Connect with us

Health

How To Learn To Love Your Body

Published

on

I want to start this by letting you in on a little secret:

advertisement - learn more

Your body does not have to change for you to start loving it more.

You do not need to lose a pound, an inch, tone up an arm, reduce a wrinkle or build more muscle before you can start loving your body more.

The reason? Body love, just like any other form of self-love, is a choice that you make. It is something that comes from the inside and radiates out –not something that is based on an outer circumstance that then filters its way back in.

I Used To Hate My Body Too

I used to hate my body. When I say hate, I really mean hate. I loathed it. My stomach would flip over when I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror. I would cry over photographs of myself. I would lament the size and shape of my thighs and belly to anyone who would sit near me long enough to listen.

All that body hatred really just sucked me down into more and more body hate. I thought that if I continued to focus on all of the things I did not like about my body, it would give me the motivation I needed to eat better and work out more and generally do the things I thought I needed to do to change my body, so that I could eventually love it.

advertisement - learn more

Body Hate Never Motivates Positive Change

It never worked. I am talking about years and years of trying to hate my body into submission. One day, after a particularly rough bout of low self-esteem I thought of the saying, “if you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got.” This helped me realize that all of my years of trying to hate my body into perfection had never yielded the results I wanted, and that maybe it was time to take a different approach.

Loving My Body Where It Was

This is when I decided to start loving my body, just the way it was, in this moment. Of course this was more easily said than done primarily due to the fact that I was now so used to hating my body. To make the process doable for me, I started with outward actions. I started to change a few of my self-destructive behaviours, turning them into self-constructive ones.

At first, nothing all that special happened. It was hard work not to slip into my old routine of berating myself and wanting to punish my body. However, over time as I stuck with my new habits, a miraculous thing began to happen. I started to actually feel better about my body. Nothing really changed on a physical level, but my thoughts and my emotional reactions to myself started to shift and transform. I started to care less about what I looked like, and started to care more about how I felt. I started to love the uniqueness of my body, rather than loathing it. This process totally and completely transformed my life, which is why I want to share some of my tools with you today. It is my hope that you can start to shift how you think and feel about your body starting right here, right now – no diet required.

Body Love Action Number 1: Dress How You Want To Dress NOW, Don’t Wait For A Goal Weight Or Shape

I was always waiting until my body looked how I wanted it to look before I would give myself permission to dress how I really wanted to dress. I was constantly choosing my clothes based on what I thought would make me look ‘thin,’ rather than what I actually liked. The other thing I always did was wear clothes that were either way to tight or way to big for me –as a way of proving I could fit into a smaller size or as a way of trying to cover everything up. Neither ever made me feel very good, and at the same time I was energetically rejecting my body all day long by wearing clothes that did not fit.

I highly encourage you to go through your closet right now, and get rid of anything that does not fit you. Then, choose new items that you actually like – don’t worry if they flatter your ‘shape’ or make you look this way or that. Wear what you feel good wearing, and wear clothes that fit you where you are right now. Not only will you feel more comfortable this way, you will also be energetically sending your body a signal that it is safe, and that is a good thing. If you don’t want to purchase anything new, that’s okay too –just choose to wear your best fitting items that represent your personal tastes in this moment.

Body Love Action Number 2: Throw Out Your Scale – Forever

girlweightKnowing how much you weigh in a number of ways is totally useless. The number on the scale is going to fluctuate – and if you are anything like me, every time it does it is going to send you into a tailspin of thoughts, most of which are going to be negatively charged. This is going to cause you stress, and stress is the last thing you need when you are trying to learn to love your body.

The number on the scale, at the end of the day, means nothing. How you feel inside your body is so much more important. Knowing your weight has zero benefits. If you are overweight and unhealthy, you don’t need to know the exact number of pounds you are right now to know that what you are doing is not serving your body. Likewise, constantly weighing yourself when you are in a place of war with your body is only going to add fuel to the body fighting fire. Throw out your scale and never, ever get a new one.

Liberate yourself! It may be scary at first, but soon you will realize it was a really good choice to let it go.

Body Love Action Number 3: Move To Feel Good, Not Lose Weight

I used to kill myself working out. I worked out for hours a day, doing things I didn’t enjoy because I was sure they would give me the body I wanted eventually. Again, it never happened. Punishing myself with working out basically led me to adrenal burn out, lots of stress hormones, a messed up metabolism and a totally skewed idea of what my body actually looked like.

As soon as I stopped that madness and chose to do only exercises that I enjoyed, I began to heal. I started to actually enjoy movement, which meant it was not another thing on my list of things I had to do that day, but was a welcomed reprieve and a place to just breath, tune in with myself and enjoy the bliss of moving. It does not matter what you choose, just choose something that you enjoy doing. If you do not currently have a fitness routine, I highly encourage you to start one knowing that you are doing it because you love your body, not because you are trying to change it. Movement is supposed to feel good – so make that your mandate. You move every day in a way that makes you feel good.

Body Love Action Number 4: Make A List Of Everything Your Body Does For You, Then Sit With It For A While

It is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking about everything you wish your body was that it isn’t. This negative thinking pattern will only create more and more negative thoughts. I have found that actively interrupting this cycle is one of the best ways to turn your patterns around so that you start to notice all of the things that you love about your body, more often than you notice the things that you don’t like.

Remember your brain is a pattern-seeking machine –if you set it to finding the negative, it will do that. If you set it to seeing the positive, it will do that too. Every night before you go to bed, I suggest you make a list of at least 10 things you appreciate about your body –more if you can think of them. After you have completed your list, just sit with that list for a while and really feel appreciation for your body. It is amazing what can happen when you make this a regular practice.

Body Love Action Number 5: Refuse To Speak Negatively About Your Own & Everyone Else’s Body

Finally, make a commitment to yourself that you are going to stop speaking negatively about your body, and about everyone else’s body.  This means no more sitting and complaining about your thighs or belly to your friends. No more asking your partner if your dress makes you look fat. No more pointing out how unattractive other people are. Make a pact with yourself that you are now like Thumper –at least where your body and others bodies are concerned – “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”

There is nothing to gain from saying bad things about yourself or others. It wont make you thinner or prettier or more muscular to tear yourself or anyone else down. The more you can speak words for affirmation about yourself and your body, the more you are going to feel those words. This is how you turn your negative thinking around -first through what you express with your words. Speak lovingly about yourself and watch how your feelings transform.

Your Body Deserves Your Love

It’s doing the best it can to carry you through your life, to help you live your days doing what you want to do. The more you can align yourself with your body, the more ease you are going to experience in your day to day life –and you deserve that. Try these practices for at least 30 days and see what happens. You may just discover that your body was never really so bad after all.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Ladies, Ditch the Bra

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    There is evidence of a relationship between bras and breast cancer may rethink the societal convention of wearing bras.

  • Reflect On:

    Have you looked into the research about how bras can be contributing to poor health?

I realize it may feel some combination of uncomfortable, unprofessional, or unnecessarily provocative. Societal convention has most of us trussing up before going out.

If you are reading this at home, do me a favor and unhook. Then keep reading.

There’s Some Evidence of a Relationship Between Bras and Breast Cancer Yes, seriously.

Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras

Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer authored a book called Dressed To Kill. They interviewed 4,000+ women in five major U.S. cities over two years. Half the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer. They found:

  • 75% of women who slept in their bras developed breast cancer
  • 1 in 7 who wore their bras 12+ hours per day developed breast cancer
  • 1 in 168 who did not wear a bra developed breast cancer
  • Within one month of ditching their bras, women with cysts, breast pain, or tenderness found their symptoms disappeared.

Breast Size, Handedness, and Breast Cancer Risk

advertisement - learn more

A 1991 article in the European Journal of Cancer found that premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users. The data also suggest that bra cup size (and breast size) may be a risk factor for breast cancer.

Cancer Is Not a Disease

Andreas Moritz revealed that Japanese, Fijians, and women from other cultures were found to have a significantly higher likelihood of developing breast cancer when they began wearing bras. His book explains how cancer is an adaptive healing mechanism, arguing that people would die more quickly if the body did not form cancer cells.

Bras and Girdles Can Reduce Melatonin Levels

Japanese researchers found they can lower melatonin by 60%. Melatonin has anti-cancer properties. And Spanish researchers wrote about the use of melanonin in breast cancer prevention and treatment.

There’s No Downside to Being Cautious.

Am I suggesting this scanty fact base offers definitive proof of a causal relationship? No.

Am I suggesting you should be comforted that the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the New York Times all believe it to be bunk? No.

That’s a longer discussion, but it’s sufficient to say that politics and economics create active bedfellows and the absence of a commercial imperative might have something to do with the dearth of research.

Many of us don’t need to wait in order to do something that intuitively seems to make a lot of sense. Frankly, in view of the alarming rate of breast cancer prevalence in this country (12.3% of women) and the growing trend to remove body parts in an attempt to improve our odds, it seems we might be receptive to a bit of behavior modification.

Things to Consider Doing:

Go braless as much as possible.

It actually gets easier. When these muscles and ligaments are forced to bear the weight of our breasts, muscle tone returns. The more you wear a bra, the more you need to wear a bra. Chest muscles and breast ligaments atrophy, which then makes it feel uncomfortable to go braless.

15 year French study conducted by Besancon CHU professor Jean-Denis Rouillon found that “medically, phyisiologically, and anatomically, breasts gained no benefit from their weight being supported in a bra.” There was some evidence that eliminating bra use helped ease back pain. He described bra wearing as a “false need.”

Remove your bra when you get home. Don’t wear a bra to bed. And if you’re self-conscious when going out, try wearing camisoles, thicker material, or nipple pads. It does make sense to wear a support bra while exercising.

Wear Loose Bras in Softer Materials and Avoid Underwires

Tight bras and underwires restrict lymphatic drainage, promoting congestion and stagnation of toxic waste materials that are supposed to be flowing out for excretion. Further, the closing of lymphatic vessels reduces the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to the cells.

Michael Schachter, MD, FACAM wrote that bras and tight clothing can impede lymph flow and contribute to the development of breast cancer.

John MacDougall, MD wrote in The Lancet that repeated inflammation from constricting bras are implicated in painful breast cysts and lumps, scar tissue develops, and milk ducts become plugged, all of which is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer.

The metal in underwire bras can create an “Antenna Effect” according to the father of Applied Kinesiology, George Goodheart, DC. Repeated pressing of metal over an acupuncture point can cause longer-term stimulation of neuro-lymphatic reflex points corresponding to the liver, gallbladder, and stomach. “It will likely make her sick; slowly and quietly,” said John Andre, ND, DC.

Here’s a list of no-underwire bras recommended by Donna Eden, Vicki Mathews, and Titanya Dahlin. Donna adds that plastic underwires have the same negative impact as metal underwires.

Slide the Wires Out!

There’s no need to toss your expensive underwire bras. If you cut a small opening at one end of the wire, you can manually remove it from each cup. You’ll probably find that your bra supports you nearly as well without them. Oh, and don’t be fooled. They make look like plastic, but they’re actually plastic-coated metal. If you find you still need the support, you can buy and insert plastic wires. Andre explains how.

For additional research on the harms of bras read our article Breast Cancer Cover-Up Continues or get the book “Dressed To Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras.”


Originally published: 2014-07-14 13:06:54 -0500

Article updated: 2019-03-10


Louise Kuo Habakus is the co-author of Vaccine Epidemic, the Executive Director and co-founder of the Center for Personal Rights, the founder of Fearless Parent, and the Executive Director of Health Freedom Action.


For more info from Greenmedinfo, you can sign up for their Newsletter HERE


Greenmedinfo Article Link

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

65 Chemical Cross-Contaminants Found In Popular Children’s Vaccine INFANRIX Hexa

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines. The Infanrix Hexa vaccine was the first one tested, and results showed no trance of antigens and a high level of contamination.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is this not big news? Why does the vaccine not contain any of the antigens it's supposed to guard against? This test shows clear and large causes for concern, so why does it not make mainstream headlines?

Facebook, which seems to have become a government-run agency claiming to help fight the war on ‘fake news,’ has pledged to delete and flag content that spreads misinformation. This is great, and should be done, but the only problem is that content around the internet is being taken down, flagged, and deemed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is well-supported, factual, and backed by peer-reviewed science.

I just wrote an article about the recent measles outbreak in Washington State for example, and how that state is pushing hard for all school-aged children to receive a mandatory MMR vaccination. These outbreaks are constantly being blamed on unvaccinated children, but the mainstream never points people towards the actual statistics showing that Washington State, like many other states, have not experienced a drop in MMR vaccination coverage. Instead, MMR vaccine coverage is very high.

Furthermore, they don’t mention that there’s been a long history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated and fully vaccinated populations (see article linked below for examples and sources), and they don’t mention the deaths, disabilities, and adverse reactions that’ve occurred as a result of the MMR vaccine either. Why don’t they mention that the death rate from measles in Washington State was just 1.4/10,000 (source in article below) before the introduction of the vaccine? You can read more about that and access multiple studies and testimonies on this subject in the article linked below:

Biochemical Engineer Drops Bombshell Facts About Measles & The MMR Vaccine In Washington

Information and science are constantly emerging regarding vaccinations, but we never hear about any of it from mainstream media. I also recently published an article of Robert F. Kennedy explaining how big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest lobbyists, even more than big oil, and how they’ve completely compromised both the Democrats and the Republicans.

They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science – Robert F. Kennedy

advertisement - learn more

So, what’s some of the latest information regarding vaccine safety?

An article published in Nature, International Journal of Science titled “Italian scientists protest funding for vaccine-safety investigation” outlines how The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines.

The groups name is Corvelva, and they received the donation on the 26th of October of 2018. The group believes that the research it conducts is necessary because “previous studies it has funded, which have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, indicate that some vaccines contain impurities, or lack the active ingredients they claim to contain.”

Nature points out that “Some scientists in Italy are up in arms over a donation from the organization that oversees the nation’s professional biology qualification to  an advocacy group that opposes the country’s policy of mandatory childhood vaccination.”

This part is confusing: Why would any group or any scientist oppose more safety studies regarding vaccinations? Wouldn’t professionals on both sides of the coin be in support of as much vaccine safety testing as possible?

ONB president Vincenzo D’Anna told Nature in an e-mail interview that there is a need for truly independent vaccine research because, in his opinion, work conducted in public laboratories and at universities is usually influenced or funded by companies that produce vaccines.

“The goal is to contribute to complete the biological and chemical analyses on vaccines,” he said in the interview, part of which the ONB has published in its Bulletin.

Again, Nature points out that many scientists dismiss the need for more vaccine safety testing and that they are upset. That being said, it’s a comforting thought that ONB disagrees and that they are supporting this type of thing. Clearly, many professionals within that organization don’t believe that vaccines go through rigorous safety testing, as is claimed by many. Again, what harm could be done by further testing?

What Did They Find?

The first vaccine that was tested was the Infanrix Hexa vaccine. It’s a six-in-one vaccine that’s manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that’s supposed to contain the following antigens: tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis toxoids; inactivated poliomyelitis viral strains 1-2-3; and hepatitis B surface antigen.

Corvelva discovered that none of these antigens were actually in the vaccine, which means it had zero antibodies to the intended antigens to be created. This was a huge shock, and in addition to that they also found the following:

Traces of 65 chemical cross-contaminants from other manufacturing lines:

  • chemical toxins;
  • unrecognizable macromolecules;
  • various free bacterial peptides that are potential allergens and are capable of inducing autoimmune reactions.

According to Corvelva,

Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins.

We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens.

This macromolecule could not be recognized in any way by the protein databases, and in fact it turned out to be a solid compound of an unknown chemical structure.

Proteins solubility and their digestion (i.e. the capacity to divide them into small peptide fragments) are two typical proteins characteristics that not only makes it possible to study them through some specific analysis methods but are also fundamental for the interaction with the immune system to create protective antibodies, because if the protein structure is heavily altered from the original one, the new antibodies result completely different from those that are able to attack the original antibodies causing illnesses.

Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy. (source)

The fact that the vaccine antigens were not detected is seriously concerning, and so is the fact that, of the 65 signs of chemical contaminants, only 35% are known. This was only the first phase of this safety testing, as a second analytical study with standard controls will be released.

7 chemical toxins were also identified, and the group states that these toxins have a structure that could probably be partially derived from the formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and cyanogen bromide reactions with other chemical contaminants in the vaccine.

We’d like to point out that the toxicity of many of these toxins have been confirmed and published in Pubchem or Toxnet and this poses important safety problems, issues and concerns.

From the protein and peptide fraction study, various free peptides of bacterial origin have been obtained probably coming from the bacterial culture cells used for the antigen extraction. Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies.

Coming back to the two basic principles that have been our topic on this analysis path, we reaffirm what we have said in the recent interview on the scientific journal Nature: we are inquiring the vaccines efficacy and safety and we can’t quite understand how it is possible to claim that this vaccine is even able to generate the 6 protective antibodies – reason why it is designed for – and furthermore to understand how this cluster made of 6 neurotoxic antigens bound together can be claimed as not toxic for newborns.

Infanrix Hexa hexavalent, as for the method we have commissioned, casts major doubts on both its effectiveness and on its safety…

One thing is for sure: we will not stop to proceed.

Download: CORVELVA-Study-on-the-chemical-composition-profile-of-Infanrix-Hexa.pdf

More Vaccine Controversy From Italy

In the 90s, Dr. Antonietta Gatti discovered the relationship between micro- and nano-particles as well as a great number of pathologies: cardiovascular diseases, many forms of cancer, multiple neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases. She’s taken part in many international research projects, including the pathologies induced by depleted uranium, waste incineration, food polluted with inorganic particles, and more.

Currently, she is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE.

She is also a selected expert of the FAO/WHO for the safety in nanotechnological food, a Member of the NANOTOX Cluster of the European Commission, the author of the book “Nanopathology: the health impact of nanoparticles,” on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biomaterials Applications, and a Member of the CPCM of the Italian Ministry of Defense.

Furthermore, her and her husband Dr. Stefano Montanari founded a laboratory called Nano-diagnostics for the evaluation of the pathological tissues of patients. It’s presently at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Recently, the Italian police raided their home, and the police took all  digital assets that were owned by the the two nanopathologists including their laptops, computers, and flash-drives; basically years of work and research.

James Grundvig via the World Mercury Project describes what happened quite well:

“Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles, from in-vivo (performed in a living organism) and in-vitro (performed in a test tube) to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities. They had touched the third rail of medicine. They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery. By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”

The scientists published their work in January of 2017, titled, New QualityControl Investigations on Vaccines: Micro and Nanocontamination. If science wasn’t plagued by corruption, an investigation would have started, healthcare agencies would be involved, and vaccine safety policies would have come under intense scrutiny, but that never happened.

You can read more about this story and access an interview with the scientists here.

The Takeaway

There are numerous vaccine safety issues. The bioaccumulation of various vaccine ingredients, for example, are one. Ingredients like aluminum have been added to vaccines for more than 100 years under the assumption that they are safe. It’s only within the last couple years that scientists decided to look to see where these ingredients go after being injected. They found that aluminum, when injected, doesn’t exit the body, it actually travels to distant organs and the brain. You can access those studies and read more about that here. You can also watch a short video from Dr. Christopher Shaw from the University of British Colombia explaining the difference between injectable aluminum and the aluminum our body takes in from food. Here is another related study you can read that goes into further detail.

The main point I’m trying to make is that no parent should ever be made to feel guilty for not vaccinating their children. Vaccines are clearly not as safe as they’re marketed to be, and it’s important that we ask ourselves why this type of information goes virtually unacknowledged by the masses.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Health

The Impact of Vaccines on Mortality Decline Since 1900—According to Published Science

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Article written by JB Handley, Children’s Health Defense Director and Co-Founder of Generation Rescue.

  • Reflect On:

    How come we never hear about this information? It's well sourced and factual. Why are vaccines marketed by pharmaceutical companies as life savers and completely safe when the data shows otherwise?

Since 1900, there’s been a 74% decline in mortality rates in developed countries, largely due to a marked decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. How much of this decline was due to vaccines? The history and data provide clear answers that matter greatly in today’s vitriolic debate about vaccines.

CHICAGO, Illinois —Since 1900, the mortality rate in America and other first-world countries has declined by roughly 74%, creating a dramatic improvement in quality of life and life expectancy for Americans.

The simple question: “How did this happen?”

Why did the mortality rate decline so precipitously? If you listen to vaccine promoters, the answer is simple: vaccines saved us. What’s crazy about this narrative is how easy it is to disprove, the data is hiding in plain sight. The fact that this easily-proven-false narrative persists, however, tells us a lot about the world we live in, and I hope will encourage parents to reconsider the veracity of many of the narratives they’ve been fed about vaccines, and do their own primary research.

1970, Dr. Edward H. Kass

Standing before his colleagues on October 19, 1970, Harvard’s Dr. Edward H. Kass gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that would likely get him run out of this same profession today. At the time, Dr. Kass was actually the President of the organization, which made the things he had to say about vaccines and their impact on the reduction in American mortality rates even more shocking, at least by today’s standards. Forty-eight years after Dr. Kass’ speech, vaccines have taken on a mythological status in many corners of our world, hyped up by the people who benefit the most from their use. Of course vaccines saved the world. Of course every child should get  every vaccine. If you don’t vaccinate, you will enable the return of deadly childhood diseases. If you don’t vaccinate, your child will die. If you question vaccines, even a little, you’re an “anti-vaxxer” who should be shunned and dismissed!

advertisement - learn more

But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?

In his famous speech, Dr. Kass took his infectious disease colleagues to task, warning them that drawing false conclusions about WHY mortality rates had declined so much could cause them to focus on the wrong things. As he explained:

“…we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past —tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc. —and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”

Dr. Kass then shared some eye-opening charts with his colleagues. I’m trying to imagine a President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America sharing one of these charts today at a meeting of public health officials. I picture someone turning the power off for the room where he’s presenting and then he gets tackled and carried off the stage…here’s the first example of a chart Dr. Kass shared in 1970:

But wait a minute, Dr. Kass’ chart doesn’t even include the measles vaccine…what gives? Well, in 1970, the measles vaccine was just beginning to be rolled out, and as you can clearly see, measles had long since experienced a dramatic decline in mortality. With Pertussis (Whooping Cough), he produced a similar chart:

In this case, you can actually see when the Pertussis vaccine was introduced. He also showed a chart for Scarlett Fever, which furthers the confusion about the role of vaccines, because there’s never been a Scarlett Fever vaccine, and yet the chart of a huge decline in mortality from Scarlett Fever looks very similar to measles and pertussis:

What’s the point?

Dr. Kass was trying to make a simple point to his colleagues, but one with profound implications for public health. His point was so important, I’m going to quote him in really big font to try and drive it home:

“This decline in rates of certain disorders, correlated roughly with socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel.”

Dr. Kass pled with his colleagues to be open to understanding WHY infectious diseases had declined so dramatically in the U.S. (as well as other first world countries). Was it nutrition? Sanitary methods? A reduction in home crowding? (We’ve since learned the answer to all three questions is, “Yes.”) He encouraged his colleagues to be careful not to jump to conclusions prematurely and to maintain objectivity and “devote ourselves to new possibilities.”

Luckily for us, Dr. Kass’ speech that day has been saved for posterity, as it was printed in its entirety in a medical journal. In fact, it’s a journal that Dr. Kass himself founded, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, and his speech is called, “Infectious Disease and Social Change.” There are a number of things about Dr. Kass’ speech that I found breathtaking, especially given that he was the President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Namely:

  1. He never referred to vaccines as “mankind’s greatest invention” or one of the other many hyperbolic ways vaccines are described all the time by vaccine promoters in the press today. Vaccines weren’t responsible for saving “millions of lives” in the United States, as Dr. Kass well knew.
  2. In fact, he never gave vaccines much credit AT ALL for the developed world’s dramatic mortality decline. Which makes sense, because none of the data he had would have supported that view. Which made me wonder, “has anyone tried to put the contribution of vaccines to the decline in human mortality in the 20th century in context?” Said differently, is there any data that measures exactly how much impact vaccines had in saving humanity? Yes, indeed there is. Read on.

1977: McKinlay & McKinlay: The most famous study you’ve never heard of

t won’t be the world’s easiest read, but I hope you take the time to read every word. In 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published the seminal work on the role vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century, that 74% number I talked about in my opening paragraph. Not only that, but their study warned against the very behavior we are now seeing in the world of vaccines. Namely, they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. Seriously, they predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)

You can read the document pictured below below, HERE. 

…they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone.

Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” The study clearly proved, with data, something that the McKinlay’s acknowledged might be viewed by some as medical “heresy.” Namely:

“that the introduction of specific medical measures and/or the expansion of medical services are generally not responsible for most of the modern decline in mortality.”

By “medical measures,” the McKinlay’s really meant ANYTHING modern medicine had come up with, whether that was antibiotics, vaccines, new prescription drugs, whatever. The McKinlay’s 23-page study really should be read cover to cover, but in a nutshell the McKinlay’s sought to analyze how much of an impact medical interventions (antibiotics, surgery, vaccines) had on this massive decline in mortality rates between 1900 and 1970:

Here are some of the major points their paper made:

  • 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950 [before most vaccines existed]
  • Medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900–having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”

And, here’s the two doozies…

The paper makes two points that I really want to highlight, because they are so important. The first one concerns vaccines. They write:

“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here. Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”

In plain English: of the total decline in mortality since 1900, that 74% number I keep mentioning, vaccines (and other medical interventions like antibiotics) were responsible for somewhere between 1% and 3.5% of that decline. Said differently, at least 96.5% of the decline (and likely more than that since their numbers included ALL medical interventions, not ONLY vaccines) had nothing to do with vaccines.

You don’t get to say you saved humanity if, at most, you were responsible for 3.5% of the decline in mortality rates since 1900 (and probably closer to 1%).

And then the McKinlay’s wrote something that made me laugh out loud, because it’s the thing we are seeing every day in today’s vaccine-hyped world:

“It is not uncommon today for biotechnological knowledge and specific medical interventions to be invoked as the major reason for most of the modern (twentieth century) decline in mortality. Responsibility for this decline is often claimed by, or ascribed to, the present-day major beneficiaries of this prevailing explanation.”

Sound familiar?

2000: the CDC puts the final nail in the coffin

In 1970, Dr. Kass raised the idea that public health officials need to be careful to not give the wrong things credit for the twentieth century’s massive mortality rate decline in the developed world. In 1977, Drs. McKinlay & McKinlay put data around Dr. Kass’ ideas, and showed that vaccines (and other medical interventions) were responsible for between 1-3.5% of the total decline in mortality since 1900. In 2000, CDC scientists reconfirmed all this data, but also provided more insight into the things that actually have led to declines in mortality.

Published in September 2000 in the journal Pediatrics and titled, “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century,” epidemiologists from both Johns Hopkins and the Centers for Disease Control reaffirmed what we had already learned from McKinlay and McKinlay:

“Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccine were available.”

The study went on to explain the things that actually were responsible for a massive decline in mortality:

“water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.” Also, “improvements in crowding in US cities” played a major role. Clean water. Safe food. Nutrition. Plumbing. Hygiene. These were the primary reasons mortality declined so precipitously. At least according to the data and published science.

Recent history

I get really strong reactions when I share this chart, compiled from CDC data:

This chart is compiled from this dataset provided by the CDC. You can see that nine vaccines we give children today didn’t even exist in the mid-1980s. Moreover, the vaccination rates for the three vaccines that did exist were hovering near 60% or less as late as the mid-1980s. Today, vaccination rates are all well north of 90% for American children. I think it’s fair to ask, “why so much panic”? If you think about this chart for long enough, it makes you realize how silly the oft-invoked notion of “herd immunity” really is, since we obviously couldn’t have been anywhere near vaccine-induced herd immunity in the mid-1980s. In fact, we’re really no closer today, because adult vaccination rates remain so low, and vaccines wane over time.

As McKinlay and McKinlay warned, if the wrong intervention (like vaccines) is singled out as the reason Americans and the rest of the first world experienced such a dramatic decrease in mortality in the 20th century, that misinformation can be abused to do things like:

  • Rapidly expanding the number of vaccines given to children
  • Browbeating parents who chose to follow a different vaccine schedule and making them feel guilty
  • Making vaccines mandatory
  • Speaking about vaccines in such reverential terms that even questioning them (like I’m doing in this article) is viewed as sacreligious and irresponsible.
  • And, denying that vaccines injuries happen at high rates, to keep the whole machine moving in the right direction. (By the way, the best guess of vaccine injury rate is about 2% of people who receive vaccines, according to this study commissioned and paid for by the CDC when they actually automated the tracking of vaccine injuries. The “one in a million” figure thrown around by vaccine promoters is simply an unsupportable lie.)

Africa, and other third world countries

Vaccine promoters will often quote statistics about present-day deaths from infectious diseases that sound deeply alarming. Using examples of a disease like measles, they might explain how many children still die from measles every year, and therefore its gravely important that EVERY American parent vaccinate their child for measles. Of course, what they don’t mention is that these infectious disease deaths are happening in places that still have quality of life conditions akin to American children of the early 1900s. Poor nutrition. No plumbing or refrigeration. Bad hygiene practices. Crowded living conditions. All the things that ACTUALLY impacted the mortality rate the most haven’t yet been addressed in certain parts of Africa and other third world countries, and JUST implementing vaccines won’t change the facts. This was Dr. Kass’ point in the first place: know what actually led to the mortality rate decline, and do more of that!

In fact, we now have some data that shows vaccinating children living in situations where they have poor nutrition and lack of sanitation can actually do more harm than good:

The “Aaby Study”

Published in the peer-reviewed journal EBioMedicine in 2017, the study is titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.” Researchers from the Research Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, Statens Serum Institut (Denmark), and Bandim Health Project looked closely at data from the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau. The scientists in this study closely explored the concept of NSEs, “nonspecific effects” of vaccines, which is a fancy way of saying vaccines may make a child more susceptible to other infections. They found that the data for African children who had been vaccinated with the DTP vaccine:

“was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. . . . DTP is the most widely used vaccine. . . . All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease, it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”

In lay terms, this means that giving an African child the DTP vaccine may make the child sick from other infections. It appears that in Africa, the living conditions are more important than the vaccine (as you would very much expect from Dr. Kass’ and the Drs. McKinlay’s work), and the DTP vaccine did indeed do more harm than good. (It’s worth noting that Dr. Aaby was a highly regarded vaccine researcher until he published this study in 2017. It’s my understanding that he has since lost his funding sources. Welcome to today’s world of vaccine “science.”)

Every Second Child

We have another real world example of this phenomenon from the late 1970s. Dr. Archie Kalokerinos made a simple discovery, as he explains:

At first it was just a simple clinical observation. I observed that many infants, after they received routine vaccines like tetanus, diphtheria, polio, whooping cough or whatever, became ill. Some became extremely ill, and in fact some died. It was an observation, It was not a theory. So my first reaction was to look at the reasons why this happened. Of course I found it was more likely to happen in infants who were ill at the time of receiving a vaccine, or infants who had been ill recently, or infants who were incubating an infection. Of course in the early stages of incubation there is no way whatsoever that anyone can detect the disease. They turn up later on. Furthermore, some of the reactions to the vaccines were not those that were listed in the standard literature.

They were very strange reactions indeed. A third observation was that with some of these reactions which normally resulted in death I found that I could reverse them by giving large amounts of vitamin C intramuscularly or intravenously. One would have expected, of course, that the authorities would take an interest in these observations that resulted in a dramatic drop in the death rate of infants in the area under my control, a very dramatic drop. But instead of taking an interest their reaction was one of extreme hostility. This forced me to look into the question of vaccination further, and the further I looked into it the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instance of these diseases you will realise that this is not so.”

Dr Kalokerinos also said something in 1995 that it appears Dr. Aaby’s study was able to corroborate in 2017:

“And if you want to see what harm vaccines do, don’t come to Australia or New Zealand or any place, go to Africa and you will see it there.”

We actually knew the truth in the early 1900s, even before the rapid decline in mortality Well ahead of his time, Englishman John Thomas Biggs was the sanitary engineer for his town of Leicester and had to actively respond to outbreaks of smallpox. He quickly learned that the public health outcomes from sanitation vastly outweighed the impact of vaccination (where he saw dramatic vaccine injury and ineffectiveness). He wrote a definitive work in 1912, Leicester: Sanitation versus Vaccination. More than one hundred years ago, Mr. Biggs discovered what the CDC reaffirmed in 2000: Nothing protects from infectious disease like proper sanitation. He explained:

“Leicester has furnished, both by precept and example, irrefutable proof of the capability and influence of Sanitation, not only in combating and controlling, but also in practically banishing infectious diseases from its midst. . . . A town newly planned on the most up-to-date principles of space and air, and adopting the “Leicester Method” of Sanitation, could bid defiance not to small-pox only, but to other infectious, if not to nearly all zymotic, diseases.”

Dr. Andrew Weil, the oft-quoted celebrity doctor, reenforces the point, explaining that “medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunizations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough, and the others were in decline before vaccines for them became available — the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.”

Finally

Vaccines didn’t save humanity. Their impact was somewhere between 1-3.5% of the total decline in mortality rates. Improvement in sanitation and standards of living really did (nutrition, living conditions, etc.). Did vaccines contribute to a small decrease of certain acute illnesses? Yes, but their relative benefit is often exaggerated to an extreme, and then used to browbeat, guilt, and scare parents.

So am I saying no one should vaccinate? No, I’m not. Vaccines provide temporary protection from certain acute illnesses. Some matter more than others. I personally think we give way too many vaccines, and I think the risk/benefit equation of each vaccine is often obscured. Worse, the lie that vaccines saved humanity in the twentieth century has turned many vaccine promoters into zealots, even though their narratives are simply not supported by the facts. But, by all means, get as many vaccines as you want, I respect your right to make your own medical care choices.

In late 2017, it was reported that Emory University scientists were developing a common cold vaccine. Professor Martin Moore bragged that his research “takes 50 strains of the common cold and puts it into one shot” and that the monkeys who served as test subjects “responded very well.” You should expect to see this vaccine at your pediatrician’s office in the next five years, which will likely be rolled out soon after the stories start to appear in the media about the common cold causing childhood deaths, and that millions of lives will be saved, much as vaccines saved the world in the twentieth century…parents beware, and do your own research!

Author’s note:

There are two excellent resources that I would recommend if you are interested in diving down the rabbit hole of the true history of infectious disease. The first is the amazing book, Dissolving Illusions, by Suzanne Humphries. The second is a comprehensive article by Roman Bystriany titled, Measles: The New Red Scare. (If you read it, you will be deeply disillusioned by the media hype—don’t say I didn’t warn you!)

Journalist Lawrence Solomon has also written two excellent articles about measles: 1) Lawrence Solomon: The untold story of measles, and 2) Lawrence Solomon: Vaccines can’t prevent measles outbreaks.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

UPDATE: As of Dec 26th, 2018, YouTube has demonetized our channel for no apparent reason. More funding cut off

For as little as $3 a month, you can contribute to keeping CE alive! Thanks for being on our Hero's Team. We appreciate you and your support deeply! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.