Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
YouBlog Archive

From Phil Segrave []
September 11, 2010

Meryl has shared the bad news that AVN, a wonderful and effective independent vaccine truth organization may be forced out of existance by those who can not tolerate you having the facts and the right to make your own medical decisions.

She is another grassroots activist that has contributed her time and resources to protect our medical freedoms. Please do not let the adversaries of truth control your minds by limiting your access to credible information and offer your support to her:

Wars are won politically, not militarily. Do not let them control your mind. Spread this news far and wide.

Hi Meryl,

Greetings from North Carolina.

I have been wanting to make contact with you every since another one of your many faithful supporters other than myself, my good Aussie friend Therese Mackay, introduced you and your wonderful vaccination truth organization, AVN, to me a long time ago (actually I caught your message in my spam filter which is the reason for my delay in replying).

Several email threads originated over the pro-vaccine choice versus the state's perceived authority to regulate toxic substances conundrum; assuming vaccines were scientifically proven to be toxic (as they should be but are not because the clinical trials or studies are fraudently conducted by parties who have direct or indirect connections to the vaccine producers and the multi-national pharmaceutical conglomerates).

Hypothetically, assuming vaccines were officially determined to be junk science, I believe the government, as well as vaccination debunkers, should only inform the public about the potential for adverse health effects, rather than to criminalize their use because that would violate the individuals freedom of choice and the individuals right to make one's own medical decisions.

As I stated previously, 'the government is selective in what it criminalizes. Consider drugs verses tobacco products. Both products represent a threat to public health, but should the state be allowed to tell the individual what to not consume? Philosophically, I would say no. It should be the state's fiduciary duty to warn the public about all toxic substances (drugs, tobacco, vaccines, etc.), but the state should not violate individual sovereignty. There is too much potential for abuse, as the historical record shows:

Based on volumes of mainstream news wires, and even government documents, it has become self-evident that illegal drugs are selectively criminalized to maintain an artificial price mark up for compartmentalized government black operations and big bank money laundering schemes; creating an economy of crime and corruption that creates massive revenues for one of the largest growth industries; privatized prisons for the end users incarceration. Toxic tobacco products are legalized to generate tax revenues, and big pharma vaccines are legalized for multiple criminal agendas that include billions in profits generated by the toxic products that further generate billions in profits from the increased medical costs the vaccines cause.

Recent scientific discoveries in nano research has presented an even more sinister opportunity for exploitation of the public health for profit and political power: Mind control and population reduction through vaccines.

Whether or not you believe there is a covert genocidal world population reduction agenda, it is a fact that transhumanist cyborg nanobiotic mind control programs such as DARPA is developing exist. Watch my video 'Nano Vaccines: Sterilization, Surveillance, Genocide':

VLA Website

Societal perception has been conditioned through adroit propaganda techniques to accept selective government regulation of toxic substances and society is not ready for the criminalization of vaccines or the decriminalization of hard core hallucinogenic drugs. What else can we do but expose the vulgarities of vaccine safety misinformation (a formidable threat to public health) while championing individual rights to make our own medical decisions, including during a health emergency?'

I agree with you 190% Phil! That is the approach the AVN has always taken and Gary Krasner for one has pilloried us because of it. I know for my own family that I would NEVER, EVER use vaccines again. But that is my personal choice. It is immoral for me to try and force other people to make my choice. And it is my personal belief that it people were given full information about the lack of safety and the ineffectiveness of vaccines, 99% of them would choose not to use them. But that is their choice. It is my job to try and get the information out there - not to tell others what to do. That is being anti-vaccine for others and that is as wrong as it is to tell people they MUST vaccinate.
Our medical freedom of choice should be sacrosanct.

Vaccine safety is a misnomer - I have never pushed for safer vaccines. It is impossible (in my humble opinion) to make injecting killed or live viruses in either a genetically engineered solution or a solution of xenotransplanted animal tissued or human tissue which contains toxins, stabilisers, adjuvants and numerous contaminants safe. And safety should not be the primary issue.

Even if the bogus theory that injecting an attenuated virus into the body would produce sufficient antibodies for total immunity, consider the logistics of producing vast quantities viruses that are precisely weakened to the point they are not too strong and not too weak, mixing that concoction with stabilisers (DNA from other species), preseratives (mercury, alumminum, etc) and extenders (adjuvants such as toxic auto-immune responce generators such as squalene) to just the right formula and mass producing the entire witches brew that meet minimum standards of quality.

Vaccines are administered to prevent disease. The way in which they do that is by inducing the immune system to produce antibodies against the disease. Most vaccines do that. But we know and have known for very close to 80 years now, that antibodies don't equal immunity. So vaccines don't immunise and the entire basis of vaccination is fallacious. So safety is a moot point. We are using a procedure that doesn't work. Full stop.
Vaccine safety and effectiveness has never been proven by independent research.
If parents were told that vaccines didn't work - if the government took their head out of their arse long enough to work this out for themselves, the decision would be made for us. And if the medical community could be held accountable for using the same tactics on not only vaccines but all drugs that the tobacco companies used in covering up the dangers of tobacco, we would live in a far healthier world.
There is rampant collusion between government and big pharma to perpetrate the fraud for perpetuity. Our only recourse is to continue distributing credible information to counter it, but our adversaries are in the process of violating our freedom speech and shutting us down, which not only denies the public the opportunity to have and make an informed decision for themselves, but also demonstrates the fact that our adversaries have something to hide.

it will happen - I would have been gone from this issue long ago if I didn't think that it would - but being 'anti-vaccine' which to my mind means telling others that they can't or shouldn't vaccinate - is not the way to go on this issue. Though look at me, my organisation will very likely be closed down in a matter of weeks - who am I to give advice?

The likelyhood that your organisation will be closed down is devastating news and illustrates my point that vaccine proponents (those who have the right to believe the propaganda and those who stand to reap the enormous profits from this fraud) can not tolerate opposing viewpoints, so they regulate the flow of information that only supports their side.

From Eileen Dannemann []
September 11, 2010

CBS News reported that ten years after her vaccine regression, Hannah Poling, a girl with full syndrome autism, was finally compensated 1.5 million dollars for her vaccine injury. CBS was also forced to report the following:

“In acknowledging Hannah’s injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn’t “cause” her autism, but “resulted” in it.”Read more…

“The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines”

From Eileen Dannemann
September 11, 2010
We educate and move the kids away from dependency on the medical establishment, drugs and yielding their sovereignty to "others", by our street teams giving away free Vaccine Liberation Army stickers directing them to the VLA website. We encourage the review of different meditation paths such as TM, Christian Science, Vippasana Meditation, etc in order to inspire hope and the continued development of coherency concomitant to their efforts to recover from the onslaught of the negative dispositions of this time and place.

Link 1
Link 2

Rudolf Steiner says that vaccinations will preclude the ability to have spiritual thoughts. Dr. Ott on his show last night told us that when he was a kid he could see auras and other subtle beings. He recounts that the day he got vaccinated in school...kicking and screaming...he lost his abilities that day.

From Phil Segrave []
September 9, 2010
In hindsight, I am still reflecting on the pro-vaccination choice rights criminalization of vaccines conundrum. The bottom line appears to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't pandora's box. If the government justifiably has the right to declare a toxic substance illegal, should that not also apply to vaccines? But that would throw the right for the public to make it's own medical decisions out the window.

The government is selective in what it criminalizes too (drugs verses tobacco). Both products represent a threat to public health, but should the state be allowed to tell the individual what to not consume? Philosophically, I would say no. It should be the state's fudicary duty to warn the public about all toxic substances (drugs, tobacco, vaccines, etc.), but the state should not violate individual sovereignty. There is too much potential for abuse, as the historical record shows:

Drugs are selectively criminalized to maintain an artificial price mark up; creating an economy of crime and corruption. Tobacco is legalized for tax revenues, and vaccines has all kinds of criminal agendas; increased medical costs and covert genocidal population control mandates (not to mention transhumanist cyborg nanobiotic programs such as DARPA).

Societal perception has been conditioned through adroit propaganda techniques to accept selective government regulation of toxic substances and society is not ready for the criminalization of vaccines or the decriminalization of hard core hallucinogenic drugs. What else can we do but expose the vulgarities of vaccine safety misinformation (a formidable threat to public health) while championing individual rights to make our own medical decisions, including during a health emergency?


From Phil Segrave []
September 9, 2010
To her credit, Catherine J. Frompovich's article cited below 'What's Wrong With Vaccines' is mostly on track and asks some key and profound questions. The following synopsis indicates she is informed and aware of the primary vaccine toxicity issues, but does she still support the false premise that vaccines can be beneficial if they do not contain certain ingredients such as adjuvants or is she just asking the right questions to build her image? She gets an A grade for the article but a incomplete final grade.

Catherine does a good job of making a correlation between increased vaccinations, autism and alzeheimers. She closes by calling for the FDA and CDC to come clean by doing some honest clinical trials, which is certainly appropriate to call these agencies to task for, but to my mind the quandary over whether vaccines are safe and effective is resolved simply by reading the vaccine inserts warnings and ingredients labels, factoring in the correlation between increased vaccinations and increased disease and did I mention the ones who do the vaccine benefit studies are the ones filing for patents before the diseases become a pandemic and the ones who are selling the vaccines?

What we need to ask ourselves is do we want to maintain the right to make our own medical decisions or do we want forfeit the right to make our own medical decisions to the FDA's and CDC's conflict of interest studies?

Here are some excerpts from Catherine's article:

1 Growing up in the United States, as I did, I cannot remember such an anomoly involving children’s health as there is today.

2 Why can’t science come up with an accurate cause for autism? Are they looking ‘under the right rocks’ or are they playing a shell game of sorts?

3 Why hasn’t it or big pharma been able to establish why an average of one in every 110 children in the USA will be coming down with autism?

4 Examining the medical literature we may find some corroborating and/or circumstantial information that can lead to the cause, IF only big pharma doesn’t stand in the way.

5 TABLE 1. Vaccine-preventable diseases, by year of vaccine development or
licensure: United States, 1798-1998.

6 Looking at the above chart we see that vaccines began to proliferate from the 1970s onward. However, Autism cases began to rise roughly around 1980.

7 Is there any correlation between the two? That ought to be first and foremost in any scientific assessment: linkages. However, such linkages have received ‘shove under the rug’ scientific considerations.

8 All vaccines contain adjuvants, which are included to enhance immune response but, in most cases, truly are toxic ingredients that can exacerbate immune response into harmful neurotoxic consequences.

9 Almost every ingredient has the potential for crossing the blood brain barrier and creating adverse reactions within the brain: Anything from swelling to vessel rupture or cell apoptosis with resulting neurological damages.

10 Now, let’s look at the other end of the age spectrum: senior citizens who have been prodded into getting annual flu shots since the 1980s. We see a similar neurological pattern developing insofar as Alzheimer’s disease with facilities cropping up all around like mushrooms after a spring rain.

11 It’s NEVER been proven that the MMR vaccine has NOT caused autism. Since there are so many allegations that it has, wouldn’t you think the FDA and CDC would mandate scientific studies to PROVE that MMR vaccine DOES NOT cause autism? Or that it does. Or that neurotoxic adjuvants should be removed from vaccines.

Read Full article

From Phil Segrave []
September 9, 2010
Members of the vaccine safety camp are either misinformed or misleading others. The only issue the vaccine safety camp and the vaccine toxicity camp have in common is pro-vax choice, and that is questionable because the vaccine safety camp advocates that some vaccines are beneficial if administered correctly leaving the door open to mandatory vaccinations in an emergency.

Truthseekers need to be constantly vigilante against others who present themselves as truthseekers to build their credibility to spread misinformation. That is why I believe we should discern the credibility of the information rather than the source. The best way to do that is to self-educate from multiple sources. Do not take anyone's word for anything, not even mine. Just continue doing your homework as you are doing very well.


From Dee Nicholson []
September 9, 2010
Then there is the fellow in the Brampton,ON hospital who had a heart attack, lost brain function due to oxygen deprivation, and, being from Sri Lanka, does not have family here to stand up for him. This man has been declared "unrecoverable" by the same sort of committee as in this case and now, after the government took over his case "for his good", finds himself in a position whereby court order he may not be fed or given water unless he asks for it. His brain damage has damaged his speech center and paralyzed him on one side but because he cannot speak he is deemed "unrecoverable" and is now starving to death legally?

Another man, a friend of mine, had two strokes over the course of a year. The government has taken over his pension leaving his longtime roommate with not enough income to pay for their shared home, and on the way to getting there, they ignored her continuing Power of Attorney as though it did not exist, and called her "problematic" because she would point out that their "policies" did not reflect the law. This man is not being given any therapy or help to overcome his problems.

Now we have this situation. It is apparent to me that the word "compassion" has been parsed from health care these days, and if we want to retain our dignity,we must either stay home and heal, ,or should wander off on an ice floe like the Inuit used to do, and spare ourselves the trouble of dealing with officials whose only concern is the bottom line.

My bottom line? All these jerks need to be sentenced to the same kind of "care" they force our seniors to endure. Maybe a few days of being ignored, sitting in their own waste, would get them thinking that there just might be a better way to treat our venerated senior population!

B.C. man loses right to care for wife

An elderly B.C. man is upset after a provincial health authority stripped him and his wife of their legal and financial rights when he complained repeatedly about his wife's care in the local hospital.

"She would have been far better at home" said George Brent, 83, of his wife's care at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail, B.C. "But, I'm strapped by legalities set forth by government."

Brent's 81-year-old wife, Doloreswas admitted to the hospital in Trail, in southeastern B.C. near the border with Washingtonin August 2009 after suffering a heart attack.

After she recovered, her husband told hospital staff he wanted to take her back to their home in nearby Montrose.

Instead, the hospital moved her into its long-term care wing, saying she was too frail to leave.

"She would ask me every day, 'When can I get out of here?'" Brent said. "They stated that I wouldn't be allowed to take her home."

In the long-term care wing, Dolores Brent's health deteriorated. She suffered a stroke, and dementia set in.

"For me, that was just another pin in my heart — a reminder of my inability to do anything for her" Brent said.

Brent and one of his daughters, Gwynl said they were very upset about what they called the "substandard" care Dolores received at the Kootenay hospital.

Brent would visit every day, and he and his daughter said they often found Dolores parched, cold, tied to her wheelchair, or even sitting in her own waste.

"I told the head nurse, and they said, 'We are too busy to change her' " Gwyn said. "So, they didn't change her, and she didn't eat. How can you eat when you are sitting in your own waste? That's how it is there."

Gwyn Brent was alarmed by the care her mother received at the long-term care wing of the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail, B.C.

"If a child was treated in the same way … the parents would have the children taken from them" George Brent said.

"Sixty-four years we have been together. And we fought for each other. To see her mistreated is horrific."

Brent said he complained repeatedly and told staff he still wanted to take his wife home. When the Interior Health Authority, which is responsible for the hospital, began billing him for his wife's stay in long-term care, Brent decided to protest against the standard of care by not paying the bill.

"In a family meeting[staff] were talking about Dad not paying, and I said 'Well, why don't I just pay?' And I was told Dad needed to learn he has to pay his bills" Gwyn said.

Hospital physicians then assessed Dolores Brent's deteriorating mental state, and an administrator from the health authority signed a form declaring her incapable of managing her affairs.

The certificate of incapability, as it is known, automatically put B.C.'s Public Guardian and Trustee in charge of her finances instead of her husband even though she had signed an enduring power of attorney appointing George Brent to look after her affairs if she became incapable of doing so herself.

"To get Dolores the support she needs, it is our intention to issue a certificate of incapability" said a letter from the health authority addressed to George Brent in March. "The Public Guardian and Trustee will plan with Dolores to best meet her financial and legal needs."

Gwyn Brent said the health officials' actions were a direct response to her father's complaints about her mother's care at the Kootenay hospital.

"I think he stepped on too many toes in that place" she said. "They were just fed up with him."

The Public Guardian then sent a letter stating"We have now obtained the authority to act on behalf of Dolores . … Please note that any power of attorney … is suspended until further notice from this office."

Since then, thousands of dollars have been withdrawn from the couple's joint bank account to pay for Dolores Brent's care, George Brent said. The province has also staked a claim on the couple's home and receives the tax bills for the property.

In B.C., health authorities were given the power to issue a certificate of incapability and have the Public Guardian suspend an individual's power of attorney so they could move quickly to protect an elderly person if they suspected a family member was mismanaging or stealing the person's money.

"Involving the office of the Public Guardian and Trustee isn't something we do lightly or very often" said Cindy Kozak-Campbell of Interior Health. "It does need to be serious reasons around abuse and neglect and financial issues."

Kozak-Campbell said she couldn't speak directly about the Brent case, because of privacy issues.

"We stay focused on the person in care" she said. "So, although the family may have wishes, it is going to be the safety and comfort of that person in care. And we look for a clean, safe living environment for them."

The Brents have nine grown children. Not all of them agreed that their dad should take their mom home from the Kootenay hospital. Shannon Harrigan, a daughter who lives in Oregon, said she voiced her concerns to hospital staff.

"Nobody wants to see their loved ones in a place like that" Harrigan said. "But the reason [some of us] wanted to keep her in the hospital was because Dad would talk about how, if she were at home, they could just die together.

He couldn't afford the kind of care she would have needed at home. She needed help to do everything. She would have ended up back in hospital."

George Brent still insists he would have taken better care of his wife than the health authority did.

"I'm sure I could have" he said. "We had other help that would have come in."

He stressed that his wife had appointed him, not their children, to make the decisions on her behalf.

"She is the wife of my youth and the blind passion of my youth" he said tearfully. "And no hospital and no government can affect that. We will always be together."

Two laws passed in B.C. in 2007 could have given the Brents more rights. The B.C. Ministry of the Attorney General said Bill 26 and Bill 29 were passed in a package to give seniors and other vulnerable citizens more say over their health and financial affairs.

However, a spokesperson for the ministry said the implementation of the reforms was put on hold because of the economic downturn.

"That means we're still stuck with the old archaic laws that George [Brent] has such a problem with" said Laura Watts of the Canadian Centre for Elder Law.

"I think a lot of seniors feel like they don't have enough rights, and I think that's probably because, mostly, they don't."

Watts said Bill 26 spells out that health-care institutions can't keep someone if they want to go home. If they are deemed incapable, the facility has to get permission from a relative or a legal guardian to keep them in the facility.

She said Bill 29 essentially says a health authority can't remove a person's financial or legal rights without getting formal approval from the Public Guardian's office first. That did not happen in the Brent case. Rather, it was the health authority that launched the process of stripping George Brent of his power of attorney, and the Public Guardian merely signed off on it.

"If these laws aren't proclaimed, if we leave the legislation the way it is, in my view you are going to see more and more difficult situations, and nobody wins" Watts said.

Watts said other provinces adopted the models set out in the new B.C. laws, but those provinces have gone further and actually put the laws into force.

George Brent filed a complaint with the B.C. Ombudsperson about the standard of his wife's care but not about his loss of power of attorney. After looking through health authority records, the office concluded the complaint was not substantiated.

"It appears that [Interior Health Authority] took your concerns seriously" wrote Sandra Chan of the Office of the Ombudsperson. "The documentation … suggests that IHA provided you with an adequate and appropriate response to the concerns you raised regarding the care provided to your wife."

Gwyn Brent remains convinced her father was simply brushed off, because he caused problems for staff in the facility.

"What a sad world we live in — how we treat the elderly" she said. "Just because you are elderly, you have no rights anymore? Pretty sad."

This summer, Dolores Brent was moved, at the family's requestto a privately run care home in Trail called Rosewood Village, which has a contract with Interior Health. Her husband said the standard of care there is much higher.

George Brent said he would like to sell their house and move into another part of the same facility to be closer to his wife if a room becomes available.

However, he said, since the Public Guardian now has a stake in his home, he may not be allowed to do that.

"I'm amazed that I have lived through this year" he said. "Because I get stressed right to the moment of no return, worrying about Dolores and how she is doing."

From Phil Segrave []
September 9, 2010
This email message is regarding a presentation Eileen Danneman gave at a FDA vaccine advisory meeting recently which inadvertently embarrassed a high level CDC spokeswoman. This spokeswoman had just declared there was no evidence of adverse events associated with H1N1 vaccine related miscarriages and Eileen immediately presented a documented scientific study showing there was.

This issue is important to everyone who is concerned about the truth getting out about vaccine safety and effectiveness because there appears to be a concerted effort to squelch and rebuke anyone who does so. In this case, Eileen was obscurely called to task for potentially alienating the FDA advisory members who would otherwise be more approachable or receptable to 'vaccine safety' information if Eileen had been more tactful or 'diplomatic'.

However, it is my view that the issue is not 'vaccine safety', but 'vaccine toxicity'. That is the underlining point of dissension and the controlled opposition wants to divert your energy and attention to this bogus issue that vaccines can be safe and effective my point being there has never been any independent scientific evidence otherwise.


From Phil Segrave []
September 9, 2010
I found this on the family guardian website. There is just so much to explore on that one site. Here is a 214 page document that goes into detail about the corporate fraud parading as our de jure government:

Family Guardian website. Here is where you get everything you need to lawfully reclaim your strawman and declare your sovereignty in a peaceful, non-violent way. Will require enormous study but once you study this you will know and understand what has happened to our country and how can we reclaim our sovereignty for the record with all these 'corporate agencies'.

From Dee Nicholson []
September 7, 2010
THIS is what MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS DO TO ENTIRE COUNTRIES.... witness the suffering of India, despite her ability to feed ALL her people... and witness WHO TAKES THE MONEY AND LETS CHILDREN STARVE TO DEATH. If your sons or daughters are on the computer, snacking on chips and dip and a cold drink, and can get up and get more whenever they want, show them this file. Perhaps they will gain a perspective on the world that they need.

Check entire PDF with photos

Why don’t I get my daily bread?

And why can’t I get you to help me?

Its simple…

Both of us are citizens of this country but
neither of us is empowered…

I’m not empowered to feed myself

You are not empowered…

…to help me..!

In India, 230 million people are undernourished —the highest for any country in the world
Malnutrition accounts for 50% of child deaths in India
Every third adult is reported to be malnourished

But strangely…
Food inflation in our country is 20% -the highest among developing countries
A farmer in Nasik, 180 kilometers from Mumbai, gets 3 rupees for a kilogram of onions
But strangely…
The same onion sells at a retail price of 25 to 30 rupees in Mumbai

Foodgrain harvest during 2008-09 was a record 233 million tonnes
While the demand was only 219.01 million tonnes
The food output has grown annually by 1.98 per cent between 2004-05 and 2008-09, which is higher than the estimated population growth of 1.5 per centduring this period


In 2009-10, the Government of India spent Rs 32,000 crores on food subsidy to 7 crore BPL families
This means that Rs 4,500 was spent to feed my family of four … for one year… or Rs 375 per month… (on paper of-course)
On an average 75% of the food subsidy funds are stolen…which means that my family received food worth only Rs 94 for an entire month…

For record, while youstruggled to save your job last year, working a third more than regular and being paid a third less than what you usually do,
While a fifth of you actually lost your job although you worked as hard as others….

…some Indians really made it big..
The list of India’s richest 100 people included 52 billionaires(nearly doubled from 27 a year ago)
The collective wealth of these 100 is nearly Rs. 13 lakh crores(which is almost one fourth of the country’s GDP)
The top 10 richest Indians have a fortune of $155 billion(almost four times that of China’s top 10)
In addition India’s corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and fund agentsearned Rs. 17 lakh crores (almost 15 times more than the total income tax paid by all Indians anually)

Merely 10,000 disgusting corrupt individuals earn more than 120 crore Indians…
…combined together

Both of us are citizens of this country but
neither of us is empowered…

I want you to rise..
I want you to fight…
For me

For your own self…

By eliminating those
who kill us everyday on our own land…
Who steal from us what has been ours
for generations…
..Eliminating them
Completely !!!

From Eileen Dannemann []
September 7, 2010
Vaccine Liberation Army

What government control over food looks like.
The words "homeland security" are found 41 times in the text of the bill S. 510, also known as the Food Safety Modernization Act. Unprecedented powers over food are set to be handed over to Homeland Security if the bill is not stopped.
The bill opens opens the door to even more federal control over the everyday lives of American citizens. Since they are already engaging in organic raw milk raids without the increased powers of S. 510, the question is going to be how many more guns-drawn raids are we to expect after the bill becomes law? It gets worse. Not only does the bill grant the FDA more power, Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2010. Michael R. Taylor also worked for Monsanto, was a lobbyist for them, according to Wikipedia. And all of this activity is happening at a time when a flourishing self-sufficiency movement is taking hold in this country, at a time when demand for fresh, local, and organic food is at an all time high.
The question is: Do America's small farmers want a pro-Monsanto lobbyist in charge of the nation's food supply?
The answer is clear and this may turn out to be a draw-the-line-in-the-sand moment for many people. May God bless America!

From Phil Segrave []
September 7, 2010
Your inspirational message makes it all worthwhile. I take courage with the stand a majority of New York state nurses took last year and the fact that George W's small pox vaccination campaigned in 2002 failed because health care professional refused to get the shots.

I made the WHO Flu Scam video last year and it is still prevalent now. Please forward this link to the skeptics:

Phil Segrave YT channel

The anti-vax theme and expose of the money fraud behind the H1N1 pandemic has since became self-evident because many European government officials have exposed the WHO Flu Scam after I made the video.

When I was publishing articles on Jane Burgermeister's site, my research exposed the fraudulent clinical trial methodologies the vaccine manufacturers used at universities (experimental vaccine subjects were not quarantined thus likely exposing the community to a manmade pandemic) and patents for H1N1 vaccines were filed by the vaccine manufactures over a year before WHO declared a pandemic.

The articles have since been removed and Jane is no longer associated with it even though her name is still on it.

Natural News is one of my favorite resources, as is

See if you can get the 'brainwashed sheeple nurses' (who still say 'studies' prove vaccines work so I have to comply) who are afraid of losing their jobs to check out these sites including my video. If they do not wake up soon, they may lose their lives. Which is more important?

I used to drive a truck out of St Paul, MN. I love Minnesotians.


From Phil Segrave []
September 7, 2010
Recently read that the majority of health care workers did not take the vaccinations.

'Voluntary vaccination has not worked to increase the proportion of workers who are immunized. Moreover, studies show the spread of flu is reduced when all of the workers in a health facility are vaccinated.'...

LA Times article

The Los Angeles Times is spinning the story to justify mandatory vaccinations for first responders and health care workers. Notice that the author wrote 'studies show the spread of flu is reduced when all of the workers in a health facility are vaccinated', but did not add who did the studies or if the studies were done by those who are connected directly or indirectly to the medical mafia.

How can studies determine that the spread of flu is reduced. That requires a negative outcome to prove a positive outcome which is a very unscientific method of verification. Also, the author did not include who was studied; the workers or the patients the workers assisted. Did the studies monitor each and every patient that came in contact with the workers?

Were the patients devided into groups subjected to double blind observations; one group given vaccinations and the other group not given vaccinations to determine which group got the flu the most? Assuming the vaccinated group had a lower flu infection rate, were members of both groups exposed to the same risks of contamination from social interactions.

The logistics of such studies are subject to too many variables for clinical trial test results to be reliable.

Mandatory vaccinations is a political agenda that is vulnerable to being promoted and exploited by parties with conflict of interests. Watch my free video The WHO Flu Scam to see how greed is behind this fraud: Phil

From Gordon
September 7, 2010
American aboriginals, including Indians and native Hawaiians, learned the hard way that white-man's germs, diseases, and medicines were genocidal.

Extending this deadly history, health officials, representing BigPharma's profitable depopulation interests, are now advancing mandatory flu vaccines for healthcare workers. Soon, everyone will be required to get injected, infected, intoxicated, and then medicated and/or irradiated for a host of vaccine-related illnesses and injuries including cancers and autoimmune diseases.

The World Health Organization and CDC is now calling the shots in federal and state health departments. These entities are controlled by BigPharma's largest investors.

Foreshadowing greater disasters, the PHARMA-WHO's H1N1 swine flu "pandemic" of 2009 was just proven to be a fraud by European Parliament investigators. They concluded the global fright was generated by the PHARMAmedia for profit (although they failed to mention depopulation).

Nations lost billions, and States lost tens-of-millions, purchasing H1N1 vaccines, more accurately called biochemical weapons than "immunizations."

Highlighting the fraud: The CDC's Nancy Cox disclosed financial payoffs from BigPHARMA's trade association (IFPMA). 84-96% of the CDC's H1N1 cases were fraudulent. CDC officials infiltrated state health departments. They lied to state and county officials, a felony, calling poorly-tested vaccines "safe and effective."

The EU's investigators learned that Dr. John Wood's research team at Britain's National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), the WHO's chief influenza branch, had taken money from Sanofi Pasteur, CSL, IFPMA, Novartis and Powdermed.

Dr. Wood, with his partner in crime, Dr. James Robertson, "seeded" the world's population with "live" "active" H1N1 viruses, knowing full well the 300 million injected people were expected to incubate and recombine that virus with far more deadly H5N1 avian flu viruses. This new expected H1N1-H5N1 mutant, promoted by WHO, CDC, and partnered vaccine makers, stands to kill 60% of those it infects.

Only suckers still think vaccines for the flu, this year or any year, is good for society. Stupid people will get sick and die young following the lies of BigPharma's crisis capitalists. Smarter people will choose safety over mandatory death sentences.

Just say, "No!" to vaccine mandates that violate your freedom of choice and health.

From cdsapi
September 7, 2010
Added Comment: The HPV Vaccine horrors continue unabated in North America, but in some countries, those responsible for public welfare do react when the dreadful reality manifests itself. Therefore in India they have thankfully called for a halt to this criminal experimentation on unsuspecting victims - criminal because the lethal evidence has been available from the very beginning of this money-driven Big Pharma vaccine campaign.
It is high time to divorce Big Pharma from ALL Health Policies.
With this year’s Flu Vaccine Campaign already gearing up, I hope that all informed people refuse to become human guinea pigs once again!

From Dee Nicholson []
September 7, 2010
The GE-corn and GE-soy mentioned in this article are Monsanto's. The "food safety" bill in the Senate, S 510, is also Monsanto's. Monsanto's idea of "food safety" includes genetically engineered food, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, or slaughterhouse waste, all toxic.

Foods You're Eating

Different species of wildlife and farm animals are trying to tell us something by clearly preferring not to eat Genetically Engineered foods when they have a choice of naturally grown corn, soybeans and other crops as the following wisdom of nature anecdotes confirms. They are smarter than people when it comes to the right choices for eating.
Neil Carman, Ph.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee


STAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | Twitter | YouTube |
This site is owned and operated by © 1999-2018. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter