For the last year, I and others in the blogosphere have been encouraging people to NOT line up and take the so called Swine Flu “vaccines”, due to the fact that the vaccines themselves contained a wide variety of toxins and poisons that would only weaken the body’s own immune system. We have been saying that the whole purpose of the Swine Flu scare was for the Pharmaceutical Industry to get rich off of the sales of their deadly potions. Also, people would be so weakened by the so called vaccines that when a more deadly form of virus was unleashed, many would die, and the Pharmaceutical criminals would get even richer from the need to develop and administer their newer vaccines to fight the newer pandemic. Sweet deal for the Pharmaceuticals indeed!

It seems that the bloggers have won the battle against the Pharmaceutical Industry, and have prevented the mass “inoculation” that these criminals wanted as a result of the Swine Flu scare that wasn’t, and has proven to be a massive lie and hoax!

When “Cancer Research” comes to mind, we automatically think of billions of dollars going into scientific and medical analysis, research, and testing for finding a “cure” for Cancer. It must be noted that BILLIONS of dollars have gone into this research over the past 100 years in trying to find a cure, but according to the AMA and other associations around the planet, a cure is still far away in the future.

BUT, a new report has been forwarded, from Allison Rose Levy, reporting for the Huffington Post at www.huffingtonpost.com, that states that in spite of research for a cure, over the last 4 decades much has been done to make the world actually SAFE for a growing rate of Cancer itself! Here is that report:

Making the World Safe for Cancer

When it comes to increasing cancer rates, we’ve done everything right. We couldn’t have done it better if we’d actually planned it.

That’s the takeaway from the President’s Cancer Panel. Legislatively mandated back in 1971, this prestigious panel just issued its 2009 report. Reading it is an eye-opening experience. I’ll synopsize the basic findings here (along with others from other sources) so that if other societies (or other planets) want to replicate our outstanding results in making the world safe for cancer, they can roll up their sleeves and do just what we’ve done:

• For 35 years, pour billions of dollars into vested institutions aiming to self-perpetuate via a perennial “war on cancer” featuring intense and costly treatments, which, according to a GAO report, failed to substantively increase actual survival rates once you factor in reductions in lung cancer deaths thanks to smoking cessation

• Run massive P.R. campaigns to distract the gullible public (with more birthday cake?) until that lucky day when a “cure” is found. (According to AdWeek, the American Cancer Society, which disputes the Panel Report spends $17 million annually on ads.) iii

That’s just for starters. Then the next step is to:

• Fail to look for causes
• Invoke “prevention” as a buzzword while doing nothing substantive

It takes a little work, but if dedicated to the cause, one can:

• Overlook numerous studies that reveal a wide range of cancer causative factors, including pesticides, toxins, metals, pollutants, food additives, industrial chemicals, endocrine disruptors and other carcinogens–80,000 of them in wide use (PCP)

• Allow widespread exposure to these carcinogens (PCP)

• Rather than concede the overall weight of both research and empirical evidence, quibble over a study detail to assure an implacable entrenchment in treating the problem when it’s too late

• Pay for your own study if your company has deep pockets. Then play “dueling studies.”

A crucial component for success is assuring regulatory policies that:

• Never ask industrial chemical producers to prove chemical safety because… (just give me a moment to come up with a reason) (PCP)

• Give agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, the medical industry, the military, gas and oil companies and food producers carte blanche to pour billions of tons of chemicals and pollutants into everyone’s food, personal care, home, baby bottles–whatever–not to mention the public common of air, water and earth (PCP)

• Assign to under-funded government agencies the simple little task of proving which of those 80,000 chemicals are unsafe (PCP)

But even with all of that in place, you still have to be dead certain that your scientific research model:

• Uses an outdated toxicological method that bears no relation to typical toxic exposures (PCP)

• Only studies chemicals one at a time just the way they come out of the lab refrigerator

• Never studies additive, cumulative, synergistic, or long-term effects from multiple exposures because, hey, that’s hard! (PCP)

• Can’t sort out how different ingredients chemically interact with each other (PCP)

• Can’t begin to figure out how they interact within you

• Doesn’t want to know what the industries have put this stuff into (PCP)

Oh, and don’t overlook one crucial element: It’s essential to have a health care model that:

• Claims the human organism can process anything we can dish out

• Cuts out any human body parts that can’t

• Never tests an individual’s body burden of toxins

• Sneers at detoxification practices

• Recommends to everyone of any age, gender, height, weight, ethnicity, or health status a uniform prescription dosage based on a Western white adult male (PCP)

• Omits medical or product testing for infant or child safety (PCP)

• Never tests drug interactions or synergies even though the average person presently takes nine or more medications; and these drugs enter the water supply

• Recommends radiological testing without consideration that “People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.” (PCP)

• Is the third leading cause of death according to an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association

It takes a special kind of synchronicity to get all social forces working together to the point where 41 percent of all Americans will get cancer, and 20 percent will die of it. But there’s still more to do. If the Gulf Oil spill fails to cause enough health damage, we can look ahead to the plans in New York State to allow carcinogens into the water table without environmental studies.

As the PCP report points out:

It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors, and chemopreventive interventions. Scientific evidence on individual and multiple environmental exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health system and societal costs, are not being adequately integrated into national policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access and health system reform.

Now, if you’re one of those people who don’t want to live in a world safer for cancer than it is for men, women, and children, then all I can say is: You’d better sign up with www.saferchemicals.org to support new legislation to actually regulate chemicals for the first time in 36 years. And/or for action alerts on safe chemicals, health, and a healthy environment, health insight, and radio interviews with health leaders, please do sign up at: www.healthjournalist.com

References:

J.C.Bailar and E.M.Smith, “Progress Against Cancer?” New England Journal of Medicine 314 (May 8, 1986):1226- 1232.

“The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States,” January 3, 2008, PLoS Medicine, the Public Library of Science.

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/tikkun_2000.htm

President’s Cancer Panel Report 2009, http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
op cit

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070226095116.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article5517912.ece

Starfield B (2000). “Is US health really the best in the world?” Journal of the American Medical Association. 284 (4): 483-5)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100507/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_health_effects

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2010/01/fractured-logic-the-peril-in-”fracking”-chemicals/

NTS Notes: It is baffling for someone such as myself that people still do not get it. The cures for Cancer ARE available, but the corporations that run the Cancer Research foundations do not want any cure or else their funding would dry up and thousands of people would suddenly be out of work.

Are the Cancer Research foundations, and the AMA, purposely hiding the cure for Cancer from the public? One need only to look at what happened to possibly the best researcher in the history of Cancer research, Royal Rife, and how in spite of his factual and proven cure for Cancer that he discovered back in the 1930′s, he was destroyed by the AMA and their hooligans.

Bottom line is that corporations that run Cancer Research foundations do not want a “cure” anytime soon, or their funding would dry up. It is criminal when one realizes the lives that could have been saved by readily available cures if not for those that profit from greed by keeping people purposely sick!

More to come

NTS

I have received some emails asking about why I continue with stories related to Health Issues. My answer is simple: A Healthy Body does equate to a Healthy Mind! By taking better care of our bodies and keeping in better health, we stand a better chance of being prepared mentally for the fight against the criminal elements in our society.

Rheumatoid Arthritis is extremely painful. I have watched as dozens of friends and relatives have started to contract that form of Arthritis in their latter lives. Finding a cure or a method of lessening the symptoms of that debilitating disease is always the goals that the medical professions should be striving for.

As I have stated many times, my articles cover a wide variety of subjects, from criminal Zionism all the way to Health related issues. For this first article for the month of May, I figured that I would put up a Health related issue concerning the need for everyone to take Vitamin D supplements for their well being.

Continuing with the wonders that supplementing your diet with Vitamin D can do for your body, I already have shown that taking Vitamin D supplements can reduce your risks of getting colds, the flu, Cancer, and an assortment of other ailments.

Now according to the website: Natural News, at www.naturalnews.com, it seems that taking Vitamin D can also reduce your risk of getting Diabetes! Here is that article:

Vitamin D reduces diabetes risk by 43 percent – is there anything this vitamin can’t do?

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A team from Warwick Medical School in the U.K. has found that people who maintain healthy vitamin D levels are 43 percent less likely to get heart disease or diabetes. After evaluating 28 different studies conducted on nearly 100,000 people, researchers concluded that people who eat oily fish two or three times a week and five servings of fruits and vegetables a day are able to achieve healthy levels of vitamin D.

While the team evaluated only natural sources of vitamin D, including from sunlight exposure and consumption of oily fish like tuna, salmon, and mackerel, it is probable that supplementation with natural vitamin D3 would prove to have the same effect.

Published in the journal Maturitas, the study revealed that high levels of vitamin D reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease by 33 percent, metabolic syndrome by 51 percent, and type-2 diabetes by an astounding 55 percent.

According to Dr. Johanna Parker, one of the study authors, sunlight exposure is the best way to get vitamin D. “People should expose themselves for 30 minutes twice a week – this means exposing the face and arms with no sunscreen. This would provide the body with adequate vitamin D,” she explained.

Some experts recommend getting sunlight exposure every single day, especially in the summer when the sun delivers the most ultraviolet (UV) rays which produce vitamin D in the skin. Twenty minutes of sunlight exposure on a summer day can produce a healthy 20,000 IU of vitamin D in the skin, delivering optimal protection from all kinds of diseases.

Last summer, a study published in Diabetes Educator also found that vitamin D helps to prevent diabetes and can even help those who already have the disease. “Vitamin D has widespread benefits for our health and certain chronic diseases in particular,” said Sue Penckofer, Ph.D., R.N., and co-author of that study.

It appears that people who have diabetes are generally low in vitamin D, which is also the case with many other diseases. Since vitamin D-deficiency and serious illness are so closely related, many medical professionals are advising people to have their levels checked to be sure they fall within a healthy range. More often than not, people who are acutely ill are deficient in the necessary vitamin.

If one is deficient in the vitamin, it is best to get more sunlight exposure, eat foods with vitamin D, and supplement with vitamin D3 in order to achieve optimal levels.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk…

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art…

NTS Notes: I have said many times that it is important to get at least 2000 IU of Vitamin D supplements into your body daily. There is so much that is now coming out about this wonderous vitamin, and I am keeping on top of all of the new reports and passing them on to my readers.

The question is asked: Is there anything this Vitamin can not do for your better health? The answer is probably not much!

More to come

NTS

Again, my articles cover a wide spectrum of subjects. I want to keep up with important health issues, primarily because of the need for us to strengthen our bodies for the fight against the criminals that are wanting to destroy our society and enslave us all.

I am always on alert for any new health warnings that come across the Net, over blogs, and through other media sources. I find it a duty to keep my readers informed of the dangers of the poisons that have been introduced into our food supply, and to keep everyone aware of the need to avoid these poisons as much as possible.

With that in mind, I came across the following article from www.dukehealth.org, where researchers have just released a new report linking High Fructose Corn Syrup to Human Liver damage in the form of Liver scarring! Here is that Duke University report, with my further comments to follow:

High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Liver Scarring

By Duke Medicine News and Communications

NTS Notes: High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFC) is in almost all of the foods that we ingest daily. It was introduced as a cheaper source of sugar, replacing the more expensive Sugar Cane derived sugars, by Food Manufacturers back in the 1970′s. It has been linked to the explosion of Obesity in countries such as the United States and Canada due to the fact that its primary sugar is Fructose. Fructose derived from HFC does not breakdown readily in the human body like Sucrose derived from Sugar Cane does, but is instead stored away in fatty tissue.

Now with this latest news that HFC causes liver damage, I hope that people will finally realize the danger, and actually care about what they consume. Remember to always read the labels on any food products you purchase, and avoid foods that have high concentrations of HFC at all cost! This is for your better health….

More to come

NTS

The controversy of adding Sodium Fluoride to drinking water supplies all over the world continues. Actually, there is no controversy, but rather it is a travesty! Fluorine is a poison, period. Fluoride as sodium fluoride is a bi-product of the Aluminum smelting industry, and it KILLS. However, someone years ago came up with the novel idea of disposing of the waste material from the production of Aluminum by simply duping nations into putting it into our drinking water! Guaranteed there must have been massive kickbacks from the officials of ALCAN and ALCOA to convince the American Medical and the American Dental agencies of the “health benefits” of this most poisonous and highly destructive chemical.

Misology in America Part 2.1

By Robert E. Reis

Why do most people believe that smoking is dangerous?

Studies which in any other area of science would be rejected as second-rate and inferior but which support antismoking are accepted as first-rate.

Studies which are conducted according to orthodox and rigorous design but do not support the idea that smoking is harmful are not merely ignored but suppressed.

The public health authorities and health care professionals have ignored their duty to tell the truth.

Misology is the hatred of objective knowledge won by the scrupulous use of the scientific method when it contradicts the political goals, ideology or religious faith of the misologists.

Misologists dominate the discussion of public policies in several areas in the modern world.

In the United States misologists predominate in the media, the universities, the schools, and among the elected politicians and the clergy.

For many decades the public health authorities, the media and politicians have propagated dire warnings about the harmfulness of smoking tobacco products for the individual smoker. When these dire warnings failed to persuade all smokers to stop, the public health authorities began propagating deceitful warnings about the effects of passive inhalation of tobacco smoke by non-smokers.

Many people have been gulled by the fact that the governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 164 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that “Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.”

[WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” (PDF). World Health Organization. 2005-02-27. http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf. ]

Public health professionals and other scam artist have provoked hysteria about smoking and lung cancer. Every smoker has been taught to worry about his or her smoking and lung cancer. Malaria kills more people in the United States each year than lung cancer. Do you sit up all night worrying about malaria? Diarrheal diseases kill more people in the United States each year than lung cancer. Is diarrhea high on your list of health concerns? Tuberculosis kills more people every year in the United States than lung cancer. Are you trembling in your boots, yet?

If the “official truth” that smoking tobacco is a horrifying health hazard is true, then international statistics on the rate of tobacco use in different countries should show a consistent relationship to the number of people who die from cancer and from heart disease in these countries. The international statistic do not show any consistent relationship between the percentage of smokers in a country and the percentages of people dying of cancer and heart disease. The “official truth” is a lie.

Isn’t it astonishing that more people are dying of cancer per 100, 000 in the United States where only 17.5% of people smoke tobacco every day than in Austria where 36.3 % of people smoke tobacco every day.

Let’s look at some more comparisons.

Austria is the country with the highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 36.3% percent of Austrians smoke every day. 280 Austrians per 100,000 die of cancer each year. 109.3 Austrians die of hearth disease each year.

Greece is the country with the second highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 35% of Greeks smoke every day. 68.8 Greeks per 100,000 die of heart disease each year. The number of Greeks who die from cancer each year is so low that Greece does not appear in the international statistics of the for the countries with the highest rates of cancer deaths.

Hungary is the country with the third highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 33.8% of Hungarians smoke every day. 411 Hungarians per 100,000 die of cancer each year. 192.1 Hungarians per 100,000 die of heart disease each year.

Luxembourg is the country with the fourth highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 33% of Luxembourgers smoke every day. 409.7 Luxembourgers per 100,000 die of cancer each year but only 68.9 per 100, 000 die of heart disease.

The United States is far down the list of countries where people smoke tobacco daily. In fact, the United States is ranked as 29th. Only 17.5% of Americans smoke tobacco every day. However, 321.9 Americans per 100, 000 die of cancer each year and 106.5 Americans per 100,000 die of heart disease each year.

Let us look at the list of the sixteen countries where the most people smoke tobacco products every day.

#1 Austria: 36.3% #2 Greece: 35% #3 Hungary: 33.8% #4 Luxembourg: 33%

#5 Turkey: 32.1% #6 Netherlands: 32% #7 S. Korea.: 30.4% #8 Japan: 30.3%

#9 Spain: 28.1% #10 Denmark: 28% #11 Poland: 27.6% #12 Belgium: 27%

#13 Ireland: 27% #14 France: 27% #15 Switzerland: 26.8% #16 Mexico: 26.4%

How many of the top sixteen smoking nations are in the top sixteen nations for worst rates of cancer deaths?

Only six are in the top sixteen:  Austria ,Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Ireland, and France!

How many of the top sixteen smoking nations are in the top sixteen nations for worst rates of heart disease deaths?

Only five are in the top sixteen: Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Belgium, and France!

How many of the sixteen countries with the worst rates of cancer deaths are among the sixteen countries with the highest daily rates of tobacco smoking?

Only six: Netherlands, Hungary, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, and Austria!

How many of the sixteen countries with the worst rates of heart disease deaths are among the sixteen countries with the highest daily rates of tobacco smoking?

Only four of the sixteen top smoking nations make this list: Hungary, Ireland, Austria, and Denmark !

A rational person ought to conclude that the correlation between smoking tobacco products daily and horrible health consequences is weak. How weak is it?

The first scientific study in the United Kingdom on the supposed relationship between smoking and lung cancer was done by Richard Doll and Bradford Hill in 1950. They asserted that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers.

Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, “even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer.”

The American Surgeon General issued “Smoking and Health” in 1964. It declared that in the Doll and Hill study “…no difference in the proportion of smokers inhaling was found among male and female cases and controls.” This was a blatant lie.

In 1968 fourteen hundred British civil servants, all smokers, were divided into two similar groups. Half were encouraged and counselled to quit smoking. These formed the test group. The others, the control group, were left to their own devices. For ten years both groups were monitored about their health and smoking status.

The results of the Whitehall study were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. After twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

In 1982, the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group reported their results in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The American research was based on the study of 12, 886 subjects.

In 1986, the World Health Organization’s European Collaborative Group issued its final report on the ‘European collaborative trial of multifactorial prevention of coronary heart disease: final report on the 6-year results.” It was based on the study of 60, 881 subjects.  In Sweden the ‘multifactor primary prevention trial in Goteborg’ was published in the European Heart Journal. This report was based on 30,022 subjects.

The results of all of these studies were consistent, plainspoken and unambiguous: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. There was no change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer.

in 1989 the Surgeon General of the United States issued his summary: “Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress”. He avoided mentioning the scientific reports except to lie about the results of the MRFIT:

“The MRFIT study shows that smoking status and number of cigarettes smoked per day have remained powerful predictors for total mortality and the development of CHD [coronary heart disease], stroke, cancer, and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. In the study population, there were an estimated 2,249 (29 percent) excess deaths due to smoking, of which 35 percent were from CHD and 21 percent from lung cancer. The nonsmoker-former smoker group had 30 percent fewer total cancers than the smoking group over the 6-year follow up.”

The Surgeon General later admitted that none of this was true.

In 1990 the Surgeon General published “The Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation”. The MRFIT results were described this time:: “there was no difference in total mortality between the special intervention [quit] and usual care groups.” But the results were rejected by a deception.

MRFIT and the other studies were rejected because the combined change in other factors – e.g.  diet and exercise – made it impossible to apportion the benefit due to quitting smoking alone. This is absurd because all of the studies had shown that there was no improvement in life expectancy from the combined health changes to apportion.

In the United States and in Australia the respective government agencies responsible for providing objective health information to their peoples rejected proper scientific methodology in favor of using uncontrolled, non-intervention, non-randomized surveys provided by the racketeers at the American Cancer Society. They relied on the infamous Hammond study. 

How infamous is the Hammond study? It was used as an example of how not to do research in a 1962 university textbook in statistics.

Hammond’s work, with its demonstrated faulty methodology, was used by the Australian authorities to deduce that smoking causes premature death to the extent of 17,800 per year in Australia.

Real scientists at the Australian Bureau of Statistics examined the data for Australia and reported that cancer and heart disease are more common among non-smokers than among smokers.

What’s one more lie among the health care professions?

It can in fact be shown that the mean age at death from alleged smoking-related causes is about 1 year greater than from alleged nonsmoking-causes.

[See: ]http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/finch2.pdf]

During all this time health authorities have repeatedly and persistently lied to the public in the United States and around the world.

In June 1988, in Western Australia the Health Department in full page advertisements in local papers declared: “The statistics are frightening. Smoking will kill almost 700 women in Western Australia this year. If present trends continue, lung cancer will soon overtake breast cancer as the most common malignant cancer in women”.

We all are used to health departments issuing such announcements.

Everywhere we are told that smokers should quit and live longer when every controlled trial has demonstrated this claim to be false.

Is there anything that can be said with certainty about the health and life expectancy of smokers and non-smokers? The evidence indicates little difference.

Smoking could be a major cause of lung cancer or even the only cause yet also be associated with long life.

The Japanese are amongst the heaviest smokers in the world. They also live the longest.

Most agents have both good and bad effects on health and life expectancy. It is the net result which is important.

Peter Finch is a professor of mathematical statistics in Australia. He has contributed to The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Information Sciences, The Australian Journal of Statistics, The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Acta Mathematica Scientia, Biometrics, The European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology, as well as to such books as The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, The Encyclopedia of Statistical Science and The Foundations of Statistical Theories in the Physical Sciences.

He has concluded that “even if one accepts the edited versions of the facts presented by health promoters, then their message should perhaps more accurately be: smoking kills relatively infrequently.”

How infrequently?

Professor Finch points out that for every 100,000 smokers 99, 841 will not get lung cancer as a result of smoking.

That is right. 99.841 percent of smokers will not get lung cancer as a result of smoking.

Ninety-nine thousand eight hundred and forty-one is a very large number.

Everyone agrees the inhaling of tobacco smoke by smokers is not an attractive habit to non-smokers.

What is the scientific basis for the belief that secondhand tobacco smoke, environmental tobacco smoke or passive inhaling of tobacco smoke from cigarettes smoked by other people caused health problems among the nonsmokers?

A study of environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a study of Californians from 1960 to 1998 found there was no causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.

An enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease among flight attendants over a thirty seven year period found a remarkably low standardized incidence ratio for lung cancer among female flight attendants and no increase for male flight attendants.

The American Cancer Society found no association at all between exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and female breast cancer mortality.

The American Lung Association International Conference decided on April 25, 1999 that no scientific studies have showed a convincing link between passive smoking and asthma

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France concluded that environmental tobacco smoke exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.

The Australian Federal Court condemned the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council for deliberately suppressing scientific evidence. Justice Finn ordered the A.N.H.M.R.C. to remove their recommendation that smoking by banned in public places from their report. He found that this recommendation could not be inferred from the evidence contained in the report.

A 1995 Canadian study from the Respiratory Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, shows no association between asthma in children and environmental tobacco smoke.

The American Cancer Society committed a colossal fraud on the American people. They claimed that secondhand tobacco smoke killed about the 53,000 Americans each year. The real number is zero.

Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe revealed that even the most exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day – 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates.

Professor Finch, Foundation Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Monash University, Australia, since 1964, has documented how public opinion has been turned – often viciously – against smokers for fear of being harmed by ‘passive smoking.’ There is no acceptable scientific basis for such a trumped-up danger.

Scientists have proved that it takes more than 48,000 hours of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke to inhale the equivalent of one cigarette.

Scientists have studied the effects of smoking on a nonsmoking wife or husband. They have not found any increase in the risk for heart disease in either males or females.

There is no association between parental smoking and childhood cancer, especially with leukemia, the most-hyped supposed risk.

The Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles disclosed the antismoking industry’s lies about a “link” between secondhand smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. They found no evidence of any such link.

Michael Crichton, Medical Doctor and world famous author spoke out.

“I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.”

Ironically, Dr. Crichton, who was a non-smoker who hated cigarette smoke in his presence, died of throat cancer in 2008.

You can watch .Dr. Crichton discuss smoking at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4

A study by UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom and State University of New York epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat concluded there is no significant association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease and lung cancer.

None of the studies on secondhand smoke have ever proved the epidemiological existence of a risk. Repeat, none. The damage caused by inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke is too small to measure.

I am not going to suggest that smoking tobacco products will make smokers more successful marathon runners, but I do suggest that relying upon the misologists currently in power for accurate advice on any issue is imprudent.

Doll, R. and Hill, A.B. (1950), “Smoking and carcinoma of the lung”, British Medical Journal, ii pp739-48

Doll, R. and Hill, A.B. (1964), “Mortality in relation to smoking: ten years’ observations of British doctors”, British Medical Journal, i pp1460-7

Surgeon General (1964), “Smoking and Health” http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1964/sgr64.htm

Rose, G. and P.J.S. Hamilton (1978), ‘A randomised controlled trial of the effect on middle-aged men of advice to stop smoking’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 32, pages 275-281.

Rose, G., P.J.S. Hamilton, L. Colwell and M.J. Shipley (1982), ‘A randomised controlled trial of anti-smoking advice: 10-year results’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 36, pages 102-108

Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group (1982), ‘Multiple risk factor intervention trial: risk factor changes and mortality results’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 248, pages 1465-1477.

WHO European Collaborative Group (1986), ‘European collaborative trial of multifactorial prevention of coronary heart disease: final report on the 6-year results’, Lancet, 1, pages 869-872.

Wilhelmsen, L., G. Berglund, E. Elmfeldt, G. Tibblin, H. Wedel, K. Pennert, A. Vedin, C. Wilhelmsson and L. Werks (1986), ‘The multifactor primary prevention trial in Goteborg’, European Heart Journal, 7, pages 279-288.

Surgeon General (1982) The Health Consequences of Smoking – Cancer: A Report of the Surgeon General.

Surgeon General (1989) Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General: Executive Summary and Full Report

Surgeon General (1990) The Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General

Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, Canberra (1988) “The Quantification of Drug Caused Morbidity and Mortality in Australia”.

Wallis, W.A. and Roberts, H.V. (1962) “Statistics: A New Approach”, Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: Smokers are less likely to have cancer, heart disease. Australian Bureau of Statistics, No 4382.0, “1989-90 National Health Survey: Smoking”

[BMJ 2003;326:1057 (17 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2

1 School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA, 2 Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 ]

Why Haven’t Fruit & Vegetable Eaters Been Told About This Toxic Waste Overload?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
January 16 2010 |
The U.S. government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired [...]

Wednesday, October 14, 2009(NaturalNews) The discussion of cell phones and the problems they can cause is nothing new to Natural News readers, of course. Studies have linked cell phone radiation to changes in brain physiology, declines in sperm quality, cancer, and more.1Newly released studies in 2008 and 2009, compiled at the Environmental Working Group,2 have linked cell phone use to brain

Friday, October 23, 2009(NaturalNews) There’s a new vaccine for nicotine addiction, and another one for drug addiction. There’s an AIDS vaccines (which doesn’t work) and a vaccine for cervical cancer that’s been approved for use on boys (boys don’t have a cervix). Through the pharmaceutical industry, the big push for vaccines is on!But why, exactly? Is there suddenly a new rash of epidemic

1. Part 12. Part 23. Part 34. Part 45. Part 56. Part 6Profit Driven Swine Flu Propaganda – Pump Up the Volume Part 1(NaturalNews) The pharmaceutical industry, with public health officials and the mainstream media acting as a mass marketing team, is about to pull off the biggest profiteering scheme in the history of the world. The swine flu hoax, perpetrated on a global level, will generate

I think I know of one parasite this won’t get rid of. Maybe it will. Who knows? lol.—————————————————-Tuesday, October 27, 2009(NaturalNews) It’s not widely known, but oregano extracts are extremely effective at eliminating parasites in humans. And a lot of people have parasites they simply don’t know about.So here, we’ve collected a number of supporting

 
Gary Null Speaking Out at the NYS Assembly Hearing (10-13-2009)

View Gary Null Speaking at the NYS Assembly Hearing full post and video at WIDE EYE CINEMA

View Gary Null Speaking at the NYS Assembly Hearing full post and video at WIDE EYE CINEMA

President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.

The Centers for Disease Control recommend that children ages 6 months through 18 years of age receive a vaccination against the H1N1 flu virus. At this time only children with chronic medical conditions are receiving the vaccination because their immune system is not strong enough to fight off the strain. The CDC also says a regular seasonal flu shot does not protect against the virus.

Source

Related posts:

1. Obama Declares H1N1 Flu National Emergency President Obama signed a proclamation declaring the H1N1 influenza…
2. The Flu Shot for H1N1 cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, but the corrupt US FDA does not care ! The FDA, mostly led by corrupt Jews, does not…
3. 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine to be ready in the next two weeks The first doses of swine flu vaccine will reach…

President Obama signed a proclamation declaring the H1N1 influenza a national emergency, giving doctors and medical facilities greater leeway in responding to the flu pandemic.

Obama signed the declaration late Friday, which the White House said allows medical treatment facilities to better handle a surge in flu patients by waiving federal requirements on a case-by-case basis.

“The foundation of our national approach to the H1N1 flu has been preparedness at all levels — personal, business, and government — and this proclamation helps that effort by advancing our overall response capability,” the White House said in a statement.

In the proclamation, Obama said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there’s a potential “to overburden health care resources.”

Because of vaccine production delays, the government has backed off initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses would be available by mid-October. As of Wednesday, only 11 million doses had been shipped to health departments, doctor’s offices and other providers, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The government now hopes to have about 50 million doses of vaccine for the so-called swine flu out by mid-November and 150 million in December.

“We are nowhere near where we thought we’d be by now,” CDC Director Thomas Frieden said Friday. “We share the frustration of people who have waited in line or called a number or checked a Web site and haven’t been able to find a place to get vaccinated.”

The flu virus has to be grown in chicken eggs, and the yield hasn’t been as high as was initially hoped, officials explained.

H1N1 is more widespread now than it’s ever been. Health authorities say almost 100 children have died from the flu, and 46 states now have widespread flu activity.

Worldwide, more than 5,000 people have reportedly died from swine flu since it emerged this year and developed into a global epidemic, the World Health Organization said Friday. Since most countries have stopped counting individual swine flu cases, the figure is considered an underestimate.

The flu has infected millions of Americans and killed nearly 100 children in the U.S. The chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that over a thousand people have died as a result, with 46 states reporting widespread H1N1 activity.

“Since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve seen more than 1,000 deaths and 20,000 hospitalizations,” Frieden said. “We expect it to occur in waves, but we can’t predict when those waves will happen.”

Source

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Daughters Not Vaccinated Against H1N1 President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated…
2. 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine to be ready in the next two weeks The first doses of swine flu vaccine will reach…
3. Obama Risks American Lives Open Border for Mexican Flu “We are asking our supporters to call their Congressional…

 
Dr. Mercola Interviews Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center.

View Swine Flu Overestimated! full post and video at WIDE EYE CINEMA

View Swine Flu Overestimated! full post and video at WIDE EYE CINEMA