A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's evidence that Mike Adams has an agenda to promote dangerous products like unfermented soy and is probably in league with Al Gore and the New World Order to control our minds!

Look here! Terrifying

It looks as if she made defamatory comments that Mike Adams says are not true, and he has the financial backing to get them removed. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, bravo for Mike Adams for protecting his reputation.

Re: Defamatory Articles by Julia Mitchell regarding Mike Adams and NaturalNews
Published on Examiner.com
To Whom It May Concern:
This law firm represents NaturalNews.com and its editor, Mike Adams, who are both the
target of false and defamatory statements made in at least the following five articles by Julia
Mitchell that are currently published on Examiner.com:
1. Alex Jones and Natural News: Caught in the Act of Falsifying News Reports
(Uh-oh | Examiner.com
news-reports)
2. Alex Jones and Mike Adams: Trying to Incite a Riot in the State of Michigan?
(Uh-oh | Examiner.com
the-state-of-michigan)
3. Part 1: The Truth Movement: Is It Just Another Psy Op to Confuse Us?
(Uh-oh | Examiner.com
confuse-us)
4. Part 2: The Truth Movement: Is It Just Another Psy Op to Confuse Us?
(Uh-oh | Examiner.com
op-to-confuse-us)
5. California Judge Gives Adya Inc. a Slam Dunk Against the Raw Food Store
(Uh-oh | Examiner.com
the-raw-food-world-store)
Clarity Digital Group, LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
June 25, 2012
Page 2 of 5
False and Defamatory Statements
The above-referenced articles each contain false and defamatory statements about
NaturalNews and/or Mr. Adams, including, but not limited to:
Alex Jones and Natural News: Caught in the Act of Falsifying News Reports
• Accusing NaturalNews and Mr. Adams of having been 􀀀caught in the act of falsifying
news reports” when in fact he is an award-winning investigative journalist;
• Accusing NaturalNews of publishing an article written by Mr. Adams that is evidence
of 􀀀participating in the falsification” of a reported event and which 􀀀is more than
sufficient to not only indict, but them (sic) convict beyond a reasonable doubt of
falsifying news.”
• Claiming that 􀀀not a single statement made either in the Adams article … is true by
even the remotest stretch of the wildest imagination” and that the NaturalNews article
written by Mr. Adams 􀀀is completely false.”
• Claiming the 􀀀only things you will get from [Mr. Adams] are half-truths, outright
lies, and deception intended, in my honest opinion, to manipulate the population at
large into massive civil unrest.”
Alex Jones and Mike Adams: Trying to Incite a Riot in the State of Michigan?
• Accusing Mr. Adams of attempting to 􀀀incite a riot” in Michigan.
• Continuing to accuse NaturalNews and Mr. Adams of knowingly publishing false
articles that that 􀀀he should be fully aware of the deception he is propagating.”
• Accusing Mr. Adams of being an 􀀀operative” attempting to 􀀀incite civil unrest with
the state of Michigan.”
• Claiming Mr. Adams seeks to 􀀀infiltrate the US government” in a conspiracy with the
grandson of Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele.
Part 1 and Part 2: The Truth Movement: Is It Just Another Psy Op to Confuse Us?
• Accusing Mr. Adams of publishing at least two articles 􀀀proven to be 100% untrue.”
• Accusing Mr. Adams of being a government 􀀀counterintelligence operative” in the
natural health industry and implying that his investigative articles are part of some
global conspiracy.
• Claiming Mr. Adams is an 􀀀individual skilled enough at deception” to 􀀀conceal a
most horrible and sinister personality and intention”
• Accusing Mr. Adams of selling and endorsing 􀀀harmful products” that 􀀀cause severe
illness or even death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
• Claiming to have evidence that Mr. Adams has 􀀀very strong Illuminati connections”
Clarity Digital Group, LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
June 25, 2012
Page 3 of 5
California Judge Gives Adya Inc. a Slam Dunk Against the Raw Food Store
• Claiming that at least three news reports by NaturalNews and Mr. Adams 􀀀were in
fact complete and utter fabrications” and that past stories 􀀀contained not one iota of
truth” and were 􀀀completely fictitious” and contained 􀀀numerous false claims.”
• Claiming that Mr. Adams has 􀀀an agenda that directly correlates to the elite plans for
depopulation.”
• Claiming that Mr. Adams is a member of 􀀀a morally corrupt group of people willing
to resort to just about anything to serve the agenda of their Illuminati master of the
NWO.”
Most of the above-excerpted statements constitute defamation per se as a matter of law because
they, among other things, attack NaturalNews and Mr. Adams in their profession/business of
investigative journalism and also imply that Mr. Adams has committed and/or is conspiring with
others to commit serious crimes.
The continuing publication of these articles on Examiner.com may subject Clarity Digital
Group, LLC to liability under federal and state laws for failure to remove such defamatory content
which the author Ms. Mitchell appears to be intentionally publishing as a means to attack and
impair the reputation of NaturalNews and Mr. Adams. As such, my clients are entitled recover
damages including, but not limited to, punitive damages for the intentional and/or reckless
disregard in which these articles were first allowed to be published and/or then allowed to remain
published by Examiner.com, as well as any and all related attorneys’ fees and costs.
Examiner.com’s Prior Removal of Author’s Articles
NaturalNews is especially concerned about Examiner.com’s foreknowledge of the
potential recklessness of this author, given that Examiner.com already previously removed other
of Ms. Mitchell’s articles published on its website. See, e.g., Uh-oh | Examiner.com
distraction.
Given that Examiner.com has already removed prior articles, we assume due to the
inappropriateness of their content, NaturalNews respectfully requests that the above-referenced
articles receive similar treatment by Examiner.com.
Demand to Cease and Desist
Accordingly, we write to demand that Examiner.com immediately remove the articles at
issue and immediately cease and desist from allowing Ms. Mitchell publish any further articles
on Examiner.com which contain false or defamatory statements regarding NaturalNews, Mr.
Adams and/or any of its officers, directors, employees, editors, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, or
agents, as well as any other conduct by Ms. Mitchell constituting a violation of any applicable
federal or state laws.
Clarity Digital Group, LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
June 25, 2012
Page 4 of 5
If all violating materials are not removed from the Examiner.com website by Tuesday,
June 26, 2012, we will pursue all available legal remedies, including actions for injunctions,
damages, disgorgement of income, and reimbursement of all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
bringing any action to protect our clients from the damage and harm caused by the defamatory
statements published on Examiner.com. Additionally, to the extent that any actions by you, or
any affiliated entity or person acting in concert with you, culminate in violations of state or
federal law, our clients will seek to hold you, and any person or entity acting in concert with you,
liable.
DEMAND TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
In addition to the foregoing, be advised that you are on notice of potential legal action,
and, as such, you are required to preserve all evidence in your possession, custody, or control
that is or may be relevant to NaturalNews’ claims.
Such relevant evidence includes, but is not limited to, evidence constituting, referring to
or evidencing publication of the false and defamatory articles identified herein and
Examiner.com’s failure to remove the offending material. Spoliation of any such evidence will
lead to NaturalNews seeking sanctions and/or all other penalties available under law.
To prevent spoliation of relevant electronic information, documents or other data, you:
b Must not modify, remove, transfer, delete or alter in any way relevant information,
documents, e-mails, files and/or electronic data of any kind contained on computer
discs, network drives, CDs, DVDs, external drives, flash memory drives (a/k/a thumb
drives), any other form of device used to store electronic data, or any internet hosted
sites (e.g., emails and attachments maintained by an internet host service such as
AOL, Earthlink, Gmail, etc.)
b Must stop any activity that may result in the loss of electronic data, including, but not
limited to, routine rotation, destruction, overwriting, deletion and/or erasure in any
way or by any means of such data in whole or in part.
b Must not alter, modify, delete or erase in any way or by any means electronic data
and you must not perform any other procedures (such as data compression, disk defragmentation
and/or optimization routines) which may impact such data.
b Must preserve copies of all application programs and utilities that may be used to
process electronic data.
b Must maintain an activity log that documents all modifications, deletions, erasures or
the like made to any electronic data processing system that may affect the system’s
capability to process any electronic data.
Clarity Digital Group, LLC d/b/a Examiner.com
June 25, 2012
Page 5 of 5
This letter is not, and should not be construed as, a waiver or limitation of any of the
rights and remedies available to NaturalNews or Mike Adams regarding any of the matters
discussed herein, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Teresita T. Mercado
cc: Michael Adams

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're leaving yet again huh? Well I'll believe it when I see it. Have fun marketing the book!

I'm not looking forward to it. As soon as they put the book up for sale, I have to start.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Those people are agenda-driven whackadoos with weeds up their asses.

Never mind vaccines and narcolepsy. Why does no one care that 100% of autistic children drank milk before contracting autism? That's 100%, as in every. Last. Goddamn. One.

But is anyone talking about THAT? Nooooooooooo, of course not! Big Dairy is just too powerful, and the money made selling milk -- which shall henceforth and forevermore be known as AUTISM JUICE -- is just too good.

Go ahead. Tell me this isn't a case of profit over safety. I double dog dare you!

I didn't get to read that article. I don't know if there is a connection, or why they believe that this could be true. Do you have the link? There are already enough problems with milk, such as lactose intolerance, so let's not go there. There are also children who are extremely allergic to milk protein which can be life threatening, but overall milk is a food product, with no toxic ingredients. There may not be a connection between narcolepsy and vaccines, but that doesn't mean you can throw out all possible connections. I don't think anyone listened to any of the compelling interviews and documentaries I posted online.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He has reason for his suspicions, which is enough isn't it, peacegirl? Who needs evidence when you have feelings? Something else might be going on!

You also have a certain bias toward pro-vaccines, and it is normal to have strong feelings toward this issue. That does not mean that I or you are controlled by feelings. Obviously we're both looking for objectivity. The evidence is beginning to support the notion that not all vaccines are safe for every child; that there have been a percentage of children injured by vaccines. Can you at least admit that, or is this too difficult to do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More

Everyone has a right to make money, and this was his strategy. If someone sees me counting money at a book signing, does that mean I'm a rotten person and my product is no good? This has nothing to do with anything. It's just one person's bad experience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Videos are not studies.

They cite studies LadyShea. Some are anecdotal, but a lot aren't. Why can't you just listen to them so you can get a better idea of what is in the minds of the anti-vaxers?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously we're both looking for objectivity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is beginning to support the notion that not all vaccines are safe for every child; that there have been a percentage of children injured by vaccines.

Has anyone actually proffered the notion that all vaccines are safe for every child, or that no child has ever had a vaccine-related injury? Those are straw men along the lines of the whole "the government mandates compulsory vaccinations for every children" boogieman.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Co-sleeping is discouraged by most mainstream doctors who feel it is dangerous, though it is encouraged by those who support attachment parenting.

I see. Dangerous in what way? I think it could get annoying if you want to be with your husband alone (I'm sure there are ways to remedy that), but I think it can encourage a feeling of security on the part of the child, which is a good thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Has anyone actually proffered the notion that all vaccines are safe for every child, or that no child has ever had a vaccine-related injury? Those are straw men along the lines of the whole "the government mandates compulsory vaccinations for every children" boogieman.

Then why are we talking about this at all? Problem solved. Actually government is putting pressure on parents to vaccinate, and there is a financial payout if they do. So why Mike Adams is being implicated for wanting to make a profit, when pharmaceutical companies are producing patentable medicines for the sole purpose of making as much money as they can, is beyond me.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are we talking about this at all?

Exactly.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not bold at all; it's ego driven. He'd rather not deal with patients who buck the system. He wants compliant sheep that follow all the rules without question. He is also getting support from the APA, which gives him further justification to tell a patient to go elsewhere.

The American Academy of
Pediatrics has begun advocating ‘firing’ parents who don’t conform to
the CDC’s overloaded vaccine schedule.

Is the American Academy of Pediatrics paying doctors to fire their patients? No? Then the doctor who refuse patients is giving up a paying customer. That's like kryptonite to some doctors - especially primary care doctors who operate on thinner margins than specialists.

The unprincipled stance is to continue to treat patients who represent a potential danger to themselves and others and collect whatever money you can from them. It's also easier to politely ignore the insane rantings of anti-vaccine parents rather than go through the process of firing a patient.

So, yes, it's a bold move, alienating a portion of your patient base.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm leaving...

Uh, no you're not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not looking forward to it. As soon as they put the book up for sale, I have to start.

That's alright. We all know you won't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They cite studies LadyShea...

Did they? Can you name one?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Co-sleeping is discouraged by most mainstream doctors who feel it is dangerous, though it is encouraged by those who support attachment parenting.

There have been times when my grandaughter wakes up from a nap and comes out to find me lying on the couch, she will the climb up on top of me and lay down, her choice not mine, but she seems to like it. Sometimes she will go back to sleep on my chest. When she and her brother stay over for the nite, sometimes they will wake up before we get up, come over to our room and crawl into bed with us, their choice. Seems to be a great comfort to snuggle up to grandma and grandpa in the morning.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that what you use as evidence does not always give a true picture of the risks involved. So many studies are flawed due to variables that are unknown, that the conclusions based on those studies are virtually useless.

Translation: Since all evidence is not of equal value it is better to eschew the use of evidence entirely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is only common sense that we take a closer look at the impact of all these vaccines to find out the extent to which they could be contributing to chronic ailments (the very thing they are intended to prevent), since this is something we are injecting into our children with much greater frequency than any other time in history.

Which chronic ailments that children are being vaccinated against are becoming more common because children are being vaccinated against them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think you're better than me or smarter than me if I didn't read the DoI all the way through? What are you trying to prove LadyShea?

I don't know about "better" but Lady Shea is certainly smarter and better informed than you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These were not opinions. They were reporting whether their children got ill during a certain time period.

Once again, I was not referring to anything the respondants reported in the survey. I was referring to your clearly stated belief that the authors of the survey did not have an agenda. That is certainly an express of your opinion and your opinion as to whether or not they had such an agenda is entirely irrelevant and unsupported by any evidence.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because societal pressure to vaccinate is so great (there will be major repercussions if they don't such as not being allowed to send their kids to public school), that they choose to vaccinate their kids as the lesser of two evils. They aren't doing this against their will; they are doing this because the alternative of vaccinating and getting punished for it, is worse in their opinion.

So, they are not being forced, they are being persuaded. Do you now admit that you were in error when you claimed that parents were being forced to vaccinate their children?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a slick way to justify forcing parents to do what is their right not to do.

No one can force you to do what you do not want to do. Over this you have absolute control.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I ever mention numbers?

Where did Lady Shea?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An interesting article on the corruption of one person in the CDC. This does not implicate everyone as being corrupt but it does make you wonder if there aren't more bad apples in the bunch.

Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division (opinion)

Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division (opinion)

I agree with Adams that the revolving door problem is a real problem, with regard to all regulatory agencies, and that needs to be addressed. However, the mere fact that the head of such an agency subsequently goes to work for a company they have been responsible for regulating is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to support a charge of corruption.

Natural News: Our news is all natural. None of it has been subjected to any sort of processing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not doing anymore than I already have.

Good call, peacegirl. You have done more than enough already.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is beginning to support the notion that not all vaccines are safe for every child; that there have been a percentage of children injured by vaccines. Can you at least admit that, or is this too difficult to do?

What a truly dishonest person you are! Plenty of people have pointed out in this thread that not every vaccine is right for every person. That's the whole idea behind "herd immunity" -- so long as a sufficiently-large percentage of the population is immunized, those who, for one reason or another can't be immunized are protected, since the disease won't be able to spread through the community.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dangerous in what way? I think it could get annoying if you want to be with your husband alone (I'm sure there are ways to remedy that), but I think it can encourage a feeling of security on the part of the child, which is a good thing.

It's discouraged because lots of infants and very young children have died when their sleeping parents rolled over on them and smothered them. A recent report indicated that, in Michigan alone, well over one-hundred children have been killed this way in the past few years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Exactly.

So let's get off of this subject. As it relates to the book, the only thing I was trying to get across was that no doctor in his right mind would choose to take responsibility for saying that vaccines are 100% safe. All a doctor would do is to give the parent the most up-to-date information (which is not always available when parents go to the pediatrician), and will leave the decision solely up to the parent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is beginning to support the notion that not all vaccines are safe for every child; that there have been a percentage of children injured by vaccines. Can you at least admit that, or is this too difficult to do?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What a truly dishonest person you are! Plenty of people have pointed out in this thread that not every vaccine is right for every person. That's the whole idea behind "herd immunity" -- so long as a sufficiently-large percentage of the population is immunized, those who, for one reason or another can't be immunized are protected, since the disease won't be able to spread through the community.

But even the idea of herd immunity is coming under scrutiny. This is a separate issue that needs further investigation. Also, the whole idea of vaccinations versus natural immunization is being studied to determine which gives a person greater long term immunity. I am not talking right now about people whose immune systems are weak and therefore have a greater chance of dying if they are not protected, so please don't clump every person in the same category. We're talking generalizations right now.

Dr. Mercola and Barbara Loe Fisher - Herd...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dangerous in what way? I think it could get annoying if you want to be with your husband alone (I'm sure there are ways to remedy that), but I think it can encourage a feeling of security on the part of the child, which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's discouraged because lots of infants and very young children have died when their sleeping parents rolled over on them and smothered them. A recent report indicated that, in Michigan alone, well over one-hundred children have been killed this way in the past few years.

I was assuming she meant older children. I don't think anyone would suggest an infant be in bed with a parent who could roll over on him while sleeping. I wrote a book on safety for parents, remember? I remember that I fell asleep with my infant on my chest and I woke up with a start. I immediately put the baby in the bassinet next to me. There is a serious risk of suffocation with infants and toddlers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, they are not being forced, they are being persuaded. Do you now admit that you were in error when you claimed that parents were being forced to vaccinate their children?

I don't mean physically forced Angakuk. They don't have a gun to their head, if that's what you mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a slick way to justify forcing parents to do what is their right not to do.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No one can force you to do what you do not want to do. Over this you have absolute control.

That is true, but when you falsify information it may lead a parent to making a choice that they wouldn't have made had they been given accurate and timely information.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So let's get off of this subject. As it relates to the book, the only thing I was trying to get across was that no doctor in his right mind would choose to take responsibility for saying that vaccines are 100% safe. All a doctor would do is to give the parent the most up-to-date information (which is not always available when parents go to the pediatrician), and will leave the decision solely up to the parent.

I believe that most agree that no doctor would claim that vaccines are 100% safe, and doctors do try to give parents the best information they can. The exception being those few doctors who are more interested in money than health.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

so please don't clump every person in the same category. We're talking generalizations right now.

I believe that a generalization is pretty much the same as clumping everyone into the same category.