Connect with us

Alternative News

Here’s Why 19 Countries In Europe Just Completely Banned Genetically Modified Crops

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.

The global resistance against Genetically Modified Crops is growing at an exponential rate. A few years ago, you were almost ridiculed for suggesting that GM foods could be a problem, and now scientists and researchers are presenting information that has 19 new countries joining an already long list of nations to completely ban, or have severe restrictions on, GMOs — as well as the pesticides that go with them.

advertisement - learn more

These countries will not allow genetically modified crops to be grown in their country. The opt-out countries are requesting that biotechnology companies exclude their territories from GMO seed sales, and some countries, according to RT news, are simply putting things to a halt until more research is conducted.

-->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.

For those of you who do not know, GMO crops have had their DNA artificially altered, which is a process that would not happen in nature. This is done by introducing genes from a completely different species in order to boost the plant’s resistance to pests or herbicides, or create some other desired effect.

Again, we are talking about 19 countries. That’s more than half of the countries within the European Union, some of which include: Germany, France, Scotland, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Poland, and Belgium. The magnitude of this resistance cannot be ignored.

Health/Environmental Concerns Mixed With Scientific Fraud

So why are these countries doing this? Two of the main reasons have to do with environmental and health-related concerns. Alongside all of these troubles (according to Reuters), some countries simply want to take time to do proper research — flying in the face of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) decree that GMOs are completely safe. There are many who disagree with this assertion:

As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe. – Jane Goodall  (source)

advertisement - learn more

A great example is a study that was published in the journal Evironmental Sciences Europe. The WHO has never cited any long term studies that prove the safety of GMOs. When a study was finally conducted, it found severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, in rats fed GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup — levels that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. The rats also developed large cancer tumours.(source)

Other studies have found instances of adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues. They also determined that no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods have been established. Many studies have emphasized that more scientific effort is needed in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.(source)(source)

Studies have also linked GMO animal feed to severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs.(source)

Here’s what Irina Ermakova, VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, said last year when Russia was mulling over the decision to ban GMOs:

It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped…. [We] should stop it from spreading.  (source)

Keep in mind that we are talking about GM crops, which are sprayed with billions of pounds of toxic chemicals every year. These chemicals have been linked to a number of diseases, ranging from autism, to cancer, to Alzheimer’s disease and more.

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.” October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)

A new study  recently published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September examined US government databases, researchers searched for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a “correlation analysis” on a total of 22 different diseases.

Researchers reached an alarming conclusion:

“These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow.”  (source)

Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but using the Bradford Hill criteria, it’s easy to see why so many scientists/countries are opposing GMOs.

The shift towards organic food is strong and growing; it’s what consumers are demanding. After all, who wants a bunch of pesticides accumulating in their body, especially ones which have been incontrovertibly linked to several diseases?

For example, a recent study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide exposure in adults by 90 percent.  (source)

Another study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, indicated that among individuals eating similar amounts of vegetables and fruits, the ones who reported eating organic produce had significantly lower OP pesticide exposure than those who normally consume conventionally grown produce. You can read more about that here.

Here is a great video showing what happens to your body when you eat organic:

These chemicals are manufactured by big bio-tech corporations like Monsanto, and the fact that they’ve been caught lying doesn’t help their credibility one bit. For example, a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International shows that Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. (source)  Roundup was also (finally) linked to cancer recently by the WHO, although a number of scientists had already provided tremendous amounts of proof for this:

There is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals. On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans. A US EPA report and several more recent positive results conclude that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby. (source)

This is precisely why so many countries are banning it; Sri Lanka recently did so after discovering a link to deadly kidney disease.(source)

As for environmental concerns regarding GMOs and pesticides, “super-weeds” are one of many examples. You can watch a video about that here.

The list literally goes on and on, and despite all of the protest from international government scientists, independent scientists, and others, all clearly concerned about GM crops, Monsanto is still labelling their claims as “unscientific.”

If their concerns are so unscientific, then why are so many scientists around the world opposing these crops?

This move also shows the power of the people. For the past view years, the world-wide web and non-corporately owned media has been sharing information about GMOs that you will never see in the mainstream. Millions of people all over the world continue to gather to “March Against Monsanto.” It just goes to show what we are capable of and all come together.

There are also Wikileaks documents showing that the United States was ready to retaliate against countries refusing to accept GMOs. This is weird, you wouldn’t think that classified documents exist regarding our food, but they do. You can read more about that here.

For those who are looking to educate themselves further about GMOs, check out: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.” – Joseph Cummins, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario (source)

This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” –David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (source)

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

Denmark Introduces “Coronapass” To Enter Certain Buildings & Businesses

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    On Tuesday, Denmark began requiring people to use a new COVID certificate to enter certain businesses or face fines, one of the first European countries to do so.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large group of people, who see issue with governmental measures, taking action to stop them? Does it show we don't agree on our collective approach? Does it show we don't agree on the threat level of COVID-19?

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.

What Happened: Denmark recently began requiring people to obtain a “CoronaPass.” It’s one of the first countries in Europe to do so. This pass certifies whether or not someone has been fully vaccinated. It also certifies whether someone has tested negative in the previous 72 hours, or has tested positive between two to twelve weeks prior to that, which would suggest that they’ve gained immunity to the virus from previous infection.

Either vaccine or antibody proof now seems to be a required prerequisite to enter into certain buildings and businesses in Denmark. If someone is not fully vaccinated, their negative tests are only valid for a short period of time. People will be required to get tested every single week or multiple times a week to obtain a pass if they are not vaccinated.

The businesses that require a pass are ‘non-essential’ businesses like hairdressers, beauty salons, driving schools, restaurants, museums, theaters, and movie cinemas.

The pass is available in digital form via a smartphone app, but it will also be available in paper format as well. Apparently, the pass is just a temporary measure, but how many temporary measures, which some consider to be “authoritarian” will remain temporary?

According to Danish authorities, the pass will be required until the entire population has been offered a vaccination, but my question is, what if there is a large minority, or even a majority, that refuses to take the vaccine? I guess we will have to wait and see how this all plays out.

It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high. Iv’e covered what might be the top four reasons many scientists, doctors and journalists are refusing to take the vaccine, as there are legitimate evidence based concerns and it appears the mainstream still fails to have open and complete conversations about this topic. Instead of addressing concerns they are commonly labelled as “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.”

If businesses do not comply with the pass or fail to verify whether or not patrons are carrying one, they risk a fine of at least 400 euros and up to 6,000 euros for repeated offences.  Individuals who try to slip by without the pass risk a fine of about 330 euros. How authorities are going to enforce these rules remains to be seen.

Yahoo News points out:

The programme has stoked controversy however, as some Danes feel it will divide society. The anti-restriction movement “Men In Black” has organised a protest next Saturday in Copenhagen against it. Some shopkeepers also feel the screening requirement is a needless burden.

“It is an unreasonable responsibility to impose on a small business. It would have been much better if, for example, the police made inspection visits, like train ticket inspectors,” Jakob Brandt, head of a federation of small- and medium-sized businesses, told the Politiken newspaper.

Why This Is Important: The rollout of certain measures that governments around the world are starting to implement has many people concerned, especially many scientists, doctors and experts in the field who have condemned the idea.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor, epidemiologist and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, (two founding members of The Great Barrington Declaration) a physician and professor at Stanford Medical school recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries.

That’s one of many examples, and if you can’t access their article in the WSJ you can read more about in an article I wrote summarizing it, here.

There has been wide scale disagreement amongst global citizens about the measures being taken with regards to COVID-19. On one hand, greater control, health surveillance, and centralized power is being pushed in accordance with keeping people ‘safe’ from a virus with a very high survival rate. On the other hand, people are feeling as though their personal experience and everyday view of this virus and what health effects it is really causing, don’t line up with the extreme measures. We have a split in our global community whereby many citizens’ desires and will are not being represented by the government and their decisions, and they feel as though by not participating in extreme measures, they will lose access to living life to the fullest. Furthermore, there is legitimate concern that lockdowns may be responsible for more deaths than COVID.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do in this situation? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? When things are not as black and white as they are presented to us, and when measures go against the will of so many people, should government be making recommendations instead? Why are certain viewpoints and evidence based science being suppressed and unacknowledged?

The Takeaway: Greater surveillance and measures are coming in ways we likely could have only imagined in sci-fi movies. When it comes to much of the COVID measures we’ve seen, I’m not sure people want to get comfortable with what’s being presented. While the promises of a return to normal are there, the goalpost seems to always be pushed, while other ‘experts’ claim normal will never be seen again.

The obvious response to this might be, “yes but we don’t know enough about how dangerous COVID is and that’s why these measures keep evolving.” But is this really true? This is where the frustration begins between differing perspectives as not all of us have heard the same information about COVID and thus see it as something different. We don’t have an agreed upon set of facts about things PCR testing, asymptomatic spread of COVID, treatments for COVID-19, lockdowns, masks and so on.  This is the case not just with everyday citizens but with experts also.

How are those two sets of people supposed to communicate when the foundation for their discussion is completely different? Are we even recognizing how each other feels and where our ideas came from when we have these debates?

The events playing out at an everyday level invite a deeper inquiry into how our decisions are made and how our world functions. Inevitably there is complexity in all of this and judging people’s position on COVID measures is not a simple “these people are all sheep” or “these people are all conspiracy theorists”, it goes much deeper than these judgements.

We recently had a conversation in conjunction with our recently released course on overcoming bias and improving critical thinking. The talk focused on what we do when experts don’t agree. I feel this is a useful video for diving deeper on the issues we face right now in relation to this piece, you can watch it here.

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

Researchers Outline Reality of Psychic Ability & Explore Whether It May ‘Run In The Family’

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 8 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    It is commonly believed that psychic ability, like many mental and physical traits, runs in families. This suggests the presence of a genetic component. Researchers recently decided to search for one among people with psychic abilities.

  • Reflect On:

    Can special abilities, or psychic abilities be passed down? Are these abilities innate and lying dormant within all of us?

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.

‘Psychic ability’ comes in many different forms, from telepathy to clairvoyance or remote viewing, there are a number of phenomena that have been demonstrated under strict scientific controls that have yielded statistically significant and repeatable results. There are also multiple declassified documents that have been archived by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) via their electronic reading room, for example, pertaining to individuals with “special abilities” who are able to perform feats like telekinesis, or healing at a distance. You can access a few examples of that here, and here where I go more into depth.

The literature in this area, from peer-reviewed research all the way to examples from the within the defense departments of  multiple countries, is quite robust. It’s another subject seen as fringe and in-credible yet has more than enough evidence to for a reasonable person to deem these abilities as possible.

The researchers of a recent study published in EXPLORE titled “Genetics of psychic ability – A pilot case-control exome sequencing study” decided to search for some sort of genetic link among people with psychic abilities. They explain:

Many cognitive and perceptual abilities are associated with genetic factors. An open question is whether or not extraordinary “psychic” abilities such as mind-to-mind communication (in the vernacular, telepathy), knowledge of future events before they occur (precognition), and perception of hidden or remote events (clairvoyance), might also be associated with genetic factors. Evidence of the reality of such extraordinary abilities has been offered by multiple meta-analysis of experiments conducted over the past century, which demonstrate independent repeatability and robust statistical significance.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that extraordinary manifestations of these abilities run in families.. Few formal studies have evaluated the genetics of psychic abilities. Telepathy studies with identical and non-identical twins have found mixed evidence for greater concordance among identical versus nonidentical twins on telepathy task performanceOther case studies of families with data on up to four generations have been conducted. The pattern of familial transmission in second sighthas also been examined. This capacity is defined as “a special psychic ability believed to be a natural faculty of mind, regarded as an inborn gift by some andan affliction by others…Second sight implies that there are two forms of sight. One is normal sight and the other is the ability to have prophetic visions which occur spontaneously and arrarely directed at will.” Second sight is considered hereditary within the Scottish tradition. A formal pedigree analysis of second sight found an autosomal dominant pattern f inheritance. Other studies have evaluated the relationships between psychic abilities and the temporal lobe. However, to our knowledge, no similar investigations have been conducted using modern genetics techniques.

Interesting stuff, isn’t it? For the study, more than 3,000 candidates from around the world were selected and screened through two online surveys. This was done to locate people who claimed that they, as well as other family members, had some form of psychic ability. Eligible candidates were then selected as the final “psychic cases,” and then age, sex, and ethnicity-matched individuals, with no claims of psychic ability, were selected as the controls.

DNA from the saliva of the 23 participants were subjected to “whole-exome sequencing.” This is a test that looks at most of the genes within an individual. After this, two independent bioinformatics analyses were blindly applied to the sequenced data. This means the ones doing the analyses had no idea about the results the other lab was getting. They were completely separate.The analyses focused on protein-coding sequences and another one included some adjacent noncoding sequences.

According to the researchers:

Sequencing data were obtained for all samples, except for one in the control group that did not pass the quality controls and was not included in further analyses. After unblinding the datasets, none of the protein-coding sequences (i.e., exons) showed any variation that discriminated between cases and controls. However, a difference was observed in the intron (i.e., non-protein-coding region) adjacent to an exon in the TNRC18 gene (Trinucleotide Repeat-Containing Gene 18 Protein) on chromosome 7. This variation, an alteration of GG to GA, was found in 7 of 9 controls and was absent from all psychic cases.

You can access the full study here.

This means the study did not find any significant markers suggesting that these abilities may be genetic, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t. We already know through epigenetic studies that various traits are passed down to offspring, be it physical or even emotional. It is interesting that the study did however identify a noncoding variant that was largely restricted to non-psychic controls.

The most conservative interpretation of these results is that they result from random population sampling. However, when the results are considered in relation to other lines of evidence, the results are more provocative. Further research is justified to replicate and extend these findings.

Keep in mind, the researchers did test those who claimed to have psychic ability and overall they scored better on the tests than those who did not. There were many limitations to this study, and a big one was the size of the number of people used for the study.

Given the fact that, in the researchers experience and based on my research and examples that I’ve written about, these abilities are undoubtedly real, so looking for some sort of genetic component is quite reasonable and would have tremendous implications.

The researchers explain:

The identification of genes involved in psychic abilities has the potential to yield clues about their distribution within the general population and also their evolutionary origins. Such a finding may also have clinical value because it may help inform the development of pharmacological or environmental interventions to enhance or suppress such abilities, and clinical performance applications could be used. Enhancing these abilities could augment decision-making in many contexts, stimulate creativity in art and science, and improve diagnosis of disease, insofar as these faculties and activities may be partly dependent on, or enhanced by, psychic ability.

For example, perhaps telepathic communications could be developed for individuals living with communication disabilities, such as aphasia or cerebral palsy. On the other hand, suppressing these abilities might alleviate psychotic symptoms in some individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, insofar as “disordered” psychic manifestations may be at risk factor in these individuals.

The Takeaway: Studies within the realm of parapsychology, which encompasses the study of various psychic abilities mentioned in this article, are abundant. Many show eye-opening repeatable results. Remote viewing is one of many great examples, showing “successful replication” by yielding “significant scientific evidence.” (source)

The methodology and the controls on these experiments are tighter than any other area of science where I’ve worked. Dr. Dr. Jessica Utts, former Chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of California, Irvine (source)

Again, there are also documented real world examples that defy belief linked earlier within this article, which brings me to my next point. Much of the science produced today, in my opinion, isn’t really following the scientific method. By that I mean discoveries that challenge what we once thought we knew, and ones that have paradigm shifting implications for humanity, are often ignored and unacknowledged. We see this all the time in the field of parapsychology.

“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
 Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)

Why do we fail to properly confront new concepts and ideas that don’t fit within the frame? Studies and results from these realms truly call into question what we think we know about the nature of reality and human potential. They will force humanity to open up to a broader view of reality that currently may not fit within the accepted framework of knowledge in the minds of many. But if there’s one thing that’s constant, it’s change.

Discoveries in this field, I believe, will lead to the realization that love, compassion, thoughts, emotions and service to others are key for humanity to move forward. It’s more than likely that this is the true nature of human beings, not competition and separation.

These must be our priority, we have to change the way we think here on planet Earth. If we continue to operate from a place of greed, ego, and have a lust for power, control and material wealth, which are cultural learnings, not necessarily our nature, we will not move forward to a thriving world. Non-material science has the potential to change the way we perceive the world, and ask the deeper questions like, why do we live the way we do when we can create a human experience where everybody can thrive? How can a race that is so intelligent and technologically advanced be so politically and morally corrupt?

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

WHO Data Shows Ivermectin Reduces COVID Mortality By 81%, But They Won’t Recommend It?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 5 minute read
(Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, file)

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The World Health Organization's own data shows use of safe and inexpensive drug called ivermectin could have reduced COVID mortality by 81%, but they still won't endorse it and are instead recommending vaccinations.

  • Reflect On:

    If global health officials truly cared about saving lives, would they be holding back on information about these drugs? Is it even possible to accept such an idea that they may not be acting in people's best interests?

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.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, there is ample evidence to support a completely different approach to treating COVID-19, yet it’s being ignored. We would likely not need any potentially harmful lockdowns, expensive drugs or vaccines if we used these treatments – and this might be exactly why they are not being talked about.

What Happened: Last week the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its guidelines on COVID-19 and the drugs that go with treating it. A drug we’ve reported on in Dec 2020 called Ivermectin, shows, via meta-analysis, that an 81% drop in mortality was seen in those treated with Ivermectin as opposed to standard care. This also came with a 64% decrease in hospitalizations. These are powerful numbers given what’s happening in our world with COVID, yet the WHO still refuses to endorse ivermectin as it feels confidence is low in how effective Ivermectin might be.

“The issue with the Ivermectin is that based on initial study and the currently available data, it is not strong enough for us to advocate the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID or prevention of COVID,” said WHO representative to the Philippines Rabindra Abeyasinghe.

He further goes on to state that without strong evidence they might be providing false confidence to the public. While this is understandable, it seems given how much is known about how safe and effective Ivermectin is, it’s likely not going to provide unreasonable hopefulness. Interestingly, the WHO hasn’t had a problem recommending highly experimental and not fully proven vaccines to the public, with no fear of giving them overconfidence. Why is this the case?

Ivermectin is useful in guarding against COVID-19 infection as well.

Why It Matters: Ivermectin is not a new drug that we know little about. To date, there have been 49 studies looking at the drug, and 26 of them were randomized controlled trials, showing that ivermectin works to treat COVID-19.

Back in December of 2020, multiple physician specialists were urging the CDC to look at Ivermectin as they had clinically seen it was  a powerful treatment for COVID-19, yet this fell on deaf ears.

The pooled results of Ivermectin/COVID studies show an 80% improvement when used early, 89% when used as prophylaxis, and even a 50% improvement at late stages of contraction. You might be wondering why such a safe, long used and well understood drug is not being used while experimental vaccines are – you are right to wonder this. In the US, the FDA has not yet approved the vaccines and no vaccine company will be held liable for damages caused to citizens. Unlike ivermectin, the vaccines also have zero long term safety studies associated with them.

William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura discovered ivermectin as a cure to river blindness and received a Nobel Prize for their work in 2015. Here is an excerpt from the press release of the Nobel Assembly:

“Today the Avermectin-derivative Ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. Ivermectin is highly effective against a range of parasites, has limited side effects and is freely available across the globe. The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable. Treatment is so successful that these diseases are on the verge of eradication, which would be a major feat in the medical history of humankind.”

Disease nearly eradicated without vaccines? Interesting. Perhaps COVID’s story could be the same if there was greater coverage of this potential use case. What’s a bit concerning is there has been virtually no legitimate investigation by mainstream media to bring forth the controversy around how ivermectin is being ignored. This is important to mention as with such a huge percentage of the population relying on mainstream media for their news, not covering this story is changing the overall public perception and one could argue MSM is not doing their job.

The Takeaway: There are a number of treatments that are promising in treating COVID-19, and quickly, supplements like vitamin D or effective doses of IV Vitamin C, but instead mainstream consensus is to ignore these treatments, cast doubt on them, throw a mask on everyone and urge people to take experimental vaccines. When people question why this is the case and why other treatments are being ignored, they are gaslit and called conspiracy theorists.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting this is a miracle cure, I’m suggesting that in a culture that is deeply fearing a disease, it seems hypocritical to ignore a safe a potentially highly effective drug while promoting an experimental vaccine.

Hypocrisy is apparent in our current situation, and while not everything is certain and clear when it comes to COVID-19, what is clear is that there is a lack of honesty and transparency around why certain decisions are made, and people are noticing.

As we’ve said before, lack of trust in governing institutions is not the result of crazy online conspiracies, it’s the result of people becoming more aware of actions being taken by these institutions that don’t make sense.

The WHO lists ivermectin as one of its Model List of Essential Medicines for 2019 as it is so effective against parasitic infections and has a long standing track record of safety, yet all of a sudden we can’t use it against COVID. To not ask why this is happening might be irresponsible.

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!