Google buries search results in escalating attack on all independent health, nutrition and vaccine information

(Natural News) Yet another wildly popular source of science-based news and information about natural health,, has been targeted for elimination by the corrupt, Big Tech deep state.

Google, which recently implemented another one of its “broad core” search engine updates, has decided to arbitrarily remove from its search results – for no other reason than the fact that bravely tells the politically-incorrect truth about things like genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and vaccines.

Similar to what Facebook recently did to Natural News, Google took it upon itself to punish for daring to challenge the status quo on important topics that affect the lives and liberty of all Americans. is just the latest casualty in a massive censorship sweep that’s impacting all sorts of news outlets, including, which was recently blacklisted by Mailchimp for sharing “anti-vaccine content,” which the email newsletter service indicated it does “not allow.”

“The major industries colluding to take over the government and government agencies include banking, military, agriculture, pharma, media and Big Tech,” says Dr. Joseph Mercola, the man behind, about the many tentacles of this censorship beast and how they’ve slithered their way into many different positions of power.

“The leaders of these industries have organized strategies to buy off politicians through lobbying and to capture regulatory agencies through revolving door hiring strategies and paid-for media influence through advertising dollars.”…

Concerning 1992 NZ Survey of Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Children

Feeling adventurous this morning, I did a search for reviews of this site (TCR) and unsurprisingly discovered that we’re crazy paranoid tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy “theorists”, at least according to one reviewer.   So I thought I’d return the favor by reviewing the review.

Most of the substance of the review is that “D Van Zandt” takes exception to our choice of 3rd party sources in the news aggregation aspect of this site.   The example given is the article at For some reason s/he is quick to dismiss the article simply because the original research was discovered and publicized by a site deemed to be less than satisfactory, seemingly with no effort to locate or validate the original source, which is not hard to find.   The reviewer seems oblivious to the pitfalls in relying solely on mainstream media, government agencies and industry funded studies, as if corruption, funding bias and profit-motivated propaganda don’t exist in this utopian paradise.   Odd given that even medical journal editors lament the scarcity of objective, reproducible science in the biomedical field (see the two quotes at the top of )

The reviewer also takes exception to our coverage of the obvious and provable 9/11 false flag (see the evidence in the reference section of this site) and nearly equally obvious evidence of widespread geoengineering going on in the sky.   Apparently even entertaining the possibility that false flag attacks actually happen qualifies us for the loony bin.

That was the extent of the research shown on

I realize everyone is busy and there’s so much BS out there (much of it planted to exhaust casual researchers like “D” and his readers) so it’s not like I take this personally.   It’s  just an illustration of the self-brainwashing involved in everyone’s choice of whichever echo chamber they choose to inhabit, myself included.  (such “collectively autocatalytic” processes are unavoidable on a sufficiently complex substrate with limited energy available)  That’s why I periodically search for conflicting information, but I must admit that’s very time consuming and no one pays me to do this, so I often take shortcuts like frequenting a set of sources which I’ve found to be reliable, as everyone does.  I usually drill down to find the original research if I think it’s important enough to post.

Anyway, I imagine the school of hard knocks will eventually penetrate D’s mind.   Hopefully before too much damage is done to himself or his children.

The original PDF in question (a survey of NZ parents by the Immunization Awareness Society of NZ) follows below.   More recent research which corroborates its findings can be found at

1992 IAS Survey of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children

In 1992 IAS conducted a survey on the health and vaccination status of New Zealand children. The questionnaires were distributed through IAS members and members friends and associates. Such studies normally have inherent biases. In this study almost all the children were breastfed and babies were generally breastfed for longer than the majority of New Zealand babies. Many of the families surveyed included both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, suggesting that the parents developed an awareness of vaccination issues over time. However, many of the respondents were not members of IAS and the split between vaccinated and unvaccinated children was remarkably even. A total of 245 surveys were returned, representing 245 families, with a total of 495 children surveyed. There were 226 vaccinated children and 269 unvaccinated children. The ages ranged from two weeks to 46 years. There were 273 males and 216 females. Families from throughout the country responded.

Respondents were asked to provide the year of birth, gender, vaccinations received, whether or not the child suffered from a range of chronic conditions (asthma, eczema, ear infections/glue ear, recurring tonsillitis, hyperactivity, diabetes and epilepsy) whether or not he or she had needed grommets, had had a tonsillectomy, or were slow to develop motor skills (walking, crawling, sitting-up, etc.). Parents also provided information on breastfeeding and bottle feeding and when the child was weaned if breastfed.

Eighty-one families had both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The vast majority of these were two child families in which the elder child was vaccinated and the younger unvaccinated. There were also a large number of three and four child families in which the youngest child was unvaccinated and the older siblings were vaccinated.

The age distribution of vaccinated versus unvaccinated showed an increasing awareness of vaccination issues and reluctance to vaccinate with time. Only 9% of the people born before 1970 (1 out of 11) were unvaccinated compared to 89% of the children born since 1990 (103 out of 116). For births between 1986 and 1990 the percentage of unvaccinated children was 55. These figures suffer from what is probably the strongest bias in the survey. Parents are most concerned about the risks of vaccination when their children are young and receiving more vaccines. Membership of IAS typically lapses as children get older and the period of childhood in which the bulk of vaccinations are administered passes. As the questionnaire was distributed through current members it is logical that the members and their associates had children more recently and were at a time in parenthood in which vaccinations were of greatest concern. However, the figures can be seen to reflect a trend of increasing concern about the number of vaccines administered to children and the associated safety risks, together with an increasing refusal of parents to allow their children to be vaccinated.

The results overwhelmingly showed that unvaccinated children suffer far less from chronic childhood conditions than vaccinated children. The results are summarised in the table and graph below… (table omitted due to formatting issues, see the link below)

The survey results showed that there was a significant difference in the incidence of asthma, eczema, and ear infections in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. While overall the incidence of grommets, tonsillitis, tonsillectomies, apnoea and hyperactivity were lower the trend is similar. Note the ten-fold increase in tonsillitis in vaccinated children and the complete lack of tonsillectomies in unvaccinated children. In the vaccinated, 73% of the cases of tonsillitis and 92% of the tonsillectomies were in children who had received the measles vaccines. As only 52% of the total vaccinated children received a measles vaccine, one would expect about 52% of the tonsillitis/tonsillectomies to occur in children to have had the vaccine suggesting that the vaccine made some children more susceptible to tonsillitis.

The role of breastfeeding

An interesting feature of the survey was the high level of breastfeeding among mothers of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Breastfeeding, or the lack of it, has often been associated with the incidence of chronic childhood conditions and illhealth. It is important when considering the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children to correct for bottlefed babies and also for the length of time that children are breastfed. However, there was essentially no difference in the distribution of age at weaning between the two groups and therefore no need to make any corrective calculations.

There were marginally more bottle fed babies in the vaccinated group (ten vaccinated and two unvaccinated). While the percentage of babies in each “age-at- weaning” group over three months was slightly greater in the unvaccinated, the distribution is comparable and both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups showed greater percentages in each age group than the national averages. For example, 91% of vaccinated and 97% of unvaccinated children in the survey were being breastfed at three months compared to 69% in the general population; 79% of vaccinated children and 88% of unvaccinated children were still being breastfed at six months – the national average is 60%; at twelve months 50% of vaccinated and 65% of unvaccinated children were still being breastfed – the national average is 39%; and over twelve months of age 27% of vaccinated and 35% of unvaccinated were still getting breastmilk while the national average had plummeted to just 6% (Plunket Society, Pers. comm., June 2001).

In an analysis of the role that breastfeeding and age-at-weaning played in the incidence of chronic childhood conditions in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated children surveyed, the data showed that there was no breastfeeding factor that could account for the difference in incidence between the two groups.

A more recent, independent survey of vaccinated and unvaccinated children

In 1999 Dr Mike Godfrey, a New Zealand specialist in preventive and environmental medicine, conducted a similar survey comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Dr Godfrey surveyed 864 children, 260 of whom were unvaccinated and 604 of whom were vaccinated. His results were remarkably similar and are graphed below. The incidence of asthma, eczema and tonsillitis were significantly higher in vaccinated children. As with the IAS survey, although the overall incidence of the other conditions was somewhat lower, there was the same trend for the incidence to be higher in vaccinated children. The only exception was in the incidence of diabetes which was similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated children. However, the numbers of individuals with diabetes were so small that any association with vaccination status is impossible to determine.

A comparison of the IAS results with Dr Godfrey’s results are also tabulated below…. (again omitted, see the link)