Connect with us

Awareness

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Are Choosing Not To Vaccinate Their Kids

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

More and more parents around the globe are choosing to opt out of vaccinating themselves and their children, and the “pro-vaccine” community is not happy, criticizing parents for their decision to not vaccinate. At the end of the day it’s not really about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination,” however; it’s not about pointing fingers or pitting one against the other, it’s simply about looking at all of the information from a neutral standpoint. It’s about asking questions and communicating so people can make the best possible decisions for themselves and their children. Parents love their kids and the vaccine “controversy” has made it difficult for many parents to know what to do.

advertisement - learn more

It’s not just parents, it’s doctors too.

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

A new study published in the journal EbioMedicine 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 (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the 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 behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014, Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”

As a result, the study explains, “16% to 43% of GPs sometimes or never recommended at least one specific vaccine to their target patients.”

advertisement - learn more

The percentages differ because the study asks about specific vaccines, and whether they are recommended never, sometimes, often, or always. You can refer to the study for more details.

The authors’ overall findings “suggest that VH [vaccine hesitancy] is prevalent among French GPs. It may make them ill at ease in addressing their patients’ concerns about vaccination, which in turn might reinforce patients’ VH.”

Again, this isn’t a secret. Another study (out of many, cited in the France publication) outlines how “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.”

Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science, some of which will be presented in this article, and all of which does not get the mainstream representation that “pro-vaccine” science does. Parents who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children are clearly intelligent, and should not be ridiculed for their concern. On the other hand, parents who are choosing to vaccinate their children are also intelligent. Those who choose to vaccinate should not be made out to be the ones who have made the “right” decision when there is evidence on both sides of the coin that clearly shows parents who are not vaccinating their children could also be making the “right” decision.

I’d also like to state that there are multiple vaccines. Some may be safe, some may not be. There are also criticisms of all the studies mentioned, as well as bias. That being said, all of the studies in this article, with the exception of one or two, have been published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. That should not take away from the important work of many independent scientists from all over the world.

This article will present a few of the many reasons why parents are choosing to not vaccine their children.

 # 1  The Vaccine/Autism Controversy

The idea that vaccines might be linked to autism can be triggering for a lot of people. Some people won’t even entertain the idea, or look at information that suggests there could be a link, but the truth is, there are plenty of studies showing one. At the same time, there are plenty of studies that stress there is no link, and that vaccines are not in any way linked to autism. I am referring to both peer-reviewed publications and important independent research that’s not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.

STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES ARE NOT LINKED TO AUTISM

Starting off with some of the most recent data available, a study published in the journal Vaccine determined that:

  • There was no relationship between vaccination and autism
  • There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder)
  • There was no relationship between  the MMR vaccination and autism/ASD
  • There was no relationship between autism/ASD and thimerosal
  • There was no relationship between austism/ASD and mercury (Hg)

The study concluded that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. It was a meta-analysis done by researchers at the University of Sydney, in Australia. It examined ten studies involving more than one million children affirming that vaccines don’t cause autism.

In March 2013, the Journal of Paediatrics published a study titled “Increasing exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides (antigens) in Vaccines is Not Associated with Risk of Autism.” The study found that vaccines given during the first couple of years of life are not related to the risk of developing an ASD diagnosis. They analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in three managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex and MCO.

Another study published in the Journal of Paediatrics titled “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association” concluded that, with the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via the DTP/DT vaccines causes any neurodevelopment disorders.

A report published in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences emphasized how there is an “overwhelming” majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) and autism. It also determined that there was no convincing evidence that thimerosal has any role in autism.

A study published straight from the CDC and National Immunization program determined that “the evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccines do not cause autism or any type of autism spectrum disorder.”

The list literally goes on and on here. Study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim no link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.

This is why many people reject the notion that vaccines could be linked to autism. But that rejection is usually the result of simply not being exposed to the science on the opposing side.

STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES COULD BE LINKED TO AUTISM

As I did in the previous section, I will begin with a couple of more recent studies. If vaccines aren’t linked to autism, why are scientists/researchers emphasizing that they could be, and showing that there is a possible link? These studies are contradictory to the ones above, yet conducted by people with the same qualifications and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Let’s take a look.

A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by scientists from the University of British Colombia, the University of Louisiana, and MIT outlines how up until the 1820s — when the industrial extraction of aluminum made it possible to bring it into our food, manufacturing, medicines, and more — aluminum was almost completely absent from the biosphere. The paper outlines how aluminum is harmful to the central nervous system (CNS), “acting in a number of deleterious ways and across multiple levels to induce biosemiotic entropy.”

Biosemiotic entropy refers to the corruption of biological messages from genetics, epigenetics, proteins, cells, tissues and organs. The paper points out how CNS problems are correlated with diseases like autism spectrum disorder, and makes a strong argument that aluminum adjuvants in the form of pediatric vaccines could be contributing to increased rates of autism spectrum disorders (page 8).

One of the authors of this paper, Dr. Chris Shaw, a neurologist at the University of British Columbia, explains the danger of putting aluminum in vaccines. When aluminum comes from a vaccine, it stays in the body, and studies have shown that the adjuvants do not stay localized but rather travel to the brain, where they can be detected up to a year after the injection.

A study published in the journal Current Medical Chemistry  in 2011 stated:

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 understanding about 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. Experimental research, however, 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.

The paper points out how aluminum could be a culprit in the development of a wide body of neurodegenerative disease, one of them being autism.

Here is a statement I took from the paper. For the specific citations you can look at the actual paper:

The issue of vaccine safety thus becomes even more pertinent given that, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate clinical studies have been conducted to establish the safety of concomitant administration of two experimentally-established neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury, the latter in the form of ethyl mercury (thimerosal) in infants and children. Since these molecules negatively affect many of the same biochemical processes and enzymes implicated in the etiology of autism, the potential for a synergistic toxic action is plausible [31, 47]. Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51]. Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively [51]).

The paper also points to the fact that brain inflammatory responses have long been recognized as a factor in etiology of many neurodegenerative diseases like autism, and provides a host of citations for that as well.

Shaw and Tomljenovic also published a paper in 2011 that was approved for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that stated:

We show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD. According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals. Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their vaccine safety.” While the FDA does set an upper limit for Aluminum in vaccines at no more that 850/mcg/dose, it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Aluminum in such amounts enhanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety. Given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude paediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcomes, including those associated with autism.

Shaw and Seneff also recently published a paper in the journal Immunome Research outlining a lot of evidence pointing to the dangers regarding aluminum in vaccines.

A paper published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health titled “Thimerosal Exposure and the Role of Sulfation Chemistry and Thiol Availability in Autism” concluded:

With the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD in the US now exceeding 1 in 50 children and the rate of children with neurodevelopment/behavioural disorders in the US now exceeding 1 in 6 children, and the preceding evidence showing that there is vulnerability to ™ that would not be known without extensive testing, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that ™ should be removed from all vaccines.

A paper published in the journal Entropy draws similar conclusions:

Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.

A paper published in the Journal of Toxicology titled “B-Lymphocytes from a population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal” clearly demonstrates that certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like thimerosal. What does this mean? It means that people with a slight DNA difference are at risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases via vaccination. They determined that ASD patients have a heightened sensitivity to thimerosal which would restrict cell proliferation that is typically found after vaccination.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism. It’s well known that viral infections cause increased oxidative stress.  Research suggests that metals, including those found in many vaccines, are directly involved in increasing oxidative stress.

Oxidative stress, brain inflammation, and microgliosis have been heavily documented in association with toxic exposures, including various heavy metals. 

A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR, and determined that autism could be the result of an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or “it could be the MMR vaccine.”

A study published in the International Journal of Toxicology outlines the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopmental disorders. It suggests that early mercury exposure could indeed increase the risk of autism.

“To sum up, there has been a great deal of information from different studies that seems to indicate that repetitive mercury exposure during pregnancy, through thimerosal, dental amalgam, and fish consumption, and after birth, through thimerosal-containing vaccinations and pollution, in genetically susceptible individuals is one potential factor in autism.” (source)

A study conducted by the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Arkansas determined that thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with the depletion of intracellular glutathione (GSH) in both cell lines.  The study outlines how many vaccines have been neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Depletion of GSH is commonly associated with autism. Although thimerosal has been removed from most children’s vaccines, it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women, the elderly, and children in developing countries.

According to Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry, is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, and worked on the above studies with Chris Shaw:

The assertion that vaccine-autism concerns rest merely on spurious claims made by uneducated parents is in stark contrast with a large body of scientific literature. As mentioned previously, extensive research data has underscored the tight connection between development of the immune system and that of the CNS, and thus the plausibility that disruption of critical events in immune development may play a role in neurobehavioral disorders including those of the autism spectrum. Indeed, early-life immune challenges in critical windows of developmental vulnerability have been shown to produce long-lasting, highly abnormal cognitive and behavioral responses, including increased fear and anxiety, impaired social interactions, deficits in object recognition memory and sensorimotor gating deficits. These symptoms are highly characteristic of autism. It is thus indeed naive to assume that a manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during sensitive periods of early development will not result in adverse neurological outcomes. Consistent with this, Shoenfeld and Cohen (world’s leading experts in autoimmune diseases) noted that, ‘‘vaccines have a predilection to affect the nervous system.’’ Also, please refer to a number of publications we and others have authored on this subject (link between immune challenges and adverse neurological outcomes.)

For more studies, you can refer to these to start off your research.

  1. Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2010) Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A 73, 1665-77.
  2. Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2008) Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years. Tox Env Chem. 90, 997-1008.
  3. Ratajczak, H.V. (2011) Theoretical aspects of autism: causes–a review. J Immunotoxicol 8, 68-79.

The list literally goes on and on. Study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claims a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism. 

So, for the “pro-vaccine” community to say there is no link, and can’t be a link, and that vaccines could not be one out of several possible causes contributing to the development of autism, seems a little bit ridiculous, don’t you think?

Concluding Statement About the Vaccine/Autism Controversy

As you can see above, there are many peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals claiming no link. On the other hand, we have the same type of research, also in abundance, that claims there could be a link, and that it is probable — and through science they’ve shown how.

What are parents who do their research supposed to think when they come across this information? Why is the “pro vac side” so adamant in saying that there are no scientific peer-reviewed published studies that posit a potential link to autism when there are, in fact, many?

So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous.

#2 Scientific/Industry Fraud

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”  

Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal  (source) 

When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, most people are quick to call them conspiracy theorists or outright fools, but this couldn’t be further from the truth, and those types of responses often come from those who have failed to do any investigation for themselves.

“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

Here is why parents are pointing to scientific/industry fraud when it comes to making their decision, and to be honest, with this type of information out in the public domain, who can really blame them?

It’s hard to know where to start when there are so many examples.

In the past few years, more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of The Lancet — considered one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness

Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, is also a medical investigator. A few years ago she uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and this practice continues to this day. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.”

She says:

The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.

A Congressional Record from May 1, 2003 shows that there could be, and that many scientists themselves believe there to be, a high risk of autism as a result of Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Again, this is a Congressional Report, not a pseudoscientific and unsourced article on the web, and parents who choose not to ignore it should not be bashed by others, don’t you think? The report even shows information from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) that postulates the vaccine-autism connection.

Insider whistleblowers with verified credentials have also played a role in this debate. Take Robert F. Kennedy Jr, for example. He repeatedly stated that there is a “cover up” of data that clearly shows a definitive link between vaccines and autism. He also revealed that he has met with some of these people, that they know what they are doing, and that they are terrified of the public ever finding out.  Think about that for a second: We have the former president’s nephew, who circulates in elitist circles and obviously connected to people who’ve held powerful positions, making these comments. These are concerning comments, and wanting to learn more isn’t a bad thing. One of the biggest concerns for parents relates to an article he authored in June 2005 for Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between vaccines and autism. Both of the articles were retracted. There are many speeches he made, and compelling statements that are available in the form of articles and YouTube videos, if you are interested in seeing more.

Although a whistleblower is not science, such testimony does add weight to the science that is already there.

We also have statements from scientists and doctors like the one below that also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Most of the published scientific studies that say there is no need to worry about vaccines and that there is no autism link are actually sponsored by the vaccine manufactures themselves.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” 

 – Dr. Marcia Angell, physician, author, former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine 

A more recent example (and perhaps one of the biggest) is longtime CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson, who has authored and co-authored dozens of studies, many of which are commonly cited by the “pro-vaccine” movement, including a couple referenced above. Yet, just a few months ago, he had this to say“The CDC has put the research 10 years behind, because the CDC has not been transparent. We’ve missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. Really what we need is for congress to come in and say, give us the data.” 

He pointed to a specific study that he co-authored, a 2004 CDC study commonly cited and used by the scientific community, among others, that determined: “The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”

He also mentioned another study published in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded: “The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.” 

This is what he had to say about that study: “It’s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper and uh, I went along with this, we didn’t report significant findings. I’m completely ashamed of what I did, I have great shame now that I was complicit and went along with this, I have been a part of the problem.” 

This story was becoming so big across alternative news networks, like CE, that mainstream media outlets like CNN picked up on it as quick as they could and tried to spin the story:

“I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article,” Thompson said in a statement sent to CNN by his lawyer. “I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.” 

That being said, he also said in an official statement from his lawyers on August 27th 2014: “I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue  to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated  with their administration are vastly outweighed  by their individual and societal benefits.” 

This brings me to my next point. With regards to the data omitted above, Dr. Thompson made the call to scientist Dr. Brian Hooker, who published the real findings, which found that there was a 340% increased chance of autism in African American boys receiving the MMR vaccine on time. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration and was retracted a couple of days later. This is why I am linking it here and not with the  studies above.

That being said, Dr. Hooker has published a number of peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in reputable scientific journals, the journal Translational Neurodegeneration being one, where his study provided epidemiological evidence supporting an association between increasing organic-Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the risk of an ASD diagnosis. Furthermore, an abstract obtained by Hooker shows “increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in the first month life.”

Here is a video of a ‘pro-vaccine’ Congressman telling us about this case.

Concluding Comments About Scientific/Industry Fraud

As you can see, parents who cite scientific/industry fraud as one of the reasons for not vaccinating their child are right to be concerned. Most vaccine supporters are completely unaware of this information, which is understandable, as it’s not presented in the mainstream.

#3 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 

During the mid-1970s, there was an increased focus on personal health, and more people became concerned about vaccine safety. Several lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers by people who believed they had been injured by vaccines, and the evidence presented in court was good enough to win.

As a result, this act was developed to protect any pharmaceutical company, doctor, or medical association from any “fault.” It’s not about pointing fingers, as many people really do believe that every vaccine is safe. Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, parents must ask the government to admit that the vaccine was responsible for their child’s injury, and ask for compensation for the child’s care.

Pharmaceutical companies are exempt from participating in these proceedings, and taxpayers are the ones who pay for all the vaccine related damages, of which there have been many. Below is a great video explaining the process in detail.

This is clearly another contributing factor as to why parents are not vaccinating their children. Many grey areas and shady practices are involved with the legal process when it comes to vaccine induced injury. The children who have been injured by vaccines alone is another cause for concern, which brings me to my next point.

#4 The Ineffectiveness of Some Vaccines and Vaccine Injury

Again, there are dozens upon dozens of vaccines that are out there. Some might be completely safe, harmless, and necessary, and some might not be.

Let’s take a look at Gardasil. There have been several documented cases of injury as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. According to Dr. Chris Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia in the Department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences, “It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.”

Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper.  She helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s very unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.

“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated.”

– Dr. Diane Harper (source)

If we are talking about recent research regarding the HPV vaccine, a new review was just published  in the journal Autoimmunity Reviews titled On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune disease.” 

The authors of this study came to the same conclusion as Dr. Harper, writing, “The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage.”

They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases that include: Multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, primary ovarian failure, and more. Gardasil has also been linked to a number of deaths.

You can access more information regarding that vaccine in a recent article I wrote:

Merk’s former doctor predicts Gardasil to become one of the greatest medical scandals of all time

Are you going to tell a parent who cites this information as part of the reason they choose not to get this vaccine that they don’t know what they are talking about?

For another example of the literature that’s out there regarding the flu vaccine, a report published in the British Medical Journal shows how “marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions.” The paper outlines this theme throughout. It also shows how recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, and that this occurred before the great expansion of mass vaccination campaigns at the start of the 21st century.

Are vaccine manufactures marketing vaccines in a completely wrong way?

Another marketing strategy used to push the flu vaccine is the claim by vaccine manufactures that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The paper outlines how even the ideal influenza vaccine can only deal with a small part of the “flu” because most “flus” appear to have nothing to do with influenza.

Furthermore, a study published in the Journal of Paediatrics found that 85% of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70% of those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood, and a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16% of infants were reported to experience vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours of immunization. (29)

A great example is the fact that poorly tested vaccines have been administered to young children, which explains why there have been large numbers of major adverse reactions from seasonal influenza vaccines. As a result, they were suspended for use in children under five years of age in Australia. (30)

In a series of rapid responses addressing this issue, published in the British Medical Journal and titled “Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia-should we be surprised?,” Peter Collignon, the Director of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at Australian National University, concluded: “There is poor evidence on how well influenza vaccines prevent any influenza complications in children [10] and other age groups. There is good evidence that influenza vaccines study reports cherry pick results and achieve spurious notoriety. Exposing human beings to uncertain effects is a risky business.”

The list goes on and on, and I could cite hundreds of studies both “for” and “against.”

Instances like children in Europe developing narcolepsy after the H1N1 pandemrix vaccine aren’t helping matters. There are so many examples, and no doubt these examples contribute largely to the decisions parents are making.

# 5 Vaccine Ingredients

This topic was touched upon in the studies presented in the first point. There are numerous studies suggesting that current vaccine ingredients are not a cause for concern. At the same time, there are many that point out they should be a cause for concern.

Common vaccine ingredients include:

  • Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
  • Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
  • Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
  • Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
  • Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
  • Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria

With regards to aluminum, studies (6)(7)(8)(9) are a good place to start if you want to examine the dangers of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.

recent meta-analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International found:

The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies.

Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University, the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, determined that residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccines may be one of the causes of autism in children through vaccination. (31)

Again, significant association between exposure to thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children including autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, thinking abnormalities and personality disorders has been reported in a number of  studies.  Many have been cited in this article, here are a couple more:

Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2006) A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 27, 401-13. [127]

Young, H.A., Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2008) Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. J Neurol Sci 271, 110-8.

There is abundant evidence for both viewpoints and to support either choice a parent decides to make. There is no reason to ridicule one side and praise the other when both are simply doing what they feel is best.

No Safety Assessments Exist (Toxicity Studies) for Vaccine Ingredients

This is another very important point. Aluminum has been being added to vaccines for approximately 90 years, and one disturbing fact that many people still don’t know is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?

So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum.

“I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)… discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients… and testing specifically in animal models.

Back then, the FDA stated that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe. When I read that I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ “

– Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia, where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine (source)

She also has documents which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. They show that health authorities and vaccine manufacturers made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates, which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity.’ ”

If we take a look at the FDA’s website/guidelines, it’s not like this is a secret. The statement above (from Lucija) comes from their 2002 guidelines, which is a fairly recent document, but more than 10 years later, despite all of the studies demonstrating clear cause for concern, very little has changed.

“Until recently, few licensed vaccines have been tested for developmental toxicity in animals prior to their use in humans.” (source)

“Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children.”

– José G. Dórea, professor at the University of Brasillia’s Department of Nutritional Sciences (source)

A growing number of studies have linked the use of aluminum adjuvants to serious autoimmune outcomes in humans.  (source)(source)(source)(source)

The use of this adjuvant has been connected to all kinds of diseases, from autism to brain disease to Alzheimer’s and much more.

“Experimental research . . . clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.”

–  Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic (source)

Numerous studies have shown aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time.

If significant aluminum load exceeds the body’s capacity to get rid of it, it is deposited into various tissues that include bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. Aluminum is found in cigarettes, cosmetics, food, medicines (aspirin), and much much more. It’s in our environment, and we are surrounded by it. This is concerning, because aluminum was not really around until the industrial revolution. Today, it shows up in so many products. And we know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body, into areas it shouldn’t be, and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic — and that’s not just for aluminum in vaccines.

“We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions.”

– Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia

Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, a professor in bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University and an honorary professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.

Related CE Article:

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

 # 6 Vaccine Safety Evidence Is Not Rock Solid. One Size Does Not Fit All.

All drugs are associated with some risks and adverse reactions. The “greater good” argument is concerning because causes of permanent neurodevelopmental disabilities and even deaths following vaccination in children (with genetic and other susceptibilities) have been firmly established in scientific literature. (7)(8)

One important point parents often raise is the fact that clinical trials that could address vaccine safety concerns have not been conducted. No studies have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals that examine the health outcomes of vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations. This lack can be attributed to the assumption that vaccines are safe, an assumption that clearly contradicts a lot of scientific data. (32)

Even strong supporters of vaccinations within the scientific community have questioned the scientific legitimacy of “one size fits all” vaccination practices.

For example, Gregory Poland, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Vaccine and co-author of “The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists” (33), along with fellow researchers, asks whether, “with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,” it is time to consider how “new genetic and molecular biology information [might] inform vaccinology practices of the future?” They concluded that the “one-size fits all” approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned.

This assumption is also as a result of vaccine trials commonly excluding vulnerable individuals who might be more susceptible to injury via vaccine. As a result, adverse reactions that occur as a result of vaccinations might be very underestimated.

I also wanted to point out that data also demonstrates that over-stimulating the host’s immune system by repeated immunization with immune antigens and/or adjuvants inevitably leads to autoimmunity, even in genetically non-susceptible animals. (34)(35)

Here is a related video explaining why vaccines should not be considered completely safe.

Can you really blame parents, with all of this information out there?

Concluding Comments

The “pro-vaccination” side seems to be all that is offered in the media, at the doctor’s office, in schools, and in most government sponsored studies. I wrote this article t o help shed light on why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children, as their side of the story is so rarely discussed. There are countless documents and peer-reviewed scientific studies showing adverse events after vaccination and the dangers associated with vaccinations. It appears that the risks associated with them are far greater than what we are being told, and an unnecessary amount of pressure is placed on parents to vaccinate their children.

Some people might ask, “What about the polio vaccine?” and completely ignore all of the relevant information in this article. They might not know that in 1977 Dr. Jonas Salk, the inventor of the Salk polio vaccine, testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the U.S. since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine. The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in the U.S. today. I am not sourcing this particular fact because I want to encourage others to go out and look for themselves. That is the whole point of this article.

After reading this, it’s hard to imagine why a parent would ever ridiculed for choosing not to vaccinate their child. It’s also not even a fraction of the amount of information out there that explores history, more science, fraud, and more. I cannot do your research for you, so I hope I’ve inspired you to do some of your own.

Next time you come across a parent who has chosen not to vaccinate their baby, try not to judge; instead, try to understand where they are coming from.

Sources:

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

(1) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367

(2) http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2813%2900144-3/abstract

(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342825

(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158

(5)http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14760584.3.1.19

(6)http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Shaw_et_al_JOT_2014.pdf

(7)http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

(8)http://autismoava.org/archivos/1-s2.0-S0162013411002212-main.pdf

(9)  http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Shaw_et_al_Immunome_Res_2013.pdf

(10)http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/8/3771

(11)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/

(12)http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/6/1611.full

(13)http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/documents/VRAN-Abnormal%20Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Antibodies-CNS-Autoimmunity-Children-Autism-Singh-Lin-Newell-Nelson.pdf

(14)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322

(15)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X04001147

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

(17) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-05-21/pdf/CREC-2003-05-21-pt1-PgE1011-3.pdf

(18) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rolling-stone-retracts-autism-article-but-lots-of-junk-journalism-remains/

(19) http://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/

(20) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

(22) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhpckzxVEoc#t=381

(23) http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14760584.3.1.19

(25) http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

(26) http://web.archive.org/web/20140826171415/http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/pdf/2047-9158-3-16.pdf

(27) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24354891

(28) http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

(29) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17643770

(30) http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/adverse-events-following-influenza-vaccination-australia-should-we-be-surp

(31) http://s3.amazonaws.com/soundchoice/soundchoice/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DNA_Contaminants_in_Vaccines_Can_Integrate_Into_Childrens_Genes.pdf

(32) Tomljenovic, L. and Shaw, C.A. (2011) One-size fits all? Vaccine. 2012; 30(12):2040.9

http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lucija-Tomljenovic-PhD-letter.pdf

(33) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1010594

(34) http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/184/1_MeetingAbstracts/93.39

(35) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353969

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Lebanese Hospital Becomes The World’s First To Go 100 Percent Vegan (Food)

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A hospital in Lebanon has become the first in the world to adopt a completely vegan menu.

  • Reflect On:

    Are people aware of the physical and emotional torture the majority animals we eat go through? Are people aware that a diet free of animal products can be very beneficial for human health. Are people aware that animal agriculture is destroying Earth?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

At the beginning of March, Hayek Hospital in Beirut, Lebanon became the first hospital in the world to serve 100 percent vegan only meals. Prior to this change, patients had a choice between animal based meals and vegan meals, and included with that was information about the health benefits of choosing plant-based foods versus the dangers of consuming animal products. The hospital made the announcement via their Instagram page, stating that “Our patients will no longer wake up from surgery to be greeted with ham, cheese, milk, and eggs…the very food(s) that may have contributed to their health problems in the first place.”

When the World Health Organization classifies processed meat as a group 1A carcinogenic (causes cancer) same group as tobacco and red meat as group 2A carcinogenic, then serving meat in the hospital is like serving cigarettes in a hospital. When the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) declare that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious disease comes from animals. When adopting a plant based exclusive diet has been successfully proven not only to stop the evolution of certain diseases but it can also reverse them. We then, have the moral responsibility to act upon and align our beliefs with our actions. Taking the courage to look at the elephant in in the eye.

Their various statements also point to the role that animal agriculture plays in spawning infectious diseases, citing the Centers for Disease Control’s estimate that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious diseases come from animals. “We believe it’s well about time to tackle the root cause of diseases and pandemics, not just treat symptoms,” they note.

This was a great statement. The modern day medical industry only seems to be focused on medications, and only medications that can turn a hefty profit, to treat and cure disease instead of addressing root causes. It’s good to see things changing, but a big problem remains. If a plant that grows in abundance, for example, has the potential to cure a disease, will we ever hear about it? Will the medical industry be interested in it? Probably not, but when a drug is made and patented from that plant in a specific way, that’s when we will. This is not to say that modern day medicine is useless, but today now more than ever a big problem exists, and this problem may be killing more people than it’s helping.

Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), a Harvard professor of medicine and also a former Editor-in-Chief of NEMJ, was frustrated that “the medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” (source)

According to Forks Over Knives,

While Hayek is the first hospital to completely purge animal products from its menu, a number of hospitals have begun offering more plant-based options in recent years. Both New York and California have enacted laws requiring hospitals to offer a plant-based option with every meal. In 2018 NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue launched the Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine Program to help patients transition to a whole-food, plant-based lifestyle.

The American Medical Association passed a resolution in 2017 calling on U.S. hospitals to provide healthful plant-based meals to promote better health in patients, staff, and visitors. The American College of Cardiology has issued similar recommendations.

In my opinion, “veganism is a very fine form of nutrition” (Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, heart surgeon), and as mentioned above, there is plenty of science to back up that statement.  I’ve written about it many times before from a health perspective.

Here’s an article that goes into more detail and science if you’re interested, it also addresses history, and how our teeth and guts are designed and more. Here’s another one regarding a study that found a strong association between eating animal protein and a premature death from all causes, including multiple cancers and type 2 diabetes.

The studies cited in that article note that meat eating is strongly associated with up to a 75 percent increased chance of early mortality, and that protein from animals may cause harm, while protein from plants may help reverse disease and have a protective effect.

There are hundreds of these studies, and the ones I cite are just a few examples.

This is obviously a very controversial topic in the eyes of many, and it’s not hard at all to find conflicting information on the subject. I am no doubt bias in my beliefs and opinions here.

One thing is for certain, the way we treat animals on this planet is extremely heartbreaking and unnecessary. Animals are separated from their families, raised for slaughter and are kept in torturous conditions on a daily basis. It’s truly unbelievable and horrific. It’s the biggest genocide and example of both physical and emotional torture the world has ever seen. I don’t think anybody can witness what really goes on in most slaughterhouses can come out not being impacted.

On top of this, animal agriculture is one of, if not the greatest contributer to environmental degradation and pollution on our planet. Animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of deforestation. Every single day, close to 100 plant/animal/insect species are lost because of this practice.

Final Thoughts: At the end of the day it seems that, from a health perspective, processed meats, and other meats are no doubt harmful to human health. People can make the argument that other animal products may not be and that we are meant to consume them. People can also make the complete opposite argument. One thing that can’t be argued is, again, the torture, physical and emotional abuse that comprise the source of where animal products come from for the majority of people who eat them.

There is a big split, as with many other topics, amongst people on this issue. There are even vegan influencers who are creating splits within the ‘vegan community’ itself, which is unfortunate. I personally believe that, from a health perspective, animal products are not at all required for anybody and are again, overall, harmful to human health.

The more pressing issue, again, is the treatment of our animal brothers and sisters, and how we are constantly using and abusing them. It’s indicative of world that lacks empathy, compassion, understanding and love, as well as our inability to see ourselves in another. This can be seen in many aspects of the current human experience, be it war, human trafficking and more. That being said, it’s great to see human consciousness shifting towards a more compassionate, empathetic type of awareness. This is evident by the “vegan” movement alone, as it’s become quite large over the past few years and will continue to grow. Some of the biggest animal food producers have already gone out of business, and it’s great to see more people in the health community as well recognize that it’s a win for health, a win for environment, and most importantly, a win for the very emotional, intelligent, animals, who are similar to us in so many ways. We have so much to learn from them.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Caloric Restriction vs. Fasting: Why One Can Result In Weight Gain While The Other Helps Burn Fat

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 3 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In the video below, Dr. Jason Fung explains the difference between caloric restriction and sending the body into "starvation" mode compared to fasting.

  • Reflect On:

    Fasting has been used as a health intervention for thousands of years, and is being used today by doctors who are educated on the topic. Why is it completely ignored by mainstream medicine? Is it because "big pharma" can't make any money off of it?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Some would say that the best solution to weight gain is eating right and exercising. I couldn’t agree more. Obesity is one of the deadliest problems humanity faces today, and just as important as diet and exercise is for addressing this issue, even more important are the emotional and personal reasons as to why so many people damage themselves and make themselves more prone to serious disease.

Apart from diet and exercise, initiating a proper fasting regimen can have tremendous health outcomes, especially for overweight people. It wasn’t but a decade ago when fasting to lose weight was considered unhealthy and dangerous. Today, we have a tremendous amount of science that’s been published clearly showing that fasting can be an effective health intervention for people of all body types, especially for people who are overweight and suffer from certain diseases. It’s an excellent way to help your body burn fat. Fasting has been used and is currently being used as an intervention for type two diabetes, cancer and more. Fasting has been shown to trigger stem cell regeneration, autophagy, which in turn can help clear out toxins and damaged cells, repair DNA, improve metabolism, lower blood sugar, boost brain function, reduce the risk of age related disease, lessen inflammation which improves a wide range of health issues from arthritic pain to asthma and more. It’s no wonder why so many ancient cultures from different parts of the world used fasting as medicine and as a health intervention.

As shown in the science, fasting is generally safe for everybody. This many not be true if you already have underlying health conditions or are taking certain medications. This is why it’s important to consult a health professional about it, but the issue is, the majority of health professionals are not well educated in fasting interventions. Those who have educated themselves have been treating their patients with fasting and are drawn to it due to its ability to provide so many benefits.

One of these doctors is Dr. Jason Fung, who on his blog and his YouTube channel, as well as the books he’s written provides a wealth of information and science regarding fasting. I often refer people to the work of Fung, or others like Dr. Valter Longo if they want to begin their own research about fasting. Again, there is a wealth of science and “scholarly” articles available on the subject for anybody who wants to search for it as well. It’s not heard to find.

In the video below, Fung explains why fasting is much different from caloric restriction or having your body go into “starvation mode.”  You can also check out his article, “The difference between calorie restriction and fasting” for some great information as well.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Deeper Questions Behind The “Lab Origins” Debate

Avatar

Published

on

By

13 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    It is being slowly accepted that SARS-COV2 originated in a laboratory. The delay in this admission has not been due to media "spin" alone but from scientists themselves.

  • Reflect On:

    How can we "trust the science" if the scientists are being disingenuous?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

As the majority of Americans gather around the prevailing voice of our trusted medical institutions, those opposing it seem to be digging in their heels as well. Why is this happening? After all, we are not arguing over religion or political ideology (or at least we shouldn’t be). This pandemic and its management falls squarely in the realm of science, something that should be objective and indisputable. How is the layperson supposed to make sense of the growing polarity concerning this issue? Unless one has related training in virology, epidemiology, statistics and a decent understanding of the history and the sequence of investigations that have led scientific opinion to consensus positions before this pandemic, there is no way to be “scientific”. How are we to know whether the edicts coming from our leaders are reasonable and founded? This puts us in a difficult position, one that we are unable or unwilling to acknowledge: we have to trust someone else. The question is, whom?

Mainstream Media is beginning to acknowledge that SARS-COV2 originated in a lab

There has recently been a shift in the mainstream narrative. Some of these mainstream sources have been willing to take a hard look at where this virus came from: the “lab origins” thesis. In this recent interview with evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, popular satirist and political commentator Bill Maher admits that “it would almost be a conspiracy theory to think it didn’t start in a lab.” The reasons for this are clear to anyone who has looked beyond the veil of simplistic statements and abjectly poor investigative journalism coming from mainstream sources. Gain of Function studies on SARS viruses were being conducted in publicly funded laboratories in this country for years prior to 2014. One could argue this was part of bioterrorism research just as easily as it was part of a pandemic preparedness effort. It is not so hard to see that in order to be prepared to combat a highly contagious and virulent pathogen we must be able to study the pathogen itself. Pandemic preparedness and bioterrorism research are basically the same thing.

As the story unfolds in the mainstream narrative, it is becoming apparent that the wet market hypothesis will soon be jettisoned for its sheer implausibility. Is it likely that this virus could survive in a bat or pangolin for generations while mutating in such a way that it could not only immediately survive in a human body but be so virulent as well? What are the factors that would be involved in allowing this new strain to behave unlike previous SARS viruses in terms of its copious presence in our nasopharyngeal cavities, apparent transmissibility in the asymptomatic and enduring pathogenicity when floating around in the air or lurking on surfaces? The answer is far more than one, making this wet market to global pandemic story all the more unacceptable.

As establishment science comes to its senses, we are left with the reality that the pandemic has most probably been the consequence of a laboratory research that got out of control. It may not be excusable or forgivable but at least we can take comfort that our attention has been refocused on what is plausible. However simply acknowledging the high probability of lab origins and moving forward with all the same initiatives to combat this virus is not enough. There are more questions that need to be posed first.

How did some Scientists “spin” the science?

This argument over SARS-COV2 origin is not new at all. It was being hotly debated a year ago for some of the same reasons I mentioned above. The lab origin thesis was effectively (and prematurely) purged from “acceptable” discussions when a paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-COV2” (KG Anderson et al) appeared in Nature Medicine (March 17, 2020). This piece served as the foundation of a wall of scientific opinion that was rapidly erected to contain the dangerous “conspiracy theory” that the virus was a product of human intention and ingenuity. If you were to read the piece it would be hard to not end up shrugging your shoulders and going along with the authors’ thesis. The authors are well-respected and published scientists that include W. Ian Lipkin, pathologist, neurobiologist and epidemiologist at Columbia University,  internationally recognized for his work around W. Nile Virus and SARS. They are assured in their conclusions and offer the reader, among other things, a comparative study of the peptide structure and genetic sequence of this virus and closely related variants. 

I am a physician and was led to this piece months ago in my research into this topic. I admit that I was left scratching my head. It wasn’t until I tuned in to a blog surrounding this and other issues hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass, a respected and dutiful researcher of pandemics and bioterrorism, that l was able to grasp where the misdirection was introduced. Dr. Nass correctly points out that it may not be possible to irrefutably prove that the virus was of lab origin or not, however it is the erroneous assumptions and unsound logic the authors of the Nature Medicine article use that point to the obscuration of the facts in a manner we could reasonably deem as deliberate.

After presenting us with a thorough description of the structure of SARS-COV-2 and analysis of its means of entering human cell lines via the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, the authors introduce their challenge to the lab origins position. The authors state:

“While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”

Anderson et al are presenting their first line of attack on the Lab Origins hypothesis. Because their computational analysis predicts that a different and more “optimal” receptor-binding domain (RBD) portion of the spike protein on SARS-COV-2 could have been built, they say, it must have arisen naturally. The authors are assuming that if the virus was the product of bioterrorists they would have designed it differently. Is this sound logic? It is not. First, the authors are presupposing that their computational method is the only one available for use. Second, there is no reason to assume that a bioterrorist would choose the genetic solution that was “optimal”. Moreover, picking a “solution” identical to a computationally derived genetic sequence would leave an obvious clue that human hands were involved. This is in fact what the authors are correctly pointing out. 

This line of reasoning sheds light upon their foundational assumptions about the sophistication and intentions of would-be bioterrorists. Are they experimenters in laboratories building a novel coronavirus to a computer model’s specs to study it? Or are they true bioterrorists seeking to design a bioweapon that has no trace of human manipulation? Obviously one cannot know. Making either assumption cannot be part of any rigorous forensic analysis.

The authors go on:

“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”

Here the authors are introducing yet another unfounded assumption: If the virus was designed as a biological weapon, why would a known coronavirus backbone necessarily be used as a basis for genetic manipulation? Certainly that option would be entertained by a team of bioterrorism researchers, but it is illogical to begin with that assumption. There are undoubtedly coronavirus backbones that have been genetically manipulated and remain behind closed doors and outside of public databases, i.e. unknown. It is equally logical to conclude that because no known backbone was used the virus was purposefully manipulated.  

In any case, genetic manipulation is not the only way to create a backbone of a virus. The oldest way is to use passage, a laboratory technique where a virus is cultured through a series of cell lines from different species resulting in a viable product that will survive in the target species. Other techniques are also readily available: exposing a known virus to mutagenic factors, collecting those that survive and repeating the process or simply mixing related viruses together to see what recombinant products result. None of these methods will result in a “solution” that would be in any way predictable at the outset. Indeed, that is the advantage of using such techniques. This is a fact that is well known to virologists, making the authors’ analysis all the more suspicious.

It is undeniable that the authors were using poor logic and unfounded assumptions to make unsound conclusions. This should have been obvious to the scientific community at that time, and this paper should not have made it through the editorial process of such a respected publication as Nature Medicine. The disquieting thing is that quite the opposite occurred. The article instead served as the seminal piece to squelch all arguments for the lab origin hypothesis once a flurry of subsequent publications cited it. Who should be held accountable for this? The authors? The editorial committee of Nature Medicine? The cadre of scientists that chose to use this publication to “manufacture consensus”? The mainstream media for failing in their responsibility to offer a balanced view of the debate around this article? None can be held solely responsible and all were required to perpetuate the distortion. The implications here are very serious and impossible to ignore.

Who can we rely upon to faithfully report “the science”?

Are there no stops to the dissemination of baseless “scientific” opinion? This is a question that rarely gets asked because we tend to assume that in the end, scientific consensus will be reached without the need for oversight. We are talking about science and scientists here, not policy makers or private industrialists with conflicts of interest and personal gains that hang in the balance. Yet the lines between science, industry and policy-making are blurrier the closer we look. In any case, who can we rely upon to ensure that the scientists are doing their job in formulating sound approaches to the problems at hand? There isn’t anyone, other than the scientists themselves. So what went wrong here? How did the Anderson paper end up deftly hamstringing a viable theory about the origins of SARS-COV2 a year ago using specious logic and unnecessary assumptions? Why didn’t anyone say anything? Despite what is generally known, many did.

Here’s where things get hopeful, depending on how you look at them. It would be wrong to dismiss all virologists, epidemiologists and researchers as slaves to corporate funded research institutions and group-think. Behind the veil of headlines that tout the rigor of the data and fuel the “trust the science” mantra there are collections of perspicacious and tireless researchers and journalists that have been pushing back against the established opinion and raising valid concerns about the hijacking of the narrative by members of their own ilk. Notably RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense and Dr. Joseph Mercola have published an excellent paper that comprehensively summarized the ongoing work of Dr. Alina Chan of MIT’s Broad Institute who has documented the timeline and significance of how the spin has been manufactured by the scientific community themselves. Of course, many are familiar with Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Mercola not because of what they are bringing to complex discussions but because of their stigmatization as purveyors of “anti-vax” and “pseudoscience” opinions. Once so marked they are felled by the mainstream media machine with all the efficiency and discrimination of a logger’s chainsaw in an old-growth forest.

There are others that are broadcasting the same signal of reason. DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19) is a group of independent scientists, journalists and researchers that have been bringing attention to the suspicious ways that the debate surrounding the origin of SARS-COV2 has been marginalized within the scientific community itself (more about their work here). For example, “A Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals and medical professionals of China combatting Covid-19” appeared in the correspondence section of the esteemed medical journal Lancet in March of 2020. In this letter the authors explicitly characterize any dissent to the natural origins hypothesis as “rumour, disinformation and conspiracy theories”. 

What are we to make of such accusations leveled against scientists by scientists? This sort of rhetoric has no place in any scientific discussion of any kind and should be a matter of real concern for everyone. Has science been corrupted by the same forces that are undeniably turning investigative journalism into a means of promulgating propaganda in some instances? If that were the case, how then are we to “trust the science”?

The Predicament that we are in

We are in an uncomfortable situation. Unless we can independently dismantle the arguments like those in the Anderson paper, or can understand the significance of the appearance of a mysterious 12 nucleotide sequence in the SARS-COV2 genome that confers the virus with a polybasic furin cleavage site (resulting in a substantial increase in virulence described here), or can appreciate the implications of a situation where scientific journals publish papers without requiring authors to supply the raw data required for independent genomic confirmation, we are stuck. If the science is being spun or misrepresented or poorly reported, there would be no way to know it.

Determining the origin of SARS-COV2 is an important question that still needs to be answered definitively. Attempting to answer this question has brought light to more disturbing questions. We cannot expect the layperson to comprehend the scientific studies that underpin our approach to this pandemic, let alone critique the logic and assumptions made by the authors of these papers. Expecting that a news correspondent, mainstream or otherwise, is anymore capable of dissecting such information is not realistic either. Until we come to grips with this we will not be able to grasp the enormity of the crisis we are facing.

The Takeaway

An honest examination into the origin of SARS-COV2 suggests a danger more pernicious than the virus itself. How much of scientific opinion is dictated by non-scientific interests? How many other “consensus” positions are rooted in inexcusably poor reasoning and assumptions? If we can only rely on independent researchers to bring clarity to these topics, who is going to give them a voice? If there is a fact that can be extracted from this debate it would be that “trusting the science” and trusting what a media source says about “the science” can be two very different things. 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

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!