• Antibiotic-resistant 'superbug' reaches the US for the first time
• 12 natural antibiotics our ancestors used to survive infection
• The antibacterial benefits of medicinal clay

• Are you inflamed over GMO foods?
• Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup
• Study: Roundup and other pesticides directly linked to Parkinson's and neurodegenerative disorders
• Monsanto's Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility
• Extreme toxicity of Roundup destroys GMO/Non-GMO 'substantial equivalence' argument

Have you ever noticed how warnings about dangerous prescription drugs always seem to surface after the drug is no longer marketed and its patent has run out? Whether it's an FDA advisory or a trial lawyer solicitation about harm that may have been done to you, the warnings are always belated and useless. If a drug you took four years ago may have given you liver damage, why didn't the FDA tell you then? Why didn't the FDA recall the drug or better yet, not approve it in the first place?

The official answer from the FDA and Big Pharma is that problems with a drug are only seen after millions begin using it, which is why post-marketing surveillance is conducted. In other words - who knew? But in a startling number of cases revealed in court documents Pharma did "know" and clearly misled medical journals, the FDA, doctors and patients, hoping to get its patent's worth before the true risks of a drug surfaced.
In other cases, Pharma and the FDA should have known before rushing a dangerous drug to market and making money at the expense of patients.

It is the business model for new drugs that provokes Big Pharma to bury risks and exaggerate benefits. A new drug under patent has a high price and no competition, and will make millions or even billions every year it is under patent. A settlement for death or injuries down the road is a nuisance and just the cost of doing business. Needless to say, the "forgiveness is cheaper than permission" business plan breeds shameless repeat offenders since the company makes money and no officers go to jail.

Multiple reasons explain why the vast majority of medically trained physicians support vaccinations. Physicians receive the majority of their training during medical school, which is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies and government institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Both pharmaceutical companies and government organizations support a misguided agenda in which vaccinations are promoted as a primary tool to prevent disease. Practitioners are rewarded for high vaccination rates. Doctors are pressured to vaccinate or face negative professional and financial consequences. Medical doctors belong to professional medical organizations which recommend vaccines.

To summarize, physicians exist in a world where vaccinations are considered the primary weapon for disease prevention. The majority come to believe in vaccine safety and effectiveness. It takes great courage, curiosity and independence for physicians to think outside of the box and do their own research on vaccines. For those who dare to think outside of the box, they can face negative professional and financial consequences.

We are living in the age of disinformed consent. Parents assume their doctors and their public health authorities are providing them with all relevant vaccine information, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Obviously, if vaccines can kill and cause serious and debilitating lifelong damage - which they can, and do - the vaccine administrator must provide that information to the client, in unambiguous fashion, regardless of the estimated size of the risk. It's an ethical mandate that must be fulfilled, but it never is. There is a fundamental reason: medical schools don't teach the history and nature of vaccine damage and death; nor do nursing and pharmacy schools. Yet doctors, nurses, and, these days, pharmacists, are the very ones who administer vaccines, and upon whom we rely for full information. Somewhere there is made a conscious decision to exclude the reality of serious vaccine damage from the curricula.

Most of the many doctors who have witnessed vaccine damage - thankfully, not all - lack the professional integrity to follow up with curiosity, let alone research. This is the most troubling of the array of vaccine contradictions; trained to observe, they nevertheless appear blind to even the possibility of causal relation.

• Foods and herbs that help guard against infection
• 'Antibiotics' our ancestors used instead of pharmaceutical pills
• Herbs and foods that kill superbugs