1987: WHO Admits Its Smallpox Vaccine Caused AIDS - WHO Omits That It Requested The Virus

1987: WHO Admits Its Smallpox Vaccine Caused AIDS - WHO Omits That It Requested The Virus

"[A] 1972 report (Bulletin #47) issued by the World Health Organization .... referred to an immune virus requested [Emphasis added] which would selectively destroy the Human T Cell System, to be distributed in conjunction with a Nationwide vaccination program "to observe the results". This coincided precisely with the extensive Small Pox vaccination program in central Africa - shortly preceding the outbreak of Aids in Africa, America & elsewhere. The determining factor most common in Aids victims is the breakdown of the T Cell System in the body."

From http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-universal-declaration-of-resistance-to-mandatory-vaccinations/

 

Below is an article describing how the WHO attempted to deal with those who saw and questioned the obvious connection between the WHO's massive smallpox vaccine campaign and the outbreak of AIDS in all the places it gave it.

 

Before reading the following article about the WHO and the smallpox vaccine, please be aware of seven things. 

1.  People have seen that ebola suddenly broke out in each of the places the WHO (and UN and UNICEF and Doctors without Borders) recently ran vaccine campaigns in West Africa.

2.  Ebola is a man-made bioweapons owned and patented by the US government and the CDC.

3.  The WHO now, on the basis of ebola outbreaks that coincided with its own vaccine campaign,  now plans a massive vaccine campaign against ebola with untested vaccines that will contain the ebola virus (a bioweapon) that can cause ebola and mass deaths.

4.  The US is interested in the oil, diamonds and minerals in West Africa, has been stopped by people living there, but, because of an "ebola emergency" claimed by the WHO after there were outbreaks of ebola following the WHO vaccine campaigns there, now has 1000s of troops in West Africa.

5.  The US and other countries who contribute to the WHO were also interested in the mineral wealth of Central Africa prior to the WHO's smallpox vaccination campaign.

6.  The pharmaceutical industry which was the main supporters of Hitler and intensely interested in genocide, became the main supporters of the WHO, coincidentally formed immediately after WWII, was involved in killing millions with the smallpox vaccines.  They coincidentally made an immense fortune on AIDS drugs and research funding, all the while not revealing that the WHO had requested an AIDS-like virus just prior to the pharmaceutical industry making the small pox vaccine and AIDS breaking out immediately afterwards.

 

7.  This WHO vaccine campaign issue is not a historical issue because Bush's pandemic laws and the WHO International Health Regulations would make vaccines mandatory now if the WHO declares a  pandemic emergency (with no proof needed) and even if people believed they could cause more AIDS or cause ebola and deadly.  Then, it would be Americans, not just Africans hiding from vaccines or killing vaccine teams because the vaccines are killing tens of thousands of children. 

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/ebolagate/2014/11/1987-who-admits-smallpox-vaccine-caused-aids-who-omits-that-it-requested-it.html

From http://www.wanttoknow.info/870511vaccineaids

       Top 3 Medicine Brands for a Dry Cough

The cough and cold medicine aisle is often confusing, and determining which product is the best cough medicine for a dry cough can be a challenge. There are cough suppressants, expectorants, decongestants, and a host of other medicines available. When you have a persistent dry cough, the best thing to do is to consult a doctor so that you can treat the underlying cause. If you need something soothe the symptoms you can take something that will fight off your body’s urge to cough. If the major symptom you are dealing with is a dry cough, and you are an adult with no other health problems, consider choosing one of these cough medicines, which get great reviews from doctors as well as patients. Remember that these don’t cure your cough they only suppress your body’s natural urge to cough. You should talk to your doctor and your pharmacist before taking any medications, especially if you also take prescription medication.
Always follow the directions on the product and consult a physician before trying any new medicinal products.

Best Cough Medicine for a Dry Cough: Mucinex

Mucinex is a powerful cough suppressant that controls your cough for 12 hours. While its clever commercials talk about the dramatic results it has when breaking up mucus, this medicine also works extremely well for a dry cough, where no mucus or phlegm is present. If a minor cold, allergy, or simple throat irritation is causing you to cough uncontrollably, take Mucinex as indicated on the box every 12 hours and you will begin feeling better as soon as your first dose sets in.
The active ingredient in Mucinex is Guaifenesin, which is provided in a convenient time extended tablet. If you look at a Mucinex pill, you will see one side is white. That is the medicine that is released immediately. The other side is a colored layer, which releases additional cough medicine into your system every hour to combat your cough. It is so much easier than remembering to take another dose of medicine every few hours. You can chose between Mucinex DM and Maximum Strength Mucinex, for your worst cough that seems impossible to shake.
Mucinex is a little more expensive than many other cough medicines on the market. Depending on the dosage and size of the box you buy, you can expect to spend between $15 and $20 on a package of 14 to 20 600mg pills. Be prepared to show some identification at the pharmacy or retailer where you buy it. Although it is an over-the-counter (OTC) medication, its strength requires that you be an adult in order to purchase it. Mucinex gets the first-place rating because it works immediately and you only have to take it every 12 hours.

Second Best Cough Medicine for a Dry Cough: Robitussin

Another popular brand, Robitussin, contains Guaifensin as well. It also contains suppressants that will calm your cough, and help your body reduce the impulse to cough. Most of Robitussin’s cough medicines are combined with medicine to treat chest congestion. Although you can get Robitussin cough gels and Robitussin Lingering Cold Long Acting cough gels which only contain cough suppressant. Your unproductive/productive cough will benefit from Robitussin Cough + Chest Congestion, but keep in mind that it contains an expectorant you may not need for your dry cough.
You can purchase Robitussin in bottles that are 4 ounces, 8 ounces, or 12 ounces as well as gel capsules. It will cost you less than $10 in most drug stores. Robitussin is in second place because while it isn’t as effective as Mucinex it is just as effective as Tylenol (our third recommendation) in treating your dry cough, but offers products that work only on suppressing coughs without unnecessary additional medicine.

Third Best Cough Medicine for a Dry Cough: Tylenol

Tylenol is a well-known brand for a host of medications that treat pain, fever, coughs, and colds. It is reliable and easily accessible. While the Tylenol Cold & Cough for Daytime, as well as Tylenol Cold & Cough for Nighttime are currently (and perhaps temporarily) off the market, the Tylenol Cold medicine can still be obtained. You might also benefit from Tylenol Cold & Sore Throat if your dry cough is irritating your throat, and causing it to hurt.
Tylenol Cold comes in a liquid form and is available as a Daytime or Nighttime product. You can also get it in capsule form, and there is a package on the market that provides both Tylenol Cold Daytime and Tylenol Cold Nighttime dosages. Tylenol treats many different symptoms that show up during the common cold, including a headache, fever, stuffy nose, and cough. While the medicine is not specifically targeted for a dry cough, it will still help you when you are suffering from such a cough. The Tylenol Cold Nighttime will help you sleep, and with the Daytime dose, you will find you are better able to control and manage your cough.

Tylenol contains Dextromethorphan HBr, which works to suppress your cough. It also has Guaifenesin, like Mucinex, but not in a time release format. You will need to take Tylenol every four hours in order to keep your cough suppressed. It will cost you under $10 in any local drugstore or department store. Tylenol came in third place because it is reliable in treating your dry cough, but it has a lot of extra medicine that you don’t necessarily need when you just have a dry cough.

http://thebestcoughmedicine.com/best-medicine-for-a-dry-cough/

STROKE signs

Stroke has a New Indicator     They say if you email this to ten people, you stand a chance of saving one life. Will you send this along?  Blood Clots/Stroke - They Now Have a Fourth Indicator,  theTongue  I will continue to forward this every time it comes around! STROKE: Remember the 1st Three Letters.....S. T. R.   STROKE  IDENTIFICATION It only takes a minute to read this. A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.  RECOGNIZING A STROKE Thank God for the sense to remember the '3' steps - STR. Read and Learn! Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke. Now doctors say a  bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions: S  *Ask the individual to SMILE. T  *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK    A SIMPLE SENTENCE  (Coherently)  (i.e.  Chicken Soup) R  *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call emergency number immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher. New Sign of a Stroke -------- Stick out Your Tongue NOTE:  Another 'sign' of a stroke is this: Ask the person to 'stick' out his tongue. If the tongue is 'crooked', if it goes to one side or the other that is also an indication of a stroke. A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved. I have done my part. Will you?

How Do Soft Drinks Affect Us?

How Do Soft Drinks Affect Us?

More and more, many of us exchange drinking regular water with soft drinks. But soft drinks are not a healthy alternative, as we well know. But how unhealthy is it really? What potential adverse effects can drinking a certain amount of soft drinks lead to? This infographic was prepared and summarized to get these important points across.

By Alexandra Sifferlin 

5 Things You Should Know About Chicken Pox and Shingles

The news raised questions about how likely adults are to get chicken pox and how chicken pox is related to a condition that’s more common among adults, shingles. So here are some quick facts about the infections.

If you never had chicken pox as a child, can you still get the infection as an adult?
Yes. Although most cases of chicken pox occur before age 10, adults who have never contracted the infection are still at risk.
Can chicken pox be more severe in adults?
Most people get chicken pox when they are young, but the symptoms can be more severe among people who catch the infection in an older age. They include loss of appetite, fever, headache, tiredness and rashes, all of which can be more taxing on the health of elderly adults.
What is shingles, and how is it different from chicken pox?
Shingles, also known as zoster or herpes zoster, is a painful skin rash caused by the same virus responsible for chicken pox: the varicella zoster virus. Even if you had chicken pox in the past, you can still contract shingles. That’s because the chicken-pox virus remains in the body, lying dormant in the roots of nerves, and can reactivate many years later. It’s not clear why the virus reawakens — in some people it never does — but researchers believe that the virus is triggered as the immune system weakens with age or in conditions of stress.
About 1 out of 3 people in the U.S. is affected by shingles at some point in their lives, with the majority of cases occurring in men and women ages 60 and older.
Shingles is less contagious than chicken pox and cannot be passed from person to person. However, the varicella zoster virus can be spread from a person with shingles to someone who has never had chicken pox. The unfortunate recipient might develop chicken pox, but not shingles.
How long is a person contagious with the chicken pox or shingles?
The infection can take anywhere from 10 to 21 days to develop after exposure to someone with chicken pox or shingles. People with chicken pox are contagious a couple days before their rash appears and remain so until all of their blisters have scabbed. A person with shingles, on the other hand, can only spread their infection while their skin rash is still blistering. They’re not contagious before the blisters occur, and are no longer contagious once the rash starts to scab.
What’s the best way to prevent chicken pox and shingles?
To avoid chicken pox, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends two doses of the chicken-pox vaccine — which is 98% effective — for kids, adolescents and adults who have not had chicken pox. Adults who have not had the disease and may be in close contact with young children who are likely to be infected should consider getting vaccinated. Children should receive the first dose when they are between 12 months old and 15 months old, and a second dose when they are 4 years old to 6 years old. The U.S. started chicken-pox immunizations in 1995, so Walters would not have been vaccinated as a child.
There is also a shingles vaccine. Zostavax is recommended for people ages 60 and older since they are most vulnerable to the infection. Currently, the CDC doesn’t have a recommendation for the vaccine in people ages 50 to 59, but the Food and Drug Administration did approve the shot for this age group as well. According to the CDC, shingles-vaccination rates among adults are low, but there was a 16% increase in people ages 60 and older who were immunized in 2011. While the vaccine cannot protect you completely from a bout with shingles, it can make the rashes less painful and help clear them up more quickly.
 http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/29/5-things-you-should-know-about-chickenpox-and-shingles/

Antibiotics and the Meat We Eat

By DAVID A. KESSLER

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/opinion/antibiotics-and-the-meat-we-eat.html?_r=2&

Published: March 27, 2013 

SCIENTISTS at the Food and Drug Administration systematically monitor the meat and poultry sold in supermarkets around the country for the presence of disease-causing bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. These food products are bellwethers that tell us how bad the crisis of antibiotic resistance is getting. And they’re telling us it’s getting worse.

But this is only part of the story. While the F.D.A. can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals. This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death.

In 2011, drugmakers sold nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics for livestock — the largest amount yet recorded and about 80 percent of all reported antibiotic sales that year. The rest was for human health care. We don’t know much more except that, rather than healing sick animals, these drugs are often fed to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to suppress diseases that arise because they live in dangerously close quarters on top of one another’s waste.

It may sound counterintuitive, but feeding antibiotics to livestock at low levels may do the most harm. When he accepted the Nobel Prize in 1945 for his discovery of penicillin, Alexander Fleming warned that “there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.” He probably could not have imagined that, one day, we would be doing this to billions of animals in factorylike facilities.

The F.D.A. started testing retail meat and poultry for antibiotic-resistant bacteria in 1996, shortly before my term as commissioner ended. The agency’s most recent report on superbugs in our meat, released in February and covering retail purchases in 2011, was 82 pages long and broke down its results by four different kinds of meat and poultry products and dozens of species and strains of bacteria.

It was not until 2008, however, that Congress required companies to tell the F.D.A. the quantity of antibiotics they sold for use in agriculture. The agency’s latest report, on 2011 sales and also released in February, was just four pages long — including the cover and two pages of boilerplate. There was no information on how these drugs were administered or to which animals and why.

We have more than enough scientific evidence to justify curbing the rampant use of antibiotics for livestock, yet the food and drug industries are not only fighting proposed legislation to reduce these practices, they also oppose collecting the data. Unfortunately, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as well as the F.D.A., is aiding and abetting them.

The Senate committee recently approved the Animal Drug User Fee Act, a bill that would authorize the F.D.A. to collect fees from veterinary-drug makers to finance the agency’s review of their products. Public health experts had urged the committee to require drug companies to provide more detailed antibiotic sales data to the agency. Yet the F.D.A. stood by silently as the committee declined to act, rejecting a modest proposal from Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, both Democrats, that required the agency to report data it already collects but does not disclose.

In the House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Louise M. Slaughter of New York, also Democrats, have introduced a more comprehensive measure. It would not only authorize the F.D.A. to collect more detailed data from drug companies, but would also require food producers to disclose how often they fed antibiotics to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to offset poor conditions.

This information would be particularly valuable to the F.D.A., which asked drugmakers last April to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics for these purposes. The agency has said it would mandate such action if those practices persisted, but it has no data to determine whether the voluntary policy is working. The House bill would remedy this situation, though there are no Republican sponsors.

Combating resistance requires monitoring both the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in our food, as well as the use of antibiotics on livestock. In human medicine, hospitals increasingly track resistance rates and antibiotic prescription rates to understand how the use of these drugs affects resistance. We need to cover both sides of this equation in agriculture, too.

I appreciate that not every lawmaker is as convinced as I am that feeding low-dose antibiotics to animals is a recipe for disaster. But most, if not all of them, recognize that we are facing an antibiotic resistance crisis, as evidenced by last year’s bipartisan passage of a measure aimed at fighting superbugs by stimulating the development of new antibiotics that treat serious infections. Why are lawmakers so reluctant to find out how 80 percent of our antibiotics are used?

We cannot avoid tough questions because we’re afraid of the answers. Lawmakers must let the public know how the drugs they need to stay well are being used to produce cheaper meat.

David A. Kessler was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 1990 to 1997. 

FDA to crack down on antibiotics in animals reared for meat

Regulators announce new guidelines for drug firms to phase out some antibiotics as a growth enhancer in livestock.The Food and Drug Administration is taking steps toward phasing out the use of some antibiotics in animals processed for meat in the US, citing a potential threat to public health.

Many cattle, hog and poultry producers give their animals antibiotics regularly to ensure that they are healthy and to make the animals grow faster. Now, the agency has announced that it will ask pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily stop labeling drugs important for treating human infection as acceptable for that growth promotion in animals.
If the companies sign on — and one major company has already said it will — using those antibiotics to promote growth in animals would be illegal. Prescriptions would be required to use the drugs for animal illnesses.
The FDA has been debating how to address the issue of antibiotics in meat for several years as consumers have become more aware of the issue and are clamoring for antibiotic-free meat. McDonald's, among other companies, has moved to limit the drugs in their meat, pushing many animal producers to go along.
The FDA move is designed to limit antibiotic-resistant diseases in humans. Repeated exposure to antibioticscan lead germs to become resistant to the drug so that it is no longer effective in treating a particular illness.
Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health problem. In September the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released sobering estimates that more than 23,000 people a year are dying from drug-resistant infections.
The biggest risk is from germs spread in hospitals, and it's not clear how much of the problem is related to the use of drugs in meat. Still, the FDA says this is one step toward decreasing resistance.
"We need to be selective about the drugs we use in animals and when we use them," said William Flynn of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "Antimicrobial resistance may not be completely preventable, but we need to do what we can to slow it down."
The new guidance will give the companies three years to comply.
Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner of foods, said he believes asking industry to make the changes is the fastest way to help phase the drugs out. If the FDA made the process mandatory, he said, the agency would have had to move forward with a complex regulatory process that could take years.
"We have high confidence based on dialogue with industry that this initiative will succeed," Taylor said.
Drug company Zoetis, a leading manufacturer of animal antibiotics, has already said they will comply.
"This reflects our continued commitment to antibiotic stewardship and represents the many ways that Zoetis promotes the responsible use of antimicrobial drugs in animals," the company's statement said.
Animal agriculture groups will not have much of a choice in the matter if drug companies sign on and make the drugs' use illegal. But many antibiotics will still be available for those producers to use, just not those that the FDA has classified as most important for treating human infections. Some of the antibiotics that could not be used in animals are penicillins and tetracyclines, the FDA said.
Many animal groups signaled support for the FDA guidance after it was announced Wednesday, including the National Pork Producers Council. Still, Dr. Liz Wagstrom of the pork producers' group said the FDA action will mean "real change" in the way antibiotics are used on the farm, as some animals may not grow as quickly and producers may see more disease. She said she does not know how much it will cost the industry.
Some advocates pushing to rid the animal food supply of antibiotics said the FDA did not go far enough. Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, a microbiologist, said the FDA should have made the action mandatory. The guidance "falls woefully short of what is needed to address a public health crisis," she said.
Others hailed the agency move as progress.
"We commend FDA for taking the first steps since 1977 to broadly reduce antibiotic overuse in livestock," said Laura Rogers of The Pew Charitable Trusts' human health and industrial farming campaign. "There is more work to do, but this is a promising start, especially after decades of inaction."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/11/fda-crackdown-antibiotics-animals-meat