Dachel Media Update: No Lie Can Live Forever
SaneVax Presents HPV Vaccines: Freda Birrell Addresses Scottish Petitions Committee

WHO Says Yes to Mercury No to Meat

Inject meatBy Anne Dachel

ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News
all are talking about the latest report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, an agency of the World Health Organization.  22 scientists looked at over 800 studies and they concluded that processed meat and red meat are linked to cancer.  Meat products are ranked along with smoking and asbestos as carcinogens. 

I found it interesting that WHO would ever come out against a commercial product like meat.  It's actually funny when you consider that this organization has steadfastly defended the use of toxic mercury in vaccines given to children all over the world.  Here are their reports in July 2006  and July 2012.   According to WHO all the science is in and mercury and other toxins are just fine when injected into humans.  (The studies that do show concerns were dismissed as having lots of "flaws.")

Pork, steaks, sausage and hot dogs are not getting a free pass however.  Americans need to make changes in meat consumption.

This issue really got my attention because on all the major networks, the medical experts were out in force: ABC NEWS: Dr. Richard Besser, CBS NEWS: Dr. Jon LaPook, CNN: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, FOX NEWS: Dr. Marc Siegel, and NBC News: Dr. Roshini Raj.  Actually Besser, LaPook, Gupta and Siegel are familiar to me and they're all included in my book, The Big Autism Cover-Up--How and Why the Media is Lying to the American Public  They may think meat is dangerous, but the four couldn't be more confident that injecting kids with mercury, aluminum, and live viruses is good for them and could never cause neurological problems like autism.

Raj at NBC was a new name, but a little search on the Internet showed that she's a true believer too.

ABC News: UN Agency Links Hot Dogs and Other Processed Meat to Cancer

VIDEO: Dr. Richard Besser: "Processed meat is clearly linked to an increased risk of cancer, in particular colon cancer. ...

When Besser was told that the meat industry had released a statement saying that there were "numerous studies showing no correlation between meat and cancer," Besser said, "Yeah, so here we have an independent group of experts who've looked at all the evidence and say that there really is a link here. ..."

CBS News: Study: Processed meats can cause cancer 

Dr. Jon LaPook: "There's good strong evidence that it can cause cancer."

CNN: Gupta: Balance cancer risk with your love of bacon 

Video: Sanjay Gupta: "We now have sufficient evidence to say that processed meat causes cancer in humans.  ...They looked back in time at some 800 studies that go back over 20 years. ..."

Fox News: WHO experts say processed meat can cause cancer, red meat probably can

Eating processed meat can cause bowel cancer in humans while red meat is a likely cause of the disease, World Health Organization (WHO) experts said on Monday in findings that could sharpen debate over the merits of a meat-based diet.

(VIDEO) Dr. Marc Siegel: "More than 2 ounces a day is directly associated with colon cancer. . . . I think we eat way too much processed food. ...The key here is that processed meat is the worst.  ...The processing of meat is what really puts the dangerous chemicals in. ..."

NBC News: Do I Have to Stop Eating Meat? Key Questions About WHO Group Report

NYU Medical Center Dr. Roshini Raj: "You do want to minimize your intake of processed meat."


Incredibly, you'll never hear concern like this over mercury and aluminum in vaccines--two additives that have never been tested for toxicity.  

Notice that Dr. Besser at ABC challenged the meat industry studies showing their products are safe.  Instead he trusts the studies that were done by "an independent group of experts."  So, meat industry science is suspect?  This is the same doctor who was on ABC in 2010 denying any link between vaccines and autism because "12 studies have proven" there's no connection.  Vaccine studies that come from the agency that runs vaccine program and that have each been found to have ties to the vaccine makers don't bother Besser. 

Dr. Besser:

Feb 2, 2015,  ABC The View

Feb 2010, Can Vaccines Trigger Autism?

Video: "At least 12 studies have proven that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. 

The same is true for LaPook at CBS who said that there's "good evidence" processed meat is bad for us.  Meanwhile Hannah Poling's case was easily dismissed by him in 2008 because "evidence" showed "there's no suggestion that vaccines cause autism." 

Dr. LaPook:

Feb 2, 2010, CBS News 

LaPook went after Andrew Wakefield.  "Twenty-five studies have found no link between vaccines and autism."

Feb 12, 2009, CBS News

Speaking about parents who witness regression, LaPook said, "At heart this is an emotional issue, and from the parents' point of view, they have a kid who is perfectly healthy, they get a shot, and now their kid develops autism.  They're naturally thinking it has to be cause and effect, even if it isn't."  He then called for an end to studying the vaccine link because it's a waste of money.

Aug 5, 2008, CBS News: Are Vaccines Linked To Autism? 

When asked about concession by HHS that said Hannah Poling's autism was the result of the vaccinations she received, LaPook said, "The CDC, other organizations, expert panels have said, we've done lots of evidence, we've done lots of studies, and based on current evidence, there's no suggestion that vaccines cause autism.  And right now they're sticking to that."

Gupta is a real contradiction.  He's one of the strongest critics of anyone who dares to say vaccines cause autism, yet in 2008 Gupta did not dispute anything that Dr. Jon Poling said about vaccines causing his daughter's disorder during an interview. 

Dr. Gupta:

Apr 22, 2015, CNN: Another study finds no link between MMR vaccine and autism

Feb 4, 2015, CNN: 5 myths surrounding vaccines -- and the reality

Feb 3, 2015, CNN: Gupta: Those opposing vaccines are just wrong

Feb 3, 2015, CNN: Vaccines do not cause autism

In 2008 he interviewed Dr. Jon Poling about the government's concession of vaccine-induced autism in the case of his daughter Hannah.  I wrote about it in Feb, 2011.

When it comes to Siegel, we won't ever forget the exchange between Becky Estepp and Dr. Siegel on Fox News in 2010, when he incorrectly stated that thimerosal had been removed from the MMR vaccine--a live virus vaccine that has never contained the mercury preservative.) 

Regarding processed meats, Siegel thinks they're loaded with "dangerous chemicals."  Too bad his concerns about toxins don't extend to things we inject into babies. 

Dr. Siegel:

Apr 22, 2015, MMR vaccine not linked to autism, new study finds

"Many, many research studies that have never shown a connection."

Raj may advise caution when it comes to how much meat we eat, but when it comes to autism, regression following vaccination is "a coincidence and a time thing."

Apr 14, 2014, NBC Today Show: Dr. Raj was up against a physician specializing on holistic and integrative medicine.

 Dr. Roshini Raj: "Research has disproven this theory.  . . . When autism is diagnosed, it's around 18 months, 24 months; this is when kids are getting those vaccines.  However this is more of a coincidence and a time thing. There's been no proof that autism is caused by vaccines.

 Dr. Tasneem Bhatia countered Raj: "I've got to weigh in on this one.  Again, seeing my patients over and over again.   ...autism at its core, when you talk to people in this country, it's an inflammatory bowel disease.  It's really a gut disease. 

And what's happening is that there is a tipping point for each patient.  That story is very unique per patient, per family.  Some of it's genetic, some of it's food, some of it's other factors that we don't really know, but vaccines may play FOR THOSE KIDS.  And that's the part that's very confusing for all of us as physicians and parents. . . "

Raj: "But to be clear, I don't think it's been proven that it's an inflammatory bowel disease; I think that is it a theory.  I think we all want to see more research on what is causing autism, however, right now, there is no proof that vaccines are playing a roll. emergency medicine, pediatrics and prevention, ..

The NBC News anchor then read a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics claiming, "It has been proven through many careful and repeated studies" that vaccines don't cause autism."


The doctors who warn us about the dangers of too much meat see nothing wrong with promoting the safety of an ever-expanding, untested vaccine schedule.  In order to do this, they have to close their eyes to what autism is doing to our children.  These same doctors speak out whenever the rate is increased and greater and greater percentages of our children are labeled autistic.  They are never worried.  They happily congratulate their profession for ever more "better diagnosing."  They never talk about why the numbers are always based on studies of eight year olds, not eighty year olds.  Regressive autism is just more of the mystery.  The suffering of a generation of children that no one in mainstream medicine or in public health can reasonably is something that we just have to learn to accept.  Besser, LaPook, Gupta, Siegel and Raj may be on the cutting edge of dietary health, but when it comes to vaccines, they're practicing medieval medicine.





They happily congratulate their profession for ever more "better diagnosing."


I took me over a year to convince my doctor that my son fit the definition of autism. And most parents I know, have had the same stupid experience with their doctor.

Better at diagnosing it my ass!!

False scientists...

Hah! So the Republican candidates are furious with the mainstream media? They should try being an autism parent or advocate. I mean that's children and their health that they're messing with...


Thanks to the vaccine debate I'm beginning to understand statistics. The actual link with cancer is minuscule, something like 18%, and then that has to be qualified by the baseline. The risk is practically nil. I'm going to continue eating bacon if I want, or put it in a soup, or whatever. For years, though I have eaten only the non-nitrate type but I don't know if the nitrates were the problem (the additives) or the bacon itself. Didn't the founding fathers live on bacon and the pioneers? Only they called it salted pork. I think this study came out of Europe and Europeans still live on pork, especially salted pork..yum. Maybe they should do a vaccinated versus bacon eaters study and evaluate the health outcomes.

Denise Anderstrom Douglass

Nitrates, nitrites -- how come we all knew about this in the 70's? Oh, yeah, it's the 25 year olds having babies they're trying to fool!


Of course it's the bacon that's causing all the cancer … of course it's the processed meats that are causing all the cancer….. of course its the red meat that accusing all the cancer

Of course it's everything BUT all those SV-40 contaminated vaccines, that the WHO has been pushing on the public for all these years.

Gary Ogden

Epidemiological studies that purport to link food to disease are almost always junk science, junk science of a different sort than the CDC uses to peddle their poisons to be sure, but junk science, nonetheless. Whereas CDC "science" primarily uses statistical manipulation and outright fraud, food "science" primarily relies on data derived from food frequency questionnaires, which are notoriously inaccurate, and the studies themselves are so riddled with confounders as to be almost entirely worthless. The hazard ratio for red meat in the WHO report was 1.14. 1.00 is considered neutral (no risk), and a hazard ratio less than 2.00 is considered to have little significance; 1.14, therefore, is insignificant. Pseudoscience it is, and just as typical for the WHO as it is for the Centers for Disease Creation and Promotion. By the way, "uncured" or "nitrate-free" bacon has about twice the nitrates as cured bacon because celery powder is used in the processing, and, yep, celery has gobs of nitrates. Richard is correct that pasture-raised meat is wholesome, unlike conventionally raised meat, and utilizing pasture-based systems of production are key to restoring soil health, which is key to restoring human health, and the health of all living organisms.


"Yes, you can get bacon without nitates."

So-called uncured bacon just substitutes celery juice or some similar item (and extra salt) as the source of nitrate/nitrite. Cook's Illustrated did a test several years ago.


I will repeat what one of the speakers said at the cdc rally ,"scientific studies are the new national enquirer"

Maurine Meleck

to the person who asked about nitrates.

Yes, you can get bacon without nitates.

I forgot the brands because we don't eat bacon, so you can google it if you can stand it knowing Insel might be at the other end of your google.

Birgit Calhoun

My stepfather was a county veterinarian. In that capacity he also had to go to butcher shops to inspect meat. That included all kinds of, processed (hot dogs, salami, sausage etc.) as well as non-processed, meats (steak, ground beef, organ meats etc.) He often took some samples home and gave them to my mother to taste.

At times my mother, who was allergic to sodium nitrite, reacted by throwing up. That was a sign that something was in that meat that shouldn't be in there. My stepfather then sent the remaining sample to a state laboratory to have it tested. The results were very clear. The meat was laced with the preservative which was illegal in Germany already at that time (1960s). The butcher where the meat came from got in trouble.

It wasn't really that great that my mother was used as a Guinea pig, but it was revealing.

Now getting to the pronouncement that all that meat is cancerous. None of these reports tackled the importance of what was added, either the non-meat ingredients like gluten, nor the preservatives. The fact that all processed meats contain preservatives should raise some kind of flag. I didn't notice any. It's as if those additives don't exist.

Where have we heard that before? Additives? Adjuvants? Preservatives?

Animals are given foods just before they are butchered that are not exactly what you want on your dinner plate. Phosphates are fed to make them weigh more. The chemical ractopamine (similar to clenbuterol of Tour de France's Contador fame) is added to reduce the fat content and increase muscle mass. There are others. I could go on. Antibiotics were in the news not too long ago. Certain antibiotics (Neomycin) act synergistically with mercury.

And now to vaccines: Adjuvants, preservatives and other things. Need I say more?


Wasn't it WHO who stated a while back that there was going to be a serious flu pandemic? Weren't we also supposed to be awash with ebola cases? I find it interesting that the track records of official organizations are never brought up. For a reporter, that would be easy to check. WHO is up to something that I'm sure I wouldn't approve of. Too often it's social engineering for which taxpayers foot the bill and get nothing in return.

cia parker

There have been many sources saying that red meat causes cancer for at least thirty years, why are they talking about it again now? And why do meat producers get large subsidies from the federal government, resulting in very low prices for meat?


As usual, they fail to differentiate between factory farmed meat fed chemical-laden corn and soy and pumped up with antibiotics and hormones from natural meats raised on pasture and forage. If you're unfamiliar with the difference, read Joel Salatin or anything that comes from the Weston A. Price foundation. Pasture-raised meats can be healthy and also build soil and restore the landscape to health.


I think the answer to why powers that be have issued this financial market earthquake inducing warning that meat is so bad (not that it isn't) would be found in looking at the meat industry's contributions (i.e. insurance payments) to government interests. Are they giving less campaign contributions than previously? If I was an investigative journalist, that's where I would look first, because certainly, this has absolutely nothing to do with public health.


I think I want nitrates in my bacon.

I think they are good for -- at least my family.

Wow what a statement - up is down and down is up.


Nitrate from drinking water is converted in the body to nitrite by bacteria in the gut. This project examined effects of nitrate/nitrite on immune functions, i.e., human lymphocyte proliferation and cytokine production. Nitrate had no effect on lymphocyte growth, but nitrite decreased proliferation. Neither inhibited fibroblast growth. In 1/3 to 2/3 of the subjects tested, sodium nitrate or nitrite decreased production of Th1 cytokines (interleukin-2, interferon-gamma, and tumor necrosis factor-beta). Nitrate and nitrite either increased or had no effect on the production of the Th2 cytokine interleukin-10. A Th1 immune response is associated with resistance to a variety of infectious diseases; a Th2 response is associated with disease susceptibility. Because nitrate/nitrite shifted the balance from a Th1 to a Th2 response in some individuals, exposure to these compounds may decrease these persons' responsiveness to infectious diseases. The levels of nitrate used in this study are relevant to human health because they are present in the liquid portion (nonbreastfed) of some 2-month-old infants' diets in rural Romania.

Romania has better science than a world organization --


It made beef cattle prices come down.
I guess those WHO guys did not want to pay the big bucks for hamburger.

As for nitrates in bacon -- that is all my daughter would eat when she got out of the hospital for Kawasaki disease.
And I think from what I observed at that time - it was very good for her.

Bacon full of nitrates is on the okay list of foods on the Ketogenic diet that 39 percent of the time and cure epilepsy.

I am waiting for WHO to tell us that those cream puff donuts are off the list.
And maybe that store bought white bread, and maybe 20 servings of grains or what every is on the big fat bottom of the pyramid might be too much, and causes cancer.


It's just a desperate attempt for them to reclaim some small measure of credibility. Another sacrificial lamb. They want the general public to think they have everyone's best interests in mind so that people don't question their opinions on other subjects. They are probably also using it to recapture some of the democratic population (maybe those environmentalistic caring vegetarians?) who have begun questioning the health recommendations of our government after becoming aware of how ill everyone is. They need to look like they are savvy on some topic - ANY TOPIC. Can you imagine those in charge yelling across the board room? "SOMEBODY GET ME A DAMN TOPIC WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT AND IT DAMN WELL BETTER NOT BE ONE THAT AFFECTS WALL STREET! SOMETHING WE CAN COMPARTMENTALIZE - AND GET IT ON MY DESK BY TOMORROW OR HEADS WILL ROLL!!!.CLICK. MARY, GET GUPTA ON THE LINE!!"

You notice they don't mention about big chemical companies or Monsanto making & spraying the GMO grain the feeds into the processed meat industry and they aren't strongly advocating flat out switching to meats from sustainable non-chemical growing practices. Because that could lead one into thinking that a more natural unsynthetic lifestyle in general (which would include NOT using vaccines) might just be a good idea and that they've been played for the past hundred years.

But when those string pullers are on the chopping blocks they can turn around and say - "See, we didn't know! If we had known, we would have warned about the vaccines, just like we warned about the processed meat. . . why don't you believe us??" A red herring that will be useful for about a nanosecond.


Is "processed" a way to avoid saying "nitrite containing"? It's possible to buy bacon without nitrites....

But I take your larger point.

Maurine Meleck

There has to be a new song somewhere in this for The Refusers:

If you eat red meat, you get smelly feet and CANCER
Throw out the pork, you stupid dork, you get CANCER
Dump processed meat, long hot dogs. you fatty hogs, it's CANCER.

But inject all shit, that's legit, into your babies.
Mercury, aluminum, fetal cells, and don't worry
DNA, RNA that's ok, live vaccines, all extremes, don't worry

Just toss red meat like you trash your DEET, it's CANCER.
Just inject your kids, forget the SIDS and ASD. It's safe.


The meat industry must have stepped on someone's toes in a big way.

go Rand

It is somewhat amazing on how easy it is to find “a link to nearly anything” with epidemiological studies.

Did they “prove the cancer link” by comparing those who consume three hamburgers a day to the zero burger / anti-hamburger group ???

Are those who consume six doughnuts per day just as healthy as those who eat four doughnuts per day ??? ...Only the "medical mandate mafia" could find out for sure..

It would seem they “would have to be a link” between moving from 10 to 40 vaccines and an increase in Autism by a factor of nearly 100.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)