September 27, 2016
6:35:57 PM Eastern
SCOTT PELLEY: So, who won? Well, that’s in the eye of the beholder. And today, we talked to voters in Pennsylvania, where Clinton has lost a substantial lead; and voters in California and Texas. We’re going to start tonight with John Blackstone.
[Cuts to video]
DONALD TRUMP: I’m saying is, we can stop them from leaving.
JOHN BLACKSTONE: In Los Angeles, this group of Latino debate watchers gathered early. None here support Donald Trump, but Ana Reyes came looking for more reasons why Hillary Clinton deserved her vote.
ANA REYES: I’m hoping to hear more of her promises that she’s going to commit through with her, you know, 100 days immigration reform.
BLACKSTONE: Pedro Trujillo is an undocumented immigrant who can’t vote. His interest is in convincing others.
PEDRO TRUJILLO: I can knock on doors, call voters, remind them to go out and vote and to think of my family and think of me when they go out and cast their ballot in November.
BLACKSTONE: During the debate, immigration reform did not come up, but economic growth, prison reform, law and order, were all issues that resonated. And then, there was Trump’s portrayal of inner-city life.
TRUMP: Our inner cities, African Americans, Hispanics, are living in hell. Because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street. You get shot. We have gangs roaming the street, and in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants, and they have guns, and they shoot people.
REYES: Donald Trump, again, you know, attacked the immigrants even though he didn’t really say it, you know, too bluntly, as he usually does. But he, you know, still made a comment that the reason why a lot of, you know, crimes are still happening is because immigrants have guns.
TRUJILLO: Associating immigrants as gang members, right, like something horrible to say when he doesn’t know the community.
BLACKSTONE: Martha Barios took notes throughout the debate, disappointed that immigration was never discussed. Is there anything from this debate you can go out and tell people, “Here’s why you should vote?”
MARTHA BARIOS: Yeah, because if we go back in time or what he– you know, Donald Trump has said about, you know, different issues. Even though they didn’t talk about that, I would tell them just remember what he was saying months ago. That’s what I would tell them to, you know, think about twice.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: How many of you this is your first debate watch party?
JERICKA DUNCAN: I’m Jericka Duncan in south Philadelphia.
JOHN SUDZINA: I’m a deplorable, very deplorable. I’m a big Trump supporter.
DUNCAN: John Sudzina found himself at home last night in a sea of Trump supporters at this watch party.
SUDZINA: I feel like our economy’s a mess. I think he’s the only candidate who’s really talked about these things in a manner that appeals to me.
DUNCAN: But sprinkled amongst the GOP supporters, we found die-hard Democrat Jean Kendrick.
Is there any way this debate could sway you in a different direction?
JEAN KENDRICK: No. Hillary is awesome.
DUNCAN: And Heather Capuano.
HEATHER CAPUANO: I’m definitely on the fence. I have to see– because I like a little bit of everything. I’m hoping this debate will, like, answer all the questions I have.
DUNCAN: 90 minutes later, some answers, and a different outlook.
SUDZINA: Trump did not look crazy or like a madman. I think Hillary got some good licks on him. So that’s why I would maybe call it a draw.
CAPUANO: He had no facts. There was no plans, no facts, no plans. And Hillary delivered, and that’s someone that, you know, would get my vote.
OMAR VILLAFRANCA: I’m Oar Villafranca in Dallas at a World Affairs Council debate watch party.
LESTER HOLT: So, let’s begin.
VILLAFRANCA: After the first debate, undecided voter Chaib Salih still hasn’t made up his mind. Did you hear what you wanted to hear?
CHAIB SALIH: Yes, it was good to see them from both side to side. You know, Mr. Trump spent more time on trying to defend himself. But Hillary Clinton was very clear on certain policies that I was interested in.
VILLAFRANCA: Suzanne Tuckey is backing Hillary Clinton and wanted policy specifics from both candidates.
SUZANNE TUCKEY: I was really listening to each of them, and, you know, Hillary was definitely speaking from more substance, and I would listen to what she said and then what he said. It was the same several points over and over and over from him, and a lot of the attacks on her. So he’s very good at that. That’s what he’s the best at doing.
VILLAFRANCA: Benji Gershon is a conservative and overall, liked Trump’s performance at the debate.
BENJI GERSHON: There were a few times where she got under his skin, I could tell, but ultimately, I think that, you know, if you’re a Trump supporter you’re going to stick with Trump, and if you’re a Hillary supporter you’re sticking with Hillary. I don’t think a lot came out of this debate as far as switching people’s minds.
[Cuts back to live]
PELLEY: John, Jericka, and Omar with voters from across the country.
September 27, 2016
3:09:35 PM Eastern
KATE SNOW: So, following a bunch of sniffles, Governor Dean, you wrote on Twitter, “Notice Trump sniffing all the time. Coke user?” Why did you go there?
HOWARD DEAN: Well, you can’t make a diagnosis over the television. I would never do that, but he has some interesting — that is actually a signature of people who use cocaine. I’m not suggesting that Trump does, but –
SNOW: Well, you are suggesting it, actually in a tweet.
DEAN: No, I’m suggesting we think about it cause here’s the interesting constellation. So, he sniffs during the presentation, which is something that users do.
He couldn’t keep himself together. So look, do I think at 70 years old he has a cocaine habit? Probably not. But, you know, it’s something that — I think it would be interesting to ask him and see if he ever had a problem with that.
SNOW: So, as a physician and as a medical person yourself, you’re suggesting we ought to look at whether the Republican candidate for president has a cocaine habit?
DEAN: No I don’t think he has a cocaine habit. But again, I don’t make any diagnosis over the television. I don’t. I think that’s wrong. I think doctors shouldn’t do it. Doctors have done it in the past and they shouldn’t do it. But I was just struck by the sniffing and then by his behavior, which all sort of came together, these four symptoms. You know, do I think he has a cocaine habit? I think it’s unlikely you could mount a presidential campaign at 70 years old with a cocaine habit but it was pretty striking.
SNOW: This is reminding me, a lot sir, of Rudy Giuliani raising a few weeks ago raising very, not similar, but different questions about medical history and your candidate, Hillary Clinton. To which your campaign responded, this is inappropriate. We shouldn’t be raising questions about Hillary Clinton’s health with absolutely no substance or proof. You don’t see the parallel?
DEAN: Well look, Donald Trump has not only made his tax returns public. He’s also not made his medical history public in any meaningful way. Hillary Clinton has done that and answered any questions they want to raise.
SNOW: What if a Trump supporter had suggested Hillary Clinton was using drugs last night?
DEAN: I suspect she would have said, “No, I’m not. And here’s not and here’s my medical report that shows so.”
SNOW: You’re not going to delete the tweet? You don’t regret it?
SNOW: You don’t apologize for it, is that right?
DEAN: No, absolutely right.
FNC’s The Kelly File
September 27, 2016
9:20 p.m. Eastern
MEGYN KELLY: Well, as we track the fallout from last night’s debate, one of the big stories involved the moderator, what a shock. The moderator is getting beaten up again, NBC’s Lester Holt in this case. Some debate watchers have been suggesting that Holt pressed Mr. Trump harder more than he did Mr. Clinton and here is a little of what they are pointing to.
LESTER HOLT: The IRS says an audit of your taxes — you’re perfectly free to release your taxes during an audit. [SCREEN WIPE] Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a citizen. [SCREEN WIPE] Can you tell us what took you so long. [SCREEN WIPE] We’re talking about racial healing in this segment. What do you say to Americans —
DONALD TRUMP: I say nothing.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, a lot of these are judgment questions. You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion.
TRUMP: Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out.
HOLT: The record shows otherwise.
KELLY: Joining me now, Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research and Krystal Ball, senior media fellow at the New Leader’s Council. Alright, good to see you both. So, Brent, I confess. I’ve already said I think he did a good job so I’m not going to argue against you, but I’m going to give you the floor to make the case about you think — you know, he pressed Trump. All of the questions seemed fair to me. Is the argument solely that he didn’t do it as aggressively with Mrs. Clinton?
BRENT BOZELL: No. The argument is that he didn’t do it at all. Here’s the facts and the facts are irrefutable. He asked Donald Trump about his personal taxes. He challenged him. He asked him about stop and frisk. He challenged him and by the way, that was a Candy Crowley moment where he got it wrong. He challenged — asked him about the birth issue. He challenged him. He asked him about Iran — about Iraq and he questioned, interrupted him, fact-checked him five or six different times. Now, that’s perfectly fine by me provided you do the same thing with the other side. What are the facts? He not once challenged Hillary Clinton on anything, not once asked her a tough question and didn’t even ask her anything about her controversies. Now, Megyn, let’s be objective here. Let’s try to be objective anyway.
KELLY: He asked her about the e-mail. He asked her about — he didn’t put it in his own words but he gave her the chance to respond to e-mails.
BOZELL: Exactly. Way different. Way different. He didn’t challenge her on that.
KELLY: No, no, but Brent, let me just explain.
BOZELL: He gave her the opportunity.
KELLY: I have no idea. I haven’t talked to Lester. But this is what I think happened there. You got a question on e-mail. He must have had a question on e-mails for her, so you’re going to get to e-mails with Hillary Clinton. When Donald Trump brings it up, you can just save your question, save the 25 extra seconds it would have taken you to read your question and you just say hey, Mrs. Clinton respond on e-mails.
BOZELL: Okay, but Megyn, where’s the fact-checking? Where’s the follow-up? There was a follow-up to everything Donald Trump said. Where was the follow-up on this? She didn’t — what was more important, Megyn, birther issues or Benghazi medical records of the Clinton Foundation. There’s so many — the e-mails. What’s so important? How could he not have asked these questions?
KELLY: Okay. Krystal?
KRYSTAL BALL: Well apparently Donald Trump who his campaign manager called the Babe Ruth of debating, the master showman, cannot handle Lester Holt. I mean, there’s a big difference between the questions being unfair and the candidate being unable to handle the questions which is what happened here. I mean, if you look at the first half of the debate, Lester basically let both candidates go, let them make their points and got each other, but when you have one candidate and this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of independent fact-checkers both about last night’s debate and overall in this campaign saying that one candidate lies disproportionately more than the other candidate, of course you’re going to have more pushback, of course you’re going to have more fact-checking. Other thing I point out here, at times, Trump wouldn’t let Lester Holt get his whole question out, so that led to contentious exchanges because Trump was not only interrupting Hillary Clinton aggressively, he was interrupting the moderator himself.
KELLY: Well, that’s right, but where were definitely some moments where Lester was pressing, like trump didn’t answer the question and Lester was following up, saying you know, if you could just answer the question that I was asked.
KELLY: But there is an issue about whether some of her controversies were left untouched whereas more of his were hit upon. I think, Brent, you know, Lester’s defenders would say Trump has so many. There’s so many to pick from.
BOZELL: Well, let me — here’s something I want to put before your audience and you tell me which one is right. Robby Mook – Robin Mook — Robbie Mook, the presidential campaign manager for Hillary Clinton was working the refs this weekend as he well he should, calling on Lester Holt to be the traffic cop, to be the fact-checker. This is what Janet Brown also said. She’s the executive director of the commission on presidential debates. This is what she said about fact checking this weekend. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to get the moderator into essentially serving as the Encyclopedia Britannica.” So, who did Lester Holt listen to, her or Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.
KELLY: He really didn’t do a lot of fact-checking. He pushed back on the Iraq war thing.
BALL: He was very restrained.
KELLY: You know, if you really wanted to do it, I love to fact check. If you really wanted to do it, you could get there. It’s not — especially in the general election, presidential debates when it’s two on two, it’s like fade away, it’s like I’m not even here. I’m gone. I’m out. Look, the camera is following me. It’s hard to do on your own show. I got to go. Great debate. Thank you both for being here.
BALL: Thanks, Megyn.
KELLY: They can find me wherever I go.
Washington Post political correspondent Chris Cillizza should win some kind of award for the worst pre-debate spin. He tried to defend NBC anchor Lester Holt: “It turns out Holt is actually a registered Republican. Trump still might find things to complain about Monday night, but a case for partisan bias against him will be tough to make.”
Right after the debate, despite all evidence, Cillizza doubled down: “Want a testament to how well Holt did? I guarantee you no one is talking about him tomorrow. That’s a win.”
That is precisely as the press would want this. But that’s not what America saw. Holt’s performance was a partisan disgrace. Holt asked Donald Trump about his taxes, then challenged him on his answer. He asked Trump about stop-and-frisk policies, then challenged him, stating it was ruled unconstitutional, which it wasn’t – thus conjuring visions of the Candy Crowley Ghost of Flubbing Debate Moderators Past. He asked him about the birther issue, then challenged him on his answer. He asked him about Iraq and then interrupted and challenged him five different times.
What about Hilllary? There was not one single, solitary challenge to anything she said, not one tough question on any policy or any controversy, be it Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, her medical records, the e-mails – unless you want to count Holt urging her politely, “he also raised the issue of your e-mails. You want to respond to that?”
The Rasmussen poll that came out just before the debate showed that based on the historical record, 46 percent of Americans believed the moderators would tilt the debates in favor of Clinton. Only six percent suggested they will try to help Trump instead. That’s an 8-to-1 landslide.
Lester Holt confirmed the wisdom of the American people.
It became obvious that Holt internalized all the howls of outrage from the liberal media against Matt Lauer for being even-handed with the candidates at a “commander-in-chief forum” earlier in the month. Both The New York Times and The Washington Post wrote anguished staff editorials. He even might have heard Jimmy Kimmel rant at Apprentice creator Mark Burnett as he hosted the Emmy Awards that NBC made this man a star: “We don’t have to watch reality shows anymore because we’re living in one.”
Holt’s colleagues – and Clinton’s campaign – said very publicly: You must go after Trump as a clear and present danger to America. That’s exactly what Holt did.
On the morning after this one-sided assault, his colleagues in the liberal media projected an image of Holt as mellow and reserved, and therefore nonpartisan. The New York Times headline was “Lester Holt Opted for Restraint.” Reporter Michael Grynbaum began: “Call him the minimalist moderator.” He added he “opted to lie low.” He was “silent for minutes at a time.” The reported a liberal parody from The New Yorker: “CNN Launches Manhunt After Lester Holt Vanishes From Debate.”
To stick to its “minimalist moderator” spin, the Times chose to ignore most of the debate. Weeks before, Grynbaum wrote an anguished piece after the Lauer forum headlined “Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum.” He even quoted tweets that mangled the facts: “Lauer interrupted Clinton’s answers repeatedly to move on. Not once for Trump,” claimed Norman Ornstein. In fact, Lauer interrupted Trump 13 times, Hillary seven times.
The only similarity in the stories was that Grynbaum failed to locate an actual conservative or Republican critique of either NBC journalist. That’s because the liberal media can’t help but slant everything in favor of the Left. It’s no wonder most Americans no longer trust them.
PBS’s Charlie Rose
September 27, 2016
11:15 p.m. Eastern
CHARLIE ROSE: Katty Kay joins us from the BBC. She is at Hofstra. Katty, what were the moments for you that may have a lasting impact on the way this campaign — this debate is perceived and this campaign progresses?
KATTY KAY: Look, I think Hillary Clinton had the stronger debate tonight, but there were no knockout blows against Donald Trump. He proved that he can have the stamina and the focus for 90 minutes. I should probably correct that. He proved he can have it for 85 minutes because the last five minutes of the debate were pretty much a disaster for him and there was not a woman in the audience or a woman watching that who didn’t understand the dog whistle politics of Lester Holt`s question about that she doesn’t have the look of a president and he handled that very badly. There was, however, also political malpractice. She got away incredibly lightly with the whole e-mail server issue. I’m sure her campaign is thinking right now, why on earth, did she not handle it like this right from the beginning of this campaign. A frank apology, she said it in about a few sentences and that was it and there was no follow-up. He didn’t go after her again when the question came up about cyber-security, so I think that Donald Trump missed opportunities to raise the character issues of whether she is trust worthy or not.
KAY: The one area, I mean, you know only a fool would disagrees with John Heilemann, but the only area that I would suggest that she was on defense and he was on offense that was quite effective for him and because it came at the beginning of the debate, that may have more weight was on the trade issue. When he pinned her with NAFTA and you know, anyone who traveled around in this campaign keeps hearing the issue of trade and globalization, which is a huge theme, it seems, not just here in the states but in other countries as well and I think he did a successful job there of making her go on defense, of having to apologize for her husband. He called her out, was it Barack Obama`s fault? Was it Barack Obama’s fault then about TPP and I think that was a weak moment for her. She didn’t seem prepared for that. I think that is just him going now.
ROSE: Yes, and that is the Trump helicopter leaving now?
KAY: He is waving good-bye.
KAY: The Clinton campaign will come out feeling that this was a good night for them. That she didn’t come across as too cold and frosty and that she didn’t have any major clangers, but I think that the bigger issue for Hillary Clinton over the next few weeks and going into the next debate is that I`m not sure she came out of this really giving a clear, compelling view of why you should vote for her and it’s sort of the conundrum of Hillary Clinton. She has spent a lot of her life working for middle class American families and she — and she addressed that right at the top of the debate when she talked about income inequality in the country and she went back to it when she talked about African-Americans and legal inequality in the country, but it somehow doesn’t come across as very compelling and I think rather than just knock down Donald Trump and say why he’s inadequate, her real challenge for the next debate is this is — this is my story and this is why you should vote for me in a nutshell. It needs to be — it’s got to be better than stronger together which most people don`t understand anyway. You know, she didn’t make that case very forcefully tonight.
Viewers unhappy with the questions asked at Monday night’s debate will have a shot to weigh in before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton meet again on October 9: For the first time, the networks producing the town-hall style debate have agreed to accept questions voted on through the internet. Now that’s true democracy! So join now, vote the question you like and submit your own question if you have one.
The Commission on Presidential Debates had already announced that the second of three debates would feature questions submitted online in addition to those asked by the traditional studio audience. But on Tuesday morning, the organizers confirmed they are embracing a format that a broad bipartisan cross-section of activist and civic groups known as the Open Debate Coalition have been pushing for years. Americans will be able to submit and then vote on questions online at PresidentialOpenQuestions.com, and ABC and CNN have agreed to consider the 30 most popular queries when they jointly plan the debate.
“This year’s presidential debate moderators will have a rich pool of voter-submitted questions they can draw on that carry greater weight because they are backed by votes from the American people,” Mike McCurry, a co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, said in a statement accompanying the announcement by the Open Debate Coalition.
The coalition tested out the format this spring during a debate between Representatives Alan Grayson and David Jolly, who were running in their respective party primaries for the U.S. Senate in Florida. The debate commission studied that debate and took note that both candidates praised the format, which featured more substantive questions on policy issues as opposed to those focused on electoral politics and the candidates’ personal foibles.
Presidential primary debates have featured questions from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other online fora in the past, but organizers believe the voting format will add “more moral weight” to the questions, said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, one of the groups backing the effort. Other members of the Open Debate Coalition include the conservative activist Grover Norquist, FreedomWorks, MoveOn, Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and Numbers USA, which backs more restrictive immigration policy. “There is a mutual frustration with presidential debate questions dominated by a handful of television personalities rather than average voters,” Norquist said.
Lilia Tamm Dixon, director of the Open Debates Coalition, said the various groups plan to mobilize their activist networks to submit and vote on questions in the hope that Trump and Clinton will have to address their priority issues at the October 9 debate, which will take place at Washington University in St. Louis with moderators Martha Raddatz of ABC and Anderson Cooper of CNN.
Unlike in the “open” Senate debate in Florida, however, the networks have given themselves an out in agreeing to the voting format. They have agreed to consider the 30 most popular questions, but they aren’t promising to ask them. That may be a hedge in case online voters want to hear the candidates opine on, say, Harambe, instead of more pressing matters like Social Security or tax policy. That’s not what happened in Florida, where the most popular questions among more than 400,000 votes were those covering money in politics, the minimum wage, climate change, and other weighty issues.
- Cheating Hillary Wore Cheap eBay Spy Earpiece During Debate
- CNN Publishes FAKE Poll Claiming Hillary Won the Debate
- US Immigration Officers Endorse Trump for President
- Who Won the First Presidential Debate? Poll – VOTE NOW
- Hillary Clinton During Debate: “All Americans Are Racist!”
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/FwgDXgJjfZs/
(NaturalNews) Evidence that the Zika virus causes birth defects is weak at best, as most studies linking the two are based on “epidemiological statistics, not rigorous scientific studies of cause and effect,” as the Health Ranger observed in recent months.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that Zika, transmitted primarily through the Aedes Aegypti mosquito, can be passed from a pregnant women to her fetus, resulting in an infection that may cause certain birth defects.
The agency maintains that a Zika infection during pregnancy can result in microcephaly, a severe birth defect causing decreased head circumference and smaller brain size.
The link between Zika and birth defects came into question over the summer months, after doctors in Brazil admitted that another cause may be to blame because the expected outbreak of defects never occurred.
Brazilian doctors admit birth defects may be tied to something other than Zika virus
“We suspect that something more than Zika virus is causing the high intensity and severity of cases,” Fatima Marinho, director of information and health analysis at Brazil’s Health Ministry, told the journal Nature.
Zika infections continued to rise, but birth defects did not, according to reports.
Planned Parenthood joined the controversy looking to capitalize on the Zika hysteria. It quickly began advocating for abortions among women purportedly at risk for infection. Already, the agency has launched efforts in Miami, going door-to-door offering information about abortion services.
“Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry were quick to insert themselves into the medical crisis because they’re absolutely desperate to link abortion to any perceived common good and they thought the Zika virus was their ride to glory,” Life News reports.
New study finds no link between Zika and birth defects
Now, a new and more expansive study has been released, finding that the Zika birth defect link may be premature.
Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the research observed nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika living in Colombia. None of them had given birth to a baby with microcephaly.
“Four cases of microcephaly were reported with women who didn’t have Zika symptoms and were not part of the study, which is consistent with the normal expected number of cases,” Life News reports.
“Based on estimated numbers there should be about 60,000 pregnant women in Colombia with the Zika virus, yet there are hardly any cases of microcephaly. If the link to Zika is legitimate, there should have been a dramatic increase in the number of babies with microcephaly.”
Larvicide may be linked to birth defects
Experts are now left wondering what the actual cause may be. Some theorize that pesticides could be the culprit, since these are widely and recklessly used in South America, including Brazil, the birth defect epicenter.
One of the chemicals of most concern is pyriproxyfen, a larvicide that kills mosquitoes by interfering with their reproductive development. The chemical possibly has an effect on developing babies, as well.
Furthermore, pyriproxyfen was applied in areas with concentrated rates of microcephaly. The chemical was even put into the drinking water in Pernambuco, a state in Brazil at the center of the epidemic.
“The chemical was sprayed and added to the water just before the outbreak of microcephaly,” Life News adds.
“These early findings aren’t conclusive, but they do open the distinct possibility that Zika may not be the cause of the increase in microcephaly cases. We must follow the research to see where it leads and respond effectively while we protect pregnant women and their unborn babies regardless of the child’s disability.”
Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/055461_Zika_hoax_birth_defects_Brazil.html
(NaturalNews) When medical doctors begin warning about the uselessness of certain vaccines, it becomes clear that the vaccine was never proven effective in clinical trials to begin with. If the vaccines in question were never proven effective before being rushed to market, then wouldn’t that mean these products are just live experiments on the population? If the effectiveness of the vaccine is practically nonexistent, and the scientific process abandoned, how can people trust that it is even safe for them?
FluMist, the only flu vaccine that is taken orally, is essentially a con, offering no real protection from real world flu viruses. Even the governing body over vaccine supply, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), declined to recommend FluMist in June 2015, after it became clear that the product had only proven to be 3 percent effective over the previous three years.
Now in 2016, the ACIP is saying the same thing: FluMist is practically useless. Clinics are no longer ordering it, and distribution companies aren’t even offering it to pharmacies. The consensus among pediatricians is for kids to skip FluMist, even though it is much easier to administer than actual flu shots.
Now that the CDC has warned that the past years’ flu shots are less than 50 percent effective for predicting the circulating strains, many people are opting out.
“We need to recognize that the influenza virus is totally unpredictable,” admits Dr. Henry Bernstein of Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, New York.”There are multiple influenza virus strains. We don’t know which ones are going to predominate from one season to next. We don’t know which ones are going to be more common in certain communities.”
Even so, flu shots are still widely recommended. They are so highly recommended in fact, that doctors even push pregnant women to take them, without any safety studies to back up that this practice is safe for the developing fetus.
FluMist developer cannot be trusted
AstraZeneca, the maker of FluMist, denies the claim that FluMist is ineffective; they even cited a Canadian study to prove that the drug is as effective as a flu shot (which still gives the product no merit at all). AstraZeneca cannot be trusted to provide good medicine anyway. After all, they are the developers of Nexium, which has faced numerous lawsuits from hundreds of victims who now have chronic kidney disease, renal failure and kidney failure thanks to the drug.
Another 20,000 or more plaintiff groups have taken on AstraZeneca in court over another of the company’s drugs, Seroquel. This drug causes patients to suffer from rapid weight gain, hyperglycemia and diabetes. So when AstraZeneca denies the ineffectiveness of FluMist and disputes the CDC’s findings, they can only be seen as fighting arrogantly for another one of their worthless, harmful products.
Live viral shedding makes FluMist a danger to others, especially the immune-compromised
FluMist is produced with four “live” flu virus strains. Since it contains live virus strains, this vaccine is theoretically a threat to people with compromised immune systems who may be randomly subjected to the live viruses in their environment. Live virus vaccines shed for many weeks after a person is vaccinated, and this shedding may expose others to the viruses. Kids with asthma are put at risk, because these vaccine viruses draws a strong immune response from them, which easily leads to respiratory complications.
Vaccines focus only on one factor of immunity: exposure
Instead of promising fake vaccine protection, isn’t it time we started viewing human immunity as more than something that can be controlled by exposure shots alone? For the sake of the elderly and immune-compromised patients who die from the complications of the flu every year, isn’t it time we focused on the other more important factors for strengthening human immunity?
Vaccines only focus on one aspect of human immunity: exposure to pathogens. These singular exposures rely on predictions from the pharmaceutical companies who grow the viruses in aborted fetal cell lines or animal cells. By nature, the guesswork protection wears off both quickly and unpredictably, leading to new outbreaks and mutating viruses.
There are several processes going on in the body that work together to provide immunity from disease. Interconnected systems of the human body are always at work, all the way down to individual cells and the mitochondrial ability to produce energy. For these natural systems to work optimally, they require diverse nutritional input, microbial utilization of nutritional components, management of waste through the lymph system, and strong emotions that can manage stress and internal conditions which are burdened by toxin overload. The irony in all this is that vaccines actually increase the toxin overload on the person’s overall immune system, thereby weakening it.
(NaturalNews) When brain tissue samples were taken from over three dozen people who had lived in the industrial cities of Manchester and Mexico City, researchers found something very peculiar, unlike anything they had studied before. The city dwellers’ brains all had something in common, something that has yet to be fully understood: The frontal cortex of their brains was polluted with magnetite nanoparticles. The brain samples were obtained from people ranging in age from 3 to 92 who had died in fatal accidents; their brains were left intact.
Breathing fine particulate matter causes inflammation in the brain
There was ample evidence that the magnetite nanoparticles were taken in through the polluted air of the city. All signs indicated that the particles had penetrated their blood-brain barriers to congregate in the tissue of the frontal cortex. These newly discovered magnetite nanoparticles were shaped differently from what naturally occurs in the brain. In the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, researchers find higher than normal amounts of magnetite particles, indicating an inflammation factor, but these particles are always angular in shape.
The nanoparticles found in this study were well rounded, indicating that they came from industrial sources. During combustion, these magnetite spheres form after iron is heated and quickly cools. The spheres then release into the air. The brain samples in this study showed both the endogenous angular magnetite particles, ranging in diameter from 50 to 150 nanometers, and also contained the spherical deposits taken in from industrial pollution. These ranged from less than 5 nanometers to more than 100 nanometers in diameter.
Inflammatory magnetite nanoparticles bypass the blood-brain barrier
The researchers hypothesize that the spheres are inhaled and enter the brain through the olfactory bulb. The researchers suspect that the particles are finding a way through the blood-brain barrier by using this neuronal gateway. Once inside the brain these particles can spur free radical damage. When this happens, oxygen is taken from the respiration pathways of the cells, oxidizing them. In theory, cities with all their industrial processes are suffocating us from the inside out. This may be the reason why getting out of the city and breathing the country air is so freeing and relieving: The brain is no longer taking in the particles that cause inflammation, aging and oxidative stress.
The research, which sheds light on the widespread dangers of industrial pollution, was published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. Speaking with The Scientist in an email, Jon Dobson of the University of Florida (not involved with the study) says, “This is the first report of iron oxide particles in brain tissue that may have come from an industrial source. As such, this opens up questions about potential neurotoxic effects from industrial pollutants that had not been previously considered.”
If magnetite particles in the brain indicate inflammation in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, how might city life and all its industrial pollution be slowly destroying our brains?
Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/055459_industrial_pollution_brain_nanoparticles.html
(NaturalNews) Working in an office has its downsides. For one, it leads to a sedentary lifestyle, which increases the risk for certain cancers and cardiovascular disease, as well as obesity, anxiety and depression. But working indoors all days may also cause other health problems. Not having adequate access to fresh or well ventilated air poses additional risks, which some workers in Abu Dhabi are experiencing.
Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates and is known for its lucrative oil exports and mega shopping centers.
Local reports confirm that dozens of office workers are having to visit the doctor frequently due to symptoms such as itchy eyes, sore throats, headaches, trouble breathing and skin problems. Doctors say the health problems are a result of “Sick Building Syndrome (SBS).
Poor ventilation in office buildings may lead to respiratory issues, stress and other health problems
Sick Building Syndrome is when a structure has poor ventilation, and as a result, increases the amount of dust particles, fungi spores and other airborne particles in the air. The condition leads to “unhealthy or stressful factors,” according to The National.
“Sick Building Syndrome is very common in the UAE and other fast-growing countries,” said Trilok Chand, a doctor specializing in respiratory medicine at Burjeel Hospital. The facility is the largest private hospital in Abu Dhabi.
“The reason is often poor ventilation in these buildings, while leaks and other water issues can carry bacterial infections such as fungus,” Chand told The National.
Chand, who sees about 12 patients a month suffering from respiratory issues, said Sick Building Syndrome is the most severe among individuals with asthma and others with preexisting lung conditions.
Work productivity harmed by unhealthy work environments, says doctor
“Such symptoms are common in my clinic. Patients explain how they feel better once they are outside their work building,” he said.
In addition to poor air quality inside some office buildings, Chand said other factors such as heavy workloads, stressful work environments and being on the computer for too long compound the symptoms of Sick Building Syndrome.
The aforementioned factors not only impact employees’ health, but also decrease work productivity, he added.
Evidently, Sick Building Syndrome is common in the United Arab Emirates, according to Dr. Lakshmi Chembolli, a dermatologist at Medeor Medical Centre, located in downtown Dubai.
“We are all behind closed doors and in a ventilated environment all day,” said Chembolli. “We do not have fresh ventilation, either at home or at work.
“It is of great importance in the UAE and it requires greater education. We need to be aware of it to observe and diagnose these problems, because they have big symptoms,” she said.
The disease can be especially harmful because people don’t know it is, and little is understood about in the medical community, said Chembolli.
“People don’t know what the problem is. They cannot relate to something that is invisible and odourless.”
UAE has poor air quality standards compared to western nations
She says action needs to be taken and standards raised regarding air quality in office buildings.
“We need to have an environmental protection certification for office buildings to certify that the ventilation quality is on a par with accepted standards.”
Chembolli points out that such standards exist in other places, so why not in the UAE?
“In America and European countries they have this in place, so we should try to have some guidelines in the UAE as well, because many people spend the majority of their life in an office,” she said.
Stressful work environments and office politics play a role, too, said Chembolli.
Employees may reduce spread of the disease by practicing good hygiene such as frequent hand washing with warm soap and water, said Dr. Hossameldin Saad, a specialist in pulmonary medicine at Medeor Hospital.
“Transmission of infectious respiratory diseases from one person to another can be greatly reduced by hand washing frequently with soap and warm water – one of the most effective ways to reduce the spread of illness.”
Staying home sick when you’re feeling ill is an important way to keep others in the office healthy, he added.