Harry Hoxsey's flamboyant, aggressive persona persisted through several decades of AMA attempts to stop him from curing cancer patients. He even won a libel lawsuit in 1950 against AMA head Dr. Morris Fishbein and the powerful Hearst Publications group. It wasn't until the FDA became more empowered to intervene with interstate sales of unapproved remedies that the Hoxsey Clinic was forced to shut down all its clinics throughout 16 different states in 1960 and move to Tijuana, Mexico in 1963. Hoxsey appointed his longtime assistant Mildred Nelson, RN, to make the move and change the clinic's name to avoid further harassment while he remained in Dallas to deal with his successful oil business. Now it's called the Bio-Medical Center. It was established there in 1963. According to the Center's executive administrator Liz Jonas, Mildred Nelson's sister, its cancer free success rate is 80 percent. This includes patients abandoned by orthodox oncology. This article will conclude with a list of some of the better known clinics and hospitals in Mexico that welcome cancer patients with highly effective natural treatments without terrible side effects. Most of these treatments are currently banned in the United States, due to Big Pharma's monopoly on cancer drugs that only treat symptoms, but do not actually cure cancer. A true cancer cure would kill their multi-billion dollar industry, which requires new patients to grow every year.
The controversy surrounding mandatory vaccines seldom is debated on science or merit. Government training materials written to persuade the public to accept mandatory vaccines rely on persuasion and even intimidation, and not facts or science. Health Impact News has previously reported how the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other government health officials have tried to silence the media in publishing anything contrary to their controlled information regarding vaccines, and have produced training documents for health workers to combat those opposed to mandatory vaccinations. Vaccine injury data is seldom, if ever, published, and the statistics on vaccine injuries and deaths are purposely withheld from public information. Dr. Suzanne Humphries, when lecturing on vaccine safety, often references a slide presentation from Dr. Jacobson of the Mayo Clinic. It is a slide presentation developed to train doctors on how to deal with patient objectives to vaccines. Jefferey Jaxen has published something similar obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO), which is the agency responsible for world-wide sales of vaccines and distribution, particularly in poorer countries.
She calls herself the "Patriot Nurse." Addressing the issue of vaccine choice in this video, she explains how the term "herd" in "herd immunity" very subtlety suggests that we are livestock that are "owned." The question then is: "who owns us, if not ourselves? Does the medical community own us? Does the State own us?"
Genocide is not too strong a term for what is now happening in South Dakota. The huge, shocking violation of legal and human rights being carried out by the state is tantamount to genocide against the Native American nations, the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Sioux, residing within its borders. It is the abduction and kidnapping by state officials, under the cover of law, of American Indian children. South Dakota is committing blatant and flagrant genocide against the Sioux people by transferring Indian children to white homes, and also amid allegations of sexual abuse and drugging of Native children in DSS foster care. This is a most serious case of ethnic cleansing.
Dr. Lee Hieb joins the growing ranks of doctors speaking out against forced vaccinations and the current hysteria in the mainstream media. Dr. Lee Hieb is an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery. She is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Hieb's voice is a voice of reason and common sense on the current vaccine debate. Contrast this with most of the mainstream media today, heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which are parading doctors into their shows calling for mandatory vaccines by force, and the removal of all licenses to practice for doctors who disagree with them. Dr. Hieb correctly points out the logical conclusions to allowing government make medical decisions "for the good of society" which include injecting chemicals into our body. Dr. Hieb does not stop with her discussion of the medical ethics and political implications of government forced vaccinations, she goes on to address two crucial issues that you are unlikely to hear in the mainstream media: Are vaccines safe, and are they effective?
When does the State have the right to remove children from a home where they are living with their parents? We have been covering medical kidnapping stories now on MedicalKidnap.com for about 3 months. This website was started to document the many stories that were coming to our attention where families were losing their children to the State, and the foster care system, over medical disagreements. In many of these cases, their children were taken away simply because they disagreed with a doctor, or wanted to take their children to a different doctor to get a second opinion. Does the State have a right to take children away from parents for what is now being called "medical abuse," a term used by medical authorities when parents disagree with doctors, or want to seek a second opinion? Most of the people who follow MedicalKidnap would state "no." And we have published many stories now showing that this is indeed happening all across the country, in every state, every single day. But what about in other situations? Are there any situations where authorities should step in and remove children from their homes, taking them away from their parents? Judging from comments made in social media from many commenting on some of our articles, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people in the United States today feel that in certain situations, the State has a legitimate right to step in and take children away from their families, removing them from their homes. However, I would like to suggest that the Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of individuals and families, and that it is never lawful for social services to remove a child from their biological parents, taking them out of their home and making them a ward of the State, removing legal custody from their parents. This phenomena is a recent development in the history of our country, and if it is not lawful to take such actions, we are correct in calling such actions "state-funded kidnappings."
A new federal executive order expands the list of illnesses for which you could be detained, isolated, and treated against your will if you are entering the US or traveling between states—even if you are completely healthy. Some states have similar or worse laws that would even allow entry into your home. The Public Health Service Act allows the government to apprehend and detain individuals based on communicable diseases named in the Act, or named by presidential executive orders. Executive orders do not have to get congressional approval.
So who are these parents who want to refuse vaccines for their children? The mainstream media generally portrays these parents as "anti-science, ignorant, foolish, etc." It was refreshing, therefore, to read an honest journalistic piece on this topic on the "Michigan Live" website which actually interviewed some parents who exercise their lawful rights to refuse some vaccines. In contrast to the predominantly one-sided media reports labeling all parents who refuse vaccines as "uneducated," here is a description of the parents refusing vaccines based on demographic data in Michigan: Statewide, about 6 percent of Michigan schoolchildren have vaccination waivers, which equates to about 150,000 children who are unvaccinated or undervaccinated. Many are clustered in affluent communities such as Rochester, and have well-educated, health-conscious parents who buy organic food and eschew antibiotics in favor of a homeopathic approach to illnesses. They fear injecting so many viruses into their children could do more harm than good, and see widespread immunizations as being driven by "Big Pharma," which they see as more concerned about profits than public health.
Are Americans' freedom to choose what is injected into their body at risk in the United States today? Is it possible that the day is not far off when if you refuse a mandated vaccine at your place of employment, or refuse a mandated vaccine for your child, that you could come home one day to find your residence quarantined, restricting you from leaving your home or having visitors simply for exercising your right to refuse a medical treatment? There is compelling evidence that this is not some conspiracy prediction of a future Orwellian society, but something that is already in process in the United States of America. Many fear that a person's choice of accepting or refusing mandatory vaccines could restrict one's ability to travel in or out of the United States, one's ability to send their children to school, one's ability to continue working at their place of employment, or even one's ability to leave one's own privately owned home.
The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a family’s right to privacy and the government’s need to enforce the law. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need. This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment. All too often, law enforcement officers and child-welfare workers act as if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to CPS investigations. They are wrong.