Via Jon Rappoport’s blog:
“—Understand the implications of new CDC rules, if you want to know where the medical dictatorship is heading.
Arbitrary apprehension of citizens, detainment, forced medical treatment, vaccination.
Let me paint a scenario:
You live in a polluted city, so you have a low-level cough. On your flight to another state, the cough becomes worse because the air in the plane cabin is foul. Unknown to you, a passenger complains to a flight attendant. The passenger is a typical meddler. When you arrive at your destination, a health-agency employee is waiting at the gate for you. He apprehends you and takes you to a room, to decide whether you have a communicable disease. His first standard question—are you up to date on your vaccinations? And things go downhill from there… Continue reading
From Jon Rappoport’s blog:
On August 27, CDC scientist William Thompson came out of the shadows and revealed that he had participated in a major scientific fraud:
He and his co-authors had published a 2004 study claiming there was no MMR-vaccine connection to autism. They had omitted vital data which contradicted that finding.
The MMR vaccine was causing autism. Thompson knew it. So did his co-authors. They buried that chilling fact.
In Thompson’s confession, released through his Cincinnati attorney, Rick Morgan, Thompson asserted that he would work with Congress, but he wouldn’t speak to reporters.
Why not? Continue reading
From David E. Gumpert, on the Complete Patient blog:
“Media people love juicy data suggesting an untended-to crisis, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has the perfect juicy data for anyone wanting to write about the supposed crisis in food safety.
The scary data go like this: every year, millions of Americans are victims of food-borne illness–48 million become sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die.
The media are attracted to this data like bees to honey. Over just the last few days, two prominent food writers have used it as the basis of articles attacking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for not doing enough to solve our food-safety crisis. Continue reading
From Chris Kresser, on his blog “Medicine for the 21st Century”:
“Back in February, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) published a study targeting raw milk as dangerous and unsafe for human consumption. The media jumped on it in typical fashion. You may have seen headlines like this:
“Raw Milk Causes Most Illnesses From Dairy, Study Finds.”
– USA Today
“CDC: Raw Milk Much More Likely to Cause Illness.”
– Food Safety News
“Raw Milk is a Raw Deal, CDC Says.”
While two of these headlines are technically accurate – raw milk is responsible for more illnesses than pasteurized milk when the number of people who consume each is taken into account – the concern they convey about the risk of drinking unpasteurized milk is dramatically overstated. Continue reading
This whole thing seems to be a “public relations” exercise arising from the Harvard debate, which you can watch in the preceding post. See also this earlier post from David Gumpert discussing the USA Today story, as well as this post from Kimberly Hartke, setting things straight for the WAPF. From Wendy Leung, in the Globe and Mail:
“Those who feel strongly about the benefits of raw milk are willing to go to great lengths to fight for access to the unpasteurized dairy product.
But contributing to the raw-milk debate, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause outbreaks of food-borne illness than the pasteurized stuff. Continue reading
From Kimberly Hartke at the Weston A. Price Foundation:
CDC CHERRY PICKS DATA TO MAKE CASE AGAINST RAW MILK
Agency ignores data that shows dangers of pasteurized milk
WASHINGTON, DC, February 22, 2012. In a press release issued yesterday, authors affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control claim that the rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.” The authors based this conclusion on an analysis of reports submitted to the CDC from 1993 to 2006.
According the Weston A. Price Foundation, the CDC has manipulated and cherry picked this data to make raw milk look dangerous and to dismiss the same dangers associated with pasteurized milk. Continue reading
From David E. Gumpert, on the Complete Patient blog:
“During the raw milk debate at Harvard Law School last Thursday, I criticized our opponents for their failure to present data, as in real understandable numbers.
I had gone to the trouble of analyzing data from official statistics provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control–supposedly the gold standard of foodborne illness data. (Some of what I presented was CDC data extracted by the MarlerClark firm, certainly no friend of raw milk.) I found that, over the last decade, between 25 and 175 individuals have been reported ill each year from raw milk. Moreover, I found that the number of illnesses is generally in the vicinity of .5% of the total number of 23,000-25,000 foodborne illnesses reported each year. That’s a very small percentage, given that 3% of the population has been found, by the CDC, to be drinking raw milk. Continue reading
From Ethan A. Huff at Natural News.com:
“(NaturalNews) Remember when it was considered crazy talk to suggest that mainstream medicine viewed humanity as being born lacking in pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, as if these synthetic inputs are necessary miracle nutrients for proper human development? Well, researchers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently showed that they adhere to this lunatic philosophy, having released a study that recommends women withhold breastfeeding their children in order to boost the “effectiveness” of the rotavirus vaccine.
Ten researchers from the CDC’s National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease (NCIRD) released the ridiculous paper, entitledInhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines, which claims the immune-boosting effects of breastmilk are a detriment to the efficacy of vaccines. The paper goes on to say that, rather than remove vaccines so that breastmilk can do its job, women should instead remove the breastmilk to allow vaccines to do their job. Continue reading