Once-mighty Toyota is having a rough month, during a period of already lean times for the global auto industry. As our correspondent (and green car guru) Jim Motavalli has been documenting for TDG, the recalls of millions of Toyota vehicles has seemed to spiral into an ever greater mess. While the car maker points fingers at pedal assemblies provided by a third party, others worry that the fixes being offered by dealers don't get at the route of the problem (which some theorize may be electronic interference in the increasingly complex computer systems of modern rides, and which may extend beyond Toyota to other brands).

At the same time, Toyota is getting pummeled by at least 100 complaints from American drivers who claim the brakes failed on their 2010 Priuses (or Prii, as some put it). As industry analysts have looked closer at the hybrids' regenerative braking systems, questions have also emerged about at least one Lexus model and hybrids offered by Ford. So the popular, gas-sipping cars have clearly hit an icy patch, while Toyota and others scramble for solutions.

Against this context, some observers have quipped that Toyota's recent branding strategy, "Moving Forward," now takes an ironic tone. Since some drivers have complained of sudden acceleration moving their vehicles forward on their own, one blogger suggested that the company change its slogan to "Toyota: Not Moving At All. Promise." Other timely suggestions for Toyota include "Moving Forward, but Slowly and with Complete Control"; "Sorry We Killed Your Neighbor"; "You Be the Test Dummy"; and from commenter Luke Duke, "Toyota. Because you never know when someone is going to turn your life into the movie Speed."

My friend Remy C. (who is trying to shut down Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant with his effort Rock the Reactors) dropped by my place yesterday to drop off some fresh flyers for his Bastille Day (July 14) green lighting party extravaganza in NYC. He also showed me the latest issue of Complex magazine, the men's urban style and shopping title from designer Marc Ecko. He flipped past pinup photos of Buffy the Vampire Slayer cutie Michelle Trachtenberg to a double-sided ad for Toyota Corolla. We were both struck immediately by the creepy irony.

Are the undisclosed ingredients in lipstick bad for you?

(NaturalNews) Taking a high daily dose of vitamin D during pregnancy can significantly reduce a woman's risk of giving birth prematurely, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Medical University of Charleston, South Carolina, and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"I'm telling every pregnant mother I see to take 4,000 IUs and every nursing mother to take 6,400 IUs of vitamin D a day," said researcher Bruce Hollis. "I think it is medical malpractice for obstetricians not to know what the vitamin D level of their patients is. This study will put them on notice."

Pregnant women in the United Kingdom and the United States are currently advised to take 400 IU of vitamin D per day.

In the first experimental (rather than observational) study into the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of premature birth, researchers assigned 600 pregnant women living in the Charleston area to take either 400 IU or 4,000 IU per day of vitamin D. Levels of vitamin D and calcium in the women's blood and urine were tested once per month to ensure participant safety. The study included roughly equal numbers of white, black and Hispanic participants.

At both 32 and 37 weeks, the rate of premature birth in the 4,000 IU group was half that of the 400 IU group. Significantly fewer "small for date" babies were also delivered to the 4,000 IU group.

In addition, women receiving more vitamin D were less likely to suffer from respiratory, vaginal, gum or other infections. They were 30 percent less likely to suffer from "core morbidities" of pregnancy, such as diabetes, hypertension and pre-eclampsia. Babies born to women in the high vitamin D group had lower rates of colds and eczema than babies in the other group.

There were no adverse effects observed from either vitamin D dose.

Sources for this story include: www.timesonline.co.uk.

(NaturalNews) In a gathering of vitamin D researchers recently held in Toronto, Dr. Cedric Garland delivered a blockbuster announcement: Breast cancer can be virtually "eradicated" by raising vitamin D levels.

Vitamin D is "the cure" for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any "cure" that doesn't involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.

Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.

This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer "treatments" pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don't want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.

Below I'm reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.

Statement from Dr. Cedric Garland
Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman's risk of contracting the disease can be 'virtually eradicated' by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.

That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine's "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference - the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.

Garland's presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field - a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.

Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health - an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.

Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.

An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's latest figures.

As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research - largely due to Canada's northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D - called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' - with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.

Grassroots Health's "D-action" panel - 30 of the world's leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters - recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.

Vieth pointed out that natural vitamin D levels of mammals who live outdoors in sunny climates is higher than that - up to 200 nanomoles-per liter. And Garland, whose presentation was entitled "Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease" presented data showing that raising one's vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.

'The Sunshine Vitamin' was once thought of only for bone health, helping the body process calcium. But more recent work has shown that all cells in the body have "vitamin D receptors" which help control normal cell growth. Additionally, Garland presented new evidence that low vitamin D status compromises the integrity of calcium-based cellular bonding within tissues, which when eroded allow rogue cancer cells to spread more readily.

Grassroots Health is trying to raise vitamin D awareness among Canadians. Despite epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in Canada, fewer than nine per cent of Canadians have ever had their vitamin D levels checked by a professional and most who have do not know their vitamin D blood level.

(NaturalNews) For several years, The Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods. Now, in a December article in "Supermarket News", that prediction is supported and the non-GMO consciousness uprising is gaining momentum.

Besides the Institute`s new non-GMO website and non-GMO shopping guide, which was disclosed in a previous article, another Non-GMO project is being launched. The project would offer the country`s first consensus-based guidelines to include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. The organization would also require documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.

The "Supermarket News" article alerts supermarket executives to the fact that the growth of organic, local, and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers that could be less tolerant of genetic modification.

In the past, health culprits like fats, refined carbs, salt and sugar were addressed, in that food companies offered options with, without, or with low levels of them. Now, the GMOs are coming to light. These executives are becoming aware that GMOs do not offer a single consumer benefit. They are finally learning that the five major GMOs, soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, and sugar beets, which are gene spliced to tolerate or produce poisonous insecticides, offer the consumer nothing. They are also learning that companies can eliminate GMOs without having to change recipes.

When the major food companies notice even tiny losses in market share, their GMO clean out will be widespread. The large food companies will recognize that the same consumer trend that forced them to remove all GM ingredients in Europe and Japan is taking place in the US.

Right now, about 28 million Americans regularly buy organic and about 87 million are opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And, 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. Imagine what people would say if they all learned that Monsanto paid off our elected officials to not require labeling of GMOs. You see, they knew full well that no one would buy their GMO garbage if it were labeled as such.

In the past, the decade could be defined with regard to the "culprits". In the 80`s, it was fat; in the 90`s, it was carbs. Hopefully, we won`t need this whole decade to send GMOs packing. And, God willing, by this time next year, Monsanto, the largest GMO producer in the world, will not be a "happy camper".

Read labels. If soy (including soy lecithin), corn, cotton, canola and sugar do not say organic, do not buy it.

Aloha!

About the author
Hesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, "Health Talk" since 1981. Obtained a Master's degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called "doctors" that called in on my weekly radio show asking for my "credentials". At 70, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises and teach women's self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training . To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don't eat it. For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.com Hesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.

(NaturalNews) Elderly dementia patients are being subjected to "scandalous abuse" by being drugged with dangerous antipsychotic drugs, according to a letter by ten influential health organizations, published in The Daily Telegraph.

"[One hundred thousand] people with dementia in care homes are being inappropriately prescribed a damaging chemical cosh of antipsychotic drugs and new research suggests that there is a significant problem in hospitals too," the letter reads. "Antipsychotics should only ever be a last resort. This over prescription is abuse and it must stop. ... We cannot stand by while this scandalous abuse of vulnerable citizens continues."

Although antipsychotic drugs are intended for people with medical conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and are not approved for the treatment of dementia, studies show that nursing homes and hospitals regularly prescribe them to these patients as sedatives, in order to make them easier for doctors and nurses to handle.

Research has shown, however, that antipsychotic drugs can double a patient's risk of death if used for three years. Another study found that dementia patients are three times more likely to suffer a stroke if given antipsychotic drugs.

A 2008 report by British Minister of Parliament Paul Burstow concluded that 23,500 dementia patients are being killed every year by inappropriate prescription of antipsychotics in nursing homes. However, a recent survey by the Alzheimer's Society marks the first time that researchers have looked into the prevalence of the problem in hospitals.

The trust found that three-quarters of nurses surveyed said they had seen antipsychotics used to sedate dementia patients, while one-quarter said they had seen the drugs used inappropriately.

"The massive over prescription of antipsychotics to people with dementia is an abuse of human rights, causing serious side effects and increasing risk of death," said Neil Hunt of the Alzheimer's Society. "The government must take action to ensure that these drugs are only ever used as a last resort."

"While the Department of Health prevaricates, thousands of people are being put at risk through the misuse of antipsychotics," said Rebecca Wood of the Alzheimer's Research Trust.

Sources for this story include: www.telegraph.co.uk.

(NaturalNews) Continuing our 15-part article series called Heal Yourself in 15 Days, today we focus on not doing something. In particular, I'm talking about not eating for 24 hours.

It sounds simple in theory, of course: Refrain from eating anything (or drinking any beverages other than water) for 24 hours. Your body has plenty of calories stored to carry you through those 24 hours, and the pause from digestion will give your body a chance to focus its healing energies on other parts of your body.

Note: Be sure to check with your naturopathic physician about the safety of fasting. While fasting is safe for most people, it's not for everyone. People in a weak state of health or those suffering from diabetes should take special precautions to make sure fasting is safe for them.

Why fasting?
Fasting has been used from Biblical times through the modern world to help purify and heal the body. It can help detox your liver, kidneys and digestive tract. It also encourages you to rethink your eating habits. When you fast for just 24 hours, and you're really committed to it, you'll be shocked to discover how many times you habitually reach for food.

People habitually reach for food in all sorts of circumstances that have nothing to do with actual hunger:

• When they're bored... • When they feel emotionally stressed... • When they watch television or movies... • When they're traveling in their car... • When other people are eating around them... • At social events, parties or gatherings...

Try fasting for 24 hours and you'll see for yourself just how many times you habitually reach for food.

This will teach you many important things about your own eating habits, and that's the point of this exercise. Just pick a day -- preferably a weekend when nothing big is going on -- and fast for 24 hours, drinking nothing but water.

In accomplishing this, you will realize three very important things:

1) You didn't die from starvation in 24 hours. In fact, most people have enough spare calories to go 30 days or more without eating.

2) You found the self-discipline to achieve 24 hours without eating. This is a milestone accomplishment in self control.

3) You learned to observe yourself and recognize the numerous situations in which you habitually reach for food. This can be extremely educational in helping you reform your eating habits in the future.

On top of all that, of course, you gave your digestive system a break and encouraged more rapid healing throughout your body. You may notice some detox effects (like bad breath) or a difference in your energy levels. This is all a normal part of the fasting process, and it indicates your fasting is working!

My own fasting experience
I recently fasted for 90 hours, then I had food for 24 hours followed by another 48-hour fast. The experience was quite enlightening. I had virtually no negative side effects, most likely due to the fact that I consume a very cleansing, healthy diet on a day-to-day basis. Typically, the worse your diet, the more detox side effects you may experience when fasting.

If you want to make your fasting more tolerable and more cleansing, you also have the option of drinking an 8-oz. glass of fresh vegetable juice in the middle of your fast. I did this during my fast, and it not only gave me more energy to make it through the fast; it also greatly enhanced the cleansing effects of my fast. I further enhance my own fasts with products from Ed Group's company, Global Healing Center (www.GHChealth.com). I especially like the Oxy Powder and Paratrex products. I take them with every fast.

Naturally, the choice is yours on how to approach this. You also have complete freedom to decide WHEN you want to do this. It doesn't have to happen on Superbowl Weekend. Pick a nice, easy Saturday or Sunday when you don't have anything big going on, and make that day your 24-hour fast. You'll feel better for it, and you will have achieved an important new milestone in your journey toward improved health.

Once you fast for just 24 hours, you'll then know that you can choose to avoid food at any particular time you want. You will discover new flexibility in your food consumption. You'll realize that you can say no to food any time you choose, and you won't die from lack of calories. You'll eliminate that fear and gain a new level of maturity in your relationship to food.

What to do if your fast fails
If you can't make it 24 hours without feeling like you're going to pass out and die, you probably have some rather serious blood sugar imbalances. These can be caused by poor food choice on a day-to-day basis, or even by prescription drugs such as antipsychotics or SSRIs (which imbalance blood sugar metabolism).

So if your fast fails, don't fret. Simply take the next 30 days to improve your eating habits, making them healthier and supported with more fresh food rather than processed food. Work to get safely off all prescription drugs (with the help of your naturopathic physician, of course). Drink more superfoods and fresh juices. Then 30 days later, try the 24-hour fast again and see if you can make it through the entire thing.

If you ever feel extremely weak, ill or you think you might pass out, that's a sign to stop the fast and get some calories. This isn't some sort of "no pain no gain" situation. Fasting should be tolerable and not dangerous. Again, the healthier your diet to start with, the easier your fast will typically be.

I have a friend who fasts for 24 hours each week, every week. He's extremely healthy and looks fit and trim well into his 50's. Other people I know (like David Rainoshek) go on 90-day juice fasts / feasts where they drink nothing but fresh living vegetable juice for 90 days.

Personally, I feel really good on a 72-hour fast, and a 48-hour fast is relatively straightforward because I can do it over the weekend. A 24-hour fast is now a no-brainer.

A few years ago, I never could have even entertained the idea of not eating for 24 hours. The thought would have terrified me. If you're in that camp right now, stop to consider what this means: You are a slave to food, just as I was!

Fasting helps free your mind from the enslavement of thinking you have to eat every few hours. It gives you new options, new freedoms and new self discipline. It's about much more than simply not eating food for 24 hours; it's also about self observation and spiritual mindfulness. Why do you think nearly all the great spiritual figures throughout world history fasted as part of their spiritual practice? They did that because too much food messes with your head while fasting clears your head.

Fasting gives you the opportunity to clear the food-induced cobwebs and see things with improved clarity. Now, just as a disclaimer here, please know that you're not going to see God after just a 24-hour fast. When spiritual leaders fast, they often fast for weeks at a time. Some go as far as 40 days. Some "breatharians" claim not to eat food at all, ever! But those are more advanced topics for another day.

For today, just focus on picking a day where you fast for 24 hours and observe the changes in your own mind and body. You'll be a wiser, healthier and more enlightened person for doing so.

Previous articles in this 15-day "Heal Yourself" series
Part One - Remove barriers to healing http://www.naturalnews.com/028053_self_healing_quality_of_life.html

Part Two - Unleash your inner healing potential http://www.naturalnews.com/028060_self_healing_immune_system.html

Part Three - You are what you absorb http://www.naturalnews.com/028067_self_healing_digestion.html

Part Four - Transform your health by making new blood http://www.naturalnews.com/028075_blood_health_transformation.html

Part Five - Experience the healing potential of living plant juices http://www.naturalnews.com/028100_self_healing_fresh_juice.html

(NaturalNews) Researchers have found evidence that it may be possible to use a version of the Atkins diet to improve health, rather than harming it -- a vegetarian version dubbed the "Eco-Atkins" diet.

The Atkins diet is a form of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet that was popular in 2003 and 2004. Many health professionals blasted the diet as dangerously high in fat, and research indicated that although it lowered levels of blood triglycerides and raised levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol, it also raised levels of the dangerous LDL ("bad") cholesterol.

In the current study, conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers fed 22 overweight adults with elevated LDL cholesterol levels a low-carbohydrate diet high in proteins from gluten (wheat), soy, nuts, cereals, vegetable oils, fruits and vegetables. They were compared with 22 people who ate a diet low in fat and high in carbohydrates, with high levels of low-fat dairy and whole grains.

All participants were fed only enough good to meet 60 percent of their estimated daily calorie needs, and lost an average of 8.8 pounds. Participants in the "Eco-Atkins" group had lower levels of LDL and blood pressure than those in the control group, however.

In an accompanying commentary, Katherine Tuttle and Joan Milton of Washington School of Medicine said that the research might provide a safer way to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, but stopped short of recommending it without larger, long-term studies on the potential risks.

High-protein, low-carbohydrate diets can lead to excessive water loss and kidney damage.

Dr. Dean Ornish said that the diet used in the study was quite similar to the diet he advocates, although slightly higher in vegetable fat. He objected to calling it a version of the Atkins diet, however, for fear that it might encourage people to eat the more traditional, meat-based version.

"People so badly want to believe that Atkins is good for them that they stretch things beyond credibility," Ornish said. "What it's going to be is confusing to people, and that's why I have a problem with it."

Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.abcnews.go.com.

(NaturalNews) In response to an environmental lawsuit filed against the oil giant, Chevron has fortified its defenses with at least twelve different public relations firms whose purpose is to debunk the claims made against the company by indigenous people living in the Amazon forests of Ecuador. According to them, Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon between 1964 and 1990, causing damages assessed at more than $27 billion.

The company is being criticized by people and organizations from across the social and political spectrum for its unethical behavior in regards to the case. Originally filed in U.S. federal district court back in 1993, the lawsuit was eventually moved to courts in Ecuador at Chevron's behest. Having initially lauded Ecuador's legal system in an effort to have the case moved there, Chevron later changed its mind and began attacking the system when that system found the company liable for damages.

Shareholders are also upset with Chevron for its gross mismanagement of the case in which it has sidestepped the rule of law and employed guerilla-style tactics in a last ditch effort to fend off an unfavorable ruling. Part of this includes hiring Hill and Knowlton, the same firm that represented the tobacco industry during its indictment over tobacco causing cancer, to perform the same task concerning toxic oil contaminants.

Evidence presented at Chevron's trial included over 50,000 chemical samples taken by the company itself which proved that all of its former oil drilling sites are contaminated with toxic byproducts that cause cancer. Many of these wells have contaminated rivers, streams, and other water sources which natives use for drinking water. Despite all the undeniable evidence, Chevron is working hard to cover up the facts and dismiss its responsibility in the matter.

Speaking of responsibility, Chevron's other hired firms are trying to claim that the company worked out a deal with the government in Ecuador back in the mid-1990s that released it from cleanup responsibility. However the terms expressed in the current case regarding cleanup are exempt from the former agreement which, in and of itself, was determined to be fraudulent. Two former Chevron lawyers and a handful of former government officials were indicted because of that agreement which makes it ludicrous to try to use the incident as a defense in the current case.

A final ruling on the case is set to be made sometime this year. Most likely, Ecuadorian courts will find Chevron guilty as charged despite its lobbying efforts.

Sources for this story include: http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/2009/1120-chevron-using-six-public-relations-firms-to-discredit-indigenous-groups-in-environmental-case.html

(NaturalNews) When it comes to vaccines, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey get it. They see how the pharma industry is engineering a campaign to silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield in order to suppress the publication of startling new evidence linking vaccines to severe neurological damage.

At great risk to their professional careers, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have found the courage to dare to tell the truth about vaccines and autism. Despite the vicious attacks by the pro-vaccine zealots who will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who challenges conventional vaccine mythology, McCarthy and Carrey have issued a powerful, inspired statement that reveals the truth behind the Big Pharma smear campaign that is intent on destroying the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield before he can publish the final results of this important new study.

NaturalNews reprints that statement here, unedited:

A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield's original paper (http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf) regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet's retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the world's most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers (http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publications.php) since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.

For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.

Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.

Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/primates_hep_b.pdf), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.

There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it's no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.

The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield's mock trial, have been characterized. Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.

What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act? Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?

We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?

The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to our children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.

Original source for this statement: http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefield_statement2.html