27 September 2009

Frequency Foundation Workshop: Send in your preferences for location and date



We've been receiving many requests for a future workshop that would discuss many significant changes to my Lab and methods.  If anyone has any interest in attending an upcoming Frequency Foundation Workshop, possibly the 1st part of January in a warm location or even at a later date contact me at drjeffsutherland@gmail.com. We would also welcome what you would be most interested in learning for this and any future workshops' as well as possible locations, your phone # would be helpful.

Mattel gets free pass on independent lead tests

Those of you who remember that the Dept. of Agriculture will sue anyone that does independent mad cow testing will not be surprised that corruption will make sure that your children will enjoy more lead contaminated toys without anyone knowing about it.
 





  


Mattel gets free pass on independent lead tests

Dear Friend,

Get ready for a repeat of one of the ugliest chapters in modern consumer history.

Mattel, the chief offender in the Chinese lead-toy scandal, is actually being allowed to skip the new safety measures that were put into place because of that scandal.

You heard that right. New measures designed to stop Mattel from doing what they did to our children won't apply to Mattel or its scandal-plagued subsidiary, Fisher-Price.

Remember, Mattel and Fisher-Price were forced to recall millions of shoddy toys, some of which had up to 180 times the legal limit of lead. The company had to pay $2.3 million in fines, but somehow got off without having to admit to doing anything wrong.

It must be nice to have friends in high places.

Now, these corporate criminals are up to their old toxic tricks again.

Congress acted with record-breaking speed after the lead-toy scandal, passing new laws that require all toy companies to submit their products to independent labs for testing.

The key word here is "independent."

Because Congress never met a law it couldn't fill with loopholes, they put the empty- headed fools at the Consumer Product Safety Commission in charge of enforcing it.

How empty are those hollow heads? When Mattel asked to be put in charge of its own product testing, skipping those new requirements for independent labs, those morons at the CPSC said, "Sure, go ahead. We trust you."

That's like the Fed putting Bonnie and Clyde in charge of bank security.

Wiping the lipstick off the pig,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

26 September 2009

How Effective is the Flu Vaccine?


Dr. Mercola has a good summary on information on the flu vaccine. It is interesting to note that flu deaths in children increased earlier in this decade when mass vaccinations for the flu began. The research does not show any benefits from flu vaccine and shows plenty of negative side effects.

The majority of health professionals, myself included, do not get flu shots. So either they are based on political dogma or someone is making enough money to exert control of the political process. As CDC officials have repeatedly pointed out to me in workshops, in some cases their decisions are forced by political pressure and not by public health concerns.


Dr. Mercola comments:



How Effective is the Flu Vaccine?
Remember that the potential effectiveness of a flu vaccine is dependent on the ASSUMPTION, made nearly a year in advance, that Asia’s viral strains will be the ones hitting the U.S. When they guess wrong, the vaccine is worthless from the very start.
But does that mean they withdraw the flu vaccine when they discover it contains the wrong strains? NO! They just keep giving it out anyway.
But even if they were to overcome that hurdle and actually select the correct strains, there’s still no evidence that it does anyone any good to get a flu vaccine.
Study after study comes back showing the same dismal results: the flu vaccines are not an effective method of prevention of the flu, and they do not save lives. As mentioned earlier, they may even be responsible for an increased death rate in some groups.
Sometimes determining efficacy is as easy as reading the information coming straight from the vaccine manufacturer.
How about this quote taken directly from the flu vaccine FLULAVAL’s package insert (which you likely never see when getting the flu shot) for the 2009-2010 formula:
" FLULAVAL is an influenza virus vaccine indicated for active immunization of adults 18 years of age and older against influenza disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B contained in the vaccine. This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.”
That’s right, NO controlled trials demonstrating ANY decrease in your risk of contracting the flu at all after vaccination! (It also states that each dose contains a total of 25 mcg of mercury.)
For those of you who are still unconvinced, know that there’s plenty of scientific evidence available to back up the recommendation to avoid flu vaccines. In addition to studies mentioned in the video, here are several other examples showing that flu vaccines do not work for any age group:
  • A study published in the October 2008 issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu had no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.
The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.
  • A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.
This supports an earlier study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
  • Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now.
  • In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the Lancet Infectious Diseases: “We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality,have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits.”
  • A large-scale, systematic review 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. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.
Last but not least, I think it says a lot that 70 percent of doctors and nurses, and 62 percent of other health care workers do NOT get the yearly flu shot.
The reasons why they opted to not get vaccinated were:
  • They didn't believe the vaccine would work
  • They believed their immune systems were strong enough to withstand exposure to the flu
  • They were concerned about side effects

11 September 2009

Dr. Douglas Spouts Off on the Flu Shot

You will need to take strong defensive action if you are forced to take a flu shot. This will not be a normal flu shot. Dr. Douglass' recommendations are a good place to start.
 

How many shots are enough?

I was suspicious the moment I heard the talk of mass vaccinations for swine flu.

But now that they're saying people may need as many as four flu shots this year, I'm no longer just suspicious -- the lights are flashing and all my warning bells are ringing at full volume.

I don't quite know just what they're up to yet -- but I'm pretty sure it has little to do with that weapon of mass distraction known as swine flu.

Apparently, health officials still know so little about the swine flu vaccine that they don't even know how many shots people will need in order for it to be effective.

Welcome to your new life as a lab rat.

On top of that pig needle, they want everyone to get the regular flu shot. And if you've never had a flu shot before, well then, you should get two. .

It's enough to make your head spin -- or at least sprout a curly tail and start squealing.

We've had other disease panics in recent years, some far worse than swine flu, yet there was never any talk about mass forced vaccinations before, much less three or four jabs in a row.

There hasn't been a forced vaccination scheme on this scale since the polio shots of the 1950s, but school officials are buying into the panic, hook, line and oinker. Why is it that some of the least educated people always end up in charge of education?

I've already told you what you can do to protect yourself if you're forced to get a swine flu shot. The same goes for your kids, too.

Wiping the lipstick off the pig,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

10 September 2009

Cancer Frequencies: Finally a Clinical Trial

We've known for decades that frequencies are an excellent approach to treating cancer with dramatically less side effects than chemotherapy and radiation. It is nice to finally see a group do a successful clinical trial on this.

This team did not even use frequencies in the range known to kill cancer cells and were successful. Image what they could if they utilized the expertise in the worldwide community working with this technology!

An important finding (pointed out for many years on this site) is that frequencies are specific to specific cells and cell types. This makes it challenging for the average university research groups. As Rife has shown us, getting the exact frequencies requires painstaking work for many years with highly refined tools not generally available. 

Also well known, and can be inferred by the data in this study, is that it is difficult to eliminate cancer completely for terminal cases, but possible to signficantly increase the life span and quality of life compared to conventional treatment. 
------


Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: Discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach
Alexandre Barbault, Frederico P Costa , Brad Bottger , Reginald F Munden , Fin Bomholt , Niels Kuster  and Boris Pasche
Cabinet Médical, Avenue de la Gare 6, Lausanne, Switzerland
Rue de Verdun 20, Colmar, FranceSirio-Libanes Hospital, Oncology Center, São Paulo, Brazil
Radiology Associates, Danbury Hospital, Danbury, CT, USA
5Department of Radiology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham and UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, AL, USA
SPEAG AG, Zurich, Switzerland
IT'IS, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham and UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, AL, USA

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 2009, 28:51doi:10.1186/1756-9966-28-51

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jeccr.com/content/28/1/51

Received:    8 January 2009
Accepted:    14 April 2009
Published:    14 April 2009
© 2009 Barbault et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose
Because in vitro studies suggest that low levels of electromagnetic fields may modify cancer cell growth, we hypothesized that systemic delivery of a combination of tumor-specific frequencies may have a therapeutic effect. We undertook this study to identify tumor-specific frequencies and test the feasibility of administering such frequencies to patients with advanced cancer.

Patients and methods
We examined patients with various types of cancer using a noninvasive biofeedback method to identify tumor-specific frequencies. We offered compassionate treatment to some patients with advanced cancer and limited therapeutic options.


Results
We examined a total of 163 patients with a diagnosis of cancer and identified a total of 1524 frequencies ranging from 0.1 Hz to 114 kHz. Most frequencies (57–92%) were specific for a single tumor type. Compassionate treatment with tumor-specific frequencies was offered to 28 patients. Three patients experienced grade 1 fatigue during or immediately after treatment. There were no NCI grade 2, 3 or 4 toxicities. Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to the adrenal gland and bones had a complete response lasting 11 months. One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to liver and bones had a partial response lasting 13.5 months. Four patients had stable disease lasting for +34.1 months (thyroid cancer metastatic to lung), 5.1 months (non-small cell lung cancer), 4.1 months (pancreatic cancer metastatic to liver) and 4.0 months (leiomyosarcoma metastatic to liver).

Conclusion
Cancer-related frequencies appear to be tumor-specific and treatment with tumor-specific frequencies is feasible, well tolerated and may have biological efficacy in patients with advanced cancer.

Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00805337

02 September 2009

Parasites: New Findings

Parasites are easily eliminated from the body within a few hours with the correct frequencies. Each parasite strain requires at least eight frequencies to knock out each stage of the life cycle plus a frequency to knock out a critical protein. For some parasites there will be several strains in the body.

The complexity of multiple frequencies and multiple strains makes it difficult for most researchers to systematically eliminate parasites. Frequency Foundation has spent more than a decade of research to be able to do this consistently and effectively with frequencies only.

Ongoing research on the ability of parasites to evade the immune system is of interest for pursuing frequency strategies that can shorten frequency application time.

Parasite immunomodulation and polymorphisms of the immune system

Rick M Maizels email
Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, and Institute of Immunology and Infection Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK
author email corresponding author email
Journal of Biology 2009, 8:62doi:10.1186/jbiol166
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://jbiol.com/content/8/7/62
Published: 5 August 2009
© 2009 BioMed Central Ltd

Abstract

Parasites are accomplished evaders of host immunity. Their evasion strategies have shaped every facet of the immune system, driving diversity within gene families and immune gene polymorphisms within populations. New studies published recently in BMC Biology and Journal of Experimental Medicine document parasite-associated immunosuppression in natural populations and suggest that host genetic variants favoring resistance to parasites may be detrimental in the absence of infection.

Parasites

Parasites are eukaryotic pathogens, and broadly comprise protozoa, fungi, helminths and arthropods (Figure 1) that complete part or all of their life cycle within a host organism. Like other pathogens, parasites must survive in the face of a highly potent immune system. They succeed in this through a great diversity of strategies for avoiding immune detection, suppressing cellular immunity and deflecting immune attack mechanisms. It has been suggested that the need to overcome suppressive mechanisms of parasites may have led to compensatory adjustments in immune genes that, in an environment where parasitic infection is not endemic, may increase the likelihood of inappropriate responsiveness to self-antigens (autoimmunity) and environmental allergens (allergy). This notion has become known as the hygiene hypothesis [1]. Two recent papers, from Jackson et al. [2] and Fumagalli et al. [3] lend support to this hypothesis.