We also discussed disease outbreaks among heavily vaccinated populations, the incompetency of the US medical system, the disturbing trend of female genital cosmetic surgery, sexuality and cultural health syndromes. As always, Zoya joined us with the Pet Health Segment - "Why do cats act so weird?"
Running Time: 01:34:51
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Erica: Hello and welcome to the Health and Wellness Show, today is May 6th 2016 and we will be connecting the dots with Gaby, Doug, and Elliot. Hi all!
[Hello's]
Erica: So welcome to our show everyone, welcome to our chatters; as I said, we will be connecting the dots today; trying to provide an overall picture of what's happening to the state of our health in this ever changing world. In the news the last couple of months there have been lots of concerns growing over the medical industrial complex as described by professor Mary Holland in her recent speech at the UN on April 26th. In addition, the disease outbreaks that are happening amongst vaccinated people; especially in the US, the incompetence of the US medical system, sexuality and cultural health syndromes and then as always, we will be joined by Zoya with her pet health segment about why cats act so weird.
Thanks all for joining us today and we wanted to start off the show today with this Mary Holland speech at the UN about vaccinations and human health; human rights and we decided to share this audio because it really is telling about what we are dealing with currently with this ongoing vaccination policy. Again, here in the United States and around the world. So we are going to go to that clip and then we will come back and have a bit of a discussion.
Host: Our next presenter is Mary Holland, she is a research scholar at New York University School of Law; Mrs Holland, you have the floor.
Mary Holland: Thank you very much, it's an honour to be here. I want to start by asking a couple of simple questions to be answered by a show of hands. How many of you have ever, for any reason, been critical of the United Nations; Security Council, peacekeeper budget issues come to mind. I see a lot of hands.
Ok, and how many of you have ever been critical of the United States for any reason? Foreign policy, domestic policy, primary elections right? We are here at the UN; we are in the United States but the vast majority of us have been critical of these institutions at one time or another. To me, this is like asking "are you alive? Are you breathing? Are you a thinking person?" It is human and normal to be critical, almost all of us have been critical at some point because these are complex institutions with varying actions and inactions all the time.
But now, if I ask you, have you ever been critical of your countries vaccine policies? You may be reluctant to raise your hand, and for good reason because in the super-charged public discourse about vaccines, were you to answer "yes, I have been critical of some aspect of vaccine policy at some time" you would likely be branded anti-vaccine. That fundamentalist, boogeyman term, and not by a militant or fringe publication or spokesperson. You might be branded anti-vaccine by the likes of the New York Times, the New England Journal of Medicine, The World Health Organisation and by spokespeople from national centres for disease control and national paediatric associations.
Your views on vaccines might be considered outside the mainstream and equivalent to views of those who deny climate change. You might be considered, as I have sometimes been, a "flat earther". No matter if your critiques were categorical or that you truly oppose all vaccines for all people at all times, or if you simply believe, as many people here and I do, that mercury should never be a preservative in any vaccine, anywhere in the world because there are better and safer alternatives.
[Round of applause]
Many in this audience here today are branded anti-vaccine although that is a gross distortion. We are called this primarily to marginalize and dismiss our views but just as most of you are critical of some aspects of the UN and of the US, but think that they are important institutions, most of us have views that are nuanced, pro-health and pro-safe, affordable, necessary and effective vaccines; or sane vaccines.
[Round of applause]
Though my focus today is on the role of law in protecting human rights when it comes to vaccines. How can we balance the rights of the collective versus the rights of the individual? Vaccines by their very nature are a population based medical intervention. If enough people take this medical intervention, then the so-called "herd" will be protected from the circulation of a communicable disease based on the theory of the herd immunity. Although individuals receive vaccines, the rationale for vaccines is for the good of the individual and the society. One of the core purposes of the United Nations set forth in article 1 of its charter is to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms of all.
So the UN and the international community have obligations to respect human rights related to vaccination but how must nations in the UN do this? This is an important question that deserves scrutiny as it profoundly affects both individual and public health.
Since World War II, the international community has recognised the grave dangers in involuntary scientific and medical experimentation on human subjects. In the aftermath of Nazi medical atrocities, the world affirmed the Nuremberg Code which stated that the voluntary consent of human subjects is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further enshrined this prohibition against involuntary experimentation stating "no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation".
Such a prohibition is now universally recognized so that some courts and scholars have pronounced the right to informed consent is a matter of customary international law. In other words, it applies everywhere, whether or not a country has it on its books. It is the same as the norms prohibiting slavery, genocide, torture and piracy.
But what about informed consent in the area of treatment, including preventive treatments like vaccines? This is a controversial issue today in many countries including the United States. In 2005 the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, addressed this issue, adopting the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights based on a consensus of 193 countries, including the United States. The participating countries hoped that this declaration, like the universal declaration of human rights before it, would become a set of guiding principles. On the issue of consent, the declaration states "any preventive medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior free and informed consent of the person concerned based on adequate information."
It further notes that "the sole interest of science or society is not sufficient". This pronouncement is the extension of the medical oath attributed to Hippocrates 2500 years ago that doctors must work for the good of their patients and never do harm. Abbreviated as the first "do no harm" principle, this credo embodies the precautionary principle in medicine, clearly placing the interests of individual patients above the interests of the collective or so-called "herd".
This precautionary principle leads directly to the view that vaccination policies must be recommended, not coerced. The doctor/patient relationship depends first and foremost on trust and coercion undermines it. When the doctor/patient relationship is based on coercion, trust is a casualty and doctors then serve the state and by extension, the society above their individual patients. This is a slippery slope where civilized medicine has too often derailed in the past.
Dr Leo Alexander, the chief US medical consultant to the Nuremberg trials warned in 1949 that from small beginnings, the values of an entire society may be subverted. He pointed out that long before Nazis came to power in Germany, a cultural shift in the medical community had "already paved the way for adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view with literature on the euthanasia and extermination of those with disabilities as early as 1931".
Following the medical precautionary principle, the default position for vaccination must be recommendations, not compulsion. Individuals for themselves and their minor children should have their right to accept or refuse the preventive medical interventions based on adequate information and without coercion such as the threat of loss of economic or educational benefits. Informed consent must be the default position because compulsion on its face, not only undermine trust but limits the fundamental rights to life, liberty, bodily integrity, informed consent, privacy and parental decision making.
Many developed countries vaccination policies embody this principle of childhood vaccination recommendations, including conference co-sponsors Germany and Japan. Other developed countries that achieve impressive public health without resort to compulsion include the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Finland, South Korea and Spain; amongst others.
Nonetheless, the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights does permit limitations of fundamental rights but these limits must be imposed by law and must be "for the protection of public health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". Furthermore, any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.
International courts have developed a test to assess whether restrictions of fundamental rights are legitimate and lawful. The test studies whether a measure is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate to the risk. The state enacting the restriction bears the burden of proof that the compulsory medical intervention is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate. Generally, strict necessity must be the least restrictive alternative to achieve the public health objective and non-coercive approaches must be considered first. Thus, the state must show that a less restrictive alternative is not feasible before adopting a highly restrictive or coercive one.
In addition to these criteria, if a state does mandate vaccination, then it has an affirmative obligation to provide an effective remedy for those who have been injured as a result. Like all prescription drugs, vaccines carry the risk of injury and death to some. The guarantee of an effective remedy is a basic pillar of the rule of law in a democratic society and the remedy must actually be an effective one, it can't be an illusionary remedy which in fact provides no relief.
Erica: Well, thank you for that professor Holland. So for our listeners who may be interested, Holland is also an author of a book called The Vaccine Epidemic, How Corporate Greed Bioscience and Coercive Government Threaten our Human Rights, our Health and our Children. For our other co-hosts, I'm interested in what you got out of that speech.
Gaby: It was interesting to hear the quote about the Nazi era; how the cultural shift in the medical community paved the way for Nazi atrocities later on. After that, it was reversed in the sense that no medical treatment should be enforced; it should be voluntary. Now we are seeing a change again, a shift that vaccines are enforced; at least they are trying to do that in the US; we are back again to square one! Will we ever learn?
It's very refreshing to hear her; she is a lawyer right? It would be very hard, at least for me, to conceive of a medical doctor having the guts to speak the way she did in the United Nations.
Erica: Yes, definitely.
Elliot: I couldn't agree more with what she was saying and I think that fundamentally, it comes down to individual choice and human rights and that is something that is seemingly just being stripped away from the population; some places more than others. It seems like we are moving towards a state where people will readily accept this coercion and this enforcement of the supposed "health necessity".
Erica: The benefit of the herd over the individual.
Elliot: If that was true then that wouldn't be such a problem.
Erica: True in theory.
Doug: Although it should be pointed out that this isn't the first time where there is an enforced medical procedure forced on the population. I think about fluoride being put into the water, this is a bit of an aside I guess but it's just that is basically mandatory medication. Nobody has any kind of say in it in an area that has been fluoridated. There is a precedent for it unfortunately; to have a medical treatment being enforced regardless of your personal feelings on it.
Gaby: We are in a really bad shape because yes, there is enforcement but there is also a lot of manipulation. We just have to look at the anti-smoking campaign, it has worked so well that everybody is like "woooah". We have spoken about this several times before but the issue of vaccines where there is unethical behaviour that is basically a violation against human rights that we have seen and discussed over and over again. We have already seen that, for example, the research for vaccines that is carried out in Latin America; it's characterised precisely by that; by violations against human rights. People are basically not explained to about informed consent, they just collect informed consent afterwards when it is asked of them from the FDA for example; it's just crazy.
Erica: Also, the coercion that is happening; we see it in the United States. She opened the talk saying anybody that has questions or is not sure are automatically branded an anti-vaxxer, and then the fear sets in. Maybe people who do do the research and just have questions are maybe not even anti-vaccine but they just have certain questions, especially with the release of the movie Vaxxed.
As people are becoming more educated, having a question like "do I have to give all these vaccines at once or can I space them out?" Again, the informed consent is, you have to consent; that's it.
Doug: There is no informed consent.
Gaby: Now they don't even need government agents to survey the population for who is having vaccines or not for example. Even in schools they are asking children to be vaccinated otherwise they will not be admitted; that's against the law. At least on a universal level you cannot deny a child an education because they are not vaccinated!
Erica: We see that happening in Australia with this "no jab-no pay" policy as well. People who receive federal benefits will be denied those benefits based on the fact that they are not vaccinating.
Doug: That's ridiculous.
Gaby: Now we have a society that is basically contributing to all this madness. Where is the originality? It is gone from the picture.
Elliot: The big problem with this as well is that it's like it's not even in line with the theory of vaccination. Say you have a population and say you have 99% of that population that are vaccinated, theoretically those guys have this form of herd immunity, this protection against this disease so if you do have the odd person who doesn't want to get vaccinated, surely that person can be of no danger to the majority of people who are vaccinated?
The idea is that vaccination prevents against contracting these diseases, it's like there is this inconsistency with the narrative and it simply doesn't make sense.
Doug: I was just going to reinforce what you said, if vaccines do what they are said to be doing then an unvaccinated child is no threat to a vaccinated child whatsoever. There should be no issue there whatsoever but they are treated like they have got the plague. They are treated like they are going to wipe out the population, we have to keep them out of daycare, we have to keep them out of schools; it's ridiculous.
Gaby: The facts on the ground speak for the contrary, actually it is the children that are vaccinated that are a threat for those who are not.
Doug: Exactly.
Gaby: For example, with the rotavirus vaccine, there is data showing that a child got the vaccine and the unvaccinated child would get diarrhoea and they would find strains of viruses from the vaccine and not something that the child got from the community; it's the other way around.
Doug: There is so much crap in the vaccines, there was one article that we were looking at for preparing for the show called The Vaccine Dilemma, Unsafe at Any Dose, it's by Richard Gale and Gary Null; it's on SOTT; it was up on May 3rd.
He goes into all the different stuff, I mean it's a massive article; it's very good, very well written, very well informed. At one point he goes into all the different stuff that's in the vaccine; all the little fragments of DNA, there is so much stuff in there they are blind to what they are actually injecting into people. There is the stuff that they know about that they are putting in there which is bad enough but then there is all this other stuff that could be having unknown effects.
I'm not surprised that when somebody who gets the vaccine ends up getting sick because it might not even be the thing that they were vaccinating against that they come down with. It might be that multiple other things that are in the vaccines.
Erica: What was also interesting in his article was how they both talk about how this mandatory vaccination consistently repeats a dangerous mantra and there is no warranted basis in medical science about it. He talks about how this is a monolithic industry, a massive network of private and government institutions and state senates supported by a complicit and compliant media and they want us to believe that science has finally settled the debate over safety and efficacy and that all the data is in, so we are told, no further research and discussion is necessary because vaccines have officially been ruled to pose no neurological or immunological risk to infants, children, pregnant mothers, adults and the elderly.
But the official policy is founded on flawed premises and we see that again and again and a primitive understanding about the complexities of the human body and its multifaceted immunological system; that whole idea of the myth of settled science.
Doug: Yeah, how could a scientist ever say that science is settled? Science is never settled, that's what science is. You constantly keep on researching, you keep on looking, you keep on testing your assumptions; all those things, that's what science is. The idea that science is settled, we don't need to do any more science? Science is done! Don't take science in school anymore because it's over, we have figured everything out. Give me a break! That's just ridiculous! [Laughter]
Gaby: It is, it's absurd.
Doug: It's junk science; that's essentially what it is and that's what Gary Null says in this article "in short, accepted vaccine research is little more than junk science".
Erica: So we have a caller on the line, I would like to welcome Harrison.
Harrison: Hi everyone!
[Hellos]
Harrison: I just wanted to comment on this thing that you have been talking about for a few minutes which Elliot brought up, about the idea that children who have not been vaccinated put kids who have been vaccinated at risk and just how absurd and schizophrenic and double-thinkish the whole idea behind this is. Like you guys have said, let's get this straight, vaccines are supposed to protect against children or people in general getting certain diseases or infections or whatever and so they get vaccinated; so they are good. So what's the problem with one kid that is not vaccinated?
It shouldn't be a problem, if anything he is putting himself at risk right? Or his parents are putting him at risk. But that's not the way it works out, in theory that is the way it should work but when you actually look at it, it turns out that the kids who have been vaccinated sometimes end up getting these diseases and sometimes there are outbreaks of these diseases in populations in schools who have been vaccinated.
It frustrates me to no end because you think about the lack of logic and the lack of thinking that pro-vaccine people put into this because you think that the chain of reasoning would go something like this - ok so obviously the vaccine didn't work, maybe it worked for some but it didn't work for others so let's look at these people, these kids, for whom the vaccine didn't work. If the vaccine didn't work, was it necessary to give it to them in the first place? Maybe we can do some tests to find out what it was about them or what kind of genetics or physiology that they have that made the vaccine not work. Once we figure that out then what is the point in vaccinating these kids? We just exclude them, we vaccinate the people that we know it will work on and then we will figure out how to make a new vaccine for these kids that it doesn't work on.
Just by the logic of the facts on the ground, they should come to the conclusion that certain people shouldn't have vaccines; or they don't work on them and if they go even further, they can look and accept the data that shows that some people, some children, are harmed by vaccines and say, wait a second, this is harming some children, let's find out what it is about these children that makes it harmful for them and let's identify those children before they have vaccines and exclude them from having a vaccine.
So now we have got two population groups that shouldn't get, or don't need vaccines. The people that are at risk and the people for whom they won't work. Doesn't it make sense? Am I crazy?
Erica: No, not at all.
Doug: No, but you are forgetting that science is settled Harrison; science is settled. So just stop thinking about it.
Gaby: I have never heard so much sanity Harrison and that's the whole point.
Harrison: I'm going to get vaccinated for thinking too much!
Doug: Exactly, you need a thinking vaccine.
Harrison: I just wanted to point that out, thanks guys.
[Thank yous]
Erica: Thanks for sharing that, that was great. It's interesting that he brought that up too because, as Gaby was talking about earlier, there was this article that came out called The Vaccine Reaction by Kate Raines about the shingles risk being increased by the chickenpox vaccine. Who on the show here has had chickenpox as a child?
[Yes from everyone]
Erica: Everyone.
Gaby: It was fun because I don't remember it at all. I was told I had it.
Elliot: You got to have time off school.
Erica: Yeah! And even when we were kids you would remember somebody got the chicken pox and then all the parents rushed their children to the friend's house so everybody would get it.
Doug: They would have chicken pox parties.
Gaby: Let's get it now!
Erica: So in this article, they are talking about how the protective effects of a vaccine acquired artificial immunity do not last long and that naturally occurring immunity following recovery from the natural disease is what is better right? So this whole idea of shingles, that when you get chicken pox as a child naturally, you are at less risk to get shingles as an adult.
I found that very interesting. I personally didn't have chicken pox as a child, I got chicken pox when I was 20 and I got very sick and what was interesting was I had a baby at the time and I was breastfeeding and I didn't know I had the chickenpox because I just didn't know and I went to the hospital.
They wouldn't let me in the hospital because of the contagion factor but they put me on an antiviral; I'm not sure but Gaby, you may know; they told me it was a form of herpes. What was really interesting was I was concerned because my daughter was only 1 years old and she might get the chickenpox as a result of me having it.
Well, because I was breastfeeding, she didn't get the chicken pox and several years later when she was in second grade, she did get the chickenpox and she got a pretty bad case but it lasted for 2 weeks and again she didn't have to go to school and then my other daughter got them and four or five other kids in the neighbourhood got them and that was it. They acquired that immunity so that's my little story about the chicken pox.
This article is interesting because it's basically saying, and Gaby you might want to elaborate more on this but, that because of this vaccine, people are getting shingles more as an adult because of the waning capacity for it to protect people.
Gaby: Yes, that's very interesting because when people get chicken pox, they get the immunity that will prevent the virus from reactivating later on in life as herpes zoster which is typically a disease seen only in the elderly; at least in the past. In the elderly, when they had low immunity, they will usually have herpes zoster which is the reactivation of the virus of the chicken pox they had in early childhood.
Now even I am seeing this already; I notice it. You will have people that are very, very young and they will have herpes zoster and I will be like what! You are something like 20 years old! Why would you have this? You look young, healthy; apparently not! This is the trend that they found in this research, that people are at an increased risk of having herpes zoster and shingles at a very early age.
This used to be a disease from the elderly; not any more. Now anybody can have it. They are especially warning people and doctors that we will see these even more and more as people get their immunity from vaccines and not from the chickenpox disease itself.
Elliot: Can't herpes zoster virus or shingles lead to certain complications like brain inflammation and neurological damage?
Gaby: Yes, what it can lead to is very severe pain that doesn't get relief with anything. People will even have high doses of antivirals and all kinds of pain killer medication and the pain will not stop; that can be permanent.
Doug: It's definitely no joke, I've known some people who have had shingles and it is debilitating. It's a really, really terrible disease to have. This is a really big deal when you consider how minor chicken pox is and how serious shingles can be. It's another situation where the medical community seems to think that they know better than nature and they can improve upon the way things naturally happen.
It would make a lot more sense to just let the kids get the chickenpox, they acquire their natural immunity and then that's it; end of story. But no, they have to say, no, we have to come up with a vaccine to get rid of this horrible chickenpox; give me a break.
Gaby: Instead of thinking about that in a rational way as you just did, what they are trying to come up with is a reinforcement of the chickenpox vaccine because obviously one was not enough.
Doug: Yeah, so you need a booster every once in a while. It's so obviously just a money grab. It makes me so mad because it's something as innocuous as the chicken pox; just leave it alone. Just leave it alone; but no there is the potential to make some money here so let's go in and do this. Oh, it didn't work very well? Let's give them another one because then there is more chi-ching; more cash! It's very frustrating.
Elliot: It's interesting Gaby that you mentioned that people are developing shingles younger and younger. I think it says in this article that a case report published in 2014 actually described a 9-year old boy who had shingles. That was directly after the chickenpox vaccine.
Doug: Jeeze.
Gaby: That's completely crazy, a 9-year old? No, it shouldn't.
Doug: That kid could be crippled for life from this basically. That can last a lifetime.
Gaby: Some people have even told me that yes, I always get shingles this time of the year and it will be a thirty-something year old person. That's just not normal; it's not normal! Then when you go and apply for a job, there are certain professions that are at risk; for example, nurses and doctors.
They will test your blood levels for antibodies to know if you have had this vaccine or not. They will recommend getting a vaccine of your antibodies are low. What this research also showed was that even though antibodies triggered by the vaccine were high, people can still get sick because actually it seems like there is no correlation with immunity. The vaccines actually lower your natural innate cellular immunity which is not tested in this blood test and it leaves you at risk for contracting the disease. Right there is the proof that the vaccine doesn't work!
Doug: Seriously.
Erica: Well it's interesting, in that light, back to that Vaccine Dilemma, Unsafe at Any Dose by Richard Gale and Gary Null, during the past decade we have all witnessed outbreaks of infectious diseases amongst the fully vaccinated and we observe new strains appearing that escape current immunisation. Recently there was an outbreak of the mumps at Harvard University and it was interesting reading the article because they talked about how they were worried that the commencement ceremony at Harvard might be cancelled due to the fact that over 40 students had the mumps. The irony is that they were all vaccinated.
What was interesting was that when we were preparing for this show Jonathan had done a Google search about mumps at Harvard and the first article to come up on Google was from Wired Magazine and it was talking about how "this is not because of the vaccination" I would encourage our chatters and listeners to read the article. What was interesting was when I tried to click on it and read it, it said I had to be a member so I couldn't read it. That would be the first article to come up, "it's not because these people were fully vaccinated, go back to sleep, go get your mumps vaccine". You know what I mean?
Doug: The point that they were making in that article was that we have always known that vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are always some cases where it doesn't work which of course it contrary to what the settled science people would tell you; they are 100% effective and they are 100% safe. Their point was that it doesn't mean vaccines don't work, it just means it didn't work in this situation.
Erica: And back to that article, he was talking about how the European scientists, back in 2012, had warned that viral epigenetic mechanisms are steadily evading our immune systems and therefore vaccines are becoming ineffective as new viral strains emerge and the length of immunity provided by vaccines are lessening.
Gaby: That is a consistent pattern with several vaccines like with hepatitis B. People might not get that specific strain but they will get an even more violent one that are just reported in people that are vaccinated.
Doug: It's just like the flu vaccine as well. When they come out with a flu vaccine for the year they are basically guessing on what strain is going to be the most virulent during that year and it's like a guess. We guess it's going to be this one so here, take this shot. It might not be that one at all.
Erica: The article Big Pharma, The Recent Mumps Outbreak at Harvard, for our listeners, was written by Dr Russell Blaylock who has done a lot of research on cellular immunity; this was years ago. There was an article Big Pharma Vilified Researcher for Threatening the Vaccine Programme and he basically says that the problem is the media and academia are so controlled by the pharmaceutical giants that the general public has no idea about the research that exists.
It is now known in the research world that questioning vaccine safety is a career killer and we see that again and again. The data demonstrates that millions of people are seriously injured and thousands die as a result of vaccine complications every year. In many cases, the damage caused by the vaccines exceed the risk of the disease they are being vaccinated against. He talks about chicken pox, tetanus, measles, mumps, hepatitis B and the HPV vaccines.
Elliot: On the subject of the hepatitis B vaccine, there was an article published on SOTT on the 27th of April and it is called Poisoned Needles, Indian Health Experts Question Universal Vaccination. In the beginning of the article it's talking about these pentavalent vaccines which are essentially meant to provide immunity against 5 different infections or diseases in one single injection. You have got this 5 in 1 vaccine that typically covers diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B and haemophilus and influenza type B.
In this article it talks about how there is 10 Indian health experts who see this as a red flag because what they have noticed in India is that children are just dropping dead as soon as they have these vaccines. You have got so many children with neurological damage, you have got sudden deaths, you have got all of these sorts of problems with the vaccines and it talks about how these particular individuals, these experts, sent a letter to the Indian property management officer.
In that letter they were raising the questions about universal immunisation; this idea that you should have this immunisation program and spread it across the world and everyone should have that. They talk about this study, it says "Dr Jacob John in his editorial noted that the frequency of chronic infection was similar in both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated children." He is talking about the hepatitis B vaccine.
They noticed that there is very little difference between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated but the problem is that with the vaccinated children there is also severe side effects. They are raising the question, is it actually worth it to have these vaccines? I thought it was interesting because the letter concluded with "in short, expensive vaccines that have little utility are being rolled out without monitoring benefits or harms and which are causing deaths and serious effects. As a result, in spite of official attempts at denial, the public are losing trust in the entire immunisation program."
It talks about how there is an increasing number of parents in India who are flat out saying "No, we don't want our kids vaccinated". I think it is interesting how in India this is starting to gain some traction in the mainstream media whereas in the USA and the UK and most of the Western world we just don't have this.
Erica: Or it's suppressed; heavily.
Elliot: Completely.
Erica: And the media is very complicit in that. One thing that was interesting in that article which you were talking about Elliot was that the US CDC and FDA basically set the policies for all the other countries to follow and as we have reported on this show in the past, the CDC and the FDA are not looking out for the good of human people.
Gaby: Massive, massive conflicts of interests. For me, the interesting part of that article was that they have a lot of hepatitis B, to the extent that you don't see in the US or in Europe so you cannot tell if a vaccine is working or not. It could be because people are taking care. They have a lot of hepatitis B in countries like India and Sri Lanka and they report that people that are vaccinated are getting the diseases anyway so it's not working so why should they vaccinate? It's a good point.
Doug: Which goes back to what Harrison was saying.
Erica: It is interesting how the grip is getting stronger and stronger. We talked about this issue several times on this show and especially in the US; the non-vaccinated population is 3% or 5%. It's a very low percentage, yet in the media, especially with the release of the movie Vaxxed, it's like this constant clamping down and information control to the highest extent; saying non-vaccinated parents are stupid or they are uneducated or that there needs to be a vaccine against anti-vaxxers; it just goes round and round and round.
Doug: It's so frustrating because as soon as you are talking to anybody and they come up with their anti-anti-vaxxer propaganda you may as well have just have turned on the TV; that's what you are hearing right? That's where all their opinions are coming from, they aren't informed despite the fact that they think that they are informed and it's like, what's the point in even talking to these people?
Gaby: Let's just remember Mary Holland's speech at the beginning of the show, it's a precedent for medical experimentation and reinforcement just like in the Nazi era.
Doug: I actually found that speech to be very hopeful; the fact that she was up in front of the UN and got a standing ovation; that's impressive. It goes to show that despite what the media shows you, there is a large contingent of people out there who are least questioning things.
Gaby: Yeah, and seeing the signs. It reminds me of another report by the United Nations in 2013 and it says specifically the definition for torture - Medical care that causes severe suffering for no justifiable reason can be considered cruel, inhuman or a degrading treatment or punishment, and if there is state involvement and specific intent, it is torture. This debate of vaccines, anti-vaxxer, it is making the precedent for stuff like this to happen.
Erica: Especially when states are making it compulsory, like California.
Elliot: It is extremely difficult when you have got so much propaganda as well. Like the amount of control that big pharma has over politics, over public policy and over education. It makes it really difficult for people to break free from that.
There was a really good article in SOTT recently called Big Pharma's Silent Hold over the US Government. It talks about how big pharma essentially has so much influence over decisions that are made and it talks about how they lobby congressmen, they lobby policy makers, lawmakers and politicians. I found the figures quite interesting; startling in fact. It says lobbying expenditures by the pharmaceutical industry have been increasing every year and hit an all-time high of $273,000,000 in 2009.
It says "pharmaceutical companies also contribute heavily to the campaigns of candidates who eventually return the favour. They spent $51,000,000 in the 2012 federal elections and $32,000,000 in the 2014 elections according the centre of responsive politics."
Pharma has already spent $10,000,000 in these upcoming elections; in the 2016 elections. Basically what these guys can do is pay these congressmen, they can pay them whatever and say "we will give you a steady stream of however many millions and you guys just put in a policy here, put in a law there and that can facilitate what we want to do." It's quite hard to fathom the level of corruption but when you really get down to it, it seems as if 99.999% of the people who make decisions are quite often in the back pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.
Gaby: I believe there are going to be elections in Spain in a few months; no political party is speaking against big pharma.
Erica: Frightening. Another article that we had which is in conjunction with this whole discussion is Doing No Harm? A John Hopkins Study Shows Death by Medical Error Now Third Leading Cause in the USA; this was in the Washington Post. Nightmare stories of nurses giving potent drugs meant for one patient to another and surgeons removing the wrong body parts have dominated recent headlines about medical care.
Lest you assume these cases are the exceptions, a new study by patient safety researches provides some context. Published in the British Medical Journal on Tuesday, it shows that medical errors in hospital and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States claiming 251,000 lives every year; more than respiratory disease, accidents, strokes and Alzheimer's.
Gaby: I just want to point out that this data did not come from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; the CDC because it is not required to report medical errors in their data; they have to use a different database. I understand that they used death certificates which is good data but I think it still underestimates the seriousness of the situation. A lot of folk are really left out from this data.
Elliot: Either this stinks of extreme incompetence on the part of surgeons or doctors and healthcare professionals or, I'm not sure quite how it works in the US, but I know that doctors are being severely overworked in the UK. The working hours are really quite appalling, especially for junior doctors. There have been a lot of strikes and protests because of the policies that have been set for doctors and their working hours recently in the UK. I'm not sure what other reasons behind that may be other than incompetence or just sheer exhaustion.
Gaby: It's just the system, when you are traumatised or when you have transmarginal inhibition, you are more easy to manipulate. I can see people, like very junior doctors, starting off they are really brilliant minds and they somehow went and s?????d through medical school. When they start their practices in the hospital, I can see them deteriorate mentally.
First they will be very questioning towards big pharma and then they will be sold out so easily; accepting gifts for going to a conference or accepting sponsorship. I am very vocal, if I am invited to a nutrition talk which is sponsored by a big pharma laboratory, I will just say [indistinct] I give talks all the time; I will not go because this is a clear conflict of interest. People are just like "oh but, oh but, oh...." It's like they cannot think any more.
Erica: Frightening.
Gaby: It is frightening, it really is. It is like the Sixth Sense; I can see dead people! [Laughter]
Erica: Also, it is really telling when you have a sore throat or maybe you break your finger or something and the last thing you want to do is go to the doctor.
Doug: It's true, it's just like when you are having some kind of problem you don't want to call the police because they are probably going to shoot you or shoot your dog right? I like my dog, I'll deal with this crime myself.
Gaby: It is so pathetic. Sometimes I have consultations for people who really need to go to the doctor and it is just psychological work to prepare for that consultation and how to survive it. You're sick, you have to [lost audio] you don't really have to feel like that if you are sick.
Doug: You shouldn't.
Erica: It just goes to show the fear too, especially back to the vaccination issue, it's like I have this ailment, if I go to the doctor they are going to ask me "are you vaccinated against this, this and this?" and you may leave having to get a vaccine and not dealing with the real issue; like your broken finger; something totally not related.
Doug: You go in for a broken finger and you come out missing a kidney or something. [Laughter]
Elliot: They may just needlessly put you on a dose of antibiotics for a few weeks or a few months.
Doug: Oh yeah! The doctors just use antibiotics just to shut people up. "I've got a sore throat", "well here are some antibiotics", "is it a bacterial infection?" "I don't know just take the antibiotics and shut up."
Elliot: There was an RT article on SOTT which was called 1 in 3 Antibiotics Prescribed by American Doctors Were Unnecessary. That was what the study found.
Doug: 1 in 3?
Elliot: 1 in 3. I would estimate that it was probably higher than that.
Gaby: Researchers found that about 44% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions were written for colds, bronchitis, asthma, allergies, influenza and viral pneumonia where it can be questioned, if it is allergies and if it's viral then antibiotics are of no use.
Doug: In any of those situations the antibiotics are of no use. All you are doing is decimating your own probiotics.
Erica: And breaking down the immune system and going to the hospital and getting other diseases while you are there.
Doug: Is it any wonder that nobody wants to go to the hospital?
Gaby: I have seen to the contrary as well, people go to the doctor and they will keep going until he or she will prescribe an antibiotic, even though it is viral and it is explained that it is of no use. They will persist until the antibiotic is given. It goes both ways; the helplessness of mainstream medicine against common diseases that could be easily cured with a change in the dietary habits; like allergies. They are completely helpless to deal with it so, there you go, antibiotic.
Erica: Frightening. Let's move on to a few more topics that we wanted to discuss today. Who wants to cover what's going on with young women and their lady bits? [Laughter]
Gaby: I don't know.
Doug: This is unbelievable.
Gaby: I had no words when I read that article, I didn't know it was stacked like that???????? [56.32]
Doug: What it is basically covering is the popularity of a cosmetic surgery known as labiaplasty where women are having their vagina reconstructed because they don't like the way it looks. Apparently this is growing in popularity at a pretty unbelievable rate. There was 222 in 2014, 400 in 2015 which is an 80% increase and the age group where it is jumping the highest is girls under the age of 18, I think?
Erica: Under 18's made up 4.6% of all the surgeries.
Gaby: A plasty of your labia because they think it looks too thick or too big? Where did they get that idea?
Doug: Porn, that's where they got that idea. I swear to god, that's where it's coming from. With the popularity of porn these days it's like there is a very specific look; it's the same thing with breast implants right? There is the very specific look that is the porn look, like a Barbie doll porn actress and if you don't look like that then you are not living up to the standard that society has decided. It's just yet another thing that women can be insecure about. This is just so over the top it's unbelievable.
Gaby: These are teenage girls that are worried that they don't look like a porn star?
Doug: Yeah.
Elliot: One of the complications is that this isn't a type of surgery that doesn't have complications, this is a fairly serious surgery. It can cause permanent damage.
Gaby: This is major female mutilation; that's basically what it is and it is voluntary in this case.
Erica: Paid for by your insurance policy no doubt.
Doug: It could be. I lived in California for a little while and one of the things that I found very shocking about that culture is just how prevalent plastic surgery is. I was talking about this with you guys before the show but I was really surprised because it wasn't even like people were correcting what they thought were errors. Like if somebody was born with a really big nose so they would feel like they had to get is changed.
The plastic surgery look is its own look, it's like these people want to look plastic and fake. All the women are walking around looking like they have been punched in the mouth because their lips are so big; they have got these big, ridiculously plump lips but that's the look that they actually like. I see a similar thing with this whole labiaplasty thing, it's like they are obsessing over something that in the grand scheme of things just doesn't matter. I don't know what else to say, it's just insane.
Erica: I agree.
Gaby: I was completely shocked, I read SOTT every day and this news was really like "what!!"
Doug: It just shows how ponerised our society is; that we would value something like this. The whole exaggerated, Barbie doll look with the big boobs, the tiny, tiny waist and the massive lips, it's like there is no sense of balance to it. It's just like the bigger the better or in the case of a waist, the smaller the better. It's like this incredible exaggeration of what we are maybe hardwired to find attractive but it just goes so far beyond that, beyond any kind of balance that it just becomes a caricature.
Gaby: A good point that one of the chatters mentioned is "where are their mothers? I always ask myself, if the parents consent for this surgery??????? [1.00.50]
Doug: For sure, that's their sweet-16 present. For your 16th birthday I'm going to reconstruct your vagina.
Elliot: I think the effects of pornography have become so embedded in society that this is a fairly normal thing for many parents as well because I think to some extent they are just as effected. Maybe not just as effected as the children are now because it seems to be a lot worse now when you compare it to just a few years ago.
They are still subject to these influences and on this whole topic of pornography, as people know, if they have been subjected to pornography and this idea of the perfect image, I kind of get the impression that there is something a little bit more sinister to it as well. Without getting into too many details, I think the main reason for women or girls going for this labiaplasty surgery is to, without being too explicit, tighten things up.
It seems like this whole image that people are actively trying to live up to almost resembles, to some extent, childlike features. With the lack of body hair and everything like that.
Gaby: Yes, that's true. It reminds me of a news item carried on SOTT on May 3rd, Pentagon Security Analyst Says "Unbelievable Amount of Child Porn on US Military Intelligence Computers". That's very reassuring.
Doug: Oh my God. I never looked at it that way before Elliot but I think you are right about that. I had often thought about that with the whole body hair removal thing, that does seem to be mimicking a prepubescent look which is really disturbing.
Erica: In fashion you often see the very skinny, almost young androgynous boy looking models. You would think that plastic surgery would be associated with models but when you see fashion, like in Paris or Milan, they look like 14-year old boys. It's so disheartening in so many ways.
Doug: They just look like coat hangers; walking coat hangers; complete sticks, no shape whatsoever.
Elliot: When you get into it as well, the prevalence of paedophilia amongst these circles, within fashion or within movie industry or within the music industry, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. But the prevalence of this sort of paedophilic phenomena seems as if it's filtering through into society. It's hard to say whether this is a conscious intention on the part of those who pump this out but it almost seems to me as if it is in some way being forced upon society to adopt these values. I guess this links back to ponerization. As Erica says, it is entirely disheartening.
Gaby: It is filtering through all right. There is another article from the United States, Utah: Porn is now Deemed a Health Hazard. "Utah governor Gary Herbert signed two pieces of legislation - one resolution and one bill - this week in an attempt to combat what he has deemed a "sexually toxic environment" caused by pornography."
Erica: That article was interesting because one was a concurrent resolution on the public health crisis and the resolution states that "pornography" is "a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms." It claims that Utah will be the first state in the nation to make this declaration and this move is particularly significant because it may inspire other states and nations to follow. The resolution cites what is more detrimental is the "effects of porn, including the treatment of "women as objects and commodities for the viewer's use." It also states that pornography "equates violence toward women and children with sex and pain with pleasure which increases demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images and child pornography."
In the article they ask what this resolution even hopes to accomplish and basically the resolution has no punitive powers and it doesn't even specifically ban pornography in Utah. For our listeners, Utah is a pretty red, conservative state. 20 years ago it was over 60% LDS; Latter-Day Saints. What it does is they're aiming to raise awareness and promote education.
The bill that passed is HB155 - Reporting on Child Pornography; this is the name of the bill and it was signed with more specific reasons and actually has enforcement muscle. It basically requires computer technicians who find child pornography while doing their work to report it to law enforcement officials. The bill also implies the willful failure to report the child pornography would be considered a class B misdemeanor.
What was interesting was that when that article was published on SOTT was it got some comments that were like "it's been going on forever and you can't really enforce these kinds of things and it's just another nanny state thing" but I personally think it's interesting that they are even addressing the topic at all.
Gaby: It's really pretty bad.
Doug: It doesn't even really get into the effect that is has on the psyche of the people who are watching it. I can't remember the statistics off the top of my head but it seems that younger and younger children are being exposed to pornography all the time. Very little has been said about what that actually does to a child's psyche; or what it does to an adult's psyche for that matter.
Porn is actually quite dangerous and if you take that kind of perspective you get lumped in with the fundie Christians and things like that and you are viewed as kind of a prude. The politically correct thing is to be accepting of pornography and even enjoying it and it's healthy and all this kind of thing when I really don't think that that is the case.
Erica: With this resolution, not that I have any faith in governors or representatives or bills or anything like that because we see so much weird stuff come out of the US but, it brings this idea of a sexually toxic environment to the mainstream. With these surgeries that these young girls are getting, with all the discussions that we have had about plastic surgery and defiling the woman's body to be more pleasurable towards men, whatever it is, it says a lot about how women are objectified and have been for a long time.
Maybe we will have a show on this whole topic in much more depth but even with the sex slave trade, is the reality of the fact that it happens in every state in the United States and nobody deals with it at all; they don't address it.
Elliot: It seems like nothing has actually changed for women. It seems like, if you go throughout history or recent history anyway, we are still living in that patriarchal society in which women are objectified for the benefit and for the pleasure of the male. With the whole ultra-feminist thing that came out a few years ago, it's just another façade because in the name of feminism, women can objectify themselves.
These people who are promoting the ideas that it's feminist to walk around with a bra on and with your bum hanging out, just completely objectifying yourself.
Doug: It's like they are looking at it as if it is a power for them, that that is a way that they can get what they want. It even goes back to that whole Spice Girl thing in the 90's with girl power, the whole girl power thing basically amounted to looking as sexy as you can so that you can manipulate and get what you want.
Erica: And it's objectification in so many ways. As we see, this is happening to younger and younger girls; and boys in a sense too with their whole manipulated idea of what the perfect girl is. The combination between "I want the porn star" and "I want the prude girl" you know what I mean? It is just messes with the psyche on so many levels.
I know I the US it is so inundated that children are growing up with really distorted senses of what a relationship is, in every sense of the word.
Gaby: Like boyfriends asking their girlfriends to send them nude pictures through WhatsApp application on the phone and later they share it on the internet. It's crazy.
Doug: It is manipulative but it also manipulates men. Somebody in our chat mentioned that as well, it's manipulating men, or often boys, into dictating what they want, what they should be after and what they should find attractive; that's another side of it as well.
Erica: Which is not based in reality; the whole nip and tuck thing. As you talked about Doug, with this whole plastic surgery thing, now women are even getting booty implants to have a bigger butt and it's just so disconcerting in so many ways. I'm sure it's been going on for a long time but we just see it so much more now because of social media and like you said Gaby, all the different Snapchat, Instagram and all these things.
I know I experienced it because I had teenage daughters and I tell you, it's stresses a parent out so bad because you know that those things are out there and you have to have the discussion with your children to say this is not reality. Time and again, it keeps being promulgated in so many different ways; they are just inundated with it.
Gaby: All these teenage girls who are getting their labiaplasties should remember that statistics show that between 80-90% of porn stars, prostitutes and sex slaves are doing so basically against their will. Even historical porn stars, I remember we carried an article on SOTT to show that she was basically raped on a daily basis for ages, she did not have the courage to get out; she was basically tortured.
Elliot: It is presented as if this is somehow empowering though, that's the real issue. It's as if people truly believe that treating your own body in this way is in some way in promotion of equality and is empowering.
[Sighs]
Gaby: That was an encouraging news item.
Erica: Again, it's just so disconcerting and I think that just the fact that we are sharing this information and that people know and with our chatters, you can tell they feel the same way. It's just such a manipulation on so many levels and it's causing a lot of pain and suffering in both young children and adults. Having to rework those ideas that society puts upon us about belief systems, about what beauty is and what love is and all the things that come with that.
One of our chatters just said "I'm sure they will have a pharma drug for that feeling sometime in the future".
Gaby: That's true!
Erica: Did you guys have anything else you wanted to share today on these topics? I have a funny last little news item to share about "culture-bound" syndromes and diseases you get if you believe in them. Did you guys get a chance to read that article? Basically there is a new book out called The Geography of Madness: Penis Thieves, Voodoo Death and the Search for Meaning of the World's Strangest Syndromes.
It's just an interview with the author but it was talking about penis theft and that these types of syndromes are actually unique to particular cultures and why you can't get your genitals stolen in America was an interesting read. What I found interesting about the article was that certain conditions exist only in certain cultures and just as we have been talking about, American culture definitely has this whole female mutilation, weird aspect of women and girls and I'm sure it's in other cultures as well.
They talk about these cultural born syndromes and some examples which are pretty interesting are "frigophobia" in China, conditions that only exist and are stemmed from feeling a fear of cold and its roots in traditional cosmology of balancing between hot and cold. Then, running "amok" in Malaysia where people go on killing sprees and can't remember later, "hikikomori" in Japan where people socially withdraw to the point where they never leave their home.
The author talks about how gawking at the strangeness of these syndromes or dismissing them as unscientific or psychosomatic is not really the way to look at these things. He carefully considers the relationship between culture, health, the mind and the body which can lead people to experience seemingly impossible things.
The interviewer, her name is Julie Beck, was talking about this Western body-centric, biology-centric mindset. Some of these cultural syndromes seem very extreme, especially voodoo death which we talked about that in our placebo show; basically when people are cursed to die at a certain time and then they do. He talks about how there is tons of research showing people's beliefs about their health do shape their health.
What do you guys think? Did you get a chance to check out the article?
Doug: Yeah, one thing I found really interesting about it was they started talking about what are some of the conditions that might be in our own culture that we don't recognize as being very culture specific? They said that PMS is actually something that doesn't exist in other cultures, that it is a more Western culture kind of thing.
That really surprised me, we always think of it as being a very biology-centric reason for it happening and apparently it is more of a cultural thing so I wonder how much subconscious belief is embedded in that. I don't know what it could be but just around the issue of menstruation, maybe the idea that it is something to be ashamed of or something that is not natural might cause more of a negative reaction to it.
Erica: Another culture bound syndrome they talked about in the article was gluten intolerance! [Laughter] I couldn't help but chuckle at that. It's those Americans, "Oh, I'm gluten intolerant!"
Gaby: That's damage control. [Laughter]
Elliot: One thing that could apply in the Western world, I'm not sure if it said in the US but, I know that over here there is this common old wives tale or belief that if you go out in the cold without wearing a coat that you will catch a cold.
Doug: Yes, that's in the United States too.
Elliot: There is absolutely no basis in reality for that. If you are looking purely from a biological perspective, going out in the cold is actually going to prevent you from getting a cold but it seems that this has persisted and perhaps it is the belief, perhaps it is that placebo effect, people believe that when they go out in the cold without a coat on that they get ill.
Doug: I wonder if it's just because it's called a cold, if people just associate it with being cold therefore if I am cold then I am going to catch a cold.
Elliot: Perhaps.
Erica: Could very well be. In conclusion to the article, the man who wrote the book talks about how this is a hugely important research that he did and he learned a lot of things as a result. It says here that "I'm not saying there's no biology involved but there's this other piece that's been neglected for a long time that's important in this looping process. It can have a huge effect. Like if you go to the doctor, just the act of going to the doctor is part of your treatment. There's a therapeutic effect just for seeing a healer. Depending on how much you believe in the treatment, that's also part of the treatment. We usually don't think of that as part of this equation but it is."
So for our listeners who didn't have a chance to listen to the placebo effect show, we talk about a lot of those things and as you were saying Doug, maybe the PMS thing again goes back to that cultural belief about the body, about women, about everything and that I feel bad then I am bad.
Doug: ???????? [1.22.58] in the chat actually made a good point, they said that "our society is so influenced by the Bible and that book does not speak highly of menses and it does get referred to as the curse." Maybe that does have something to do with the PMS thing.
Gaby: ???????? [1.23.15] in tribes, historically speaking, it was a very natural cycle. Women were allowed to go away from the tribe to meditate and it was a part of the cycle where the veil really thins and you are more in tune with your feelings. It's considered very sacred but in Western society apparently it is not.
Elliot: It is similar in India as well. I remember when I was travelling through India a few years ago and we were staying with a family and in the household he was telling us about how in many of the houses in India, maybe it's just a Hindu thing, I'm not sure, but he says that in many of the households when the female begins her period she is actually made to sleep outside in the shed.
That could be a distortion of the sacred "female leaving and getting in touch with their feelings" and they actually make them sleep outside.
Gaby: That is what Clarissa Pinkola Estes explains in the book Women Who Run with the Wolves, she really laughs when it is explained that it is because they are dirty and they have to go away. No, it is actually because they are menstruating, they are very in tune with their psyche, with their feelings so it's like a part of the cycle of meditation. It is a very sacred ritual; it's not like they are dirty!
Doug: Go outside! Dirty! It is really interesting that in Western cultures it really gets ignored. Women are expected to keep up with whatever they do normally and basically just ignore the fact that they are menstruating. Judging from Maxi Pad commercials and stuff, you should still be able to go swimming and ride a bike.
Gaby: And wear white! [Laughter]
Doug: Wear white and do whatever you would normally do; it should not impact your life one iota. It should be like nothing is happening here, just ignore it and go about your life as you normally would.
Erica: To sum that up, in America you can get a Depo-Provera shot which is a birth control which causes you to not get a period any more. Big pharma has tackled that and it's a selling point for women. Don't be bothered by that, go 6 months without it, it's fine! That is just so frightening on so many levels.
Gaby: It is and women are really buying it; I saw it on my gynaecology rotations. You get women who line up to get this implant inserted into their arm so they will stop menstruating.
Erica: Signs of a sick society.
Doug: What about a vaccine? Can we get a vaccine for menstruation?
Gaby: I would not be surprised.
Erica: Have you been peeking into the CDC pipeline Doug? It's already being researched.
Doug: It has to be an infant vaccine too; we have got to stop that; nip it in the bud.
Erica: Before it even happens. Well, I think we have covered a lot of topics today and we will take this opportunity to lighten the atmosphere with Zoya's pet health segment on Why Cats Act So Crazy. Yey!
Doug: I'm looking forward to this.
Zoya: Hello and welcome to the pet health segment of the Health and Wellness Show. Last week I talked about dogs so let's balance it a bit with talking about cats. I would like to share with you, an interesting recording titled "Why do Cats Act So Weird" by Dr Tony Buffington, a veterinarian and professor of veterinary clinical sciences at the Ohio State University. He spent his 30-year career studying cats and how the environment affects their health; so enjoy!
Tony Buffington: They are cute, they are lovable and judging by the 26 billion views of over 2 million YouTube videos of them pouncing, bouncing, climbing, cramming, stalking, clawing, chattering and purring, one thing is certain, cats are very entertaining. These somewhat strange feline behaviours, both amusing and baffling, leave many of us asking, why do cats do that?
Throughout time, cats were simultaneously solitary predators of smaller animals, and prey for larger carnivores. As both predators and prey, survival of their species depended on crucial instinctual behaviours which we still observe in wild and domestic cats today. While the feline actions of your house cat Grismo might seem perplexing, in the wild, these same behaviours naturally bred into cats for millions of years, would make Grismo a super cat.
Enabled by their unique muscular structure and keen balancing abilities, cats climbed to high vantage points to survey their territory and spot prey in the wild. Grismo doesn't need these particular skills to find and hunt down dinner in her food bowl today but instinctually, viewing the living room from the top of a book case is exactly what she has evolved to do.
As wild predators, cats are opportunistic and hunt whenever prey is available. Since most cat prey are small, cats in the wild need to eat many times each day and use a stalk, pounce, kill, eat strategy to stay fed. This is why Grismo prefers to chase and pounce on her toys and eat small meals over the course of the day and night. Also, small prey tends to hide in tiny spaces in their natural environments so one explanation for Grismo's propensity to reach into containers and openings is that she is compelled by the same curiosity that helped ensure the continuation of her species for millions of years before.
In the wild, cats needed sharp claws for climbing, hunting and self-defence. Sharpening claws on nearby surfaces kept them conditioned and ready, helped stretch their back and legs muscles and relieve some stress too. So it's not that Grismo hates your couch, chair, ottoman, pillows, curtains and everything else you put in her environment, she is ripping these things to shreds and keeping her claws in tip-top shape because this is exactly what her ancestors did in order to survive.
As animals that were preyed upon, cats evolved to not get caught in the wild. Cats that were the best at avoiding predators thrived, so at your house today, Grismo is excellent at squeezing into small spaces and seeking out and hiding in unconventional spots. It also explains why she prefers a clean and odour free litter box; that's less likely to give away her location to any predators that may be sniffing around nearby.
Considering everything we do know about cats, it seems that one of their most predominant behaviours is still one of the most mysterious. Cats may purr for any number of reasons such as just happiness, stress and hunger but curiously, the frequency of their purrs, between 25 and 150 purrs, is within a range that can promote tissue regeneration. So while her purring makes Grismo an excellent nap companion, it is also possible that her purr is healing her muscles and bones; and maybe even yours too.
They developed through time as both solitary predators that hunted and killed to eat, and stealthy prey that hid and escaped to survive. So cats today retain many of the same instincts that allowed them to thrive in the wild for millions of years. This explains some of their seemingly strange behaviours. To them, our homes are their jungles. But if this is the case, in our own cat's eyes, who are we? Big, dumb, hairless cats competing with them for resources? Terrible stupid predators they are able to outsmart every day? Or maybe, they think we are the prey.
Erica: Zoya, thank you for that very informative [outro of Zoya's pet health segment plays over Erica talking; sounds of farm animals bleating]
[Laughter]
Doug: Interrupted by goats. [Laughter]
Erica: That was very great information. So our purring cat can heal you as well as itself.
Elliot: That is absolutely fascinating. I want to get myself a cat.
Doug: I recommend it; they are pretty cool.
Erica: I think that is all we have to share for today; unless anybody has any last comments or remarks? I know we covered a lot in connecting the dots today in trying to share these health and wellness articles with our audience; just keeping people abreast on all the different aspects of how our universal human rights are being violated.
I would like to say thank you to all of our chatters and our listeners and we will be back next Friday with another new and interesting topic. Please tune in on Sunday for the show, listen in and thanks for all your support; thank you co-hosts too for a lively discussion.
Doug: Thanks Erica.
Erica: We look forward to talking to you soon.
Gaby: Have a nice week!
[Goodbyes]
Erica: Happy Mother's day all mums!
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter