Friday, November 30, 2012

PORNOGRAPHY'S EFFECT ON THE BRAIN


“No one became extremely wicked all at once.” — Juvenal, Satires
The aim of this essay is a controversial one: to provide evidence in support of the thesis that porn addiction, especially when accompanied by compulsive masturbation over a long period, alters brain chemistry and can eventually produce brain damage. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is an intellectually defensible thesis for which there is now a growing body of scientific evidence.

Perhaps the quickest way to tame and tranquilize an unruly nation is to turn its citizens into sex addicts: for just as children are easily taken in by predators who tempt them with candy, most people are only too pleased to live under governments that offer them the seductive pleasures of porn: that is to say, cheap and easy orgasms as substitutes for happiness.

Sex addiction, especially when fueled by internet pornography, has been likened to crack cocaine or heroin addiction, only much worse. It allows its victims no respite. It is a sickness of the soul that drives many to suicide, transforming its worst sufferers, like Ted Bundy and Gary Bishop, into serial killers. (See here and here).

The striking similarity between orgasm and the heroin rush was confirmed in 2003 when Dutch scientist Gert Holstege announced in a press release relating to his research that brain scans of orgasm resembled brain scans of shooting heroin. Laboratory rats know all about this, as a famous experiment in the 1950s by James Olds and Peter Milner conclusively demonstrated.

1. UNDERSTANDING BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION

Rats go into a veritable frenzy pressing levers (in Skinner boxes) in order to give themselves powerful pleasurable sensations, even if it means depriving themselves of food and life. “Some rats,” we are told, “would self-stimulate as often as 2000 times per hour for 24 hours, to the exclusion of all other activities. They had to be unhooked from the apparatus to prevent death by self-starvation. Pressing that lever became their entire world.”

In a subsequent related experiment involving humans, a woman suffering from severe pain was allowed to stimulate the pleasure centers of her brain by turning an amplitude dial: so much so that she developed a chronic ulceration at her fingertip. She became so addicted to erotic self-stimulation that she had to beg her family to limit her access to the stimulator. (See also here)


American behaviorist psychologist BF Skinner (1904-1990) devised the operant conditioning chamber or Skinner box in the early 1930s. His object was to experiment with behavior modification in animals and then apply the same results to human beings. His major discovery was the concept of reinforcement: behavior that receives positive reinforcement (reward) tends to be repeated and strengthened, and behavior that receives negative reinforcement (punishment) tends to be extinguished. When placed in the Skinner box, the rat will learn to press a lever. This will trigger a reinforcing stimulus such as food or water, or a punishing stimulus such as an electric shock. The rat will rapidly learn to press the right lever and avoid the wrong one. In short, good habits can be acquired and bad habits destroyed in a systematic and scientific way under laboratory conditions.

Seven important points are worth noting here. These will allow the reader to trace the connection between operant conditioning and porn addiction.

(1) In the 1950s, psychologists James Olds and Peter Milner made a vitally important breakthrough in behavior modification research: they introduced innovations to the Skinner box so that the lever, instead of delivering food pellets when pressed, would now deliver direct brain stimulation through electrodes planted deep in the brain. Rats would now press the lever as many as 7000 times an hour to stimulate the pleasure centers of their brains. All other activities, including eating and drinking, were neglected. Every single moment was spent in pleasurable self-stimulation.

(2) How does this relate to porn addiction? Quite simply, the porn addict is behaving exactly like the rat in a Skinner box. His lever is masturbation, and his positive reinforcement or reward is the orgasm. His addiction is the result of self-imposed operant conditioning, i.e., he is conditioning himself without knowing it. The buildup to orgasm and the orgasm itself is accompanied by direct brain stimulation through the release of psychotropic chemicals into the bloodstream, especially dopamine, that produce precisely the same feelings of elation and euphoria in the porn addict which the rat experiences by the stimulation of the electrodes implanted in its brain.

(3) What triggers the release of the psychotropic chemicals into the bloodstream? The exciting erotic images. So it goes like this: Erotic mind pictures —> trigger psychotropic chemicals —> which stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain —> which in turn produces obsessive-compulsive behavior (or addiction) in an attempt to relive the pleasurable sensations —> which finally cause neuroplastic changes in brain structure as a result of constant chemical bombardment.

(4) Further brain research was to give rise to truly spectacular results in behavior modification, but this was at the cost of “deeply unethical experiments”, to quote one politically correct academic researcher. This research, conducted by two daring and enterprising scientists called Drs. Moan and Heath, was abruptly halted because, among other things, it had come up with a possible cure for homosexuality. Moan and Heath had obtained permission to engage the services of a hooker to see if she could turn on a confirmed homosexual male in the laboratory. Initially, the sight of this sexy young woman not only left patient B-19 completely cold but actually disgusted him. He found the idea of having sex with an attractive female quite repulsive. However, on being wired up and having the pleasure centers of his brain stimulated with electrodes, while the hooker proceeded to perform her tricks on him, patient B-19 began to perk up and soon experienced an impressive erection. “And then, despite the milieu and the encumbrance of the electrode wires [poor B-19 was attached to an EEG machine the whole time], he successfully ejaculated [in her vagina].”

(5) Needless to say, such experimentation could not be allowed to continue, even with B-19’s full consent and cooperation and even though many homosexuals might want to become heterosexual and start families. It was political dynamite. So the experiments were abruptly halted, with Drs. Moan and Heath receiving a sharp rap on the knuckles and the stern disapproval of their politically correct peers. Since we are expected to believe that homosexuality is as “normal” and “healthy” a practice as heterosexuality, it follows that it is deeply offensive and “homophobic” to suggest that homosexuals might want to undergo heterosexual conditioning to “normalize” them. Even if they should wish to become heterosexuals, they should not be allowed to do so “on ethical grounds.” After all, one does not allow people to self-mutilate or commit suicide. One needs to protect them from themselves. In the same way, homosexuals, for their own good, need the state to protect them from the threat of heterosexuality.

(6) The blocking of research into sensitive areas of behavior modification for political reasons has had far-reaching consequences which cannot be discussed here in detail. Suffice to say that if it is considered “ethically wrong” (= politically incorrect) to permit research that would yield an effective cure for homosexuality, then huge sacrifices in knowledge are deliberately being made in order to maintain the status quo on behalf of a corrupt elite—an elite that is not only against the idea of heterosexualizing gays but is actually committed to the homosexualization of America … beginning with the homosexualization of children and their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom.

(7) It is clear that successful behavior modification could, in theory, produce a Utopian society of model citizens. There need be no more sociopathic and criminal behavior in society, no more personality disorders, no more phobias and manias, no more neuroses, no more depression, no more crippling addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, eating, shopping, and self-harming. Such vast improvements in the mental health of society clearly cannot be permitted. If there were no more criminals, what would the police and legal profession do? There would no longer be a need for their services. That cannot be allowed. They need criminals. Fighting crime is their job. Similarly, if there are no more sick people, what would Big Pharma and the medical profession do? They need sick people. Fighting sickness is their job. A sad situation indeed when the greatest threat to the established order is a Utopian society of model citizens who have nothing wrong with them! Perfection, if it were ever achieved, would have to be banned.

(For further details on some of the points listed above, see here, here and here)

2. PORN ADDICTION COMPARED TO HEROIN OR CRACK COCAINE ADDICTION

Columbia university neurologist Dr Norman Doidge, in his book The Brain That Changes Itself, describes how pornography causes rewiring of the neural circuits. He notes that in a study of men viewing internet pornography, the men looked “uncannily” like rats pushing the levers in experimental Skinner boxes. “Like the addicted rats,” Dr Doidge points out, “the men were desperately seeking their next fix, clicking the mouse just as the rats pushed the lever.”

All addictions, Dr Dodge tells goes on to tell us, cause “lifelong, neuroplastic changes in the brain.” This includes porn addiction:

Dopamine is also involved in plastic change. The same surge of dopamine that thrills us also consolidates neuronal connections. An important link with porn is that dopamine is also released in sexual excitement, increasing the sex drive in both sexes, facilitating orgasm, and activating the brain’s pleasure centers. Hence the addictive power of pornography.

The men at their computers looking at porn were uncannily like the rats in the cages of the NIH, pressing the bar to get a shot of dopamine or its equivalent. Though they didn’t know it, they had been seduced into pornographic training sessions that met all the conditions required for plastic change of brain maps. Since neurons that fire together wire together, these men got massive amounts of practice wiring these images into the pleasure centers of the brain, with the rapt attention necessary for plastic change.

They imagined these images when away from their computers, or while having sex with their girlfriends, reinforcing them. Each time they felt sexual excitement and had an orgasm when they masturbated, a “spritz of dopamine,” the reward neurotransmitter, consolidated the connections made in the brain during the sessions. (See here)

It is in this way that pornography becomes a serious addiction, comparable to heroin or crack cocaine addiction, and begins its slow and deadly assault on the brain. And as other research has shown, it facilitates callousness in sexual relationships—sex completely divorced from love and an interest in family and children.

3. PORNOGRAPHY AND BRAIN DAMAGE: IS THERE A LINK?

Recent research has shown that pornographic images become permanently embedded in the brain, releasing large amounts of naturally occurring chemicals into the bloodstream: e.g., dopamine, epinephrine, oxytocin, serotonin, vasopressin, prolactin, and enkephalins or endogenous opiods, i.e., the brain’s own endorphins. People who view porn obsessively become literally intoxicated: drunk with an overdose of psychotropic chemicals. These mind-altering substances are now known as erototoxins, a relatively recent neologism meaning “sex poisons”. This poison-bearing pornography, it has been shown in recent laboratory tests, “actually alters brain chemistry” and will in time produce brain damage.

Just as alcohol in large quantities consumed over a long period will damage the liver and kidneys, and just as long-term tobacco addiction will adversely affect the lungs and cardiovascular system, so highly charged erotic imagery accompanied by compulsive masturbation can eventually, it is argued, lead to chemico-biological brain damage. This will of course be strenuously denied by the Masturbation Lobby, but the claim has nevertheless been made by responsible medical researchers.

Dr. Gary Lynch, a neuroscientist at the University of California at Irvine, in discussing the effect that a single highly erotic image can have on the brain, points out ominously: “What we are saying here is that an event which lasts half a second [image imprint], within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural changes one sees in [brain] damage.” (See here)

Dr Judith Reisman goes one step further. She refers to this brain damage as “brain sabotage”, thereby implying that pornographers are in fact engaged in a species of “sex terrorism”. She asks:

How does this “brain sabotage” occur? Brain scientists tell us that “in 3/10 of a second a visual image passes from the eye through the brain, and whether or not one wants to, the brain is structurally changed and memories are created; ‘we literally grow new brain’ with each visual experience.” Children and others who cannot read can instantly decode and experience images…. In fact, erotic (any highly arousing) images commonly subvert left hemisphere cognition.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Psychiatrist and Professor at Princeton University, in his testimony to a Senate subcommittee on pornography toxicity, expresses himself even more forcefully:

Like cigarettes, that particular form of expression we call pornography is a delivery system that has a distinct and powerful effect upon the human brain and nervous system. Exactly like cigarettes, this effect is to cause a powerful addiction. Like any other addiction, the addiction is both to the delivery system itself—the pornography—and to the chemicals that the delivery system delivers.

It may seem surprising that I should speak of “chemicals,” when one might be thinking instead of “sex.” But, in fact, modern science allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction. (Emphasis added)

The pornography addict soon forgets about everything and everyone else in favor of an ever more elusive sexual jolt. He will eventually be able to find it only among other “junkies” like himself, and he will place at risk his career, his friends, his family. He will indulge his habit anywhere and everywhere, at any time. No one, no matter how highly placed, is immune. (See here)

Porn addiction, we are told by practicing neurosurgeon Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD, produces long-term brain damage in which the frontal lobes atrophy or shrink. Addiction scientists have called this condition hypofrontality and have noted a similarity in the behavior of [porn] addicted persons to the behavior of patients with frontal brain damage… [which] can also result from a car wreck.

All addictions create, in addition to chemical changes in the brain, anatomical and pathological changes which result in various manifestations of cerebral dysfunction collectively labeled hypofrontal syndromes. In these syndromes, the underlying defect, reduced to its simplest description, is damage to the “braking system” of the brain.

They are well known to clinical neuroscientists, especially neurologists and neurosurgeons, for they are also seen with tumors, strokes, and trauma. Indeed, anatomically, loss of these frontal control systems is most apparent following trauma, exemplified by progressive atrophy of the frontal lobes seen in serial MRI scans over time.

Not a peep of any of this in the mainstream media. You don’t need three guesses to know why. The world porn industry generates $97 billion a year in revenues. If porn damages your brain, this is the last thing the wealthy elitists who run the world and control the mass media would wish to tell you. “The publishing industry is now heavily involved in pornography,” Dr E. Michaels Jones points out, “and it is not in their interests to explain to the public that they are in the business of enslaving people.” (p.560)

Is one a Victorian prude for suggesting there is something seriously amiss here? The simple fact is that one awkward question remains unanswered by all these self-appointed “sex experts”—many of them egregious frauds and sexual perverts like Kinsey and Reich—and it is this: how can all this compulsive masturbation and porn consumption be good for you if they end up damaging your brain?

Masturbation doesn’t necessarily make you blind. Let’s hope it doesn’t. Maybe it’s not the eyes, but the brain, that ardent aficionados of the solitary vice need to worry about.

End of Part 1; Go to Part 2."


Source Article:
Pornography’s Effect on the Brain, Part 1
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/09/pornographys-effect-on-the-brain-part-1/



VACCINES DO CAUSE AUTISM




Congressman Dan Burton Government Reform Committee U.S. House of Representatives December 2002
http://youtu.be/y2MNGwNAnis

LACK OF VITAMIN C CAN PERMANENTLY DAMAGE UNBORN BABIES' BRAINS

"(NaturalNews) Could poor nutrition and, specifically, a lack of vitamin C in pregnant women be causing permanent damage to the brains of unborn babies? University of Copenhagen scientists have just published some disturbing research conclusions in the scientific journal PLOS ONE suggesting that could be the case.

The research team, led by Professor Jens Lykkesfeldt, noted that a lack of vitamin C isn't unusual, either. In fact, population studies reveal between 10 and 20 percent of all adults in the developed world suffer from vitamin C deficiency. "Even marginal vitamin C deficiency in the mother stunts the fetal hippocampus, the important memory center, by 10 to 15 percent, preventing the brain from optimal development," Lykkesfeldt said in a statement to the media.

"We used to think that the mother could protect the baby. Ordinarily there is a selective transport from mother to fetus of the substances the baby needs during pregnancy. However, it now appears that the transport is not sufficient in the case of vitamin C deficiency. Therefore, it is extremely important to draw attention to this problem, which potentially can have serious consequences for the children affected."

Lykkesfeldt and his colleagues reached their conclusions by studying pregnant guinea pigs and their pups because -- like humans -- guinea pigs cannot produce vitamin C themselves. When guinea pigs from vitamin C deficient mothers were born, the researchers divided the newborn animals into two groups. One group was given vitamin C supplements but, when the pups were two months old (a point in their lifespan which corresponds to the teenage years in humans) there was no improvement in their brain damage.

The scientists are now studying how early in pregnancy vitamin C deficiency influences the development of fetuses. So far, additional guinea pig experiments indicate the negative impact of a lack of vitamin C early in the pregnancy. While their studies involve animals, the scientists believe their findings have an important bearing on the human population and should sharpen the focus on a mother's lifestyle and nutritional status during pregnancy.

"People with low economic status who eat poorly - and perhaps also smoke - often suffer from vitamin C deficiency. Comparatively speaking, their children risk being born with a poorly developed memory potential. These children may encounter learning problems, and seen in a societal context, history repeats itself because these children find it more difficult to escape the environment into which they are born," Lykkesfeldt said.

His recommendation? Pregnant women should not smoke, eat a varied nutritional diet and take a multi-vitamin tablet containing vitamin C. "Because it takes so little to avoid vitamin C deficiency, it is my hope that both politicians and the authorities will become aware that this can be a potential problem," Lykkesfeldt concluded.

Editor's note: Natural News is opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments that expose them to harm. We present these findings in protest of the way in which they were acquired."

Source Article:
Lack of vitamin C could permanently damage unborn babies' brains
http://www.naturalnews.com/038013_vitamin_C_unborn_babies_brain_development.html




Thursday, November 29, 2012

HEALING PROPERTIES OF 13 COMMON FRUITS


Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder
http://greenmedinfo.com

"Fruit is not only enjoyable to eat -- as it should be, considering the very word fruit stems from the Latin word frui, meaning "to enjoy, use" -- but it also nourishes and protects the body with powerful, built-in medicinal activity. Fruits are by design a "perfect food," intended to entice animals to consume them in order to help disseminate their seeds, for instance. This means that unlike grains, and other lectin- and anti-nutrient-rich organisms, e.g. wheat, tomato, beans, we humans have chosen to make into our food, fruits are less likely to come equipped with "invisible thorns," as they benefit as much in being eaten as we do in eating them. Also, like our now hard-wired biological dependence on obtaining vitamin C from external sources (unlike most animals we can not produce it from glucose), countless millennia of fruit consumption has left our genetic infrastructure in need of continual resupply of many of the key vitamins and phytocompounds they contain copious quantities of.

With this symbiotic relationship between fruit-bearing plant and seed-disseminating animal in mind, the following healing fruit facts won't seem so unbelievable...

Grapefruit – Infection: The seeds of this fruit, at a dose of 5 to 6 every 8 hours for two weeks, have been shown effective in eradicating urinary tract infections, including drug-resistant strains.[i]

Pineapple – Cancer: The enzyme bromelain, extracted from pineapple, has been shown to be more potent that the chemotoxic agent 5-fluorouracil in killing cancer, in the animal model.[ii]

Watermelon – Hypertension: Watermelon contains amino acids, such as L-citrulline, which help the blood vessels dilate naturally, countermanding endothelial dysfunction and reducing blood pressure. [iii] [iv]

Cherry – Inflammation/Pain: Compounds within cherries known as anthrocyanins have been shown to be as effective as NSAID drugs in reducing pain and inflammation.[v] [vi]

Lemon – Kidney Stones: Lemonade therapy has been shown to be a reasonable alternative for patients with kidney stones.[vii]

Papaya – Skin Ulcers: Used in Jamaica as a traditional medicine, new research indicates that topical application of unripe papaya fruit on chronic skin ulcers generates a positive response rate 72% of the time.[viii]

Pomegranate – Hormones: Pomegranate is the fruiting ovary of the pomegranate plant, contains potent plant estrogens which do not stimulate unregulated cell proliferation, and may function as an ideal "back up" ovary for women's hormone health.[ix]

Kiwifruit – Cholesterol – When used with hawthorn, kiwifruit extract was found to be superior to simvastatin (trade name Zocor) in lowering cholesterol in mice fed a high cholesterol diet.[x]

Cranberries – Cranberry: The extract of this berry has been shown as effective as the drug trimethoprim in the prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections in older women, without increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance/super-infection and/or fungal infection.[xi]

Elderberry – Flu: If you are lucky enough to find elderberry on your produce stand, you will find that it has been used as a natural anti-respiratory infection remedy since ancient times. New research confirms that it contains flavonoids which compare favorably with the antiviral drug Tamiflu at binding to and preventing H1N1 infection. [xii]

Coconut – Gastric Ulcers: both the milk and the water of the coconut have been shown to have anti-ulcerogenic properties against NSAID drug-induced mucosal erosion.[xiii]

Plantain – Diarrhea: Plantain has been used to treat diarrhea by traditional cultures as a folk medicine, but clinical research now confirms its value in the dietary management of persistent diarrhea in hospitalized children, in relation to diarrheal duration, weight gain and costs.[xiv]

Strawberries – Heart Disease: Many red fruits and berries have now been shown to be valuable for heart health, but strawberry is beginning to emerge as uniquely beneficial to cardiovascular health. Strawberry powder has been shown to improve the lipid profile and oxidative stress markers, and markers of atherosclerosis, in women with metabolic syndrome.[xv] [xvi] Strawberry extract has also been shown to relax the lining of the blood vessels, which may reduce high blood pressure and disburden the heart muscle from over-exertion.[xvii] Even the strawberry leaf extract has been shown to increase coronary artery blood flow in a manner similar to hawthorn extract.[xviii]"
Source Article:
The Evidence-Based Healing Properties of 13 Common Fruits
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/13-common-fruits-uncommonly-potent-medicinal-properties?utm_source=www.GreenMedInfo.com&utm_campaign=d8c2f836ef-Greenmedinfo&utm_medium=email

VACCINES ARE THE ALARMING HIDDEN CAUSE BEHIND BREAST CANCER


By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 18 2011

"Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death in women worldwide and breast cancer rates are increasing rapidly.

A compelling number of studies, though not all, have shown that free iron concentrations in breast tissue, especially the ductal tissue, is playing a major role in stimulating cancer development and eventual progression to aggressive, deadly cancers.1,2

Cancers are Very Dependent on Iron

Iron is needed for DNA replication in rapidly dividing cells.3

A recent report from the Department of Biomolecular Sciences in Urbino Italy, found that fluid taken from the nipple of cancer patients contained significantly higher levels of aluminum than did nipple fluid taken from women without breast cancer­approximately twice as much aluminum.4


A number of studies have found that extracting nipple fluid by a breast pump (in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women) is a simple way to study the microenvironment of the ductal tissue, the site of development of most breast cancers.5

Examining this ductal fluid is an excellent way to measure such things as iron levels, ferritin (an iron-binding protein), CRP (a measure of breast inflammation) and aluminum.


The researchers also found that women with breast cancer had much higher levels of ferritin, an iron transport protein, in their breast fluid, which was 5X higher in women with breast cancer.6

This observation has been confirmed in other studies.


In previous studies researchers found that one's intake of iron did not necessarily correlate with risk of breast cancer, but rather the release of iron from its protective proteins, such as ferritin and transferrin was critical.7


This distinction is very important and explains why some studies found no link between iron intake in the diet and breast cancer incidence.8


Free Iron Can Be Very Dangerous

Over 90% of iron absorbed from your diet is normally bound to these protective proteins. Recent studies have shown that some things we do can cause too much of the iron to be released into surrounding tissues, and if this iron exists as free iron, it can trigger intense inflammation, free radical generation and lipid peroxidation.

Bound iron is relatively harmless.

So, what can cause these protective proteins to release their iron?


One factor is an excessive alcohol intake. Studies by Lee et al have shown that women who drink greater than 20 grams of alcohol a day significantly increase the free iron in their breast tissue and have a higher incidence of invasive breast cancer­the most deadly form.9


It has also been shown that excessive estrogen can displace iron from its protective proteins, thus increasing free iron levels and associated breast cancer risk. 10 This helps explain the link between high estrogen levels and breast cancer.

Of more importance than the total intake of iron is where the iron ends up that is absorbed from your food.

As stated, most of it is bound to protective proteins, such as transferrin in the blood and ferritin within cells. If you have a lot of extra space within these proteins for binding iron, then a high dietary iron intake would be less harmful.

Previously it was thought that a spillover of free iron occurred only when the protective proteins (tranferrin and ferritin) were fully saturated, as we see with the condition hemochromatosis.


How Aluminum and Alcohol Worsen Iron Toxicity

We now know that both aluminum and alcohol can displace the iron from its protective proteins, raising the level of harmful free iron, even when these protective proteins are not fully saturated with iron.9

If this occurs within the breast, as this study demonstrates, free iron levels in the breast ductal tissue can become dangerously high and over time induce malignant tumor formation.

The question to be asked is--where did the aluminum come from?

The authors of the paper suggested underarm antiperspirants as a possibility. But, there is another source that is becoming increasingly a problem and that is from vaccine adjuvants.


Vaccines are a Major Source of Aluminum for Many

Many inactivated vaccines contain aluminum salts to boost the immune reaction. Studies have shown that this aluminum is slowly dispersed all over the body and may be concentrated in breast ducts.11

The amount of aluminum in vaccines is tremendous, especially in such vaccines as the anthrax vaccine, hepatitis vaccine and tetanus vaccine.

Since many American children are being exposed to multiple doses of aluminum containing vaccines by the time they are 6 years old, one would expect very high exposures to injected aluminum.


A recent study by Lucija Tomljenovik and Chris Shaw found that a newborn receives a dose of aluminum that exceeds FDA safety limits (5mg/kg/day) for injected aluminum by 20-fold, and at 6 months of age a dose that was 50-fold higher than FDA safety limits.12

Aluminum at this young age will accumulate in various tissues and with new vaccine recommendations, children and young adults may be exposed to many more aluminum containing vaccines every year throughout life.


With the ability of aluminum to displace iron from its protective proteins, we may not only see a dramatic increase in breast cancer, but also other iron-related diseases, such as liver degeneration, neurodegenerative disease, diabetes, heart failure and atherosclerosis.13 No one is addressing this very real danger.


References

1 Wu T et al. Serum iron, copper and zinc concentrations and the risk of cancer mortality in US adults. Ann Epidemiol 2004; 14: 195-201.
2 Cade J et al. Case-control study of breast cancer in southeast England: Nutritional factors. Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52: 105-110.
3 Kalinowski DS, Richardson DR. The evolution of iron chelators for the treatment of iron overload disease and cancer. Pharmacol Rev 2005; 57: 547-583.
4 Mannello F, et al. Analysis of aluminum content and iron homeostasis in nipple aspirate fluids from healthy women and breast cancer-affected patients. J Appl Toxicol 2011; Feb 21,(ahead of print)
5 Mannello F et al. Iron-binding proteins and C-reactive protein in nipple aspirate fluids: role of iron-0driven inflammation in breast microenvironment. Am J Transl Res 2011;3: 100-113.
6 Mannello et al and Shpyleva SI et al. Role of ferritin alterations in human breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126: 63-71.
7 Lithgow D et al. C-reactive protein in nipple aspirate fluid: relation to women's health factors. Nurs Res 2006; 65: 418-425.
8 Kabat GC et al. Dietary iron and heme iron intake and risk of breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16:1306-1308.
9 Lee DH et al. Dietary iron intake and breast cancer: The Iowa Women's Health Study. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 2004; 45: A2319.
10 Wyllie S, Liehr JG. Release of iron from ferritin storage by redox cycling of stilbene and steroid estrogen metabolites: a mechanism of induction of free radical damage by estrogen. Arch Biochem Biophys 1997; 346: 180-186.
11 Flarend et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using Al-26. Vaccine 1997 15, 1314-1318.
12 Tomljenovic L and Shaw C. 2011 in press.
13 Weinberg ED. Iron toxicity. Ox Med Cell Longevity 2009; 2: 107-109."

Source Article:
Vaccines are the Alarming Hidden Cause of Breast Cancer
http://www.whale.to/v/vaxbreast.html

CHEMTRAILS/GEO-ENGINEERING PROGRAMS DISCUSSED ON DISCOVERY CHANNEL

The conversation about government chemtrail programs has hit the mainstream. Check it out....


Chemtrail/Geoengineering Programs discussed on the Discovery Channel
http://youtu.be/QGpGdk0glc0

4,250% INCREASE IN FETAL DEATHS AFTER FLU SHOT IS GIVEN TO PREGNANT WOMEN


You read that right folks! More than a 4000% increase in dead babies thanks to the flu vaccine! I'd say the New World Order depopulation agenda is working fabulously!

"Documentation received from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) states that between 2009 and 2010 the mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations have increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent in pregnant women. Eileen Dannemann, NCOW’s director, made abundantly clear that despite these figures being known to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing mercury (Thimerosal) has once again been recommended to pregnant women as a safe vaccination this season.

Outraged by the CDC’s total disregard for human life, Ms. Dannemann accused the CDC of ‘willful misconduct,’ saying that they are responsible for causing the deaths of thousands of unborn babies. She stated that the CDC deliberately misled the nation’s obstetricians and gynecologists and colluded with the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) to mislead the public by advertising the flu vaccine as a safe vaccine for pregnant women when they knew fully well that it was causing a massive spike in fetal deaths.

In a letter to Dr. Joseph Mercola, Ms. Dannemann wrote:

“Not only did the CDC fail to disclose the spiraling spike in fetal death reports in real time during the 2009 pandemic season as to cut the fetal losses, but also we have documented by transcript Dr. Marie McCormick, chairperson of the Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group (VSRAWG) on September 3, 2010, denying any adverse events in the pregnant population during the 2009 Pandemic season.” [1]


HIDING LIFE-OR-DEATH EVIDENCE

Because the H1N1 pandemic vaccine had never been tested on the pregnant population, and to lessen the intensity of fears of the unknown risks, Dr. Marie McCormick of the CDC was employed to keep track of all adverse events during the 2009 pandemic season, including those adverse events in the pregnant population. Dr. McCormick was responsible for sending monthly reports to the Secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS), citing any suspicious adverse events.

According to Ms. Dannemann, NCOW has been unable to obtain access to these monthly reports. After sending a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC, she was told that she may have to wait 36 months to access what should be published public reports.

The Mercola letter continues:

“The Advisory Committee on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) and CDC were confronted with the VAERS data from NCOW on September 3, 2010, in Washington, D.C., and then again by conference call on September 10, and then again in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2010. On both September 3 and September 10, Dr. Marie McCormick clearly denied that there were any adverse events for pregnant women from the 2009 flu vaccine.”


THE DOCTOR’S VERSION OF CONCEAL AND CARRY

To emphasize their point, on October 28, 2010, NCOW requested that Dr. Rene Tocco present their data at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC’s Dr. Shimabakuru gave a presentation on significant adverse reactions to the H1N1 vaccine, such as cases of Guillane-Barre Syndrome, which appeared to have risen three percent, claiming it as an insignificant signal.

No mention at all was made of adverse events related to pregnant women. Unfortunately for Dr. Shimabakuru, his attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience were foiled when he was challenged by a member of the audience asking if the vaccine caused adverse events in pregnancy. Feeling cornered, he reluctantly looked in his bag and sheepishly presented a slide that corroborated the NCOW data, confirming that the CDC knew of the spike in fetal deaths in the fall of 2010. [2]

So, why did Dr. Shimabkauru have a slide containing compromising evidence in his bag? Why did he decide to hide the slide? Surely, if he had prepared a slide outlining this crucial data, it would have made sense to include the slide in his presentation. After all, a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths is far more significant that a three percent increase in Guillane-Barre Syndrome.

Ms. Dannemann believes that the existence of this slide, along with the omission of it in his presentation, confirms that the CDC knew of the spike in fetal deaths by the fall of 2010 and was attempting by any means possible not to make it public.

Outlining a catalog of events, Ms. Dannemann believes the CDC’s continual cover ups puts the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children in serious jeopardy. She maintained:

“Continuing the vaccine program without notifying the public or the healthcare practitioners of the VAERS miscarriage/stillbirth incoming data was clearly a purposeful decision. The CDC, aware of their own incoming stream of early vaccine adverse events reports, clearly decided to allow the obstetricians to continue, unwittingly, murdering and damaging the unborn so that the CDC’s blunder of recommending the double-dose vaccination of pregnant women could be kept under the radar.”


COLLABORATION AND CORRUPTION

Despite evidence that the CDC knew of the 4,250 percent increase in fetal death reports in 2009/2010, in order to ensure the continuance of the vaccine program for pregnant women, the CDC published a study in AJOG authored by Dr. Pedro Moro of the CDC in the fall of 2010. The study articulated that there were only 23 miscarriages caused by the single flu vaccine in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2 miscarriages per year. This study formed the basis of a CDC worldwide publicity campaign that the flu shot was safe for pregnant women by willfully and strategically excluding the 2009 pandemic data, which was available to them. Ms. Dannemann said:

“Both the CDC and AJOG were well aware of the fact that physicians and the public were awaiting the results of the 2009 H1N1 untested vaccine on pregnant women, amid solid assurances to the public at the beginning of the pandemic season that the CDC was on top of collecting any adverse reactions to the vaccine by establishing the Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group chaired by Dr. Marie Mc Cormick (VSRAWG).”

Ms. Dannemann stated that by including the 2008/2009 flu season’s data but excluding the available 2009 data from the 2009/2010 flu season in the study published in AJOG, Dr. Moro was able to give the impression that the 2009/2010 pandemic season was covered in the data, which of course it was not. Ms. Dannemann believes that this was a deliberate act on his part because he was aware of the fetal death spike in the 2009/2010 data at the time of preparing the study and purposely excluded the 2009 pandemic data from the study to hide this fact.

In the fall of 2010, just in time for the new flu season, media outlets all over the world publicized the AJOG, peer-reviewed CDC/Dr. Moro study as adamant proof that the flu shot is safe for pregnant women. The NCOW documents prove at the same time as widely publicizing advice that all pregnant women required the combined flu vaccination, the CDC was busy organizing ten non-profit organizations, to sign a joint letter to urge obstetricians and gynecologists to continue to vaccinate their pregnant patients.

One of the organizations to sign the letter was The March of Dimes [3] who urged health care providers to recommend the flu vaccine to pregnant women and those who expect to become pregnant. They wrote the following recommendation to all medical professionals:

“Advice from a healthcare provider plays an important role in a pregnant and postpartum woman’s decision to get vaccinated against seasonal influenza. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), American Medical Association (AMA), American Nurses Association (ANA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN), March of Dimes, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are asking for your help in urging your pregnant and postpartum patients to get vaccinated against seasonal influenza.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that pregnant and postpartum women receive the seasonal influenza vaccine this year, even if they received 2009 H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine last year. Lack of awareness of the benefits of vaccination and concerns about vaccine safety are common barriers to influenza vaccination of pregnant and postpartum women.”

Representatives from all ten organizations signed the letter.


WHAT THE CDC FAILED TO TELL PREGNANT MOMS

This year, on September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published Dr. Gary Goldman’s study that confirms NCOWs data, a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4] The study points out an astounding fact that no one saw until the publishing of the Goldman study in HET: the CDC had recommended the double-dosing of the pregnant population with the seasonal flu vaccine with mercury and the untested H1N1 vaccine with mercury.

In his abstract, Goldman said:

“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.”

The facts that Goldman exposed are extremely disturbing. He highlights the fact that the safety and effectiveness of the A-H1N1 had never been established in pregnant women and that the combination of two different influenza vaccines had never been tested on pregnant women at all.

Even more worrisome is the fact that the A-H1N1 vaccine inserts from the various manufacturers contained this warning:

“It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women or can affect reproduction capacity.’’ (emphasis added)

Dr. Goldman also pointed out that the developing fetus is indirectly exposed to mercury when thimerosal-containing vaccines are administered to a pregnant woman. He outlined a study written by A.R. Gasset, M. Itoi, Y. Ischii and R.M. Ramer who examined what happened after rabbits were vaccinated with thimerosal–containing radioactive mercury. Goldman stated that from one hour post-injection to six hours post-injection, the level of radioactive mercury in the blood dropped over 75 percent. Yet from two hours post-injection to six hours post-injection, there were significantly increased radioactivity levels in the fetal brain, liver, and kidney.

Dr. Goldman concluded that because the rates of miscarriage reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for the single flu vaccine were relatively low, health care providers developed a false sense of security that flu vaccines administered during pregnancy were safe. Goldman explained that just because a single vaccine has been tested and considered to be relatively safe, this does not mean that vaccinating pregnant women with two or more Thimerosal containing vaccines will be safe for them or their unborn babies. Overall, Goldman firmly believes that the VAERS grossly underestimates the true rates of miscarriage and other adverse events encountered in the US population. Remember, it is estimated that less than a tenth of true adverse reactions are reported to the VAERS with a one percent reporting rate for serious adverse events, including death, according to a study led by former FDA Commissioner Dr. David A. Kessler. [5]

As seen in the Goldman study, with the return to a single flu shot, the flu vaccine-related reports of fetal loss have returned to a significantly lower level compared to the high level of fetal loss reports in the two-dose 2009/2010 flu season. However, higher than background flu shot vaccine-related fetal losses continue to be reported to the VAERS.

Furthermore, the Goldman study recommends that the babies who survived the deadly double dose in utero be monitored:

“In addition, because of the order of magnitude increase in fetal-loss report rates, from 6.8 fetal loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated in the single-dose 2008/2009 season to 77.8 in the two-dose 2009/2010 season, further long term studies are needed to assess adverse outcomes in the surviving children. Additional research concerning potential synergistic risk factors associated with the administration of Thimerosal-containing vaccines is warranted, and the exposure-effect association should be verified in further toxicological and case-control studies.” (emphasis added)

Aside from fetal deaths, the CDC initiative to increase uptake of vaccines in pregnant women continues to fuel the increases in the levels of neurodevelopmental, developmental, behavioral abnormalities, and chronic illness in the surviving children. Due to omitting reports of fetal deaths, the CDC enjoys success in increasing the uptake and number of vaccines in the pregnant population. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is now recommending not only the flu shot (with mercury) but also the Tdap vaccine.


CONCLUSION

The work of NCOW and Dr. Goldman has proven that potential lives are being destroyed before they are even old enough to draw their first breath. Developing fetuses who are fortunate enough to survive the onslaught of vaccinations now being recommended to pregnant women then need to play a form of Russian Roulette from the day they are born, because their caring parents followed the advice they were given by professionals who have been deliberately misguided.

Eileen Dannemann and her team have proven with their remarkable work that both public and professionals alike are being lied to and deceived by organizations put in place by the government to sanction our vaccination programs. In my opinion, this is genocide and the sooner people realize that all vaccines come with an element of risk and begin to research the dangers for themselves, the sooner these insane experiments will end."

Source Article
4,250% Increase in Fetal Deaths Reported to VAERS After Flu Shot Given to Pregnant Women
http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-shot-spikes-fetal-death/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e89506d904-11_22_2012_vaers&utm_medium=email

UNBORN TWINS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AS EARLY AS 14 WEEKS


by Thaddeus Baklinski
Wed Jan 12, 2011

"PADOVA, Italy, January 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Unborn twin babies socialize as early as week 14 of gestation, a new study has shown.

Italian researcher Dr. Umberto Castiello of the University of Padova and associates used an advanced method of ultrasonography, which enables the movements of the babies to be recorded over time in 3D, to study five pairs of twins from a sample of low-risk pregnant women attending the Institute of Child Health I.R.C.C.S. Burlo Garofolo.

The purpose of the study was to see how twins interacted with each other in their mothers’ wombs and to determine if the interaction was intentional or accidental.

“Newborns come into the world wired to socially interact,” Dr. Castiello states in the preamble to the study report, then poses the question, “Is a propensity to socially oriented action already present before birth?”

Twin pregnancies provided the research team with a unique opportunity to investigate the social pre-wiring hypothesis.

“Unlike ordinary siblings, twins share a most important environment – the uterus. If a predisposition towards social interaction is present before birth, one may expect twin foetuses to engage in some form of interaction,” the researchers say.

“Although various types of inter-twins contact have been demonstrated starting from the 11th week of gestation,” Dr. Castiello said, “no study has so far investigated the critical question whether intra-pair contact is the result of motor planning rather then the accidental outcome of spatial proximity.”

The five pairs of twins were studied during two separate recording sessions carried out at the 14th and 18th week of gestation.

The first 20-minute recording sessions showed the unborn twins touching each other as well as themselves, and the uterine wall.

During the second recording, four weeks later, their interest in their twin was approximately three times higher, with almost 30 per cent of movements directed towards the sibling. Those movements were also more accurate and of longer duration then self-directed ones, the researchers reported.

“We demonstrate that by the 14th week of gestation twin foetuses do not only display movements directed towards the uterine wall and self-directed movements, but also movements specifically aimed at the co-twin, the proportion of which increases between the 14th and 18th gestational week,” the scientists stated.

The proportional increase in contact with the twin was reported to be consistent among the ten babies studied.

The researchers conclude that performance of movements towards the co-twin is not accidental.

“Starting from the 14th week of gestation twin foetuses plan and execute movements specifically aimed at the co-twin,” the authors wrote, stating that “when the context enables it, as in the case of twin foetuses, other-directed actions are not only possible but predominant over self-directed actions.” The findings provided quantitative empirical evidence that unborn babies are very much aware of their surroundings and of the presence of a twin with them in their mother’s womb, said the researchers.

The full text of the study, titled “Wired to Be Social: The Ontogeny of Human Interaction” is available here."

Source Article:
Unborn twins interact with each other as early as 14 weeks
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-finds-unborn-twins-interact-with-each-other-as-early-as-14-weeks/

WHAT'S IN A FLU SHOT?

Hilarious and accurately frightening description of the ingredients in a flu vaccine.


http://youtu.be/gWfCnjnShnM

WARNING - ANTI-DEPRESSANTS CAUSING BIRTH DEFECTS AND MISCARRIAGES


"Lisa Garber
theintelhub.com
November 3, 2012
"Pharmaceutical companies regularly embellish the benefits and downplay the dangers of anti-depressants, and all medications for that matter—but this time, their profits could be inadvertently endangering and even killing unborn infants. Senior doctors know it and are finally raising their voices.

Tufts University School of Medicine’s Dr. Adam Urato decries the practice of prescribing SSRIs to pregnant women.

“Study after study shows increased rates of newborn complications in those babies who were exposed to SSRIs in-utero,” he says. These complications include greater risk of autism, lung and bowel diseases, and more.

Doctors Failing to Properly Warn of Risks

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most common form of anti-depressants, many of which are prescribed to pregnant mothers by “general practitioners, not psychiatrists,” according to Dr. Alice Domar of Harvard Medical School.

“You come in and you say I’m not feeling very well, I’m feeling lethargic so the physician writes a prescription.”

Urato says that although not proven, the outcomes of over 40 studies linking SSRIs to the endangerment of an unborn child are troubling enough to warrant further research.

Family doctors must also properly caution pregnant women about the risks involved in taking SSRIs during pregnancy. (Many doctors prescribe them anyway because, if the SSRI works to improve the mother’s mood, it would lead to “a better pregnancy result.”)

Urato says “there really is not a shred of evidence” supporting the benefits of anti-depressants for pregnant women.
Big Pharma Just Wants to Get Paid

Urato unapologetically points to Big Pharma.

“It is a fact that these antidepressants have been very lucrative for the pharmaceutical industry…. It stands to reason to me that the drug makers would rather that the risks of these agents in pregnancy not receive widespread attention as that would be a reason for many women to not take the drugs in the first place or to stop taking them—both of which are not good for sales of the product.”

Downplaying the risks of drugs is hardly a new game for Big Pharma. In the name of profit,GlaxoSmithKline paid celebrity doctors—like Dr. Drew—to push and make off-label claims of drugs.

It’s also been found that 70 percent of advisors to the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

Not even the government is immune to funding. Although the Food and Drug Administration admits that antidepressants can worsen depression and increase risk of suicide, the public and private sectors alike push ineffective and harmful antidepressants on patients.

This will likely continue despite an increasing number of studies linking SSRIs to pulmonary hypertension and cardiovascular malformations in newborns.

Be wary of taking medication during pregnancy, especially anti-depressants. “If you add up all the potential risks,” Domar says, “a lot of people would say they are unacceptable.”

Additional Sources:
The Telegraph
PubMed"


Source Article:
Warning: Anti-Depressants Causing Birth Defects, Miscarriages
http://theintelhub.com/2012/11/03/warning-anti-depressants-causing-birth-defects-miscarriages/

THE GOVERNENT (WITH THE HELP OF HOSPITALS) IS STEALING YOUR BABY'S DNA



In a world where genetic modification of food, animals and people is the norm, where science has become satanic, and where those who worship lucifer have entered the highest governmental and social positions known to humankind;

In a world where satanists regular do rituals during which they eat the body parts and drink the blood of other human beings, and in which these same twisted individuals favor the blood and body parts of children because they think it contains more spiritual power;

In a world where these same demented sociopaths continually engage in trauma-based mind-control, where infants and children are being exposed to extreme torture and trauma, and where those who would traumatize and torture children fvor those with blond hair and blue eyes because they think these children have the best genetic make-up for mind-control because they more easily disassociate;

It is in THIS world that we find hospitals stealing the DNA of our newborn infants, without our consent, and handing it over to a satanic-infested government.

I'd say it's time to be very concerned.


Source Article:
The government has your baby's DNA
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-04/health/baby.dna.government_1_genetic-testing-dna-samples-genetic-diseases?_s=PM:HEALTH

"When Annie Brown's daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.

While grateful to have the information -- Isabel received further testing and she doesn't have the disease -- the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing.

It's simple, the pediatrician answered: Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.

In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.

Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.

"We were appalled when we found out," says Brown, who's a registered nurse. "Why do they need to store my baby's DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance."

According to the state of Minnesota's Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.

Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. "It's paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies," he says.

However, he added that storage of DNA for long periods of time is a different matter.

"I don't see any reason to do that kind of storage," Caplan says. "If it's anonymous, then I don't care. I don't have an issue with that. But if you keep names attached to those samples, that makes me nervous."

DNA given to outside researchers

Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.

Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state. (To find out how long your baby's DNA is stored, see this state-by-state list.)

Brad Therrell, who runs the federally funded genetic resource consortium, says parents don't need to worry about the privacy of their babies' DNA.

"The states have in place very rigid controls on those specimens," Therrell says. "If my children's DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn't be worried a bit."

The specimens don't always stay in the state labs. They're often given to outside researchers -- sometimes with the baby's name attached.

According to a study done by the state of Minnesota, more than 20 scientific papers have been published in the United States since 2000 using newborn blood samples.

The researchers do not have to have parental consent to obtain samples as long as the baby's name is not attached, according to Amy Gaviglio, one of the authors of the Minnesota report. However, she says it's her understanding that if a researcher wants a sample with a baby's name attached, consent first must be obtained from the parents.

Scientists have heralded this enormous collection of DNA samples as a "gold mine" for doing research, according to Gaviglio.

"This sample population would be virtually impossible to get otherwise," says Gaviglio, a genetic counselor for the Minnesota Department of Health. "Researchers go through a very stringent process to obtain the samples. States certainly don't provide samples to just anyone."

Brown says that even with these assurances, she still worries whether someone could gain access to her baby's DNA sample with Isabel's name attached.

"I know the government says my baby's data will be kept private, but I'm not so sure. I feel like my trust has been taken," she says.

Parents don't give consent to screening

Brown says she first lost trust when she learned that Isabel had received genetic testing in the first place without consent from her or her husband.

"I don't have a problem with the testing, but I wish they'd asked us first," she says.

Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.

"It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."

Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.

Caplan says taking DNA samples without asking permission and then storing them "veers from the norm."

"In the military, for instance, they take and store DNA samples, but they tell you they're doing it, and you can choose not to join if you don't like it," he says.

What can parents do

In some states, including Minnesota and Texas, the states are required to destroy a baby's DNA sample if a parent requests it. Parents who want their baby's DNA destroyed are asked to fill out this form in Minnesota and this form in Texas.

Parents in other states have less recourse, says Therrell, who runs the genetic testing group. "You'd probably have to write a letter to the state saying, 'Please destroy my sample,'" he says.

He adds, however, that it's not clear whether a state would necessarily obey your wishes. "I suspect it would be very difficult to get those states to destroy your baby's sample," he says."

From: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/masonscollectingchildrendna26sep12.shtml

"I've been warning readers for the past decade that it's a mistake to allow anyone to take a sample of your DNA. Do not provide blood or hair or saliva, or fingernails or dead skin to someone with the ability to have it DNA tested because once your DNA is tagged by the government (and every lab, hospital, and medical office is tied into government computers), you're locked in for life. The government can track you anywhere you go on the face of the planet for the rest of your life if they have your DNA. Once your DNA 'signature' is entered into government computers, you are now the equivalent of a radio receiver and the government can broadcast any damaging electronic signal they wish (psychotronic harassment and torture) and you will receive that signal because your body is now tuned to their scalar transmitter - and you can't do a damn thing about it after the fact. Al Bielek was warning about this in the 1990s when talking about the Montauk Project. Your DNA is your unique frequency signature, and once they have it, they have the key to the safety deposit box called you. And remember, they always sell their enslavement gimmicks as some sort of benefit to you and society, "safety" being the most commonly employed pretext....Ken Adachi]"