Breatharianism: Science Examines People Who Claim Not to Eat & Here’s What They Found



Breathariansim refers to the practice of sustaining oneself without the need for food. This concept is not new; in fact, for thousands of years, various cultures around the world have written of this ability.

In the third book of the Yoga Sutras, for example, approximately twenty-five siddhis are listed as having extraordinary abilities.

This is a common theme throughout Buddhism, and various other spiritual traditions as well. Clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and many more are all special traits attributed to the siddhis, as is the liberation from hunger and thirst.

Though modern day science has seen evidence of extended human capacities like telepathy, remote viewing, and pre-cognition, very little work has gone into examining breatharianism. Some brilliant minds do believe it’s possible, however, including Nikola Tesla.

In 1901, he made the following argument:

“My idea is that the development of life must lead to forms of existence that will be possible without nourishment and which will not be shackled by consequent limitations.

“Why should a living being not be able to obtain all the energy it needs for the performance of its life functions from the environment, instead of through consumption of food, and transforming, by a complicated process, the energy of chemical combinations into life-sustaining energy?” (source)

Liberation from food and hunger does indeed sound unrealistic and, from what we know of modern day biology, impossible.

But the history of science has shown us many times that the impossible can become the possible in an instant. A great example of this is the recent discovery that humans can actually influence their autonomic immune system using the power of the mind.

Let’s take a look at what happened when people who claimed that they don’t eat were examined by science.


The Qigong practice of Bigu, and Qigong practices examined by science have yielded some extraordinary results.

A study published in the American Journal of Chinese Medicine, as seen in the the US National Library of Medicine, demonstrated that a woman with special abilities was and is able to accelerate the germination of specific seeds for the purposes of developing a more robust seed stock.

This is one example of many; you can find the study and read more about it here.

The Catholic Charism of India also involves the claim of living well without eating food. Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, explains the concept in his book Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities:

“The implication is that the human body can transmute ambient energy into nutrients, and through the practice of cultivating this ability one can live comfortably for as long as one wishes without food, and possibly without drinking water. This is described as a siddhi in the Yoga Sutras as Pada 111.30: liberation from hunger and thirst.

“This flies in the face of a substantial body of medical knowledge, which has established that the human body can last about five days without water, and a few weeks at most without food. Beyond that, you’re dead.

“As a result, despite a host of historical examples of people lasting for years without eating, and sometimes without drinking, most nutritionists and biochemists regard such claims to be ridiculously impossible, and the people who make the claims—currently dozens to hundreds worldwide — to be seriously delusional. Some of those claimants may well be delusional. But all of them?”

Prahlad Jani

Prahlad Jani is a local of Ahmedabad, India, who claims that at the age of 11, the Hindu goddess Amba appeared to him and told him that he would no longer have to eat food.

He has apparently lived in a cave since the 1970s, and claims not to have eaten anything for most of his 81 years (as of 2012).

Jani was tested in 2003 and in 2010 at Ahmedabad’s Sterling Hospital by Dr. Sudhir Shah and his large team of doctors. Dr. Shah is a consultant neurologist who has been practicing for 20 years, as well as a professor and department head of neurology at KM School of PG Medicine and Research.

During the first test, which took place in 2003, Jani was monitored 24/7 by hospital staff and video cameras, where it was confirmed that Jani neither ate nor drank.

He also did not show any physiological changes which, according to modern day medicine, should be impossible.

This test took place over a 10 day period. Although it might not seem like a significant amount of time, to go 10 days without food and water and not experience any physiological changes is actually quite astounding.

He was tested again at Sterling Hospital in 2010 from April 22nd to May 6th. This time, he was observed by thirty-five researchers from the Indian Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, among other organizations.

This time, Jani was observed to not eat or drink for two weeks. As with the previous test, he exhibited no deleterious effects from this abstention.

This truly is unbelievable, and goes against everything we know about both human physiology and the nutritional requirements of the body.

As one might expect, neither these tests nor their results were published in medical journals.  The studies have also generated a lot of criticism. The main arguments against these tests were, however, quite weak in my opinion.

One argument holds that Jani escaped the scrutiny of the hospital staff and video cameras with the assistance of his disciples, and that he did in fact eat/drink something.

Yet hospital staff maintains this is impossible because he was monitored around the clock, as per the requirements of the study.

Even with these criticisms, the evidence is solid and appears to correspond with a known siddhi.

A statement from a scientific group (which included the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences) given to ABC News back in 2012 reads as follows:

“We realized that, if this whole phenomenon really exists in a human being even for 15 days, it would have immense application in unraveling secrets of medical science and its application for human welfare.

“Instead of ignoring this case, we selected to investigate further, in a rational and scientific way. We again make it clear that the purpose of this study was not to prove or disprove a person, but to explore a possibility in science and study a new phenomenon.” (source)

It’s an interesting case, isn’t it?

Michael Werner

Another case comes from a doctor of chemistry named Michael Werner, who is the managing director of a pharmaceutical research institute in Switzerland. This man claims to not have eaten any solid food since January 1st, 2001.

He was studied in a ten-day observational test in October 2004 by the intensive care unit at a hospital in Switzerland, and as with Jani, displayed no significant or dangerous physiological changes. These results have yet to be published, however.

Dean Radin offers an insightful explanation for why these results might not ever be published, and for why not much attention has been given to this phenomenon:

“Perhaps the most curious aspect of the breatharian tests is the in-your-face nature of the claimed phenomenon and yet an almost complete lack of interest from the scientific community.

“If it is possible to live well without eating food, this ought to be easy to demonstrate, and if it held up, the scientific and social consequences would be astounding.”

The fact is, as with many other observed phenomena that science can’t explain, most researchers regard things like this as ridiculous and extremely unlikely, and therefore don’t even take the time to look into them.

They dismiss the claims out of hand rather than approaching them with scientific neutrality and curiosity.

Another reason for this silence could be simple fear; researchers rely on funding from various parties, and they know it will be denied them if the topic seems too ‘out there.’

They also know what kind of criticism they would face from the mainstream scientific community should they go ahead and publish a study on something so esoteric.

Werner learned of breathariansim from an Australian spiritual teacher names Jasmuheen, who teaches how to transition from eating to not eating.

And Jasmuheen has also been the subject of a study, but she began showing signs of stress, high blood pressure, and dehydration after just 48 hours.

As most of you reading this know, this is not something you can just go and try. It can be very dangerous, and there have been multiple reports of deaths occurring as a result of people engaging in this practice.

Clearly, there is much more involved than simply refraining from eating or drinking.

The Science of Fasting

Science is now showing just how beneficial food deprivation can be. Mark Mattson, the current Chief of the Laboratory of Neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging and a Professor of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, gave a great TED talk on fasting in 2014.

This practice has been shown to generate new stem cells, repair DNA, fight cancer, fight both Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, and more.

It’s also interesting to note that all caloric restriction models in animal studies have shown significant health benefits and improvements, including a longer life span.


Scientists And Physicians Send Appeal About 5G Rollout And Health Dangers To The European Union



On September 13, 2017, more than 180 scientists and doctors sent an 11-page Appeal for a moratorium on the roll out of 5G in the European Union.

The reason for the appeal is “RF/EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment,” but 5G has not been investigated fully for potential health hazards and environmental impact by INDEPENDENT scientists, rather than industry scientists who apparently would rubber stamp 5G similarly as the other generations of telecommunications updates have been.

According to the Appeal, 5G is effective only over short distances and is transmitted poorly through solid materials. Because of that inefficiency in transmission, a tremendous number of antennas or cell towers will be needed to implement 5G service.

One key paragraph jumped out for me:

With “the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid to be exposed.

Because on top of the increased number of 5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals) according to estimates, “10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things.

All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens. [CJF emphasis]

Unfortunate as it is, there are no studies for long-term RF/EMF exposures to humans that I neither know about nor have found in my research.

That deliberate omission seems to be the most incriminating aspect of probable collusion on the part of “consensus science,” which apparently motivates and propels microwave technology, the industry and, in particular, its professional associations that impact microwave ‘policy’ at the United Nations, World Health Organization and its IARC, and the U.S. Federal Communication Commission.

“[N]umerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines,” including “increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.

“Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.”

The Appeal notes:

“The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).

“However, new studies like the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological investigations including the latest studies on mobile phone use and brain cancer risks confirm that RF-EMF radiation is carcinogenic to humans.”

The scientists and doctors point out the Precautionary Principle, adopted by the EU in 2005, states:

“When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”

Unfortunately, in this writer’s opinion, the Precautionary Principle has been negated for all intents and purposes by medicine and science in favor of corporate profiteering, “consensus science” and downright falsified or ‘vintage’ research, plus marketing strategies to promote less-than-accurate facts regarding pharmaceuticals, microwave technology and much of the “smart” meme.

Under “Safety Guidelines,” the Appeal emphasizes how industry is protected, but not human health:

“The current ICNIRP “safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary.

“The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation… To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.” [CJF emphasis]

“The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that “The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.”

However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”non-thermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.

The problem apparently is ICNIRP seems to be running the show “science-wise,” while it’s really behind the times, especially since ICNIRP refuses to accept non-thermal waves and adverse effects, which 32 percent of industry-funded-research proved they exist!  Talk about Neanderthals! What rock has ICNIRP been under all this time?

The Appeal offers five recommendations the European Union ought to follow, especially “to study the total and cumulative exposure affecting EU-citizens.”

The Hive Mind: 5G, Smart Grid, and the Coming ‘Global Brain’

Cumulative exposure is KEY to any study whether it is assessing a chemical or a pollutant, which microwave EMFs/RFs truly are. They create “electrosmog.”

The Appeal has 7 pages of signatories from around the globe, including 23 from the USA.

Let’s hope a similar Appeal is presented to the U.S. Federal Communication Commission, which apparently is totally off-base regarding its safety recommendations.

Vitamin D Is More Effective Than Flu Vaccine, Study Says



Conventional health authorities claim getting a flu shot each year is the best way to ward off influenza. But where’s the actual science backing up that claim?

If you’ve repeatedly fallen for this annual propaganda campaign, you may be surprised to find the medical literature suggests vitamin D may actually be a FAR more effective strategy, and the evidence for this goes back at least a decade.

Dr. John Cannell, founder of the Vitamin D Council, was one of the first to introduce the idea that vitamin D deficiency may actually be an underlying CAUSE of influenza.

His hypothesis1 was initially published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006.2 It was subsequently followed up with another study published in the Virology Journal in 2008.3

The following year, the largest nationally representative study4 of its kind to date discovered that people with the lowest vitamin D levels indeed reported having significantly more colds or cases of the flu.

In conclusion, lead author Dr. Adit Ginde stated:

“The findings of our study support an important role for vitamin D in prevention of common respiratory infections, such as colds and the flu. Individuals with common lung diseases, such as asthma or emphysema, may be particularly susceptible to respiratory infections from vitamin D deficiency.”

Vitamin D Works Better Than Flu Vaccine If Your Levels Are Low

Since then, a number of studies have come to similar conclusions. Most recently, a scientific review5,6 of 25 randomized controlled trials confirmed that vitamin D supplementation boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu.

Overall, the studies included nearly 11,000 individuals from more than a dozen countries. As reported by Time Magazine:7

“… [P]eople who took daily or weekly vitamin D supplements were less likely to report acute respiratory infections, like influenza or the common cold, than those who did not …

“For people with the most significant vitamin D deficiencies (blood levels below 10 [ng/mL]), taking a supplement cut their risk of respiratory infection in half.

“People with higher vitamin D levels also saw a small reduction in risk: about 10 percent, which is about equal to the protective effect of the injectable flu vaccine, the researchers say.”

Like Cannell before them, the researchers believe vitamin D offers protection by increasing antimicrobial peptides in your lungs, and that “[t]his may be one reason why colds and flus are most common in the winter, when sunlight exposure (and therefore the body’s natural vitamin D production) is at its lowest …”8

According to this international research team, vitamin D supplementation could prevent more than 3.25 million cases of cold and flu each year in the U.K. alone.9 Another statistic showing vitamin D is a more effective strategy than flu vaccine is the “number needed to treat” (NNT).

Overall, one person would be spared from influenza for every 33 people taking a vitamin D supplement (NNT = 33), whereas 40 people have to receive the flu vaccine in order to prevent one case of the flu (NNT = 40).

Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4. In other words, if you’re vitamin D deficient to begin with, vitamin D supplementation is 10 times more effective than the flu vaccine.

Optimizing Vitamin D May Be Your Best Defense Against Influenza

In my view, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best flu-prevention and optimal health strategies available.

Your diet also plays a significant role of course, as it lays the foundation for good immune function.

A high-sugar diet is a sure-fire way to diminish your body’s innate ability to fight off infections of all kinds by radically impairing the functioning of your immune system.

However, I do not agree that fortifying more processed foods with vitamin D is the best solution, although I realize it could potentially have a more widespread impact among people who remain unaware of the beneficial health effects of sunlight in general.

I believe sensible sun exposure is the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D. Taking a vitamin D3 supplement is only recommended in cases when you simply cannot obtain sufficient amounts of sensible sun exposure.

It’s also important to point out that, contrary to what’s reported by most mainstream media, including NPR report above, most people cannot optimize their vitamin D levels by getting the recommended 600 IUs of vitamin D from fortified foods.

The dose you need really depends on your current blood level of vitamin D.

If it’s very low, you may need 8,000 to 10,000 IUs of vitamin D3 per day in order to reach and maintain a clinically relevant level of 45 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The only way to know how much you need is to get tested at least once or twice each year.

If you’ve been supplementing for some time and your levels are still below 45 ng/mL, you then know you have to increase your dose further.

If using an oral supplement, also make sure to boost your vitamin K2 and magnesium intake, as these nutrients help optimize vitamin D levels.

Other Studies Supporting Link Between Vitamin D Deficiency and Influenza

In a study published in 2010,10 researchers investigated the effect of vitamin D on the incidence of seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren.

The randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study included 430 children, half of which were given 1,200 IUs of vitamin D3 per day while the other half received a placebo.

Overall, children in the treatment group were 42 percent less likely to come down with the flu.

According to the authors:

“This study suggests that vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A, especially in specific subgroups of schoolchildren.”

Another study11 published that same year concluded that infection-fighting T-cells need help from vitamin D in order to activate. This is yet another mechanism that helps explain why vitamin D is so effective against infections.

When a T cell recognizes foreign invaders like bacteria or viruses, it sends activating signals to the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene.

The VDR gene then starts producing a protein that binds vitamin D in the T cell. A downstream effect of this is PLC-gamma1 protein production, which subsequently enables the T cell to fight the infection.

At the time, lead researcher Carsten Geisler told Food Consumer:12

“When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signaling device or ‘antenna’ known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D.

“This means the T cell must have vitamin D or activation of the cell will cease. If the T cells cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, they won’t even begin to mobilize.”

With that understanding, it’s no wonder flu shots don’t work. Flu vaccines do absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem of vitamin D deficiency, which is effectively hindering your immune system from working properly.

In fact, flu vaccines tend to deteriorate your immune function, and their side effects can be significant.

‘Gold Standard’ Studies Ignored by Mainstream Media

The gold standard of scientific analysis, the so-called Cochrane Database Review, has also issued several reports between 2006 and 2012, all of which decimate the claim that flu vaccinations are the most effective prevention method available.

In 2010, Cochrane published the following bombshell conclusion, which was completely ignored by mainstream media:13

“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration).

“An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines …”

So, despite the fact that 15 of the 36 studies included were biased by industry interests, they still couldn’t come up with evidence supporting the conventional claim that flu vaccines are the best and most effective prevention available against influenza!

Scientific Reviews Show Vaccinating Children and Elderly Is Ineffective

Cochrane has issued several reports addressing the effectiveness of flu vaccines on infants and the elderly — two groups that tend to be the most targeted by flu vaccine advertising — and all have had negative findings. For children:

1. A large-scale, systematic review14 of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under two. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

2. In 2008, another Cochrane review15 again concluded that “little evidence is available” that the flu vaccine is effective for children under the age of two. Even more disturbingly, the authors stated that:

“It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada.

“If immunization in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”

3. In a 2012 review,16 Cochrane concluded that “in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus than injected vaccines made from the killed virus.

Neither type was particularly good at preventing “flu-like illness” caused by other types of viruses. In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.”

The available evidence with regards to protecting the elderly is equally abysmal.

4. In 2010, Cochrane concluded that:17 “The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older.”

5. Cochrane also reviewed whether or not vaccinating health care workers can help protect the elderly patients with whom they work. In conclusion, the authors stated that:18

“[T]here is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care facilities.”

Annual Flu Vaccinations May Raise Risk of More Serious Infections

Other recent studies have shown that with each successive annual flu vaccination, the protection afforded by the vaccine appears to diminish.19, 20

Research published in 2014 concluded that vaccine-induced protection against influenza was greatest among those who had NOT received a flu shot in the previous five years.21

The flu vaccine may also increase your risk of contracting other, more serious influenza infections.

  • Data shows people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting the H1N1 “swine flu” compared to those who didn’t receive a flu shot.22
  • Compared to children who do not get an annual flu vaccine, those who receive influenza vaccinations have a three times higher risk of hospitalization due to influenza.23

Research also shows that statin drugs — taken by 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 45 — may undermine your immune system’s ability to respond to the flu vaccine.24,25,26

When you consider the low efficacy rate of the flu vaccine in any given year, getting vaccinated if you’re on a statin may well be a moot point.

Independent science reviews have also concluded that influenza vaccine does not appear to prevent influenza-like illness associated with other types of viruses responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.27,28,29,30

Other Foods and Supplements That Send Pathogens Packin’

Besides vitamin D, there are a number of other foods and supplements that can be beneficial for colds and influenza, including the following:

Garlic:31 Garlic has natural antiviral, antibiotic and antifungal activity and has long been hailed for its immune boosting effects.

The Cochrane Database, which has repeatedly demonstrated that the science in support of the flu vaccine is flimsy at best, has also reviewed studies on alternatives, including garlic.32

Unfortunately, such research is harder to come by, as there’s no financial incentive driving it.

Still, in the singular study identified by the Cochrane group, those who took garlic daily for three months had fewer colds than those who took a placebo, and, when they did come down with a cold, the duration of illness was shorter — an average of 4.5 days compared to 5.5 days for the placebo group.

While this may not seem overly impressive, it’s still better than the results achieved by the flu drug Tamiflu!

Zinc: A Cochrane Database Review of the medical research on zinc found that when taken within one day of the first symptoms, zinc can cut down the time you have a cold by about 24 hours.

Zinc was also found to greatly reduce the severity of symptoms. Zinc was not recommended for anyone with an underlying health condition, like lowered immune function, asthma or chronic illness.

I do not recommend taking more than 50 mg a day, and I do not recommend taking zinc on a daily basis for preventive purposes as you could easily develop a copper imbalance that way.

Vitamin C: A very potent antioxidant; use a natural form such as acerola, which contains associated micronutrients.

You can take several grams every hour (use the liposomal form so you don’t get loose stools), till you are better. I never travel without a bottle of our liposomal C.

A tea made from a combination of elderflower, yarrow, boneset, linden, peppermint and ginger; drink it hot and often for combating a cold or flu. It causes you to sweat, which is helpful for eradicating a virus from your system.

Oregano Oil: The higher the carvacrol concentration, the more effective it is. Carvacrol is the most active antimicrobial agent in oregano oil.

Medicinal mushrooms, such as shiitake, reishi and turkey tail.

Propolis: A bee resin and one of the most broad-spectrum antimicrobial compounds in the world; propolis is also the richest source of caffeic acid and apigenin, two very important compounds that aid in immune response.

Olive leaf extract is widely known as a natural, non-toxic immune system builder.

Vitamin D Is Important for Optimal Health and Disease Prevention Year-Round

In related news, researchers are also homing in on how vitamin D may help protect against age-related diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

The video above discusses research33 showing vitamin D extends lifespan in nematode worms by 30 percent and helps slow or even reverse accumulation of beta amyloid protein, which is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s.

Vitamin D deficiency has also been linked to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, depression, autoimmune disease and many other chronic diseases. As noted in a recent issue of Orthomolecular Medicine News:34

“Research on the health benefits of vitamin D continues at a rapid pace. There were 4,356 papers published in 2015 with vitamin D in the title or abstract and 4,388 in 2016 …”

Among some of the most impactful studies are ones demonstrating:

Health benefits from sun exposure unrelated to vitamin D production. One recent review concluded benefits of sun exposure includes lower rates of cancer, heart disease, dementia, myopia, macular degeneration, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.

My belief is that the majority of these benefits are due to the near-, mid- and far-infrared wavelengths.

Avoiding the Sun’s Rays is a Misinformed Trend Causing Global Rise in Cancers

According to the author:

“The message of sun avoidance must be changed to acceptance of non-burning sun exposure sufficient to achieve [vitamin D] concentrations of 30 ng/mL or higher … and the general benefits of UV exposure beyond those of vitamin D.”

Also, while intermittent sun exposure is associated with higher rates of skin cancer, “the risks of these cancers is dwarfed by the reduced risk of internal cancers from sun exposure,” William Grant, Ph.D. writes.

Benefits of higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy. Research demonstrates preterm births steadily decrease as vitamin D levels increase among pregnant women. In one study, raising vitamin D blood concentrations from 20 to 40 ng/mL decreased preterm births by 59 percent.

Reduction in cancer risk from vitamin D supplementation. One pooled analysis showed that women with higher levels of vitamin D had much lower incidence rates of cancer — from a 2 percent per year cancer incidence rate at 18 ng/mL to 0.4 percent at 63 ng/mL.

Overall, maintaining a vitamin D serum level of 45 to 60 ng/mL year-round may be one of the simplest and most efficient ways to safeguard yourself against chronic disease and acute infections.

When it comes to seasonal colds and influenza, the rate of protection you get from vitamin D is actually greater than what you’d get from a flu vaccination, and you don’t have to worry about potential side effects either — which in the case of the flu vaccine can be far worse than the original complaint.

While death and complete disability from a flu vaccine may be rare, so is dying from the flu itself. I strongly recommend weighing the risk of suffering a debilitating side effect of the flu vaccine relative to the more likely potential of spending a week in bed with the flu.

Remember, most deaths attributed to influenza are actually due to bacterial pneumonia, and these days, bacterial pneumonia can be effectively treated with advanced medical care and therapies like respirators and parenteral antibiotics.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

From the author: The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans, but the surging numbers of visitors to since I began the site in 1997 – we are now routinely among the top 10 health sites on the Internet – convinces me that you, too, are fed up with their deception. You want practical health solutions without the hype, and that’s what I offer.

Sources and References:

CFR Oops Moment: Unvaccinated are Healthier than Vaccinated Populations



The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) recently published a disease map purporting to show that disease outbreaks are the fault of the unvaccinated.

While the mainstream media like PBS ran the story, they missed the fact that the CFR map shows the highest disease outbreaks in the most-vaccinated populations.

Right off, and at the very beginning, I say this article will cause rumblings and a stir amongst many, if not all, on both sides of the vaccine safety issue, especially with vaccine apologists.

My reason for saying that is because what I discuss is strictly my evaluation of the interactive data map showing communicable infectious diseases globally, as prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which points out some grave problems regarding vaccine statistics, in my opinion. Please study the map before reading on.

The only request I make is that every reader consider the information with an open mind, not one influenced or prejudiced by pseudo-science. One statistic that the data show is this: the most vaccinated population countries have the most outbreaks of those same diseases for which vaccines are pushed on populations supposedly to engender what’s called “herd immunity.”

First, let’s see how many vaccinations were mandated for children in several countries of the western meme according to data available in 2009. Sweden and Japan had 11 vaccines, Finland 12, Norway 13, Switzerland 16, Australia 27, Canada 28, and USA 36.

It is safe to say that, if anything, more vaccines have been added to those schedules since 2009, especially the HPV vaccine for both girls and boys. But, for the sake of ‘argument’ and graphics available, I will use the chart below as a reference alongside the CFR’s map.

Graphic Source in Notes

One readily can see that the USA had/has the most number of mandated vaccines, which has increased dramatically in numbers since 2009 for children birth to 18 years of age as confirmed by the CDC’s “Recommended Immunization Schedule for Persons Age 0 Through 18 Years United States, 2014.”

Before I go further in my interpretation of the map and data, let’s consider what the map offers:

  1. Disease color-coded dots designating Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, Whooping cough, and Other
  2. Countries with an inordinate amount of dots are: the USA, the European Union (EU), Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada to some extent, plus Equatorial Africa and India where GAVI [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation] has implemented vaccination campaigns.
  3. The South American continent is almost void of any communicable disease dots. Interesting? Wait until some vaccination campaign strategy takes off there. It’s only a matter of time, I’d say.
  4. Several countries have no dots representing diseases.
  5. China, which often is touted as a growing hotbed of communicable diseases, shows Measles and Other, if I’ve interpreted the color code correctly as Polio and Other are too closely related in colors. Is that color scheme a favorable coincidence?
  6. The predominant diseases globally, according to dots on the map, are: Measles and Whooping cough, which are the vaccines children everywhere are vaccinated with.

Now, I’d like to discuss my interpretation of what the map represents:

Those countries where vaccines are given routinely or forced upon children and their parents, often under threat of law, experience the lion’s share of communicable diseases. Why? What’s happened with “herd immunity”?

It just doesn’t add up, especially since in the USA there is over 90% childhood vaccination compliance! According to the U.S. CDC’s MMWR (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report) 2012—13 School Year for Kindergarten, for example,

This report summarizes vaccination coverage from 48 states and DC and exemption rates from 49 states and DC for children entering kindergarten for the 2012–13 school year.

Forty-eight states and DC reported vaccination coverage, with medians of 94.5% for 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; 95.1% for local requirements for diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis (DtaP) vaccination; and 93.8% for 2 doses of varicella vaccine among awardees with a 2-dose requirement.

Forty-nine states and DC reported exemption rates, with the median total of 1.8%. Although school entry coverage for most awardees was at or near national Healthy People 2020 targets of maintaining 95% vaccination coverage levels for 2 doses of MMR vaccine, 4 doses of DtaP† vaccine, and 2 doses of varicella vaccine (2), low vaccination and high exemption levels can cluster within communities, increasing the risk for disease. [CJF emphasis added]

Take a look at those vaccination percentage rates: 94.5% for MMR, 95.1% for DtaP and 93.8% for chickenpox (varicella), and still there are outbreaks of measles and pertussis.

There IS something dramatically wrong with vaccines and their effectiveness, I contend, if that number of children is an example of vaccination rates in the USA that can be interpolated for comparisons of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated. Furthermore, only a medium total of 1.8% was exempt from vaccinations.

Question: Is 1.8% a high exemption level? I don’t think so, as it falls well within the 5% target range of exemptions for non-vaccinated as found in Healthy People 2020.

The CDC/FDA, medicine, pharmacology, and vaccinology, in particular, are dead wrong regarding vaccines, I do believe. The more children receive vaccines and boosters, undoubtedly, the more communicable infectious diseases are surfacing. What does the CFR map tell?

In my opinion, one of several physiological occurrences, or all, may be happening:

1. Vaccines aren’t working and cause immune dysfunction.

2. Vaccines are damaging the immune system so much that it cannot function as Nature intended and designed due to vaccine antigen responses that undoubtedly are reprogramming it.

3. Disease microorganisms are becoming sophisticated – similar to bacteria due to too many antibiotics prescribed for just about every malady plus those in the food chain – so that microorganisms are morphing into new strains for which vaccinology either hasn’t realized what’s going on or can’t keep up with various or newer strains and antigens. See this:

“There are currently eight species in the Bordetella genus. Three species in this genus are known to be pathogenic to humans. B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are very similar species. Both species cause pertussis (whooping cough) in humans and are separated merely by the toxins they release during infection.

“B. parapertussis releases toxins that seem to cause a milder form of pertussis (whooping cough). B. bronchiseptica causes respiratory disease in various mammals and occasionally in humans. The species is further separated from B. pertussis and B. parapertussis by being motile. The human pathology of the remaining five species is relatively unknown. B. avium and B. hinzii, are known to cause respiratory disease in poultry. [2] [CJF emphasis added]”

4. A large percentage of vaccinated children in the USA now experience some form of illness or disease that is NOT a communicable disease, which manifests either as chronic or neurological.

Something authorities want to deny is that since numerous vaccines have been mandated for children since the 1980s, so have autism [neurological] rates skyrocketed from one in 10,000 [1970s] to 1 in 50 children in the USA as of March 2013 reporting! [1]

While writing this article I received this information:

The new ‘official autism’ numbers were released minutes ago by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 68 among all eight-year olds evaluated in 2010, 1 in 42 boys, and 1 in 189 girls, more than a million children.

The last time the CDC released these numbers in 2010 the numbers were 1 in 88, and 1 in 54 boys. Undoubtedly the real numbers today are much higher than this 4-year old data.

Along with that information, a request came to call the White House  (202) 456-1111  and ask President Obama what is he going to do about it.

Special Notation should be made of the variances in the CDC report as referenced in the article Notes below (1) [3/20/13] and the information I just received. Isn’t it a hornet’s nest to figure out? In the Reference section of that report (pg.2) it states:

“This prevalence estimate (1 in 50) is significantly higher than the estimate.”

Somehow to me, their figures don’t seem to be coherent. Don’t they know what they are doing, or is it on purpose to add confusion to the issue?

Autism is not the only health problem since vaccines took off like greased lightning. The USA Today reported this: “More than half of children ages 8 to 14 have had a long-term health problem at some point, such as obesity, asthma, a learning disability or other ailment, a study shows.” [3]

The sad part, though, is that no one is investigating correlation and causation with regard to the inordinate number of vaccines prescribed during the first two years of life starting at birth!

In the USA alone, measles and whooping cough outbreaks occur in 90% or more of those contracting the diseases and fully vaccinated. See my blog “Mumps Breakout in Ohio May Prove Something.”

B. Even if non-vaccinated children were responsible for spreading those diseases, how come fully-vaccinated children and other vaccinees are contracting the very diseases for which they have been vaccinated IF vaccines were efficacious?

Current disease-contracting statistics prove just how false the vaccine paradigm truly is! Scare tactics are employed to vaccinate, whereas vaccines fail those vaccinated! How does that make sense?

C. As an example, the charts below indicate the factual reality of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated health status of children in the first five years of life in the Netherlands (2004), one of the countries that make up the European Union. You can see on the CFR map that measles is a dot in that EU geographical location.

In the charts we see dramatic contrasts for ear infections, inflammations of the throat, aggressive behavior, convulsions/collapse, antibiotics administered, sickly, eczema, asthma/chronic lung disease, allergic reactions, and difficulty sleeping.

The charts indicate that vaccinated children are twice as likely – or more – as non-vaccinated children to experience the health problems enumerated in the charts.

Graphic Source in Notes

The information offered by the CFR map is rather significant and I think speaks for itself, i.e., the more vaccinated the population, the more likely to contract the very diseases for which they are vaccinated.

How in the name of non-vested-interest-science are they still getting away with such sleight of pseudo-science, together with ruining the human immune system?

Just because they say so dogmatically, doesn’t mean it’s factually and scientifically so! Do your research and learn the real science behind vaccines in order to educate everyone: pediatricians, nurses, schools, health agency personnel at all levels of government, and even Congress, who I contend gave us this vaccine mess by passing The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34).

The NCVIA is in desperate need of being revisited, if not repealed, in my opinion. NCVIA gives vaccine makers what some call a “get out of jail free card” that exonerates them of all liability, something no other industry has.

Furthermore, with all the health damages and problems vaccines have been causing for now going on two or three generations – see the VAERS reports in the hundreds of thousands – Congress needs to seriously investigate the autism problem, neurotoxic and other toxic vaccine ingredients, and stop taking those handsome monetary gifts from Big Pharma lobbyists that apparently influence their observable lack of oversight, I contend.

In 2013, pharmaceutical manufacturers paid out $227.5 Million lobbying on behalf of their products and corporate interests. [4] What does that tell you?

The UN’s Plan to Halt Population Growth by Turning Nature Against Us



Business as usual at the United Nations includes plans to subvert fertility and increase mortality

by Christina Sarich, Waking Times

The United Nations has been planning a depopulation agenda for decades according to many ‘conspirators’, but few have been able to describe so clearly, just what that plan entails, until now.

Even with open admission from the UN’s Executive Secretary of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, that depopulation is part of the ‘green’ agenda to save the planet from global warming – an agenda one should adopt cautiously before jumping aboard its trains of doom – many have called the depopulation idea quackery.

If a plan to subvert fertility and increase mortality among all the world’s citizenry, ‘quacks,’ then those naysayers can have their day, but a different picture becomes clear when looking at facts the UN would likely not want circulated.

“Greg Dalton, founder of Climate One: A related issue is fertility rates and population, a lot of people in energy and environmental circles don’t want to go near that because its politically charged, it’s not their issue, but isn’t it true that stopping the rise in population could be one of the biggest levers in driving down the rising green houses gases.

“Christiana Figueres, UN: We all know, we expect 9 billion by 2050, so yes obviously less people would exert less pressure on the natural resources.”

Overcrowding vs. Overpopulation

First, the overpopulation issue is used often by those who want an excuse to cull the masses. Overpopulation describes a situation where the number of people exhausts the resources in a closed environment such that it can no longer support that population.

In a closed environment – that means one which relies on keeping people in poverty, using fossil fuels, and by dumping every possible toxic poison and chemical possible where people must live, wash, breathe, and reproduce.

The overpopulation argument also simply blames people’s numbers for the problems we collectively face instead of holding individuals and groups (like corporations who largely are running the UN) accountable for their actions.

The ‘We Don’t Have Enough Food’ Lie

The lie, for example, that there isn’t enough food comes from a notorious ‘over-population’ man, the father, you might say, of the Bill and Melinda Gates eugenics plan, and quite the pessimist – Thomas Malthus.

He believed in the 1800s that the world was doomed if it out-populated its food sources, but we have numerous scholarly articles proving that we waste several hundreds of tons of food every year, and though biotech engineers promised genetically modified organisms would save us, they don’t produce more food to solve this ‘fake’ crisis.

According to a recent report by the World Resources Institute (WRI), about one-third of all food produced worldwide, worth around US$1 trillion, gets lost or wasted in food production and consumption systems.

We do, in fact, produce 17 percent more food per person alive today than we did 30 years ago. The real problem is getting all this food to the people who need it and the greed which would keep people hungry, thirsty, and imprisoned with poverty.

The ‘We Don’t Have Enough Water’ Lie

The same is true of the ‘we don’t have enough water’ myth. Sure, if you want to privatize water and make it a commodity, then there certainly isn’t enough – again its about utilizing resources effectively.

The world, if you hadn’t noticed, is sitting on loads of water. It’s called an ocean. There are multiple oceans, too.

This is a humanitarian issue, not an overpopulation issue. Aside from the fact that companies like Nestle are pumping our aquifers and lakes and then selling it back to people living in drought conditions, there is plenty of water.

We could keep allowing a single corporation to steal 80 million gallons of water from one city per year and then sell it back to them, or we could create water capture infrastructure, like this man did in India to get fresh water to 10,000 people, or use desalinization, and water conservation.

The Gates’ don’t have a patent on the idea that the world needs fewer people, but they are certainly helping to promote it.

The first thorough exposition of eugenics was made by Francis Galton, who in Hereditary Genius (1869) proposed that a system of arranged marriages between ‘men of distinction’ and ‘women of wealth’ would eventually produce a gifted race.

This sounds like Illuminati talk if you ask me. Nonetheless, the American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, still has a hold over ‘leaders’ in today’s world.

Bill Gates himself has admitted it “is unusual for a member of the philanthropic sector to be given the opportunity to address heads of state at the United Nations,” yet his influence, among other Malthusians is great.

Subvert Fertility Promote Morbidity

Founder and Director of the Center for Global Consciousness, Kevin Galale writes that the UN’s ‘sustainable development goals’ are nothing more than a collection of contradictions, absurdities and inconsistencies. We face more ‘pandemics’ than ever, and the fertility rates of the poorest nations are in decline.

As Galale states[1]:

“…we are led to believe by an international system that relies on health threats to manufactured fear that is then capitalized on to manufacture pesticides, drugs and vaccines that have a dual purpose: heal or protect against a particular infectious disease while at the same time induce sterility and/or increase morbidity, as the need may be.”

For example: A comparison of the 1985 with the 2016 map of global epidemics suggests that the explosion of infectious threats around the world in the past three decades cannot possibly be the result of nature gone haywire.

He states appropriately:

“Six decades later, we find ourselves dying, both literally and figuratively, in a dystopian and alienating society anchored in totalitarian and dehumanizing institutions that are empowered to commit Orwellian abuses and free to ignore Kafkaesque absurdities birthed by giant and global bureaucracies that are fiercely protected by the tacit support of the world’s spiritual leaders, the implicit collusion of nearly every government on the planet, and the active involvement of an ever-growing and ever-more intrusive military-industrial complex to be able to continue to pursue desirable and constructive social outcomes through undesirable and destructive acts of structural violence.”

And should you peruse the many charts showing reproductive rates in this epic paper, “Turning Nature Against Man: The Role of Pandemics Vaccines and Genetics in the UN’s Plan to Halt Population Growth,” you will likely stand, mouth gaping, at the facts.

Pregnant women who are supposed to take H1N1 influenza vaccines, are just the very scary beginning.

Add to these charts the manufactured Zika virus, bird flu, countless vaccinations, aims to weaken religious objections to family planning, forced sterilization, global geoengineering program that sprays millions of tons of metal oxides in the upper atmosphere supposedly to prevent global warming, deforestation plans, genetically modified food sprayed with enough toxic chemicals to choke Godzilla, and the skyrocketing rates of cancer, endocrine disease, diabetes, etc., and it seems quite obvious what the UN ‘peace-keepers’ are really up to.

Now that you know, its time to do something about it. SPREAD THE WORD, and if you have the time, read this amazing paper that outlines everything I’ve written here in much greater detail.

“We have shut down their ability to commit genocide by turning man against man through the misuse of the institutions of state, concealment of vital information, abuse of the rule of law, perversion of science, and falsification of facts.”

References: [1] Galalae K (2016) Turning Nature against Man: The Role of Pandemics, Vaccines and Genetics in the UN’s Plan to Halt Population Growth. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale) 6: 232.  doi: 10.4172/2161-1165.10002

Declassified: Henry Kissinger and the Depopulation Agenda (NSSM 200)



Kissinger’s NSSM 200

The first person who linked “overpopulation” to U.S. national security interests was Henry Kissinger, who, as National Security Advisor, oversaw the drafting of National Security Study Memorandum 200, entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” which was a highly classified document when it was completed on Dec. 10, 1974.

On Nov. 26, 1975, with Kissinger now Secretary of State, his successor as National Security Advisor, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, issued National Security Decision Memorandum 314, which adopted NSSM 200 as official (covert) U.S.  policy  on  population  matters.

Here are excerpts:

The World Population Plan of Action is not self-en-forcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, UN agencies and other international bodies to make it   effective. U.S. leadership is essential.

Assistance  for population moderation should give primary emphasis to  the largest and fastest-growing developing countries where there is special U.S. po-litical  and  strategic  interest.

Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.

Together, they account for 47% of the world’s current population growth.

Moreover, short of draconian measures there is no possibility that any LDC [Less Developed Country] can stabilize its population at less than double its present size. For many, stabilization will not be short of three times their present size.

Population growth per se is not likely to impose serious constraints on the global physical availability of fuel and non-fuel minerals to the end of the century and beyond.

The important potential linkage between rapid population growth and mineral availability is indirect rather than direct.

It flows from the negative effects of excessive population growth on economic development and social progress, and therefore on internal stability, in  overcrowded underdeveloped countries.

The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments.

In the extreme cases where population pressures lead to endemic famine, food riots, and breakdown of social order, those conditions are scarcely conducive to systematic exploration for mineral deposits or the long-term investments required for their exploitation.

Public School and ADHD – Why Some Doctors and Experts Don’t Believe the Diagnosis is Real


The documentary Pharmabuse compiles interviews with various medical professions who are speaking out about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The film raises a growing concern that schools play an integral role in the hasty over-diagnosis of ADHD in school children.

ADHD: Real or Fake?

Is ADHD an actual illness? Or, is it just a list of behaviors that typically would require extra effort on the part of the adult?

In the opinion of Dr. Peter Breggin, MD, Psychiatrist and author of Talking Back to Ritalin, ADHD is a fictitious disease. He claims that Big Pharma created the disease with the support of a handful of psychologists and psychiatrist. Then, they sold it to the education system and medical community.

Breggin is not alone. Many believe that ADHD is not a legitimate diagnosis. The basis for this opinion is that there is no scientific testing involved in assessing ADHD. No MRI, no blood test, and no other diagnostic tests.

Unquestionably, the mainstream medical community will claim that ADHD is a real disorder that’s characterized by abnormal brain activity. Yet, doctors prescribing ADHD drugs do not use any type of bran scan to make a diagnosis.

According to clinical pharmacist Pamela Seefeld, R.Ph, ADHD diagnosis is quite different from any other disease. Particularly in children, ADHD diagnosis is based on the opinions of the individuals present in the child’s life.

Thus, parents, educators, caregivers, and doctors get to decide if the child is behaving up to their standard.

Sadly, this behavioral standard can vary widely. If the standard is not met, they get to decide how to best address the child’s behavior. Consequently, many use ADHD diagnosis and pharmaceuticals as the answer.

A big problem exists when using ADHD as a scapegoat for behavioral issues. Often, caregivers ignore the child’s true motivation for the behavior. This often leads to misdiagnosis or over-diagnosis of ADHD. Additionally, they often ignore any potential environmental conflicts.

As a result, the real underlying reasons for the child’s behavior are overlooked.

“ADHD does not exist as a disease or a disorder, but as a group of symptoms. And we need to find the cause for those symptoms.” ~ Dr. Richard Saul, MD, Neurologist and author of ADHD Does Not Exist

The Role of Schools in ADHD Over-diagnosis

ADHD is almost always on the table for educators when they call a parent in for a meeting regarding a behavioral issue. It is quite common for a school to recommend that the parents take their child to see a psychiatrist.

Some educators will go as far as share their opinion about a potential ADHD diagnosis, before any type of medical assessment. Finally, some schools will offer to bring in a physician to observe children, fully taking control away from the parents.

During a typical observation, a physician would use the typical ADHD symptoms checklist. If the child shows a certain number of these symptoms, they are diagnosed with ADHD. A short observation can result in a school pressuring parents to drug their child.

What’s worse is what happens when parents ignore the opinions of educators and doctors about ADHD diagnosis. At times, educators and teachers will actually target the child, almost bullying them, just because the child’s parents have a different opinion.

Frankly, conflicts occur all the time between children and teachers. Children speak out of turn. They interrupt the teacher. They like to stand up and move around. Really, any type of disruptive behavior can create conflicts for the teacher.

Breggin is of the opinion that to blame the child for these conflicts is to victimize the child. Instead, educators should be taking responsibility for these situations.

The professional teacher has the responsibility to learn techniques to wield the cooperation of students. Unfortunately, teachers rarely take responsibility for children who do not fit the mold.

Alarming New Abuse: Thousands of Toddlers Medicated for ADHD

Effectiveness of ADHD Drugs

“All the studies that have every been done, have failed to show any effectiveness. It’s quite a bizarre situation.” ~ Dr. Peter Breggin, MD, Psychiatrist and author of Talking Back to Ritalin

Finally, we address the question if drugs are actually effective in treating ADHD.

Similar to antidepressants, drugs used to treat ADHD have yet to demonstrate long-term effectiveness. Studies have shown that short-term 4 to 6 week results are common.

During this time, you get a suppression of behavior. So it is easy for teachers to attest to improvement, especially since the child’s behavior is likely under extra scrutiny.

Most of the medical professionals in the documentary are of the opinion that treatment using ADHD drugs is like an experiment. Two things seem to always happen.

First, doctors change the dosage when the original dose no longer works. Then, when a higher dosage is no longer acceptable, they change the type of drug.

Almost No Children In France Are Medicated For ADHD: This Is How They Define & Treat It

Is Over-diagnosis of ADHD Making Things Worse?

The goal of ADHD drugs is to suppress spontaneous behavior. Unfortunately, teachers often perceive this as a success if the child is no longer disrupting the class with spontaneous outburst.

Yet, by crushing spontaneity, ADHD drugs also diminish some of the creativity that is innate in children.

Finally, Breggin believes stimulant ADHD drugs are responsible for enforcing obsessive behavior. To support this claim, a study published by neurologist Dr. Amitai Abramovitch states:

“Several studies suggest that stimulant therapy may exacerbate obsessive-compulsive thoughts and behaviors, or even induce them. Instead of improving, the misdiagnosed child would likely even deteriorate in condition.”

This experimentation and ineffective drugging results in breaking the spirit of young children. Their peers and teachers brand them as different. They are likely to feel like a failure or freak. They are likely to suffer from a host of side-effects, such as sleeplessness and depression. The list goes on.

Big Pharma’s Manufactured Epidemic: The Misdiagnosis of ADHD

Watch doctors, authors and experts explain this in detail in the documentary, Pharmabuse, here: