WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.

The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."

"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."

"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"

"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."

"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."

Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.

"A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," Apuzzo explained to CNN. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."

"If they wanted to they could have taken this up," Apuzzo told WND. He surmised the court decided, "I don't want to rock the boat too much because that will make it worse, let me be nice and things will go away."

"None of this is moot. If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know" [whether Mr. Obama is a legitimate president], said Apuzzo. "The issue is not going away. … You're going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate."

Like previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama foundered in lower courts on the question of "standing." Mr. Obama's attorneys have avoided addressing the merits of an eligibility case. Instead, they have repeatedly succeeded in persuading courts to dismiss cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not prove they were directly harmed by Mr. Obama's occupation of the Oval Office.

Another case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Barnett v. Obama, may not be stopped by the standing problem, according to United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep. Kreep, author of the Western Center for Journalism amicus curiae brief cited above by the Supreme Court, represents two plaintiffs in the Barnett case.

Kreep explained that one of the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008.

"According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates," Kreep told WND. "The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama's defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question," and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts."

Apuzzo and Kreep both suggested that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should have recused themselves from the Kerchner case.

"We've seen Justice Kagan recuse herself in various cases, and here's a case where she did not recuse herself, and also Justice Sotomayor, which struck me as really odd because they were appointed by President Obama," said Apuzzo.

"If he's not eligible to be president, he never was, and it could jeopardize their appointments," said Kreep. "An argument could have been made that they should have recused themselves."

"If either of them had anything to do with any of the eligibility decisions, they should have recused themselves," Kreep added. Kagan, as President Obama's Solicitor General, was "probably" involved in planning his legal strategy in earlier eligibility cases.

Apuzzo suggested Kagan's and Sotomayor's participation might have changed the outcome of the court's deliberations.

"We don't know what the vote was," Apuzzo pointed out. "If it was a dog of a case, you don't need Kagan's or Sotomayor's votes. Why did they leave this ethical cloud hanging in history? For what? For a dog of a case?"•

***********************************************************************

# posted by Missygirl : 9:36 AM

Alert: Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu Has Agreed To Lease Jordan Valley From The Palestinians: A 7 Year Plan For Peace

# posted by Missygirl : 8:54 AM

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.

Mario Apuzzo

Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.

"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."

"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."

"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.

"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."

"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.

"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."•

# posted by Missygirl : 8:17 AM

Radical Yemeni cleric calls for killing Americans

Anwar Al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on radical websites Monday. (AP)

# posted by Missygirl : 10:53 AM

My trip to the Kiniwata Island in the Pacific was a memorable one. Although the island was beautiful and I had an enjoyable time, the thing I remember most about my trip was the fact "Johnny Lingo gave eight cows for his wife." I’m reminded of it every time I see a woman belittle her husband, or a wife wither under her husband’s scorn. I want to say to them, "You should know why Johnny Lingo gave eight cows for his wife."

Johnny Lingo is known throughout the islands for his skills, intelligence, and savvy. If you hire him as a guide, he will show you the best fishing spots and the best places to get pearls. Johnny is also one of the sharpest traders in the islands. He can get you the best possible deals. The people of Kiniwata all speak highly of Johnny Lingo. Yet, when they speak of him, they always smile just a little mockingly.

A couple days after my arrival to Kiniwata, I went to the manager of the guesthouse to see who he thought would be a good fishing guide. "Johnny Lingo," said the manager. "He’s the best around. When you go shopping, let him do the bargaining. Johnny knows how to make a deal."

"Johnny Lingo!" hooted a nearby boy. The boy rocked with laughter as he said, "Yea, Johnny can make a deal alright!"

"What’s going on?" I demanded.

"Everybody tells me to get in touch with Johnny Lingo and then they start laughing. Please, let me in on the joke."

"Oh, the people like to laugh," the manager said, shrugging. "Johnny’s the brightest and strongest young man in the islands. He’s also the richest for his age."

"But …" I protested. "… if he’s all you say he is, why does everyone laugh at him behind his back?"

"Well, there is one thing. Five months ago, at fall festival, Johnny came to Kiniwata and found himself a wife. He gave her father eight cows!"

I knew enough about island customs to be impressed. A dowry of two or three cows would net a fair wife and four or five cows would net a very nice wife.

"Wow!" I said. "Eight cows! She must have beauty that takes your breath away."

"She’s not ugly, …" he conceded with a little smile, "… but calling her ‘plain’ would definitely be a compliment. Sam Karoo, her father, was afraid he wouldn’t be able to marry her off. Instead of being stuck with her, he got eight cows for her. Isn’t that extraordinary? This price has never been paid before."

"Yet, you called Johnny’s wife ‘plain?’ "

"I said it would be a compliment to call her plain. She was skinny and she walked with her shoulders hunched and her head ducked. She was scared of her own shadow."

"Well," I said, "I guess there’s just no accounting for love."

"True enough." agreed the man. "That’s why the villagers grin when they talk about Johnny. They get special satisfaction from the fact the sharpest trader in the islands was bested by dull old Sam Karoo."

"But how?"

"No one knows and everyone wonders. All of the cousins urged Sam to ask for three cows and hold out for two until he was sure Johnny would pay only one. To their surprise Johnny came to Sam Karoo and said, ‘Father of Sarita, I offer eight cows for your daughter.’ "

"Eight cows." I murmured. "I’d like to meet this Johnny Lingo."

I wanted fish and pearls, so the next afternoon I went to the island of Nurabandi. As I asked directions to Johnny’s house, I noticed Johnny’s neighbors were also amused at the mention of his name. When I met the slim, serious young man I could see immediately why everyone respected his skills. However, this only reinforced my confusion over him.

As we sat in his house, he asked me, "You come here from Kiniwata?"

"Yes."

"They speak of me on that island?"

"Yes. They say you can provide me anything I need. They say you’re intelligent, resourceful, and the sharpest trader in the islands."

He smiled gently. "My wife is from Kiniwata."

"Yes, I know."

"They speak of her?"

"A little."

"What do they say?"

"Why, just … ." The question caught me off balance. "They told me you were married at festival time."

"Nothing more?" The curve of his eyebrows told me he knew there had to be more.

"They also say the marriage settlement was eight cows." I paused. "They wonder why."

"They ask that?" His eyes lighted with pleasure. "Everyone in Kiniwata knows about the eight cows?"

I nodded.

"And in Nurabandi, everyone knows it too?" His chest expanded with satisfaction. "Always and forever, when they speak of marriage settlements, it will be remembered that Johnny Lingo paid eight cows for Sarita."

So that’s the answer, I thought: Vanity.

Just then Sarita entered the room to place flowers on the table. She stood still for a moment to smile at her husband and then left. She was the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. The lift of her shoulders, the tilt of her chin, and the sparkle in her eyes all spelled self-confidence and pride. Not an arrogant and haughty pride, but a confident inner beauty that radiated in her every movement.

I turned back to Johnny and found him looking at me.

"You admire her?" he murmured.

"She … she’s gorgeous." I said. "Obviously, this is not the one everyone is talking about. She can’t be the Sarita you married on Kiniwata."

"There’s only one Sarita. Perhaps, she doesn’t look the way you expected."

"She doesn’t. I heard she was homely. They all make fun of you because you let yourself be cheated by Sam Karoo."

"You think eight cows was too many?" A smile slid over his lips.

"No, but how can she be so different from the way they described her?"

Johnny said, "Think about how it must make a girl feel to know her husband paid a very low dowry for her? It must be insulting to her to know he places such little value on her. Think about how she must feel when the other women boast about the high prices their husbands paid for them. It must be embarrassing for her. I would not let this happen to my Sarita."

"So, you paid eight cows just to make your wife happy?"

"Well, of course I wanted Sarita to be happy, but there’s more to it than that. You say she is different from what you expected. This is true. Many things can change a woman. There are things that happen on the inside and things that happen on the outside. However, the thing that matters most is how she views herself. In Kiniwata, Sarita believed she was worth nothing. As a result, that’s the value she projected. Now, she knows she is worth more than any other woman in the islands. It shows, doesn’t it?"

"Then you wanted …"

"I wanted to marry Sarita. She is the only woman I love."

"But …" I was close to understanding.

"But," he finished softly, "I wanted an eight-cow wife."

*********************************************************

I hope you liked that story! It's a favorite of mine!

-Blessings!-Missygirl ♥

# posted by Missygirl : 8:40 PM

New Proof that This Common Medical Treatment is Unnecessary and Ineffective

Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 01 2010

Last year, the swine flu "pandemic"—warned to be catastrophic—was actually much milder than health officials warned.

Last year's flu mortality estimates turned out to be only one-third that of an average year, in spite of the emergence of the new human-bird-pig influenza virus you have come to know as swine flu.

Imagine that. The sky didn't fall after all.

Last year the United States contracted for the manufacture of more than 170 million doses of swine flu vaccine. Probably the most significant accomplishment of this website was that we were able to contribute to the fact that only 90 million doses were used in the United States.

Armed with the facts, less than one-third of the US population fell for fear mongering. And together, we can do it again.

But we have some high hurdles ahead.

Flu Shots for All (Science Optional)

For the past several years, physicians in America have been insisting that every child age 6 months to 18 years must get an annual flu shot. Making matters worse, health officials have now ramped up those recommendations, telling EVERY person over the age of 6 months get a flu shot, healthy or not, low risk or high.

Everyone. Three hundred million of you, every year from the year you are born until the year you die.

What will receiving lifelong flu shots every year do to your immune system?

With all of those vaccinations, will you be more susceptible to influenza-related complications and death?

We really don't know.

Health officials have leapt ahead with recommendations of "flu shots for all" without safety studies—so by getting a flu shot, you are effectively offering yourself up as a laboratory rat. In other words, YOU are the safety study!

No Mystery -- These Flu Vaccine Side Effects WILL Occur in the US

It isn't just an ordinary flu vaccine they are promoting this year—it's the new trivalent vaccine, which may be even more reactive than the monovalent. This vaccine is a three-in-one, containing influenza A, influenza B, and 2009 pandemic swine flu (H1N1) strains.

Administering this highly suspect formulation to 300 million people has potentially disastrous implications. Red flags were already popping up last year, and this flu season has raised many more.

Australia's flu season precedes ours, so we can look to them for a preview of vaccine issues. By June of 2010, more than 1,000 adverse reactions in children under the age of 5 resulted in the Australian government's banning of flu vaccines for that age group. High fevers, vomiting and convulsions were the most widely reported reactions, which are also associated with long-term adverse health outcomes.

CSL's Fluvax appears to be the main troublemaker. However, CSL has objected to being singled out, claiming any of the other three vaccines on the Australian market could be to blame.

Just like last year where the experience in Australia with the swine flu was replicated precisely in the US, you will see the same happen this fall, winter and spring in the US. This is entirely predictable as is the lack of media coverage that this will receive.

Interestingly, the Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Australian "public health experts have called for an independent body to monitor drug safety after it emerged that young children were more likely to end up in hospitals because of side effects from a flu vaccine than they were from the disease itself. The analysis contradicts government safety advice that the harm did not outweigh the risk and raises concerns about the Therapeutic Goods Administration's assessment of the vaccine."

Mark my words, the US will have the identical experience, and nine months from now you will see in the newspapers that children given the flu vaccine were more likely to wind up hospitalized than from those that actually got the disease.

These drug manufacturers have a horribly unethical track record with disturbing manufacturing errors. Many of the drugs remain indemnified from damage.

H1N1 Vaccine Continues To Provoke Reports of Serious Side Effects

In the meantime, the 2009 pandemic H1N1 "swine flu" vaccine that has been put into this year's trivalent seasonal flu vaccine continues to be associated with lots of reports of devastating reactions:

• In Finland, France and Sweden, narcolepsy was reported in teenage children in response to Pandemrix monovalent swine flu vaccine, leading the Finnish government to suspend its use.
• In Korea, nearly 2,600 swine flu vaccine side effects were reported as of August 2010, ranging from allergic reactions to fevers to headaches—and including 10 deaths.

Children are not the only ones who seem to react more violently to the 2009 pandemic H1N1 component.

According to Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a special government committee has been created to investigate last year's H1N1 monovalent vaccine for signs it may be associated with more adverse reactions. What the committee found out provisionally is there were three signs of trouble with the H1N1 swine flu vaccine used last year.

Fisher outlined these three primary health concerns in a recent NVIC video update:

1. Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disease which has been associated with influenza vaccine since 1976, when the swine flu vaccine was first used. In fact, British government health experts acknowledged the link between the H1N1 vaccine and an increased risk of GBS earlier this month. Prior to this public admittance, the government had always denied such a link
2. Idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP), an autoimmune disorder, is a blood clotting disorder characterized by insufficient platelets
3. Bell's palsy, a reaction causing temporary facial paralysis

Why are people having these worrisome reactions?

Vaccines Wreak Havoc With Your Immune System

All vaccines are immune suppressive—that is, they suppress your immune system, which may not return to normal for weeks to months. Here are just some of the ways vaccines impair and alter your immune response:

• Some components in vaccines are neurotoxic and may depress your immune and brain function, particularly heavy metals such as mercury preservatives and aluminum adjuvants
• The lab altered vaccine viruses themselves may further impair your immune response
• Foreign DNA/RNA from animal tissues can wreak havoc in your body and trigger autoimmunity in some people
• Vaccines may alter your t-cell function and lead you to become chronically ill
• Vaccines can trigger allergies by introducing large foreign protein molecules into your body that have not been properly broken down by your digestive tract (since they are injected). Your body can respond to these foreign particles in the form of an allergic reaction

The flu vaccine may also pose an immediate risk to your cardiovascular system. One 2007 study published in the Annals of Medicine concluded that:

"Abnormalities in arterial function and LDL oxidation may persist for at least 2 weeks after a slight inflammatory reaction induced by influenza vaccination.

These could explain in part the earlier reported increase in cardiovascular risk during the first weeks after an acute inflammatory disorder."

Add to all those factors the immune-compromising effects of excess sugar in the average American diet, plus inadequate exercise and other lifestyle factors, and you've created the perfect setup for health problems far worse than influenza..

So the tradeoff you are making is TOTAL immune system depression (your defense against millions of pathogens) for temporary immunity against ONE infectious disease—in this case a few of the many viral strains of influenza—and that immunity is questionable.

Do you really want to trade in temporary immunity to a few strains of influenza for autoimmune disease or even cancer?

A Special Warning to Seniors!

For seniors, this season's flu vaccine may be one of the most dangerous you've ever experienced, because seniors will likely get a vaccine that is FOUR TIMES as potent as that given to the rest of the population, as recently reported by the Chicago Tribune.

In the ACIP Provisional Recommendations for the Use of Influenza Vaccines, dated February 24, it states:

"A higher dose formulation of an inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine (Fluzone High-Dose, manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, licensed by FDA on December 23, 2009) for use in people age 65 years and older will be available in the 2010-11 influenza season.

"Fluzone High-Dose contains four times the amount of influenza antigen compared to other inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines. …

Studies are underway to assess the relative effectiveness of Fluzone High-Dose compared to standard dose inactivated influenza vaccine, but results from those studies will not be available before the 2010-11 influenza season." [Emphasis mine.]

So, if you're age 65 or older, the CDC wants you to take a flu vaccine this fall that not only contains an antigen they previously said you probably already have antibodies to (H1N1), but that is also four times as potent, with no safety evaluation whatsoever until AFTER the season is underway!

This is madness. Seniors are already a group that can withstand the harmful effects of this vaccine the least...

Again, the CDC is asking you to be a part of a large public health experiment, which is why we're warning you.

Is the Vaccine Safe for Pregnant Women? Nobody Knows!

If you are a pregnant woman, you and your unborn child may be the most defenseless of all potential vaccine casualties in the national infuenza vaccine experiment.

Barbara Loe Fisher states she is very concerned about the issue of pregnant women getting flu shots because of the lack of scientific data about the effects of this vaccine—particularly the H1N1 component—on pregnant women and their unborn babies.

She states:

"Last summer the NIH announced they were doing studies in children, adults and pregnant women with the H1N1 swine flu vaccine. About 120 pregnant women were supposed to be enrolled in a study in early September… We have yet to see any announcement of the results of those studies."

And without any scientific evidence about safety, are you supposed to blindly accept that flu vaccines are safe for you and your unborn child?

Here's another startling fact making this year's vaccination policy even more unconscionable.

Flu vaccine has now been officially listed as a Category C drug.

What does this mean exactly?

Category C is for drugs that do not have enough human or animal studies to establish safety, OR adverse fetal effects have been seen in animal studies but there is little human data.

According to FDA:

"Category C drugs are drugs that are more likely to cause problems for the mother or fetus. Also includes drugs for which safety studies have not been finished. The majority of these drugs do not have safety studies in progress. These drugs often come with a warning that they should be used only if the benefits of taking them outweigh the risks.

If you are a pregnant woman, your doctor may be pressuring you to get a drug that is not approved for you! This is just idiotic.

Thimerasol-containing vaccines are considered hazardous waste and can't be thrown into a garbage can, poured down a sink or flushed down a toilet because of the mercury—they're considered environmentally toxic. Yet, they want to inject them into your baby?

Why would anyone, pregnant or otherwise, want to be injected with a substance that is too toxic to dispose of down a drain?

Evidence-Based Medicine Flushed Down the Drain: FLU SHOTS DON'T WORK

Not only do flu shots weaken your immune system, expose you to toxins, and cause allergies and other adverse reactions, they don't work.

Yes, you read that correctly. Besides being fraught with complications, flu vaccines simply don't work to decrease flu incidence or flu mortality. Flu vaccinations keep coming up short in study after study—way short—when it comes to having any measurable impact on what matters most, which is reducing illness and mortality from the flu.

After the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, a Canadian-led study (through the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who analyze the scientific evidence, including the methodology, used in clinical trials) concluded that vaccinating nursing home workers had no effect on confirmed influenza cases among the homes' elderly residents.

Lead researcher Dr. Roger Thomas explained:

"What troubled us is that [shots] had no effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza. What we were looking for is proof that influenza ... is decreased.

Didn't find it.

We looked for proof that pneumonia is reduced. Didn't find it. We looked for proof deaths from pneumonia are reduced.

Didn't find it."

In fact, in April of 2010, Michael Osterholm, director of the national Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), publicly admitted that flu shots don't work in the elderly. •

#############################################################

Please consider the report that I posted for you.

-The utmost of good health & Blessings to you and yours! -Missygirl*

# posted by Missygirl : 8:30 AM