The Gary Null Show Gary takes on the real issues that the mainstream media is afraid to tackle. Tune in to find out the latest about health news, healing, politics, and the economy.

March 22, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary talks about Study in mice examines impact of reused cooking oil on breast cancer progression, Red raspberry exhibits anti-metastatic properties against human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells, Black elderberry supplementation effectively treats upper respiratory symptoms: A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials, High-fructose corn syrup promotes colon tumor growth in mice, When neurons are out of shape, antidepressants may not work,

Gary plays audio clips on 

5G Is “Stupidest Idea in the History of the World”

What Every Parent Needs to Know | Jordan Peterson


March 21, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary opens up the program giving a long commentary on how to heal the body naturally. Gary also covers health topics such as Early exposure to pesticides linked to increased risk of autism spectrum disorder, Omega-3 intake may be associated with decreased asthma symptoms, Active substance from plant slows down aggressive eye cancer, Depression in 20s linked to memory loss in 50s, find Sussex psychologists, Drinking hot tea linked with elevated risk of esophageal cancer. To wrap up the program Gary takes your calls. 


Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
March 20, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary gives most of his time to talking about health issues. Some of the topics Gary talked about was A nutty solution for improving brain health, Curcumin improves muscle function and increases exercise capacity, Mindfulness could be a key to recovering from substance abuse, experts say, Meditation enhances social-emotional learning in middle school students, Short walk once-a-week can lower risk of death: study, Study: Research ties common heartburn medications to kidney disease and failure. How to treat a new rescue animal. And how LSD is bad for the brain.  

March 19, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary spends the entire show doing a investigative report on AIDS/HIV. In this episode Gary goes into his history on getting the truth out there on curing AIDS/HIV

March 18, 2019  

Why you shouldn’t trust Wikipedia: Propagandists for a Broken Establishment

By Gary Null & Helen Buyniski


Science, whether in academia or in the mainstream media, television or popular online outlets, is the rarefied domain of “experts,” we are told. To prove they are experts, the gatekeepers of the Academy present a pedigreed background, bristling with prestigious degrees, honors and awards, publication in the top journals of their field, and other trappings of success. Virtually any important topic involving medicine, healthcare, finance, even behavior is directed and codified by these preeminent spokespersons, marching in ideological lockstep. Every major medical organization from the AMA to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to the National Academy of Science to the leading scientific publications such as the Lancet and BMJ all are staffed by people who rarely if ever challenge the consensus, and virtually every one of our government agencies is likewise staffed with consensus scientists. Medical theory and practice are controlled by local and state medical boards that watch carefully to ensure that physicians are practicing “science-based medicine,” with an absolute unwavering belief that this is the only way to practice medicine.

Scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal lives or dies by reputational association. If it comes from a respected institution, it must be true. And the alternative is also true: if one day a board-certified physician in any specialty realizes that maybe his patients are not improving or recovering because there is something wrong with the standard protocols, and hypothesizes that the truth lies outside some officially accepted paradigm, the scientific powers that be shake their heads and say: what a foolish thought. There are millions of scientists working every day in private labs, government agencies, universities, and corporate research centers, dedicated not just to finding the truth but to repeating it ad nauseam, obsessively polishing it, buffing the uncertainty out – surely they can’t all be wrong. These epistemological overseers view any part of medicine outside the generally-accepted paradigm as – in the frequently-cited words of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales – the work of “lunatic charlatans.” Supporting Wales are a limited number of self-styled Skeptics who believe in an even more radical or ultra-orthodox form of “science-based medicine” than the rest of the medical establishment, many of whom have – after years in actual clinical practice, dealing with the realities of patients and disease – begun to grudgingly admit there might be something to these complementary and alternative modalities that have persisted, some of them, for thousands of years.

These Skeptics, free of intrusion from clinical reality, are the ultimate keepers of the scientific faith, guarding the gates against any heretics who question the prevailing wisdom. Hence despite the trillions of dollars flowing into the medical-industrial complex, we have no cures for major diseases from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and ALS to anxiety, depression, PTSD, to chronic heart failure, cancer, and diverticulitis. We do have treatments for everything – indeed, our life today has been pathologized so heavily that the normal behaviors of people going through life issues, behaviors like grieving and stress, are now pathology. Millions of children every day take medications, none of which are curative but all of which are to be dutifully taken in order to maintain symptoms, creating lifetime customers for the pharmaceutical industry.

There is a growing discontent among millions of parents who have obediently followed the instructions of their physicians and given their children vaccines, assuming they are safe and effective only to watch their child have an adverse reaction to the vaccines- anything from delayed learning to autism to death. At least half the people dying of cancer are dying from the treatments. People are prescribed antipsychotic medications for off-label uses who then become psychotic and commit horrific acts of violence. The majority of mass shootings are committed by individuals taking psychiatric medication. Veterans, active and retired, many of them on these same drugs, are committing suicide at a rate of 20 per day – putting a gun in their mouths and killing themselves. Almost 60,000 people died after taking the “painkiller” Vioxx – more than all American casualties in the Vietnam war, yet Medicine chose not to change its ways, no matter how horrific the casualties of the dominant paradigm. Merck, the drug’s manufacturer, merely paid a fine and moved on to the next fraud. As with any pharmaceutical company, the deaths of patients are merely the cost of doing business, collateral damage in the pursuit of the almighty bottom line. Medicine doesn’t change, it doesn’t apologize, and no one is held accountable – not the physician, nurse, pharmacist, hospital, nor the corporations profiting from this. In effect, the entire medical industrial complex has been indemnified.

It is little wonder that some individuals have finally said, “enough!” Parents are fighting back, but only after they are victimized. They begin to study and read the literature to uncover the discrepancies between CDC lies and actual scientific facts, the contradictions and counterindications. They get angry. Instead of addressing seven million parents’ grievances, the CDC and FDA and the entirety of the medical-industrial complex aided by the full weight and power of the medical media are now pushing the line that if you question vaccines, you’re now one of the most deadly threats to health on the planet – as bad as the Ebola virus. Those who have dealt with injury or loss of a child face the additional hardship of being attacked for trying to become informed and educated. Think of how Orwellian that is. The moment you become fully aware, informed, and educated on a particular subject, one of deep personal importance to you, you’re the enemy. Who better to vilify you than those self-appointed ultra-orthodox Skeptics and Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia?

Let us take a moment to bring some sanity to this discussion. If science is all we are told that it is, if every miracle drug is truly a miracle, if the cure for cancer will arise from our next tax-deductible check to the American Cancer Society, we should be able to prove their case. We have taken the time to review all of the science in “science-based medicine” to see if there are any cracks in the facade of this indomitable paradigm of healing and virtue and authority. And we are absolutely overwhelmed at how the American public has been lied to and manipulated, according to orthodox science’s own record – of lawsuits, settlements, investigations into the accuracy and legitimacy of the entire medical-industrial complex. The results – fully footnoted and sourced – are shocking. Today’s science is rife with fraud: why isn’t Wikipedia challenging it?

A scientific experiment’s status rests on whether it can be replicated. By those standards, oncology is very, very sick. A large-scale six-year undertaking by Dr. Tim Errington and the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science was unable to replicate any of the findings from three out of five seminal cancer studies. Two were inconclusive, while a third wasn’t even in the ballpark. “It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr. Errington. Given the toxicity of popular cancer treatments, these results are doubly disturbing. If the trials demonstrating chemotherapy’s effectiveness cannot be reproduced, the validity of the therapies must be reconsidered.1 Who on earth would undergo the pain and suffering of chemotherapy if they did not believe there was remission at the end of the rainbow? A 2012 examination of cancer studies published in Nature found the circumstances even direr, with only 10% of studies holding up to attempts at reproduction. The authors found the low success rate neither sustainable nor acceptable and urged researchers to do better. The Nature study cited a German study (conducted by pharmaceutical conglomerate Bayer, no less) that found only 25% of preclinical cancer trials were reproducible and noted that despite this fact, some of the drugs tested had moved on to clinical trials – meaning patients were being subjected to experimental regimes that had never been shown to be effective. The researchers pleaded for their fellow scientists to focus less on flashy results based on flawed preclinical and animal models, “poorly characterized tumor cell lines that inadequately recapitulate human disease,” and other corner-cutting and time-saving measures like artificial endpoints and criticized journal editors and grant review committees for looking for the “perfect story.”2

Because researchers depend on publication in order to obtain funding, jobs, promotions, and tenure, the incentive to fudge results is enormous; editors, then, “must allow for the presentation of imperfect stories, and recognize and reward reproducible results, so that scientists feel less pressure to tell an impossibly perfect story to advance their careers.” Once one researcher gets on the front page of Nature with a fudged study, the goalposts have been moved, and all others – even the most honest and scientifically rigorous – are now measured by those standards. Beyond those who “want to believe” – researchers with conflicts of interest testing drugs in which they’re financially invested – phony results turn even honest scientists into agents of Big Pharma.

And cancer researchers are no better than the rest of institutional science when it comes to reporting results. A STAT investigation in 2015 found that every single trial conducted by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was published late or not at all, in violation of a 2007 law mandating the speedy publication of clinical trial results. Of the 39 trials examined, two involved an experimental drug, ganetespib, that caused serious adverse effects in more than a third of study participants, with complications including bowel and colon obstructions and even death. While those results languished in publication limbo, other doctors were no doubt running their own trials without the benefit of knowledge that this drug could kill their patients before the cancer did. And Sloan Kettering is far from an exception – STAT also called out the Hoosier Cancer Research Institute, which ended a 2009 study of Avastin in breast cancer patients because of potentially life-threatening adverse effects, for its failure to report the negative results of the trial, allowing other doctors to potentially treat patients with the dangerous drug.3

With more and more attention on the prevalence of fraud in the literature on cancer treatment, we should be at the brink of a major medical paradigm shift, yet a glance at Wikipedia suggests there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo in oncology. Wikipedia’s editors spend the lion’s share of their time “debunking” “quack” cancer treatments instead of questioning the prevailing wisdom on chemo, radiation, and the rest of the “slash and burn” protocols that are at least as likely to kill patients than cure them. And oncology is just the tip of a rotten, fraudulent iceberg.

A 2016 study published in Nature found over 70% of researchers had tried and failed to reproduce experiments conducted by another scientist. Worse, half could not even reproduce their own experiments. The study’s results were no fluke – 1,576 researchers were queried about their experiences – but the cognitive dissonance revealed in their answers to the study questionnaire was illuminating. More than half (52%) agreed there was a “crisis” of reproducibility, but most still trusted the published literature over their own experiences, and less than a third (31%) believed failure to reproduce published results meant a study was wrong.4

Some researchers blame the culture of scientific research for driving scientists to publish flashy results without attempting to verify them with follow-up studies. Bristol University biological psychology professor Marcus Munafo says the emphasis on “high-risk, high-return results” nearly scared him out of science entirely when the results of his experiments didn’t square up with those in his textbook, and only later did he realize that the textbook science had been “tidied up” to look more impressive. Published literature “promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about,” according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of Cambridge University’s Sainsbury Laboratory, who stresses it’s less about fraud than it is about trying to excite and impress – other scientists, peer-reviewed journals, and grant-giving institutions.5

An (ironically unpublished) study conducted by the American Society for Cell Biology found at least two-thirds of survey respondents had been unable to reproduce results they had published, while even pharmaceutical companies’ own researchers admit that less than a quarter of prominent papers are reproducible, according to Nature, one of the publications which has been the loudest in demanding scientific reform. “There is a very real temptation to ignore a result that does not conform to our preconceptions, or to recast it so that it does. Data-dredging is used to find statistically significant results that justify a publication,” Begley write. Worse, institutional pressure to publish shoddy science can push jerry-rigged data into print: a third of trainees at the MD Anderson Cancer Center said they felt pressure to “prove a mentor’s hypothesis” despite data that did not agree, while a fifth had published their own results despite doubt, often because their course of study required the publication of a “high-impact paper.”6 Becoming a true believer is thus a survival mechanism, allowing the fledgling scientist to reimagine the time and money wasted pursuing a pharmaceutical dead end as worthy causes. Researchers capable of making silk purses from the sows’ ears of dud experiments win the day, while “the core instinct of science – skepticism – is punished by the current system.”

The same Nature study that found scientists trusted the published literature even while admitting there was a crisis of reproducibility also found that there were few incentives to publish replications of previous researchers’ studies – whether successful or not. Some even reported that they were only able to publish their failed replication after “playing down comparisons” with the study they had tried to replicate. While only 13% had ever published an unsuccessful reproduction, only 10% had ever been rejected from doing so – meaning most had simply never tried. Reproducing studies is expensive and time-consuming, but as it becomes clear that a large body of science is simply not reproducible, it becomes equally clear that even more unreproducible science has merely flown under the radar.

A study conducted the following year focusing on social science studies published in Nature and Science from 2010 to 2015 found suspect results were rampant. One third of the 21 studies examined could not be reproduced at all, and those effects they could replicate were only about half as strong as in the original studies. This study, it should be noted, was conducted with the full cooperation of the original researchers – a favorable condition most experimenters attempting to reproduce results do not have – and clearly represents the best of all possible scientific worlds.7A 2015 study in Science focusing on psychological studies turned up a similarly dismal rate of one-third to one-half of findings that were reproducible, but found the highest single predictor of reproducibility was strength of original results.8 Essentially, if the original study showed borderline-significant results, it was much less likely to be confirmed in a repeat study.

And these are merely the honest mistakes. Conflicts of interest further complicate the matter. Big Pharma has largely taken up the slack every time the National Institute of Health’s budget is cut, and by 2014, pharmaceutical companies were paying for six trials for every one funded by the NIH. A University of Sydney study confirmed last year what everyone has long suspected: pharmaceutical companies prioritize “lines of inquiry that focus on products, processes or activities that can be commercialized and marketed” over methods of healing that don’t present an easy profit opportunity.9 Pharmaceutical firms will not fund research into the benefits of deep breathing, or the curative properties of high-dose vitamin C, because they can’t cash in. They will fund novel ways to profit off existing drugs – former NEJM editor Marcia Angell revealed in 2009 that only 11% of the 667 drugs approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2007 represented innovations or even improvements on existing treatments, while a full three-quarters represented old wine in new bottles – off-patent or soon-to-expire drugs subjected to molecular tweaks allowing a company to file for another patent.10 They will help trials along every step of the way, taking care that their money is spent wisely – it costs as much as $2 billion to develop a new drug, according to DrugWatch. A Washington Post review analyzed a year’s worth of studies on new drugs published in the NEJM, finding of 73 studies, 60 were funded by a pharmaceutical company, 50 included authors who were drug company employees, and 37 lead researchers had accepted drug company money.11

Because so much of what passes for medical orthodoxy today is based on low-quality evidence in which the drug is only marginally superior to a placebo, it’s very likely the clinical trials used to approve that drug are not themselves reproducible at all. Since we know that as many as half of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health never make it to publication,12 and that negative results are less likely to be published than positive results,13 we can be sure the studies hailed as “proof” of the drug’s efficacy were cherry-picked from a slew of less favorable results, especially with pharmaceutical companies themselves funding an ever-larger portion of clinical trials. Findings of adverse effects, particularly serious ones, often escape publication entirely,14while the weak positive findings, no matter how dubious, are stretched even further to maximize prescribing possibilities. A 2008 study of antidepressant drug trials confirmed that the SSRI paradigm – which frames depression as a neurochemical imbalance – is built on just such a fraudulent foundation. The drug companies published 97% of positive studies, while just 39% of “questionable” or “negative” results ever saw the light of day, and a third of those were spun to make the results appear positive. Because of this distortion, the effect size of the positive studies appeared almost a third larger than the data actually showed, and any clinician consulting the literature would be unable to accurately evaluate the drugs’ risk-benefit profile without data on side effects.15 This was GlaxoSmithKline’s modus operandi in selling its antidepressant Paxil, which was never approved for treatment of teenagers and which demonstrated an increased likelihood of suicidality in depressed patients during clinical trials. This alarming adverse effect was swept under the rug, Paxil was marketed off-label to millions of doctors illegally for prescriptions to teens who became suicidal or psychotic and died. Glaxo eventually pleaded guilty to criminal and civil fraud charges and paid $3 billion in what was then the largest fraud payout ever by a drug company, agreeing to place a “black box warning” on their prescribing labels.16 An effort to reproduce the clinical trials that had led to the approval of Paxil not only found no clinically significant effectiveness versus placebo, but turned up significant increases in suicidal ideation and behavior among the test population. This is a drug that should never have gone to market.17 But $3 billion is nothing next to the $25 billion GSK made in profits through the illegal sales of those drugs.18

John Ioannidis famously made the case in a 2005 paper that most published scientific findings are false. The overwhelming bias against publishing negative results favors the one study that claims Paxil is manna from heaven for depressives over the 19 that claim it leaves patients worse than it found them, and drug marketers do the rest. Ioannidis even stated “The greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.” If most studies do indeed measure science’s prevailing bias rather than the facts, it’s no surprise that these journals keep toeing the party line – they have no choice.19 All researchers want results they can publish – and negative results are the second-class citizens of the experimental world. If they do manage to see the light of day, it’s often in journals set up by well-meaning publishers to solve the reproducibility problem that instead end up ghettoizing it. Negativland, Positively Negative – cutesy names aside, publishing in these does not carry the same promise of prestige that a BMJ or a National Academy of Sciences offers.20 Pharmaceutical companies have “bought” senior doctors, institutions, and universities, according to the University of Copenhagen’s Peter Gotzsche, who likens the industry to organized crime; with this power, they dictate where the lines are drawn that scientific research is then forced to color between.21

The stubborn persistence of this phenomenon despite legal and institutional remedies indicates that it goes much deeper than the defenders of orthodox medicine would like to believe. In 2007, the FDA Amendments Act required that “applicable clinical trials” register and report their results within a year of the trial’s completion on, with a penalty of $10,000 per day if researchers failed to report. Yet the FDA rarely levies these fines, with both sides preferring to merely ignore the law. STAT conducted an investigation in 2015 that found 74% of industry trials were reported late or not at all. For academic institutions, fully 90% were late or not reported. Had the FDA chosen to collect the daily fines starting in 2008, it would have been $25 billion richer by the time STAT’s study was published.22 But it’s no surprise that individual institutions don’t follow the law, because neither does the National Institutes of Health itself. STAT found just 38% of the NIH’s own scientists reported results within the legal deadline in 2013. If those who set the rules do not follow them, they can hardly expect anyone else to do so. NIH’s casual disregard for the rules draws curious parallels with both the behavior of pharmaceutical companies – caught time and time again pushing drugs off-label and covering up adverse effects, paying massive fines dwarfed only by their massive profits – and even Wikipedia’s administrators, who stringently enforce the rules against “newbies” while violating them at every turn when it permits them to push their own religion of science-dogma.

As Ioannidis points out, much of fake science merely reinforces existing scientific dogma. A self-sustaining feedback loop is set up that does not permit dissenting views to interfere with its groupthink. But the danger of believing in propaganda over checking one’s own work is that shoddy and corrupt consensus science can become law, as is happening with vaccines all over America. Parents – seven million with vaccine-damaged children – are told to trust pharmaceutical companies with truly egregious track records over their own experiences. Unlike the scientists in the Nature study who believe what’s published in scientific journals over the results of their own experiments, however, these parents cannot merely close the cover on an autistic or otherwise brain-damaged child.

Merck, makers of the MMR vaccine (which, as mainstream media has tirelessly reminded us since Andrew Wakefield published the study that ended his career, is perfectly safe), was sued by two former employees who claim the company faked the efficacy tests for the vaccine. Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski blew the whistle on their former employer in August 2010, alleging that not only was Merck aware that the vaccine was less than the purported 95% effective, but that it manipulated test results by using the vaccine strain of the measles virus, adding rabbit antibodies to the blood to increase the apparent effectiveness, and fudging pre-vaccine blood data. Not only did Merck defraud the US government – which purchases more than 50% of all MMR doses sold – it also threatened the two scientists with jail time if they told the FDA about the fraud taking place in the company’s labs.23 Merck’s subpar MMR vaccine, they said, used the faked stats to pass off a low-efficacy, much-degraded mumps vaccine as one that was 95% effective. The failure of this vaccine to confer immunity at all – let alone herd immunity – is believed to have resulted in outbreaks starting 20 years ago in the UK and Europe – yet it’s not vaccinating that is presumed to be the cause of the current measles clusters in the US!

Two more class action lawsuits hit Merck in 2012 over its complete control of the MMR market, alleging the pharma giant violated state laws and the Sherman Antitrust Act with monopolistic and anti-competitive practices. Merck’s lies about the 95% effectiveness of its vaccine “deterred and excluded competing manufacturers,” according to one suit which pointed out that had another company known there was a market for an effective mumps vaccine, it would have been willing to sink research funds into developing one. Because Merck is the only company licensed to sell the MMR vaccine, it is critical to maintain the illusion of 95% efficacy, lest a competitor be permitted to enter the market. The other suit alleges that by selling an ineffective vaccine to the government and other purchasers and calling it a 95% effective vaccine, Merck violated the False Claims Act. Merck has since stonewalled and obfuscated at every turn, refusing to show efficacy data yet claiming efficacy as a defense.24 In recent years, it has simply lobbied for the shot to be made mandatory, with no religious or philosophical (such as the philosophy of “I refuse to have my child injected with a vaccine that doesn’t actually vaccinate against the stated disease”) exemptions, ignore all data that does not fit its wholly false narrative, and hope the plaintiffs run out of money first. Sadly, this is usually a winning strategy for Big Pharma. It’s not called “small” pharma, after all.

This year, the Danish Cohort Study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, purporting to vindicate the beleaguered MMR vaccine once and for all. Dr. Brian Hooker, who exposed the CDC’s cover-up of the 2003 Verstraeten study, carefully dissected this piece of unscientific fraud, showing that it proves nothing except that scientists will publish whatever a pharmaceutical company pays them to. Statistical anomalies are apparent from the beginning – the study ostensibly used Denmark’s population registries to examine children born in Denmark to Danish mothers, yet the autism rate in the sample population was significantly lower than the autism rate of the Danish population – meaning the researchers made some 4,400 autistic children disappear, presumably because their presence pointed toward a conclusion they’d already ruled out. Nearly a third of the children they did include were too young to receive an autism diagnosis, further biasing the results in favor of the vaccine, and children with genetic factors predisposing them to autism were included in the sample. The researchers used two different vaccines, typically given at two different ages, meaning half the children only received one shot before the typical age at which autism is diagnosed – and to further confuse matters, children diagnosed as autistic shortly after receiving their shots were given more statistical weight than those with delayed diagnosis, even though age of diagnosis varies wildly depending not only on severity but on socioeconomic status, environment, other health conditions, and myriad other factors.25

Perhaps most importantly, the authors did not disclose their flaming conflicts of interest. Two of the three researchers are employed by vaccine manufacturer Statens Serum Institut, and the study itself was funded by Novo Nordisk, a multinational pharmaceutical firm.26 Lead author Anders Hviid also co-authored a 2002 MMR-autism paper that never even passed its ethics review, an “oversight” the CDC helped cover up.27

A few tenacious editors have pointed out to Wikipedia that the results of clinical trials are often contradictory, and that it’s almost always possible to find a result to back up one’s personal beliefs, especially if they align with a drug company’s star product. As a result, editors imposed a higher burden of proof on medical articles, mandating information must come from reviews such as Cochrane or medical textbooks – mere journal articles are not enough. A review of flawed studies necessarily yields flawed results, but using second-order articles would appear on the surface to be a useful bulwark against fraud. Skeptics, however, merely tag articles they consider scientifically impure as “FRINGE,” and they are exempted from these “MEDRS” (medical reliable sources) guidelines. “FRINGE” is Wikipedia’s scarlet letter, applied accusingly to complementary and alternative medical treatments and their practitioners alike, serving as a beacon for Skeptics wishing to make a name for themselves by tearing apart the life’s work of healers and counselors who’ve helped millions – and ensuring millions more are never helped. MEDRS might force Wikipedia to admit that taking vitamin C increases the odds of survival in breast cancer patients, but it does not prevent Wikipedia from claiming the very notion of “Big Pharma” itself is a conspiracy theory – that anyone criticizing the reckless behavior of multinational drug companies is being “cynical and intellectually lazy” – and attributing this “fact” to the personal blog of one of the leading “Skeptics,” which is considered a reliable-enough source when compared to those “lunatic charlatans” who promote complementary and alternative medicine.

This term – “lunatic charlatans” – has become Wikipedia’s equivalent of the McCarthy-era smear of “communist sympathizer.” When Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales and his merry band of Skeptics attack with all the zeal and zealotry of a troop of medieval witch-hunters, they see no irony whatsoever in the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the scientific findings they have embraced as gospel. Researchers like Ioannidis are true skeptics, questioning the preconceived notions of pharmaceutically-driven science with the goal of improving the discipline – but Skeptics have nothing in common with their lower-case counterparts. Question received wisdom – on vaccines, for example – and you are immediately excommunicated from public discourse.

So, who do we believe? A growing body of independent scientific research showing all vaccines are inherently unsafe, in the words of the Supreme Court? Seven million parents of vaccine-damaged kids? Or the pharmaceutical industry, which buys science tailor-made to fit its specifications and leaves a trail of bodies in its wake? Big Pharma, including those companies that manufacture vaccines, is perfectly pathological in its capacity to lie, deceive and manipulate for profit. If patients die or are sickened, it’s merely the cost of doing business. What have we become when we’re this mercenary, this predatory? We can choose to believe physicians and clinicians who’ve spent thousands of hours researching the literature, working with patients, and sorting the good science from the bad. Or we can choose to believe a layperson with no background in medicine who shoots portraits for JC Penney, a surgical oncologist who has no clinical experience outside his very narrow specialty, or Jimmy Wales himself, who has no scientific or medical background at all yet feels qualified to judge and dismiss entire fields of study and healing as so much quackery. With the crusader’s zeal, Wales and his spiritual children sally forth to cleanse the kingdom of Wikipedia of the pharmaceutical infidels – those who do not believe in a pill for every ill, who hold patients above profits, who still believe in the Hippocratic oath.

Ultimately, the result of their scorched-earth propaganda campaign is that millions of people in the scientific and medical community are being exploited and lied to, year in and year out, all for financial and personal gain. This is not something new. The next time Wikipedia’s editors demand your trust, insisting they have the light of scientific progress on their side, remember how much of official science has been corrupted. Scientific publications, to their credit, are beginning to address the problem. Wikipedia is not.




1 Feilden, Tom. Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers.’ BBC. 22 Feb 2017.

2 Begley, CG & LM Ellis. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 28 Mar 2012.

3 Piller, Charles. Failure to report: A STAT investigation of clinical trials reporting. STAT. 13 Dec 2015.

4 Baker, Monya. 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 25 May 2016.

5 Feilden, op.cit.

6 Begley, CG Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature. 1 Sep 2015.

7 Camerer, CF Evaluating then replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature: Human Behavior. Sep 2018:2;637-644.

8 Aarts, AA Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 28 Aug 2015:349(6251):aac4716.

9 Pash, Chris and Ruqayyah Moynihan. Big pharma really does prioritize funding for profitable research over public health, a new study shows. Business Insider Australia. 27 Sep 2018.

10 Hodgekiss, Anna and Ben Spencer. How Big Pharma greed is killing tens of thousands around the world: Patients are over-medicated and often given profitable drugs with ‘little proven benefits,’ leading doctors warn. Daily Mail. 23 Feb 2016.

11 Llamas, Michelle. Big Pharma’s role in clinical trials. DrugWatch. 19 Apr 2018.

12 Ross, JS Publication of NIH funded trials registered in cross sectional analysis. BMJ 2012;344:d7292.  

13 Ioannidis, JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS One Med. 30 Aug 2005.

14 Riveros, C Timing and completeness of trials results posted at and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013 Dec:10(12):e1001566.

15 Turner, EH Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine. 17 Jan 2008;358:252-260.

16 Office of Public Affairs. GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data. Department of Justice. 2 Jul 2012.

17 Le Noury, Joanna Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. BMJ 2015;351:h4320.

18 Hodgekiss, op.cit.

19 Ioannidis, op.cit.

20 Mudrak, Ben. Negative Results: The Dark Matter of Research. American Journal Experts. Retrieved 12 Mar 2019.

21 Callaghan, Heather. Dr Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma As Organized Crime. Natural Blaze. 23 May 2017.

22 Piller, op.cit.

23 Sharav, Vera. Former Merck Scientists Sue Merck Alleging MMR Vaccine Efficacy Fraud. Alliance for Human Research Protection. 5 Mar 2016.

24 ibid.

25 Hooker, Brian S. A Scientist’s Rebuttal to the Danish Cohort Study. Focus for Health. 13 Mar 2019.

26 Hviid, Anders Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. 5 Mar 2019.

27 Clay, Beth. Poul Thorsen, Fugitive Researcher. World Mercury Project. Aug 2017.

March 15, 2019  

The self-assembling computer chips of the future | Karl Skjonnemand

The transistors that power the phone in your pocket are unimaginably small: you can fit more than 3,000 of them across the width of a human hair. But to keep up with innovations in fields like facial recognition and augmented reality, we need to pack even more computing power into our computer chips -- and we're running out of space. In this forward-thinking talk, technology developer Karl Skjonnemand introduces a radically new way to create chips. "This could be the dawn of a new era of molecular manufacturing," Skjonnemand says.
March 14, 2019  


Time for coastal residents to start retreating from the ocean -- The Threats of sea level rise

Prof. Orrin Pilkey is Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at Duke University and the Founding Director Emeritus of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at the university's Nicholas School of the Environment, where he has been teaching since 1965. Prof Pilkey is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts in coastal geology, barrier islands, ocean levels, and beach loss and replenishment.  He has received numerous awards including the Francis Shepard Medal for Excellence in Marine Geology and the Priestly Award.  Prof. Pilkey has published over 250 technical publications and a dozen books. His most recent include "Retreat from a Rising Sea: Hard Choices in an Age of Climate Change," "Lessons from the Sand," and "The Last Beach." Former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, called Orrin's earlier book "The Rising Sea" “a must read for all Americans.”  And his articles can be read at

March 13, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary takes on questions about What are the best vegan proteins to digest. Gary also takes a call on how to keep the prostate healthy and prevent it from getting inflamed. Other health topics Gary overs are Eating mushrooms may reduce the risk of cognitive decline, Study concludes that the giant-leaved fig reduces oxidative stress in the liver, Experiences of nature boost children's learning, Red ginseng is a natural cure for acne. In the second half of the show Gary also plays an audio clip on Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation. To wrap up the program Gary speaks with Luann and Richard Gale. 

March 12, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. In this episode Gary takes on questions about What is the best type of vegan cheese. In the health and healing segment of the show Gary talks about Olive oil may help maintain normal blood viscosity, Study reveals that pesticides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease, Can yoga help those experiencing depression, anxiety or PTSD?, Gut bacteria compound may be a key component for fighting Type 2 diabetes. To wrap up the program Gary speaks on a commentary from Clifton Mark on A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you. 


For more information, please email Luanne at or call 903-881-7008

 Location: Mineola, Texas

The Villa: Holistic Health and Wellness Retreat with Gary Null, Ph.D. and Luanne Pennesi, RN, MS 

Live a Happier, Longer Life!


Join US for a week that could change your life... cleanse, de-stress, rejuvenate! 

Personal health & life-issue counseling, gourmet vegan meals, juicing all day long, meditation, yoga, classes including cooking, sprouting, exercise, meditation, homesteading; nothing like it anywhere!

March 11, 2019  

All across the media -- newspapers, television and radio broadcasts, leading journals and magazines – a unified voice has declared that vaccines do not cause autism and debilitating neurological disorders, and unvaccinated individuals -- especially parents -- are to blame for recent infectious disease outbreaks. There is no discourse, no debate, on the truth of these proclamations. There is only dogmatic certainty and accusation. This does not surprise us. Orwell wrote, "Intellectual honesty is a crime in any totalitarian country." And for decades our federal health agencies have been compromised by private interests and bereft of any integrity.

The plan to end individual freedom regarding medical choice has been in the works for a long time, with the ultimate goal of driving the last nail into the coffin of those who question government’s word. It is also an attempt to silence the seven million parents with vaccine-damaged children. The World Health Organization lists people who question universal vaccination among the ten greatest threats to the planet, along with climate change, HIV, dengue and ebola.[26] The message is resoundingly clear, "Shut up and get vaccinated." It will only be a matter of time before the federal health agencies' self-appointed dominion over human rights expands to mandating psychiatric drugs for make-believe behavior problems and outlawing non-conventional medical practices. It is not outside the realm of possibility to foresee the arrests of parents who delay or avoid vaccinating their children.
The WHO, of course, is a notoriously scandal-plagued organization, spending more on travel expenses for its executives than it does on public health. A 2017 Associated Press exposé found the organization spent over $200 million per year on travel expenses, more than it spends to fight malaria ($61 million), tuberculosis ($59 million), and AIDS and hepatitis ($71 million) combined. Senior executives get first-class airfare and luxurious five-star accommodations funded by the taxpayers of its 194 member countries – of which the US contributes the most ( Other health organizations ban their members from flying first- or even business-class, reasoning that their budgets are better spent on actually treating disease. The WHO regularly bars media from its ostensibly transparent meetings. Journalists were hauled bodily out of the last two biennial meetings of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which sets tobacco policy for about 90 percent of the population of the world, leaving bruises on one American journalist who merely wanted to cover the theoretically public proceedings. After being manhandled out of the convention by half a dozen burly security guards, journalist Drew Johnson spoke to a delegate who admitted, “We don’t want people to know what we’re doing.” ( The WHO also maintains a blacklist of journalists who are critical of its policies. A journalist who had harsh words for the agency’s bungling of the 2014 West African ebola epidemic was frozen out by contacts she had interviewed in the past and dropped from the WHO’s ebola email update list. An independent panel of health experts concluded that the WHO’s slow response to that epidemic, waiting more than three months to respond and using resources poorly when it did, contributed to an explosive increase in deaths and suffering. Meanwhile, an internal audit conducted in May 2016 found fraud, corruption, and sexual harassment were rampant throughout the WHO. This is not an organization from which Americans should be taking their moral direction, but it is part and parcel of a secretive, top-down structure of pharmaceutical totalitarianism that holds itself outside accountability while caring only for its bottom line. (

It is clear that a program is underway, orchestrated at the highest echelons of government in collaboration with the private pharmaceutical industry, to institutionalize nationwide vaccination mandates for all infants, children, and now adults. Representative Adam Schiff has led the congressional coercion of private companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest and others to unilaterally censor personal and organizational websites, public advocacy health sites, publications and books that question the gospel of vaccine safety. Having written numerous vaccine articles during the past dozen years, we are finding it far more difficult to research content that questions the vaccine paradigm. Bills are appearing rapidly across state legislatures that will make personal religious and philosophical exemptions impossible. Only those who can prove sound medical reasons not to be vaccinated would be exempted. This is especially worrisome because vaccinology has been unable to prove categorically that vaccines are safe and effective in every case. Consequently, federal health officials want to impose on the nation a dangerous and scientifically-unfounded one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule contrary to volumes of evidence that vaccine safety is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The fact of the matter is that vaccinology is not a closed science. There remains much that immunologists do not understand about the body's biomolecular and genetic responses to vaccines’ viral components and their growing number of toxic ingredients. The height of medical hubris is when federal health agencies declare that vaccine safety is a closed matter and there is no reason to dig any deeper. Last year, the media pumped out headlines about the nation's rising autism rates accompanied with the sub-message that experts do not know exactly why this crisis is taking place. The truth is that our health officials have shown they are seriously disinterested in discovering autism's causal factors. They are deeply worried about what they will uncover. Or perhaps it is more likely, based upon numerous internal documents and Congressional hearings that the health agencies are completely certain about the causes but must cover it up to avoid a public outcry and retaliation.

Somewhere along the course of the vicious debates between staunch vaccine advocates and those who pose serious scientific questions about vaccine safety, vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs entered separate worlds of their own. Few people question conventional pharmaceutical drugs' serious adverse effects, including life-long disabilities and death. Most people today have witnessed the debilitating effects that prescription medications have had on their loved ones, whether an aging parent, a child, or even themselves, during their own medical treatment for a serious health condition. In 2016, over 63,600 people died from prescription drug poisoning, including legal opioids.[19] Moreover, physicians are more willing to caution patients about drugs' adverse effects and will often instruct patients how to detect adverse effects that might be caused by their medications. But the administration of vaccines occupies a different universe. The average American does not regard vaccines as drugs. Consequently, the doctor-patient discourse about vaccine safety is distinct and shamefully misinformed.

Vaccines are drugs. Although they are biologic, meaning they are based upon viral or bacterial organisms as primary active components, they contain many other registered and monitored substances. And like every drug, every vaccine has its warnings and observed adverse effects. Before the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently discontinued drug classifications for prescribing drugs to pregnant women, almost every vaccine was classified as a Category C drug.[17] This means that no vaccine has been studied in pregnant women to determine whether it is safe for the fetus, and animal studies have shown the vaccine caused problems in the offspring. In fact, the TDaP and influenza vaccines were licensed without any supporting studies conducted to determine whether these vaccines' inflammatory and biological responses might affect childbirth.[15] And today, the CDC recommends that both these vaccines be given to pregnant women.

When we are told how, before the advent of the modern vaccine era, mortality rates from infectious disease were much higher than today, and that the decline in such deaths is due to the vaccine miracle, we are being fed a myth. Certainly before the advances in hygiene, improved working and living conditions, the discovery of antibiotics, sterilization, water purification, etc, children were unprotected from the scourges of smallpox, scarlet fever, polio, measles and rubella, and pertussis. In the 19th century, pandemics ravaged populations. But vaccines did little to reduce infectious disease mortality rates. Scarlet fever, which at one time was killing more people than smallpox, largely disappeared because of public health measures to increase sanitation. Government mortality records for the past 150 years in both the US and UK show that the most dangerous infectious diseases were already approaching a zero death rate before their vaccines were unleashed on the public. When the measles vaccine was first launched in 1962, the death rate from measles infection was 1 in 500,000. But the official narrative glosses over these facts.
Instead, today's vaccine cartel employs complicated mathematical formulas and tosses out misleading numbers with no relevance to historical reality in order to persuade us that vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives.

We must acknowledge that all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”: this was a 2011 Supreme Court ruling in the Bruesewitz versus Wyeth case.[6] Therefore, all vaccines on the market are categorically unsafe. Perhaps in some distant future a vaccine will be developed to effectively and safely immunize against an infectious disease without any adverse effects or other pitfalls. So far, such a vaccine does not exist. Therefore, conscientious efforts to adhere to the Precautionary Principle -- adopted by the United Nations in 1992 -- and vigilant and consistent evaluation and reevaluation of the risks and benefits of vaccination is both essential and a human right that the US government should encourage, protect, and uphold.

If we accept the Supreme Court decision that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” then the question becomes: how unsafe are they? We possess an enormous body of yet to be challenged research, clinical trials, case examples of severe vaccine injury, and court compensations paid out to families with vaccine-injured children - enough to conclude that vaccine development has a long way to go before a medically-proven safe vaccine is available. Unfortunately, it is our opinion that this research is being completely ignored and irresponsibly refuted by the CDC and its rabid supporters, the proponents of mass vaccination.

During the early 1980s, why did the pharmaceutical companies, at least those that remained in the vaccine business, go to Washington and demand government assistance in order to continue manufacturing vaccines? Before President Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NVIC) in 1986, only a handful of companies continued to manufacture and sell vaccines. Many pharmaceutical companies got out of the business altogether because of the high rates of vaccine-related medical complications and deaths. Vaccine makers were so burdened with lawsuits that it was no longer a profitable product to pursue.

The whole-cell pertussis vaccine, which was included in the early DTP shot, was a particularly horrendous vaccine associated with serious neurological consequences. Even today, most vaccine proponents acknowledge this. A 2003 paper submitted to the Committee on the Evaluation of Vaccine Purchase Financing noted that scientists were voicing their concerns about this vaccine back in the 30s and 40s.[1] By the 1970s, other nations, notably Japan, Germany and the UK, either discontinued offering the vaccine or eased off its administration. No such efforts were made in the US, and vaccine injuries continued to increase, along with scores of lawsuits by parents of severely damaged children. By the time Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, only one company, Lederle, continued to manufacture the DTP vaccine.

Faced with such steep financial risk, pharmaceutical companies threatened to exit the vaccine market unless their products received government protection from lawsuits. The government capitulated and Reagan signed a bill that relieved the pharmaceutical industry of any liability for injury or deaths due to vaccination. The subsequent no-fault compensation program opened the floodgates for old and new drug and biotech companies to enter the market and new vaccines have been on the rise ever since.

The NCVI Act enabled the vaccine industry to take control of the CDC. It inaugurated a gold rush, allowing new and largely experimental vaccines laden with highly toxic mercury preservatives and aluminum adjuvants to pour into the market. The National Vaccine Information Center's co-founder Barbara Loe Fisher has called the federal program “a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”[24] In addition, there was no incentive to be ethically responsible and cautious about vaccine safety. The Act, couple with increasing FDA loopholes in drug and vaccine licensing procedures, basically streamlined vaccines’ path to market. Reagan's bill thus paved the way for a national catastrophe. When the Act was signed, autism rates were 1 in 2500. During the following ten-year period, the rate tripled. It continues to rise, and today stands at 1 in 36 - 1 in 28 for boys.

An even darker side to the story unfolded when the CDC discovered vaccines were definitively among the causal agents behind the autism epidemic – and covered up that fact. The secret Simpsonwood meeting held at a secluded retreat center near the CDC's headquarters in Atlanta has been thoroughly exposed by vaccination watch organizations and public health advocates. During a recent interview with Robert F Kennedy Jr, the attorney responsible for uncovering the Simpsonwood gathering and acquiring the meeting's transcripts, further details from his ongoing investigations and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) submissions were provided.[16]

In the late 1990s, the CDC's Dr. Tom Verstraeten conducted research to determine whether or not vaccines were contributing to the rising autism epidemic. One of the mostly candidates was the Hepatitis B vaccine routinely injected into infants immediately after birth, and the vaccine ingredient most likely to be the culprit was ethyl-mercury or thimerosal, which was then used as a preservative in most vaccines. Relying upon databases of vaccination records for 144,000 children, Verstraeten and his co-researcher compared autism rates among vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids. They discovered an 11.9 percent increased risk for the Hepatitis B vaccine alone. Kennedy remarked that there is only a 10 percent risk of getting cancer from smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years. Therefore, the Hepatitis B vaccine, which at the time contained thimerosal, was more toxic than smoking. After subjecting the data to a series of statistical manipulations to reduce the study's alarming positive results, the CDC scientists were still unable to bring the risk below 2.5 percent. Seized with panic, they convened a secret emergency meeting, bringing together executives, high-ranking officials and scientists from the US and British health agencies, the WHO and private vaccine manufacturers. During the discussions weighing whether to go public with the CDC's findings – which showed that vaccines were certainly contributing to rising autism rates -- participants resolved to conceal the results from the public. The entire vaccine industry would have been jeopardized if the truth were revealed to the American people. It was therefore crucial that new studies be performed that would conclude vaccines were perfectly safe and that there was no need to worry about vaccines causing autism. Meanwhile, the CDC would fudge the research's methodology, data and interpretation of results to show no correlation.

According to Kennedy, CDC executives, determined that the US was not the ideal country to conduct further thimerosal research to negate a vaccine-autism link. It was critical to get their research peer-reviewed and published in the most prestigious medical journals. Therefore, Denmark was selected as the location for the studies. Unlike the approved vaccines on the US childhood vaccination schedule, the Danes were administering fewer vaccines with less or no thimerosal -- hence less mercury bio-burden. The CDC recruited and funded a shady medical operative to oversee the Danish research and assure that the results would please his masters in the US government. Dr. Poul Thorsen, who served as the CDC's chief coordinator for the Danish study, took advantage of flaws in Denmark's national registry for infectious diseases and autism patients. His subsequent studies, comprised of largely manufactured data, were eventually published in leading peer-reviewed medical journals and made the claim that thimerosal did not contribute to autism and other neurological disorders. Today it is common knowledge among vaccine opponents that Dr. Thorsen was later indicted on 22 counts of fraud and money laundering involving over $1 million earmarked for autism research under CDC grants. He was subsequently listed on the FBI's most-wanted list. However, the CDC blocked efforts to extradite Thorsen back to the US to stand trial, and he was able to continue to live lavishly in Denmark with his girlfriend, a former CDC employee.

While Thorsen and his Danish colleagues at Aarhus University were conducting junk science to exonerate thimerosal, back in the US, the CDC began studies to try to absolve the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine from any association with neurodegenerative conditions leading to autism. The MMR vaccine does not contain thimerosal but relies upon a neuro-toxic aluminum compound adjuvant to trigger an immunogenic response. Earlier, Dr. Andrew Wakefield at the British Royal Hospital had uncovered a link between the MMR vaccine's measles virus and the onset of gastrointestinal inflammation commonly found in autistic children. To this day, the mantra repeated by the CDC and media has been that Wakefield's "discredited" research has contributed to low MMR compliance rates. Vaccine advocates unceasingly target Wakefield as Public Enemy Number One for fueling the anti-vaccine movement and the rise in families delaying or avoiding vaccinating their children. But this is a flagrant lie. The CDC's own statistics reveal that Wakefield's study published in The Lancet barely made a dent in American MMR compliance. As the chart below shows, the average MMR compliance rate before Wakefield's paper was 89.6 percent. Compliance dropped to 86 percent when the paper appeared in 1998 but then rose to 92 percent the following year. Compliance has remained relatively stable above 91 percent ever since. In fact, Wakefield's paper did absolutely nothing to deter MMR compliance.


Dr. William Thompson, who later became a distinguished senior scientist at the CDC, participated in the CDC's MMR studies and assisted in obscuring evidence showing a direct correlation between the vaccine and childhood autism. Upon turning whistleblower, Dr. Thompson released confidential CDC documents, including copies of shredded originals, to Congressman William Posey and biology professor Brian Hooker proving CDC malfeasance. In this treasure trove of criminal activity at the highest levels of the CDC, we discover that the CDC had known for over a decade that when the MMR vaccine was administered at 36 months according to the CDC vaccination schedule, there was a 300 percent increase in childhood autistic regression among African American boys. Nevertheless, through the CDC's statistical and methodological trickery, the data was manipulated to hide the relationship.

Dr. Thompson is not the only scientist and high federal health official to come clean about a vaccine-autism link. Over a decade ago, the late and former director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernardine Healy, told journalist Sharyl Attkisson that she completely denied any vaccine-autism connection until she undertook a more thorough review of the scientific literature. Dr. Healy confirmed that there are groups of children who are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. Dr. Healy confirmed that the CDC does not know all the risk factors that might predispose an individual to vaccine injury. For this reason, she recommended more research to identify those groups that might have higher susceptibility to vaccine injury. No studies, she said, have been conducted to look at kids who came down with autistic symptoms within a few weeks of receiving a vaccine. In addition, in 2004, the Institutes of Medicine distributed an internal report with instructions "to not pursue susceptibility groups, do not look for those patients, those children, who may be vulnerable."[14] Twelve years has passed and the CDC has made no attempt whatsoever to pursue this line of research. Quite simply, our entire federal health system refuses to conduct crucial research essential to the health and well-being of the nation -- especially when it concerns vaccines -- because it is petrified of what it will discover.

What the vaccine industry’s arsenal of research sorely lacks is biological gold standard placebo-controlled clinical trials to support the CDC's unwavering position on vaccine safety. Accepted vaccine research is little more than junk science. And junk science can make for the best propaganda to convince a population into believing in vaccine safety. Joseph Goebbels understood this all too well when he stated, “A lie told often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

American children are now the most over-vaccinated in the world. Although the NCVI Act mandated a vaccine-injury review process to compensate families for vaccine injuries, it has dismally failed in its responsibilities, preferring to protect the myths about vaccine safety. Thousands of families have been forced to financially fend for themselves in order to provide care to severely vaccine-damaged children. The problem is further aggravated with the vaccine schedule now requiring 71 vaccinations to be injected pre- and postnatally into children. The so-called "vaccine court" fails to admit the robust science confirming vaccines' threats to healthy neurological development.

An early 2014 report released by the Council of Foreign Relations to identify countries with the highest rates of disease outbreaks accidentally revealed that the most highly-vaccinated populations are also those with the greatest number of outbreaks for those same infectious diseases. This was especially the case for measles, mumps, rubella, polio and pertussis. The US, Canada, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan— each with the highest number of mandated vaccines—led the list of nations. The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice, which analyzed the report, concluded that the Council’s report clearly suggests the theory of “herd immunity” is failing or was flawed to begin with. Given the repeated incidences of infectious outbreaks in populations with 94% or more vaccine compliance, and the emergence of new viral strains, the concept of herd immunity should be abandoned. The Office offers several possibilities to explain the report: 1) vaccines are increasingly becoming ineffective and causing “immune dysfunction,” and 2) “vaccine antigen responses” may be reprogramming viruses while weakening the immune systems of the most vaccinated individuals.[11]

Another blow to CDC's erroneous claims about vaccine efficacy appeared when Dr. Gregory Poland, Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and founder of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, published a surprising medical finding. His statements are especially urgent today as the government and CDC fan the flames of fear-mongering over the recent measles outbreaks and launch a strategic campaign to blame and demonize unvaccinated persons. In fact, according to Dr. Poland's research, the measles vaccine has a poor record of efficacy. Despite the high 95% measles vaccination compliance of children entering kindergarten, and the CDC’s propaganda, measles outbreaks are rising. Dr. Poland does not believe this is due to unvaccinated individuals, but due to the failure of the vaccine.[12]

Since the measles outbreak began in early 2019, government health officials have launched a blitzkrieg across the media outlets to place the blame on unvaccinated persons and parents. We are being told this is a life-threatening crisis, although only 206 cases have been confirmed since February 28. In fact, the first measles death in 12 years was recorded in 2015 and that person's autopsy showed she was a carrier and had no symptoms of a measles infection.[25] We have witnessed this federal tactic of gross misinformation many times in the past with other infectious diseases, notably pertussis and influenza. The CDC reported that the 2018-2019 seasonal flu shot was less than 50 percent effective (46 percent) and only 24 percent for persons over 50 years of age.[18] During the 2015 California measles outbreak, 38 percent of patients were found to be only infected with the virus in the vaccine, not from a wild infection. In other words, people were becoming infected from a measles vaccine reaction and not from the transmission of a wild-type measles strain.[23]

In addition, consider a news headline from February 1, 2019, reported by Local 12 television in Ohio: "Vaccines Given in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana Causing Infections."[20] As it turns out, this news being reported locally has not reached the national media. State health departments had to sound alarms that vaccines distributed by the company Mt. Sterling for influenza, pertussis and hepatitis A were contaminated due to improper storage. The vaccines were infecting recipients with the infectious disease. The Kentucky Department for Public Health warned that individuals receiving these vaccines could be expected to show symptoms of infection as far out as three months and advised people to seek medical attention.[21]

The HHS customarily responds to inquiries requesting confirmation of rigorous vaccine safety trials accompanying licensing submissions with claims that pediatric vaccines have been tested against placebos.[13] This grossly distorts the actual truth. The CDC itself defines a placebo as “a substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings.”[16] In response letter submitted by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) last December to the HHS, the agency stated, "Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required."[13] With this admittance, we must question what Alice in Wonderland hallucination our entire government health system resides in! Strictly based upon gold standard science, therefore, no vaccine on the market can be ruled to safe nor is there any gold standard biological evidence to claim vaccines do not trigger autism. ICAN's review of the thirty most-administered childhood vaccines found only one, Gardasil-9, conducted a valid double-blind study with a true placebo. Robert Kennedy Jr asserts that not a single one of 72 vaccines on the market was tested with a properly defined, inert, placebo. This is completely unheard of in corporate trials for conventional pharmaceutical drugs, including those shown carrying high adverse risks such as Vioxx, Prozac, Seroquel, Lipitor and numerous others.

The ICAN paper challenging the HHS's cover up of vaccine safety offers the Gardasil-9 trial, the only vaccine trial known to use a real placebo, as an excellent example of corporate chicanery. Merck's trial included three groups: 1) the "test group" that received the Gardasil vaccine, 2) a group that received either 225 mcg or 450 mcg of the adjuvant amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), and 3) a group receiving an actual saline placebo. However, in the reporting of the trial results, Merck combined the groups receiving the adjuvant and saline placebo into "the control group." Both the "test group" receiving the Gardasil vaccine and the "control group" posted a 2.3 percent incidence of "systemic autoimmune disorder." Since there was no significance difference between the two groups, the vaccine was determined safe. This is what every doctor will be led to believe after they read Gardasil's manufacturing package insert. However, in the actual trial documents submitted to the FDA, there were zero incidences of injury among the saline placebo group. The real results statistically conclude that the aluminum adjuvant was contributing to the girls' autoimmune disorders.[13]

In 2015, autoimmune disease researcher Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld at Tel Aviv University published the definitive textbook on vaccines’ adverse effects that are now contributing to a wide variety of autoimmune diseases, including fibromyalgia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, narcolepsy, connective tissue disease, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, type 1 diabetes, and a host of others. The majority of the 37 scientific papers in Shoenfeld’s Vaccines and Autoimmunity identify the adjuvant aluminum as a crucial culprit contributing to the epidemic rise in autoimmune disorders both in the US and abroad.[7]

A study conducted by New York University School of Law and published in the Pace Environmental Law Review in 2011 found that although federal health officials consistently claim there is no scientifically-proven association between vaccines and autism, the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has been "compensating cases of vaccine-induced brain damage associated with autism for more than twenty years." The paper reveals that the VICP has quietly compensated 83 families for cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder associated with autism. In 21 of these cases, the word “autism” is found in court documents to describe the injuries that resulted from vaccination. The obvious conclusion is that, in paying out these injury claims, the government has implicitly acknowledged a link between vaccination and autism and continues to cover it up.[10] The VICP slush fund has already paid out almost $4 billion in compensation to families with vaccine-injured and killed children. To date, the highest compensation award was $101 million for a lifetime vaccine injury settlement due to the MMR vaccine.[22] Unfortunately, the vast majority of vaccine-injured cases get thrown out and families are left covering medical expenses and special care services either through our faulty insurance system or out-of-pocket for their children who have been damaged for life.

The criminal case of Sanofi's Dengvaxia vaccine against dengue is another warning Americans should heed. In March 2018, the Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine and world renowned virologist who discovered the HIV virus, Dr. Luc Montagnier, told the New Frontiers of Biology to a standing ovation, "My advice, please do not vaccinate before the age of two."[2] During his presentation, Montagnier discussed a variety of life-threatening illnesses including encephalitis, autism, multiple sclerosis, and sudden infant death that vaccines have been responsible for. He also noted the biological mechanisms by which the dengue vaccine enhances the multiplication of wild dengue virus and results in dengue hemorrhagic syndrome and dengue shock syndrome. In 2017, approximately 730,000 Filipino children were vaccinated, resulting in deaths and numerous neurological injuries. Dengvaxia was promptly banned by the Philippines government and indictments have recently been filed charging Sanofi officials on "multiple counts of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide."[4] Clearly, Sanofi was negligent in conducting thorough safety trials and in its impatience to bring a new vaccine to market became criminally responsible for the injury and death of many innocent people. The Dengvaxia scandal is a warming to American citizens. Dengue poses enormous threats to the continental US as global warming continues and infectious mosquitoes migrate north. In 2007, there were over 10,000 dengue cases in Puerto Rico.[3] It is just a matter of time before dengue-carrying mosquitoes make their way to the southern states.

Many nations are far more cautious and scientifically savvy before launching widespread vaccination programs. Perhaps we should spend more time looking at these other nations' health ministries for guidelines rather than relying upon the privately controlled CDC and HHS. Other nations, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, place health before economics. The American way of disease prevention is economics before health: prohibit the drug and vaccine industries from losing profit-share. Other nations acknowledge vaccine dangers and institute screening measures to limit vaccine injuries to the best of their capacities.

During an email exchange with Dr. Christof Plothe in Germany, who has been treating teens and young adults injured by the human papilloma virus vaccines (eg, Gardasil), he provided an example of a vaccine monitoring system that is scientifically robust and supported by the medical literature. The Italian health ministry recognizes that many autoimmune diseases, even cancer, can be causally linked to vaccines; therefore a parliamentary commission issued vaccination guidelines for its military personnel. The Italian guidelines include:

⦁ Before vaccination, all military personnel must undergo hypersensitivity and immune system assessment tests to establish whether the vaccine might cause harm.
⦁ Single- rather than multiple-dose vaccines are recommended.
⦁ No more than five single vaccines may be given at any one time, due to the increased risk of causing AIDS and cancer.
⦁ Every vaccinated individual must be monitored for ten years post-vaccination to determine what side effects might manifest later.
⦁ Persons allergic to military vaccines will not be allowed to join the military.

Although the Italian guidelines only apply to military personnel, it is prudent to apply it to the public, especially infants and children. But none of these measures are accepted by the HHS and CDC. Instead, these agencies continue to promote the one-size-fits all paradigm to vaccinate the largest number of Americans possible with the most vaccines.

Recent repressive efforts to contain and silence vaccine opposition indicate that our McCarthyite vaccine establishment is desperate. For this reason, politicos beholden to the private vaccine industry, such as Adam Schiff and California's Richard Pan, must make use of their influence with large corporations like Google and Facebook to violate democratic freedoms and scientific integrity. The ghosts of their fraudulent science, manipulated research, misleading propaganda across mainstream media and in the blogosphere will eventually haunt them. If an open scientific debate was ever allowed to take place between the defenders of the vaccine regime and the scientists and researchers who’ve risked their reputations in order to uphold the virtues of medicine, the former would find themselves scientifically destitute.

It is time for a national debate to end this vaccine madness. As further research emerges, as the vaccine paradigm is further discredited, future generations will look back upon vaccination as a barbaric, primitive practice, and its benefactors as charlatans who endangered an entire nation.

- Older Posts »