WHO to tax your internet usage to fund vaccines in third-world countries

(NaturalNews) The United Nations' World Health Organization (WHO) is pushing hard to impose global consumer taxes to help fund its various programs, including a new proposal that would tax the internet in order to pay for vaccines and other pharmaceutical medicines for third-world countries. Yes, you read that right - WHO wants every person in the world to help pay for drugs that make Big Pharma even richer.

Consider it a reverse Robin Hood ploy: They're stealing from the working class and giving to the ultra wealthy drug companies!

Of course this isn't the first time the UN has petitioned governments around the world to illegally tax citizens in order to further its own agenda. This body of unelected officials tried to push "cap and trade" legislation for supposed climate change just last year (but failed to do so because many countries simply refused the idea).

In the current scheme, WHO appointed a so-called panel of "medical experts" to prepare a report highlighting various financing ideas that would fund all the projects WHO is trying to accomplish in the world. One of those ideas is to have governments tax internet usage in their countries and give the money to WHO for "medical research and development" in poorer, developing countries. (This is code-speak for unlawfully pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of Big Pharma in the name of charity).

An executive summary of the report is available at:
(http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf...)

Other ideas for funding include taxing people when they make financial transactions like paying bills online or withdrawing cash, as well as taxing the international arms trade. WHO also threw in the idea of possibly having governments voluntarily contribute (which is actually the only somewhat legitimate idea in the report, considering the U.N. has no legal power over any sovereign nation to force it to pay global taxes).

As usual, the entire proposal is blanketed in expressed concern for the health of people from poorer nations who don't have access to the same medical treatments as people from richer nations. Although this may sound nice and good in theory, the real agenda here is to transfer wealth from the people of developed nations to the U.N. and then to either wealthy drug companies or the corrupt governments of poorer nations. The everyday people of these poor nations will receive little to no actual benefit from the tax money (other than the vaccinations that will be forced on them, if you consider that a benefit).

WHO wants to control the world's health

On page 8 of WHO's Executive Summary for its proposals, there's an interesting statement about WHO's global health agenda. When speaking about its more than 90 proposals for obtaining funding, the organization reveals that it also wants to restructure the global health system and place itself in control.

"[The proposals] include proposed structures to centralize, manage and disburse funds to health research and development," it states, adding that in order to do this, it would need funding and certain "mechanisms" in place first.

WHO basically wants all nations to give up their sovereignty, particularly in terms of medical research and development, and hand it over to them so they can distribute "health" as they see fit. Nobody else will have a say in the matter as WHO will be the sole health care authority in the world. This matches perfectly with the UN's agenda of world domination through other means (blue helmet military forces, for example).

If WHO's funding and control dreams were to come true, most of the tax money it received would probably end up in the pockets of WHO officials, corrupt third-world country governments and dictators, and Big Pharma executives. Whatever is left over will be used to pay for pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, both of which actually harm the local environments in any country where they are used due to their chemical runoff impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

Global taxes are illegal in the U.S.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, only the U.S. Congress has the power to collect taxes. In fact, there's a whole list of what taxes can be collected for, and there's no mention of funding a global entity that wants to control health care (nor is there any mention of nationalized health care at all, for that matter).

Then again, since when did any presidents or political leaders in the United States actually honor the Constitution they swore to protect? What we have in Washington today is not a band of dedication Constitution defenders but rather Constitution destroyers who seem determined to hand over our sovereignty to some global authority as quickly as they can pull it off.

What WHO is trying to do is not only illegal in the U.S., but detrimental to real health care worldwide. It will not bring true health to the poor, but rather drugs, vaccines and other patented chemicals that make a few people rich but everyone else poorer and more dependent on medical intervention for years to come.

Notice that the WHO plan doesn't try to bring nutrition to poor nations? Feeding those people some vitamin D, vitamin C and plant-based nutrients would do more to end sickness and disease (including infectious disease) than any vaccine or pharmaceutical. It would also be significantly less expensive. But nothing in the WHO's world domination agenda includes anything about nutrition. It seems that nutrition has no place in the WHO's vision of the world -- it's all about chemicals and vaccines.

That's the world they want to force upon us: A world where you and I are taxed to pay for the mass poisoning of populations around the world with toxic pharmaceuticals and dangerous vaccines. Remember, the WHO is the same organization that fronted a false pandemic because its health advisors are on the take from the pharmaceutical industry. The WHO is essentially being bribed by Big Pharma to push an agenda that benefits only Big Pharma, not the people. And the only reason they're now trying to tax you and I to pay for all this is because the profit margin on drugs and vaccines is so ridiculously high that working people even poor nations can't afford to pay for these items themselves. Instead of lowering the prices on their medicines, they're trying to force a tax upon everybody else.

The WHO, much like the FDA, is operated as a criminal racket. And like any criminal racket, they want to force everybody to pay them as much money as possible. It's like a mob-style shakedown: Pay up or else! Things might be different if they were using the money to fund vitamin D nutrition programs or genuine nutritional education programs in poor nations, but those ideas aren't even on their radar. They are 100% fixated upon the Big Pharma agenda of drugging everyone on the planet while pocketing obscene cash profits at the same time.

Do your part to demand that the USA resist WHO domination over health care, and speak out against any global internet tax that would be used to inject viral fragments into the bodies of people who live in poor nations.

WHO scandal exposed: Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers

(NaturalNews) A stunning new report reveals that top scientists who convinced the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare H1N1 a global pandemic held close financial ties to the drug companies that profited from the sale of those vaccines. This report, published in the British Medical Journal, exposes the hidden ties that drove WHO to declare a pandemic, resulting in billions of dollars in profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Several key advisors who urged WHO to declare a pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very same vaccine manufacturers who received a windfall of profits from the pandemic announcement. During all this, WHO refused to disclose any conflicts of interests between its top advisors and the drug companies who would financially benefit from its decisions.

All the kickbacks, in other words, were swept under the table and kept silent, and WHO somehow didn't think it was important to let the world know that it was receiving policy advice from individuals who stood to make millions of dollars when a pandemic was declared.

WHO credibility destroyed

The report was authored by Deborah Cohen (BMJ features editor), and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London. In their report, Cohen states, "...our investigation has revealed damaging issues. If these are not addressed, H1N1 may yet claim its biggest victim -- the credibility of the WHO and the trust in the global public health system."

In response to the report, WHO secretary-general Dr Margaret Chan defended the secrecy, saying that WHO intentionally kept the financial ties a secret in order to "...protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing this critical work... [and] also to ensure transparency."

Dr Chan apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "transparency." Then again, WHO has always twisted reality in order to serve its corporate masters, the pharmaceutical giants who profit from disease. To say that they are keeping the financial ties a secret in order to "protect the integrity" of the members is like saying we're all serving alcohol at tonight's AA meeting in order to keep everybody off the bottle.

It just flat out makes no sense.

But since when did making sense have anything to do with WHO's decision process anyway?

Even Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, had harsh words for the WHO, saying, "...its credibility has been badly damaged. WHO must act now to restore its credibility."

Yet more criticism for WHO

The BMJ isn't the only medical publication criticizing WHO for its poor handling of conflicts of interest. Another report from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly also criticized WHO, saying: "Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level." It went on to explain that WHO's actions led to "a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large."

The funny thing is, NaturalNews and other natural health advocates told you all the same thing a year ago, and we didn't have to spend millions of dollars on a study to arrive at this conclusion. It was obvious to anyone who knows just how corrupt the sick-care industry really is. They'll do practically anything to make more money, including bribing WHO scientific advisors and paying them kickbacks once the vaccine sales surge.

The vaccine industry and all its drug pushers are, of course, criticizing this investigative report. They say WHO "had no choice" but to declare a pandemic and recommend vaccines, since vaccines are the only treatment option for influenza. That's a lie, of course: Vitamin D has been scientifically proven to be five times more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections, but WHO never recommended vitamin D to anyone.

The entire focus was on pushing more high-profit vaccines, not recommending the things that would actually help people the most. And now we know why: The more vulnerable people were to the pandemic, the more would be killed by H1N1, thereby "proving" the importance of vaccination programs.

People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out. (A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?)

How the scam really worked

Here's a summary of how the WHO vaccine scam worked:

Step 1) Exaggerate the risk: WHO hypes up the pandemic risk by declaring a phase 6 pandemic even when the mortality rate of the virus was so low that it could be halted with simple vitamin D supplements.

Step 2) Urge countries to stockpile: WHO urged nations around the world to stockpile H1N1 vaccines, calling it a "public health emergency."

Step 3) Collect the cash: Countries spend billions of dollars buying and stockpiling H1N1 vaccines while Big Pharma pockets the cash.

Step 4) Get your kickbacks: WHO advisors, meanwhile, collected their kickbacks from the vaccine manufacturers. Those kickbacks were intentionally kept secret.

Step 5) Keep people afraid: In order to keep demand for the vaccines as high as possible, WHO continued to flame the fears by warning that H1N1 was extremely dangerous and everybody should continue to get vaccinated. (The CDC echoed the same message in the USA.)

This is how WHO pulled off one of the greatest vaccine pandemic scams in the last century, and it worked like gangbusters. WHO advisors walked away with loads of cash, the drug companies stockpiled huge profits, and the taxpayers of nations around the world were left saddled with useless vaccines rotting on the shelves that will soon have to be destroyed (at additional taxpayer cost, no doubt) or dumped down the drain (where they will contaminate the waterways).

Meanwhile, nobody dared tell the public the truth about vitamin D, thereby ensuring that the next pandemic will give them another opportunity to repeat the exact same scam (for yet more profit).

The criminality of the vaccine industry

The bottom line is all this is a frightening picture of just how pathetic the vaccine industry has become and how corrupt the WHO and the CDC really are. What took place here is called corruption and bribery, folks. Kickbacks were paid, lies were told and governments were swindled out of billions of dollars. These are felony crimes being committed by our global health leaders.

The real question is: Why do governments continue to allow public health organizations to be so easily corrupted by the vaccine industry? And who will stand up to this profit conspiracy that exploits members of the public as if they were profit-generating guinea pigs?

The next time you hear the WHO say anything, just remember: Their advisors are on the take from the drug companies, and just about anything you're likely to hear from the World Health Organization originates with a profit motive rather than a commitment to public health.

Oh, and by the way... for the record, there has never been a single scientific study ever published showing that H1N1 vaccines worked. Not only was the H1N1 pandemic a fraud to begin with, but the medicine they claimed treated it was also based on fraud. And now we know the rest of the story of why it was all done: Kickbacks from Big Pharma, paid to advisors who told WHO to declare a pandemic.

Sources for this story include:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineF...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...

Influenza vaccine sends children into convulsions

(NaturalNews) Influenza vaccines have sent 57 children into life-threatening convulsions, reports The Age out of Australia. These influenza vaccines were being give to children under five to "protect" them from seasonal flu, but after receiving the shots, these children started going into convulsions.

An investigation has revealed that there is no quality control problem with any particular batch of influenza vaccines. They all pass quality control, in other words, so the convulsions are being caused by what is intentionally put into the vaccines, not by some mistaken chemical contaminant.

This, of course, baffles conventional doctors who have all been told that vaccines are perfectly safe and could never harm anyone. So rather than pausing to consider what might be contained in the vaccines that's causing children to go into convulsions, they charge ahead with the recommendation that even more people should get vaccines.

Alan Hampson, chairman of Australia's Influenza Specialist Group, "...advised young, healthy people anxious to get the flu vaccine to consider having the swine flu vaccine" reports The Age. There is no amount of real-world evidence, you see, that can break the mythological stranglehold that vaccines have over the minds of mainstream physicians. Even if children start dropping to the floor and convulsing right in front of them, they will continue to push vaccines on even more children.

The illusion of vaccine efficacy

Vaccines are based on a scientific-sounding mythology that is widely believed by gullible physicians and scientists who simply believe what they are told rather than what's real.

This mythology is based on the belief that injecting foreign matter into the human body will cause the immune system to adapt to the weakened foreign matter by creating antibodies that fight off future infections. This explanation, however, is pure mythology. In reality, an immune system can only invoke an adaptive response when it is properly nourished with vitamin D. And if the patient has enough vitamin D, they need no vaccine because vitamin D protects them from seasonal influenza in the first place.

Thus, vaccines only "work" in those people who don't need them. People who have the least protection against influenza due to their vitamin D deficiency also have the weakest immune response to vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, just don't work on them.

Children with particularly weak neurology are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. This damage may take the form of a coma, convulsions, autism or being partially paralyzed. Some children given vaccines soon find themselves in wheelchairs, unable to walk even though previous to the vaccine they were star athletes.

If you're a parent, don't expose your children to vaccine shots! Learn more about the dangers of vaccines with these articles:

Virginia teen athlete in wheel chair after vaccine shot:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027473_G...

Swine flu vaccine linked to paralysis:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_s...

Vaccine puts girl in the hospital:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027395_s...

Vaccines linked to neurological disorders:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022642_v...

Ten questions doctors refuse to answer about vaccines:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_v...

Human Civilization is Losing the War Against Superbugs

(NaturalNews) The steady medical advance against viruses and bacteria that many experts were trumpeting in the early days of vaccines and antibiotics seems to have stalled, if not reversed. The ongoing emergence of new and increasingly drug-resistant diseases is now causing many to question whether the war against microbes is one that can ever be won.

"It is a war of attrition," said David Livermore of the United Kingdom's Health Protection Agency. "There have been points where we have been advancing, and points when we have had to beat a retreat. If we were having this conversation 20 years ago, for instance, we would be celebrating the vaccine for bacterial meningitis."

The news these days contains less of celebration and more of alarm. Even with H1N1 swine flu now appearing less dangerous than originally thought and infection rates of the superbug Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) falling in the United Kingdom, widespread antibiotic use and a globalized world have made the processes of pathogen evolution and spread faster than ever before.

The threat from the highly lethal H5N1 bird flu - a mere mutation away from a highly contagious form - has not abated, and other infectious threats thought long vanquished continue to rear their heads. China, for example, is currently battling an outbreak of pneumonic plague caused by Yersina pestis, the same bacterium that wiped out a third of Europe's population as the Black Plague. Meanwhile, longer lifespans have encouraged the emergence of suberbugs such as Clostridium difficile, which preferentially targets elderly patients who have already been treated with antibiotics.

"Sensible prescribing is part of the answer, but we also need new antibiotics," Livermore said. "It's not one of the most attractive areas for pharmaceutical companies as people don't take them for very long, unlike treatments for heart disease or cancer."

"We will always be at war with microbes," said Primrose Freestone of the University of Leicester. "Their genetic promiscuity is impressive."

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

What 'skeptics' really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe

(NaturalNews) In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.

But there's much more that you need to know about "skeptics." As you'll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power. There is no life after death. In fact, there's not much life in life when you're a skeptic.

What skeptics really believe

I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites. What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week. Take a look...

• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they've never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."

• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.

• Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!

• Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.

• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)

• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.

• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.

• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.

• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).

• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)

• Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth. Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)

• Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer. They completely deny any healing abilities of light.

• Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizing medicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules from nature, then?)

• Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot "feel" the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such "psychic" events as mere coincidence.

• Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, from doctors and technical interventions. They do not believe that patients have any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.

• Skeptics believe that cell phone radiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phone radiation without any damage whatsoever.

• Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.

• Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceutical companies is to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.

• Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxins with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!

All the beliefs listed above were compiled from "skeptics" websites. (I'm not going to list those websites here because they don't deserve the search engine rankings, but you can find them yourself through Google, if you wish.)

Skeptics aren't consistently skeptical

If you really look closely at the beliefs of "skeptics," you discover their skepticism is selective. They're really skeptical about some things -- like vitamins -- but complete pushovers on others such as the scientific credibility of drug company studies.

Here are some of the many things that "skeptics" should be skeptical about, but aren't:

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry. They believe whatever the drug companies say, without asking a single intelligent question.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about medical journals. They believe whatever they read in those journals, even when much of it turns out to be complete science fraud.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry. They believe that drug companies are motivated by goodwill, not by profits.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the motivations and loyalties of the FDA. They will swallow, inject or use any product that's FDA approved, without a single reasonable thought about the actual safety of those products.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the safety of synthetic chemicals used in the food supply. They just swallow whatever poisons the food companies dump into the foods.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the enormous dangers of ionizing radiation from mammograms and CT scans. They have somehow convinced themselves that "early detection saves live" when, in reality, "early radiation causes cancer."

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the mass-drugging agenda of the psychiatric industry which wants to diagnose everyone with some sort of "mental" disorder. The skeptics just go right along with it without asking a single commonsense question about whether the human brain really needs to be "treated" with a barrage of mind-altering chemicals.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about mercury fillings. What harm could mercury possibly do anyway? If the ADA says they're safe, they must be!

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 -- a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc...) Astonishingly, "skeptics" have little understanding of the laws of physics. Concrete-and-steel buildings don't magically collapse in a perfect vertical demolition just because of a fire on one floor...

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the safety of non-stick cookware, or the dangers of cleaning chemicals in the home, or the contamination of indoor air with chemical fumes from carpets, paints and particle board furniture. To the skeptics, the more chemicals, the better!

Nature is bad, chemicals are good

Summing up the position of the "skeptics" is quite simple: Nature is bad, chemicals are good!

If we only had more chemicals injected into more babies, the world would be a better place, they say. If we could only ban all plants, herbs, vitamins and supplements, we'd all be so much healthier because then we'd take more pharmaceuticals!

Seriously. This is what they believe. They openly admit this is their position.

And all you people drinking green smoothies, and growing your own food, and getting natural sunlight, and taking care of your own health, and drinking herbal tea... well you're all just fools, say the skeptics. You're all just too stupid to understand "real" science. Because if you understood real science, you'd give up all those useless herbs and superfoods and healing vegetables and you'd be taking twenty different prescription medications instead.

Then you'd be really smart, see. Because all those chemicals make you healthy and smart. A few extra vaccine injections will make you even smarter. Then you can join the skeptics because you're smart enough at that point to understand that chemicals are the answer to all of life's problems: Depression, anxiety, digestion, sexual performance, sleep, even test-taking abilities... there's a chemical "solution" to every problem you might experience.

What skeptics really are

I hope it's fairly obvious to you by now that skeptics are the most misinformed people on the planet.

They are the easiest people to fool. They're the easiest to hypnotize, too, because they lack independent thinking skills. Rather than thinking for themselves, they have joined a "club of skeptics" where they can be told what to think and then label themselves "intelligent" for following others in the group.

These are the people who line up to be injected with useless H1N1 vaccines. (The joke is on them, of course. Those vaccines were a complete fraud...) These are the people who stand in line at the pharmacy to buy a dozen different prescriptions (costing sometimes thousands of dollars) that their doctors told them to take. These are the people who eat processed, dead junk food laced with chemicals that make them sick -- and then they wonder why they're sick. These are the people who sit at home watching television and think to themselves how smart they are because they follow the medical advice they learned in drug company advertisements.

These are the real "skeptics." They are so incredibly isolated from reality that they don't even believe in their body's own ability to heal itself.

Skeptics don't believe in a higher power of any kind: No God, no spirit, no angels, no guides, no creative force in the universe... nada. They think the universe is a cold, empty, lonely, stupid place full of soulless, mindless, zombie biological bodies who have no free will and no consciousness.

Gee, no wonder these skeptics are so misguided. They have the most pessimistic view possible. No wonder they seek to destroy themselves with chemicals -- they don't even think they're alive to begin with! Skeptics are bent on self destruction. And they believe that when you die, the lights just go out and you cease to exist. Nothing happens after that. You're just a mindless biological robot whose life has no meaning, no purpose, no higher self.

This is exactly what the skeptics believe. They'll even tell you so themselves!

Never argue with drones

Realizing this, it makes it so much easier to debate with skeptics on any topic. Whatever they say, you just answer, "WHO is saying that? Are YOU, a conscious, free-thinking person with a mind and soul saying that, or are those words simply being automatically and robotically uttered from the mouth of a bag of bones and skin that has no mind and no soul?"

If they answer you honestly, they will have to admit that they believe they are nothing more than a robotic bag of bones and skin that is mindlessly uttering whatever nonsense happens to escape their mechanical lips. At that point, you've already won the debate because YOU have a soul, and THEY don't. You're arguing with a mindless robot.

Seriously. Think about this deeply. If you believe what the skeptics want you to believe (because they are always right, of course), then you must accept the fact that THEY have no consciousness. They are not really "alive." They are just robotic biological machines. They are drones, in other words. And drones are not equal to a being of energy with a consciousness and a soul, inhabiting a human body with purpose and awareness.

Never argue with drones. You only waste your time and annoy the drone.

Skeptics... zombies... drones... different words for the same thing. Soulless, mindless, lacking consciousness and free will, having no awareness of the value of life... these are the skeptics arguing for vaccines, mammograms and chemotherapy today. They are agents of death who can only find solace in an industry of death -- the industry of modern medicine.

Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division (opinion)

(NaturalNews) You've heard it before, how the pharmaceutical industry has a giant "revolving door" through which corporations and government agencies frequently exchange key employees. That reality was driven home in a huge way today when news broke that Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, landed a top job with Merck, one of the largest drug companies in the world. Her job there? She's the new president of the vaccine division.

How convenient. That means the former head of the CDC was very likely cultivating a relationship with Merck all these years, and now comes the big payoff: Heading up a $5 billion division that sells cervical cancer vaccines (like Gardasil), chickenpox vaccines and of course H1N1 swine flu vaccines, too.

So what's the problem with all this? The problem is that private industry and government health offices such as the CDC or FDA should never be so cozy. When they are, it creates an environment of collusion between Big Government and Big Pharma. We've already seen this with the government-led push for swine flu vaccines that are manufactured (and sold) by drug companies like Merck.

You might even say that the CDC already functions as the marketing division of the pharmaceutical industry. It was the CDC that pushed so hard for swine flu vaccines, even amid the obvious realization that swine flu was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. To this day, the CDC still hasn't bothered to recommend vitamin D for the prevention of either seasonal flu or swine flu. It remains heavily invested in the lucrative vaccine approach -- an approach that just happens to financially benefit the very corporations that are hiring ex-CDC employees like Dr. Gerberding.

How to triple your salary by selling out to industry

Getting a job offer from Big Pharma, by the way, is one of the most-desired career paths for many CDC employees (and FDA workers, for that matter). It's easy to accomplish it, too: Just operate in your government position as if you were a Big Pharma lackey. If you produce enough good business for the drug industry, sooner or later they'll offer you a lucrative position that doubles or triples your government salary (or even better).

Now, I don't want to lump all CDC employees in this same pathetic group, because there are indeed a great many bright, honest scientists working at the CDC who do excellent work tracking pandemics and trying to save lives. They are overshadowed, however, by those ambitious profit seekers who see their CDC job as merely a stepping stone for a far better-paying job at a major drug companies. And by any measure, Dr. Gerberding just cashed in big.

Her actual salary at Merck hasn't been publicly released yet, but given that she's heading up a $5 billion vaccine industry, it's probably not chump change. I'd bet she's now making at least ten times the salary of the President of the United States (and probably a lot more).

So now, Dr. Gerberding's new job involves the incessant promotion of yet more vaccines -- a job not very different from the one she held at the CDC, come to think of it. More vaccines for more diseases afflicting more people... it's just another day at Merck, where the world is never so healthy that it doesn't need one more mandatory vaccine.

As a special bonus to Merck in all this, Dr. Gerberding has a wealth of contacts not merely throughout the CDC, but also at the World Health Organization. When you're the former head of the CDC, the top public health officials of the world are literally just one call away. But starting today, that call is a commercial, corporate-sponsored call, not a public health call. There's a huge difference.

Does Dr. Gerberding suffer from an "ethics deficiency?"

My question in all this is whether Dr. Gerberding has any real ethics when it comes to issues like vaccines and public health. If she does have such ethics, why would she accept a job with a company that has been engaged in outright scientific fraud? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027582_M...)

Why would she go to work for a company that maintained a "hit list" of doctors to attack and "neutralize?" This is true -- it came out in recent court documents (http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_M...).

Why would she take a job with a company that has a pattern of threatening doctors who speak out against its drugs? (http://www.naturalnews.com/026420_M...)

Why would she be okay with the idea of working for a company that commits scientific fraud by hiding documents showing its drugs to be dangerous? (http://www.naturalnews.com/024072_Z...)

Why would she feel okay about working for a company that dumps chemicals and vaccine waste products into the public water system? (http://www.naturalnews.com/023124_w...)

Why would she want to collect a paycheck from a company that has been caught hiring ghost writers to pen "independent" science papers submitted to science journals, when they were actually crafted by Merck? (http://www.naturalnews.com/023052_M...)

Why would she feel comfortable representing a company that committed blatant scientific fraud with its Vytorin cholesterol drug study? (http://www.naturalnews.com/022485_s...)

Maybe Dr. Gerberding is fine with all this. Maybe she has really "flexible" ethics. Or maybe she suffers from an "ethics deficiency" -- an epidemic disease for which Merck apparently has no vaccine at all.

In any case, she's now allied herself with a company engaged in so many repeated acts of fraud that in my opinion all its executives should be arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Those executives will now include Dr. Gerberding, it seems.

Did the CDC cover Merck's back?

You might say, though, that she hasn't done anything yet for Merck. But check this out: As a previous NaturalNews story explains, when a fourteen-year-old girl named Jessica died following a cervical cancer vaccine injection (made by Merck), the CDC covered for Merck and pointed the finger at the girl's birth control pills.

Care to guess who was heading the CDC at the time of this maneuver? Dr. Julie Gerberding, now a top Merck executive.

You pat my back and I'll pat yours.

For years, under the lead of Dr. Gerberding, the CDC has maintained a rather bizarre position that Merck's vaccines are so safe that all side effects should be dismissed outright. This is explained in a Dallas Morning News article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...), among other places.

The CDC, in other words, has been running defense for Merck for many years, downplaying vaccine side effects and insisting that Merck's vaccines are safe. Now that the president of Merck's vaccine division and the former chief of the CDC are one and the same, it brings up obvious questions of whether there was some level of ongoing collusion between the CDC and Merck and how deeply Dr. Gerberding might have been involved.

Some of the word games played by Dr. Gerberding demonstrate amazing Clintonian-like speech patterns designed to deflect blame from Merck's vaccines. Listen to this exchange where Dr. Gerberding indirectly admits that vaccines can cause autism (or as she says, "Autism-like symptoms," which is exactly the same thing, as the symptoms define the disease in the first place). Watch it yourself in this segment on YouTube -- this is a must see video segment on the link between vaccines and autism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-n...

Who else is on the Merck team at the CDC?

That the CDC's chief would be offered one of the very top jobs at Merck now makes me wonder just how deep the culture of collusion between Merck and the CDC really goes. How many other CDC employees are in line for future job offers from Merck -- and what might they do in order to win those jobs?

There's a solution to all this, of course: Pass a law that bans employees of the CDC, FDA, FTC, EPA or USDA from ever working for pharmaceutical companies. The people who run the regulatory agencies and public health offices should never be allowed to leap into employment at the very same companies they were once regulating. There's just too much risk of cross-contamination of influence, which is why we have the corruption and collusion problems we're seeing today with the FDA, FTC and CDC, all of which seem to be operating as marketing extensions of the pharmaceutical industry.

As long as the revolving door remains wide open between Big Pharma and Big Government, there will be a strong tendency towards corporate collusion that betrays the people whom government is supposed to serve. Instead of our government serving the People, in other words, it increasingly exists to serve the interests of Big Business. And big business doesn't get much bigger than Big Pharma.

After all, inventing fictitious disease, creating pandemic panics, then selling questionable patented drugs to gullible consumers is a lucrative business model. And now the official job of the former head of the CDC is to make sure it all stays that way. So roll up your sleeves, folks: There's a vaccine with your name on it, and Dr. Gerberding is here to make sure Merck sticks it to ya.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023792_H...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...(NaturalNews) You've heard it before, how the pharmaceutical industry has a giant "revolving door" through which corporations and government agencies frequently exchange key employees. That reality was driven home in a huge way today when news broke that Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, landed a top job with Merck, one of the largest drug companies in the world. Her job there? She's the new president of the vaccine division.

How convenient. That means the former head of the CDC was very likely cultivating a relationship with Merck all these years, and now comes the big payoff: Heading up a $5 billion division that sells cervical cancer vaccines (like Gardasil), chickenpox vaccines and of course H1N1 swine flu vaccines, too.

So what's the problem with all this? The problem is that private industry and government health offices such as the CDC or FDA should never be so cozy. When they are, it creates an environment of collusion between Big Government and Big Pharma. We've already seen this with the government-led push for swine flu vaccines that are manufactured (and sold) by drug companies like Merck.

You might even say that the CDC already functions as the marketing division of the pharmaceutical industry. It was the CDC that pushed so hard for swine flu vaccines, even amid the obvious realization that swine flu was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. To this day, the CDC still hasn't bothered to recommend vitamin D for the prevention of either seasonal flu or swine flu. It remains heavily invested in the lucrative vaccine approach -- an approach that just happens to financially benefit the very corporations that are hiring ex-CDC employees like Dr. Gerberding.

How to triple your salary by selling out to industry

Getting a job offer from Big Pharma, by the way, is one of the most-desired career paths for many CDC employees (and FDA workers, for that matter). It's easy to accomplish it, too: Just operate in your government position as if you were a Big Pharma lackey. If you produce enough good business for the drug industry, sooner or later they'll offer you a lucrative position that doubles or triples your government salary (or even better).

Now, I don't want to lump all CDC employees in this same pathetic group, because there are indeed a great many bright, honest scientists working at the CDC who do excellent work tracking pandemics and trying to save lives. They are overshadowed, however, by those ambitious profit seekers who see their CDC job as merely a stepping stone for a far better-paying job at a major drug companies. And by any measure, Dr. Gerberding just cashed in big.

Her actual salary at Merck hasn't been publicly released yet, but given that she's heading up a $5 billion vaccine industry, it's probably not chump change. I'd bet she's now making at least ten times the salary of the President of the United States (and probably a lot more).

So now, Dr. Gerberding's new job involves the incessant promotion of yet more vaccines -- a job not very different from the one she held at the CDC, come to think of it. More vaccines for more diseases afflicting more people... it's just another day at Merck, where the world is never so healthy that it doesn't need one more mandatory vaccine.

As a special bonus to Merck in all this, Dr. Gerberding has a wealth of contacts not merely throughout the CDC, but also at the World Health Organization. When you're the former head of the CDC, the top public health officials of the world are literally just one call away. But starting today, that call is a commercial, corporate-sponsored call, not a public health call. There's a huge difference.

Does Dr. Gerberding suffer from an "ethics deficiency?"

My question in all this is whether Dr. Gerberding has any real ethics when it comes to issues like vaccines and public health. If she does have such ethics, why would she accept a job with a company that has been engaged in outright scientific fraud? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027582_M...)

Why would she go to work for a company that maintained a "hit list" of doctors to attack and "neutralize?" This is true -- it came out in recent court documents (http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_M...).

Why would she take a job with a company that has a pattern of threatening doctors who speak out against its drugs? (http://www.naturalnews.com/026420_M...)

Why would she be okay with the idea of working for a company that commits scientific fraud by hiding documents showing its drugs to be dangerous? (http://www.naturalnews.com/024072_Z...)

Why would she feel okay about working for a company that dumps chemicals and vaccine waste products into the public water system? (http://www.naturalnews.com/023124_w...)

Why would she want to collect a paycheck from a company that has been caught hiring ghost writers to pen "independent" science papers submitted to science journals, when they were actually crafted by Merck? (http://www.naturalnews.com/023052_M...)

Why would she feel comfortable representing a company that committed blatant scientific fraud with its Vytorin cholesterol drug study? (http://www.naturalnews.com/022485_s...)

Maybe Dr. Gerberding is fine with all this. Maybe she has really "flexible" ethics. Or maybe she suffers from an "ethics deficiency" -- an epidemic disease for which Merck apparently has no vaccine at all.

In any case, she's now allied herself with a company engaged in so many repeated acts of fraud that in my opinion all its executives should be arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Those executives will now include Dr. Gerberding, it seems.

Did the CDC cover Merck's back?

You might say, though, that she hasn't done anything yet for Merck. But check this out: As a previous NaturalNews story explains, when a fourteen-year-old girl named Jessica died following a cervical cancer vaccine injection (made by Merck), the CDC covered for Merck and pointed the finger at the girl's birth control pills.

Care to guess who was heading the CDC at the time of this maneuver? Dr. Julie Gerberding, now a top Merck executive.

You pat my back and I'll pat yours.

For years, under the lead of Dr. Gerberding, the CDC has maintained a rather bizarre position that Merck's vaccines are so safe that all side effects should be dismissed outright. This is explained in a Dallas Morning News article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...), among other places.

The CDC, in other words, has been running defense for Merck for many years, downplaying vaccine side effects and insisting that Merck's vaccines are safe. Now that the president of Merck's vaccine division and the former chief of the CDC are one and the same, it brings up obvious questions of whether there was some level of ongoing collusion between the CDC and Merck and how deeply Dr. Gerberding might have been involved.

Some of the word games played by Dr. Gerberding demonstrate amazing Clintonian-like speech patterns designed to deflect blame from Merck's vaccines. Listen to this exchange where Dr. Gerberding indirectly admits that vaccines can cause autism (or as she says, "Autism-like symptoms," which is exactly the same thing, as the symptoms define the disease in the first place). Watch it yourself in this segment on YouTube -- this is a must see video segment on the link between vaccines and autism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-n...

Who else is on the Merck team at the CDC?

That the CDC's chief would be offered one of the very top jobs at Merck now makes me wonder just how deep the culture of collusion between Merck and the CDC really goes. How many other CDC employees are in line for future job offers from Merck -- and what might they do in order to win those jobs?

There's a solution to all this, of course: Pass a law that bans employees of the CDC, FDA, FTC, EPA or USDA from ever working for pharmaceutical companies. The people who run the regulatory agencies and public health offices should never be allowed to leap into employment at the very same companies they were once regulating. There's just too much risk of cross-contamination of influence, which is why we have the corruption and collusion problems we're seeing today with the FDA, FTC and CDC, all of which seem to be operating as marketing extensions of the pharmaceutical industry.

As long as the revolving door remains wide open between Big Pharma and Big Government, there will be a strong tendency towards corporate collusion that betrays the people whom government is supposed to serve. Instead of our government serving the People, in other words, it increasingly exists to serve the interests of Big Business. And big business doesn't get much bigger than Big Pharma.

After all, inventing fictitious disease, creating pandemic panics, then selling questionable patented drugs to gullible consumers is a lucrative business model. And now the official job of the former head of the CDC is to make sure it all stays that way. So roll up your sleeves, folks: There's a vaccine with your name on it, and Dr. Gerberding is here to make sure Merck sticks it to ya.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023792_H...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...

H1N1 vaccines too little, too late; most people already exposed and immune (opinion)

(NaturalNews) The Big Pharma frenzy over H1N1 vaccines has turned into a circus of hilarious medical quackery thanks to the fact that by the time the vaccines are available, most people will have already been exposed to the virus. Hence, most people will have already built up their own H1N1 antibodies, rendering the vaccine not just useless, but downright laughable.

Even with the outlandish rush to get these vaccines approved by the FDA -- a hurry that saw the complete abandonment of the principles of "scientific testing" -- Big Pharma just couldn't get these vaccines produced quickly enough to beat the virus itself. Taking a vaccine shot after you've already been exposed is medically useless. It's equivalent to putting on your seat belt after getting into a car wreck.

Even U.S. News & World Report, which is heavily funded by Big Pharma advertising, is now admitting the swine flu outbreak may be over before the vaccines arrive. It reports:

"Richard Wenzel, an H1N1 expert and former president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, predicts that the outbreak will last another four to eight weeks before tapering off. In fact, some areas in the South already are seeing a decline in cases. Given that the vaccine will be produced in limited quantities on a rolling basis, most healthy middle-aged adults -- who the government recommends should be vaccinated after children, college students, and pregnant women -- won't be getting immunized before the outbreaks peak and wane."
(http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...)

Did you catch the significance of that last sentence? Most people won't be getting immunized before the outbreak tapers off. And that means the whole reason for getting the vaccine in the first place -- to avoid being killed by an exploding pandemic -- will soon be rendered pointless. Leave it to western medicine to act all heroic, pretending to be saving people's lives from a pandemic that's already on the way out...

Maintaining the illusion

Of course, infectious disease reality never got in the way of Big Pharma making a buck, so this inane vaccine push will continue whether people need it or not. All these vaccines have already been ordered and paid for with taxpayer dollars. Delivery is on the way, and there are no refunds. If cities, states and nations don't use all these vaccines, they'll look pretty darned stupid for buying them, won't they?

That's why health authorities everywhere are determined to use up these vaccines regardless of medical reality. And that means finding enough willing children and adults to be injected. Following that, as the swine flu pandemic fades away (which it was going to do anyway), all the vaccine-pushing health authorities can proclaim, "We did it! We beat the pandemic with the vaccines!"

But the pandemic was burning out on its own, without any intervention at all.

Of course, taking credit for solving problems they didn't really solve is nothing new to the vaccine industry. To this day, the drug companies credit themselves with eradicating smallpox, measles and yellow fever when, in reality, the historical record shows that it was primarily improvements in hygiene and public infrastructure that caused these once-terrible epidemics to wane.