Connect with us

Health

Is Baking Soda a Good Alternative Toothpaste?

Published

on

Image by Evita Ochel from Pixabay

Oral hygiene is an important factor to our health that we should be aware and work to maintain. For many people who are learning about more natural ways of eating, living and treating our body’s, using the typical toothpaste brands that contains fluoride quickly becomes a non option. For me, I transitioned from toothpaste with fluoride to fluoride free toothpaste. From there I made my way to brushing with baking soda.

advertisement - learn more

What’s wrong with regular toothpaste?

When it comes to regular toothpaste, there are better and safer alternatives. If you read the tube or box your toothpaste comes in, you will notice a warning stating that if you swallow the toothpaste, you should call poison control. The reason being is, toothpaste contains several potentially dangerous chemicals, one of these is called fluoride. Although fluoride has been shown to potentially achieve results in re-strengthening enamel, it is also a toxic substance linked to many health problems. The reason why fluoride is not recommended is because the majority of the time it is used in toothpaste and at the dentist, too much is being applied and therefore it is doing more harm than good. With there being more effective and safer alternatives, using fluoride is not a healthy choice. Using too much fluoride can make the teeth too brittle and therefore more susceptible to cavities and dental fluorosis. Considering that 1 in 3 children in the US now have dental fluorosis, we are clearly using too much fluoride. Another reason is that toothpastes contain ingredients like polyethylene glycols, triclosan, strontium, benzene, and tin, which are all potentially harmful to human health. Toothpaste also contains high levels of glycerin. When there is high levels of glycerin left on our teeth, it takes quite a long time before it wears off and our enamel can properly strengthen again. This leaves teeth susceptible to cavities. Finally, toothpaste does not contain many natural ingredients. This of course is your choice as to whether or not you want to stick to products that are as natural as possible. You can read more about fluoride here.

-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!

Is baking soda a good option?

I first came across the idea of using baking soda when doing fluoride research for a short documentary I made called Fluoride: The Hard to Swallow Truth. I made the change over from fluoride free toothpaste to baking soda and was very happy with the results. Then I began hearing about the potential of baking soda being too abrasive for teeth and gums and that it could actually wear away at the enamel. So I began to research this to find out whether this was a good option for me, especially since I was recommending it to other people as well. I found that YES, baking soda is a good option; here’s why.

Understanding abrasivity

When a toothpaste is produced it must get FDA approval before it can be sold to the public. One of the tests that is conducted before its approval is to determine its RDA value (radioactive dentin abrasion or relative dentin abrasivity). To determine the RDA value of toothpaste, the lab tester begins with an extracted human or cow tooth. The tooth is irradiated in a neutron flux, mounted in methylmethacrylate (bone glue), stripped of its enamel, inserted into a brushing-machine, and brushed by ADA standards (reference toothbrush, 150g pressure, 1500 strokes, 4-to-1 water-toothpaste slurry). The radioactivity of the rinsewater is then measured and recorded. For experimental control, the test is repeated with an ADA reference toothpaste made of calcium pryophosphate, with this measurement given a value of 100 to calibrate the relative scale. (2)

The following are the RDA levels for popular toothpastes including baking soda which was also tested.

RDA Dentifrice brand and variety Source
07 straight baking soda Church & Dwight
08 Arm & Hammer Tooth Powder Church & Dwight
30 Elmex Sensitive Plus Elmex
35 Arm & Hammer Dental Care Church & Dwight
42 Arm & Hammer Advance White Baking Soda Peroxide Church & Dwight
44 Squigle Enamel Saver Squigle
48 Arm & Hammer Dental Care Sensitive Church & Dwight
49 Arm & Hammer Peroxicare Tartar Control Church & Dwight
49 Tom’s of Maine Sensitive (given as 40’s) Tom’s
52 Arm & Hammer Peroxicare Regular Church & Dwight
53 Rembrandt Original (RDA) Rembrandt
54 Arm & Hammer Dental Care PM Bold Mint Church & Dwight
57 Tom’s of Maine Children’s, Wintermint (given as mid-50’s) Tom’s
62 Supersmile Supersmile
63 Rembrandt Mint (‘Heffernan RDA’) Rembrandt
68 Colgate Regular Colgate-Palmolive
70 Colgate Total Colgate-Palmolive
70 Arm & Hammer Advance White Sensitive Church & Dwight
70 Colgate 2-in-1 Fresh Mint (given as 50-70) Colgate-Palmolive
79 Sensodyne Colgate-Palmolive
80 AIM Unilever
80 Close-Up Unilever
83 Colgate Sensitive Maximum Strength Colgate-Palmolive
91 Aquafresh Sensitive Colgate-Palmolive
93 Tom’s of Maine Regular (given as high 80’s low 90’s) Squigle (Tom’s)
94 Rembrandt Plus Rembrandt
94 Plus White Indiana study
95 Crest Regular (possibly 99) P&G (P&G)
101 Natural White Indiana study
103 Mentadent Squigle
103 Arm & Hammer Sensation Church & Dwight
104 Sensodyne Extra Whitening Colgate-Palmolive
106 Colgate Platinum Indiana study
106 Arm & Hammer Advance White Paste Church & Dwight
107 Crest Sensitivity Protection Colgate-Palmolive
110 Colgate Herbal Colgate-Palmolive
110 Amway Glister (given as upper bound) Patent US06174515
113 Aquafresh Whitening Indiana study
117 Arm & Hammer Advance White Gel Church & Dwight
117 Arm & Hammer Sensation Tartar Control Church & Dwight
120 Close-Up with Baking Soda (canadian) Unilever
124 Colgate Whitening Indiana study
130 Crest Extra Whitening Indiana study
133 Ultra brite (or 120-140) Indiana study (or Colgate-Palmolive)
144 Crest MultiCare Whitening P&G
145 Ultra brite Advanced Whitening Formula P&G
145 Colgate Baking Sode & Peroxide Whitening (given as 135-145) Colgate-Palmolive
150 Pepsodent (given as upper bound) Unilever
165 Colgate Tartar Control (given as 155-165) Colgate-Palmolive
168 Arm & Hammer Dental Care PM Fresh Mint Church & Dwight
200 Colgate 2-in-1 Tartar Control/Whitening or Icy Blast/Whitening (given as 190-200) Colgate-Palmolive
200 recommended limit FDA
250 recommended limit ADA

As we observe in the chart, baking soda, when used correctly, is actually less abrasive than all toothpastes. Given the unnatural nature of toothpaste and the efficacy of baking soda when it comes to keeping teeth clean and the mouth at a good Ph level, using baking soda to brush your teeth is actually more favorable than natural toothpastes.

advertisement - learn more

How to brush with baking soda

Brushing with baking soda is quite simple. First start with a fresh toothbrush that does not contain any of the left over residues from your toothpaste.
1. Take a pinch of baking soda and put it into a small glass or small bowl.
2. Add a small amount of pure water (ideally not tap water) to the bowl and mix it into the baking soda. The solution should be slightly runny as you don’t want too many of the granules present. Dip your toothbrush in to get some of the solution on the brush.
3. Brush starting with your molars and then moving to the facings and backs of your teeth.
4. (optional) Once done, you can add some more water to the glass or bowl and swish it around your mouth. This will help keep your mouth alkaline.
5. Rinse out your mouth with pure water as you normally would after brushing.

Try this out for yourself and share your thoughts on how this works for you. Remember, if you have learned that baking soda is too abrasive, it may misguided information or people may have been incorrectly using baking soda to brush. As always, feel it out for yourself and make adjustments accordingly.

Sources

(2) http://satyen.com/toothpastes.shtml
http://www.healingteethnaturally.com/dental-systemic-health-hazards-toothpaste.html

Flouride Warning: Toothpaste Dangers

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

“Wearing A Mask…Offers Little, If Any, Protection From Infection” – Harvard Doctors

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in the New England Medical Journal outlines how it's already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we have the freedom to wear masks? Why are so many things we are doing right now contrary to data and evidence? Are these measures helping us thrive, or are they totalitarian type measures?

What Happened: Is this fake news? No, it’s a quote directly from a paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D. Whether or not it’s may be up for debate, but one thing is for sure, the conversation shouldn’t be censored. According to the paper:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients.

The study goes on to examine whether a mask alone is even an effective health-care measure, and discusses its capability alone devoid of other, what seem to be more important practices, like washing your hands. The point is, outside of a healthcare setting, where their usefulness is still questionable, they provide no clear protection from Covid-19, so why are they being mandated like they are? Instead of a mandate, should the citizenry simply be encouraged to wear masks, with the government explaining the science and still giving people a choice?  Why are they saying it’s to protect other people when there is no evidence that it actually does that?

What’s interesting about this particular study is that it’s one of multiple that mention how masks are more of a symbolic representation. As mentioned above, the paper states that “in many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Again, the study is an examination of the validity of masks in a health care setting (which is also questionable) with regards to the new coronavirus, and clearly states that it’s already known that they offer almost zero protection in a public setting.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.

The study provides other justifications for masks, but the prevention of Covid-19 is not one of them.

Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016, titled “The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction.”

As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.

The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…

A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.

The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)

There are studies out there that also suggest that wearing masks can indeed help prevent Covid-19, especially in an acute care setting, it’s just that we are hearing so much of it that we forget to examine the science on the other side of the coin.

The list goes on, these are just a few examples.

Manufactured Panic?

The next important question to ask ourselves is, are health authorities making this pandemic out to be more serious than it actually is? Many scientists and epidemiologists from around the world have expressed this belief, and many of them, as a result, have been censored by social media platforms. Why is there an authoritarian “fact-checker” going around censoring information, evidence, and opinions being presented by some of the worlds leading scientists in this area simply because it opposes the narrative given to us by organizations like The World Health Organization? (WHO)

Are masks being used to prolong fear and hysteria?

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. Why are we taking such measures for a respiratory infection when tens of millions of people get infected and die from respiratory viruses every single year?

Why is there so much controversy surrounding the deaths? For example, in Toronto Canada, “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” (source)

Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, recently stated that, even if it’s clear one died of an alternative cause, their death will still be marked as a COVID death.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths amid complaints that it inflated numbers. This has been a common theme throughout the US as well as the World.

Vittorio Sgarbi, Italian politician Mayor of Sutri gave an emotional speech at a hearing on the 24th of April where he emphasized that the number of deaths in Italy due to COVID-19 are completely false and that the people are being lied to.

This isn’t even the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to manufactured deaths.

What’s really going on here? Is this actually about the pandemic, or was Edward Snowden right? That governments are using the new coronavirus to impose more authoritarian measures on the population, measures that will stick around long after the virus is gone? You can read more about his comments here.

Was Dr. Ron Paul correct when he said that this virus is less dangerous than it’s being made out to be? And that people will profit both politically and financially from this in the form of more of our basic rights being taken away? Is this simply being used like the justification for mass surveillance was used? To protect the population, or is it for, as NSA whistle-blower William Binney says, “total population control?” You can read more about his comments here.

The Takeaway

It’s quite clear that a large portion of the population doesn’t agree with various medical mandates, and wearing masks is one of those mandates. The reason is justified, and that’s simply because there is no evidence that they can protect the general public, and depending on the material, in some cases it can be harmful. I find it hard to believe that someone would have an issue with someone else not wanting to breathe in their own carbon monoxide, but I also understand that many peoples perception with regards to this pandemic has been severely manipulated.

On the flip side, due to so many instances where things don’t make sense, this pandemic is contributing to another large amount of people questioning what we are being told and being forced to do by our government, this is causing a deep awakening of the masses. Perhaps this is the larger reason it’s playing out from a collective consciousness perspective.

At the end of the day, more measures are continually pushed upon the population without their consent. We don’t have to continue to obey, continue to elect, and help maintain a system that is clearly not serving us to thrive.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Health

COVID-19: “For People Younger Than 45, The Infection Fatality Rate is Almost 0%” – Stanford Professor

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old.

  • Reflect On:

    Are all of the measures we are being forced to take actually about the virus, or about something else? Why have we never done this for more dangerous respiratory viruses that circle the globe? What's going on here?

What Happened: John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University is one of many scientists around the world, and one of several from Stanford University, who has been telling the world that the new coronavirus, so far according to the data, is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be by mainstream media. For example, earlier on in the pandemic he published an article titled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“ In the article, he argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate. He stated that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless.”

This is exactly what these numbers did. In fact, they were the basis and justification for the lockdown.

It turns out he was right. The idea that the infection rate is much larger than previously thought seems to be well accepted and clear in the scientific community, and multiple studies have come out emphasizing the same over the past few months.  Not long ago, several academics from the Stanford School of Medicine, including Ioannidis, suggested that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza based on the data they found in their study.

In a recent interview with Greek ReporterIoannidis estimated that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases. He warned that “the draconian lockdowns imposed in many countries may have the opposite effect of what was intended. He told the Greek Reporter that “the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives.

He isn’t the only world renowned scientist to call these measures “draconian.” You can see another example here. In fact there are many of them, a large majority of whom have been censored by platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Since when are the expert opinions and research of scientists in this field constantly censored simply because they oppose the views of our federal health regulatory agencies and World Health Organization? Why is there a digital authoritarian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t?

Not only are people experiencing huge economic impacts, but it’s also having a health impact. A new article published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can read more about that here.

Here’s what Ioannidis, had to say about the infection fatality rate now that things have progressed further:

0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.  (source)

The idea that the death rate is far lower than original estimates, and even far lower than what the numbers show now seems to be quite obvious. Even CNN recently acknowledged this, only to state that just because it has a low infection fatality rate doesn’t mean that we should get too comfortable. In other words, keep wearing your mask.

Even the CDC recently announced that they may stop calling COVID-19 an “epidemic” due to the remarkably low death rate. You can read more about that here.

Why This Is Important

This all begs the question, are all of the measures that our federal health regulatory agencies forcing us to adopt actually necessary? Are they even good for us? Is this really about the virus, or are we simply having our perception manipulated by big media and powerful people, just as we have with regards to a number of other topics, like ‘the war on terror,’ for example. Why is there so much information showing that masks, for example, should not really be mandatory?

Why have we taken the measures that we’ve taken for this virus, but don’t do it for all of the other severe respiratory viruses that infect and kill millions of people around the world every single year?

For example, did you know that metapneumovirus has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5? Did you know that outbreaks of metapneumovirus have been well documented every single year, especially in long term care facilities with mortality rates of up to 50%? (pubmed 18820584) Did you know that human metapneumovirus infection results in a large number of hospitalizations of children every single year? Did you know it has a substantial morbidity rate, again in the elderly, but also among children as well? Did you know nearly 1-2 million children every single year die of these types of respiratory illnesses because they lead to acute respiratory illness? Imagine if the infection rates and death numbers were constantly tracked, and put on an easy to access website, mainstream media, radio etc. Imagine if the other coronaviruses and respiratory illnesses that are more severe in some cases, and arguably more infectious in some cases, were subjected to constant monitoring and beamed out to the population every single minute, could you imagine the hysteria that would be created?

At the end of the day, it seems quite clear that this virus is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and again, based on the data, it doesn’t seem to be any more dangerous than what we’ve already been experiencing for years. So again, it begs the question, what’s really going on here, and why have governments used the coronavirus, as Edward Snowden said, the same way they used 9/11? To push more authoritarian measures on the population without their consent?

The number of controversies surrounding the coronavirus is quite revealing. Even people whose deaths are marked as COVID deaths may not have died as a result of the coronavirus. You can read more about that here. This, along with the high infection rate even drives the infection mortality rate lower.

The Takeaway

Never in history have we experienced such a collective distrust for health authorities that we rely on to provide us with truthful information. As a result, more people are starting to think for themselves instead of believing what they are told. The coronavirus, just like 9/11, is really contributing to another massive shift in consciousness, where even more people become aware of the deceit corruption, as well as the politicization of science that seems to plague our world and waking up to the realization that our world is not how it’s been presented to us, and that our perception of major events always seems to be subjected to high levels of manipulation.

We are the ones that choose the system we live in. We are the ones that continue to play the game every four years and elect a ‘leader.’ All this does is reinforce as a system we no longer want to play with. Is it time to stop giving our power away to others, and begin organizing in another fashion? Is our current political model truly serving us to thrive? If billions of us can together and follow instructions for a global lockdown, imagine what else we could do on a collective level for other important issues…

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Physicians For Informed Consent Ask If The MMR Vaccine Is More Dangerous Than The Measles

Published

on

What Happened: The Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) are a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures. Their information is based on science. Their mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and to unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccinations. Their vision is that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination. 

You can check out their directors, advisors, and founding members here.

The organization itself is much bigger than the founding members, and includes a coalition of organizations, doctors and scientists.

On their website, they’ve put out some excellent downloadable PDF’s with regards to the MMR vaccine. There are four of them that all present different points.

  1. MEASLES: What Parents Need To Know
  2. MMR VACCINE: Is It Safer Than Measles? 
  3. Waning Immunity & The MMR Vaccine 
  4. FAQ’s: The MMR Vaccine versus the Measles

One of them deals with “what parents need to know about the measles vaccine” and another one presents the information that has them questioning if the MMR vaccine is safer than the measles. They point out that the chances of dying from measles and make many comparisons to the vaccine.

According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine-injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

The PDF’s are well-sourced and laid out in an easy to read and understand type of manner, and quite detailed. Their arguments are quite compelling, and it would be interesting to present this information to a physician on the opposite end of the spectrum in order to hear or read their rebuttal. So feel free to take a look at them if interested!

Why This Is Important: When it comes to both our individual and collective health, all of us simply want what’s best. Nobody can really deny that, especially for our children. The issue is, many people have been made to believe that vaccines are for the greater good of everybody. We are made to believe that children, for example, who are not vaccinated are actually a danger to the vaccinated children.

The Physicians for Informed Consent are well aware of this argument, and they present a lot of information on why that’s not true. At the end of the day, in order to produce “herd immunity” from vaccines, the vaccines must be 100 percent effective for everybody, all of the time. We already know that that’s not the case and that a large majority are susceptible to vaccine injury. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act alone is enough to argue against mandatory vaccination and the idea that the unvaccinated are a risk to the vaccinated. In fact, vaccines have been known to spread diseases. This has happened with polio as well as the measles.

For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear-mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)

There are actually decades of examples when it comes to the measles.

The Takeaway

Vaccinations are quite a controversial topic, and vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among not only the global citizenry, but among doctors and physicians as well, which was also expressed at the recent World Health Organization vaccine summit. You can read more about that here.

In today’s day and age, it’s important to ask ourselves if measures taken under the guise of goodwill are really necessary and good for us. Take terrorism, for example, the idea that those who fund the problem, arm the problem, and in some cases create the problem then propose the solution of foreign infiltration, again, under the guise of goodwill.

So what were the real intentions, to stop the terrorists or to take over the country for natural resources and economic power and control?

Are people capitalizing off of the coronavirus? Not just for profit but for control, like Edward Snowden mentioned?

It’s also important to note that pharmaceutical companies hold tremendous lobbying power, even more so than big oil. (source)

Ask yourself, should we not have the right to decide for ourselves what goes into our body? Especially when there is a tremendous amount of flawed logic with the idea of mass vaccinations? Should we not have access to appropriate double blind placebo controlled safety studies? How come there are none for vaccines?

Why are there massive ridicule campaigns against organizations, professionals and people who create awareness about vaccine safety? Is vaccine safety not in the best interests of everybody? Should we not be analyzing and questioning instead of simply believing?

We must ask ourselves if we want to continue to give our consciousness and perceptions about certain medications over to these global and federal health authorities or, is it time to start asking more questions and pointing out facts that don’t really resonate? Why is discussion being discouraged, censored and even punished?

Why is Julian Assange in Jail? Why do we jail those who expose crimes and identify with those who commit them?

At the end of the day, vaccines are not a one size fits all product, and that’s quite clear. There are risks associated with vaccines, and evidence suggests that they are nowhere near as rare as they’re made out to be.

If we can come together as billions and shut down for the coronavirus, imagine what we could do if we come together to oppose measures that we as a citizenry, and as an entire collective, do not desire.

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!