By Bart Sibrel

Has there ever been a milestone accomplishment of mankind, whether it be the four minute mile, or climbing Mount Everest, or breaking the sound barrier, that once achieved, no one from any nation on earth was able to repeat the same accomplishment for seventy years?  Of course not . . . except . . . man allegedly walking on the moon in 1969 (as twenty years from now is the earliest projected “repeat” of the event, though fifty years ago it allegedly only took eight years to develop the technology to do so).

Funny, that with one millionth the computing power in all of 1960’s NASA than a modern day cell phone, they claimed to have traveled one thousand times farther than an astronaut can travel today, and that on the very first attempt. Even here on earth, the summit of Mount Everest and the South Pole were first met with death, failure, and numerous attempts before success was finally achieved, as was the case with the Wright Brothers repeated efforts before getting a mere twenty feet off the ground.

Another strange anomaly, according to NASA astronaut Don Pettit, is that NASA “deliberately destroyed the technology” which they painstakingly designed and created to go to the moon in the 1960’s, at a modern day cost of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS . . . Wait a second . . . Imagine Bill Gates spending 150 Billion Dollars to build the first computer, and then once successfully completing it, throwing the computer with its blueprints into a furnace . . . Would anyone EVER – EVER – EVER do such a crazy thing??????? . . . Of course not . . . yet . . . this IS what NASA did with the technology which they claimed could reach the moon in the 1960’s.

This is proof itself that the “moon missions” were fraudulent .

If you really went to the moon and spent 150 BILLION Dollars to do so, you would NEVER – EVER – EVER deliberately throw away such precious hard earned technology . . . NEVER!!!!!!!  Has anyone ever deliberately thrown away breakthrough technology in the entire history of the world? . . . Of course not.

On the other hand, if NASA faked going to the moon, and a detailed analysis of the engineering specifications could prove mathematically that the rocket did not have enough fuel to reach its destination and return, or that the onboard computers were not fast enough to process the complicated trajectories in real time as the mission required, or that the power in the lunar module batteries was not sufficient to supply the air conditioning to combat exterior temperatures of 252 degrees Fahrenheit (122 Celsius) for three days without cooking alive the crew inside, THEN yes indeed NASA would definitely destroy any and all proof of their deception, which is exactly what they did.

By Makia Freeman

Fraudulent scientific research is rife throughout the world due to the power of monetary influence wielded by Big Pharma, the giant cartel of multinational pharmaceutical corporations started over 100 years ago by the Rockefellers. This fraudulent scientific research is now so widespread and pervasive it is become an open secret. There is a long list of medical journal editors, doctors and professors on the “outside”, former Big Pharma employees and executives on the “inside”, as well as government officials somewhere in between, who have stepped forward as whistleblowers and acknowledged the fraud. Money buys favorable research. Period. This is not really surprising, given the history of Rockefeller Western medicine and the fact that Big Pharma’s business model is based on “managing” disease, “treating” symptoms and keeping patients on the hamster wheel, rather than actually healing them completely.

Whistleblower Dr. Peter Rost, former vice president of Pfizer, a giant Big Pharma company, spelled it out.  He reveals that everyone knows how the “game” works:

“Universities, health organizations, everybody that I have encountered … are out there …. begging for money. (Big Pharma corporations) use that money to basically buy influence … (Big Pharma provides) grants for various kinds of research … make sure they (scientific researchers) became beholden … Everyone obviously knows this is how things work.”

“They (scientific researchers) are not going to continue to get money unless they’re saying what you (i.e. Big Pharma) want them to say. They know it, you know it, and it’s only maybe the public that doesn’t know it.”

In this way, the almost the entire medical scientific community has been compromised and has become thoroughly untrustworthy.

Learn more: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/fraudulent-scientific-research-western-medicine/

By Jon Rappoport

A news story tends to move in waves. It appears, retreats, and then appears in an altered form—replete with lies, cover stories, and embedded confusion. That’s why I’m keeping this story alive in its stark essence—

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.                          “’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”                                                                                                                   “The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”                                         “I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line?

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion: “Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.                This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans.

The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.

The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/11/new-vaccines-will-permanently-alter-dna.html?utm

By Catherine J. Frompovich

The food industry is extremely innovative at reducing waste products and salvaging any last bit of animal tissue aka meat.

Transglutaminase is an animal-blood enzyme used as “meat glue” to create a prime filet steak, which many cooks and eaters can’t tell the difference.

“Meat Glue” is a naturally occurring enzyme found in animal blood called Transglutaminase or Thrombin. It is a coagulant that causes blood to clot and has the ability to crosslink proteins together creating an intramolecular bond that is highly resistant to protein degradation.

Resource:  Transglutaminase Enzyme
http://www.bdfingredients.com/en/transglutaminase-l/probind_transglutaminase.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_c_UhOeg1wIVyKMYCh1l2Q6dEAAYASAAEgLHtvD_BwE

Here’s a tell-all video that may whet your appetite for more vegetarian meals than a potentially bacteria-ridden meat-glue steak.  https://youtu.be/ZhgOEsAd1xY?

By Mike Adams

Scientific study solves the riddle of why flu shots don’t work.

The flu shot is a quack science medical hoax. While some vaccines do confer immunization effectiveness, the flu shot isn’t one of them. Recent studies, for example, have proven that flu shots sharply weaken immunity in subsequent years following immunization. In some years, the flu shot viral strains are completely wrong, offering no immunity at all to influenza strains circulating in the world. Even when flu shots are the “right” strain, flu vaccine insert sheets readily admit the shots have not been subjected to double blind placebo controlled studies, and there is no legitimate scientific evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that each year’s flu vaccine confers meaningful immunity. (See photo of the Flulaval vaccine insert sheet, below.)

Now, a new study conducted by the Scripps Research Institute and published in the science journal PLoS blows the lid on exactly why flu shots are the greatest medical hoax in the history of science and medicine. Titled, “A structural explanation for the low effectiveness of the seasonal influenza H3N2 vaccine,” the research paper concludes that the very method of modern flu vaccine production causes viral strains to mutate to non-effective structures that do not confer the immunity being routinely claimed for flu vaccines.

The production method for flu vaccines, in other words, renders certain influenza viral strains nearly useless. This is obviously part of the reason why people who get flu shots still manage to catch the flu with alarming frequency. (That failure of flu vaccine effectiveness, ironically, is used by the media to encourage people to get even more flu shots, as if receiving multiple injections of a quack vaccine might magically make it work better.)

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-01-vaccine-industry-in-panic-as-scientific-study-solves-riddle-why-flu-shots-dont-work-immunization.html

Diet Soda Makers Sued Over Deceptive, False and Misleading Advertising

By Dr. Mercola

Low- or no-calorie artificial sweeteners such as aspartame are typically used to sweeten so-called “diet” foods and beverages in lieu of calorie-rich sugar or high fructose corn syrup. The idea is that consuming fewer calories will result in weight loss. However, research has firmly refuted such claims, showing that artificial sweeteners actually produce the complete opposite effect.

By Dr. Mercola

Ninety percent of news media, be it television, radio, print or online, are controlled by six corporations. As a result, the vast majority of what you read, see and hear is part of a carefully orchestrated narrative created and controlled by special interest groups.

When you combine that with other astroturf and public manipulation schemes that hide the identity of these special interests, the end result is, to use investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s term, a Truman-esque fictitious reality, where medical journals, doctors, media and presumably independent consumer groups all seem to be in agreement. The problem is it may all be false.

Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award-winning anchor, producer and reporter whose television career spans more than three decades. In 2009, she blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was manufactured and completely unfounded. At the time, I interviewed her about these findings. I’ve included that fascinating interview below.

Three years ago, she left CBS to pursue more independent venues of investigative journalism, and wrote “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” — an exposé on what really goes on behind the media curtain.

Why Everyone Must Be Aware of Astroturfing

The featured video is a TEDx Talk Attkisson gave in 2015, in which she discusses the methods employed by special interest groups to manipulate and distort media messages. For example, astroturfing — false-front “grassroots movements” that are in fact funded by political parties or private industry — are now “more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress,” she says. She explains the term “astroturf” thus:

“It’s a perversion of grassroots, as in fake grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads and letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.

The whole point of astroturf is to try to [give] the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you’re an outlier when you’re not …

Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, whistleblowers who tell the truth, politicians who dare to ask the tough questions and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it.”

Wikipedia — Astroturf’s Dream Come True

If you’re like most, you probably rely on certain sources more than others when it comes to information. WebMD, for example, dominates for health information, Snopes for checking the latest rumors and Wikipedia for general facts, figures and details.

Attkisson has a great deal to say about Wikipedia, calling it “astroturf’s dream come true.” Wikipedia is advertised as a free encyclopedia, where information is added and edited by the public. Anyone can add to or edit any given Wikipedia page. Or so they say.

“The reality can’t be more different,” Attkisson says, explaining that many pages have been co-opted and are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests. “They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda,” she says. “They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity.”

Even the smallest factual inaccuracies are impossible to correct on these agenda-driven pages. As just one example, in 2012, author Philip Roth tried to correct a factual error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page. His correction was repeatedly reversed and, ultimately, he was told he was not considered a credible source!

Worse, a study¹ comparing medical conditions described on Wikipedia with published research found that Wikipedia contradicted the medical literature an astounding 90 percent of the time. So, be aware — Wikipedia is NOT the place for accurate and reliable medical information.

Who’s Who and What’s What?

The extent to which information is manipulated is enormous. Let’s say you hear about a new drug for an ailment you have, or your doctor recommends it, and you decide to research it to be on the safe side. Ultimately, you conclude it is safe and effective because everywhere you look, the information seems to support this conclusion. You feel good knowing you’ve done your homework, and fill the prescription. What you don’t know is that:

• Facebook and Twitter pages speaking highly of the drug are run by individuals on the payroll of the drug company
• The Wikipedia page for the drug is monitored and controlled by a special-interest editor hired by the drug company
• Google search engine results have been optimized, ensuring you’ll find all those positive sources while burying contradicting information
• The nonprofit organization you stumbled across online that recommends the drug was secretly founded and funded by the drug company
• The positive study you found while searching online was also financed by the drug company
• The news articles reporting the positive findings of that study sound suspiciously alike for a reason — they’re reiterating information provided by the drug company’s PR department; hence, you will not find any contradictory information there either
• Doctors promoting the drug and making derogatory comments about those who worry about side effects are actually paid consultants for the drug company
• The medical lecture your own personal doctor attended, where he became convinced the drug is safe and efficacious, was also sponsored by the drug company

Learn more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm

By Makia Freeman

The human microchipping agenda has a new face: Nanochips & Smart Dust. What are they? Are you being set up to be a node on the grid? What can you do?

Nanochips and Smart Dust are the new technological means for the advancement of the human microchipping agenda. Due to their incredibly tiny size, both nanochips and Smart dust have the capacity to infiltrate the human body, become lodged within, and begin to set up a synthetic network on the inside which can be remotely controlled from the outside. Needless to say, this has grave freedom, privacy and health implications, because it means the New World Order would be moving from controlling the outside world (environment/society) to controlling the inside world (your body). This article explores what the advent of nanochips and Smart dust could mean for you.

Learn more about:

Different Forms of Control

What is a Nanochip?

What is Smart Dust?

Delivery Systems for Nanochips and Smart Dust

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/nanochips-smart-dust-microchipping/

By Michelle Simmons

Whatever you do or wherever you go, there is a high chance that you will see a person looking down on a glowing screen. Apparently, this is also prevalent in classrooms. Phone use during class lectures distracts students and makes it harder for them to concentrate, resulting to lower academic performance, a study finds.

Researchers at Stellenbosch University analyzed the impact of digital technology, specifically mobile phones, on the capacity of students to concentrate during class lectures. The study was conducted by means of a meta-analysis of previous studies. In addition, the researchers carried out a survey of 1,678 students at a university in South Africa.

“While ever-smarter digital devices have made many aspects of our lives easier and more efficient, a growing body of evidence suggests that, by continuously distracting us, they are harming our ability to concentrate,” said researchers Daniel le Roux and Douglas Parry.

People today use their phones everyday for at least three hours. Those who are born after 1980, especially today’s students, are considered digital natives as they have grown up with digital technology around them and have easily adapted to this environment. They always “media-multitask.”

The researchers warned that the continuous use of blended learning and technology in class have encouraged the use of media during class lectures. As a result, a lot of studies have found that students always use their phones when they are in class.

Contrary to the purpose of media use during lectures, students use their phones to communicate with friends, use social media sites, watch videos, or just browse online for whatever interests them, instead of following the lecture slides or participating in debates about the topic.

According to the researchers, there are two main reasons why this behavior is troublesome for cognition and learning. First, performance on the main task suffers when multitasking.

“Making sense of lecture content is very difficult when you switch attention to your phone every five minutes,” the researchers said.

They added that this is supported by a strong body of evidence which conclude that using media in class is linked to lower academic performance.

The second reason is that it negatively affects the capacity of the students to concentrate on anything for a long period of time.

“They become accustomed to switching to alternative streams of stimuli at increasingly short intervals. The moment the lecture fails to engage or becomes difficult to follow, the phones come out,” they explained.

As a result, some universities in the United States have declared their lectures device-free in an effort to develop engagement, attentiveness, and critical thinking skills among their students.

Indeed, technology makes life easier and more fun in a lot of ways. However despite of these things they offer, the researchers warned that “we should be mindful of the costs.”

Given the findings of the study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, the researchers urged educational policy makers and lecturers to think about the effect of media use on the cognitive function of students.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-22-phone-use-blamed-for-lower-academic-performance-as-students-struggle-to-concentrate.html

By Natural News

Pests have become immune to the poison of modified crops in less than five years, but we still have to eat it.

Last year, farmers around the world planted genetically modified crops like soybeans, corn and cotton across 240 million acres of land that create proteins from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium. Capable of killing pests like beetles and caterpillars, their effects on the environment and human health have long been the subject of much debate.

Those in favor of GMO crops – who tend to also be the ones who benefit from it financially – say that they will end world hunger, but now such lofty proclamations have been deflated as a new study shows that pests are quickly developing resistance to genetically modified crops. In just five years’ time, scientists say that many bugs have gotten to the point where they can simply shrug off the poisons that are created by GM crops.

After looking at 36 cases examining how insects respond to crops that were modified to produce the insect-killing Bt protein, they discovered that bugs developed resistance that made the GM crops substantially less effective in 16 cases. Another three were starting to show “early warnings of resistance.”

They took their data from cases involving 15 different species of pests in 10 countries, including the U.S. China, Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Australia and the Philippines. Their results were published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

The study also reported that pests’ resistance to Bt crops has been evolving more quickly in recent years as their resistance to already-introduced strains can breed cross-resistance to different Bt proteins that are introduced in future GM Bt crops.

Full resistance is inevitable.

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-23-bombshell-genetic-modification-proven-ineffective-pests-have-become-immune-to-the-poison-of-modified-crops-in-less-than-five-years-but-we-still-have-to-eat-it.html

By The Gaurdian

Social network says it’s assembled a team to build technology that allows you to ‘think’ commands at your smartphone. But what if you think that’s scary?

Decrying how addictive and attention-sapping smartphones have become was an unexpected way for an executive at Facebook, a company that profits off your attention, to open a talk. But that’s exactly how Regina Dugan, the head of Facebook’s innovation skunkworks Building 8, started her presentation at the company’s developer conference F8 on Wednesday.

Smartphones have been a powerful force in the world but they have had some “unintended consequences” she said.

“[The smartphone] has cost us something. It has allowed us to connect with people far away from us too often at the expense of people sitting right next to us,” she said. “We know intuitively and from experience that we’d all be better off if we looked up a little more often.”

Angrily telling people to put down the “addictive drug that is your smartphone” and honor the conversation in front of them is the “wrong narrative”, she said. “It’s a false choice. This device is important.”

So what is the answer to this very modern affliction? Mindfulness apps? Yoga? A digital detox?

Nope. According to Facebook it’s developing technology to read your brainwaves so that you don’t have to look down at your phone to type emails, you can just think them.

Facebook has assembled a team of 60 people, including machine learning and neural prosthetics experts, to enable such a system. Facebook is currently hiring a brain-computer interface engineer and a neural imaging engineer. Its goal? To create a system capable of typing one hundred words per minute – five times faster than you can type on a smartphone – straight from your brain.

“It sounds impossible but it’s closer than you may realize.”

She highlighted the example of a woman with ALS who had a pea-sized implant that could pick up on signals in her brain to allow her to type eight words per minute using the power of thought.

Facebook will have to develop a system that doesn’t require surgery to implant electrodes.

If the thought that a company that makes almost all of its money from harvesting your personal data could also have access to your thoughts is scary, that’s because it is.

Learn more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/facebook-mind-reading-technology-f8

See also: Facebook and DARPA are in a Race to Read Your Mind http://theantimedia.org/facebook-darpa-race-read-mind/?utm

By Suzanne Humphries, M.D.

I wrote the original 2012 treatment document, based on Hilary Butler’s 30 years of research and my own experience and knowledge of toxin-mediated diseases.

My motivation to find a solution came from watching two young girls that were close to me, suffer from whooping cough. Neither conventional antibiotics nor homeopathic options helped at all. A skilled and revered homeopath was so concerned, that he even said to take the antibiotics. One girl refused and the other promptly vomited up her first dose and their mother was wise enough not to push the antibiotics. I later learned that there is little to no evidence that antibiotics help the severity or duration of cough in such children.

Both of those children recovered from an illness that neither will ever forget. Their excellent baseline health and nutrition no doubt helped them survive without any huge drama. Watching them cough, made me understand why anyone ever wanted to develop a vaccine against whooping cough. The problem is, the vaccine doesn’t work well at all and has toxicity issues. Had I known about the sodium ascorbate treatment, the girls would have had a much easier time of it.

A study of the medical literature showed that there was scientific rationale for such a  treatment, which motivated me start recommending vitamin C in those who have need, and to write the original document. After several years of expanded understanding of whooping cough in babies as young as 2 weeks of age, and older children, I’ve received hundreds of letters of appreciation telling me how the protocol worked for parents using it on their own.

Broader experience and observation has highlighted individual differences and unique situations, and resulted in technique refinements and improvements to the pre-existing write up. New medical literature references have also been added.

You must carefully read every word of this long document. Please do not jump to the protocol if you do not understand the full picture, you may struggle to work out how, when and why to adjust vitamin C dosing. Your child’s health and recovery is worth a few hours of your time to learn.

The information provided here is distilled from a wide body of literature that demonstrates that the ascorbate molecule, in frequent doses, is extremely safe.  Experience shows it to be instrumental in the biochemical recovery from Bordetella pertussis (whooping cough) infection. Natural recovery from whooping cough has advantages for an entire life.

Learn more here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2017/vitamin-c-treatment-of-whooping-cough-where-vaccines-and-antibiotics-have-failed/

By Pesticide Action Network

A new research study from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and two Dutch laboratories shows that 45% of Europe’s top soil contains glyphosate residues, demonstrating the over-reliance of the EU agricultural model on this harmful herbicide chemical. In contrast to what its manufactures purport, glyphosate persists in soils affecting not only soil fertility and crop quality, but also human and environmental health.

The -soon available online- research study by the Dutch University of Wageningen and Rikilt laboratories, jointly with the JRC, reveals that among 317 EU soil samples of arable land, 42% contained AMPA, the most toxic metabolite of glyphosate, while glyphosate was found in 21% of the soils; 18% of the samples had both. The study was conducted in six crop systems along 11 EU member states comprising soils under different geographical and climatic conditions.

A growing body of evidence shows that soil health is one of the main drivers of growing healthy crops that will resist to pest attacks. Glyphosate destroys soil health and leads to more pesticide uses.

Learn more: http://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2017/10/press-release-new-study-glyphosate-persists-and-european-top-soils-are

By Mark Blaxill

The first-ever, peer-review study has been published comparing total-health in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and acute or chronic illnesses in home-schooled children.

The vaccinated children had a much higher rate of autism and ADHD, at a rate of 470% higher than those who received no shots.

Vaccinated children were also more vulnerable to allergies and eczema.

Unvaccinated children contract mild childhood diseases more frequently, but their vaccinated counterparts suffer pneumonia and ear infections more frequently.

The finding that vaccination introduces a significant risk for autism is devastating to the vaccine industry and, therefore, will be vigorously attacked.

Learn more here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/05/pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-12-year-old-us-children.html

Those Who Give Vaccines Should Know The Ingredients in Vaccines

By Marco Cáceres for The Vaccine Reaction

The chances are that if you ask most chefs about the ingredients they put into their favorite recipes, they will be able to list for you the name of every single ingredient and the corresponding amounts. That is what you would expect.

By the same token, you would expect most doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical workers who administer vaccines would be able to list for you every ingredient in vaccines, along with the corresponding amounts. That is what you should expect.

However, that is not necessarily the case.

Learn more a at http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/10/those-who-give-vaccines-should-know-the-ingredients-in-vaccines/

By Carole Novielli

Experts interviewed in the controversial film, “Hush: the Documentary,” which investigates the effects of abortion on women, claim that women aren’t being told the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer, despite studies that show the claim to be true.

Pro-choice film director Punam Kumar Gill went out of her way to speak with experts on both sides of the debate. “Of all the contested health care risks around abortion, the abortion breast cancer link was especially troubling to me,” she states. According to Gill, at the time the film was produced, there were only five states that required women to be told that there is an increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.

In her team’s attempt to hear all sides, Gill spoke with former abortionist David Grimes, described by her as a “renowned expert” on abortion in the film. Grimes denied a higher risk of breast cancer for women who have had abortions, comparing claims to the contrary to “an old dog that they keep on flogging.” By “they” he means pro-life experts who have published their own studies.

Grimes then claimed that (in his words) the “small group” that “holds these views” tend to “not be physicians” and not “understand what a woman goes through.” He then disdainfully claimed that the “common theme” among these experts is “religiosity.”

But Grimes apparently didn’t do his homework before making those remarks; as the film also showed, there are several highly credentialed experts who believe that an abortion-breast cancer link is evident.

One of those experts is Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of human biology and endocrinology who has studied the topic extensively. Dr. Brind acknowledged that it is his belief that abortion is not good for women or children, and that although women legally have a choice to have an abortion, the choice should be an informed one.

In his research, Brind reviewed 23 studies (a meta-analysis) and, as the film points out, found a “30 percent increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortion histories.” Dr. Brind, along with three other researchers, published these findings in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 1996.

Although the group of authors called for additional research on the link, the study concluded in part, “The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy.”

But because Dr. Brind holds a pro-life view on abortion, his work has been largely discounted. “The major criticism against him was because he’s pro-life, his science is questionable, and his findings are part of an anti-abortion agenda to scare women,” the Hush film states.

But, what isn’t mentioned by critics of Brind’s conclusions on the abortion-breast cancer link is that one of Brind’s co-researchers is pro-choice. Brind says he was unaware of this fact until after the research was published because when they did the research, “their personal views on the subject of abortion never came up,” he explained.

Brind told Gill that author Vernon M. Chinchilli only disclosed his pro-choice views on abortion after the study was complete. Brind explained, “We did all this work together. Hours and hours of working together in studying the data and comparing notes and talking about it, and you know what? Whether he or I or anyone else in the group was pro-life or pro-choice – it never came up.”

“This is about science. This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Period,” he added.

Please view the entire article here https://www.liveaction.org/news/experts-address-link-abortion-breast-cancer-powerful-documentary-film/ and watch Hush: the Documentary

Studies Show Pertussis Vaccine Doesn’t Work

More than 94 percent of kindergarten children have had four to five pertussis-containing vaccines, yet despite high vaccine coverage since the late 1980s, statistics show that reported cases of whooping cough have been rising for decades.

A recent scientific review has concluded the less toxic acellular whooping cough vaccine licensed in the U.S. for infants in 1996 does not work as expected, and confirms the continued spread of the disease among vaccinated populations.

Learn more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/10/pertussis-vaccine-whooping-cough-reemergence.aspx?utm