Anti Cervical Cancer jab - Was She got at?
Obama and Monsanto
......................
October 10 2009 |
By Dr. Mercola
As I write this I am in Washington DC for the International Vaccine Conference and I just did a 12 hour amazing tour of the Capitol that I will describe later, along with pictures that I will post on Facebook. So politics and patriotism is fresh in my mind.
When President Obama took office, many Americans welcomed what was supposed to be an era of much needed change not only for the economy but also for the food industry and U.S. health care system.
Time magazine put it quite well when they described current farm policy as "a welfare program for the megafarms that use the most fuel, water and pesticides; emit the most greenhouse gases; grow the most fattening crops; hire the most illegals; and depopulate rural America."
And as has been recently disclosed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), between 2003 and 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies, even though they earned more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. In a speech given at the end of 2008, President Obama stated that this was a prime example of the kind of waste he intends to end when he takes office.
Meanwhile, American medical care is the most expensive in the world.[1] The United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. And yet it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing avoidable deaths through use of timely and effective medical care.
That the system is fatally flawed and in need of a radical overhaul is self-evident.
In fact, according to a 2008 report published in the New England Journal of Medicine[2], 90 percent of Americans believe our medical system should be “completely rebuilt” or that “fundamental changes” are required.
And many are looking toward the Obama Administration to carry out these fundamental changes -- changes that appear, on the surface at least, to be in the works.
But while health care reform is finally on the table, and an organic farm has, for the first time, been planted on the White House lawn, there are an unsettling number of foxes being appointed to guard the U.S. health care and food industry hen houses … foxes that have entirely too many connections to Monsanto, the chemical manufacturer turned agricultural giant that is slowly gaining control over the world’s population, one seed at a time.
The New Secretary of Agriculture is a Fan of Factory Farms, GM Crops and More
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is now the Secretary of Agriculture, an appointment that took place despite massive public outcry. What was needed for an effective Secretary of Agriculture was someone who would develop and implement a plan that promotes family-scale farming and a safe and nutritious food system with a sustainable and organic vision.
What we got was yet another politician who’s already made room in his bed for the industry lobby. As the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) points out:[3]
Vilsack has been a strong supporter of genetically engineered crops, including bio-pharmaceutical corn
The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership.
When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
The undemocratic and highly unpopular 2005 seed pre-emption bill was Vilsack’s brainchild. The law strips local government’s right to regulated genetically engineered seed (including where GE can be grown, maintaining GE-free buffers or banning pharma corn locally)
Vilsack is an ardent supporter of corn and soy-based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil fuel energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
Overall, Vilsack’s record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting animal cloning.
You may also be interested to know that Vilsack is widely regarded as a shill for biotech giants like Monsanto (he even reportedly often travels in Monsanto’s jet)![4]
The New Senior Advisor for the FDA is a Former Monsanto VP!
Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy and chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company, is the new senior advisor for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Who is Michael Taylor? He is the person who “oversaw the creation of GMO policy,” according to Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods. Smith continues:
“If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.”[5]
The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering] differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
In reality, there was major concern among FDA scientists that GM foods were in fact different than natural foods, and that their creation could prompt unknown and unpredictable health problems.
Along with being a key player in the initial pushing of GM foods onto Americans’ plates (without any required safety studies), Taylor also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST).
This growth hormone, which has been banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand because of cancer risks and other health concerns, was approved in the United States while Taylor was in charge at the FDA. Smith writes:
“Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.”
Taylor’s white paper, which again was untrue as even FDA scientists acknowledged differences in the rbGH milk, allowed Monsanto to sue dairies that labeled their products rbGH-free.
Dennis Wolff, Another Monsanto “Yes Man,” May be the Next Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety
In another ironic turn of events, it’s rumored that Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff may be appointed the new Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety -- the top food safety post at the USDA.
Wolff declared that labeling products rbGH-free was against the law, and ordered all such labels to be removed from Pennsylvania. Fortunately, due to consumer demand Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell stepped in and stopped the ban on rbGH-free labels (although he did require such claims to include Taylor’s FDA disclaimer that there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows).
As Jeffrey Smith explains:
“Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.”[6]
Not only did Dennis Wolff attempt to ban rbGH-free labels, but OCA points out that he has “also worked to deprive communities the right to ban toxic sewage sludge, factory farms, and GMOs.”[7]
Monsanto’s Long-Reaching Grasp on the U.S. Government
Clearly, Monsanto -- the world leader in genetic modification of seeds -- has worked its way into varying high-level positions in the U.S. government. There are other less noticeable connections too, such as Sharon Long, a former member of Monsanto’s board of directors who was part of Obama’s scientific advisory team during the election/campaign.[8]
Monsanto is a very dark cloud hanging over the future of health and food safety in the United States. This powerful entity has already managed so many reprehensible acts it boggles the mind, including:
Leading the world into a new age of potentially hazardous genetic modification of seeds.
Patenting not only their own GMO seeds, but also a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress.
Not allowing farmers to save their seeds to replant the next year -- a practice that has been done for generations. Instead, they aggressively seek out and sue farmers they suspect of doing so.
Suing farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of Monsanto’s GE pollen or seed onto their land for patent infringement!
Producing two of the most toxic substances ever known -- polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange).
Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply already is what’s known as terminator technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!
Top researcher who worked on cervical cancer vaccine warns about its dangers
http://www.naturalnews.com/
(NaturalNews) One of the key researchers involved in the clinical trials for both Gardasil and Cevarix cervical cancer vaccines has gone public with warnings about their safety and effectiveness. This highly unusual warning against these vaccines by one of Big Pharma's own researchers surfaced in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Express in the UK over the last few days. There, Dr. Diane Harper openly admitted the vaccine doesn't even prevent cervical cancer, stating, "[The vaccine] will not decrease cervical cancer rates at all."
This is astonishing news. The whole push behind the cervical cancer vaccines is based on the belief that they prevent cervical cancer. That belief, it turns out, is a myth.
Dr. Harper also warned that the cervical cancer vaccine was being "over-marketed" and that parents should be warned about the possible risk of severe side effects from the vaccine. She even concluded that the vaccine itself is more dangerous than the cervical cancer it claims to prevent!
Hysteria over genital warts?
In a New York Times article published last year, Dr. Harper spoke about the fear-based marketing of Gardasil by Merck:
"'Merck lobbied every opinion leader, women's group, medical society, politicians, and went directly to the people -- it created a sense of panic that says you have to have this vaccine now..."
This behavior by drug companies -- using fear tactics to promote a particular disease in order to sell the "treatment" -- is called disease mongering. Most of the pharmaceutical profits generated today are based on precisely this tactic: Spread the fear, then sell the treatment. Read more about disease mongering here: http://www.naturalnews.com/
Why is disease mongering so important to the profits of the drug companies? They figured out many years ago that selling drugs only to those people who are sick was a very limited income opportunity. To rake in the real profits, they needed to devise a way to sell drugs to healthy people (i.e. people who don't need them). That's what cervical cancer vaccines really are: A scheme to sell vaccines to people who aren't suffering from any disease at all.
That one of the industry's own researchers is willing to speak out against this is not just highly unusual; it's also highly courageous. It makes you wonder: Who, exactly, is this Dr. Harper?
Dr. Diane Harper
Dr. Harper is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She studied additional courses at Stanford and received her medical degree from the University of Kansas. She was a key researcher in both Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, and she's one of the most experienced researchers in the world on HPV-related diseases. She's done work for both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.
Dr. Harper's warnings about cervical cancer vaccines are especially relevant considering her expertise in the cost/benefit analysis of vaccines. Her conclusion is that cervical cancer vaccines aren't worth the risks, nor are they worth all the effort being put into hyping them to the public. "This may not be the best use of our resources at this time," she said in a Washington Post article.
So why do cervical cancer vaccines continue to be pushed by doctors and health authorities across the US, UK and other first-world nations? Because Big Pharma is the great corporate puppeteer that's pulling the strings of legislators. With enough money and lobbyists, you can always overcome scientific thinking with fear-based marketing and under-the-table deal-making. Science-based medicine has no place in a world where disease is big business.
There's a ridiculous amount of money to be made by pushing vaccines onto people who don't need them. If I had ten bucks for every teenage girl that's been injected with a cervical cancer vaccine, I'd be... well... GlaxoSmithKline.
Sources for this story include:
UMKC
http://www.med.umkc.edu/
Dartmouth Medical School
http://dms.dartmouth.edu/
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Daily Express
http://www.express.co.uk/
Postscript: What happens to those who spill the beans even if every word they utter is true? That's right. They get the sack, and lies about them are published in the media and professional circles to make life as difficult as possible for them, and to discourage them from ever daring again to raise their head above the parapet. But if every individual who felt that Dr Harper had helped them by this warning sent her a £1 that would doubtless help to redress the balance!
How effective is Conventional Medicine (ConMed)?
What proportion of commonly used treatments are supported by good evidence, what proportion should not be used or used only with caution, and how big are the gaps in our knowledge? Of around 2500 treatments covered 13% are rated as beneficial, 23% likely to be beneficial, 8% as trade off between benefits and harms, 6% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and 46%, the largest proportion, as unknown effectiveness.

Now, are you more impressed by the 13% Treatments rated as beneficial figure (actually shown as 12% on their graph) or the "in 65% of patient cases, GPs documented a health improvement" (from homeopathy) mentioned in my previous post?
If you were the patient, would you ask for Homeopathic or ConMed treatment first?
Choice of Treatment needed in the NHS
Any politician hoping to lead his /her party after the next General Election will have to have some answers about how to reform the NHS and to begin the process of educating the British nation on taking responsibility for their own health. Good nutrition and cost effective ways of preventing and self-treating for colds, coughs, snuffles and a host of "first aid" stuff can be taught in school to children and parents to reduce the load on the NHS. More on that in later postings. Meanwhile, take some time to read Martin Walker at http://home.comcast.net/~newcdc/THE%20GHOST.pdf . After you've read, and been amazed, I'd invite you to pretend you are the new Prime Minister and decide what you would do about all these links between pharmaceutical companies, Government and the orthodox medical profession. What would you do? ..........I thought so!
- In 65% of patient cases, GPs documented a health improvement, with a high degree of correlation between GP and patient assessment of health
improvement (source, project monitoring data);
- In 65% of patient cases, GPs said they had seen the patient less often following the patient’s referral to CAM (source, project monitoring data);