Connect with us

Awareness

Internal CDC Documents Reveal They Manipulated Data To Conceal A Link Between Autism & Vaccines

Published

on

A Foolish Faith In Authority Is The Worst Enemy Of The Truth”– Albert Einstein

advertisement - learn more

By Vera Sharav

Note from the World Mercury Project Team:  Following is Part Six in Vera Sharav’s seven-part exposé of the complex and widespread corruption that exists in the vaccination program, the deceptive practices by officials of “authoritative” international public health institutions and further evidence of the callous disregard for the plight of thousands of children and young adults who suffer irreversible harm. Sharav’s research is a must-read by those in our community.

You can read the previous parts here

This recourse to authority is an attitude reminiscent of the American eugenics movement, when public health officials and academics at elite universities, embraced the pseudo-scientific tenets of eugenics, which were the basis for abhorrent discriminatory policies, including forced sterilization policies that were launched in the USA.[60]

The internal CDC documents reveal that in addition to major methodological flaws and inconsistencies, CDC scientists and Danish scientists collaborated in outright fraud. Thorsen and his co-authors manipulated the results by excluding the largest outpatient clinic in Copenhagen – comprising 20% of autism cases in Denmark – from the pre-1992 cohort – thereby artificially inflating the autism incidence in Denmark after 1992 when thimerosal had been eliminated from children’s vaccines.

advertisement - learn more

Furthermore, the authors of the Pediatrics (2003) article falsified their findings by omitting the 2001 data from their published report. The published report claims an astoundingly high (implausible) increase in the autism prevalence rate in Denmark after the phase-out and removal of thimerosal between 1990 and 1999.

This case reveals much about the corrupted vaccine literature. Indeed, the research community has not only failed to examine Thorsen / CDC research fraud, journal editors are knowingly facilitating fraudulent research articles to influence vaccination policies that put thousands of children at risk, depriving them of living normal lives.

The publicly accessible, internal CDC correspondence[1] allows anyone to trace the underhanded route that led to the publication of the Madsen/Thorsen/ et al report in the journal Pediatrics – after it was rejected by the Lancet and by JAMA. A written communication between Dr. Thorsen and high ranking CDC official, Coleen Boyle (2003) reveals that when the paper was first submitted to Pediatrics with the 2001 data included; it was criticized by one peer-reviewer:

“The drop of incidence shown for the most recent years is perhaps the most dramatic feature of the figure, and is seen in the oldest age group as well as the youngest.” The reviewer questions the authors’ failure to discuss “the possibility that this decrease might have come about through elimination of [T]himerosal.”

The internal CDC documents further show that CDC brought pressure to bear on journal editors to publish the Danish studies. Dr. Cordero, Assistant Surgeon General, National Center on Birth Defects & Developmental Disabilities used his influence to persuade Dr. Lucey to publish the Madsen / Thorsen study, “Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism”

“I am writing in support of an expedited review and consideration of the enclosed manuscript… Specific aspects of vaccinations have been subject to inquiry includ[ing] the MMR vaccine and thimerosal…For thimerosal there are limited data…The Danish study is a powerful epidemiologic study …a key strength of the study is the ability to examine rates of autism prior to and after the discontinuation of vaccines containing thimerosal in Denmark in 1992. Contrary to what would be expected if thimerosal was linked to autism, the authors did not observe a decline in the rate of autism with the removal of thimerosal…

Its findings provide one strong piece of evidence that thimerosal is not causally linked to autism.” [Exhibit V: Cordero letter to Lucey]

How is it that even as thousands of journal papers are retracted from the scientific record – Retraction Watch counted more than 14,000 retractions– some are retracted for spurious reasons, others provide no  explanation – yet, deliberately manipulated, fraudulent reports that were crafted to conceal vaccine safety hazards, have never been removed from the scientific literature. In fact, they continue to influence public health policy inasmuch as they were published in “authoritative”  “high impact” journals.

  • In the case of Pediatrics, a fraudulent study was published despite the fact that its editors knew that the 2001 data was omitted from the final version.
  •  US public health officials not only failed to disavow the fugitive’s research, federal officials have continued to collaborate and to co-author papers with him.
  • Dr. Thorsen continues to collaborate with the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.
  • Federal dollars continued to flow to studies in which he was or is involved.
  • Thorsen is the named author of at least 19 reports following his fugitive status – “after his “disappearance”. The journals include: Pediatric Neurology (2016), PLoS One (2015), Pediatric Research (2014), Journal of Autism Development (2013), PLoS One (2013) (NCBI search)
  • Both the HHS and DOJ continue to use his research as grounds to reject vaccine injury claims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation.
  • No retraction of the articles he was associated with during and subsequent to his 2004 to 2010 alleged criminal activities has occurred.
  • The entire US public health machine acts as if the indictment never occurred.

Public health officials and the news media are using fear and exaggeration about the risks of infectious disease in the U.S., as well as the risks posed by un-vaccinated children, which is pitting neighbor against neighbor and parent against parent. They use the classic divide and conquer strategy.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), responded to Thorsen’s indictment stating:

“even if the allegation against Thorsen is true, it does not mean his science is bad… Let’s assume it is true that he embezzled money, the notion that it casts the science into question is false.For these big epidemiological studies, it is hard to believe that one person could effectively change the data.” (Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2010)

Dr. Offit is considered to be a leading authority, an ardent and outspoken vaccine defender/ promoter. This statement encapsulates the low regard that vaccinologists have for the integrity of vaccine science. Of course, like most vaccine promoters, Dr. Offit’s blatant conflicts of interest have enabled him to “vote himself rich”. [61]He is quoted in Newsweek (2008) stating that the millions he made from the rotavirus vaccine patent: “was like winning the lottery.

I believe that even if the allegations of embezzlement are not true, the evidence is indisputable that the studies produced by Poul Thorsen, and published in premier medical journals, are fatally flawed. By altering the inclusion criteria, excluding data that contradicted the authors’ claimed conclusion relegated the study to the ash heap of fraudulent junk science.

Furthermore, the following two studies “were conducted and results published without legally–required ethics clearances.”

CDC officials knew that the psychiatric registry records were reviewed without required permissions and they covered it up. In what are completely unethical acts by all involved, the team members went into damage control mode and decided that they likely could obtain permission for ongoing and future studies.

They concluded that it would probably be impossible to get permission for research that was already finalized (and published). It is absurd that experienced federal grants management officials even discussed the idea of seeking a human subject safety review retroactively. These are serious ethical violations. [sic] they shed light on the pervasive culture of corruption at the CDC.[62]

In January 2013, a Congressional hearing on autism[63] convened by the Government Oversight Committee.

Dr. Coleen Boyle (had by then been promoted to) Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, and Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) defended their agencies but provided no substantive information.

Boyle and Guttmacher evaded pertinent questions. When asked about why the number of children with autism has surged, they testified that autism has no known cause or cure; their focus was statistical tracking and detection tools.

  • When asked if CDC had sought constituent input?
  • Are there studies looking at the very aggressive way that we’re over-vaccinating our children”?
  • Are you looking at the impacts of combinations of vaccines”?
  • Boyle responded, “We know that vaccines save lives.”
  • No response was given to the following questions:
  • What steps were taken to ensure the integrity of the studies in which Thorsen was involved?
  • Why did the FDA and HHS take thimerosal out of all children’s vaccines except just the one or two or three, if there was no problem?
    Both Republicans and Democrats were exasperated by the evasive responses.
  • Dr. Boyle finally acknowledged: “We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated [children]”.

Dr. Guttmacher tried to impress the committee with non-specific claims of accomplishments: the NIH $169 million budget allocation for autism in 2011; he claimed “effective interventions…recent advances in networks” but could not give an example of an effective autism treatment resulting from the last 10 yrs in which the NIH had spent $500 million dollars on autism research, Dr. Guttmacher responded that progress had been “elusive” due to lack of funding. He did not wish to respond to the question, why thimerosal was still used in multi-vial vaccinations?

“I’m just sitting here, and I’m listening to all this. There’s something wrong with this picture. There’s something wrong… When you’ve got this combination of shots, and you go from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 88, it seems to me somebody would say, wait a minute, let’s put the brakes on this, and at least let’s try to figure out whether the multiple-shot situation is causing this —

If I’m giving a baby nine shots in a day whether that—I mean, how much impact that’s having… you said there’s a body of evidence with regard to vaccines…

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know where we go from here… if we’re going to err, let’s err on the side of keeping children safe even if we have to [sic] do a pause and give one shot a day.”

Mark Blaxill, the author of The Age of Autism (2010), which documents that autism did not exist before the introduction of vaccines in the 1930s. Blaxill presented testimony on behalf of Safe Minds:

Autism is a public health crisis of historic proportions. Autism is a public health crisis of historic proportions. Worse than poliomyelitis. It’s devastating a generation of children and their families. We need to face up to the reality Autism is a national emergency. Autism rates didn’t just rise, they multiplied.The old surveys didn’t just miss 99% of children with autism.

It’s horrible but true; reported rates of autism have risen simply because there are more cases of autism. In the midst of this crisis, the federal agencies responsible for the health of our nation’s children have failed in their duty. CDC’s negligence has led the way. Many believe CDC has actively covered up the evidence surrounding autism’s environmental causes.

 NIH has received the lion’s share of Congressional funding, money they have wasted on status quo research and gene studies. It’s absurd to focus on genetic research in this crisis, there’s no such thing as a genetic epidemic. In the financial world, the result of the pressure to manipulate numbers to provide the answers bosses want has a name – securities fraud…what CDC has given us is the medical equivalent of securities fraud. All to avoid the inconvenient reality of the autism epidemic.

In 2006, Congress gave the NIH a mission to “combat autism.” You authorized $850 million for that mission… NIH spent most of that money on the great autism gene hunt while blackballing environmental researchers and defying parent concerns. It’s been a colossal waste of money and time. Not a single case of autism has been prevented. Not a single child received improved treatments. We need to conduct independent research into the great unmentionables, mercury, and vaccines, connections that we’ve documented in the earliest cases.

 We need accountable new leadership. Please root out the failures, the waste, the fraud, the negligence and the abuse of these agencies that aren’t doing their jobs.”  Blaxill’s latest book, co-authored by Dan Olmsted is DENIAL: How Refusing to Face the Facts about Our Autism Epidemic Hurts Children, Families, and Our Future (2017)  

Cong. Bill Posey made an announcement, and submitted new information for the Congressional Record: “I have information that the fugitive doctor had been involved in [sic] 21 of the 24 studies with CDC”.

Another Major Episode of CDC Fraud & Scientific Malfeasance Came to Light

In 2014, Dr. William Thompson, the senior CDC epidemiologist who co-authored the 2004 study published in Pediatrics blew the whistle and revealed that fraud had been committed by CDC authors (himself included) to conceal the higher risk of autism for African American baby boys who were vaccinated prior to 36 months and prior to 24 months of age. Beginning in 2013, in taped conversations with Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Thompson revealed how CDC destroyed evidence of the risk for autism. He provided primary documented evidence – a copy of data that had been deleted from the published article in Pediatrics (2004) the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.[64]

“We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either the 18-month or 36-month threshold, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with the MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features.”

When CDC scientists did find a statistically significant causal relationship between MMR and autism in African American boys, according to Dr. Thompson’s eyewitness account, CDC removed 260 black baby boys from the dataset and destroyed the data. The analysis in the published report in Pediatrics misrepresents the risk of having eliminated data from the dataset. That constitutes fraud.

Dr. Thompson stated that he wrote a letter alerting Dr. Julie Gerberding to the findings and suggested that the Institute of Medicine safety review committee should be informed of the risk, prior to its consequential February 2004 meeting. Dr. Thompson was reprimanded for contacting Dr. Gerberding and was put on administrative leave. He was threatened with being fired.  In his taped conversation with Dr. Hooker – which was central in the film Vaxxed – he expressed shock by his own action:[65]

“Oh my God. I cannot believe we did what we did. But we did.” “It’s the lowest point of my career, when I went along with that paper. I went along with this, and we didn’t report significant findings.”

“I am completely ashamed of what I did. I have great shame now. I was complicit, and I went along with that paper. I have great shame now, when I meet families with kids with autism, because I have been part of the problem.”

Dr. Hooker re-analyzed the complete CDC dataset in 2014, including the data that had been omitted from the published study in Pediatrics (2004). It showed statistically significant adverse effects at both 24 months and 36 months (RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.50-7.51, p = 0.0019).  The higher relative risk of autism for African American infant boys, vaccinated with MMR prior to 36 months, was (330%) compared to other babies. His re-analysis was published online by Translational Neurodegeneration on August 8, 2014:[65]

“The present study provides new epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.

The results show a strong relationship between child age at the administration of the first MMR and autism incidence exclusively for African American boys which could indicate a role of the vaccine in the etiology of autism within this population group. The particular analysis was not completed in the original Destefano et al (CDC) study… the CDC study limited the total African American cohort to include only those individuals who possessed a valid State of Georgia birth certificate which decreased the statistical power of their analysis.”

However, Dr. Hooker’s article came under attack; pressure from the shadowy cyber enforcement squads,[66] that act as a police force to suppress every independent vaccine study that challenges the mantra: “there is no link to autism… vaccines are safe and effective”.

On August 27, the journal removed Hooker’s article with the statement: “This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest”. There was no specific fault or mistake cited.[68]

On the same day that Dr. Hooker’s article was removed from the journal’s website, Dr. Thompson acknowledged the following in a statement issued by his lawyer (August 27, 2014):

“I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

“My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular subgroup for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe itis the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.”

Dr. Thompson then forwarded the documents to a U.S. Congressman William Posey who has repeatedly requested a congressional investigation.[69]

“Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our duty to insure that the documents that Dr. Thompson are not ignored. Therefore I will provide them to members of Congress and the House Committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s documents as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted.“So I ask, Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action.”

On August 26, 2014, Sharyl Attkisson, an investigative journalist who earned numerous awards as CBS science correspondent (1993-2014), conducted taped telephone interviews with Dr. Frank DeStefano,[70] Director of CDC Immunization Safety, who co-authored the Pediatrics (2004) study.

He confirmed the verity of the confessions of CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson about the omission from the published Pediatrics report, of children in the dataset, for whom there were no birth certificates here.

In a telephone interview, DeStefano defended the study and reiterated the commonly accepted position that there’s no “causal” link between vaccines and autism. But he acknowledged the prospect that vaccines might rarely trigger autism.

“Wouldn’t say it’s a myth, I’d say[sic] all the evidence, thus far, points to that there’s not a causal association between vaccines and autism…It’s a theoretical possibility…It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”

Attkisson writes, “They’re not even trying. A CDC spokesman told me that:

“the agency is not currently investigating the relation between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Further, CDC does not have any planned research addressing vaccines and autism. CDC believes that this topic has been thoroughly studied and no causal links have been found. Current CDC ASD related research focuses on determining how many people have ASD and understanding [other, not vaccine-related] risk factors and causes for ASD”.[71]

When Dr. Thompson attempted to leave, CDC gave him a $24,000 bonus – a retention fee. Apparently, CDC continues to employ Dr. Thompson, because they feel more secure with him as an agency employee, enabling them to scrutinize his activities.  Clearly, they feared his being outside the agency, which would risk that he might disclose additional CDC secrets.

CDC Continues to Conceal the Authentic 1999 Verstraeten VSD Study Findings.

When a request was filed with CDC to provide Dr. Verstraeten’s original dataset for independent analysis, CDC officials claimed the data were “lost.”  Even after approval was granted, Dr. Mark Geier was blocked from gaining access to CDC’s Vaccine Safety Dataset which is the data CDC relied upon its study published Pediatrics.  CDC continues to disseminate false reassurances in its “Science Summary Fact Sheet” claiming: “The evidence is clear: thimerosal is not a toxin in vaccines… there is no relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in children.” As its “evidence,” CDC cites the Danish studies.

In January 2017, the President and Executive Vice President of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a press release in opposition to a federal vaccine commission on immunizations.

Fernando Stein, MD, FAAP and Karen Remkey, MD, MBA, MPH, FAAP stated: since we already know that: “vaccines are safe. Vaccines are effective. Vaccines save lives.” AAP declared that there is no need for further examination pf vaccine safety:

  • Vaccines prevent forms of cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature.
  • Claims that vaccines are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule have likewise been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.

However, when asked to provide citations to any peer-reviewed study that supports AAP’s claim that “vaccines prevent forms of cancer” or to cite the “robust body of medical literature” that supports its claims, the AAP declined, with a “no comment” response. (Immunization News, 2017)

WMP NOTE:  This concludes Part Six. The final segment of this series will be entitled:  Multiple Industry-Saturated Collaborating Partners Set the Agenda for Vaccination Policies.

Previously published articles: Sharav’s Introduction to the full article,  L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science, outlines her well-researched and documented belief that, “Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies.” Part One focuses on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccine industry control vaccine safety assessments, control the science of vaccines and control the scientific and mass channels of information about vaccines. In Part Two Ms. Sharav interprets the complex web of internal CDC documents, revealing how key CDC studies and CDC-commissioned studies were shaped by use of illegitimate methods. Part Three takes a closer look at the Brighton Collaboration and the extraordinary influence these stakeholders have in the business of vaccines and their power to control the science and research and manipulate reports to further their own interests. Focusing on the HPV vaccine, in Part FourMs. Sharav explores how a global network of government/academic and industry stakeholders can suppress information about genuine scientific findings and, when needed, engage in corrupt practices to thwart the airing of information about vaccine safety issues. CDC’s childhood vaccination policy rests on the denial of safety hazards posed by vaccines and CDC officials are intent on shielding the policy and vaccination schedule at any cost. Part Fiveexamines documentation and internal correspondence that reveals how CDC used its influence and subsequently rejected scientific studies that contradicted the sacrosanct vaccine safety mantra.

More about the author: Vera Sharav is a Holocaust survivor and a fierce critic of the medical establishment. This article was originally published at www.ahrp.org. Stat news recently published an article about her and her work. 

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Ending The Debate About The Ketogenic Diet – 9 Studies You Must Be Aware Of

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Ketogenic diet is a popular fad diet that promotes quick weight loss and symptom management for bodies that are dealing with poor lymph, kidney and digestion health.

  • Reflect On:

    Based on the studies that are emerging, is our desire for quick weight loss more important than living a long and healthy life? Are we learning about these diets primarily through those with strong ties to upholding these diets?

The ketogenic diet has popped up as a popular approach to weight loss in the last few years. Is it successful at that? Sure, it is. I’ve experimented with the diet myself years ago when I was looking to lose some belly fat. I was entering into ketosis in a different way than most, as I was not eating any animal products, but it does in fact work.

But like any animal product based diet, what are the consequences of eating so much food that does not truly jive with our human bodies? Not only that, is fast weight loss more important than keeping our morality rate down?

In the last few years, we’ve reported a lot on the Keto diet and the various ways it can be done. We have explored the studies, the results and in some ways, we supported it. But lately, I have been thinking about how supporting this could actually be encouraging people to jump into these diets, including the paleo diet, when in reality these diets increase mortality rates and are not healthy for the human body.

It became a thought in the back of my mind, I have always strived to put the best information out that I can through this platform to promote good health. And so we must look at that, even if that means upsetting some people who currently are on paleo or keto and are seeing some good weight loss or symptom management. The truth is, like the many people I’ve seen crash on these diets after a few years, I want people to know the truth of what’s going on out there. And how we can get beyond diets that symptom manage, and instead get onto diets that truly heal.

Anytime we have fad diets, which paleo and keto are, we see products and bias pop up all over the place to support the continuation of these trends. It becomes less about health and more about upholding an identity or a business.

So as I recently looked into what experts are saying about these diets, I came upon two important videos I think everyone should check out. Both have been embedded below. Remember, it’s not that I care what you choose in your own life, or that I feel there is a right or wrong, it’s that I believe we should be informed and I wish to use this platform to promote as best a message as I can.

advertisement - learn more

The Videos

Thanks to Plant-Based News for creating such a good channel and resource of information on YouTube.

In this video, several plant-based health experts talk through 9 nutrition studies that would be of interest to low carb keto diet proponents. To read the 9 studies, click here.

Next up, Dr. Kim Williams (past President of the American College of Cardiology) shares his insights about the ketogenic.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Boy or Girl – Baby Gender Selection Issues

Published

on

Some parents have the possibility to opt for gender selection; however, being able to decide whether to have a baby boy or girl is a controversial issue.

Many couples expecting a baby do not think it’s a big issue whether they have a boy or a girl; however there are several medical, social, and personal reasons that could influence parents to recur to some form of gender selection.

Like many other controversial practices, the legality of gender selection, also known as sex selection, varies from country to country.

The Legality of Baby Gender Selection

The United States has perhaps some of the most relaxed laws regarding baby gender selection in the world. Most European countries and Australia, on the other hand, have bans on sex selection and only allow it for medical reasons. For example, if a parent is a carrier of a mutation or gene with more chances of manifesting itself in a certain gender, baby gender selection is valid. However, if parents simply wish to balance the ratio of boys and girls in their family, they are not allowed to recur to sex selection.

This has generated a form of medical tourism in which couples from countries where gender selection is illegal, like the UK, travel to the US in order to be able to choose whether to have a baby boy or girl.

On the other hand, sex selection is illegal in the two most populated countries on Earth, China and India. In these countries, baby gender selection has been performed clandestinely for many years and for reasons other than family balancing or avoiding genetic diseases. In these societies, having a baby boy is preferred mainly for cultural and economic reasons. Parents believe that boys have better chances of earning income and eventually support them when they reach an old age.

advertisement - learn more

Methods of Baby Gender Selection

There are two major types of gender selection methods: the first one is called sperm sorting, and involves separating X-chromosome sperm from Y-chromosome sperm by flow cytometry, a purification technique in which chromosomes are suspended in a stream of sperm and identified by an electronic detector before being separated. Intra-uterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization can then be performed with the enriched sperm. The success rates for this method vary from 80% to 93%.

The other method, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, consists in generating several embryos through in-vitro fertilization, which are then genetically tested to determine a baby’s gender. The chosen embryos can then be implanted. This method has a success rate of almost 100%; however, it can be quite expensive, costing up to $15,000.

Issues Regarding Baby Gender Selection

While there are few objections against baby gender selection when it is performed for medical reasons, it has become a highly controversial issue when it is used for balancing the number of boys or girls in families. Some people raise the obvious ethical question of whether people who opt for gender selection are “playing God” by manipulating whether to have a baby boy or girl. Others believe that new parents will raise a baby more appropriately if he or she belongs to their preferred gender.

Gender Imbalance Caused by Baby Gender Selection

Gender selection has caused demographic concern in China and India since it has contributed to generate a gender imbalance in the populations of those countries. In some regions of China, for example, the sex ratio for newborns is 118:100, boys to girls. This phenomenon has in turn been associated with social problems such as an increase in violence and prostitution.

It seems like a logical solution for governments around the globe to legalize baby gender selection but to analyze the personal reasons why each couple intends to select a baby boy or girl. Gender selection for medical reasons should even be encouraged, since it could prevent serious genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and Haemophilia A. Balancing the gender ratio of a family should be accepted if by doing this, a healthy family environment is created. On the other hand, China and India have shown that baby gender selection as a result of a bias towards a particular gender can not only create a gender imbalance in the population, but contribute to social problems as well.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Organic Certification: What the USDA Organic Label Means

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Organic and natural labels mean different things, and various types of labels tells you what percentage of ingredients are actually organic. We'll explore what to look for.

  • Reflect On:

    Do you sometimes buy products thinking they are organic or fully natural based on their wording? Have you later found out that those products aren't natural or organic at all? Read labels more closely at grocery stores to be aware.

Don’t get conned by fraudulent claims of “natural” or “organic.” Learn what to look for, and why it’s important, to ensure you’re getting the quality you are paying for.

The industrial age of the 20th century brought about changing agricultural practices that have generated increasing alarm about the effects of these practices on the environment and health. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, irradiated and genetically altered food and fiber products has created a groundswell of rightful concern. It has led to the growing demand for non-toxic, organic products that many are willing to pay a higher price for to ensure the healthful purity of food and clothing provided for their families.

With such profit opportunities, it’s little wonder that the lucrative organic product market has suffered abuse with so-called “organic” labels being fraudulently placed on products that have not earned the right. As a result of pressure from farming and consumer groups, legislation for the standardization of organic certification was introduced in the 1980s. It has been updated to include more vigorous enforcement and control methods since, with the current standards established in 2002 by the USDA.

The Standards of USDA Organic Certification

Specific standards must be met in order to legally claim a product as USDA certified organic. Organic producers must utilize methods that conserve water, maximize soil health, and reduce air pollution. The specific standards to earn USDA organic certification include:

Free of synthetic chemicals such as insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and additives

Free from irradiation and genetically modified organisms

advertisement - learn more

Agricultural products grown on land that has been free of prohibited substances for a period of three years

Animals used for meat, eggs, milk or other animal products must be exclusively fed foods that are organically grown, may not be given antibiotics or hormones, and must have access to outdoors.

Clean and sanitized harvesting and processing equipment throughout the process from harvest to finished, packaged product

Detailed chain-of-handling records from the field through final sales

Physical separation of certified organic products from non-organic products throughout the process of production

Regular on-site inspections from USDA-approved inspectors to ensure compliance

Understanding the Certified Organic Label

Once the rigorous process of certification has been completed, organic producers may place the USDA certified organic seal on their products. Currently, there are four levels of certified organic products, with a specific definition of the percentage of organic ingredients the final products contains. They are as follows:

• 100% organic: all production methods and ingredients are USDA certified organic.

• Organic: at least 95% of the production methods and ingredients are USDA certified organic with remaining ingredients included on the National List of allowed ingredients.

• Made With Organic Ingredients: at least 70% of the ingredients are USDA certified organic with remaining ingredients included on the National List of allowed ingredients.

• No organic wording or seal: less than 70% of the ingredients are USDA certified organic and no claims may be made on the front or back of the product.

Manufacturers or producers who knowingly label a product “organic” when it does not meet the USDA standards are subject to fines up to $11,000 per violation.

Why Organic Certification is Important

When you see the official USDA organic certification seal on food, clothing, and bedding products, you can be assured that these products have met the meticulous standards required and are free of chemicals, toxins, antibiotics, and hormones. When you see the USDA certified organic label, you will understand the value of the higher priced organic products as compared to non-organically produced products.

With the current stringent organic certification requirements enforced by regular inspections from USDA accredited agents, the USDA certified organic label has great meaning and importance to the consumer. Look for the label to know that you are getting the quality you are paying for.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL