Connect with us

Awareness

MIT Scientist Shows What Can Happen To Children Who Receive Aluminum Containing Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

A claim often heard from the “pro-vaccination” community when it comes to linking vaccines to autism is that there is no evidence to substantiate those claims. This view is absolutely absurd and dangerous given the fact that a tremendous amount of scientific evidence exists and is available in the public domain that suggests some vaccines could possibly play a role in the development of autism. To say that there is no probability of some vaccinations contributing to the development of autism contradicts the science.

advertisement - learn more

When it comes to Monsanto’s glyphosate and other commonly used pesticides (as well as other environmental toxins), the science linking them to possible causes of autism (among many other diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer) seems to be irrefutable and abundant. You can read more about that here:

--> Join us on Telegram: Be sure you get our most important and latest content by joining our free Telegram channel. You can also meet and chat with like minds! Click here to join.

Scientists Link Autism To These Toxic Chemicals During Fetal Development

Another Groundbreaking Study Emerges Linking Agricultural Pesticides To Autism

Furthermore, we’ve had statements made from scientists who’ve had long careers with vaccine manufactures, pharmaceutical companies and  health organizations like the CDC. We also have documents that indicate scientific fraud and manipulation of data when it comes to the adverse affects of vaccinations.(1)  Many examples of “funny business” within the food industry are also making their way into the public domain  when it comes to the role of GMO’s and pesticides regarding their link with various diseases. One example (out of many) is the fact that after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide were linked to cancer, kidney and liver damage, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published. The study was then retracted, but has been republished in another journal since. (2) You can read more about (and view) this study HERE.

One thing we now know for sure is that the development of autism goes far beyond genetics.

advertisement - learn more

The research suggesting that vaccines and glyphosate could possibly play a role in autism comes from various peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as independent research conducted by renowned scientists from all over the world. One of those scientists is Dr. Stephanie Seneff. This article will  focus mostly on her views regarding the connection between aluminum containing vaccines and autism. Information regarding autism and pesticides are linked in two articles above after the first paragraph.

Dr Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In recent years her research has focused specifically on biology, nutrition and health. Within the past three years alone she has written over a dozen papers in multiple medical and health related journals touching upon many modern day diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and autism (among others). (3)

Vaccines and Autism

In North America alone, millions of doses of vaccines are administered to children every year. Various chemicals are added to the vaccines as preservatives, and theses chemical additives have been responsible for stirring up quite the controversy, especially within the past couple of years. One common substance found in vaccines is aluminum.

A paper published by Dr. Seneff in 2012 argues that severe adverse reactions to the chemicals (like aluminum) within vaccines can be associated with life threatening conditions that are associated with the heart and brain. The paper goes on to argue that there is a relationship between autism and acute adverse reactions to vaccinations.  Dr Seneff is not claiming that vaccines cause autism, she is simply claiming that children could be vulnerable to an acute reaction to an aluminum adjuvanted vaccine, which could cause neuronal damage. (4)

The study also outlines how autism is associated with elevated levels of nitrate in the blood stream, and that aluminum likely plays a role in in the excess nitrate production. Furthermore, the study shows how abnormally high levels of aluminum were recently found in hair analyses of over half of 34 autistic children that were analyzed. Another important factor mentioned in her research is that autism is associated with abnormal immune function, and this (she argues) is enhanced by aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. (4)

In summary, the paper argues that autism develops as a result of a deficiency in the supply of cholesterol sulfate to stabilize the colloidal suspension system of the blood. Cholesterol sulfate supply is maintained by nitrate levels  “acting in the epidermis, the endothelium, and the suspended blood cells, and that it requires the substrates cholesterol and sulfur, as well as sunlight, to provide the necessary activation energy for the reaction.” (4)  Vaccines come into the picture because:

“Aluminum-containing vaccines are problematic, not only because aluminum causes eNOS to switch from sulfate to nitric oxide production, but also because aluminum can induce necrosis of tissues at the vaccination site, emulating  the process of tissue damage to the placenta in preeclampsia. In both cases, the release of
mitochondrial DNA into the blood stream may trigger an acute autoimmune reaction.” (4)

The study concluded that:

“We have proposed in this paper a novel hypothesis for the underlying pathology that links autism, and extreme adverse reactions to vaccines. We would also recommend the elimination of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.” (4)

“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s medical understanding of their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted.” (5) – Dr. Chris Shaw, with the UBC Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience

I’d also like to mention that experimental research clearly shows that aluminum in adjuvant form creates a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and subsequent neurological complications and may as a result have profound and widespread adverse health complications.(5)

Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic of UBC (in a recent study) also show that the more children receive vaccines with aluminum adjuvants, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems later in life.  A demonstrated neurotoxin, Aluminum is the only approved adjuvant in the US.   Its use presents the risk of brain inflammation, autoimmunity and other adverse health consequences.(6)

Just as a side note, it is known that aluminum accumulates in the brain and that this accumulation is associated with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases and with Gulf War Syndrome. (7)(8)

“Experimental research clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” (source)

A study published in the Journal Pediatrics found that:

“Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues.” (source)

A role for the Pineal Gland In Neurological Damage Following Aluminum Adjuvented Vaccination

The paper discussed above by Dr. Seneff is from 2012. In more recent news regarding Dr. Seneff, she recently presented more scientific research at the Third International Symposium on Vaccines in March 2014. It was part of the 9th International Congress on Autoimmunity. She was invited by the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) to discuss the adverse health effects of aluminum adjuvants and aluminum-adjuvented vaccines.

As noted above, Dr. Seneff commonly makes the case that neurological brain diseases are a result of an insufficient supply of sulfate to the brain. She argues that systematic sulfate deficiency “may be the most important factor in many of the health issues facing us today.”

“One of the consequences of insufficient sulfate in the brain is that it impairs the brain’s ability to eliminate heavy metals and other toxins. To make matters worse, those same toxic metals also interfere with sulfate synthesis. The net result can be an accumulation of cellular debris.” – (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD

Some interesting studies have been done when it comes to Heparin Sulfate, which also plays a key role in fetal brain development, protecting against damaging free radicals. When it comes to autism and sulfate deficiency, intriguing evidence of what happens when heparan sulfate is deficient comes from both human and mouse studies of autism. In one study, “mice engineered to have impaired heparan sulfate synthesis in the brain displayed all the classic features of autism, including sociocommunicative deficits and stereotypies.” (9) (animal testing is cruel, unnecessary and not needed anymore. There are alternative methods that now exist researchers can use to do their testing.)

Another study published in the Journal Behavioural Brain Research found that this type of deficiency exists in the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles of four autistic people. The authors concluded that this “may be a biomarker for autism, and potentially involved in the etiology of the disorder.” (10)

What Dr. Seneff is suggesting is that melatonin is a key factor in the delivery of sulfate to the brain. That sunlight exposure helps the pineal gland build up supplies of sulfate by the day, storing it in heparan sulfate molecules. When the evening comes around, the pineal gland produces melatonin, and transports it as melatonin sulfate to several parts of the brain. The significance here is that there is an association of autism with heparan sulfate depletion in the lateral and third ventricles, and the tip of the third ventricle is located within the pineal gland. (source) When everything is working how it’s supposed to be working, the pineal gland delivers sulfate to the third ventricle, among other parts of the brain. But when the brain is loaded with toxic chemicals, like aluminum, it hinders that process.

 “In addition, melatonin not only transports sulfate but also is an outstanding antioxidant and binds toxic metals to help dispose of them. It may come as no surprise, then, that melatonin impairment has been implicated in autism.” – (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD

As far as aluminum goes, it’s a well known fact that it plays a role in various neurological diseases, and that it may disrupt the pineal glands ability to produce sulfate, which means the brain cannot cleanse itself of heavy metals and they just continue to accumulate.

“The pineal gland is particularly susceptible to aluminum and other heavy metals because it is not protected by the blood-brain barrier and has a very high blood perfusion rate.” (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD

The pineal gland’s vulnerability to aluminum is illustrated in a 1996 paper showing that the concentrations of aluminum in the pineal gland were “consistently observed” and “markedly higher” than in other brain tissues examined (pituitary, cortex, and cerebellum) (11)

“Scientists are taking note of the fact that we live in an “age of aluminum,” with aluminum exposure occurring through vaccines as well as multiple other channels. Moreover, although many experts would have us believe that the question of thimerosal and vaccine safety went away after federal agencies issued lukewarm recommendations to reduce its use as a vaccine preservative in the early 2000s, Dr. Seneff noted that thimerosal is still very much relevant.” (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD

In summary, Dr. Seneff is pointing to the fact that many neurological diseases of the brain have a common origin, which includes an insufficient supply of sulfate to the brain. She is concluding that enhanced toxic metal exposure (aluminum) impairs the brains ability to detox itself and eliminate them. As a result, these toxic metals interfere with sulfate synthesis, create a heparan sulfate deficency which in turn leads to autism (as mentioned and pointed out with the studies cited above.) (12)

I’d also like to mention that autism is comprised of a very large spectrum. Some of the ailments associated with diagnosis might not be ailments at all, but gifts that are in no way associated with vaccines. On the other hand, I do believe in some cases, characteristics that are seen in some autistic children are the cause of various toxins from pesticides to vaccines, especially children who have a genetic make up that makes them more sensitive to these chemicals. In some cases (I believe) it’s a result of these various toxins, and again, in other cases I believe it is a gift, and possibly an evolutionary step.

 Sources:

(1) http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf

(2) http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/148-former-monsanto-employee-put-in-charge-of-gmo-papers-at-journal

(3) http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

(4) http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-14-02265.pdf

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067

(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1637136

(8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14743440

(9) http://www.pnas.org/content/109/13/5052.long

(10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23318464

 (11) http://www.99thagent.org/freddyspyder/files/108Piezoelectricity.pdf

(12) http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/SeneffNice2014.pdf

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/97/3/413.abstract

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

New Study Claims Vaccinated Children Appear To Be “Significantly Less Healthy” Than Unvaccinated

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study has examined some health outcomes of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children. They found that the vaccinated group require far more healthcare than the unvaccinated group.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there no studies comparing the health of vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children? This is one of the first of its kind.

What Happened: A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has, according to the authors, discovered that vaccinated children require far more healthcare than unvaccinated children. At least that’s what they found from the group of children used to collect the data.

This type of study is interesting to see given the fact that studies comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children are lacking, there aren’t many of them. These studies are, as the authors state, “rarely conducted.”

None of the post licensure-vaccine safety studies have included comparisons to groups completely unexposed to vaccines.

The study concludes that “the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.

The data source for this study was all billing and medical records of Integrative Pediatrics, a private pediatric practice located in Portland, Oregon.

The study emphasizes the need for more research given the fact that, again, there is hardly any in this area. They concur with Mawson et al., 2017 , who reported: “Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health” and with Hooker and Miller 2020, who wrote: “Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination”.

These studies mentioned above also had similar findings.

According to the authors,

Vaccines are widely regarded as safe and effective within the medical community and are an integral part of the current American medical system. While the benefits of vaccination have been estimated in numerous studies, negative and nonspecific impact of vaccines on human health have not been well studied. Most recently, it has been determined that variation exists in individual responses to vaccines, that differences exist in the safety profile of live and inactivated vaccines, and that simultaneous administration of live and inactivated vaccines may be associated with poor outcomes. Studies have not been published that report on the total outcomes from vaccinations, or the increase or decrease in total infections in vaccinated individuals.

This is important because, although vaccinations in some cases may protect against the target disease, what else might they be doing not only on the short term, but in the long term? It’s also important to point out that in other cases, like the HPV vaccine, there is no evidence that they do protect against the target disease.

Another great example comes from a study published in 2017 that examined the introduction of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1908s. They found that the DTP vaccine was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. The authors state the following:

All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though (this) vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

This new study points out,

Pre-licensure clinical trials for vaccines cannot detect long-term outcomes since safety review periods following administration are typically 42 days or less. Long-term vaccine safety science relies on post-market surveillance studies using databases such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC’s) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink. VAERS is a passive reporting system in which, according to Ross 2011 , “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) can, in principle, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2013), be used to compare outcomes of vaccines and unvaccinated children. Based on the IOM’s recommendation, in 2016, the CDC published a white paper (CDC, 2016; Glanz et al., 2016) on studying the safety of their recommended pediatric vaccine schedule. Unfortunately, to date, no studies have been published comparing a diversity of outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Below is one of many interesting graphs from the study. The orange line represents the vaccinated children, and the blue one represents the unvaccinated.

For methods used, limitations, and more please refer to the study.

The parents that I work with in New York, that I see around the country are very concerned that their rights are being taken away, that their knowledge about the science is being pushed away by an agenda that only says, unvaccinated children are a problem.

No study has every been done in this country, appropriately, to address the health outcomes of children who are vaccinated versus the children who are unvaccinated. I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years, that have opted out of vaccination, they are the healthiest children I’ve ever seen. – Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a NY licensed paediatrician

Why This Is Important: Given the fact that the  National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) has paid out approximately $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children, there are clearly, in my opinion, some valid points here, especially against compulsory vaccinations. Again, as mentioned above, VAERS only accounts for an estimated 1 percent of vaccine injuries, this one percent is what is recorded.

A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Take the MMR vaccine for example, if you search on VAERS, 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. Again, don’t forget about that 1% figure cited in the study.

There are a number of legitimate concerns about vaccine safety that would require quite a long and very in-depth article, but I just wanted to let the reader know here briefly. Aluminum for example, is another concern I’ve written quite a lot about.

These are a few reasons as to why vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine  in 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

She also stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

Is there not enough information here alone to warrant informed consent? I have a hard time understanding how someone who would take the new COVID-19 vaccine, for example, would be worried about me contracting the virus if they are protected?

Why have we given governments the ability to mandate such actions? Why have we given them so much power to dictate what we do and how we want to live? Is this really how we want to live, is this really the kind of world we want to create?

A Deeper Discussion. What Do We Do About The Increasing Vaccine Pressure? 

So many are concerned about mandatory vaccination. Further, many are starting to see that mandated vaccines may not be the future, but that services and options will be denied unless you can prove you have been vaccinated. Is it still the time to point the blame? Or is there a radical new approach we must take? A shift in our worldview, re-examining who we think we are, why we are here and what world we want to create is where we will begin to find the answers we are looking for. Has the dualistic fight the enemy method worked in the past? Are we not still here regardless of having used this method in the past? Maybe it’s time for a new conversation, one that looks at ourselves in a whole new light. This perhaps is how we will solve our ongoing challenges at their core.

Below is a deeper discussion about it from CE Founder Joe Martino.  You can follow me, Arjun, here on Instagram.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

COVID-19 Has A 99.95% Survival Rate For People Under 70 – Stanford Professor of Medicine

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large divide between so many doctors and scientists with regards to the response to the pandemic? Why is one side constantly ridiculed and censored by Big Tech companies? Should governments have the authority to mandate lockdowns?

What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in California recently appeared on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.

During the conversation, Dr. Bhattacharya said that the survival rate from COVID-19, based on approximately 50 studies that’ve been published providing seroprevalence data, for people over 70 years of age is 95 percent. For people under the age of 70, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.95 percent. He went on to state that the flu is more dangerous than COVID-19 for children, and that we’ve (America) had more flu deaths in children this year than COVID deaths.

Obviously, his comments are open to interpretation and similar comments floating around the internet have been refuted by Facebook ‘fact-checkers.’

Bhattacharya has cited this study, published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization to come to his conclusion, along with, as mentioned above, many more.

These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.

The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.

The Declaration states,

The Declaration was written from a global public health and humanitarian perspective, with special concerns about how the current COVID-19 strategies are forcing our children, the working class and the poor to carry the heaviest burden.  The response to the pandemic in many countries around the world, focused on lockdowns, contact tracing and isolation, imposes enormous unnecessary health costs on people. In the long run, it will lead to higher COVID and non-COVID mortality than the focused protection plan we call for in the Declaration.

The declaration also states that as herd immunity builds, the risk of infection to all, including the most vulnerable, falls. Bhattacharya has explained that he and his colleagues don’t see herd immunity as a strategy but as a simple “biological fact,” adding, “It will eventually happen. That’s how epidemics end. So, the only question is how you get there with the least amount of human misery, death, and harm.” The best way, he said, is to “acknowledge who actually is in danger and devote enormous creativity, resources, and energy to protect them.”

The Declaration recommends implementing measures that protect the vulnerable without locking down the entire population, shutting down businesses and limiting people’s access to health-care.

Stefan Baral, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, said he supported adaptive interventions to protect at-risk people rather than broad lockdowns of entire populations. He said his mother lives in Sweden and “there’s nowhere else I would have wanted my mom to be. I love my mom and I feel she’s safe there.”

A report published in the British Medical Journal  titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″  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 months of April and May . According to the data, Covid-19 only accounts for 10,000 of the 30,000 excess deaths that have been recorded in senior care facilities during the height of the pandemic. The article suggests and also quotes British Health officials stating that these unexplained deaths may have occurred because Quarantine measures have prevented seniors from accessing the health care that they need.

Bhattacharya has also cited an estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicating that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation by the end of this year.

These are just a few  many examples and concerns the declaration is referring to.

Another perspective on these survival rates? According to  Professor Robyn Lucas, head of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University,

Survival rates and the percentage of the population who have not died are two very different numbers, “They are using the whole population, rather than the number who have diagnosed infection. So this is not really ‘survival’ – to survive a disease you have to have the disease in the first place,” Prof Lucas told AAP FactCheck in an email. (source)

Why This Is Important: Never before have we seen so many renowned doctors, scientists, and experts in the field oppose the recommendations and actions taken by the World Health Organization and multiple governments to combat a health crises. The fact that there is a great divide among the scientific and medical community makes one ponder how governments can have the mandatory authority to lockdown our planet when there isn’t really a scientific consensus to do so.

What’s also quite concerning is the fact that big tech companies, like Facebook, have been actively censoring and flagging information and opinions that oppose those of the WHO and government health authorities. Unpopular opinions and recommendations aren’t really given any attention by mainstream media either, and they’re often ridiculed by them. The Great Barrington Declaration is a great example.

Because of all the discrepancy, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for governments to simply present the science and make strong recommendations and leave the citizenry to do what they’d like to do. To each is own, that’s just my opinion. I believe we are more than capable enough, and intelligent enough to determine the right course of action for ourselves. A lot of people have lost trust in their government and this is because actions taken by them have simply called into question whether or not they make decisions with humanities best interests at heart.

Are they really executing the will of the people?

When it comes to COVID-19, we’ve seen that this may not be the case. Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine in the British Medical Journal.

It it, he states the following:

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

When we allow governments and give them the power to use force when so many people disagree with their recommendations, it makes one question just how much power do thee entities have? And why? Why do we choose to be governed in such a way? Why aren’t we free to make our own decisions?

More important than facts is our ability to get along with one another and see from the perspective of another. We must understand why those who disagree with us feel the way they do, and they must try to understand us. Constantly arguing and disagreeing with each other and always being in a state of constant separation doesn’t solve anything. Now more than ever we need to respect one another and try see from a perspective that’s not our own. Can’t we find some middle ground and all get along? It’s ok to ask questions and challenge our governments, in fact, it should be encouraged.

Many of us are feeling the loss of freedoms, and even with new measures like that which is presented in this article, we are now seeing how our reality may become limited should we choose not to participate in certain measures we don’t agree with. The trouble we seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID, the fears we have around it, and how to come together as a community to ‘draw a line’ as to where we may be taking things too far.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?

No, I’m not talking about no Great Reset here, I’m talking about something much deeper. I’m talking about re-examining the deep questions of who we are, why we are here and what type of future we truly want to create. Questions that we may have forgotten about as we have gone on chasing what our current worldview and system dangles in front of us. Perhaps it’s time to take a breath and see the crisis’ in front of us as a call to ask some much deeper questions than common conversation invites us to ask.

A great place to start with these questions, and something I deeply urge people to consider doing, is doing something like a media/news fast that includes important questions and reflections designed to re-imagine and examine your worldview. I have just released a new short course on CETV called How To Do An Effective Media Detox. Check out CETV and this course as a great place to start. – Joe Martino

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!