"Ilena Rose" <BIA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ejih149m97m2ncvvta60ctt144q12b3k4c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal:
> http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>
> Any who have been around the internet for a while, has read the rants
> of various S****-oil Vigilantes and sidekick Myrl Jeffcoat ... their
> big mouthed busybody lliar, all claiming that vaccinations are safe
> and that Gardasil is "the answer" to cervical cancer.
>
> When caught in her lies ... Jeffcoat screams "I HATE ILENA ROSENTHAL &
> YOU SHOULD TOO" ...
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/S****-oil.htm#David-H-Gorski
> David "Orac DOESN"T KNOW" Gorski seems to be a Dept of Defense ****ll
> who has a career out of hawking vaccinations .
>
> Thanks to all and may God protect the many of us raising awareness to
> the dangers of vaccinations ... and their busybody lying flacks like
> Myrl Jeffcoat and Stephen Barrett ... (who has unsuccessfully sued
> many Vaccination Awareness Activists such as myself, with Merck's Myrl
> close at hand with her smear attacks. What a team!
>
> I am very occupied with other parts of my life right now ... so I
> can't answer the incessant lies that Myrl and the rest of the
> S****-oil Team write about me ... check these links:
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm
> www.breastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html
> Myrl Jeffcoat dressed up as "Will Ketcher" and showed how she will act
> like a Rodeo Clown in Drag for her 'anonymous' attacks.
>
>
> Just today I read that Merck's Gardasil plant has been cited by the
> FDA ... yet that hasn't even slowed Myrl the Mouth down! She repeats
> the lies of the Vac Industry as if they were anything but the
> propaganda they are. Because the Vac & the Breast Implant Industries
> use the same techniques and media ****lls (ACSH / junkscience.com
> etc.etc. etc. etc.) ... Myrl fit right in using the 10000% identical
> lies that the silicone industry uses against women harmed by breast
> implants. Now she aims it at families whose children died after
> Gardasil.
>
>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120956935906156467.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
> This article says well what a scam the Vaccination Business and it's
> PR teams represent:
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/023133.html
>
> NaturalNews) Despite a mounting and impressive body of evidence of the
> dangers and harm associated with vaccinations coming from both within
> and outside the mainstream medical community, much of mainstream
> medicine and the agencies that serve it continue to maintain that
> vaccinations are not only safe, but that we face grave dangers if we
> don't vaccinate ourselves, our children and our elderly.
>
> The continued denials and the push for more vaccinations, including
> going as far as requiring mandatory vaccinations of young school girls
> based on disputable evidence, is nothing new. Sadly, it is just
> another in a series of less than praiseworthy chapters that have
> marked how mainstream medicine has allowed advertising and hype to
> mislead and failed to serve those entrusted to its care. Whether it be
> a physically or psychologically addictive drug, a drug we have been
> psychologically coerced into taking, or one we have even been legally
> compelled to take, mainstream medicine has followed the money at the
> expense of our health.
>
> Around the year 1810, a derivative of opium named Morphine was
> developed as a pain killer. It was considered a wonder drug because it
> eliminated severe pain associated with medical operations or traumatic
> injuries. It also left the user in a completely numb euphoric
> dream-state. Because of the intense euphoric side effects, the drug in
> 1811 was named after the Greek god of dreams, Morpheus, by Dr. F.W.A.
> Serturner, a German pharmacist. By the mid 1850's morphine was
> available in the United States and became more and more popular with
> the medical profession. The benefits of using the drug to treat severe
> pain were considered nothing short of remarkable to doctors of the
> time. Unfortunately, the addictive properties of the drug went
> virtually unnoticed until after the Civil War.
>
> During the Civil War, when what would come to be mainstream medicine
> was beginning to organize, the number of people exposed to morphine in
> the course of being treated for their war related injuries
> skyrocketed. As a result, tens of thousands of Northern and
> Confederate soldiers became morphine addicts. In just over 10 years
> from the date of its arrival into this country, the United States was
> plagued with a major morphine epidemic.
>
> Even though no actual statistics were kept on addiction during this
> period, the problem grew large enough to raise serious concerns from
> the medical profession. Doctors became perplexed and were completely
> in the dark as to how to treat this new epidemic.
>
> By 1874, about the same time that mainstream medicine was beginning
> its assault on natural and homeopathic alternatives in earnest, the
> answer to this increasing problem was thought to be found in the
> invention of a new drug in Germany. This new wonder drug was called
> Heroin, after its German trademarked name. Heroin was im****ted into
> the United States shortly after it was invented. The sales pitch that
> created an instant market to American doctors and their morphine
> addicted patients was that Heroin was a "safe, non addictive"
> substitute for morphine. Hence, the heroin addict was born and has
> been present in American culture ever since. (In a chillingly similar
> manner, the opiate Oxycontin was approved in recent years as another
> "safe, non-addictive" pain killer to replace traditional opiates, with
> similarly tragic results).
>
> From the late 1800's to the early 1900's the reputable drug companies
> of the day began manufacturing over the counter drug kits. These kits
> contained a glass barreled hypodermic needle and vials of opiates
> (morphine or heroin) and/or cocaine packaged neatly in attractive
> engraved tin cases. Laudanum (opium in an alcohol base) was also a
> very popular elixir that was used to treat a variety of ills. Laudanum
> was administered to kids and adults alike -- as freely as aspirin is
> used today.
>
> There were of course marketing and advertising campaigns launched by
> the drug companies producing such products that touted the narcotics
> as the cure for all types of physical and mental aliments ranging from
> alcohol withdrawal to cancer, depression, sluggishness, coughs, colds,
> tuberculosis and even old age. Most of the elixirs pitched by the old
> "s**** oil salesmen" in their medicine shows contained one or more of
> these very much mainstream narcotics in their mix.
>
> Another line of drugs which was widely prescribed and sold over the
> counter by mainstream medicine was amphetamines. Amphetamine was
> synthesized too late to have the widespread applications enjoyed
> decades earlier by cocaine and the opiates. It was, however, marketed
> in products commonly used to relieve head congestion and asthma.
> Amphetamine continued to be employed as a popular prescription
> diet-aid into the 1970s.
>
> In the 1950's thalidomide was launched as a wonder drug alternative to
> barbiturates for pregnant women, despite the drug companies having
> clear evidence it was dangerous; and it took twelve years after its
> dangers for children were discovered and after thousands of deformed
> babies, which came to be known as "Thalidomide Babies", were born
> before it was taken off the market. It might be worth noting that
> America was a safer, more innocent and more trusting place in those
> days -- a time when we knew our neighbors and left our doors unlocked
> while we strolled the streets in safety.
>
> More recently, at least a dozen major drugs have been pulled from the
> market only after pressure and exposure became too great to handle in
> spite of all the flawed studies, spin control, massive advertising and
> protective efforts on behalf of industry by agencies who were supposed
> to protect the public at large. The most famous of these drugs was of
> course Vioxx, which has had more deaths attributed to it in the United
> States than the Vietnam War.
>
> Currently, Avandia and Fosamax, as well as the FDA approved sweetener
> Aspartame are pulling out all the stops in the face of mounting
> evidence of their harm and using the usual list of suspects to try to
> hang on and milk as much profits as possible at the expense of human
> lives and suffering until they are ultimately removed from the market.
> Based on the increasing incidences of death and side effects, many
> observers feel certain that someday Gardasil, which is still in a huge
> growth stage and being forced on schoolgirls around the world due to a
> massive campaign by Merck, will ultimately join that litany of evil
> drugs, as will many of the vaccines being touted so highly today for
> childhood diseases, prevention of cervical cancer for school girls,
> and flu protection for the elderly.
>
> One feature that all of the aforementioned drugs, and many others like
> them which have been pulled from the market due to safety issues, have
> had in common is a wealth of industry claims of their effectiveness
> and safety -- claims which continued well after their harmful effects
> became known, as well as claims to the same effect by the agencies
> whose industry ties and sup****t have been chronicled in these pages
> and elsewhere. Which leads us to another shared characteristic: huge
> amounts of profits at stake. Sadly, those discredited and harmful
> drugs also shared the endorsements and recommendations of the doctors
> we entrust our health to.
>
> If there is any lesson we should have learned from the tangled history
> of drugs, doctors and Madison Avenue that makes up today's mainstream
> medicine, it is that it serves profits foremost and our health a very
> distant second. Nowhere has this been more vividly demonstrated than
> the misinformation we were told about cigarettes on behalf of Big
> Tobacco.
>
> Some examples of Big Tobacco's fifty years of using advertising and
> mainstream sup****t to perpetuate the big lie that cigarettes were not
> only harmless, but also had beneficial health benefits:
>
> 1910s
>
> * "Some plain truths about buying cigarettes." Fatima. Saturday
> Evening Post, July 3, 1915.
>
> 1920s
>
> * "Is Tobacco a Food?" Sweet Ca****al. American Magazine, June, 1926,
> p. 119.
>
> * "Perhaps the cigarette you smoke is too strong!" Johnnie Walker.
> Vanity Fair, April 3, 1928.
>
> * "Prominent writer favors de-nicotinized cigarettes." O-Nic-O. New
> York Times, Jan. 19, 1928.
>
> 1930s
>
> * "A fact! Science advances new data that may completely change your
> ideas of cigarettes." Camel. Collier's, July 7, 1934.
>
> * "'Camels don't get your wind,' famous baseball players say." Camel.
> Time, Oct. 14, 1935.
>
> * "It takes healthy nerves to be America's greatest stunt girl."
> Camel. American Magazine, Dec. 1, 1933.
>
> * "The old doctor handed over to his doctor son a family tradition..."
> Fatima. New Yorker, Jan. 5, 1930.
>
> * "This book answers your questions about cigarette smoking!"
> Cigarette Research Institute. Literary Digest, Aug. 4, 1934, p. 29.
>
> * "You can thank a few cranks for Listerine cigarettes." Listerine
> Cigarettes. New Yorker, April 23, 1932.
>
> * "Kools never miss!" Kool, Time, Nov. 16, 1936, p. 119.
>
> * "Now she'll never worry about smoking too much." Kentucky Winners.
> New York Times, Sept. 26, 1934.
>
> * "Nerves were out of tune." Camel. New York Times, April 4, 1934.
>
> * "Tell him to switch to Kools." Kool. Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 23,
> 1937
>
> * "Are you a ring twiddler?" Camel. Life, June 9, 1934.
>
> * "Of course women prefer them - they're fresh." Camel. Saturday
> Evening Post, Oct. 17, 1931.
>
> * "You like them fresh - so do I." Camel. Saturday Evening Post, Feb.
> 6, 1932.
>
> 1940s
>
> * "The im****tance of the filter zone." Fleetwood. Collier's, Jan. 8,
> 1944, p. 45.
>
> * "5 times when to switch to Spuds." Spud. Look, Oct. 5, 1943.
>
> * "Be on guard against smoker's hack." Kool. Collier's, Aug. 30, 1941,
> p. 49.
>
> * "Been babying a case of smoker's hack?" Kool. Collier's, Feb. 14,
> 1942, p. 47.
>
> * "Got a cold?" Kool. New York Times, Feb. 11, 1940.
>
> * "There is a cigarette that's safer for you." Sano Cigarettes. New
> York Times, Oct. 15, 1946.
>
> * "Nose or throat congested?" Spud. Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 17,
> 1942, p. 65.
>
> * "Why be irritated?" Old Gold. Life, June 11, 1945, p. 73.
>
> * "The last time you had a cold..." Kool. Look, Aug. 24, 1943, p. 6.
>
> 1950s
>
> * "The American Medical Association voluntarily conducted in their own
> laboratory..." Kent. New York Times, Mar. 23, 1954.
>
> * "Rosalind Russell says, 'L&M filters are just what the doctor
> ordered." L & M. New York Times, Nov. 2, 1953.
>
> * "Let's smoke out this nicotine problem." Sano. New York Times, Dec.
> 28, 1953.
>
> * "Filtered cigarette smoke is better for your health." Viceroy. Time,
> Aug. 20, 1951, p. 59.
>
> * "Filtered cigarette smoke is better for your health." Viceroy. New
> York Times, Aug. 8, 1950.
>
> * "Now... scientific evidence on effects of smoking!" Chesterfield.
> Family Circle, April 1953, p. 13.
>
> * "Nose, throat, and accessory organs not adversely affected by
> smoking Chesterfields." Chesterfield. Life, Dec. 2, 1952.
>
> * "The best cigarette news in over 40 years... The filter tip."
> DuMaurier. New York Times, Sept. 11, 1951.
>
> * "Less nicotine without going sissy." Lords. New York Times, July 15,
> 1951.
>
> * "A re****t to doctors - published in leading medical journals."
> Viceroy. Time, Dec. 7, 1953.
>
> * "New king-sized Viceroy gives you double-barrelled health
> protection." Viceroy. Time, Nov. 9, 1951.
>
> * "Scientific tests prove Lucky Strike milder than any other principal
> brand." Lucky Strike, Saturday Evening Post, June 24, 1950.
>
> Source: Medicine and Madison Avenue
> ((http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/mma/cig...)
.
>
> During this same period of time, a mounting body of evidence clearly
> showed the dangers of smoking cigarettes, but such evidence was
> covered up and ridiculed by both industry and mainstream medicine, who
> trotted out study after study and doctor after doctor to tell us just
> the opposite -- much as they did the same thing for fully four decades
> to tell us of the ineffectiveness, and even dangers, of taking vitamin
> supplements.
>
> Today, we are seeing a huge and growing body of evidence of the
> dangers of vaccinations, as well as their relative ineffectiveness --
> particularly when it comes to our children and our elderly. Right on
> cue, we also see a continuing blitz of advertising and counter
> studies, as well as the mainstream apologists chiming in on internet
> forums, attesting to the safety of putting foul substances into our
> bodies as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, spermicide, unborn fetal
> matter, anthrax, monkey kidney cells, calf serums, formalin, phenol,
> coal tar, aspartame, MSG, various strains of deadly viruses and
> microbial contaminants.
>
> Many of the quoted studies propaganda new and old attempt to dispute
> the dangers of mercury, such as autism. Despite all kinds of "lies,
> damned lies and statistics", as Einstein called them, what the studies
> and hype have never properly addressed is why autism is virtually
> non-existent in countries which do not vaccinate nor why it is also
> virtually non-existent in home schooled children who are not
> vaccinated.
>
> Besides common sense, history itself tells us that those who stand to
> profit by alleging vaccine safety are once again lying and covering up
> the truth, just as they did about heroin, thalidomide and Vioxx -- and
> as they continue to do about Avandia, Fosamax, Gardasil and aspartame.
> The reason they lie: because they represent a trillion dollar industry
> whose only marketplace is our bodies and which depends on such lies to
> maintain and increase profits. Such is their greed that they care more
> about profits than they do about profiting humankind.
>
> Whether it be doctors, scientists, public agencies or mainstream
> apologists on an internet forum, those who lie to us are not our
> friends -- by hook or by crook, they serve not mankind but the evils
> of greed and avarice. Harking back to the days when we strolled our
> neighborhoods in safety, I would ask consideration of this simple
> question when it comes to the question of accepting what they would
> have us believe today regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness: We
> know that they were lying to us back then and that they had been for a
> long time. Have we somehow become a kinder and gentler world in the
> meanwhile -- one where greed plays less of a role and where those we
> trust with our safety are more honest and caring? Or is it just the
> opposite in today's world where overt advertising with healthy actors
> inundates us at every turn to "Ask your doctor" about an ever
> increasing number of new diseases and conditions while the minimized
> dangers scroll by in tiny print --and while at the same time we see
> regular revelations about the dangers of our children's cold
> medicines, our pain relievers, our mood stabilizers, and our
> medications for just about everything else which we have been told for
> years were safe and effective?
>
> I noted earlier an apologist posting on an internet forum who
> maintained that the questionable components in vaccines represented no
> threats simply because they are present in tiny amounts and that many
> of those same worrisome substances are also present in trace amounts
> in many other things we are exposed to. In the same post, the point
> was also made that mercury was no excuse to not take vaccines since
> there are mercury-free vaccines available (which, looking at the rest
> of the list of unsavory ingredients in vaccines appears to me akin to
> saying that a bowl of poison is not dangerous because it had the
> arsenic removed and left in only strychnine, lead and curare). I
> suppose the poster must not be familiar with homeopathic principles
> when it comes to small or trace amounts -- or more likely, rejects
> such principles because that is what mainstream medicine tells us to
> do.
>
> Thanks largely to man, there is indeed no shortage of trace amounts of
> any number of harmful substances in any number of places and things we
> encounter and consume. However, harmful is harmful and there is no
> such thing as a "safe" level of a harmful substance -- that is merely
> a false label created to prevent and dispel alarm and gain trust where
> none is warranted. Just because we may be exposed to tiny amounts of
> something unsavory is no reason to consume or subject our bodies to
> more of it.
>
> I am relatively certain that, due to the country environment I
> frequently find myself in, there is no shortage of cow and bull manure
> I encounter -- and it is even likely that I might inadvertently inhale
> or consume trace amounts when I breathe or when I pluck a pear or
> persimmon off a tree. However, I have no desire whatsoever to
> purposely dine on it.
>
> I daresay neither does hardly anyone else here, and we would rather
> that the mainstream servers stop trying to feed us a big dish of the
> stuff.
>
> About the author
> Tony Isaacs, is a natural health advocate and researcher and the
> author of books and articles about natural health including "Cancer's
> Natural Enemy" and "Collected Remedies"as well as song lyrics and
> humorous anecdotal stories. Mr. Isaacs also has The Best Years in Life
> website for baby boomers and others wi****ng to avoid prescription
> drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and
> happier lives naturally. He is currently residing in the scenic Texas
> hill country near Utopia, Texas where he serves as a consultant to the
> Utopia Silver colloidal silver and supplement company and where he is
> working on a major book project due for publication later this year.
> Mr. Isaacs also hosts the CureZone "Ask Tony Isaacs" forum as well as
> the Yahoo Health Group "Oleander Soup"
>
>
|
