Vaccination Debate

Bedrock of vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses

 

Some fuel for the vaccination debate fire – this research shows we may be better off with a sound immune system…..

(NaturalNews) While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body’s natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.

The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.

But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.

“Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity,” said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. “It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis.”

As explained by Dr. Russell Blaylock in a recent interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, vaccines not only do not work as advertised, but they actually damage the body’s innate immunity. Rather than teach the body how to respond to infections, vaccines actually inhibit the immune system’s ability to produce TH2-type cytokines, and suppress cellular immunity, which is how the body protects itself against deadly viruses and bacteria.

So once again, the myth that vaccinations serve any sort of legitimate medical purpose has been deconstructed by breakthrough science. Regardless of whether or not the mainstream medical community wants to admit it, pro-vaccine ideology is increasingly finding itself in the dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/242403.php

http://www.niaid.nih.gov


Learn more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035371_vaccine_theory_antibodies_viruses.html#ixzz1qTFCNPcr

Advertisements

The Road To Disaster?

A timely warning from the old warrior.  We do not need another war, no matter what they say.  Without doubt, few have had more experience in this world of strife.   Bob Brown talks about our possible extinction, Fidel points out a possible cause.

THE ‘MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS’ AND THE ROAD TO DISASTER

Fidel Castro Ruz

This Reflection could be written today, tomorrow or any other day without the risk of being mistaken.  Our species faces new problems.

When 20 years ago I stated at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro that a species was in danger of extinction, I had fewer reasons than today for warning about a danger that I was seeing perhaps 100 years away.  At that time, a handful of leaders of the most powerful countries were in charge of the world.  They applauded my words as a matter of mere courtesy and placidly continued to dig for the burial of our species.

It seemed that on our planet, common sense and order reigned.  For a while economic development, backed by technology and science appeared to be the Alpha and Omega of human society.

Today, everything is much clearer.  Profound truths have been surfacing.  Almost 200 States, supposedly independent, constitute the political organization which in theory has the job of governing the destiny of the world.

Approximately 25,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of allied or enemy forces ready to defend the changing order, by interest or necessity, virtually reduce to zero the rights of billions of people.

I shall not commit the naïveté of assigning the blame to Russia or China for the development of that kind of weaponry, after the monstrous massacre at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered by Truman after Roosevelt’s death.

Nor shall I fall prey to the error of denying the Holocaust that signified the deaths of millions of children and adults, men or women, mainly Jews, gypsies, Russians or other nationalities, who were victims of Nazism.  For that reason the odious policy of those who deny the Palestinian people their right to exist is repugnant.

Does anyone by chance think that the United States will be capable of acting with the independence that will keep it from the inevitable disaster awaiting it?

In a few weeks, the 40 million dollars President Obama promised to collect for his electoral campaign will only serve to show that the currency of his country is greatly devalued, and that the US, with its unusual growing public debt drawing close to 20 quadrillion, is living on the money it prints and not on the money it produces.  The rest of the world pays for what they waste.

Nor does anyone believe that the Democratic candidate would be any better or worse than his Republican foes: whether they are called Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.  Light years separate the three characters as important as Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King.  It is really unheard-of to observe such a technologically powerful nation and a government so bereft of both ideas and moral values.

Iran has no nuclear weapons.  It is being accused of producing enriched uranium that serves as fuel energy or components for medical uses.  Whatever one can say, its possession or production is not equivalent to the production of nuclear weapons.  Dozens of countries use enriched uranium as an energy source, but this cannot be used in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon without a prior complicated purification process.

However, Israel, with the aid and cooperation of the United States, manufactured nuclear weaponry without informing or accounting to anybody, today not admitting their possession of these weapons, they have hundreds of them.  To prevent the development of research in neighbouring Arab countries, they attacked and destroyed reactors in Iraq and Syria.  They have also declared their aim of attacking and destroying the production centres for nuclear fuel in Iran.

International politics have been revolving around that crucial topic in that complex and dangerous part of the world, where most of the fuel that moves the world economy is produced and supplied.

The selective elimination of Iran’s most eminent scientists by Israel and their NATO allies has become a practice that motivates hatred and feelings of revenge.

The Israeli government has openly stated its objective to attack the plant manufacturing Iran’s enriched uranium, and the government of the United States has invested billions of dollars to manufacture a bomb for that purpose.

On March 16, 2012, Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham published an article revealing that “A top US Air Force General has described the largest conventional bomb – the re-invented bunkers of 13.6 tones – as ‘fantastic’ for a military attack on Iran.

“Such an eloquent comment on the massive killer-artefact took place in the same week that President Barack Obama appeared to warn against ‘easy words’ on the Persian Gulf War.”

“…Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for US Air Force operations […] added that probably the bomb would be used in any attack on Iran ordered by Washington.

“The MOP, also referred to as ‘The Mother of All Bombs’, is designed to drill through 60 metres of concrete before it detonates its massive bomb.  It is believed to be the largest conventional weapon, non-nuclear, in the US arsenal.”

“The Pentagon is planning a process of wide destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and massive civilian victims through the combined use of tactical nuclear bombs and monstrous conventional bombs with mushroom-shaped clouds, including the MOABs and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) that exceeds the MOAB in destructive capacity.

“The MOP is described as ‘a powerful new bomb that aims straight at subterranean Iranian and North Korean nuclear facilities.  The giant bomb –longer than 11 persons shoulder to shoulder, or more than 6 metres from end to end’.”

I ask the reader to excuse me for this complicated military jargon.

As one can see, such calculations arise from the supposition that the Iranian combatants, numbering millions of men and women well-known for their religious zeal and their fighting traditions, surrender without firing a shot.

In recent days, the Iranians have seen how US soldiers occupying Afghanistan, in just three weeks, urinated on the corpses of killed Afghans, burned copies of the Koran and murdered more than 15 defenceless citizens.

Let us imagine US forces launching monstrous bombs on industrial institutions, capable of penetrating through 60 metres of concrete.  Never has such an undertaking ever been conceived.

Not one word more is needed to understand the gravity of such a policy.  In that way, our species will be inexorably led towards disaster.

If we do not learn how to understand, we shall never learn how to survive.

As for me, I harbour not the slightest doubt that the United States is about to commit and lead the world towards the greatest mistake in its history.

Fidel Castro Ruz

March 21, 2012

Green Party 40th Anniversary

Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration

Whether you agree with it or not, you have to admit that this is an interesting vision of our common future, as well as a great overview of the handing off of the torch between the generations. Bob Brown is the leader of the Australian Green Party, and is currently in Africa at the world meeting of the close to 100 different countries with active Green parties.

23 Mar | General

The full text of Bob’s speech is below:

Fellow Earthians,

Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know.

Nor has such a one-and-only brilliance in the Universe stood at the brink of extinction, so far as we know.

We people of the Earth exist because our potential was there in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, as the Universe exploded into being.

So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding Universe.

However, recent astronomy tells us that there are trillions of other planets circling Sunlike stars in the immensity of the Universe, millions of them friendly to life. So why has no one from elsewhere in the Cosmos contacted us?

Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn’t life out there contacting us? Why aren’t the intergalactic phones ringing?

Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.

That’s why they are not communicating with Earth. They have extincted themselves. They have come and gone. And now it’s our turn.

Whatever has happened in other worlds, here we are on Earth altering this bountiful biosphere, which has nurtured us from newt to Newton.

Unlike the hapless dinosaurs, which went to utter destruction when a rocky asteroid plunged into Earth sixty-five million years ago, this accelerating catastrophe is of our own making.

So, just as we are causing that destruction, we could be fostering its reversal. Indeed, nothing will save us from ourselves but ourselves.

We need a strategy. We need action based on the reality that this is our own responsibility – everyone’s responsibility.

So democracy – ensuring that everyone is involved in deciding Earth’s future – is the key to success.

For comprehensive Earth action, an all-of-the-Earth representative democracy is required. That is, a global parliament.

In his Gettysburg address of 1859, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed: ‘We here highly resolve… that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.’

153 years later, let us here in Hobart, and around the world, highly resolve that through global democracy we shall save the Earth from perishing.

For those who oppose global democracy the challenge is clear: how else would you manage human affairs in this new century of global community, global communications and shared global destiny?

Recently, when I got back to bed at Liffey after ruminating under the stars for hours on this question, Paul enquired, ‘did you see a comet?’ ‘Yes’, I replied, ‘and it is called ‘Global Democracy’.

A molten rock from space destroyed most life on the planet those sixty-five million years ago. Let us have the comet of global democracy save life on Earth this time.

Nine years ago, after the invasion of Iraq which President George W. Bush ordered to promote democracy over tyranny, I proposed to the Australian Senate a means of expanding democracy without invasion. Let Australia take the lead in peacefully establishing a global parliament. I explained that this ultimate democracy would decide international issues. I had in mind nuclear proliferation, international financial transactions and the plight of our one billion fellow people living in abject poverty.

In 2003 our other Greens Senator, Kerry Nettle, seconded the motion but we failed to attract a single other vote in the seventy-six seat chamber. The four other parties – the Liberals, the Nationals, Labor and the Democrats – voted ‘no!’. As he crossed the floor to join the ‘noes’, another senator called to me: ‘Bob, don’t you know how many Chinese there are?’.

Well, yes I did. Surely that is the point. There are just 23 million Australians amongst seven billion equal Earthians. Unless and until we accord every other citizen of the planet, friend or foe, and regardless of race, gender, ideology or other characteristic, equal regard we, like them, can have no assured future.

2500 years ago the Athenians, and 180 years ago the British, gave the vote to all men of means. After Gettysburg, the United States made the vote available to all men, regardless of means. One man, one vote.

But what about women, Louisa Lawson asked in 1889: “Pray, why should one half of the world govern the other half?”

So, in New Zealand, in 1893, followed by South Australia in 1895, and the new Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, universal suffrage – the equal vote for women as well as men – was achieved.

In this second decade of the Twenty First Century, most people on Earth get to vote in their own countries. Corruption and rigging remain common place but the world believes in democracy.  As Winston Churchill observed in 1947,

‘Many forms of government have been tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’

Yet, in Australia and other peaceful places which have long enjoyed domestic democracy, establishing a global democracy – the ultimate goal of any real democrat – is not on the public agenda.

Exxon, Coca-Cola, BHP Billiton and News Corporation have much more say in organising the global agenda than the planet’s five billion mature-age voters without a ballot box.

Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, is democracy’s most insidious rival. It is served by plutolatry, the worship of wealth, which has become the world’s prevailing religion. But on a finite planet, the rule of the rich must inevitably rely on guns rather than the ballot box, though, I hasten to add, wealth does not deny a good heart. All of us here are amongst the world’s wealthiest people, but I think none of us worship wealth to the exclusion of democracy.

We instinctively know that democracy is the only vehicle for creating a fair, global society in which freedom will abound, but the extremes of gluttony and poverty will not. Mahatma Ghandi observed, the world has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.

So what’s it to be: democracy or guns? I pluck for democracy.

The concept of world democracy goes back centuries, but since 2007, there has been a new movement towards an elected, representative assembly at the United Nations, in parallel with the unelected, appointed, General Assembly. This elected assembly would have none of the General Assembly’s powers but would be an important step along the way to a future, popularly elected and agreeably empowered global assembly.

Two Greens motions in the Australian Senate to support this campaign for a global people’s assembly have been voted down. However similar motions won support in the European Parliament, and in India 40 MPs, including a number of ministers, have backed the proposal. I will move for the world’s 100 Greens parties to back it too, at the third Global Greens conference in Senegal next week.  It fits perfectly with the Global Greens Charter, adopted in Canberra in 2001.

We Earthians can develop rosier prospects. We have been to the Moon. We have landed eyes and ears on Mars. We are discovering planets hundreds of light years close which are ripe for life. We are on a journey to endless wonder in the Cosmos and to realising our own remarkable potential.

To give this vision security, we must get our own planet in order.

The political debate of the Twentieth century was polarised between capitalism and communism. It  was about control of the economy in the narrow sense of material goods and money. A free market versus state control.

Bitter experience tells us that the best outcome is neither, but some of both. The role of democracy in the nation state has been to calibrate that balance.

In this Twenty First Century the political debate is moving to a new arena. It is about whether we expend Earth’s natural capital as our population grows to ten billion people in the decades ahead with average consumption also growing.

We have to manage the terrifying facts that Earth’s citizenry is already using one hundred and twenty percent of the planet’s productivity capacity – its renewable living resources; that the last decade was the hottest in the last 1300 years (if not the last 9000 years); that we are extincting our fellow species faster than ever before in human history; and that to accommodate ten billion people at American, European or Australasian rates of consumption we will need two more planets to exploit within a few decades.

It may be that the Earth’s biosphere cannot tolerate ten billion of us big consuming mammals later this century. Or it may be that, given adroit and agreeable global management, it can. It’s up to us.

Once more the answer lies between the poles: between the narrow interests of the mega-rich and a surrender to the nihilist idea that the planet would be better off without us.

It will be global democracy’s challenge to find the equator between those poles, and it is that equator which the Greens are best placed to reach.

One great difference between the old politics and Green politics, is the overarching question which predicates all our political decisions: ‘will people one hundred years from now thank us?’

In thinking one hundred years ahead, we set our community’s course for one hundred thousand years: that humanity will not perish at its own hand but will look back upon its Twenty First Century ancestry with gratitude.

And when the future smiles, we can smile too.

That query ‘will people a hundred years from now thank us?’ should be inscribed across the door of Earth’s parliament.

So let us resolve

that there should be established

for the prevalence and happiness of humankind

a representative assembly

a global parliament

for the people of the Earth

based on the principle of

one person one vote one value;

and to enable this outcome

that it should be a bicameral parliament

with its house of review

having equal representation

elected from every nation.

An Earth parliament for all. But what would be its commission? Here are four goals:

Economy.

Equality.

Ecology.

Eternity.

To begin with economy, because that word means managing our household. The parliament would employ prudent resource management to put an end to waste and to better share Earth’s plenitude. For example, it might cut the trillion dollars annual spending on armaments. A cut of just ten percent, would free up the money to guarantee every child on the planet clean water and enough food, as well as a school to attend to develop her or his best potential. World opinion would back such a move, though, I suppose Boeing, NATO, the People’s Liberation Army, and the Saudi Arabian royal family might not.

The second goal is equality. This begins with equality of opportunity – as in every child being assured that school, where lessons are in her or his own first language, and a health clinic to attend. Equality would ensure, through the fair regulation of free enterprise, each citizen’s wellbeing, including the right to work, to innovate, to enjoy creativity and to understand and experience and contribute to defending the beauty of Earth’s biosphere.

Which brings me to the third goal: ecology.  Ecological wellbeing must understrap all outcomes, so as to actively protect the planet’s biodiversity and living ecosystems. ‘In wildness’, wrote Thoreau ‘is the preservation of the world.’ Wild nature is our cradle and the most vital source for our spiritual and physical wellbeing yet it is the world’s most rapidly disappearing resource. And so I pay tribute to Miranda Gibson, 60 metres high on her tall tree platform tonight as the rain and snow falls across central Tasmania. In Miranda’s spirit is the saving of the world.

And lastly, eternity. Eternity is for as long as we could be. It means beyond our own experience. It also means ‘forever’, if there is no inevitable end to life. Let’s take the idea of eternity and make it our own business.

I have never met a person in whom I did not see myself reflected. Some grew old and died, and I am now part of their ongoing presence on Earth.

Others have a youthful vitality which I have lost and will soon give up altogether. These youngsters will in turn keep my candle, and yours, if you are aged like me, alight in the Cosmos. In this stream of life, where birth and death are our common lot, the replenishment of humankind lights up our own existences. May it go on and on and on…

The pursuit of eternity is no longer the prerogative of the gods: it is the business of us all, here and now.

Drawing on the best of our character, Earth’s community of people is on the threshold of a brilliant new career in togetherness. But we, all together, have to open the door to that future using the powerful key of global democracy.

I think we are intelligent enough to get there. My faith is in the collective nous and caring of humanity, and in our innate optimism. Even in its grimmest history, the optimism of humanity has been its greatest power. We must defy pessimism, as well as the idea that there is any one of us who cannot turn a successful hand to improving Earth’s future prospects.

I am an optimist. I’m also an opsimath: I learn as I get older. And, I have never been happier in my life.   Hurtling to death, I am alive and loving being Green.

I look forward in my remaining years to helping spread a contagion of confidence that, together, we people of Earth will secure a great future. We can and will retrieve Earth’s biosphere. We will steady ourselves – this unfolding flower of intelligence in the Universe – for the long, shared, wondrous journey into the enticing centuries ahead.

Let us determine to bring ourselves together, settle our differences, and shape and realise our common dream for this joyride into the future. In that pursuit, let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value.

We must, we can, we will.

The Next Century

Gwynne Dyer’s column “The Next Century” (Georgia Straight March 22) could have been more aptly by-lined “Grim Dire”. Coincidentally the same day it was published, Bob Brown gave a talk on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Green Party with a totally different take on the same topic. (http://wp.me/p2e4b7-46)  In it, he points out for instance, that if we were to work together for the common good, as little as 10% of the world’s military budget would be more than adequate to provide food and shelter for the world’s poor. Brown also quotes Ghandi as saying there is enough for our need but not for our greed. Dyer’s type of gloomy pessimism leads to the type  selfish nihilism and despair that attempts to convince us that we should accept that we need to Geo-Engineer the planet in order to alter it for the better. Aside from the fact that the powers that be are already hard at doing so already – ( http://wp.me/p2e4b7-2O )- this whole concept is like the shortsightedness of the guys that thought it would be a good idea to introduce rabbits to Australia. Better instead, I think, that we should be re-engineering our own hearts and separating from ourselves that which separates us from each other. Thich Nhat Hahn points out that “you carry Mother Earth within you” and that the only effective activism must start with our own inner peace. As a friend of mine once wisely observed, the prophets of doom and gloom predict doom and gloom only for themselves. In the final analysis, our fear for the future must also be combined with our hope for the best and our trust in our better nature.

The Electric Universe

Plasma physicists are looking at spaceship earth in an entirely new way, as observations of our environment continually confound traditional theorists. Comets, for instance, seem not to be the balls of ice they were thought to be, and still are considered as by the mainstream.

Electric universe proponent David Talbott takes up the Comet Elenin question from a vantage point generally ignored by both the scientific mainstream and the Internet popularizers of Doomsday speculations. What is the relationship of Elenin’s catastrophic demise to the larger, unsolved mystery of explosive comet disintegration?
For a first look at the larger context, see “Seeking the Third Story”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSB93dGMGeg

Watch this video on comets and see what you think:

The End of Canada as a Sovereign Nation?

The End of Canada as a Sovereign Nation?

Behind the scenes, secret agreements have been signed which essentially spell the end of Canada as a sovereign nation.  Although this process was started many years ago with the NAFTA agreement, it has been fast-tracked and completed recently under the guise of the war on terror. In this article the details that have been leaked are spelled out as best as possible. Under it’s guidelines, Canadian citizens have been “rendered” from Canada to the US, all communications are being monitored, American police can ride with the RCMP, etc.   Homeland security for everyone, oh joy….

Politics / CanadaMar 15, 2012 – 04:41 AM

By: Global_Research

Politics

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleDana Gabriel writes: Through a series of bilateral meetings, U.S. and Canadian officials are busy working out the details of the perimeter security action plan. This includes a recent joint crime forum which dealt with border and law enforcement issues. These various discussions are part of the implementation process which when finished would bring about the complete transformation of the northern border and another step closer in the creation of a fully integrated North American security perimeter.

In early March, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano met with Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews as part of the Cross-Border Crime Forum. On the agenda was, “transnational crime issues such as organized crime, counter-terrorism, smuggling, economic crime and other emerging cross-border threats.” Both countries also signed a memorandum of understanding on the Dissemination and Exchange of Information to combat human smuggling and trafficking. The meetings were used as an opportunity to further advance U.S.-Canada cooperation in areas of law enforcement, criminal justice and intelligence. This ties in with my previous article which detailed the Obama administration’s new counter-narcotics strategy for the northern border that includes closer collaboration with Canada in the war on drugs. Much of the joint crime forum discussions focused around the progress being made on the Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan, announced in December 2011.

see entire article here or at globalresearch.ca:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33616.html

Confessions of a Drug Pusher

Wondering about prescription drugs such as statins or  immunizations for your kids?  Lots of people are and with good reason.  Physicians graduating from Harvard used to be told that half of what they had been taught would eventually be proven to be wrong, and it was their duty as practicing physicians to determine which half.  They don’t bother telling them that any more…

There has been a lot of noise in the main stream media about people choosing to opt out of routinely immunizing their kids.  They say the mercury isn’t being put into the vaccines any more (small consolation to the older kids that got it), the adjuvants are safe (they aren’t, read the warning label on the package if you can), and that disease outbreaks will occur if they aren’t used on everyone (in fact, one rubella cluster consisted of kids that had all been immunized).  Something is wrong with this picture, and the author of this book makes an astonishingly scary portrait of a pharmaceutical industry too hooked on corporate greed to care about ethics or health and well-being.

On December 2, 2004, Gwen Olsen’s niece Megan committed suicide by setting herself on fire—and ended her tortured life as a victim of the adverse effects of prescription drugs. Olsen’s poignant autobiographical journey through the darkness of mental illness and the catastrophic consequences that lurk in medicine cabinets around the country offers an honest glimpse into alarming statistics and a health care system ranked last among nineteen industrialized nations worldwide.

As a former sales representative in the pharmaceutical industry for several years, Olsen learned firsthand how an unprecedented number of lethal drugs are unleashed in the United States market, but her most heartrending education into the dangers of antidepressants would come as a victim and ultimately, as a survivor. Rigorously researched and documented, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher is a moving human drama that shares one woman’s unforgettable journey of faith, forgiveness, and healing.

EVERY ONE SHOULD SEE AND HEAR THIS VIDEO…AND  CIRCULATE  IT