Search Results

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Back In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed by congress removing liability from vaccine manufacturers and health care providers. When the law was passed, there were only 7 vaccines in the recommended schedule. Vaccine injury claims were piling up and manufacturers could not keep up with the lawsuits. Due to the lawsuits, manufacturers threatened to stop producing vaccines (some halting production altogether) and health care providers threatened to stop administering them, dramatically reducing vaccination coverage in the US. With a fear of "vaccine preventable diseases" reemerging, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury was passed, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created 2 years later in 1988. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ​ (This Vaccine Info Card is Available here ) @SAFFRONJADEANDLEMONADE @SAFFRONJADEANDLEMONADE

Somavedic click image for website Use Promo Code: " HEALWITHME " for 10% off. How Somavedic works ​ Somavedic is designed on the principle of controlled release of energy from precious and semi-precious stones. Creating a coherent field covering more than 2,800+ square feet. on off Mitigating negative effects ​ Somavedic is a device that can reliably mitigate unwanted influences of: ​ EMF radiation (4G/5G, WiFi, phones) Geopathic stress, water crosses Curry and Hartmann lines Oxidative stress / Free radicals Radius of 100 feet (30m) into all directions Creates a cohoherent, life-supporting field ​ Forms a bubble, penetrates walls Green Medic Ultra Structured Water Green Medic Ultra 1/2 100% Water Harmonization ​ Somavedic structures water and changes it (in)to a mountain spring quality water that is natural to our bodies and cells. ​ Somavedic can structure (harmonize) any tap or bottled water Provides water in its most natural state, just like nature intended Harness the benefits just by placing your water jug next to Somavedic 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 Somavedic Testimonies 1 2 8 1 1/8 1 2 7 1 1/7 IGEF REPORT IPHONE TEST GREEN MEDIC ULTRA click images to view product/model info

Your Strawman straw man n. An individual who acts as a front for others who actually incur the expense and obtain the profit of a transaction. ​ "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." ​ Patrick Henry June 26, 1788 Take Back Your Strawman View Project Money vs. Currency View Project The U.S. Constitution View Project Birth Certificates View Project Lawfully Yours View Project Understanding Federal Tyranny Part 2 View Project Understanding Federal Tyranny Part 4 View Project The Two Worlds View Project The Federal Reserve View Project Bill of Rights View Project Lawful Money View Project Understanding Federal Tyranny Part 1 View Project Understanding Federal Tyranny Part 3 View Project Understanding Federal Tyranny Part 5 View Project

The Modern Forager Subscribe to our weekly newsletter on Patreon

Back Vaxxter by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, D.O.

self-sufficiency Survival Library HERE Supplementation HERE Foraging HERE Find A Spring HERE Farming HERE Gardening HERE How To Be Invisible HERE

OPERATION COV!D-19 First off, let us get this part out of the way: CDC SAYS IT DOESN'T EXIST. More on no coronavirus proven to exist via CDC: ​ Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available. ​ The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It was originally published in February, 2020, and re-published in July. ​ Buried deep in the document, on page 39 , in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [SARS-CoV-2] are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…” ​ The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [virus] are currently available…” ​ 1. No virus confirmed 2. PCR tests do not test for live infectious viruses existing in host 3. Therefore, there is absolutely no way to test for said virus 4. What does this tell you? (...that and to share TF out of this) FACE MASK EXEMPT CARD Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy Denis G. Rancourt, PhD Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca) The Hydroxychloroquine Scandal by Iain Davis, UK COLUMN Corona Crisis: An Operation for Capitalist “World Government” and Social Engineering Virutron Research Suppression of Plandemic Documentary Backfires Virutron Research Global Capitalism, “World Government” and the Corona Crisis Global Research Whistle Blower Nurse from FL shares her experience in NYC public hospital Peak Prosperity 5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells PUBMED STUDY Received May 13, 2020 – Accepted June 9, 2020 Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era May 21, 2020 Engl J Med 2020; 382:e63 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372 Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 April 16, 2020 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:1564-1567 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973 Population-level effects of suppressing fever Mar 7 2014 Royal Society B: Biological Sciences DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2570 Fever-reducing meds encourage spread of flu: McMaster report CBC News · Posted: Jan 21, 2014 7:00 PM ET | Last Updated: January 23, 2014 A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers MJ Open 2015 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577 The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence Accepted 10 October 2011. Published Online 21 December 2011. DOI:10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis CMAJ May 17, 2016 188 (8) 567-574; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150835 Protocol: Real-time RT-PCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Institut Pasteur, Paris National Reference Center for Respiratory Viruses , Institut Pasteur, Paris.

foraging

SUPPLEMENTATION by: Zach Bush, MD via ZBMD BLOG

Inner Healing + Exploring The Road Less Traveled Welcome to Saffron Jade and Lemonade, my very own passion project serving as a vessel to project my thoughts, my research, and clues in my loyal readers as to what inspires me in this world and onward. ​ Enjoy. SJ+L Jul 27, 2018 7 min Understanding The Hidden Dangers Of An Unbalanced pH: A Breakdown Humans were created with very specific systems to maintain the body's overall survival. When it comes down to the human body and the... SJ+L Jul 12, 2018 6 min How Cheating Destroys Your Mental And Physical Health What does the word "Cheat" mean to you? What five words come to mind when you sit and think of the word and its true meaning? I think of...

Organ Donation/Harvesting Horrifying Facts About Organ Donation Procedures and U.S. Laws LINKS The Inconvenient Truth About Organ Donations Execution in a New York hospital Lawsuit Against Donor Network Alleges Organs Taken From Living Patients The Beating Heart Donors Pope Francis meets a group of transplant surgeons; including the mayor of Rome Additional articles by Dr. Byrne Dead or Alive? Battle of Ideas 2012 00:00 / 01:04 Battle of Ideas 2012, 21st October, Barbican, London The Greek philosopher Epicurus said 'as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls'. No doubt it comes as certainly as we pay taxes, but are we so sure what it actually is? Can we put our finger on that dividing line between life and non-life? Seeking moral certainty about the big question is more than philosophical idling. The ethics of organ transplantation are largely based on 'brain death' - the certainty that brain activity is irreversibly over - to allow harvesting of organs from the cadaver while the heart is still beating. But, apart from divergences of scientific opinion as to just what counts as an irreversible loss of consciousness, there is considerable debate about what the ability of the body to survive such a loss might mean for the ethics of organ transplantation. There are cases, after all, in which the brain may be dead but the body survives. Some pregnant women have been declared dead by neurological criteria yet sustained the pregnancy for several weeks. Are we confident in saying that these living bodies are dead? Confident enough to harvest unpaired vital organs from them? Even to presume consent for donation in these cases? And what about cases in which medical opinion is convinced that the brain is going to die but has not yet? Might it ever be ethical to take much-needed organs in such cases or would it conflict with the requirement that doctors act only to save or at least extend life? Might it amount to a disguised form of euthanasia? Central to this issue of course is just what we mean by being human and how we value autonomy and free will. If the state presumes our consent with respect to organ donation might it simultaneously contribute to an under-valuing of our ability to make free choices and to act altruistically? Is it a way of avoiding the hard arguments necessary to convince potential donors? Might it even lead to stigmatising the choice to opt out? Much of our morality rests on a feeling that we should treat a human as an end, never as a means, certainly not as a bag of spare parts. Who is it that should pronounce on matters of life and death? Do we trust doctors enough to make the decision for us? Medical ethics boards? Public opinion? Philosophers, theologians, politicians? At just what point is it safe to say we can become a means for someone else's ends? At what point does death intervene and you end being an end? SPEAKERS: Dr Stuart Derbyshire reader in psychology, University of Birmingham; associate editor, Psychosomatic Medicine and Pain Steven Edwards professor of philosophy of healthcare, Swansea University Professor David Jones director, Anscombe Bioethics Centre; co-editor, Chimera's Children: Ethical, Philosophical and Religious Perspectives on Human-Nonhuman Experimentation Dr Sir Peter Simpson chairman, UK Donation Ethics Committee Hugh Whittall director, Nuffield Council on Bioethics Chair: Helen Birtwistle PGCE history teacher; former resources and communications manager, Debating Matters Competition FACTS ABOUT BEING AN ORGAN DONOR By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. ​ You’ve probably heard and read a great deal of positive publicity about the benefits of the organ donor program – information which is provided by those in the medical profession deeply involved in the so-called “gift of life”. But when presenting their information they deliberately leave us believing the donor is already truly dead before the organs are taken. They intentionally omit the in-depth explanation of the necessary procedure a donor must undergo WHILE STILL ALIVE. ​ ​ “BRAIN DEATH”- The new “Pretend Death” is not True Death By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. ​ Prior to 1968 a person was declared dead only after their breathing and heart stopped for a determinate period of time. The current terminology "Brain Death" was unheard of. When surgeons realized they had the capability of taking organs from one seemingly “close to death” person and implanting them into another person to keep the recipient alive longer, a "Pandora’s Box" was opened. ​ In the beginning, through trial and error, they discovered it was not possible to perform this "miraculous" surgery with organs taken from someone truly dead--even if the donor was without circulation for merely a few minutes - because organ damage occurs within a very brief time after circulation stops. ​ To justify their experimental procedures it was necessary for them to come up with a solution which is how the term "Brain Death" was contrived. To verify the determination of "brain death" they developed more than 30 different sets of criteria to declare “brain death” (DBD) published from 1968–1978. Every new set was less strict than previous sets–now there are many more. Dear reader, those criteria are flawed. ​ Recently we read and heard about the young man in Oklahoma declared "brain dead," but his cousin, a nurse, recognized response during the 4 hours of preparation to take his organs. The transplant was not done. This young man is living proof that “brain death” is not true death. If his organs had been taken, he would have been killed. ​ He even attested to being able to hear and understand what was taking place but was unable to speak in his own defense as a result of his brain injury. Most frighteningly, he could not cry out "STOP!" when it came to the harvesting of his own organs. IMPORTANT: This is not an isolated case. ​ More recently, when there is a desire to get organs while the donor still has obvious brain activity, a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) is obtained to stop the life support. When the donor is pulseless for as short as 75 seconds (but the heart is still beating) the organs are taken – this is called Donation by Cardiac Death (DCD). When a heart is taken for transplantation, after about 1 hour of operating, while the heart is beating and blood pressure and circulation are normal, the heart is stopped by the transplant surgeon. Then the surgeon lifts the heart from the donor’s chest. ORGAN REMOVAL IS PERFORMED WHILE THE PATIENT IS GIVEN ONLY A PARALYZING AGENT BUT NO ANESTHETIC! ​ REMOVAL OF THE ORGANS By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. Once DBD or DCD has been verified and permission extracted from distraught family members (in cases where relatives cannot be located the government often now makes the determination on our behalf) the "organ donor" undergoes hours, sometimes days, of torturous treatment utilized to protect and preserve the body-container of "spare parts!" The "organ donor" is forced to endure the excruciating painful and ongoing chemical treatment in preparation for organ excising. Literally the "donor" is now an organ warehouse and used for the sole purpose of organ preservation until a compatible recipient can be located. The truth of the horrific treatment and DEATH OF THE "DONOR" Organ removal is performed while the patient is given only a paralyzing agent but no anesthetic! Multi-organ excision, on the average, takes three to four hours of operating during which time the heart is beating, the blood pressure is normal and respiration is occurring albeit the patient is on a ventilator. Each organ is cut out until finally the beating heart is stopped, a moment before removal. It is well documented the heart rate and blood pressure go up when the incision is made. This is the very response the anesthesiologist often observes in everyday surgery when the anesthetic is insufficient. But, as stated above, organ donors are not anesthetized. There are growing numbers of protesters among nurses and anesthesiologists, who react strongly to the movements of the supposed "corpse." These movements are sometimes so violent it makes it impossible to continue the taking of organs. Resulting from their personal experiences and attestations, many in the medical profession have removed themselves from this program altogether and/or are having second thoughts about the donor being factually or truly dead. THE REQUEST TO FAMILY MEMBERS By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. The federal government has been deeply involved in promoting vital organ transplantation. A federal mandate issued in 1998 states that physicians, nurses, chaplains, and other health care workers may not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining approval from the regional organ retrieval system. Only a “designated requester” trained to approach family members is allowed to discuss the matter with them. Why? Because studies show that these "specialists" have greater success in obtaining permission. They are trained to "sell" the concept of organ donation, using emotionally-laden phrases such as "giving the gift of life," "your loved one’s heart will live on in someone else," and other similar platitudes - all empty of true meaning. Don’t forget that the donation and transplant industry is a multibillion dollar enterprise. In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran an informative series on this issue, but as a rule it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain solid financial data. One thing, however, is clear: donor families do not receive any monetary benefit from their "gift of life." In the midst of trauma and shock the anguishing family/loved ones of the patient are subjected to immense pressures by those seeking to obtain approval for taking the organs. Incapable of making a decision based on factual and sound information, “consent” is obtained through coercive measures. “No hope” for recovery is the first step in this process followed by the false declaration of death—“brain death.” Relatives are not only persuaded to “consent” and participate in organ donation, but also they are made to feel obligated. Fully “informed consent” is not part of the organ donation process. The truth of the death of the organ donor, the gruesome facts of which are often not learned until after the procedure has been completed, leaves family members/loved ones isolated in their guilt, pain and horror. So popularized, "the gift of life" campaign has successfully excluded these suffering in their grief and deep remorse of having been deceived. The reality of having been forced to participate in making a decision, of which they were not fully informed or physically, mentally or emotionally capable, leaves the deceased’s family with the incredible burden of having given permission for something which they accepted as only good, but discovered too late that if the donor had been truly dead the heart and liver would not have been suitable for transplantation. Some cannot be consoled and are immersed in deep depression ever seeking to escape their intense heartache as the mere thought of the tortuous death of their loved one continuously haunts them. Left in utter despair, and complete solitude and chaos, peace is not found in the death of their loved one! Few are offered the compassion and counsel necessary as "the gift of life" is not revealed for what it really is, thus no counsel is available to them. LIFE GUARDIAN FOUNDATION is an organization that began with mothers who had experienced the heartbreak of having been deceived and having lost their children. They wish to warn others by sharing their own suffering and knowledge gained thereof, offering others hope of the blessings of restored health and the continuation of life. The website is: www.thelifeguardian.org

organic gardening