Scientists have duty to protect mankind from artificial intelligence


The clock is ticking for the world of science to take the necessary steps to protect mankind from the deleterious effects of artificial intelligence, which is increasing by leaps and bounds.

As someone who is old enough to remember a world without the internet and smartphones, I am also young enough to wonder where the human race is heading as computers ‘evolve’ into the unchartered territory of artificial intelligence (AI).

For example, a recent report by AP shows that in an increasing number of local and state courtrooms around America, “judges are now guided by computer algorithms before ruling whether criminal defendants can return to everyday life, or remain locked up awaiting trial.”

The report went to say that “AI is reshaping, if not eliminating, some of judges’ most basic tasks — many of which can still have enormous consequences for the people involved.”

The idea of computers increasingly deciding our fate brings to mind a slew of sci-fi Hollywood productions that invariably depicts the future as a dark, sinister and altogether inhospitable place. Tech-noir box office hits, like Blade Runner (1982), The Terminator (1984), Brazil (1985) and The Matrix (1999) have reinforced the singular message: Where we are now is a far better place than where we are heading.

Despite such grave predictions from the entertainment industry, as well as the great science fiction writers, like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, mankind has willingly saddled the wild beast known as technology and is prepared to ride it where it would lead us. And therein, I believe, lays the tragedy: Our belief that technology is completely beyond our ability to control. Adhering to such a stance could be the cause for our ultimate downfall.

In December, Professor Stephen Hawking spoke about the rise of artificial intelligence in an interview with Wired magazine. “I fear that AI may replace humans altogether… If people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that improves and replicates itself,” the acclaimed physicist warned.

Hawking then went on to utter a breathtaking prediction: “This will be a new form of life that outperforms humans.”

Let that sink in for a moment. Man-made artificial intelligence will be a “new form of life that outperforms humans.” Thus, man will soon be able to boast that he has become both Creator and Destroyer, the Alpha and Omega, just like the old-fashioned God of the Bible, albeit a new and improved version. A bit like genetically modified food, I guess you could say, where technicians enter the scene to ‘perfect’ what Nature has already provided in abundance.

Are there any sinners in this brave new robotic world? As far as I can tell, just those pesky neo-Luddites who would point out the tremendous risks that this “new form of life” entails for real life on earth, as well as the rebellious hackers out there who will be hunted down, Matrix-style, inside the grid system of this virtual nightmare.

Despite such dire warnings, however, so many people remain utterly complacent over the fact that this AI evolution will, as Hawking put it, “outperform humans.” As if all that matters in life is raw performance.

This is not breaking news. The writing was already on the wall in 1997, when the Russian chess grandmaster, Garry Kasparov, lost his very first chess match to IBM’s computer ‘Deep Blue.’ At the time of this match over 20 years ago, the world of computer technology was still in its relative infancy. Twenty years ago may not seem like much time, until we consider Moore’s Law, which states that the doubling of computer processing speed occurs every 18 months, an exponential rate of transformation that no mortal human can hope to keep pace with.

Yet not only are humans welcoming the arrival of robots armed with awe-inspiring artificial intelligence, strength and agility, they are even increasingly willing to engage in sexual relations with them.

That step towards the very brink of madness testifies to the disintegration of society and social relations that have already suffered a major blow ever since the dawn of so-called ‘social media;’ which is actually anti-social at its core, according to the very people who introduced it.

Chamath Palihapitiya, former vice-president for user growth at Facebook before leaving in 2011, said in a presentation at the Stanford Business School: “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.”

At the same time, robots and artificial intelligence are revolutionizing everything – from the way we do our shopping to how modern wars are being fought. The example at the top of the article of judges relying on AI to determine the fate of criminals in their courtrooms highlights one of the great downsides of this revolution in artificial intelligence – the veritable earthquake that is going to occur in a vast number of professions. When humans suddenly awake to the reality that they are in competition for a job against a machine that never gets sick, never needs a vacation, never needs a paycheck, while performing the job far better than the frail human, then it doesn’t require much imagination to see where we are heading on the jobs front.

Thus, it would be a very big mistake to believe that we are helpless in the face of this AI revolution, which seems to be the regular message from the tech industry. The best way to respond to the threat of super-smart, super-strong robots displacing humans in every field – from the job market to the battlefield – is for scientists and engineers to take a stand and ensure humans are not left behind in the dust.

Yet that is exactly what is not happening.

According to a report in The Financial Times, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is launching an ambitious program “to understand human intelligence and apply that knowledge to develop intelligent machines.”

Dubbed ‘MIT IQ’, the program is determined to answer two bold questions: “How does human intelligence work in engineering terms? And how can we use that deep grasp of human intelligence to build wiser and more useful machines?”

I think the more pertinent question would be: How can we build wiser humans in the face of these potentially devastating new technologies that threaten to disrupt every aspect of our lives?

There is still time to achieve that goal, but the technological clock is ticking – exponentially.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

Putin to Russian Olympic athletes: Sorry we could not protect you amid doping scandal

Competing in professional sports is hard enough in itself, Putin said. “It’s twice as difficult when sport is intermixed with some events, phenomena alien to it, outside circumstances, politics, or something else,” he added.

The president said that the scandals surrounding Russian sport had sparked heated debates within the country, adding that this “creates an extremely difficult environment for achieving results.

Forgive us for not being able to protect you from that,” Putin told the Russian athletes.

The Russian leader promised to help those athletes who were barred from participating in the upcoming Winter Games in PyeongChang, South Korea.

Certainly, we’re very worried about our sportsmen and women who were not able to participate in the Olympics. We’ll do our best to support them,” Putin said.

Source Article from

Red sage, also known as Chinese sage, found to protect the kidneys of people with severe acute pancreatitis and obstructive jaundice

Image: Red sage, also known as Chinese sage, found to protect the kidneys of people with severe acute pancreatitis and obstructive jaundice

(Natural News)
A study published in the African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines revealed that Salvia miltiorrhiza, more commonly known as red sage or danshen in Chinese, may protect the kidneys in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and obstructive jaundice (OJ). A team of Chinese researchers examined  288 rat models of SAP and OJ as part of research.

High levels of serum creatinine in the blood indicate that the kidneys aren’t in optimal health. The researchers found that serum CREA levels were significantly lower in treated SAP models at six and 12 hours after operation compared with the controls. Likewise, treated OJ models had significantly lower serum CREA levels at 21 and 28 days after operation. The scientists also observed that the staining intensity of Bax protein of kidney was lower in the treated SAP group than the controls at three and six hours post operation. Furthermore, the experts touted that the apoptosis index in the kidney of OJ rats was relatively lower in the treatment group compared with the controls.

Salvia miltiorrhizae is able to significantly improve the pathological changes in the kidney of SAP and OJ rats, which is mainly manifested as reducing inflammatory cell infiltration, protecting glomerular capillary, decreasing the shedding and necrosis of renal tubular epithelial cells, and stabilizing the structure of cell organelles,” the researchers concluded.

“Additionally, Salvia miltiorrhizae also has some protective effects on excessive apoptosis-induced renal injury in SAP and OJ through downregulating the expression of Bax protein. This protective effect is beneficial to the recovery of renal function. Salvia miltiorrhizae has features of diverse pharmacological actions, low cost and few side-effects, it has better application prospect and economic values, and deserves to be popularized,” the experts added.

More studies demonstrate red sage’s benefits on kidney health

The recent findings add to mounting evidence of red sage’s beneficial effects on kidney health. For instance, a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine revealed that taking red sage formulation alone or in combination with other drug treatment may mitigate the risk of renal disease in children with Henoch-Schönlein Purpura (HSP). (Related: Five Elements And Five Reasons We Need Traditional Chinese Medicine In America.)

The researchers assessed five clinical trials with a cohort population of 513 children aged two to 14 years old. The scientists observed that taking red sage formulations – including injections and tablets – as an add-on to symptomatic therapy resulted in reduced likelihood of developing renal disease at six to 12 months after treatment compared with symptomatic therapy alone. The experts did not note any adverse medical events following the treatment.

“Danshen formulations may help prevent renal disease in children with HSP without serious side-effects… Large, properly randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies are needed to substantiate its use,” the researchers wrote.

Another animal study demonstrated that red sage may help mitigate the effects of excessive iron that often results in kidney tissue damage. According to the study, iron-overloaded mice models given either a low-dose or a high-dose red sage formulation exhibited significant reductions in iron levels in the kidney and marked improvements in body weight.

The results also showed that treatment with red sage formulations helped decrease the concentrations of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine and malondialdehyde. Furthermore, the scientists observed that red sage formulations helped boost glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities, and prevent the onset of kidney cell deaths.

“Our results preliminarily demonstrated that Danshen injection could significantly restore abnormal function and ameliorate the pathological changes of the kidney in iron-overloaded mice. These remarkable protective effects against renal injury caused by excess iron may be attributed to the prevention of iron deposition and inhibition of lipid peroxidation and nephrocyte apoptosis,” the scientists said.

The findings were published in the journal PLOS One. Find more news coverage of medicinal herbs at


Sources include:



Source Article from

Astragalus found to protect against drug-induced liver injury: Study

Image: Astragalus found to protect against drug-induced liver injury: Study

(Natural News)
The liver is a very important organ that is, unfortunately, vulnerable to various toxic agents and harmful elements. Among these are drugs like paracetamol that, when taken in doses that exceed what’s recommended, can stress out or even damage the liver. Fortunately, an investigative team comprising of researchers from Saudi Arabia, Cairo, and Turkey have found a possible solution in the Astragalus genus. Also known as milkvetch or locoweed, these herbs and small shrubs have long been utilized in medicinal applications for all types of disorders. The researchers behind this particular study have uncovered another one.

For their study, the team focused on two specific members of Astragalus: Astragalus echinops and Astragalus logopodioides. The roots of these plants were dried, ground, then turned into ethanolic extracts. As part of the experiment portion, 42 male rats were obtained and fed a standard diet one week prior. The researchers then randomly divided the animals into seven groups:

  • The first group served as the normal control group.
  • The second group was designated as the paracetamol-hepatotoxic control group.
  • The third group was given 100 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) doses of silymarin or milk thistle.
  • The fourth and fifth groups of rats received ethanolic extract at doses of A. echinops at 250 and 500 mg/kg, respectively.
  • The sixth and seventh groups were administered A. logopodioides ethanolic extract doses at 250 and 500 mg/kg, respectively.

This occurred daily over a period of seven days. On the fifth day, all of the rats save those from the first group were subjected to induced hepatotoxicity by way of oral administration of paracetamol. On the seventh and last day of the experiment, blood samples were taken from all of the rats two years after treatment. The rats were then euthanized immediately after, their livers collected and halved into two for analysis.

Animals from the second group exhibited significantly elevated levels of alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT). All of these are considered biomarkers of liver disease. According to, high levels of ALT and AST are indicative of severe acute liver cell injury and liver inflammation, while increase dALP and GGT are signs of bile duct obstruction or primary biliary cirrhosis or liver scarring.

By contrast, the rats who’d been given silymarin, A. echinops ethanolic extract, or A. logopodioides ethanolic extract had lower levels of ALT, AST, ALP, and GGT. Based on these results, the researchers stated that the hepatoprotective effect of the ethanolic plant extracts was namely due to them lowering oxidative stress on the liver while simultaneously promoting antioxidant activity.

“The capability of A. echinops and A. logopodioides extracts to protect against [paracetamol]-induced hepatic damage in rats could be related to their phyto-components. The genus Astragalus is well documented…as a source of biologically active compounds such as phenolics, triterpenoid saponins, flavonoids, and polysaccharides. The flavonoid mixture and polysaccharides of some Astragalus plants are known to have a strong antioxidant effect ,” wrote the researchers. (Related: Astragalus: A Super food That Halts Aging And Revitalizes Our DNA)

The histopathological study confirmed their belief. Liver sections taken from the rats of the second group appeared to show cellular inflammation, congestion, and severe necrotic changes. On the other hand, all of the rats who’d been treated with Astragalus ethanolic extracts had markedly different liver sections, although A. echinops ethanolic extracts appeared to have had the greatest protective effect. “It can be referred to the antioxidant effect of the tested extracts that markedly decreased the oxidative stress and thereby reduced the histopathological alterations of the liver,” said the researchers.

Thus, the researchers concluded that both taking A. echinops and A. logopodioides extracts prior to overdosing on paracetamol could encourage the restoration and production of liver antioxidants among rats. Moreover, they could defend the liver against paracetamol-induced liver injuries as well, again thanks to their abundance of antioxidants.

The researchers then added: “Together, the absence of toxicity and supportive evidence of their antioxidant properties may suggest the potential application of A. echinops and A. logopodioides as alternative antidotes against the ailments where liver antioxidants stored is compromised and/or hepatic damage is manifested.”

Visit to learn about other natural methods of staying healthy.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Apple needs to do more to protect children, investors say

Up until now, Apple has offered no guidelines for using its devices responsibly. Investors want this to change.

A pension fund and an activist investing group want Apple to give parents better tools for limiting their children’s smartphone use. In a letter to the tech giant, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (Calstrs) and Jana Partners LLC, which together control about $2 billion worth of Apple shares, have also called on the company to research the effects of smartphone use on mental health.

These requests are based on new research, particularly by Dr. Jean Twenge of San Diego State University and author of iGen, that reveals how damaging and addictive smartphones are, especially for adolescents. Up until now Apple has provided no guidelines for how its devices should be used, nor has it taken a position on an appropriate age for phone use.

These two investors would like to see Apple develop “more intuitive” tools allowing parents to limit kids’ time spent on smartphones, and to “help find solutions to questions like what is optimal usage and to be at the forefront of the industry’s response — before regulators or consumers potentially force it to act.”

The letter from Jana and Calstrs fits into a growing trend toward socially responsible investing, wherein taking a stance on important issues including the environment, immigration, and mental health are seen to benefit a company. Jana and Calstrs are concerned that, if Apple continues to neglect the damning evidence against its devices, the company will lose respect from the public and its stock value will plummet. But on a more personal level, many members of the teachers’ union are worried about smartphones’ deleterious effects on students in schools.

The Wall Street Journal quotes part of the letter:

“Apple can play a defining role in signaling to the industry that paying special attention to the health and development of the next generation is both good business and the right thing to do.There is a developing consensus around the world including Silicon Valley that the potential long-term consequences of new technologies need to be factored in at the outset, and no company can outsource that responsibility.”

Intriguingly, the majority of commenters on the WSJ article criticized the investors’ move, pointing out that they’re essentially asking Apple to become the parent. Apple, they argue, would not need to create such tools and guidelines if parents were actually doing they job they’re supposed to do. One commenter wrote:

“There is a little known and seldom used tool which can limit the use and exposure children have to technology; they are called parents. Granted this is an unusual solution adapting a concept from centuries, or at least decades ago, when people actually said ‘no’ to their children.”

As a parent, I think a combination of the two approaches is ideal. If a company sells a product that’s known to be damaging to mental (and even physical) health, that company does have a responsibility to speak openly about its risks. But parents must take responsibility for their children’s wellbeing, too, and this is something that most do not do in the context of smartphones, possibly because they’re addicted to their own devices, fear the inevitable adolescent backlash, or aren’t familiar with the latest research.

At the very least, requests such as this one draw attention to an issue that’s only just starting to make its way into the public eye. I expect we’ll be hearing a lot more about this in the future.

Source Article from

Take these steps to help protect yourself and your family from the flu this and every year — NATURALLY

Image: Take these steps to help protect yourself and your family from the flu this and every year — NATURALLY

(Natural News)
Long-time readers of Natural News know that our founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has absolutely no use for most vaccines, and especially “flu shots.”

“The flu shot is a fraud,” he wrote in a January 2015 article, one of many he’s written on the subject. “But it’s a fraud so deeply embedded in the delusional pro-vaccine culture of the pharma-controlled medical industry that even well-meaning doctors and pharmacists (who are otherwise very intelligent) fail to realize that flu shots don’t work.

“In fact,” he continued, “flu shot vaccine inserts openly admit there is no scientific evidence demonstrating flu shots work.”

He further notes that is probably a big reason why so many people who get flu shots every year still get the flu.

We’ve even documented that so-called “preservative-free” flu vaccines still contain deadly toxins.

The good news is there are several all-natural ways to help defend yourself against the flu, which, by the way, has spread rapidly this year to at least 36 states. They are:

— Wash your hands. This is probably the No. 1 tip of all, as it is the very best way to prevent the spread of flu and other associated respiratory infections. In order to kill the flu virus, you need to scrub your hands thoroughly in warm water with soap for about 20 seconds. Don’t touch your mouth, nose or hands without washing first.

— Gut health: Healing your gut is key to prevent all disease, as 80 percent of your immune system is situated in your gut. Taking a proven, powerful, organic, multi-strain probiotic is a great way to maintain gut health, and will help you keep your levels of good gut bacteria high enough to battle infectious viruses.

— Lower alcohol, sugar: Lowering your intake of alcohol helps because even moderate consumption can suppress your central nervous system and, thus, your immune response. Cutting out sugars (which you should be doing anyway) will provide a boost to your immune system and make it easier for your body to fight off flu. Also, too much sugar and alcohol make you more susceptible to gun infections like candida and SIBO, both of which suppress your immune system and can cause leaky gut.

— Get rid of stressors: Lowering your levels of stress will go a long way towards reducing your chances of getting the flu this year (and every year). You may consider things like exercise, yoga, meditation, and other stress reduction and relaxation techniques. Here’s a great site for tips of all kinds.

— Sleep! Get some rest — no, really — like between seven and nine hours every night. A well-rested body is necessary for peak immune system response, and your body relies on sleep to recuperate from your daily exposure to toxins.

— Consider an immune-booster: Supplements containing immunoglobulins and protein will help give your immune system an added boost for flu season and beyond. Immune system optimizers like Colostrum, for instance, will boost IgA antibodies, or your body’s first line of defense. These are produced by immune cells in your (healthy) gut and can even deactivate harmful pathogens and toxins.

— Vitamin C and Turmeric supplementation can also boost your immunity and help you better stave off the flu bug. These are antioxidants and they are extremely important immune system boosters while helping your liver with its detoxification role. Curcumin gives turmeric its orange appearance but it is also a potent antioxidant that can assist with joint health as well, according to studies. Vitamin C is a known, potent antioxidant. (Related: 15 Reasons You Should Be Drinking Lemon Water Every Morning.)

Consider a Zinc supplement as well, and optimize your vitamin D intake too, as the latter is a powerful immune system modulator.

Flu shots are not the best answer to fighting off flu. Staving off flu viruses naturally not only works but these methods also keep your immune system in tip-top shape year round.

J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Hungary: "We’ll Protect Christian Culture, Not Retreat Behind Concrete Blocks and Watch Our Women Harassed On New Years"

Home » Culture, Europe, European Pride, Immigration, Multiculturalism » Hungary: “We’ll Protect Christian Culture, Not Retreat Behind Concrete Blocks and Watch Our Women Harassed On New Years”


Viktor Orbán has used his annual Christmas message to call on Europeans to protect their Christian culture, and vowed Hungary will not “retreat behind concrete blocks” at Christmas and watched its women and daughters “harassed in the New Year’s Eve crowd” like its multicultural neighbours.

“Christianity is culture and civilization. We live in it. It is not about how many people go to church or how many pray honestly. Culture is the reality of everyday life… Christian culture defines our everyday morals,” wrote the Fidesz leader, in an article published in Magyar Idők.

Orbán also took aim at the enemies of his ‘country first’ policies, who say he cannot claim to be Christian if he will not support allowing “millions from other continents to settle into Europe” in accordance with the commandment to “love thy neighbour as thyself”.

“They forget the second part of the commandment,” observed Orbán: “To love ourselves.”



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

How Big Pharma Suppresses Vaccine Safety Concerns To Protect Financial Interests (Part 2)

Next Story

In Part One of this analysis, we described how two highly biased non-profits—the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC)—have been attacking World Mercury Project and its Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for daring to counter false claims about vaccine safety. Yet the AAP, IAC and other non-profits such as Every Child by Two (ECBT) are among the leading actors propagating misleading assertions about vaccine safety. All three also are actively lobbying legislators to effectively jettison informed consent in favor of mandatory vaccines. (In Part One, we also discussed two vaccine advocacy coalitions: the 317 Coalition and the Adult Vaccine Access Coalition.)

In Part Two, we take a closer look at these three particular non-profits (AAP, IAC and ECBT), which were the focus of a trenchant investigation published in The BMJ in November 2017. The BMJ is an international peer-reviewed medical journal that takes pride in the dictum that “knowledge for healthcare professionals and patients should be independent and unbiased” [emphasis added]. The article’s author is Peter Doshi, BMJassociate editor, who takes this statement to heart by dissecting the funding sources and activities of three vaccine advocacy organizations and asking whether they are “sufficiently independent.”

Follow the money

Vaccine advocacy organizations like to pass themselves off as credible and independent sources of information. However, as Doshi immediately points out, the three dominant players (AAP, IAC and ECBT) all receive corporate funding from vaccine manufacturers as well as significant government funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). AAP is also intertwined with CDC through AAP’s representation on the CDC-based Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the influential committee that meets several times annually to formulate childhood and adult vaccine schedule recommendations.

The light that Doshi shines on the vaccine advocacy organizations’ intentionally opaque finances is one of the article’s most significant contributions. Doshi shows that, over the past decade, CDC has been a “steady funder” of all three non-profits. AAP has received roughly $20 million from CDC since 2009, over a third of which ($7 million) was explicitly vaccine-related. The IAC received over $2 million in CDC vaccine-related funding over the same time frame, and a third of ECBT’s annual contributions comes from CDC.

By painstakingly ferreting out and perusing various online and print sources, Doshi confirmed that all three organizations receive financial support from vaccine manufacturers, but he could only obtain “spotty” information about amounts, even after contacting the organizations directly. (ECBT, for example, refused outright “to answer The BMJ’s queries about how much it receives from vaccine manufacturers.”) Doshi also was not able to determine “what strings, if any, come attached to the funding.” The table below summarizes Doshi’s main findings related to vaccine manufacturer funding for the three vaccine advocacy organizations.

Conflicts of interest—or worse?

Non-profits, regardless of their funding sources, have limits on the amounts they can spend on lobbying without losing their tax-exempt status. Nonetheless, as Doshi describes, the three vaccine organizations are not shy about engaging in major lobbying initiatives:

  • In 2015, both ECBT and the AAP actively (and successfully) lobbied in favor of California’s SB277, a bill that removed the state’s personal belief exemption and made children’s vaccination mandatory for school attendance. Doshi notes that in response to the bill’s passage, ECBT wrote to California’s governor that it was “elated” at the decision. The IAC keeps tabs on vaccine mandates in every state.
  • In July 2017, the AAP published its state advocacy policy, which recommends elimination of all “state laws permitting nonmedical exemptions to school entry immunization requirements.”
  • In February 2017, ECBT launched an active campaign to lobby Congress to “ensure that the funding for vaccine programs that is currently allocated through the Prevention and Public Health Fund is maintained.”
  • In April 2017, all three organizations collaborated in the IAC webinar entitled “Vaccines and the New Administration” (described in Part One), which clearly includes lobbying materials for Congress.

In 2014, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on the extent to which Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grant-making agencies monitor grantees’ compliance with federal prohibitions on the use of grant funds for lobbying activities. The report’s overall conclusion was that although the sampled grantees were aware of the lobbying prohibitions, “limited methods exist to identify noncompliance” within the HHS’s 13 awarding agencies, which include CDC. In other words, the CDC is unlikely to know whether its grantees are misapplying some of their CDC funds toward lobbying activities. In the OIG survey and report, one of the respondents (a Chief Grant Management Officer) admitted that “A whistleblower or media contact would be the primary source of identifying a possible violation.”

Doshi reminds readers that “US federal law prohibits the use of CDC award money for lobbying, a prohibition that ‘includes grass roots lobbying efforts by award recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to contact their elected representatives to urge support of, or opposition to, proposed or pending legislation.’” It is not possible to determine from the existing evidence whether the CDC’s relationship with AAP, IAC and ECBT “crosses a [legal] line.” However, it is clear that when these budget-conscious non-profits receive grant money from CDC, those grants free up other monies for lobbying purposes.

In addition, Doshi makes it clear that the three organizations are incapable of critically appraising the CDC’s vaccine recommendations. A conflict of interest specialist interviewed by Doshi stated, “These groups are so strongly pro-vaccination that the public is getting a one-sided message that all vaccines are created equal…regardless of the circumstances. Reality is a little different.” A watchdog journalist told Doshi that the three vaccine organizations are “certainly not financially independent, and it would appear they are also not philosophically and intellectually independent, which is just as important—if not more so.”

Chinks in the safety narrative

The financial and other information uncovered by Doshi indicates that AAP, IAC and ECBT are key players in a well-funded and highly orchestrated campaign to drown out any and all dissenting voices on the topic of vaccine safety. Thus, the growing number of individuals, families, organizations and even countries expressing declining confidence in vaccine safety remains a thorn in their side. Moreover, the vaccine advocacy organizations cannot suppress the fact that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—actually touted by the IAC as “the nation’s frontline vaccine safety surveillance system”—represents the tip of the vaccine injury iceberg, capturing as little as 1% of vaccine-related adverse events. Even with vast underreporting, the U.S. government’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out $3.7 billion dollars since 1988 to vaccine-injured individuals who have managed to prove (against great odds) their injury claims.

In 2011, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg perhaps had these billions of dollars of vaccine injury payments in mind when they wrote a dissenting opinion to a Court decision (Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223) pertaining to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that created the compensation program. In their dissent, the two Justices stated, 

“The majority’s decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.”

 The Justices further noted, 

“Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins.”

The Justices’ prescient comments have only become more relevant in the years since the 2011 opinion. The time to open up vaccine safety to real scientific scrutiny and unbiased debate is now.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

Dengue vaccine does NOT protect against the disease but actually puts you at HIGHER RISK of contracting it

Image: Dengue vaccine does NOT protect against the disease but actually puts you at HIGHER RISK of contracting it

(Natural News)
The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that Dengue, a mosquito-borne viral infection common in tropical and sub-tropical areas across the globe, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, with about half the world’s population at risk of the disease. The WHO notes that a dengue vaccine is available for use in people between the ages of 9 and 45 who live in affected areas, but Sanofi Pasteur – the vaccine’s manufacturer – is now admitting that the “shot” is not guaranteed to prevent dengue, and could potentially create more issues than it solves.

There are two forms of this disease: Dengue fever and severe dengue. The WHO explains the difference as follows:

Dengue fever is a severe, flu-like illness that affects infants, young children and adults, but seldom causes death. …

Severe dengue is a potentially deadly complication due to plasma leaking, fluid accumulation, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, or organ impairment. Warning signs occur 3–7 days after the first symptoms in conjunction with a decrease in temperature (below 38°C/100°F) and include: severe abdominal pain, persistent vomiting, rapid breathing, bleeding gums, fatigue, restlessness and blood in vomit. The next 24–48 hours of the critical stage can be lethal; proper medical care is needed to avoid complications and risk of death.

So, severe dengue is far more dangerous than “ordinary” dengue fever. In fact, severe dengue is one of the leading causes of serious illness and even death among children in certain Asian and Latin American countries.

Earlier this month, at a press conference in Manila, Philippines, Dr. Ng Su Peing, Sanofi’s global medical head, admitted that not only is the company’s vaccine, known as Dengvaxia, not necessarily effective at preventing the disease, but it can actually cause a previously uninfected person to get the virus. Even worse, it causes not just ordinary dengue fever, but severe dengue.

Rappler reported:

Dengvaxia increases the risk of contracting severe dengue for those who got the vaccine without prior infection.

This is why Peing said she would not recommend Dengvaxia for those who have not been infected with dengue.

Sanofi’s argument is that most people in dengue-affected areas have already had the disease at some point, and the vaccine protects those who have already been infected for six years. However, that thinking is flawed, because people who have already been infected with the virus will have built up antibodies, and therefore don’t need a preventative vaccine, anyway!

While Sanofi insists that the vaccine was proven to be both safe and effective during clinical trials, they now admit that continued tests over the years have painted a different picture.

A follow-up study five years after the initial trials showed that at least five more out of every 1,000 participants who had been vaccinated went on to develop dengue fever, while an additional two patients developed the more serious severe dengue, when compared to previously uninfected people who did not receive the vaccine. (Related: Researchers openly admit dengue vaccine would cause 7-fold spike in infections.)

“We noted at longer-term an increased risk of hospitalization and severe dengue in the vaccinated people without a prior dengue infection, compared to [the] placebo [participants],” Peing admitted.

The FDA has now suspended distribution of Dengvaxia in the Philippines.

Though dengue fever outbreaks have occurred all over the world, including in Hawaii and other parts of the United States, it is not a common illness in our country. Nonetheless, Sanofi’s admission should make people around the world sit up and take note, because like with so many other vaccines, the public was assured of the safety and efficacy of this vaccine, with reputable organizations like the WHO backing its use. Now it has turned out to be both useless and dangerous. (Related: Discover the real risks at

Should that not make us wonder about all those other vaccines that they keep assuring us are safe and effective?

Sources include:



Source Article from

‘EU crackdown on bitcoin is attempt to protect banks’

The European Union agreed on Friday to stricter regulations to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism using bitcoin exchange platforms.

“Today’s agreement will bring more transparency to improve the prevention of money laundering and to cut off terrorist financing,” Europe’s Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said.

RT discussed the issue with Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer, and Paul Rosenberg, a founder of Cryptohippie and CEO of Cryptohippie USA.

RT: The EU regulations on cryptocurrency come into effect in 18 months, but how necessary are these strict measures in the current cryptocurrency climate?

Annie Machon: I think we have a situation where any new form of technology on the internet, we’ve seen this for the last 30 years, that challenges the business models of established businesses is going to be cracked down on by governments, by international organizations to try and protect the old business models.

I think that is what we are seeing here; we saw it with the huge legal fight that went on with the release of PGP encryption (Pretty Good Privacy) on the internet 25-30 years ago. And we have seen it again in the attack on the old business model of the old media where piracy became the new threat and they tried to use laws to stamp that out. I think that is inevitable, if we have something that decentralizes the money supply and threatens the business model of the banks, of course, there’s going to be pushback against it.

RT: Under the new EU legislation on tightening regulation, are governments trying to discredit users of cryptocurrencies by labeling them all as ‘money launderers’?

AM: It is inevitable. Any crackdown on our rights of privacy on the internet always has an excuse that it is trying to stop money laundering or trying to stop terrorism or pedophiles or whatever. I think, probably the vast majority of users of bitcoin are doing it legitimately, they just have a legitimate concern to uphold their right to privacy as well. Yes, sure, criminals are going to use this, but criminals already use banks. So many banks have been caught out money laundering on vast scales and have received vast fines for laundering gray and black money from particularly the drug trade. Perhaps, we should say that the EU should close down our banks, too.

‘Cryptocurrencies are tremendous benefit to world economy & the poor’

The coercive institutions of the past are being threatened by the voluntary institutions of the future. However, the rise of cryptocurrency is a magnificent benefit to the world’s poor who have no access to any sort of banking system, says Paul Rosenberg, CEO of Cryptohippie USA.

RT: What impact will the new EU legislation to tighten regulation have on the cryptocurrency market?

Paul Rosenberg: It is a good question what this regulation is going to do. I would say, in general, not terribly much. What they are doing is they are attacking the companies that service the bitcoin market, the people who make wallets, the people who run exchanges. There is no reason that the people in the EU have to use those companies. They can go to others and indeed, those companies may close down and just move somewhere else, where they are not going to have these type of restrictions placed upon them. These restrictions are unnatural to cryptocurrencies. It is a different type of system. It is an open question as to what will happen, but I suspect that a lot of people will just not do business through the EU.

RT: How much of a threat is the rise of cryptocurrency to the global economy and world banks?

PR: I think it is a tremendous benefit to the world economy, not a threat at all to the real economy, we are talking about: carpenters, electricians, nurses, truck drivers, and people who run data services – it is a tremendous benefit to people who do real things. It is only a threat to the institutions that are rooted in the past. What this really boils down to at the end of the line is the coercive institutions of the past being threatened by the voluntary institutions of the future. So, those institutions are worried about this but for the average person who works, this is a tremendous benefit, and it is a magnificent benefit to a billion of the world’s poor who have no access to any sort of banking system…

Source Article from