Mike Adams calls David Icke INSANE for calling COVID-19 a HOAX

by Jim West (please share and cite)

David Icke was interviewed by Brian Rose of LondonReal.tv, 4/5/2020.  Icke described coronavirus (COVID-19) as an exploitive hoax.

Mike Adams is a major critic of the medical system, however, Icke went too far for Adams.

Adams went ballistic with an article (4/9/2020), attempting to smash David Icke’s view of COVID-19 with slurs and ad hominem attacks.

Adams (photo below) promotes "natural antivirals" that protect against "viruses". If COVID-19 is a hoax, then he might appear to be promoting and profiting from a hoax. He cannot have that!

He unloads a personal attack on Icke, while claiming, “I’m actually among the most science-educated persons in independent media…”

Name calling

The independent media has been afflicted with a dangerous new contagion that I’m calling “Stupid-19.” It’s characterized by people who believe viruses aren’t real…

Adams is in effect, referring to dissident virologist Stefan Lanka, The Perth Group, Anthony Brink, David Crowe at Rethinking AIDS, as well as David Icke.

The esteemed epidemiologist, Sucharit Bhakdi, states that COVID viruses are real, however, they have long cohabited with humans. These viruses are not a hazard enough to cause a severe pandemic. He describes the media drama and medical response as absurd. He sees air pollution as much more probable than COVID-19. Because COVIDs are so common in humans, the pandemic could be, in part, a pandemic of testing. Bhakdi has 250 publications listed in PubMed. Apparently, Adams would also deem Bhakdi stupid.

Unsupported slur

Brian Rose [interviewer] didn’t challenge Icke… He let Icke roll out extremely bad misinformation grounded in science illiteracy without halting him with basic questions like, “If the virus isn’t real, then why did China enforce draconian quarantine measures that nearly destroyed its domestic economy in order to stop the spread of the virus?”

Adams, the medical critic, suddenly appears to trust the medical system, to trust the purported reasons for “quarantine measures... to stop the spread of the virus”. He is livid with cyclic logic. He must know, that if COVID-19 is not real, then the quarantines must be a charade.

The COVID-19 shutdowns have been for “nonessential” activities. Still active are government, military, transportation, Internet stores, communications, the chemical industry, utilities, electronics, agriculture and distribution, chemical industry, the media, and the medical complex. If a shutdown activity were drastically threatening the US economy, then it would simply be re-categorized as an essential activity.

The word “virus” can be used for many purposes...

For example, virus drama distracts from the most obvious cause of respiratory disease at the epicenter (Wuhan, China). Photo: CNN 7/11/2019.

The word “virus” protects polluting industries. No virus is required for an understanding of the cause of respiratory disease in Wuhan.

Insane labeling

Apparently, David Icke believes that China, Iran, Italy, Spain, France, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, the UK, the United States and nearly a hundred other countries all got together and simultaneously agreed to run a global lockdown hoax and destroy their own domestic economies as part of a worldwide hoax. That’s literally what he believes. Such a belief is insane.

Economies are not being destroyed; they are changing. COVID-19 and protocols like self-isolation, are levers. Assets and power are shifting. Economic evolutions are occurring. Culture and law are changing. The vulnerable are highly stressed. Everyone is being challenged. Polluting industries must be protected with whatever circus is necessary.

Hypes guilt

…a very large number of independent media followers are convinced it’s all fake. That encourages them to avoid wearing masks or washing hands, thereby encouraging the further spread of the infections that are getting people killed by the thousands each day in America alone… David Icke and other pandemic denialists are complicit in the deaths of these people.

Rather than a scientific rebuttal to Icke, Adams uses fear and guilt to get his way. Big Pharma also sells its products by dramatizing fear and guilt. Adams and Pharma both do this with the germ theory of disease.

This sales technique distracts people from environmental awareness. Notice the mainstream media's ratio of attention paid to dubious COVID-19 infection compared to Wuhan's very obvious air pollution hell.

Product sales defended

For other examples, in his book, How to Beat the Bird Flu, he hypes virus fear and vaccine efficacy, while promoting "natural antivirals". He seems to be of two minds, to put it nicely -- as if he were Modern Medicine in Nature's Clothing. 

...you learn how to boost your flu immunity to prevent infection and where to find natural antiviral treatments. Remember, when the vaccines run out, antiviral foods, herbs and minerals are going to be your only option.

Is this how Adams’ business has survived so well, despite his severe attacks on powerful pharma? Adams can clarify these issues.

Adams goes to the wall to hype the Coronavirus pandemic. Media Matters quotes Adams, 2/20/2020:

We’re going to get into the heads of the globalists here to try to understand what they are thinking when they released this global pandemic and engineered this weapon against human beings, the Wuhan coronavirus.

Adams would look more foolish pushing that conspiracy if people like David Icke are correct about COVID-19 being a hoax. Adams is attacking them, but he is off to an unscientific start.

Conclusion

Mike Adams... please clarify your positions. And, what text convinced you that viruses are real, and that they are disease-causing agents? Why did you not debate Jon Rappoport and David Icke, instead of calling for their ostracization?

Later, we can deal with your claim that COVID-19 is an "engineered weapon". You might want to prepare by reviewing the following deconstruction of the word, "virus", here.

__________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Childhood cancer and ultrasound

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Since the 1990s it has become obvious, for instance, during a Sunday walk, that childhood disease has been escalating, e.g., cancer, eye problems, autism, ADHD, misshapen heads and bodies, etc. So this would not be a mere result of improved testing.

Officials similarly indicate an increase in childhood cancer, e.g., The American Cancer Society issued a "Special Report" with this graph.

I posit prenatal ultrasound as a substantial contributor, as stated in my book (2015),

The long-term emerging epidemics of childhood cancer seems evident via JZhang (2002). The general belief is that cancer is the result of an accumulation of DNA damage. DUS [diagnostic ultrasound] should be considered as the obvious relevant causative stressor, directly or as a synergist.

No specific ultrasound-cancer studies directly support this idea, so here is a simple logical argument.

Given: Cancer is the result of genetic dysfunction.

Given: Prenatal ultrasound causes genetic dysfunction

Therefore: Prenatal ultrasound causes cancer.

Cancer and genetic dysfunction

The National Cancer Institute (NCI, federal gov) describes the official theory of cancer causation.[ref]

Cancer is a genetic disease—that is, cancer is caused by certain changes to genes that control the way our cells function, especially how they grow and divide...

Cancer-causing genetic changes can [be inherited or...] acquired during one’s lifetime, as the result of errors that occur as cells divide or from exposure to carcinogenic substances that damage DNA, such as certain chemicals in tobacco smoke, and radiation, such as ultraviolet rays from the sun.

NCI omits "X-rays" or "ultrasound" as it provides examples of destructive "radiation". It names only the sun, an essential part of our evolution through billions of years. This indicates NCI's conflict of interest with industry.

NCI says that dysfunctional genes can be inherited or acquired during one's lifetime. Yet, genetic dysfunction during pregnancy is more likely acquired from environmental stressors because it is misdiagnosed as an inherited mutation. Gofman (1992)

To expedite the ultrasound argument, I accept the NCI premise, that genetic dysfunction is a major cause of carcinogenesis. Now, how do genes become dysfunctional?

Industrial radiation is carcinogenic

Childhood cancer rates have been rising since the 1930s due to ever increasing chemical pollution, e.g., pesticides, fluoride, and industrial effluents.

Many scientists point to a possibly greater threat, the pervasion of electricity and its radiation, i.e., electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Carcinogenic sources of EMF are, for example, power cables, appliances, transformers, small lighting transformers, motors, medical radiation devices, radio and radar transmissions. EMF is a likely cause of cancer, with even WHO/IARC (representing industrial bias) stating that radio frequencies are a "possible carcinogen". See "Historical evidence..." by the epidemiologist, Dr. Samuel Milham and co-author E. M. Osslander.[ref] Hundreds of scientists support EMF causation for diverse symptoms at bioinitiative.org 

With electricity also comes a direct and focused source of radiation, routine prenatal diagnostic radiation in the form of X-rays and by the mid 1970s, ultrasound.

X-rays are known to cause childhood cancer.

RSNA (2009)

...radiation exposure during pregnancy... leads to serious harmful effects to the fetus, including increased risk of leukemia and other malignancies.

Grufferman (2009)

Prenatal x-ray exposure is one of the few well-established environmental risk factors for childhood cancer.

Ultrasound, like X-rays

Contrary to popular belief, many studies find that ultrasound causes genetic damage like X-rays, e.g., Liebeskind (1981), JZhang (2002), and Hočevar (2012). Present-day authorities admit this for animal and cells studies, but deny this applies to humans, even claiming that humans could be "immune" to ultrasound.

Ultrasound is the direct result of radio frequency circuitry driving a quartz piezo-electric chip. Frequencies are higher than the AM radio band. Ultrasound is ready-to-go mechanical transformation of EMF.

One ultrasound session is equivalent to 1,000 or more chest X-rays.

This stunning number is extrapolated from a statement in a CNN documentary, year 1983. Scientists from Columbia University were interviewed about ultrasound. The statement was "250 chest X-rays", but when extrapolated to current values, this would be much higher. Extrapolation is necessary because in 1983 (vs present-day) a chest X-ray was higher intensity and prenatal ultrasound was lower intensity.

Doreen Lieberman, MD (lab researcher), and Arthur Bloom (geneticist), were interviewed for the CNN documentary in 1983:

One ultrasound session will readily fragment maternal and fetal genetic matter according to JZhang (2002). The graph below (a photo of the result of gel electrophoresis), shows DNA fragmentation at ultrasound intensities far below that of a typical clinical ultrasound session.

In conclusion, I reiterate the argument.

Given: Cancer is the result of genetic dysfunction.

Given: Diagnostic ultrasound causes genetic dysfunction

Therefore: Ultrasound causes cancer.

_____________

Thanks to Sallie Elkordy for encouraging this project.

Buy the foundational book.
__________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Global Warming

by Jim West (please share and cite)

"Global Warming" is the name used to churn the public before the term had to be changed to "Climate Change".

Global Warming was in danger of be found a hoax, and so the name change.

Years ago, I was stunned by Al Gore's documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth". I told all my socialist friends about it on forums. What a great film. The Truth was revealed.

I still had a gnawing doubt in the back of my mind, which I repressed. He had displayed on stage, a great long timeline of arctic CO2 levels and temperatures. As the camera panned left to right, across the millennia, it settled on the right side where standing like a clown on a tall ladder was Al Gore pointing to the accelerating high point of the temperature line. Everyone began laughing including me.

Gore was suddenly the clown, as he pointed to rocketing temperature increases that were obviously out of control, a disaster engulfing the world, due to CO2.

Later, I looked into this graph and found that CO2 was not leading temperature, but following it. Something else had to be raising the CO2 levels.

Gore was performing the common magic trick technique, displaying an impressive show, but distracting the audience from the tell-tale detail. What's really strange, I suspect, is that wanted this picture, he wanted the dual message.

Independent Research

STRAIGHT LINE INCREASE OF WATER LEVEL

For nearly 200 years, New York City ocean water level tables show linear increase, with no acceleration.

"Global warming" would have accelerated these water levels if global warming were accelerating, but that's not happening, see graph, displayed below from NOAA.

The only reason for the CO2 drama, that I can think of, is to drive questionable public works funding such as elite nuclear power and fake clean energy programs, and create elite gravy trains. Nuclear power gets federal grants with its sales pitch, "zero-emission technology".

For example, 40 clean energy programs, funded by Obama Administration declared bankruptcy. The largest, Solyndra, was personally promoted by Obama and Biden. This could be the subversion of independent clean energy programs.

Apparently Obama sanctioned The Paris Accord within the same context, and Trump saw this apparently, and says he will renegotiate, though with the U.S. stuck by a signed agreement, the pull-out cannot occur until November 2020.

If 'they' really care about health, they can care about air pollution, rather than temperature. Many millions die annually from air pollution. No polarizing arguments are required.
_______________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Vaccines Not Primary Cause of Autism

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Four Reasons

Empirical Science

Ultrasound fetal hazards far outweigh vaccine hazards. Ultrasound timelines correlate with autism. Vaccine timelines do not correlate.

Risk

Ultrasound damage is empirically proven at low intensity, at clinical intensity, and this happens with 100% reliability. This goes beyond "risk assessment". The question becomes not if, but why are they doing this? [Harvoa 2015]

Ultrasound is officially described as "harmless". Clearly there is a heavy political component, an investment in fetal damage, which should not be surprising in the context of Machiavellian medical monopoly practice. [Medical Industrial Complex (Wiki)] [RS Mendelsohn, MD]

A few seconds of ultrasound can damage the fetus.

Autism Initiation Timeline

Autism is initiated in the womb at approximately the 20th week gestation. [Grether 2009]

This corresponds with prenatal ultrasound, not vaccines. Doctors do not advise routine vaccination at the 20th week, but they do force by intimidation, pregnant women to undergo ultrasound at the 20th week.

Thus, ultrasound fetal damage is the sine qua non for autism. There are exceptions where other forms of radiation could have damaged the fetus, such as x-rays. Vaccines are not a sine quo non.

Vaccines could be a trigger like many other environmental stressors, but more likely it is the antibiotic preservative in the vaccine, not the vaccine itself.

Two primary interviewees in Wakefield's movie, Vaxxed, clearly describe "antibiotics" as the primary causative stressor! This is despite the film's intent -- to promote the concept of vaccine-caused autism.[ref] 

I spoke several times at length with Wakefield during the Vaxxed premiers in New York. He was "impressed" but would not allow further discussion.

Ultrasound "potentiates" antibiotics by a factor of approximately 100x! This use of ultrasound is an emerging but controversial antibiotic technology on children and adults, yet it is conspicuously not controversial when applied to a fetus. What's the difference? The ability to see ultrasound as the cause of damage.

Similarly, ultrasound intensity for the adult eye is limited to 50mW/cm2, yet for the fetus, limited to 720mW/cm2. What's the difference? The ability to speak and litigate.

Cuba: No Autism

Despite 100% vaccine compliance in Cuba, including the MMR, there has been virtually no autism!

Cuba could not afford to buy or maintain ultrasound machines, thus there was virtually no autism. 

Lately Cuba is being donated ultrasound machines, and Cuba is suffering some rising autism rates. More recently, with trade barriers falling, DUS sales reps are meeting high level officials in Cuba, preparing major sales campaigns.

Japan: Rising Autism

The MMR vaccine was cancelled circa 1992, when Japan suspected that the MMR might be causing autism, yet autism increase more than ever before!

In 1992 Japan increased ultrasound machine allowed intensities by at least 8x-15x. Autism increased though MMR was canceled. They were following the 1991 increase by the FDA.

Discussion

Vaccines are damaging Medical products. Even vaccine manufacturers admit that vaccines are not proven safe nor effective. [ref]

Vaccines are not proven effective because the disease causation paradigms (germs) are not valid. Environmental toxicology is missing from all aspects of disease epidemics --  despite massive industrial poisoning at all disease epicenters in proportion to disease intensity. [ref]

Controlled narrative

The vaccine controversy is a controlled narrative that primarily serves as a smoke screen. Because most anti-vaxers believe in the mainstream disease causation paradigms (germs), the mainstream is able to trick anti-vaxers into dramatizing germ theory and hiding greater medical horrors, such as ultrasound.

For example, the following article will keep anti-vaxers rolling along with their controlled narrative, as they are encouraged to shout how The New York Times "admits" that vaccine viruses are causing disease.

Anti-vaxers should be arguing causation in terms of toxicology, not virology. That would need to include vaccine-ultrasound synergy.

Vaccines are secondary, one of the several subsequent environmental stressors that can trigger "autism" in the already ultrasound-damaged child.

RFK Jr., Age Of Autism, Blaxill, Wakefield, Handley, etc.

Why do these prominent anti-vaxers have it so wrong? None will answer my emails or personal in-the-face requests for dialogue. None of the autism nonprofits will answer. Yet they know me, for, the leading autism organization (Age of Autism, Mark Blaxill) plagiarized my sensational DDT/Polio research as it launched its website.

They avoid resolution of the autism epidemic. They herd the sheep along while avoiding an effective rebellion. They are compensated well as they mislead people into the virus-vaccine morass. 

RFK, Jr buries ultrasound causation for autism

Until a few years ago, RFK, Jr. seemed to resonate with my most cynical views about Medicine. I thought he was a great and courageous man. Lately, I've realized he is part of the smoke screen, the endless irresolution of autism issues. Here he intentionally buries the topic of ultrasound behind flame retardants,  2/15/2017:

A lot of people say well maybe it’s the glyphosate, from the pesticides, maybe it’s PFOA from flame retardants, maybe it’s ultrasound. There’s a number of hypotheses, they all should be investigated. But none of them [except vaccines, he implies] has the timing, or the sexual dimorphism that we see that we need to explain, when we look at these disorders.

He conspicuously places ultrasound last, behind "flame retardants". That's not a mistake. He says they all should be investigated (as if they haven't), yet ultrasound has already been thoroughly investigated.

He is misleading about vaccines being the most obvious cause for autism, because vaccines do not fit the timeline for autism initiation. 

Ultrasound fits the timeline perfectly, as I described.

He is misleading about an extraordinary "sexual dimorphism" (the difference of responses per sex found in toxicological studies) for vaccines -- because males and females almost always respond differently to any poisoning. Why does he even bother with such a high-tech statement? Apparently, he intends to mix a baffling tech term with the word, "sexual", to psych out his audience. He is a pro.

Why doesn't RFK, Jr. resolve the vaccine controversy by simply requiring proof of virus existence? He would lose his platform. To resolve the vaccine issue, he knows that basic terms (such as virus) must be defined and substantiated. The difficulty of proving virus causation is well known among mainstream experts.

_____________________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Hormesis

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Hormesis describes the true and well-established dose/response curve for toxicity. The word has been censored from all textbooks. FDA refuses to recognize it. It is the fundamental basis for apparent but falsely described pharmaceutical success. Even as I write this, the word "hormesis", Blogger marks it as a misspelling.

This is my most cynical but perhaps realistic view. If we can handle this, perhaps we could find a solution...

Why is the world so toxic?

The 'careless' toxic technology is allowed as part of a management agenda. The insider historian, Yuval Harari, writes, "Humans are managed according to agricultural protocols" [close paraphrase if not exact, from his book "Homo Deus"].

He doesn't explain, but "Agricultural protocols" is a standard concept in toxicology, for example the authoritative Hayes and Laws.

Farm life (cattle and plants) is purposely stressed (with toxic agri-chemicals) to raise the biological metabolism, at the cost of higher levels of disease and death. This increases "production", whatever that may be, e.g., such as egg laying or flesh mass.

For humans, "production" could be anything, such as Asperger obsessive computer programmers. Or an entire Millennial population less able to challenge authoritative corruption.

Hayes and Laws, says this in terms of the human "need for... sufficient but not overpowering challenge".. It is a top-down interest to stress us in nonsensical ways, that benefit upper level management. It is elitist management theory applied universally.

The term "sufficient challenge" introduced by Smyth (1967) refers to the entire range of phenomena and emphasizes the need of the organism for some measure of stress, whether it be a small amount of poison, a fact, he points out that he took the term from Toynbee's concept of "sufficient but not overpowering challenge" in connection with human history.

See my first article on this topic.
______________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Wakefield

by Jim West (please share and cite)

New Angle / Old Story

Andrew Wakefield -- I had read about his famous retracted study, but had never directly read the study.

It had seemed obvious that his formidable critic, Brian Deer, is a slime-ball.

Now I'm reading Wakefield's study, as published in The Lancet, 1998. "A. J. Wakefield" is first on the list of authors, as the "senior scientific investigator".

The study reviews 12 children with developmental and intestinal disorders. It associates these symptoms with "environmental triggers", of which, the attenuated viruses of the MMR vaccine are the main focus. [ref]

Toxicology

The word "antibiotic" is mentioned early, yet only once in the entire study.

[Subject four] developed recurrent antibiotic-resistant [middle ear infections] and the first behavioural symptoms...

This is revealing.

Wakefield is avoiding toxicology!

Antibiotics are a common treatment for children. The study's listed "behavioral symptoms" could be the result of the overuse of antibiotics. Antibiotic-resistance could be a bad explanation for the failure of antibiotics for a disease which is actually not infectious, but rather toxicological. Antibiotics would just compound toxic damage.

Doreen Granpeesheh, PhD, describes two toxicological correlations for autism. 

    A) "Very high use of antibiotics"

    B) "Families reporting" [vaccines prior to autism.] 

Granpeesheh is the founder of The Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Her statement is found in Vaxxed, Wakefield's movie (where she is interviewed by Del Bigtree).

Polly Tommey is also revealing. She is one of the movie's producers. She reported that her son was vaccinated prior to her son's autism, however, if you listen carefully to her interview in Vaxxed, the vaccine symptoms merely triggered her -- to bring her son back to the doctor for a regimen of antibiotics. Her mother argued against this, however, Polly dismissed her as a "hippie".

I approached Polly at the NYC movie premiere but she blew me off, saying, "I'm not smart." I ignored that nonsense, but she repeated, "I'm not smart. Talk to my husband." Mr. Tommey was also unapproachable in the limelight.

Clearly, antibiotics should have been a major concern in Wakefield's study of "environmental triggers".

The study ignores neomycin, a known risk for anaphylactic reactions. This is MMR's antibiotic preservative.

The study mixes the terms, "environmental" and "virus", thereby eliminating the dichotomy (environment vs germ) as a tool for toxicological considerations.

It suggests MMR is an "environmental trigger", however, a trigger must trigger something, such as a pre-existing vulnerability. The study advocates the most highly funded industrial view, "genetic predisposition".

Genetic predisposition is based on twin studies. This is an admittedly weak type of study, which depends on The Equal Environment Assumption, an impossible assumption for twins in a womb exposed to, for example, hazardous ultrasound examinations.

The study ignores fetal ultrasound, which can establish vulnerability to antibiotics. Qian (1996) finds ultrasound "potentiating" subsequent antibiotics by 100-fold. [ref].

Note that the autism histories of Cuba and Japan completely exculpate the MMR yet add to the evidence for ultrasound causation. [ref]

Selection Criteria

The selection criteria is missing. How were the 12 children selected?

The term, "consecutively referred", implies an explanation, but there is none.

12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of [developmental delay and GI tract disease], were investigated.

Selection criteria can determine the outcome of the study.

Were the 12 subjects picked out of the clear blue sky?  For what specific purpose were they referred? Who requested the children, and how, what context, what letter, what language? Who referred the subjects to the department? What filters were run for any removal of inappropriate subjects?

Invalid Controls

The control group in any study, consists of the healthy subjects. Wakefield acquired his 32 control blood samples at his son's birthday party. He says he paid the children and acquired permission from their parents.

He claims these were "healthy controls" but there is no mention of how he determined their health and private medical histories. His study does not describe his control selection process as that would be an embarrassment, defeating the study outright.

He did not obtain ethics committee approval.

As an example of Wakefield's arrogant confidence in his ability to manipulate people, he sprung his blood-sucking party game on children as young as age 4, at a party where the ability to make a private choice was not possible. The children and their parents were the victims of herd manipulation.

It would not be easy to remove your child from this party or its blood ritual. To deny or complain might mean no more invitations to the house of this rising star in the medical field. You and your child would be cast as cynical kill-joys and there would be subtle social consequences.

Brian Deer, the detestable critic, begins to make sense:

Brian Deer's Summary [ref]

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed:

- The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:

- Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism

- Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns

- Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination

- In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”

- The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link

- Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation

Deer describes Wakefield's financial conflicts. [ref]

According to the figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.

Wakefield’s work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.

Wakefield did not mentioned the payments in the study.

He says that the payments were actually for a subsequent study (but from the same sponsors). He says he didn't read the fine print as he filled out the conflicts of interest area for the publication application. He says he personally did not find his finances embarrassing and that was good enough to stay silent. [ref]

Richard Horton, senior editor of The Lancet, stated that if the peer-reviewers were aware of this conflict, the study would never have been published.

Wakefield's defenses are based on claims of good intentions, and little science. For example, he defends himself during his 2010 interview with Alan Golding by highlighting (at great length) his moral sense, his desire to help the families of autistic children. [ref]

Political Speculation

Wakefield uses humility to steer autism research towards virology and away from toxicology.

We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.

Virology is fraudulent because it avoids obvious toxicological confounding factors. [ref]

Wakefield is a medical soldier. He claims that he had paused in his military duties to help families damaged by friendly fire. His army prosecutes him for misrepresenting the friendly fire. A public argument ensues, obfuscating the shape of the actual unfriendly fire (industrial poisoning).

The Lancet

The premier medical publication, The Lancet, readily published Wakefield's study without sufficient challenge. His flawed study then dangled in The Lancet, a planted seed, awaiting use as a polarizing device.

How is it possible that this grossly invalid study with anti-vax implications survived the usual biased peer review?

   a) No selection criteria

   b) No valid controls

   c) No conflicts of interest listed

   c) No toxicology

   d) Unsupported virology

No selection criteria: The Lancet cannot be forgiven.

No valid controls: The Lancet cannot be forgiven.

No conflicts of interest listed: The reviewers for The Lancet might be forgiven, because they were not informed of the conflict of interest, though Wakefield claims Horton knew.

No toxicology, and no virology supported: In the context of politics, these are somewhat forgivable for all parties, because this is the hard real politic of publishing in Medicine. Strong toxicology is not allowed. Strong challenges to virology are not allowed. Nevertheless, Wakefield does play the game full on, not worthy of a great medical martyr (his supposed role).

Wakefield's attention-grabbing scandal is valuable to industry as a disinformational, polarizing martyr theme.

Wakefield is persecuted mainly by Brian Deer, The Lancet, UK General Medical Council, and the mainstream media. As a charade, all of them, including Wakefield and many of his anti-vax fans, are merely avoiding toxicology under cover of great ethical concern.

Shills

Long ago, Wakefield joined with Mark Blaxill, a well-paid omnipresent leader of the autism/vax movement who has been described as a shill and former pharma consultant by investigator Jake Crosby. [ref]

Wakefield, the pro-vaxer, is the martyr for cheering anti-vaxers. He advocates that the 3-in-1 MMR injection be applied as three separate injections. By obsessing on the unconfirmed validity of these three viruses (Measles, Mumps, Rubella), Wakefield advocates three toxic vaccinations instead of one. Update: Wakefield is becoming more anti-vax, but he still maintains the same energy-sucking arguments that avoid the scientific fundamentals, as listed above. [ref]

Co-Authors

As senior scientific investigator, Wakefield managed his co-authors who performed specific tasks.

The co-authors survived the legal procedures that netted Wakefield. They did not come to his defense. Wakefield forgives them, saying their choice is "human nature".

Wakefield says he won't debate Deer because Deer is beneath him.

Vaxxed shows Wakefield with a few colleagues at the famous 1998 press conference at the Royal Free Hospital. One appears grimly frozen and the other covering his face as Wakefield presents his study. I doubt this is only because of pharma politics.

_________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

EMF and Health

by Jim Westby (please share and cite)

Two forms of EMF

Industrial EMF competes with biological EMF.

Biological EMF (electromagnetic fields) is essential to cell and hormone function. We have co-evolved with EMF, and cells generate and receive EMF. Over billions of years, life has co-evolved beneficially with natural EMF, such as sunlight.

Industrial EMF is essential to the technical backbone of modern civilization. It is the basis for electric motors, electrical transmission, radio, WiFi, computers, communications, etc. It is different than natural EMF, being dangerously polarized, square wave and having properties that like cannot use or defend against. Life has not co-evolved with industrial EMF.

Biological EMF, however, is a common part of biological function, necessary for chemical interactions, pathway signalling, hormonal function, etc.

The competition between natural and biological EMF confuses biological functionality. Biological systems must spend energy stabilizing themselves. Disease then proliferates in the form of hormonal disruption and cell function disruption, and symptoms are highly diverse.

Examples of industrial EMF: electric motors (A/C and fans), and LED, fluorescent lights, and computer monitors. This is not a “light spectrum, blue light” issue, but high-frequency EMF from unshielded switch-mode transformer circuitry. Other sources of varying EMF types are power cables, and mains cables under our floor or through walls and ceilings.

Industrial EMF is clearly associated with coughing, sneezing, back-ache, nervous sleep, etc. Continued exposure can lead to severe symptoms, e.g., meningeal irritation, eye and ear problems, and dental weakness.

EMF is so important to industry, that any thought of health issues are seen as an attack on industry. U.S. electrical code has no provision for personal health. Its code protects other electrical equipment in that radiating devices are not allowed to disrupt each other, however, it does not extend this protection to biological entities.

EMF health issues are flatly rejected by industry-funded science and media. Authoritative yet anonymous boards are assembled to review and reject the science. Corrupt studies are funded, e.g., where the control group is exposed to EMF, where observations are dismissed without discussion based on selective nit-picking.

Most independent studies find EMF hazards. 187 studies are compiled at Bioinitiative.org by Henry Lai, PhD, which support the concept of EMF poisoning as a major environmental hazard. This group represents the view of hundreds of scientists. An eloquent author on the topic of EMF genotoxicity is professor Neil Cherry.

Industry hacks reject the idea of EMF hazards, pretending to be scientists, e.g., at EMF Science and Health.

You do the test

If you are skeptical, then devise your own test. Test EMF for health issues by changing EMF exposure levels.

Symptoms already exist for most people, e.g., rashes on the backs of hands near computer monitors and keyboards, depression, brain fog. Heart palpitation can occur during computer use or other sudden exposure, such has when carrying a cell-phone in ones shirt pocket. What appear to be bug-bites can merely be EMF rashes. Reduce the EMF and watch symptoms disappear.

The next time you sneeze, look around. You should see an unusually high intensity EMF device near you, like a fluorescent light or WiFi source near your head. LED lights also, as they usually contain an unshielded switch-mode high-frequency transformer circuit. A cell phone held near the sinuses can cause sneezing for some.

Detect a wide variety of EMF sources with the aid of a portable AM radio tuned between stations at the low end of the dial. The static noise represents wide-ranging EMF patterns and frequencies, termed "dirty electricity" (Dr. Samuel Milham, epidemiologist).

Tests work well if you can find a safe low-EMF area and a high exposure area (two comparison scenarios). In relative terms, find safe and hazardous areas within your residence or work.

The industrial view is, of course, dominant, to protect electric systems.

One TEST is worth a 1,000 expert opinions.

TEST the effects of WiFi yourself. 1) If your Internet router is located near your sleeping area, then turn it off at night and you will notice much better sleep. 2) Or turn off your house breaker switch at night, also gaining very good sleep.

EMF disrupts hormonal systems, disrupting sleep and causing disease. 184 studies agree: Bioinitiative.org

Further study

Bioinitiative.org


Anthony A. Marino, PhD -- This scientist was fortunate enough to have been funded for the entirety of his research career. Extremely knowledgeable, humorous. He also is a lawyer, and has been called as a witness for many EMF related trials against industry. He also has a degree in law and philosophy/religion.

Sam Milham, MD -- Epidemiologist, pioneer in EMF science.

Prof. Neil Cherry -- EMF genotoxicity.

Caveat. If you become EMF aware, then stay conservative. Do not fall for EMF mysticism, amulets, etc. Focus on basic EMF physics. EMF is radiation. It must be shielded and preferably removed or distanced. Aluminum foil is effective, but be careful, as it could reflect another EMF source. Some sell devices that can electronically neutralize EMF. Be skeptical of those. Think distance and shielding, and shield in ways that do not reflect or concentrate EMF.

Read your meters; none are perfect so be in touch with your symptoms. Discount other sources of pollution such as unventilated stoves and boilers or stack pollution.

Map your area with an RF meter and an AM radio. Then shield appropriately or relocate.

___________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.