LISTEN LIVE OR CALL IN » CLICK HERE!
Most Popular
Vaccines: prophylaxis or anaphylaxis?
(n) anaphylaxis (hypersensitivity reaction to the ingestion or injection of a substance (a protein or drug) resulting from prior contact with a substance)
(n) prophylaxis (the prevention of disease)
(n) prophylaxis (the prevention of disease)
If you're wondering about the definitions above, all is explained in tonight's show, which features an extended interview with Bronwyn Hancock, director of the Vaccination Information Service. Bronwyn has worked closely with Dr. Viera Scheibner, a leading researcher in the anti-vaccination field who has been writing and giving lectures on the subject matter of vaccines and vaccinations since her retirement from the Department of Mineral Resources, New South Wales, Australia in 1987.
From the Vaccination Information Service website:
Vaccination Information Service will inform you primarily about the key fundamentals, indeed critical flaws, of vaccination (or "immunisation") that apply to every type of vaccine.
In summary... “Immunizations” do not immunize! They do the exact opposite
The term “immunization” (US, Canada) or "immunisation" (UK, Australia, NZ), often substituted for the term "vaccination", is false and should not be used in place of "vaccination", because it is well documented in medical research that vaccination, the direct injection of foreign proteins and other toxic material (particularly known immune-sensitising poisons such as mercury and aluminium compounds, formaldehyde and phenol) sensitises, meaning makes the recipient more, not less, susceptible, i.e. more easily affected, by what he/she encounters in the future.
Please be aware that this is a highly politically charged topic, and you are likely to find biased and defamatory statements about anti-vaccine campaigners in prominent journals and websites. The wikipedia entry for Viera Scheibner is a prime example.
I hope you enjoy the discussion.
Related Links:
- Diplomat caught smoking in airplane toilet makes a bad joke and F-16s are scrambled: welcome to the NEW WORLD DISORDER
- NASA animation shows Arctic sea ice approaching normal levels
- Please visit the Facebook fanpage for Hereward Fenton - banned after sharing his views on the Port Arthur massacre
- The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing
- Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? A professional perspective from Anthony Pelosi
- WikiLeaks special project website depicting indiscriminate slaughter in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff
GM foods: the awful truth
This text will be replaced
Download mp3: click here
Categories: [ Biotechnology, GM Foods ]
On tonight's show I have as my guest Bob Phelps, executive director of Gene Ethics, an Australian activist organisation working towards "a more equitable and more sustainable GM-free society".
Mission Statement (from www.geneethics.org):
Gene Ethics is a non-profit educational network of citizens and kindred groups. We want the precautionary principle, scientific evidence and the law rigorously applied to all proposed uses of genetic manipulation (GM) technologies and their products.
Gene Ethics generates and distributes accurate information and analysis on the ethical, environmental, social and economic impacts of GM. Our education programs critically assess GM for the public, policy-makers and interest groups.
Relevant Links:
- Film: The World According to Monsanto
- Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer's Death Every Thirty Minutes?
- 'Superweed' explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands
- Seeds of Deception (website and book by Jeffrey M. Smith)
In Part 2 of the show I am joined by my regular co-host Josh Jackson. We take a look at the evolving swine flu story and then the controversy over vaccination, with a detailed critique of a recent TV special aired on channel 7.
Channel 7 - Vaccinate your Children (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-63XHXxTM4
Channel 7 - Vaccinate your Children (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmymvZefhKY
Recent Comments
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.
What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?
Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?
By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?
By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.
So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.
1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?
2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?
3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?
If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.
Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.
By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh Anonymous,
You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.