-toxic and/or 100% organic. This applies to everything from food and personal care products to building materials, carpeting, paint, baby items, upholstery and more.

10. Use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to remove contaminated house dust.

11. When buying new products such as furniture, mattresses, or carpet padding, ask what type of fire retardant it contains. Be mindful of and/or avoid items containing PBDEs, antimony, formaldehyde, boric acid, and other brominated chemicals. As you replace these toxic items around your home, select those that contain naturally less flammable materials, such as leather, wool and cotton.

12. Avoid stain- and water-resistant clothing, furniture and carpets to avoid perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).

13. Make sure your baby's toys are BPA-free, such as pacifiers, teething rings and anything your child may be prone to suck on.

14. Only use natural cleaning products in your home, or make your own. Avoid products that contain 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) and methoxydiglycol (DEGME)—two toxic glycol ethers that can damage fertility and cause fetal harm.12

15. Switch over to organic brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. Remember, you can replace many different products with coconut oil and baking soda, for example. The Environmental Working Group has a great database13 to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals. I also offer one of the highest quality organic skin care lines, shampoo and conditioner, and body butter that are completely natural and safe.

16. Replace feminine hygiene products like tampons and sanitary pads with safer alternatives.

17. Avoid artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.

18. Look for products that are fragrance-free. One artificial fragrance can contain hundreds -- even thousands -- of potentially toxic chemicals.

19. Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.


This is just out of control. These monsters need to be executed. Seriously. What kind of entity steals newborn babies from their mothers and then tortures them? Sick fucks.

Source Article:
CPS Takes 1 Day Old Baby from Mom Because She Left the Hospital “Too Early”


Tiffany Langwell was thrilled to find out she was pregnant again at the age of 38. She had two children from her first marriage — a 15-year-old girl and a 9-year-old boy. After separating from their father, she had reconnected with a high school boyfriend, David Hodek, and they had gotten engaged. In August of this year, their baby girl was born healthy, at 8 pounds, with bright blue eyes and a full head of downy hair. Langwell and Hodek had what they describe as a blissful first night home.

The next day, a representative of the child welfare agency in Riverside County, California, took the infant into protective custody.

Langwell had been having contractions for two days when she told her fiancé at 11:30 p.m. that it was time to head to Desert Regional Medical Center, which she’d chosen because it allowed rooming-in and she didn’t want the baby to leave her side. Once there, she asked for an epidural, but by the time everything was in place for her to receive one, it was too late. She delivered the baby naturally at 2:34 a.m., and around noon was put in a room with two other new mothers and their babies, including one who Langwell says kept talking loudly on her cellphone.

Later that afternoon, Langwell decided to check out and go home. Langwell said the baby was breastfeeding well and was healthy, and she preferred to take her home early “AMA” (against medical advice) so they could all get some sleep. When she left, a member of the hospital’s staff called and reported her to the county’s child welfare agency.

According to the child welfare agency’s report, a hospital staff member described Langwell as “hostile” and suggested that her behavior was “consistent with someone with substance abuse issues.” (According to a representative from the county’s child welfare department, the majority of the cases they see are neglect cases, and most of those are related to substance abuse.) The staff member said the couple and Hodek’s mother seemed shaky and had rapid jaw movement, and that Langwell put two pill bottles in her bag. Langwell says the only pills she had in her bag were her iron supplements. She says she was severely sleep-deprived from her two days in labor and upset that she never got her epidural, and that her fiancé and his mother can be abrasive and were also exhausted, but beyond that, she doesn’t know what about the trio’s behavior could have sent up a red flag. “I never cussed anyone out or anything,” she says.

The report notes that Langwell refused a drug test. Langwell remembers being offered a drug test while in labor and says her response was, “How much does the test cost?” Langwell, a former bank teller, has been unemployed since January, and her fiancé, a former medic and water-park manager, is also unemployed. He says he was injured on the job some years ago and received a settlement.

A child welfare agent came to the house the next day to check on the baby. The home had a security fence, and Langwell and Hodek did not hear the knocking at the gate, which was some distance from the front of the house. The agent called the police. When Langwell eventually appeared at the security gate, she saw two police officers and the welfare agent, who told her that the hospital had alerted the agency when she checked out early. Langwell refused to let the police and welfare agent inside the house but brought the baby out so they could see that she was OK. The agent noted in her report that the baby had good coloring. Langwell submitted to an on-the-spot drug test, but according to the report, the test was inconclusive, because her saliva sample was too thick ­— “which may have had something to do with the fact that I had just given birth and it was 110 degrees,” Langwell says bitterly.

The agent returned later that day with a warrant to take the baby — just to the hospital for a full exam, Langwell and Hodek initially thought. Langwell insisted on riding along in the car with the baby. Hodek and his mother followed behind. Hodek says hospital workers then attempted to catheterize the baby to procure a urine sample for a drug test. “I’ve worked as a medic and seen a lot of terrible things, but this I can hardly even talk about,” Hodek says. “They tried eight times to catheterize my one-day-old baby.” Hodek’s mother covered her own head with a blanket to try to block out the baby’s screaming. The hospital couldn’t comment on particulars of Langwell’s case, but according to the welfare report, “The hospital was unable to secure a urine sample from the infant.”

Langwell and Hodek thought at that point that the baby was coming home with them, but the caseworker said the baby was being placed into protective foster care. Langwell, who now understood they thought she was on drugs, says she fell to her knees in the hospital. “Drug test me right now!” she said. “I can prove I’m not on drugs!

Langwell describes the seven days that followed as the worst of her life. “They took my baby from me. I sat there for a week and just cried,” she says. “Some days I didn’t get dressed. I didn’t eat. I made myself eat one meal a day to keep up my strength and to keep my milk supply up.”

Read the full story here.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014


This video is beautiful! Please watch!

How Whales Change Climate


Source Article by Kevin Barrett:
Childkilling Sociopaths of Israel

Note: The original link to this article has been suspiciously. I was able to retrieve the content in full through

What is wrong with Israelis?

Every time Israel embarks on a new round of wholesale slaughter in Gaza, polls show that more than 90% of Israelis support the butchery.

For Israelis, mass-murdering children is a spectator sport. When the IDF starts dropping cluster bombs, white phosphorous, DIME munitions and other horrendous weapons on Gaza, crowds of Israelis pack the hilltops to barbecue meat, drink alcohol and cheer as they watch Palestinian children being blown to bits.

Every day in Israel’s major cities, mobs of Israelis gather to hunt down and brutalize Arab children and teenagers. Police stand by as they beat their victims into unconsciousness. According to Israeli blogger Elizabeth Tsurkov, the mobs’ favorite chant is: “Tomorrow there’s no school in Gaza, they don’t have any children left.”

Israelis proudly tweet their desire to murder children: “Kill Arab children so there won’t be a next generation,” “Stinking Arabs may you die, amen,” and “Arabs may you be paralyzed and die with great suffering” are some representative tweets exposed by Israeli journalist David Sheen.

Israeli parliamentarian Ayelet Shaked has announced that she wants to kill not only Palestinian children, whom she calls “little snakes,” but also the Palestinian mothers who raise them. Recently Shaked openly called for the genocidal murder of every Palestinian. Instead of being sent to the Hague, prosecuted, ejected from government, or even rebuked, she was lionized by Israeli society.

Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel “Butcher of Sabra and Shatila” Sharon, agrees with Shaked. In an op-ed published in the Jerusalem Post, Sharon advocated using nuclear weapons to exterminate the Palestinians. He wrote that Israel needs to “flatten all of Gaza,” adding that “The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.”

While they enjoy slaughtering children and their mothers, Israelis take special relish in killing pregnant women. A T-shirt popular in the Israeli army shows a pregnant woman with a target on her belly. The legend reads: “One shot two kills.”

Killing children is the de facto official policy of the Israeli military. In his article “Gaza Diary,” Chris Hedges wrote about watching Israeli soldiers hunt Palestinian children for sport:

“Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

An October 2004 study by British Medical Journal confirmed that this is a common practice, and never punished: “Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest – the sniper’s wound…Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat.”

During its onslaught on Gaza, Israel has been systematically slaughtering children in schools, emergency shelters, and even as they play soccer on the beach. Under the headline “Israel’s offensive in Gaza has ‘killed more children than fighters,’” The London, UK Telegraph reported that Israel is "waging war on children.”

Again I ask: What is wrong with Israelis? What has produced this nation of demonic child-killing monsters?

In his book Goliath, Max Blumenthal – a young Jewish American from an influential family – lays bare Israel’s genocidal mentality. Blumenthal discusses the wildly popular Israeli best-seller Torat Ha’Melech, which advocates the wholesale murder of non-Jews.

Torat Ha’Melech is not a marginalized radical screed; on the contrary, it is an authoritative guide for Israel soldiers. Its authors are two of Israel’s leading rabbis, Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur.

Blumenthal explains:

“Drawing from a hodgepodge of rabbinical texts that seemed to support their genocidal views, Shapira and Elitzur urged a policy of ruthlessness toward non-Jews, insisting that the commandment against murder ‘refers only to a Jew who kills a Jew, and not to a Jew who kills a gentile, even if that gentile is one of the righteous among nations. ‘The rabbis went on to pronounce all civilians of the enemy population ‘rodef,’ or villains who chase Jews and are therefore fair game for slaughtering.”

The Israeli child-killer personality has much in common with the psychiatric term sociopath: “A person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke like a sociopath when he said that the Palestinian resistance “uses telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause.” The expression “telegenically dead” is a stunningly insensitive euphemism for the corpses of little children with their body parts blown off; and of course it was Netanyahu himself who killed them, and then tried to blame the victims for his actions.

What can be done about the sociopathic Israel?

One of America’s leading experts on sociopaths is Dr. Robert Hare, who works with the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center. Since Israel is the biggest child abductor and child serial killer on the planet, perhaps we could send the whole Zionist entity to Dr. Hare for treatment.

Unfortunately, as Dr. Hare admits, sociopaths are usually impossible to cure. The best we can do is detect them, using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, and then protect ourselves from them.

A sociopathic individual can be arrested and imprisoned. A sociopathic nation poses a much bigger problem. So how can we protect Palestinian children from the Israeli serial murderers?

The international community needs to completely ostracize Israel, indict its leaders for war crimes, and use the combined diplomatic and military force of the world’s nations to peacefully dismantle the genocidal Zionist entity. But that cannot happen until the Zionists’ death-grip on the West’s media, finance and politics is broken once and for all.

In the mean time, all individuals of good will must help the Palestinians defend themselves. As Italy’s leading philosopher Gianni Vattimo recently said, Europeans and other decent people around the world “should raise money to buy Hamas better rockets.” Vattimo also urged Europeans to form international brigades to fight along with Hamas, in the same way that foreign volunteers fought Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

If there are any decent, non-sociopathic Israelis left, they too should join those brigades, just as novelist Breyten Breytenbach and other white South Africans of conscience joined the armed resistance to apartheid. Where are the Israeli equivalents of Breytenbach? There must be at least one or two human beings left in Israel; we will learn who they are when they die in martyrdom operations against their sociopathic child-killing compatriots.


Mice with half human brain

Sorry if what I am about to say appears "racist" or "anti-semitic" -- but I am not the least bit surprised to see that the person working with the "donated" human embryos is jewish. Jews rule in the realms of luciferian, technological, cross-breeding, genetic modifying science. And don't you think we should ask the question -- where the fuck did this spawm of satan get the human embryos from?

Source Article:
Mice with half human brains are smarter, some healthier

"...Steve Goldman of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York extracted infant glia from donated human embryos and injected these into the brains of mouse pups..."

Oh, boy. This week’s freaky science story comes from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York where researchers grafted mouse pups with human glial cells. Within one year, half the brain cells of the by now adult mice were human. A study made last year by the same team suggests that mice whose brains contain human glial cells are smarter, while another experiment seems to indicate that mice with defects like uninsulated nerves can repair these nerves if human brain cells are inserted.

The overlooked glia

It’s important to set one thing straight: the mice still kept their 100% originally sourced neurons. It’s the glial cells that were human. Although there are about 100 billion neurons in the brain – the human one – there may be about 10 to 50 times that many glial cells. So, why haven’t you heard about them before if they’re so important? You know how fads come and go…

Sure, neurons are the rock stars because they have firing ability and are responsible for all the signaling that goes inside the brain. Without glial cells, however, neurons would never be able to function. There are five types of glia:

Astrocyte (Astroglia): Star-shaped cells that provide physical and nutritional support for neurons: 1) clean up brain “debris”; 2) transport nutrients to neurons; 3) hold neurons in place; 4) digest parts of dead neurons; 5) regulate content of extracellular space.

Microglia: Like astrocytes, microglia digest parts of dead neurons.

Oligodendroglia: Provide the insulation (myelin) to neurons in the central nervous system.

Satellite Cells: Physical support to neurons in the peripheral nervous system.

Schwann Cells: Provide the insulation (myelin) to neurons in the peripheral nervous system.

Steve Goldman of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York extracted infant glia from donated human embryos and injected these into the brains of mouse pups. Soon enough, the glia started developing into astrocytes, which strengthen the connection between neuron connections called synapses. Human astrocytes are 10 to 20 times the size of mouse astrocytes and carry 100 times as many tendrils.

Taking over

Initially, some 300,000 human glia were inserted, but by the end of the year, the mouse had 12 million. This means that nearly all of the mouse’s native glia had been displaced.

“We could see the human cells taking over the whole space,” says Goldman. “It seemed like the mouse counterparts were fleeing to the margins.”

But do the human astrocytes in the mice actually behave as in the human brain or does the environment regulate them?

“That the cells work at all in a different species is amazing, and poses the question of which properties are being driven by the cell itself and which by the new environment,” says Wolfgang Enard of Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich in Germany, who has shown that mice are better at learning if they have the human Foxp2 gene, which has been linked with human language development.

This question will definitely be very interesting to answer. In a parallel experiment, Goldman and team inserted human glia once more into the brains of mice pups, only this time these bore a defect. The mice were poor at making myelin, the protein that insulates nerves. Once again, the immature glia developed quickly, but this time something amazing happened: many of the human glial cells matured into oligodendrocytes, brain cells that specialise in making the insulating material. Somehow, the glia recognized the defect and compensated.

Multiple sclerosis is a terrible disease in which the myelin sheath is damaged, and the findings suggest that glia therapy might render positive results. In fact, Goldman applied for permission to treat MS patients with the glial progenitor cells, and hopes to start a trial in 12 to 15 months.

Is this still a mouse?

The same team made a similar experiment last year, only the human glia they inserted were mature. These became integrated into the mouse brain, but didn’t develop further or expanded in numbers. But here’s the interesting part. In a standardized memory test, mice remembered a sound associated with a mild electric shock for four times as long as other mice when they heard the sound, suggesting their memory was about four times better.

“These were whopping effects,” says Goldman. “We can say they were statistically and significantly smarter than control mice.”

Next, to further determine how human astrocytes affect things like intelligence, memory or learning, Goldman will be grafting the same immature human glia into rat brains. Rats are smarter than mice, so it should be interesting to follow how the humanized rats respond.

Is this a super mouse? Is it a mouse anymore? Is it just a super smart mouse? Well, let’s leave it to Goldman:

“This does not provide the animals with additional capabilities that could in any way be ascribed or perceived as specifically human,” he says. “Rather, the human cells are simply improving the efficiency of the mouse’s own neural networks. It’s still a mouse.

Findings appeared in the Journal of Neuroscience.


Go figure!

Source Article:
Whooping Cough Outbreak at Massachusetts High School Affected Only Vaccinated Students

Unvaccinated children are supposedly the cause, according to state health officials, of a recent whooping cough outbreak that occurred in the posh Cape Cod area of Massachusetts. But as reported by CBS Boston, all of the children affected by the outbreak were already vaccinated, proving once again that vaccines don’t really work.

Some 15 children at Falmouth High School reportedly came down with the respiratory illness, which also goes by the name pertussis, sparking a wave of panic about a corresponding increase in vaccine exemptions. But as usual, nobody affected by the outbreak was unvaccinated, and no matter how hard the media tries to spin the issue, those who were vaccinated were not protected.

Mainstream media clouds issue of vaccinations and exemptions

Reporting for CBS Boston, I-Team correspondent Lauren Leamanczyk towed the pro-vaccine line with accusations that vaccine exemptions triggered the outbreak. Undisclosed data she apparently found reveals that vaccine exemptions have increased fourfold over the past 25 years, which public health officials say increases the risk of an outbreak.

This supposed correlation proves nothing, of course, as correlation does not imply causation. But when vaccines are involved, any deviation from the standard vaccine protocol, which is basically to take whatever the government says is good for you, becomes the automatic scapegoat when an outbreak occurs.

In her story, Leamanczyk quotes the words of Dr. Sharon Daly, Chief of Pediatrics at Cape Cod Hospital, who declares that outbreaks increase when vaccination rates decrease. The implication, naturally, is that the Falmouth outbreak was triggered by unvaccinated children.

But a few paragraphs later, Leamanczyk fesses up to the fact that all of the affected children who developed whooping cough had previously been vaccinated for it. Based on this fact alone, it is clear that whooping cough vaccines don’t work, as every child who had been vaccinated should have been protected.

Even if some of the unvaccinated children at the school acted as “carriers” for the disease, a claim often made by pro-vaccine zealots, this only further reinforces that whooping cough vaccines are a failure. If unvaccinated children don’t contract whooping cough while vaccinated children do, then there is no rational basis for continuing the vaccine program.

Massachusetts doesn’t allow for philosophical exemptions, as claimed by Leamanczyk

Another failure in Leamanczyk’s article involves the type of exemptions supposedly responsible for the outbreak. She suggests that the rise in philosophical exemptions is the culprit, but Massachusetts doesn’t even allow for philosophical exemptions: only religious and medical exemptions are permitted in the Bay State!

This might seem like a minor discrepancy, but it is the basis of Leamanczyk and the health department’s argument that exemptions are the cause of the outbreak. Perhaps she meant to say medical or religious exemptions, but this major factual error calls into question the entire premise of the article, which nonsensically blames unvaccinated children for spreading disease to vaccinated children.

Vaccines either work or they don’t. Period. Blaming unvaccinated individuals for spreading disease to vaccinated individuals makes no sense, and only further exposes the vaccine agenda for what it is: a complete myth.

Whooping cough vaccines making disease more virulent

If anything, vaccinated individuals are actually the ones responsible for spreading disease. In the case of whooping cough, a study out of the Netherlands found that whooping cough has mutated genetically and become more virulent as a result of whooping cough vaccines, which would explain why outbreaks are escalating.

Another study published in the journal Infection Control Today admits that the vaccine strategy “[has] not completely eradicated strains of the bacteria,” but rather led to “an increase in diversity,” meaning deadlier strains that are more virulent and perhaps more contagious.


Learn more: