Parents would revolt if they knew that the pharmaceutical industry, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control have allocated millions of dollars in funding to establish vaccine clinics in the public schools. Pumping children with experimental vaccines in public school is about to be pursued as a matter of policy.

Denver Public Schools the Target

Recently, a news article (http://www.denverpost.com/commented…) in the Denver Post highlighted two grants issued by the Centers for Disease Control totaling $1.6 million dollars to vaccinate students attending Denver Public Schools (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an…).

One grant (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an…) funds an effort to establish a sustainable school-based vaccination program utilizing the yearly influenza and experimental H1N1 vaccine. The hope is to create a partnership between public health (Denver Health), school personnel (Denver Public Schools), and an entity (Kaiser Permanente) that would bill third party payers.

The second grant (http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/I…) provides cash for vaccinating children with the newly approved diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4), and human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV). The new vaccines for adolescents are among the most expensive vaccines (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program…) recommended today for any age group.

Lead investigator of Denver In-School Immunization Project, Dr. Judith Shlay, of Denver Health, readily admits that if all goes well, plans are in place to implement school-base vaccine clinics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHji… ) nation-wide (a high level overview of this plan (http://www.nasbhc.org/site/c.jsJPKW…) was presented to the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care by Dr. Shlay).

School Based Health Clinics As the Conduit

The Denver In-School Immunization Project (http://denverhealth.org/portal/Serv…) has long been in the works. It was paved in the late 1970s and early 1980s by incrementally creating School-Based Health Clinics (SCHC). In 1978, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a non-profit organization funded by the Pharmaceutical Company, Johnson and Johnson (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d…), contributed $2.3 million dollars to the state of Colorado, (http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/032…) making SBHCs a reality.

Illnesses such as ADD/ADHD, Cervical Cancer, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and learning disabilities were of little consequence in the ’70s. However, these disabling syndromes and the medications aimed at treating them have all reached epidemic proportions and astronomically profitable sales.

In the past, parents have discovered challenging a school-based medical model can be extremely dangerous. In September, 2000, Ms. Patti Johnson, a former Colorado State education board member, testified before Federal Congress (http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/ps…) concerning Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). In the 1990s, the much-hyped drug, Ritalin, was maneuvered into public schools to address the growing epidemic of hyperactivity. Mrs. Johnson testimony was prophetic and foreshadowed a future scenario where parents could be charged with medical neglect if they refused to medicate their child per the school’s request.

Vaccines for All School Children is the Goal

If School Based Health Clinics are being used as the conduit to vaccinate children, the federally-funded Vaccines For Children (VFC) (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program…) program and third party insurance coverage provide the finances. According to the grant approved by the CDC, the VFC program would provide “free” vaccines to an estimated forty percent of children in the United States who are not covered by third party insurance plans.

“The goal is for this (Denver In-School Immunization Project) to be a sustainable program that can immunize all children in the schools regardless of their insurance. And we need to see at the end of the day, when all the dust settles at the end of this school year, whether the amount that was reimbursed for all these different insurance companies, adds up to the amount of time and effort it took to actually have the clinic.” (Emphasis added)

Dr. Matthew Daley
Evaluator of the Denver In-School Immunization Project
Kaiser Permanente
Colorado Public Radio Interview
February 17th, 2010
(http://www.kcfr.org/index.php?optio…)

Put into context, the implications of the Denver In-School Immunization Project are enormous. We are speaking of a captured market for vaccine manufacturers (guaranteed purchase of vaccines), insurance companies (guaranteed rise in premiums), and government funding (VFC) all footed by taxpayer dollars. The total price per vaccinated adolescent in the private sector is approximately $500 (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/au…). That’s a lot of cash.

What Does Pharma Know?

Dr. Matthew Daley is very aware that a paltry 1/3rd of adolescents receive their yearly influenza vaccine, for example. In a semi-recent presentation, (http://www.preventinfluenza.org/NIV…) Dr. Daley shows obtaining parental consent is a barrier to mass vaccination in a school setting. Furthermore, the presentation suggests improved financial incentives for providing influenza vaccinations. Dr. Daley must be sharing his notes with RAND Corporation because it is almost the exact message RAND pitched to the pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi Pasteur.

In 2007, a study performed by RAND Corporation, funded by Sanofi Pasteur, investigated the most efficient way to vaccinate (http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented…) low-income adolescents. Nicole Lurie,(http://www.opensecrets.org/revolvin…) one authors of the white paper, is now an adviser to Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Human Health Services (HHS). Mrs. Lurie has a long history of traversing the revolving door between private industry, government duties, and academic appointments (there is no difference from the former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, (http://vactruth.com/2010/01/04/juli…) becoming President of Merck Pharmaceuticals Vaccine Division).

RAND’s report identifies barriers that would obstruct “alternative vaccination campaigns,” otherwise known as “in-school vaccination programs.” The list of legal issues includes parental consent laws, absence of a reliable medical home (where an adolescent receives medical treatment such as a doctor’s office), and access to vaccine registration information.

That’s right, mom and dad. Your current ability to refuse vaccines, which is protected by most state laws, is considered a barrier to Pharmaceutical Interests!

*As a side note, many states are taking steps to move parents out of the way and allow public officials the right to vaccinate children, without parental consent. By example, legislation is being considered in New York that would give absolute authority to health professionals to vaccinate children under 18 years old without the parental consent. Another bill in New York (http://vactruth.com/2010/02/12/new-…) seeks to mandate the controversial HPV vaccine (Gardasil) for school entry.

With Public Relations at the foreground, The RAND paper further recommends that Sanofi Pasteur create “Vaccine Champions” or “Registration Champions.” Vaccine champions are “ardent supporters of a cause … They can bring about change by educating those around them and spurring others into action through local events, meetings, or publications.” Coincidentally, non-profit organizations such as The Immunization Partnership are following lockstep with the RAND Corporation’s group-think. It also has “Immunization Champions.” (http://www.immunizeusa.org/iz-champ…)

If vaccines are mandated for public school attendance, and most likely they will be, you can bet that it won’t matter whether the vaccine is experimental or not. With rising awareness of the chronic effects of mass vaccination, public skepticism and outcries will likely be countered with fear mongering (http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/…) by fanatical vaccine advocates and lobbying groups funded by Big Pharma interests. The only real way to protect the safety of our children is to fiercely safeguard state exemption laws that uphold parents’ freedom to choose whether to vaccinate or not.

Yet, by blending society’s Federal Educational Framework with a superficial medical model, vaccine proponents have a road map to overcome any damaging future resistance to experimental vaccines. Could it be any clearer that if left unchecked, the pharmaceutical industrial complex soon will be calling the shots instead of parents?

About the author: Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of the website www.vactruth.com he promotes well-educated pediatricians, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

“This study adds to an existing body of solid research that shows the strong links between what we eat and our mental health,” said Andrew McCulloch of the Mental Health Foundation. “The U.K. population is consuming less nutritious, fresh produce and more saturated fats and sugars. We are particularly concerned about those who cannot access fresh produce easily or live in areas where there are a high number of fast food restaurants and takeaways.”

Researchers collected diet and lifestyle data on 3,500 middle-aged civil servants, then ranked them according to two different measures: how much of their diet was composed of whole foods, and how much was composed of processed foods. Whole foods included fruits and vegetables, while processed foods included high-fat dairy, processed meats, refined grains, fried food and sweetened desserts.

After adjusting for other depression risk factors such as age, education, gender, physical activity and smoking, the researchers found that those who consumed the most processed foods were 58 percent more likely to suffer from depression five years later than those who ate the least. Similarly, those who ate the most whole foods were 26 percent less likely to suffer from depression in five years than those who ate the least.

Because the study was based on correlation, the researchers could not prove that poor diet was actually a cause of depression rather than the other way around. However, the researchers found no association between a history of depression and a poor diet.

“Physical and mental health are closely related, so we should not be too surprised by these results, but we hope there will be further research which may help us to understand more fully the relationship between diet and mental health,” said Margaret Edwards of the mental health nonprofit SANE.

Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.

Yes, this was a long time ago, but what makes us think that they’re not lying to us any more?

(NaturalNews) If you really want to give your baby a head start in life by improving their social standing and guaranteeing their happiness, start feeding them Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other sugary carbonated beverages at the earliest age possible. Even babies as young as a few months old will enjoy the many benefits of soda pop.

Sound bizarre? That’s the message the Soda Pop Board of America promoted back in the 1950′s. Here’s the actual text from a full-page ad:

(View the ad yourself athttp://naturalnews.com/Images/Cola-… )

For a better start in life, Start COLA earlier!How soon is too soon?

Not soon enough. Laboratory tests over the last few years have proven that babies who start drinking soda during that early formative period have a much higher chance of gaining acceptance and “fitting in” during those awkward pre-teen and teen years.

- Promotes Active Lifestyle!
- Boosts Personality!
- Gives body essential sugars!

Sound familiar?

This marketing of harmful products to infants and toddlers sounds eerily familiar to the marketing tactics exploited by Big Pharma and its psychiatric drugs today. The words are almost exactly the same: “A lifetime of guaranteed happiness” echoes the marketing of any number of drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta or other psychotropic drugs.

Soda companies, much like drug companies, have relentlessly tried to convince parents that forcing their products onto their children is a smart thing to do. Do you see how drinking soda was linked to “fitting in” during the teen years? It’s clever, covert persuasion: Your child will be “cool” if you feed him soda pop as an infant. But if you don’t, your child may be an outcast!

It’s the same with psychiatric drugs today: If you don’t put your child on Concerta or other mind-altering drugs, they won’t succeed in school! Or they’ll be hated by their teachers…

It’s all the same mind-game marketing, just dressed up with new chemicals.

What about obesity?

Did you notice that the Soda Pop Board of America somehow neglected to tell parents that feeding their babies sugary carbonated beverages may result in:

• Obesity
• Diabetes
• Loss of bone density
• Dental cavities
• Nutritional deficiencies

These “side effects” of consuming soda pop are mysteriously never mentioned. (Gee, I wonder why?)

Similarly, modern-day drug companies never tell parents the truth about how psychiatric drugs may cause:

• Diabetes
• Suicidal thoughts
• Violent behavior
• Stunted brain development

In both cases — soda pop companies and pharmaceutical companies — their job is to mislead parents into feeding their children poisons that just happen to generate huge profits for the companies doing the advertising.

The whole point of much of the advertising that goes on today is to mislead and mis-inform parents so that they make purchasing and consumption decisions that stand in contradiction to their own interests.

Coca-Cola, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma

Throughout the short history of corporate dominance over consumer purchasing behavior, three industries stand out as the most insidious and harmful to the People: The soda companies (Coke and Pepsi), the tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical companies.

In each of these cases, these industries sell toxic, harmful products to the public but position them as being extremely good for you.

“More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!” – This was an advertisement that ran for years in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Today, of course, JAMA no longer accepts money from tobacco companies because, after decades of denials, the AMA one day admitted that cigarette smoke probably wasn’t good for your health. So they switched to accepting ads from companies selling a different kind of poison: Pharmaceuticals.

Now, JAMA runs ads for toxic pharmaceuticals that can (and do) kill people. And they defend that as perfectly reasonable and “safe,” just like they once insisted that smoking cigarettes was a healthy habit!

If you really look hard at all the largest corporations, you’ll quickly realize that most of them are in the business of selling you poison while calling it some sort of miracle:

• Tobacco companies sell poison in the form of cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

• Monsanto sells poison in the form of GM seeds that it calls an agricultural miracle.

• Drug companies sell poison in the form of medications and vaccines.

• Soft drink companies sell poison in the form of tasty beverages.

• Processed food companies sell poison in the form of convenient snacks.

• Cancer clinics sell poison in the form of chemotherapy and mammograms.

• Personal care product companies sell poison in the form of lotions and cosmetics.

It’s all sold with the same covert influence tactics. As one of the original advertising “greats” described it, advertising is the science of engineering consent.

Corporations are masters at engineering consent. They can even get people to buy and consume products that are essentially poisons.

How soon is too soon to start those poisons? Well, why not during pregnancy? That’s the new aim of the psychiatric industry: Drug all the pregnant women and make sure that babies are born already drugged.

If U.S. corporations could have their way, babies would be born with a cigarette in their mouth, a vaccine needle in their arm, Nike shoes on their feet, an iPod in their hands and a bag of Doritos tucked under one arm. Welcome to the world of unbridled advertising and consumerism, little guy!

Confidential government reports say that about 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure would be averted every month if patients switched away from Avandia.

One report, by Dr. David Graham and Dr. Kate Gelperin of the FDA, argued that Avandia should be withdrawn from the market.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/09/warning–is-your-diabetes-drug-the-one-found-to-kill-thousands.aspx

Nowadays, children spend most of their time indoors staring at computer and television screens rather than playing outside in the sunlight. On the rare occasion that they venture outside, zealous parents are quick to apply UV-blocking sunscreen that prevents the sun’s useful UVB rays from penetrating their skin and producing vitamin D. The result is an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency that is leading to all sorts of illness and disease.

Rickets, a disease in which a person’s bones do not properly develop and harden, results when a person is getting too little vitamin D and most likely not enough calcium. The U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D is a mere 400 IU, an amount that is said to be adequate for preventing rickets.

To put this amount into perspective, however, exposure to the summer sun for about 20 minutes is enough to produce up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D in the body. At this level, far more optimal health can be achieved. Yet the fact that children are beginning to develop rickets suggests that they are not even getting 400 IU a day, an amount that should be relatively easy to attain through a moderately healthy diet or a few minutes in the sun every day.

In the U.K., there are several hundred cases of rickets reported every year. According to statistics, more than 50 percent of the adult population in the U.K. is deficient in vitamin D as well. During the winter and spring months, more than 15 percent experience severe deficiency.

Researchers suggest that people with darker skin pigmentation are at a higher risk for rickets because they do not assimilate vitamin D from the sun’s UVB rays as easily as those with lighter skin do. Some experts believe that the changing ethnic profile of the U.K. may play a significant role in the onset of rickets while others point primarily to an overall lack of vitamin D among all ethnic groups.

Either way, the changing lifestyles among all people are partially to blame as people are not spending enough time outside and, when they do they are using too much sunscreen to obtain any sort of benefit from the sun. Overuse of sunscreen can be blamed on government health authorities, regulatory agencies, medical professionals, and mainstream media outlets that continually exaggerate the threat of developing skin cancer from sunlight exposure to the point that some people are afraid of getting any at all.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2…

Many South Korean child advocacy groups have been calling for limitations on junk food advertising for years, citing the statistic that 20 percent of children in the country are overweight. Last year, the health ministry banned junk food sales at schools and their surrounding neighborhoods.

A stricter version of the advertising ban was proposed back in 2008 that would have stopped junk food advertising for four hours instead of two but television broadcasters and their advertisers strongly opposed the strict regulations. The South Korean government eventually arrived at a compromised version which is said to take effect within the next several weeks.

Following its implementation, government officials plan to evaluate the success of the program to see if an observable reduction in obesity takes place. It will use the results in formulating future obesity-related regulations.

Officials expressed that the goal of the ban is to encourage food manufacturers to improve the nutritional quality of their products. Rather than simply enact burdensome restrictions, the health ministry is hoping that when all is said and done, consumers will have healthier options available to them as well as be more informed about what they are purchasing.

According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, the two most effective ways to limit children’s consumption of unhealthy foods is to restrict their advertising and remove them from schools.

Many advocacy groups in the United States have expressed similar sentiments, urging the U.S. government to enact similar legislation to restrict junk food advertising. Since obesity rates are spiraling out of control domestically, they believe that restrictions will help to improve childhood health.

Unfortunately, many of the primary causes of the nation’s abundance of cheap junk food and the inevitable obesity epidemic it causes have to do with things like crop subsidies, regulatory agency mismanagement, genetic modification, and lack of transparency in food labeling. A limit on advertising may help to curb the amount of junk food children eat but it will not remove it from grocery store shelves.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/ex…

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/…

The Corn Refiners Association has joined the denial with its own spin campaign that seeks to convince people High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is totally natural and completely harmless. HFCS is, of course, the primary sweetener used in sodas and soft drinks.

Now comes new research presented at the American Heart Association’s Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention annual conference in San Francisco. This new research reveals that over the last decade, soda consumption has conservatively caused:

• 130,000 new cases of diabetes
• 14,000 new cases of heart disease
• 50,000 more “life years” with heart disease over the last decade

“The finding suggests that any kind of policy that reduces consumption might have a dramatic health benefit,” said senior study author Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo (associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco).

The American Beverage Association, meanwhile, says this study hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal yet and therefore it doesn’t count. Soda consumption doesn’t cause diabetes or heart disease, they claim, because “…both heart disease and diabetes are complex conditions with no single cause and no single solution.”

It’s silly logic, of course: Diabetes obviously has a cause. It’s not some spontaneous disease that appears out of nowhere. And when you go looking for the cause, you obviously have to look at dietary factors since diabetes is a disease related to the consumption and metabolism ofdietary sugars. Once you do that, sodas immediately raise a red flag because they’re liquid sugar in a highly-concentrated form that does not exist naturally in nature.

HFCS doesn’t grow on trees, in other words. Nature provides sugars locked into insoluble fibers that slow digestion and lower the effective glycemic index of sugars that are consumed. In nature, sugars are always combined with minerals, too, and many of those minerals help prevent diabetes and heart disease. But High-Fructose Corn Syrup is stripped of virtually all those minerals. It contains no fiber and no healing phytonutrients that you might encounter in plants. As a result, HFCS — sometimes dubbed “liquid Satan” — might be called a dietary poison that causes disease while contributing to nutritional deficiencies that accelerate disease.

Bone loss

Interestingly, this new study did not look at loss of bone density, which is another side effect of drinking soda. Due to the extremely high acidity of the HFCS sweetener combined with the phosphoric acid used in sodas, people who drink sodas often lose bone minerals and end up being diagnosed with osteoporosis (even at a relatively young age).

Other people end up with kidney stones due to all these minerals passing through the kidneys and contributing to the built up of mineral deposits there. Long-term soda consumers may even suffer from pancreatic cancer due to the extreme stress placed on the pancreas following the consumption of liquid sugars.

In all, soda consumption is linked to at least six serious diseases:

#1) Diabetes
#2) Obesity
#3) Heart disease
#4) Cancer
#5) Osteoporosis
#6) Kidney stones

That’s why taxing sodas is more than merely a way to raise money through soda sales; it’s also a way to dramatically reduce the cost of treating these diseases. It’s no surprise that several U.S. states are now starting to seriously consider slapping new taxes on sodas and other “junk” beverages.

That’s not the way I would prefer to see the situation handled, actually. The better option, in my view, would be to ban all soda advertising by effectively stripping Free Speech rights from corporations. Such rights belong only to individuals, not multi-billion-dollar corporations. Corporations whose products physically harm the health of the population at large should not be allowed to openly advertise and promote those products to the public. They can still sell them, they just can’t advertise them.

This is the real solution to the problem: Take away the advertising of sodas and consumer consumption immediately plummets. It’s all the advertising that keeps the soft drink sales machine churning out disease and suffering in the name of corporate profits. Soda companies, of course, will argue that they have a Free Speech right to advertise their products even if they do promote disease. That’s an argument to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, of course. But let there be no mistake about it: The continued tolerance of soda advertising is creating a nation of diabetes, obesity and heart disease.

There will be a price to be paid for all this, and I fear it will be a price far beyond what society is able to pay. To raise a nation on sodas and processed foods is to ultimately doom that nation because failed health will ultimately lead to a failed nation. You cannot built a healthy nation upon the backs of a diseased population, and thanks to the soda companies and junk food companies, the United States of America is now a nation of diseased, diabetic, obese consumers who continue to poison themselves every single day with the dangerous chemicals found in heavily advertised food, beverage and personal care products.

If I were the health advisor for a country, I would outright ban all advertising of harmful consumer products (foods, beverages, personal care, cleaning products, etc.), and in their place I’d run public service announcements teaching people about nutrition, disease prevention, vitamin D and commonsense self-care. Within one generation, that nation would be the healthiest in the world, with the lowest rates of disease and affordable health care coverage for all.

The junk food and soda companies, of course, would go broke, and the economy would rearrange itself to open up new jobs in healthier and more productive industries rather than the “disease industries” that dominate America today.

Sugary beverages, you see, aren’t just a disease upon those who regularly consume them; they are a disease upon the very nation that threatens its economy and compromises its future.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty…

Scientists at the University of Copenhagen have discovered that Vitamin D is crucial to activating our immune defenses and that without sufficient intake of the vitamin, the killer cells of the immune system – T cells – will not be able to react to and fight off serious infections in the body.

Read: Vitamin_D_crucial_to_activating_immune_defenses (pdf)