Tag: Health

Ryancare Dead On Arrival: Can We Please Now Try Single Payer Please?

VIDEO: Let the States Provide Single Payer Health Care

The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. . . . We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.  — Donald Trump, The America We Deserve (2000)

The new American Health Care Act has been unveiled, and critics are calling it more flawed even than the Obamacare it was meant to replace. Dubbed “Ryancare” or “Trumpcare” (over the objection of White House staff), the Republican health care bill is under attack from left and right, with even conservative leaders calling it “Obamacare Lite”, “bad policy”, a “warmed-over substitute,” and “dead on arrival.”

The problem for both administrations is that they have been trying to fund a bloated, inefficient, and overpriced medical system with scarce taxpayer funds, without capping its costs. US healthcare costs in 2016 averaged $10,345 per person, for a total of $3.35 trillion dollars, a full 18 percent of the entire economy, twice as much as in other industrialized countries.

Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992, had the right idea: he said all we have to do is to look at other countries that have better health care at lower cost and copy them.

So which industrialized countries do it better than the US? The answer is, all of them. They all not only provide healthcare for the entire population at about half the cost, but they get better health outcomes than in the US. Their citizens have longer lifespans, fewer infant mortalities and less chronic disease.

President Trump, who is all about getting the most bang for the buck, should love that.

Hard to Argue with Success

The secret to the success of these more efficient systems is that they control medical costs. According to T. R. Reid in The Healing of America, they follow one of three models: the “Bismarck model” established in Germany, in which health providers and insurers are private but insurers are not allowed to make a profit; the “Beveridge model” adopted in Britain, where most healthcare providers work as government employees and the government acts as the single payer for all health services; and the Canadian model, a single-payer system in which the healthcare providers are mostly private.

A single government payer can negotiate much lower drug prices – about half what we pay in the US – and lower hospital prices. Single-payer is also much easier to administer. Cutting out the paperwork can save 30 percent on the cost of insurance. According to a May 2016 post by Physicians for a National Health Program:

Per capita, the U.S. spends three times as much for health care as the U.K., whose taxpayer-funded National Health Service provides health care to citizens without additional charges or co-pays. In 2013, U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for 64.3 percent of U.S. health care — about $1.9 trillion. Yet in the U.S. nearly 30 million of our citizens still lack any form of insurance coverage.

The for-profit U.S. health care system is corrupt, dysfunctional and deadly. In Canada, only 1.5 percent of health care costs are devoted to administration of its single-payer system. In the U.S., 31 percent of health care expenditures flow to the private insurance industry. Americans pay far more for prescription drugs. Last year, CNN reported, Americans paid nearly 10 times as much for prescription Nexium as it cost in the Netherlands.

Single payer, or Medicare for All, is the system proposed in 2016 by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. It is also the system endorsed by Donald Trump in his book The America We Deserve. Mr. Trump confirmed his admiration for that approach in January 2015, when he said on David Letterman:

A friend of mine was in Scotland recently. He got very, very sick. They took him by ambulance and he was there for four days. He was really in trouble, and they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’ And they said, ‘There’s no charge.’ Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care. I mean we could have a great system in this country.

Contrary to the claims of its opponents, the single-payer plan of Bernie Sanders would not have been unaffordable. Rather, according to research by University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Gerald Friedman, it would have generated substantial savings for the government:

Under the single-payer system envisioned by “The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act” (H.R. 676), the U.S. could save $592 billion – $476 billion by eliminating administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry and $116 billion by reducing drug prices . . . .

According to OECD health data, in 2013 the British were getting their healthcare for $3,364 per capita annually; the Germans for $4,920; the French for $4,361; and the Japanese for $3,713. The tab for Americans was $9,086, at least double the others. With single-payer at the OECD average of $3,661 and a population of 322 million, we should be able to cover all our healthcare for under $1.2 trillion annually – well under half what we are paying now.

The Problem Is Not Just the High Cost of Insurance

That is true in theory; but governments at all levels in the US already spend $1.6 trillion for healthcare, which goes mainly to Medicare and Medicaid and covers only 17 percent of the population. Where is the discrepancy?

For one thing, Medicare and Medicaid are more expensive than they need to be, because the US government has been prevented from negotiating drug and hospital costs. In January, a bill put forth by Sen. Sanders to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada was voted down. Sanders is now planning to introduce a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, for which he is hoping for the support of the president. Trump indicated throughout his presidential campaign that he would support negotiating drug prices; and in January, he said that the pharmaceutical industry is “getting away with murder” because of what it charges the government. As observed by Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, in February 2017:

. . . [B]ig pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospitals and health insurers are allowed to jack up their profit margins at will. . . . Simply giving everyone access to Big Pharma’s overpriced drugs, and corporate hospitals’ profit-at-any-cost tests and treatment, will result in little more than soaring healthcare costs, with uninsured and insured alike remaining sick or becoming even sicker.

Besides the unnecessarily high cost of drugs, the US medical system is prone to over-diagnosing and over-treating. The Congressional Budget Office says that up to 30 percent of the health care in the US is unnecessaryWe use more medical technology then in other countries, including more expensive diagnostic equipment. The equipment must be used in order to recoup its costs. Unnecessary testing and treatment can create new health problems, requiring yet more treatment, further driving up medical bills.

Drug companies are driven by profit, and their market is sickness – a market they have little incentive to shrink. There is not much profit to be extracted from quick, effective cures. The money is in the drugs that have to be taken for 30 years, killing us slowly. And they are killing us. Pharmaceutical drugs taken as prescribed are the fourth leading cause of US deathsafter heart disease, cancer and stroke.  

The US is the only industrialized country besides New Zealand that allows drug companies to advertise pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than any other US industry, and it spends more than $5 billion a year on advertising. Lured by drug advertising, Americans are popping pills they don’t need, with side effects that are creating problems where none existed before. Americans compose only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we consume fully 50 percent of Big Pharma’s drugs and 80 percent of the world’s pain pills. We not only take more drugs (measured in grams of active ingredient) than people in most other countries, but we have the highest use of new prescription drugs, which have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious adverse reactions after they have been approved.

The US death toll from prescription drugs taken as prescribed is now 128,000 per year. As Jon Rappaport observes, with those results Big Pharma should be under criminal investigation. But the legal drug industry has grown too powerful for that. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, writing in 2002:

The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion). Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has [become] a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, [using] its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

It’s Just Good Business

US healthcare costs are projected to grow at 6 percent a year over the next decade. The result could be to bankrupt not only millions of consumers but the entire federal government.

Obamacare has not worked, and Ryancare is not likely to work. As demonstrated in many other industrialized countries, single-payer delivers better health care at half the cost that Americans are paying now.

Winston Churchill is said to have quipped, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” We need to try a thrifty version of Medicare for all, with negotiated prices for drugs, hospitals and diagnostic equipment.

Ellen Brown is the founder of the Public Banking Institute and a Research Fellow at the Democracy CollaborativeShe is the author of a dozen books including the best-selling Web of Debt, on how the power to create money was usurped by a private banking cartel; and The Public Bank Solution, on how the people can reclaim that power through a network of publicly-owned banks. She has written over 300 articles, posted at EllenBrown.com; and co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown.”

Cellphone Radiation: Sensible Advice

(Natural News) In 2015, New York Times writer Nick Bilton wrote an article entitled “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech,” warning the public that devices like smartphones and Apple Watches emit a low-level radiation which has been linked to cancer, brain tumors and other problems when worn close to the body for extended periods. His article was based on a press release issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in May of 2011, which warned, “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.”

Bilton was not praised for his public health warning; in fact, the mainstream media attacked him, with many calling for his dismissal from the Times.

The truth is, there is ample evidence that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and ot…. This has just been reinforced yet again, in a document released by the California Department of Public Health, entitled simply “Cell Phones and Health.”

The Department has been sitting on the document, which has been revised several times, for the past seven years, refusing to make it public. It was only when Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, sued the Department last year, and the judge indicated that she would order the release of the document, that the Department made it public.

The document states clearly, “Health officials are concerned about possible health effects from cell phone EMFs because some recent studies suggest that long-term cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer and other health problems.” [Emphasis added]

It also notes that studies have found that people diagnosed with certain forms of brain cancer are more likely to have used cellphones in the preceding decade and that the cancers usually occurred on the side of the head that their cellphones were most often used on. It adds, “These studies suggest that regular cell phone use increases the risk of developing some kinds of brain cancer.” (RELATED: Read more about how cell phones are a ticking time-bomb when it comes to cancer here.)

The use of cell phones clearly carries serious health risks, but with modern society so dependent on them, it is unrealistic to think that people will be able to totally end their use. It is, therefore, important to know how to utilize this technology in the safest possible way.

An earlier Natural News article provided several tips on how to protect yourself from cell phone radiation, including:

  1. Reduce the amount of time you spend talking on your cell phone, keeping in mind that every 2-minute phone call disrupts brain activity for up to an hour.
  2. Send text messages rather than making phone calls.
  3. Replace your cell phone with one that emits less radiation. A list of suggestions can be found here.
  4. The jury is still out on whether or not they will really be less damaging in the long-term, but it still might be worth using a headset or speaker rather than talking directly on your cell phone.
  5. Avoid using your cell phone in elevators or other metal enclosures, including your car, as more power is needed to connect the call, emitting more radiation in the process.
  6. A similar problem arises when your cell phone’s battery is low, so charge it before you use it.
  7. If you have to use your phone directly without a headset or speaker, wait until the person you’re calling actually answers before putting it to your ear.

So, the reality is that you probably have to use a cell phone, but by limiting its use and applying the suggestions above, you can try to make the process less damaging to your health.

Follow more news on the health risks of EMFs at EMF.news.

Sources:

SanFrancisco.CBSLocal.com

Drive.Google.com[PDF]

NaturalNews.com

IARC.fr[PDF]

NaturalNews.com
Source

Source:

http://thecontrail.com/group/emf-and-emr-information-and-support/forum/topics/after-years-of-secrecy-cellphone-radiation-risks-are-finally-bein?xg_source=activity

Rappoport: NZ Drowning In fluoride!

A  subject I’m very passionate about myself, and have sent a submission to government about.
Pleasing to see Jon R. is on the case.
Image result for nz water fluoridation
By Jon Rappoport
The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?
From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:
“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”
“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]
“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”
“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]
“‘The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”
“‘It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]
“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”
“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]
My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.
The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.
I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.
For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.
Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement- “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”-written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:
“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”
“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”
“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”
“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”
“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”
“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”
“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled,’Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”
“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”
“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”
“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”
“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”
That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.
So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.
Quite clear.
The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.
The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.
They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.com

NZ: We’re Coming For Your Water

 Considering the other water associated ills currently affecting New Zealand; Over-extraction by irrigating dairy farms, dirty dairying, the “swimmable rivers’ debacle,  the last thing we need is our precious water being practically given away to overseas corporations.  Read and weep people.
And the Environment minister wants us to believe that the amount of water taken is ‘Insignificant”. The same minister who wants us to believe a scummy, dried up river bed is a swimmable river. Sickening.

Chinese company Nongfu Spring wants more NZ water

  • 14/03/2017
  • By Isobel Ewing

 http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/should-companies-pay-royalties-to-export-water.html

A Chinese company wants to buy a Bay of Plenty water bottling plant and dramatically increase its water take, and it will get the water virtually for free.

Otakiri Springs currently pays only $2003 in compliance costs each year, allowing it to take 700,000 litres a day. The consent doesn’t expire until 2026.

Now prospective owner Nongfu Spring Natural Mineral Water wants to increase the water take to 5 million litres a day. It’s the same aquifer where New Zealand company Oravida takes 400,000 litres a day.

Whakatane District Councillor Mike van der Boom says companies are taking a precious resource from his area and not paying a cent for it.

“We’re subsidising them to make a profit,” he says.

“We just want our water preserved, a sustainable take – what is a sustainable take? Do they know what that is? I have a lot of questions and not many answers.”

Environment Minister Nick Smith maintains his stance that charging companies to take water is ridiculous

“If parties opposite want to start imposing new taxes on the use of water, where are they going to stop? Will air be charged for next?”

But Parliament’s opposition parties are united – get water, pay a royalty.

“We do believe that commercial businesses that are taking water out of the ground for free and then making a profit out of it should pay for the use of that resource,” Greens co-leader James Shaw says.

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters also says there should be a royalty paid.

“They will pay to export it offshore, and the money will go back to the local community from where the water was extracted in the first place.”

The Overseas Investment Office is currently assessing the sale of Otakiri Springs to Nongfu Spring.

Otakiri Springs has been contacted for comment about its plans.

Newshub.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/should-companies-pay-royalties-to-export-water.html

THIS IS WHAT NZ GOVERNMENT CALLS A “SWIMMABLE RIVER”:

Image result for n swimmable rivers

Image result for dune water quotes

Why Is Iodine Important?

Published on March 13, 2017 in Iodine

We knew a hundred years ago that we needed more iodine and governments started putting a tiny bit in table salt. It was not enough and after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, we need more because of the radioactive iodine released into the environment.

Humans in the 21st Century have an absolute need for iodine supplementation. Iodine is the only medicinal that stands between antibiotic resistant hell and us.

There are many reasons we need iodine in abundance. There are three principle reasons, however, that stand out thrusting iodine into its place as a medicine of supreme importance:

The first is its antibiotic, anti-fungal and anti-viral effects that go beyond antibiotics because it kills viruses, which antibiotic do not. Iodine kills fungus and yeast like candida, which antibiotics do not. In addition, it does it without creating antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Scientists are also finding that antibiotics are causing bacteria to grow faster instead of killing them so it is almost suicidal to not employ iodine as the first line of defense in our fight against infections.

Salon Magazine published, “Over 95 percent of physicians are concerned about antibiotic resistance,” and that is all we need to know about iodine, which everyone should have on hand in their homes for everyday use as well as emergencies. Iodine has it all over antibiotics not only because it takes down viruses as well as fungus but also because it does not provoke bacteria to become resistant to it.

Though it kills 90 percent of bacteria on the skin within 90 seconds its use as an antibiotic has been tragically ignored. Iodine exhibits activity against bacteria, molds, yeasts, protozoa, and many viruses; indeed, of all antiseptic preparations suitable for direct use on humans and animals and upon tissues, only iodine is capable of killing all classes of pathogens: gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, mycobacteria, yeasts, and protozoa. Most bacteria are killed within 15 to 30 seconds of contact.

In the beginning of 2017, nearly three dozen people in the United States have been diagnosed with a deadly and highly drug-resistant fungal infection that has been rapidly spreading around the world.

The fungus, a strain of a kind of yeast known as Candida auris. Unlike garden-variety yeast infections, this one causes serious bloodstream infections, spreads easily from person to person in health-care settings, and survives for months on skin and for weeks on bed rails, chairs and other hospital equipment. Some strains are resistant to all three major classes of antifungal drugs. Up to 60 percent of people with these infections have died. Candida auris is not resistant to iodine.

Viral infections always have doctors scrambling because they have forgotten how effective iodine is against them. Dr. Richard Kunin, after fifty years of practice concluded that iodide destroys the virus of herpes. Both oral and genital lesions are treatable this way.

Dr. Eliot Dick observed a 50 percent reduction in respiratory illnesses when using iodine. Many reports by patients find that a gargle of ten drops of potassium iodide in a glass of water, with or without additional vitamin C, relieved sore throat in a matter of hours.

Research at the Massachusetts General Hospital tells us, “HIV was completely inactivated and could no longer replicate after exposure to the povidone-iodine preparations even at very low concentrations.”

The second is its importance with prevention and treatment of cancer. Iodine is indispensable in protecting against thyroid cancer, breast cancer, ovarium cancer as well as prostate cancer because all of these glands concentrate iodine more than other tissues. Deficiencies in iodine leave these glands vulnerable. Iodine also is indispensable for treating anything on the skin, even skin cancer mainly because it kills everything on contact that does not belong.

Breast tissue contains the body’s third highest concentrations of this essential mineral, so shortfalls in iodine needs have a highly negative impact on breast tissue. Iodine shortfalls coupled with bromine and other toxic halogens cause fibrocystic breast disease and breast cancer.

High intake of iodine is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer. Low iodine intake is associated with liver cancer. Iodine is ideal for treating skin cancer. These are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how important iodine is for cancer patients.

The third is iodine is protective against radioactive iodine. We cannot begin to understand how important this is until we also learn how dire the threat is of radiation.

Dr. John W. Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, has written extensively about the effort to belittle the menace of low-level radiation. People associated with the nuclear and medical industries assert falsely, “there is no evidence that exposure to low-dose radiation causes any cancer—the risk is only theoretical,” or “the risk is utterly negligible,” or “the accidental exposures were below the safe level,” and even “there is reasonably good evidence that exposure to low-dose radiation is beneficial and lowers the cancer rate.” By any reasonable standard of scientific proof, the weight of the human evidence shows decisively that cancer is inducible by ionizing radiation even at the lowest possible dose and dose-rate—which means that the risk is never theoretical.

Different isotopes of radioactive iodine, one with an incredibly long half-life, have been dumped into the environment by the Fukushima meltdown. Iodine deficient adults and children are sitting ducks to their radioactive cousins especially if they are eating milk and cheese because radioactive iodine gets into the grass that the cattle eat and it just goes up the food chain to your door.

Fourth is the absolute necessity of iodine in metabolism. Human life is not possible without iodine. That truth is important to every cell in our bodies.

Fifth is its role in the production of hormones. Iodine helps synthesize thyroid hormones and prevents both hypo- and hyperthyroidism. Iodine sufficiency reverses hypo- and hyperthyroidism. Iodine’s ability to revive hormonal sensitivity seems to significantly improve insulin sensitivity. Iodine attaches to insulin receptors and improves glucose metabolism. Iodine is the best nutritional support for your thyroid. Your thyroid controls your metabolism and the efficiency of your metabolism is directly related to that of your immune system.[1]

Sixth is its role in the immune system. The body’s ability to resist infection and disease is hindered by long-term deficiency in iodine. Poor immune response is directly tied in with impaired thyroid function; a deficiency in iodine can greatly affect the immune system because low levels of iodine lead to problems with the thyroid gland.

Iodine purifies water and it does the same job on the bloodstream. Iodine purifies the complete bloodstream of the body (something the Thyroid does every 17 minutes) meaning sufficient levels of iodine, especially in children, keeps the body free of pathogens, no vaccines needed! Iodine’s true role as clearly making up as much as 1/2 of the body’s immune system has yet to be understood by doctors, but should be as the age of antibiotic resistant, fungal resistant and viral medication resistant infections threaten the human race.

Iodide is accumulated during phagocytosis, the process of engulfing and ingesting bacteria and other foreign bodies. The iodide is attached to the bacteria and to proteins, creating iodoproteins including monoiodotyrosine (T1). Sometimes, the thyroid hormones are utilized as the source of the iodide.

Dr. Gabriel Cousens lists many other important functions of iodine. Iodine offers dozens of under-utilized applications and should always be included when treating or preventing disease. Simply put, there is no bacteria, virus, or other microorganism that can survive or adapt to an iodine-rich environment.

1) Iodine prevents heart disease.

2) Iodine eliminates toxic halogens from the body (including radioactive I-131).

3) Iodine supports apoptosis.

4) Iodine activates hormone receptors and helps prevent certain forms of cancer.

5) Iodine protects ATP function and enhances ATP production.

6) Iodine prevents fibrocystic breast disease.

7) Iodine decreases insulin needs in diabetics.

8) Iodine helps support protein synthesis.

9) Iodine deficiency is a global health threat.

10) Iodine destroys pathogens, molds, fungi, parasites, and malaria.

11) Iodine is needed with the use of cordless phones, cell phones and now smart meters to prevent hypothyroidism.

12) Iodine supports pregnancy (as the fetus undergoes more apoptosis than any other developmental stage).

13) Iodine regulates estrogen production in the ovaries.

14) Iodine is anti-mucolytic (meaning it reduces mucus catarrh).

15) Iodine neutralizes hydroxyl ions and hydrates the cells.

16) Iodine makes us smarter.

17) High doses of iodine may be used for wounds, bedsores, inflammatory and traumatic pain, and restoration of hair growth when applied topically.

18) Iodine helps in the diminishing of tissue scarring, cheloid formations, and Dupuytren’s and Peyronie’s contractures, which are hyper-scarring conditions.

19) High doses of iodine may be used to reverse certain diseases.

20) Iodine supports spiritual development.

I have always recommended liquid iodine in the form of Nascent Iodine, which I recommend for children and iodine sensitive patients who need to start at very low dosages, and Lugol’s Iodine, which has been around for almost two centuries. Solid forms are available.

I am preparing a second edition of my Iodine book for my New York publisher and it is quite a shock to re-realize how important iodine is. Perhaps will change the title to Iodine to the Rescue, or Iodine – The Most Important Medicine in the Age of Antibiotic Resistant Infections.

[1] Hodkinson CF, Simpson EE, Beattle JH, et al. Preliminary evidence of immune function modulation by thyroid hormo… J Endocrinol. 2009 Jul;202(1):55-63. doi: 10.1677/JOE-08-0488.

Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P)

Director International Medical Veritas Association

Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine

Dr. Mark Sircus

(Nod of thanks to Rose at The Con Trail )

http://thecontrail.com/group/health-and-wellbeing/forum/topics/read-every-word?xg_source=activity

 

Australia: Ban on Unvaccinated Children at Childcare Centres

‘PM Malcolm Turnbull pushes for childcare ban for unvaccinated children

Malcolm Turnbull meets with Toni McCaffery, who lost her daughter Dana in 2009 to whooping cough.Malcolm Turnbull meets with Toni McCaffery, who lost her daughter Dana in 2009 to whooping cough.

UNVACCINATED children will be banned from all childcare centres and preschools in Australia under a hard line proposal spearheaded by the federal government.

The immunisation rates of all preschools and daycare centres will be made publicly available to parents, and a loophole allowing formal objections will also be closed as part of the Turnbull government’s plan to boost vaccination rates.

In a powerful endorsement of The Sunday Telegraph’s four-year No Jab, No Play campaign, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has written to state and territory leaders demanding all jurisdictions introduce nationally consistent laws to protect Australian children, and has vowed to take the policy to the next Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/pm-malcolm-turnbull-pushes-for-childcare-ban-f…

Herd immunity used for fear and guilt

Image result for vaccinations herd immunity

 Herd immunity used for fear and guilt

Herd immunity, pop version, fraud

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2017

Hail to the herd! The herd is all!

The concept of herd immunity (protection for the population) is often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up their children for shots.

“Your unvaccinated child is a danger to my vaccinated child!”

Excuse me?

Protecting children who are already vaccinated? Really?

Little Jimmy, whose parents have decided not to vaccinate him, will pass diseases on to kids who are already vaccinated? What? Oh, you mean those immunized kids aren’t really safe? Then why did you vaccinate them in the first place?

What actually protects people against disease, or enables them to recover from disease with no lasting ill-effects, is the strength of their immune systems.

If a person has a chronically weak immune system, he will get sick again and again, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.

The health of populations has everything to do with good nutrition, adequate sanitation, and an absence of toxic elements in the environment.

There are many doctors who know this, but they refuse to speak out, because they know they’ll suffer consequences.

Vaccination, as a propaganda strategy, is used to medicalize the population—to assert that good health is fundamentally a medical matter.

It isn’t.

If tomorrow, two things happened, they would change the face of health in any industrialized country:

One, millions more people buying healthy food and/or growing their own food, in yards; and in inner cities, growing food in community gardens;

And two, the courts delivering justice in the form of billion-dollar fines and long, long prison sentences to corporate employees (including CEOs) for severe and real pollution.

Note: That justice would eliminate GMO crops which rely on toxic pesticide use.

I’m not spinning rainbows. I’m just pointing out that, with these two changes alone, hospitals and clinics and doctors’ offices would empty out, and the medical cartel would finally experience vast comeuppance.

Health and life are not medical functions.

Any science that claims they are medical functions is false science, and the people who make those claims are liars or morons or criminals, or some combination of all three.

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” (Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977)

Host resistance=strong immune system.

Go to any poverty-stricken Third World country, and you will find: contaminated water supplies, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, over- crowded living conditions, stolen farm land—and large vaccine programs. The outcome? Chronic illness.

It doesn’t matter which disease labels are placed on this illness; it persists. And it will persist until these factors are remedied.

Take a wealthy community like Beverly Hills. How many doctors would dare tell a parent, “Look, your child needs fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and he needs to stop eating junk food and playing video games ten hours a day. Until that happens, there’s nothing anyone can do for him.”

A doctor insisting on non-medical solutions? Forget it.

The basic elements that promote a healthy and strong immune system undercut vaccination and other medical interventions. People can rail against that fact; they can attack it; but they can’t change it.

Naturally strong immune system=you don’t get sick, or if you do, you recover without lasting ill-effects.

Weak immune system=you get sick from many possible causes.

So, soccer moms, try applying a little common sense and intelligence to the situation. What should you be doing to strengthen your child’s immune system, and why are you so worried that unvaccinated kids are a danger to your vaccinated child, if he is protected? Face it, you’re acting as a dupe for the gigantic socialization strategy called vaccination.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

VAXXED Under Stealth

Controversial anti-vaccine movie Vaxxed is set to premiere under stealth in New Zealand next month, prompting fears that the film could lead to more children missing out on vaccination.

Ticket buyers will only be notified of the venue by text or email three hours before its screening in a bid to foil any protests after some planned overseas screenings were halted by an outcry from the public and scientists.

The vaccine-sceptic group Warnings About Vaccine Expectations, WAVES-NZ, is selling tickets at $19.64 to see the premiere at a secret location in West Auckland on April 2.

WAVES, formerly the Immunisation Awareness Society, said: “The reason for this is that other screenings of this film overseas have been cancelled due to venues being threatened with legal action and withdrawal of sponsorship to film festivals.”

The director of Vaxxed: From cover-up to catastrophe is Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced, former British doctor struck off the medical register over an unethical study.

His 1998 research paper in The Lancet argued the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine could be linked to autism and bowel disorders. He was de-registered in 2010 when a medical tribunal found him guilty of dishonesty and said he had subjected children to unnecessary procedures.

The film's director, Andrew Wakefield, was struck off the UK medical register. Photo/AP
The film’s director, Andrew Wakefield, was struck off the UK medical register. Photo/AP

Soon after, the Lancet retracted the 1998 paper.

Read the rest….

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11811400