Archive for February, 2013

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) More disturbing evidences of vaccine-induced brain damage are emerging in the U.S. as primarily young women are increasingly developing a mysterious autoimmune condition known as anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis that exhibits symptoms similar to demonic possession. According to a recent report by CBS Philly, young women who develop the condition may act normally one minute, and the next minute develop extreme paranoia or an inability to control their limbs, which experts admit is a result of antibodies attacking the brain, causing swelling and inflammation.

Two young women from the New England area are cited in the story as having suffered from the condition in recent years, which resulted in both of them developing extreme and bizarre side effects such as uncontrollable seizures, drastic mood changes, paranoia, and an inability to function and communicate properly. And the one thing the two had in common was brain inflammation so severe that one prominent area doctor described it as the brain literally being “on fire.”

“One minute I’d be sobbing, crying hysterically, and the next minute I’d be laughing,” explained Susannah Cahalan of New Jersey to CBS Philly about her experience with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. “I had bizarre, abnormal movements (that would) leave my arms out extended, you know, in front of me. I was a relatively normal person, then the next minute I’m hallucinating and insisting that my father had kidnapped me.”

Cahalan’s experience was similar to that of Emily Gavigan, from Pennsylvania, who told reporters that she, too, suffered from extreme side effects as a result of the condition. Gavigan’s parents watched their previously healthy daughter gradually slip away from them. Like other young girls with the condition, Gavigan was initially thought to have a psychological disorder, but was later properly diagnosed as having anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, a definitively neurological condition that most definitely has an external cause.

“I was very paranoid and manic,” explained Gavigan. “There was something wrong. I thought trucks were following me.”

Evidence points to vaccines, lack of proper nutrients as cause of Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis

The mainstream media, of course, continually refers to anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis as a “mysterious” condition with no known cause or cure. But further investigation into the inflammatory disease exposes vaccines as a likely cause of the condition which, as it turns out, can even occur in young boys.

In a review on Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis, Teresa Conrick from explains how a 2010 study published in the Journal of Neurology identified a link between the condition and vaccines. Not surprisingly, symptoms of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis were observed to appear not long after children received routine vaccinations and booster shots, suggesting a likely connection.

“We report about a 15-year-old female patient who was diagnosed with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis after receiving a booster vaccination against tetanus / diphtheria / pertussis and polio (TdaP-IPV),” wrote the authors of the study in a letter to the editors.

“The onset of prodromal symptoms shortly after the immunization is intriguing and suggests the vaccination as a possible trigger of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Therefore, not only infectious agents and tumor antigens but also vaccines should be considered as a possible trigger of immune response in this recently described disorder.”

You can read Conrick’s full report here:

Another potential cause of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis is nutrient deficiency, which is widespread throughout America today. Encephalopathies in general have been linked in numerous studies to nutritional deficiencies, particularly a lack of B vitamins and trace minerals.

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:


Melissa Melton
February 28, 2012

A bill has been introduced in Texas that would allow children to consent to receiving vaccines without any parental input.

Should babies having babies be allowed to consent to vaccines without their parents knowledge?

The bill, S.B. 63 titled, “Relating to consent to the immunization of certain children,” would allow for consent to immunization by a child if the child is pregnant or is the custodial parent of a child. It also notes, “a health care provider or facility may rely on the written statement of the child containing the grounds on which the child has capacity to consent.”

California passed a similar bill in 2011, allowing for 12-year-olds to consent to vaccines like Merck’s Gardasil shot that is supposed to protect the child against sexually transmitted diseases, but has instead resulted in many dead teen girls and thousands of adverse reactions.

Children do not have the capacity to consent. Claiming a child can consent to receiving these chemicals is the same as claiming a child can consent to having sex or doing drugs. In fact, Texas statute §22.011 states, “Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse” unless the person is within three years of age from a child of at least 14; anyone convicted stands to serve between two and 20 years in prison.

So how is it that a child who cannot consent in this instance is somehow suddenly capable of weighing all the risks of receiving inoculations which admittedly in their own product inserts can have numerous negative health effects and on record have caused autism and death?

The assertion that the act of getting pregnant somehow makes a child an adult is absurd; that a child would get pregnant actually shows the exact opposite about that kid’s ability to weigh long-term ramifications and make mature decisions.

Just yesterday it was reported that the state of Texas is third in the nation for teen pregnancies. Under this new bill, all those girls could consent to vaccinating themselves even though reports have also shown that fetal deaths in pregnant mothers who took flu shots increased by over 4,000 percent. The H1N1 shot has also recently been linked to over 800 children developing narcolepsy in Europe.

In addition, the World Health Organization is on record as having completed more than two decades of scientific testing to add Hcg hormones to tetanus vaccines to create a birth control vaccine that causes a woman’s body to attack the human pregnancy hormone. The shot renders women unable to get pregnant, and many pregnant women who receive it end up having miscarriages. The shot has already caused women who were coerced to take it in third world countries to have miscarriages in mass. Last spring, the CDC announced it was updating its recommendations for pregnant women here in the U.S.; whereas it was not recommended pregnant women take tetanus shots before, now it is recommended women take up to three tetanus shots during pregnancy.

Another newly introduced Texas bill, S.B. 64 titled, “Relating to a policy on vaccine-preventable diseases for licensed child-care facilities,” would force workers in Texas child-care facilities to get inoculated against “vaccine-preventable diseases” which are defined as “the diseases included in the most current recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Under CDC recommendations, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world.

Big Pharma has a lot of pull with politicians in the lone star state, as evidenced by Governor Rick Perry’s failed attempt to force Gardasil vaccines on young girls back in 2011.

In a country where a child cannot legally consent to signing a contract, drinking a beer, or engaging in sexual activities with an adult, somehow the government has determined a child can give permission of his or her own volition to take potentially lethal pharmaceuticals without parent knowledge or involvement. This bill is nothing more than the state’s attempt to usurp parental rights while allowing Big Pharma companies to push their deadly chemicals on the most vulnerable, unsuspecting members of our society: our children and their children.


This article was posted: Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 11:58 am

Program has remained secret for seven years

Steve Watson
Feb 28, 2013

Documents obtained by the ACLU have revealed that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance.

The documents, available on the ACLU website, were released via a Freedom of Information Act request.

The rights groups says that although the Marshals Service admitted it had found 30 pages of information pertaining to its use of drones, it only actual handed over two, which were heavily redacted, containing only two short paragraphs of visible information.

Under the heading “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Man-Portable (UAV) Program,” an agency document overview states:

“USMS Technical Operations Group’s UAV Program provides a highly portable, rapidly deployable overhead collection device that will provide a multi-role surveillance platform to assist in [redacted] detection of targets.”


A further document reads:

“This developmental program is designed to provide [redacted] in support of TOG [Technical Operations Group] investigations and operations. This surveillance solution can be deployed during [multiple redactions] to support ongoing tactical operations.”

An LA Times report earlier this month revealed more, stating:

“In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Marshals Service tested two small drones in remote areas to help them track fugitives, according to law enforcement officials and documents released to the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act. The Marshals Service abandoned the program after both drones crashed.”

Expressing doubt that these details cover the full scope of the Marshals’ drone use, ACLU says it is “surprising” that what was purportedly a “a small-scale experiment” still remains secret after seven years.

“As drone use becomes more and more common, it is crucial that the government’s use of these spying machines be transparent and accountable to the American people. All too often, though, it is unclear which law enforcement agencies are using these tools, and how they are doing so.” a statement on the ACLU website reads.

“We should not have to guess whether our government is using these eyes in the sky to spy on us.” the statement continues.

ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump added that “Americans have the right to know if and how the government is using drones to spy on them.”

“Drones are too invasive a tool for it to be unclear when the public will be subjected to them.” Crump added. “The government needs to respect Americans’ privacy while using this invasive technology, and the laws on the books need to be brought up to date to ensure that America does not turn into a drone surveillance state.”

There are currently several bills on the table at the state and national level to reign in the use of drones, and not without justification.

The FAA recently released an updated list of domestic drone authorizations, showing more than 20 new drone operators, and bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012.

After Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization last year, requiring the FAA to permit the operation of drones weighing 25 pounds or less, observers predicted that anything up to 30,000 spy drones could be flying in U.S. skies by 2020.

As we reported in December, thousands of pages of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documents newly released under the Freedom Of Information Act have revealed that the military, as well as law enforcement agencies, are already extensively flying surveillance drones in non-restricted skies throughout the country.

In addition, information via news items, Department of Homeland Security press releases, and word of mouth has made it apparent that the Department of Homeland Security is overseeing predator drone flightsfor a range of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

Last October, the DHS announced in a solicitation that it would be testing small spy drones at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, signaling that the devices will be used for “public safety” applications in the near future.

Much larger drones are already being used in law enforcement operations across the country. The most infamous case involved the Brossart family in North Dakota, who were targeted for surveillance with a Predator B drone last year after six missing cows wandered onto their land. Police had already used the drone, which is based at Grand Forks Air Force Base, on two dozen occasions beforehand.

Plans to roll out drones by law enforcement agencies in Washington State, VirginiaCalifornia and New York have recently met with stern opposition.

As we have previously reported, some police departments have expressed a willingness to arm drones with rubber bullets and tear gas.

Indeed, drone lobbyists are now actively seeking approval for drones to be employed for “lethal force” within the United States. Drone industry insiders recently seized on the recent Christopher Dorner standoff with police, suggesting that lives would have been saved had UAVs been deployed. The lobbyists cynically suggested that privacy advocates were to blame for the deaths and severe injuries of police, because they have acted to block drone deployment by law enforcement.

Eerie industry ads also recently emerged that depicted DHS funded surveillance drones spying on private gun sales as if they were some sort of shady criminal or terroristic activity.

Recently released FAA documents obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that the FAA gave the green light for surveillance drones to be used in U.S. skies despite the fact that during the FAA’s own tests the drones crashed numerous times even in areas of airspace where no other aircraft were flying.

The documents illustrate how the drones pose a huge public safety risk, contradicting a recent coordinated PR campaign on behalf of the drone industry which sought to portray drones as safe, reliable and privacy-friendly.

Critics have warned that the FAA has not acted to establish any safeguards whatsoever, and that congress is not holding the agency to account.

FAA documents recently obtained and released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation have confirmed that the roll out of domestic unmanned drones will, for the most part, be focused solely on the mass surveillance of the American people. In a report, EPIC recently noted:

With some exceptions, drone flights in the U.S. have been all about developing and testing surveillance technology.  The North Little Rock Police Department, for instance, wrote that their SR30 helicopter-type drone “can carry day zoom cameras, infrared cameras, or both simultaneously.”

The Miami-Dade Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety have employed drones capable of both daytime and nighttime video cameras, and according to the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Certificate of Authorization (COA) paperwork, their drone was to be employed in support of “critical law enforcement operations.”

However, the FAA didn’t just rubber stamp all drone requests. For example, the Ogden Police Departmentwanted to use its “nocturnal surveillance airship [aka blimp] . . . for law enforcement surveillance of high crime areas of Ogden City.” The FAA disapproved the request, finding Odgen’s proposed use “presents an unacceptable high risk to the National Airspace System (NAS).”

Another report released recently, by the Congressional Research Service found that ”the prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues.”

“Police officers who were once relegated to naked eye observations may soon have, or in some cases already possess, the capability to see through walls or track an individual’s movements from the sky,” the report notes. “One might question, then: What is the proper balance between the necessity of the government to keep people safe and the privacy needs of individuals?”

The “ability to closely monitor an individual’s movements with pinpoint accuracy may raise more significant constitutional concerns than some other types of surveillance technology,” CRS says.

“Unless a meaningful distinction can be made between drone surveillance and more traditional forms of government tracking,” the report notes, “existing jurisprudence suggests that a reviewing court would likely uphold drone surveillance conducted with no individualized suspicion when conducted for purposes other than strict law enforcement.”

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the biggest union of law officials in the US,issued a stark warning about increased drone use.  The union released guidelines calling for a reassessment of the potential widespread use of aerial drones for domestic policing.

In another recent development, a prominent private investigator operating out of New York and Texas noted that anyone engaging in any large scale protest, is now subjected to scanning by dronesthat skim their personal information from their cell phones.

Despite all these facts, close to half of Americans indicated recently that they are in favour of police departments deploying surveillance drones domestically.


Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’, He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
February 26, 2013

Obama took his collectivist message of disempowerment to a Canadian-based American factory on Tuesday. During the speech he said, “You can’t do things by yourself. That’s how our system works.”

It was a follow-up on his last mantra to impoverishment and helplessness: “You didn’t build that.”

No, Barry – that’s how your system of dependency on ever-growing and ever-intrusive government works.

Once upon a time, before the global statists wrecked it, America was about individual accomplishment and merit, not slavering dependence on “others” who are the government.



Posted February 25, 2013, 8:44 am MT

Denver Post


The president of the Colorado Senate said he is “shooting for Wednesday” to introduce his bill making the manufacturers and sellers of assault-style weapons legally liable for damage inflicted with such firearms.

The proposal by Sen. John Morse of Colorado Springs is part of a package of gun bills introduced by Democrats this month after mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut last year.

Republicans have denounced Morse’s liability proposal, and some Democrats viewed it with skepticism. He said at the time he was still drafting it and seeking input.

The other gun proposal that could be introduced Wednesday is by Sen., D-Thornton. It requires in-person training for concealed-weapons permits, which now can be obtained through online courses. Staunch Second Amendment supporters agree that the online certification process, especially compacted into an hour, is concerning.

“That’s not acceptable,” said  of the Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank, told the Denver Post in December. “That’s not what Colorado law requires.”

Four gun bills already have been passed by the House, and will be heard in the Senate next week.

Monday, February 25, 2013 by: S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) First question: How many hundreds of thousands of doctors in America prescribe useless, toxic pharmaceuticals that keep you coming back to them for more, with different versions of the same sickness? This is health basics 101: How many MDs, surgeons and oncologists use barbaric methods to treat “acid” blood (cancer) with “acid medicine?”

Let’s check: In 2010, there were approximately 850,000 physicians with an active license to practice medicine in the United States. 93 percent of those physicians held an M.D. (doctor of medicine) degree and seven percent held a D.O. (doctor of osteopathic medicine). That means if you visit a doctor in America, you basically have a seven percent chance of getting a doctor who treats the “whole person” instead of symptoms. Do you walk around your yard chopping off the tops of weeds and hoping they never grow back?

The toxic overload causing mass disease in the U.S. comes from “science-based” FOOD (biotech) and “science-based” MEDICINE (Big Pharma), but the clones, drones and zombies don’t even think twice about it. This is the reality that millions of people live with (or die with) daily in America, where there is ever abundant “scary” medicine for all the “scared” people. “Big Pharma” is simply cashing in on FEAR and calling it science-based in order to fool the masses.

“Alternative medicine has existed for thousands of years with rarely any side effects, but the industry which ironically calls itself “conventional” medicine is the number three killer in the United States.” (

Western medicine is toxic, but the quack doctors call all the real doctors quacks. This is the age old BIG LIE, where you go to the doctor, who spent “eight years in medical school” learning NOTHING about nutrition, natural remedies, ancient cures, or prevention from disease. This is science based medical college which teaches nothing of organic food and herbs that prevent and cure disease; simple food that comes directly from Mother Nature, without chemical laboratory modifications made to it.

Approaching one million allopathic QUACKS in America

If you do just a little bit of homework online about the word “quack” and the history/philosophy of “quackery,” you will find the conventional lie, the mainstream definition. Conjured up fewer than 100 years ago, the stigmatizing “quack” label has worked well to tarnish the reputation of natural medicine and its practitioners persistently for about TEN DECADES. Go ahead and run “quackery” through your search engines. Near the top of the list, you will find, no doubt, some websites Big Pharma puts up, to steer you away from the truth
( But then look deeper, past the lies, at the credible sites, and you find thousands of years of practice involving organic herbs, natural remedies, and the Superfoods gathered from around the world. There’s something for every illness, and Western medicine conveniently buries them with sites like this:

Here’s a quote right from the site: “Naturopathy, sometimes referred to as ‘natural medicine,’ is a largely pseudoscientific approach said to ‘assist nature,’ ‘support the body’s own innate capacity to achieve optimal health,’ and ‘facilitate the body’s inherent healing mechanisms.’ Naturopaths assert that diseases are the body’s effort to purify itself, and that cures result from increasing the patient’s ‘vital force.’ They claim to stimulate the body’s natural healing processes by ridding it of waste products and toxins. At first glance, this approach may appear sensible. However, a close look will show that naturopathy’s philosophy is simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery.”

You see, first they did a pretty good job of explaining exactly how alternative medicine really works, and then, in the last sentence, they’ve defined themselves in their vain effort to discredit nutrition and Naturopath physicians, who actually know everything they know, but much, much more. The word quackery is the dead giveaway.

Most Western medicine doctors wake up at some point in their careers to realize what they are doing is mostly unethical. Although most go to school to help sick people and save people, they wind up knee deep in the lies of “science-based” evil synthetic drugs. Many allopathic doctors and dentists fight depression for this very reason. So do scientific researchers, biologists, virologists, oncologists, and the like. Western medicine nearly guarantees itself “be backs” or repeat business, knowing that toxic pharmaceuticals cover up symptoms, deny the root of the problem, and add to the chemical toxicity and acidic mess that’s slowly erupting in the patient’s blood.

Most of these “knowing” allopathic doctors only remain in the “business” because of the income to which they have become accustomed. We are currently experiencing five generations of planned deterioration of U.S. soil, food, water, and medicine. Way back in 1910, one out of every three people in the United States lived on a farm and ate from their farm. Medicine was not a profitable industry. Doctors and dentists were the ones committing suicide right and left, instead of the patients they “medicate” today.

The 100 year history of “science-based” quackery

The worthless American Medical Association (AMA) seal of yesteryear was just like today’s FDA’s “fast approval process.” It means nothing. Nothing is really tested at all. The origin of the word “quack” begins with the evolution of U.S. disease, and over the last 100 years, is no mystery, in fact, the causes and the cures are glaring us all in the face. In just five generations, America has gone from nearly perfect health statistics to the leader in what should be termed simply “chronic lifestyle diseases.”

“Despite increasing calls for transparency at the FDA, the agency’s sloppy performance continues to put consumers at risk both medically and financially.”

Heart failure is the leading cause of death in Western countries today, yet not a single case is on record that is more than 100 years old. In 1910, only one in 100,000 people had diabetes, and there was no such thing as Alzheimer’s disease, yet there are nearly 30 million people in the U.S. who are diagnosed with either diabetes or “old timer’s disease” right now, plus 80 million pre-diabetics. (

Having doubts? Open the REAL history books and look. Coronary heart disease barely existed in 1910, but by 1930, just one generation later, it was causing 3,000 deaths per year. By 1950, it was the leading cause of mortality in the United States, accounting for more than 30 percent of all deaths. In the grand ‘ole U.S. of A, every other man will get cancer in his lifetime, and every third woman. Still believe in your allopathic quacks?

The word quack used to apply to dentists who used mercury fillings for their patients, but the term got “reversed” onto natural remedies and naturopathic physicians. Today, the word quack applies to Western medicine and allopathic physicians. The statistical odds of calling or visiting a doctor who is lying or prescribing useless and damaging toxic medications to quell symptoms in America is at a staggering 93 percent.

Calling out two of the top QUACK medicine FDA drug recalls:

Diethylstilbestrol (DES): Recalled in 1975 after 37 years on the market, this toxic, synthetic form of estrogen prescribed to prevent miscarriages causes women to develop cancer of the uterus by targeting and breaking down the immune system.

Vioxx (Rofecoxib): Made by Merck and recalled in 2004 after five years on the market, this anti-inflammatory pain pill caused tens of thousands of deaths. Dr. David Graham, a whistleblower, testified before the U.S. Senate in 2002, and revealed data indicating over 100,000 Americans experienced heart attacks as a side effect from the drug and up to 40 percent of those patients died. (

What’s the cure for Western medicine quackery? Health basics 101:




Although the American School of Naturopathy in New York City, founded in 1901, was the first naturopathic school in the world, it was based on natural medicine which dates back centuries and even millennia. “Science-based” doesn’t mean that you have to cook up synthetic medicine in a lab and mix it with various genetically modified DNA, bacteria, and viruses in order to shock the human immune system into reaction. (

Don’t gamble with your health. Do your own research. Don’t take unnecessary chances with “new” medicine that gets doctors free vacations and tickets to the big ball games just for selling you out with synthetic drugs. Find the doctors who use what has worked for cultures all around the world. Find doctors who rely on history and natural medicine and who study nutrition and “live” nutrition every day. (

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:

By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post


As Colorado lawmakers push closer to passing a spate of new gun laws, they have almost no data about who owns firearms in this state or even where criminals get their guns.

Coloradans do not have to register their guns with the government. Background checks required to purchase firearms are destroyed within 24 hours of approval by federal law. A state permit is required to carry a concealed weapon, but Colorado keeps no list of who has one — that’s up to each sheriff.

Even when considering only “crime guns” — the ones used to kill, shoot or threaten in the course of robberies, carjackings or other crimes — there is no state database that shows whether those guns were bought legally, stolen or obtained through so-called “straw purchases” in which a person who can pass a background check buys it for someone who can’t.

Police and sheriff’s departments are not required to trace the guns they seize, and many of them don’t because they lack the time and resources.

The shortage of information is fallout from years of battle between advocates of stricter gun laws and those protecting the privacy and rights of gun owners. Laws prohibiting a national database of gun transactions and requiring the destruction of background-check records within 24 hours were part of the 2003 Tiahrt Amendment, named after former congressman Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, and supported by the National Rifle Association.

“We have hurt the ability of law enforcement to respond,” said Joseph Vince, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who is a law enforcement consultant at Crime Gun Solutions. “We have hurt ourselves.”

The data deficiency has hindered law enforcement in “connecting the dots” to prevent and solve crime because “the dots have been taken off the paper,” he said.

Registration opposed

The Colorado legislature is considering proposed laws that would require background checks on all gun sales, even those on the Internet; ban concealed weapons on college campuses; and limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. The House has passed the measures and sent them to the Senate.

None of the bills would require Coloradans to register their firearms with the government; any such proposal would no doubt incite ferocious debate. Supporters of registration say it would make it easier for law enforcement officers to protect the public and trace crime guns, but gun-rights advocates oppose it on right-to-privacy grounds and concern that it could lead to confiscation of weapons. Seven states require registration of some or all types of firearms.

In New York, where handgun permits are required, the super-charged privacy issue flared a week after the December elementary-school shootings in Newtown, Conn. A suburban New York newspaper, the Journal News, published the names, addresses and mapped locations of more than 33,000 handgun-permit holders in two counties. The newspaper was lambasted and its reporters harassed.

Whether a person owns a gun — like other politically unpopular rights — is their own business, gun-rights advocates argue.

“The government has no legitimate right to know who attends a mosque. Or who owns copies of various books. Or who has an abortion,” said David Kopel, a research director for the Independence Institute and a University of Denver law professor. Also, Kopel said, gun- ownership data has been misused in past decades to ruin the reputation of whatever “flavor of the month” the president wants to ban.

Read more:Shortage of hard data on firearms rooted in gun-control debate – The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content:
Follow us:@Denverpost on Twitter|Denverpost on Facebook