Connect with us

Awareness

Study Outlines Why Antidepressant Drugs Could Be Completely Useless & Harmful

Published

on

Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin in the brain. Indeed, their supposed effectiveness is the primary evidence for the chemical imbalance theory. But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect. Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin. Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit. Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind. The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

advertisement - learn more

Irving Kirsch offered the above information in a publication obtained from the US National Library of Medicine. He is the Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies and a Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School. He is also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Universities of Hull and Plymouth in the United Kingdom, and a few others in the United States.  Needless to say, he’s done a lot of research, and his revelations above should be read by anybody taking, or considering taking, antidepressant drugs.

The Effectiveness of Anti-Depressant Drugs Compared To Placebo

In a 2002 study conducted by Kirsch and his team of researchers, published in The American Psychological Association’s Prevention & Treatment, it was discovered that 80 percent of the effect of antidepressants, as measured in clinical trials, could be attributed to the placebo effect. The difference between the response of the drugs and the response of the placebo was less than two points on average on a clinical scale that goes from fifty to sixty points. This is a very small difference, and is, according Kirsch, clinically meaningless:

I assumed that antidepressants were effective. As a psychotherapist, I sometimes referred my severely depressed clients for prescriptions of antidepressant drugs. Sometimes the condition of my clients improved when they began taking antidepressants; sometimes it did not. When it did, I assumed it was the effect of the drug that was making them better. Given my long standing interest in the placebo effect, I should have known better, but back then I did not.

Analyzing the data we had found, we were not surprised to find a substantial placebo effect on depression. What surprised us was how small the drug effect was. Seventy-five percent of the improvement in the drug group also occurred when people were give dummy pills with no active ingredient in them.  (source)

The response from critics was harsh, who emphasized that antidepressants have been evaluated in many trials and their effectiveness well documented.

advertisement - learn more

“Unpublished Data That That Were Hidden By Drug Companies”

The idea that scientific literature has firmly established the benefits of antidepressants has lost all credibility, thanks in large part to Kirsch and his team. They used the Freedom of Information Act to request that the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) send data that pharmaceutical companies had sent to it for the process of obtaining approval for multiple antidepressants, which accounted for the bulk of antidepressant prescriptions at the time.  As a result, the researchers were able to obtain data on both published and unpublished trials:

 This turned out to be very important. Almost half of the clinical trials sponsored by the drug companies have not been published (Melander, Ahlqvist-Rastad, Meijer, & Beermann, 2003Turner, Matthews, Linardatos, Tell, & Rosenthal, 2008). The results of the unpublished trials were known only to the drug companies and the FDA, and most of them failed to find a significant benefit of drug over placebo. . . .  [T]he data in the FDA files were the basis upon which the medications were approved. In that sense they have a privileged status. If there is anything wrong with those trials, the medications should not have been approved in the first place. (source)

All in all, the data sent to the researchers by the FDA showed that only 43% of the trials showed a statistically significant  benefit of drug over placebo. The remaining 57% were failed or negative trials.

Many other studies have also demonstrated just how ineffective antidepressants are, as well as how often that fact is obscured by pharmaceutical companies. What’s worse, studies have since determined that anti-depressants can cause real harm to those who take them, and this information is often withheld, too. For example, a study published in The British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen revealed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and Lead Author of the study, noted that they “found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them,” revealing that she was “actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if [they] had the complete data.”

Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London, elaborates:

[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and from the basis of decisions about licensing.

This is precisely why, as I have mentioned many times in previous articles, Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-In-Chief of one of the most reputable peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, boldly described most published scientific literature as untrue. (source)

Marcia Angell, a physician who spent two decades as the Editor-In-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, puts it equally as bluntly:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much o 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. (source)

Unfortunately, it’s not just antidepressants. A few years ago, Lucia Tomljenovic, a PhD in biochemistry and a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, 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. 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.” (source)

Now, vaccines are a completely different topic, but the point to be made here is that pharmaceutical companies withhold critical data from physicians, researchers, and the general public. They are motivated by profit, and when pitted against consumer safety, profit always wins.

“The Serotonin Theory is as Close as Any Theory in the History of Science to Having Been Proved Wrong.”

I have written about this many times before, and it’s only fitting that I do so now as well. Is the chemical imbalance theory of depression really true, or is it just a tool used to push more drugs onto the market? After all, antidepressant drugs are the most commonly prescribed drugs in North America. Pharmaceutical companies are bringing in billions of dollars every single year from the sale of antidepressant drugs alone, and they also spend billions of dollars marketing and advertising their products.

Joseph Coyle, a neuroscientist from Harvard Medical School, sums it up best, writing that “chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking. It’s much more complicated than that.” And it’s true; depression is much more complicated than that, at least compared to the commonly accepted belief that depression results from a chemical imbalance in the brain. This idea was posed in the late 1950s and has since taken hold in everyone’s minds. It’s the general idea that a deficiency of select neurotransmitters exists (chemical messengers) at critical points, like synapses. One of these neurotransmitters, for example, is serotonin; others include norepinephrine and dopamine.

As Scientific American reports, “much of the general public seems to have accepted the chemical imbalance hypothesis uncritically,” and that “it is very likely that depression stems from influences other than neurotransmitter abnormalities.” (source)

Harvard Medical School put out a press release a few years ago stating that it’s “often said that depression results from a chemical imbalance, but that figure of speech doesn’t capture how complex the disease is.”  (source)

Of course, there are brain events and biochemical reactions occurring when someone feels depressed, as there are all the time, but no research has ever established that a particular brain state causes, or even correlates with, depression. . . . In all cases studies yield inconsistent results, and none have been shown to be specific to depression, let alone causal. 

The fact that more than 50 years of intense research efforts have failed to identify depression in the brain may indicate that we simply lack the right technology, or it may suggest we have been barking up the wrong tree!

Dr. Joanna Moncrieff,  British Psychiatrist, Author (source)

The most commonly cited evidence to support the chemical imbalance theory is simply that some drugs have been shown to increase and decrease mood in human and animal models, and yes — many antidepressants increase the amounts of serotonin and other neurotransmitters at synapses, but what we fail to realize today is, just because mood can be artificially manipulated with drugs, does not mean the chemical imbalance theory is true. Just because these antidepressants do increase and decrease certain chemical levels in the brain does not prove the chemical imbalance theory of depression.

We simply can’t currently determine if a human being has a chemical imbalance (to whatever extent) or say what neurotransmitters are involved, which is why the chemical imbalance theory of depression remains a theory. It’s not like chemical levels in the brain can accurately be measured or ‘looked at,’ either.

Yet much of the general public still accepts the chemical imbalance theory. Indeed, a survey conducted in 2007 of 262 undergraduates at Cleveland State University found that more than 80 percent of the participants found it “likely” that chemical imbalances cause depression.

“At best, drug-induced affective disturbances can only be considered models for natural disorders, while it remains to be demonstrated that the behavioral changes produced by these drugs have any relation to naturally occurring biochemical abnormalities which might be associated with the illness.” (source)

Keep in mind, as Harvard Medical School points out, there are probably many chemicals involved, working both inside and outside of our nerve cells: “There are millions, even billions, of chemical reactions that make up the dynamic system that is responsible for your mood, perceptions, and how you experience life.”

“The cause of mental disorders such as depression remains unknown. However, the idea that neurotransmitter imbalances cause depression is vigorously promoted by pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatric profession at large.” (source)

Again, theories like the low serotonin one came into existence because scientists were able to observe the effects of drugs on the brain. It was a hypothesis that attempted to explain how drugs could be fixing something, yet whether or not depressed people actually had lower serotonin levels actually remains to be proven. You can read more about the science here.

“The serotonin theory is simply not a scientific statement. It’s a botched theory – a hypothesis that was proven incorrect.” – Dr. Joseph Mercola (source)

Not only is there no solid scientific proof to back up the chemical imbalance theory, many depressed people are not even helped by taking antidepressants like SSRIs. For example, a review done by the University of California in 2009 found that one third of people treated with antidepressants do not improve, and a significant portion of these people remain depressed. As Scientific American observes, “if antidepressants correct a chemical imbalance that underlies depression, all or most depressed people should get better after taking them.”

Depression has one focus, brain chemistry, even though it is a multifaceted issue involving many concerns and many chemicals. Focusing on this one chemical imbalance theory, and then dishing out drugs that actually alter brain chemistry, is shortsighted and dangerous.

“In spite of the enormous amount of money and time that has been spent on the quest to confirm the chemical imbalance theory, direct proof has never materialized.”  (source)

The irony of this situation is hopefully not lost on everyone. The only imbalances we know for sure to exist in the brains of ‘mentally ill’ people are the ones inflicted on them by psychiatric drugs. We are making a false claim that they have biochemical imbalances and then actually giving them biochemical imbalances based on that claim.

For some natural ways to combat depression. You can read THIS article. 

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

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

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Multiple Scientists Explain How A Diet High In Protein Is NOT Good For Us – Even After Working Out

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The idea that we need to consume as much protein that is recommended to us by federal health regulatory agencies is not backed by much evidence. On the contrary, there is evidence suggesting that these guidelines are too high.

  • Reflect On:

    How truthful have our federal health regulatory agencies been? How much influence have big food corporations had on them? Has protein been used as a marketed tool? Is as much recommended really healthy, or unhealthy?

Protein is an extremely important and necessary component of every single cell in our bodies. Our bodies use protein for a number of things, from building muscle to repairing tissue, making enzymes, hormones and various other body chemicals. It’s essential, and we need it. But just as with anything else, too much of something can be detrimental, and this seems to be the case with protein. Even the recommended intake of approximately 60 grams per day for the average male, for example, is being called into question by multiple scientists and health experts.

Where did the idea that we need so much protein come from? Why do people take protein shakes after a workout? Why are vegans and vegetarians stigmatized with the idea that they do not get enough protein? Where did this type of thinking come from?

Protein is a huge money making tool for the food industry. It’s a great marketing tool, especially towards athletes and bodybuilders. The body building/athletic market alone provides a huge incentive to use protein as a marketing tool to drive up sales. But again, where is the science? Why do bodybuilders believe they need enormous amounts of protein to build muscle instead of just using food, and why aren’t we educated about the dangers of over-consuming protein?

For those of you who have looked into fasting, you know that multiple studies on fasting have shown extremely beneficial effects, from triggering autophagy and in turn repairing damaged DNA, to killing cancer cells and increasing longevity, to greatly reducing the risk of several different age-related diseases like Alzheimer’s  and Parkinson’s disease.

It was through my research into fasting where I came across, multiple times, the importance of a low-protein diet and how vital it is to retain the effects of fasting as well as good overall health.

Calorie restriction (CR) extends life span and retards age-related chronic diseases in a variety of species, including rats, mice, fish, flies, worms, and yeast. The mechanism or mechanisms through which this occurs are unclear.

advertisement - learn more

The quote above is from a review of literature that’s more than 10 years old. The work presented here is now showing some of these mechanisms that were previously unclear. Fast forward to today and we know a lot more.

A study published in the June 5, 2014 issue of Cell Stem Cell by researchers from the University of Southern California showed that cycles of prolonged fasting protect against immune system damage and, moreover, induce immune system regeneration. They concluded that fasting shifts stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal. It triggers stem cell based regeneration of an organ or system. (source)

There is so much literature on fasting and its benefits available for anybody who is curious. It’s easy to dive into the research through a scholarly search on Google, and there are multiple Youtube videos at your disposal of interviews with the scientists who are publishing these papers.

So, where does protein come in? Well, lower protein intake as well as fasting are correlated with a major reduction of IGF1 growth hormone.

A 2015 study published in Cell Metabolism is one of multiple studies that points out:

Mice and humans with Growth Hormone Receptor/IGF-1 deficiencies display major reductions in age-related diseases. Because protein restriction reduces GHR-IGF-1 activity, we examined links between protein intake and mortality. Respondents (n=6,381) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.

Before we go any further, I’d like to emphasize that there is a lot of literature suggesting that plant protein is far more beneficial than animal protein. I go into more detail and provide more sources in the articles linked below:

Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body?

Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer.”

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat

What about athletes and bodybuilders?

Who’s had this kind of protein intake before me? Nobody, right? So before these modern generations and all this push on protein nobody had a very high protein diet, not like this. So of course then that is, there is a danger of that we published a few years ago (referenced above), you know, three/four fold increase in cancer risk, seventy five percent increase in overall mortality. The mouse studies [and] the human studies, a great majority of them are negative for for high protein, and then if you look at the reasons for why they’re negative, well one of the things high protein controls is growth hormone and IGF1, and this pathway and axis really controls the growth and proliferation of cells. – Dr. Valter Longo, biogerontologist and cell biologist, one of the leading experts in the world regarding health science, longevity and the biological effects of fasting. (source)

Dr. Longo goes on to explain, as he references in his study above, that low protein intake means more longevity and more protection from diseases. In multiple interviews he recommends cutting in half your protein intake if you follow the daily recommended guidelines by health food authorities, I have also heard him say that after a heavy, strong workout, maybe only 30 grams, is required to build muscle.

If we look at the proliferation of multiple age-related diseases and cancers, the rates are extremely high and increasing. Could over-consumption of protein, among other reasons, have something to do with it?

Russel Henry Chittenden (1856-1943) looked into this issue in depth, before the mass marketing of high protein diets. He published 144 scientific papers as well as a text on protein requirements (Chittenden, 1904) that focused specifically on minimal protein requirements while resting or exercising.

Chittenden actually experimented on himself, and when he significantly decreased his protein intake, his health remained excellent without compromising any physical vigor or muscle. In this experiment he had less than 1 g per kg daily. He also did the same in a year long study, but with multiple athletic men in great health. They were also given the same low protein diet, and also suffered no deterioration of health or the ability to perform physical tasks. According to his research, even without a large protein intake, individuals were able to maintain their health and fitness levels.

In presenting the results of the experiments, herein described, the writer has refrained from entering into lengthy discussions, preferring to allow the results mainly to speak for themselves. They are certainly sufficiently convincing and need no superabundance of words to give them value; indeed, such merit as the book possesses is to be found in the large number of consecutive results, which admit of no contradiction and need no argument to enhance their value. The results are presented as scientific facts, and the conclusions they justify are self-evident. (source)

The bottom line? We don’t need as much protein as we’ve been made to believe.

Related CE Article: Fasting Does Not Burn Muscle: Here’s The Proof

The Takeaway

Personally, I’ve been experimenting with gaining muscle this year without any specific focus on protein post-workout, and I am gaining muscle instead of losing muscle. My gains are as strong as they were when I was in my late teens when I was really into bodybuilding. Right now, I am eating normal food, on a vegan diet, with half the amount of protein that’s recommended (less than 0.8 grams per 1 kilogram of body weight). My experience matches up with the information that’s been shared above.

Over-protein consumption seems to have been the result of food industry marketing. Why has nobody ever asked for any type of scientific proof or experiments when it coms to how much protein the human body requires? Why have we simply believed that a diet high in protein is an absolute necessity, simply based on the fact that we know protein from food is necessary? Why didn’t we ask for proof until now?

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

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

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Lyme Disease: The CDC’s Greatest Coverup & What They Don’t Want You To Know

Published

on

Image by Catkin from Pixabay

Lyme disease, do you have it? If you did, you probably wouldn’t know – unless you’re one of the chronic sufferers that have had to visit over 30 doctors to get a proper diagnosis. Lyme disease tests are highly inaccurate, often inconclusive or indicating false negatives.

Why? Because this clever bacteria has found a way to dumb down the immune system and white blood cells so that it’s not detectable until treatment is initiated. To diagnose Lyme properly you must see a “Lyme Literate MD (LLMD),” however, more and more doctors are turning their backs on patients due to sheer fear of losing their practices! Insurance companies and the CDC will do whatever it takes to stop Chronic Lyme Disease from being diagnosed, treated, or widely recognized as an increasingly common issue.

Lyme is considered by the medical field to “only” transmit by way of a tick infected with bacteria. However, the CDC itself admits it is under-reported, and believes there are between 300,000 to half a million new cases each year. That makes Lyme disease almost twice as common as breast cancer and six times more common than HIV/AIDS. Where are all of these new cases coming from? (It’s interesting to note that since Avril Lavigne recently went public with her Chronic Lyme Disease battle, mainstream news outlets like The Daily Mail have been mentioning Lyme can be transmitted by mosquitoes, too!)

lyme-disease-tick

When Lyme isn’t detected in the early stages, it becomes Chronic Lyme, a condition which the CDC and IDSA both deny even exists. They will continue to deny it, because if there’s one thing insurance companies hate, it’s chronic disorders they have to spend time and money treating. Therefore, a panel with ties to insurance companies gathered to write up official Lyme guidelines that assure patients are only allowed a few weeks of antibiotic treatment and are not to be diagnosed with Chronic Lyme Disease (even if clear symptoms persist and invade the nervous system). Over half of the panelists who wrote the IDSA Lyme guidelines announcing that Chronic Lyme is not real — including the panel chairman — have obvious conflicts of interest including financial interests in drug companies, diagnostic tests, and patents, as well as consulting agreements with insurance companies. Researchers and scientists with evidence in support of Chronic Lyme were intentionally excluded from the panel. Because of these unjust Lyme guidelines, insurance companies have the “right” to deny coverage for the treatment of long-term Lyme disease. Doctors have even lost their practices for successfully diagnosing and treating Chronic Lyme, as shown in the film Under Our Skin. In the case of Dr. Joseph Jemsek of North Carolina, he not only lost his license, but also his livelihood. Dr. Jemsek can no longer practice simply because he gave antibiotics to Chronic Lyme sufferers, and was then sued by BCBS for 100 million dollars, following which he had to declare bankruptcy. You can read his closing remarks to the NC Medical Board just before they pulled his license here. You can also watch his story in the documentary at the end of this post.

Busted – Big Pharma bucks taint the IDSA

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal investigated the IDSA panel members for possible violation of antitrust laws and conflicts of interest.

advertisement - learn more

Of the 14 panel authors of the first edition guidelines: 6 of them or their universities held patents on Lyme or its co-infections, 4 received funding from Lyme or co-infection test kit manufacturers, 4 were paid by insurance companies to write Lyme policy guidelines or consult in Lyme legal cases, and 9 received money from Lyme disease vaccine manufacturers. Some of the authors were involved in more than one conflict of interest. (Source: ‘Under Our Skin [2008])

Study: Strong Evidence Of Sexual Transmission

The bacteria that causes Lyme disease is Borrelia burgdorferi, a type of corkscrew-shaped bacteria known as a spirochete. The Lyme spirochete is a cousin to Treponema pallidum, the spirochete that causes syphilis.

Dr. Alan MacDonald, MD who appears in the documentary ‘Under Our Skin’ (2008), says in the film that he found found Borrelia (Lyme) DNA in 7 out of 10 postmortem Alzheimers patients’ brains. This makes perfect sense, since syphilis, its cousin, also invades the brain in tertiary or neurosyphilis. Dr. Klinghardt, MD (also quoted from ‘Under Our Skin’) stated that he’s “never had a single patient with Alzheimer’s, ALS, Parkinson’s Disease or Multiple Sclerosis who tested negative for Borrelia.”


Dr. Alan MacDonald, MD talks about Lyme.

Why are so many people suffering from Lyme disease and its allegedly associated chronic disorders, such as Alzheimers and ALS? A new study suggests that just like its spirochete cousin that causes syphilis, Lyme disease may be sexually transmitted! The study was presented at the annual Western Regional Meeting of the American Federation for Medical Research, and an abstract of the research was published in the January issue of the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Medical Daily reports,

The study — presented at the annual Western Regional Meeting of the American Federation for Medical Research — a collaborative effort by an international team of scientists — tested semen samples and vaginal secretions of three groups of patients to investigate whether passing Lyme disease to a partner through unprotected sex is a possibility. The study observed control subjects without evidence of Lyme disease, random subjects who tested positive for Lyme disease, and married heterosexual couples engaging in unprotected sex who tested positive for the disease. The presence of B. burgdorferi and identical strains of the bacterium were of particular interest to the researchers in unprotected sex in spouses.

The control subjects were found to test negative for the bacterium in semen samples or vaginal secretions, as expected by the researchers. The researchers found traces of B. burgdorferi in the vaginal secretions of all women with Lyme disease. In contrast, approximately half of the men with the disease tested positive for the bacterium in semen samples. In addition, one of the heterosexual couples with Lyme disease were found to have identical strains of the bacterium in their genital secretions.

One researcher in the study notes, “There is always some risk of getting Lyme disease from a tick bite in the woods. But there may be a bigger risk of getting Lyme disease in the bedroom.”

“Our findings will change the way Lyme disease is viewed by doctors and patients,” said Marianne Middelveen, lead author of the study. “It explains why the disease is more common than one would think if only ticks were involved in transmission.” But will this actually change the way Lyme disease is viewed? Or will the money funneled in by insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers continue to blind and corrupt the IDSA board members? When is enough, enough?

The study was a joint effort by a team of scientists which included dermatologists, molecular biologists, microbiologists, internists, and family practitioners. The most revealing aspect of the study, in my opinion, is the fact I mentioned earlier: one of the heterosexual couples with Lyme disease showed identical strains of the Lyme spirochete in their genital secretions. “The presence of the Lyme spirochete in genital secretions and identical strains in married couples strongly suggests that sexual transmission of the disease occurs,” said Dr. Mayne.

Gestational Transmission From Mother To Child

From LymeDisease.org:

A North Carolina State University researcher has discovered that Bartonella (a common Lyme co-infection) can be passed to unborn babies, causing chronic infections and possibly birth defects. Dr. Ed Breitschwerdt and his research group tested blood and tissue samples taken over a period of years from a mother, father and son who had suffered chronic illnesses for over a decade. Autopsy samples from their daughter–the son’s twin who died shortly after birth–contained DNA evidence of B. henselae and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffi infection, which was also found in the other members of the family. Breitschwerdt’s research appears online in the April 14 Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

You can read a transcript of one of Breitschwerdt’s interviews on Bartonella here.

Multiple Strains Of Lyme?

In 2002, W.T. Harvey, an MD from Houston, began finding large numbers of chronically ill Borrelia burgdorferi PCR- and seropositive patients in the area around his home and practice. Houston, Texas is declared a zoonotically “non-endemic” area, so he set out to understand just how this epidemic was occurring. W.T. Harvey had no competing financial interest (as the CDC and IDSA do) and received no grants when writing his study on Lyme.

“In order to understand this finding prior to sufficient data availability, we chose to examine critically the currently accepted but troublesome ‘Lyme disease’ concepts,” Harvey’s study reads. “Our method was to analyze each foundation ‘Lyme disease’ premise within the context of available medical and veterinary literature, then to reconstruct the disease model consistent with the preponderance of that data. We find the present conceptualization of the illness seriously truncated, with a high likelihood of two distinct but connected forms of human B. burgdorferi infection. The yet-unrecognized form appears to have a broader clinical presentation, wider geographic distribution, and vastly greater prevalence. We conclude that ‘Lyme disease’ currently acknowledges only its zoonosis arm and is a limited conceptualization of a far more pervasive and unrecognized infection state that must be considered a global epidemic.

Could You Have Lyme From Your Pets?

Suzy Cohen of suzycohen.com is a registered pharmacist and best-selling author. When she graduated from pharmacy school in 1989, she believed that medication was the answer to helping patients get healthy. When that didn’t always work, she began to do some serious research. In one article addressing the truth about Lyme, she writes:

“Most Lyme sufferers have pet cats and dogs, they are not aware that their pets gave it to them. But it happens like this, your pets go out into the yard to do their duty, and ticks jump on them, especially in May and June, their breeding season but any time of the year is possible. Your pet totes these ticks into your house and then you cuddle with your pet. The ticks get on you, and numb your skin. They are teeny tiny, about the size of a poppy seed and you’ll never know you got bit. They like every part of your body, but especially warmer areas, like armpits for example. You may never know. Sometimes the Lyme can happen from a cat scratch or bite. When I ask pet owners about their pets, they go into a bit of denial, because of the great love they have for pets. But you have to realize pets, for as delightful as they are, are tick taxis. If you have Lyme, and get bit again by your pet, you are potentially introducing new coinfections or re-innoculating yourself with more Lyme organisms. It explains why some people just can’t get well, or get setbacks even under treatment.”

Borrelia spirochetes have been found in the urine of infected dogs, among several other animals. Studies on mice have found that the spirochetes in urine remained viable for 18-24 hours and concluded that “[u]rine may provide a method for contact non-tick transmission of B. burgdorferi in natural rodent populations particularly during periods of nesting and/or breeding.” Evidence for direct contact transmission has been demonstrated in mice. These findings suggest that further research is needed to evaluate alternate methods of Lyme transmission, such as by the urine of infected animals to humans. 

Conclusion & How To Learn More:

“Lyme is one of the many microbes that has entered our system. And I feel as a physician that things are getting to a degree that’s serious. We’re watching other mammals die out and just think, ‘well, I’m glad it’s not me.’ However, as our environment becomes increasingly polluted, so do our bodies. And then we grow bugs [parasites, pathogens] in us that are not compatible with human life anymore.” 
Dr. Klinghardt, MD, ‘Under Our Skin’ (2008).
7461400_f520
As Dr. Klinghardt said, this is getting serious. Or as Dr. Harvey put it, this is an epidemic. These patients, along with solid science, are being purposefully ignored because IDSA panelists have been bribed and bought. 

Could you have Lyme? I suspect I might after a series of flea bites in 2011, and I’m almost positive my mother has had it for a very long time. Her doctors are finally thinking the same. This is no shock to me; as Dr. Klinghardt stated above, Lyme is one of the many microbes that has entered our system. We are all exposed to pathogens and parasites on a daily basis, and are never taught anything about how to cleanse or maintain a largely uninhabitable inner environment (hint: a strong immune system)! In fact, I’m on my third parasite cleanse and still passing worms. What else are we housing that we don’t know about? Why is all of this information ignored?

Lyme presents itself in symptoms often misdiagnosed as Crohn’s Disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, ALS, MS, Alzheimer’s, Colitis, Encephalitis, Fibromyalgia, Fifth’s Disease, Arthritis, Cystitis, IBS, Lupus, Prostatitis, Psychiatric Disorders (bipolar, depression), Sjogren’s Syndrome, sleep disorders, thyroid disease, and more.

This is a long list, and the number of people who go misdiagnosed or undiagnosed altogether is staggering. As I said, Lyme and hundreds of other pathogens and parasites have taken up residence in our bodies. We have improved our outer practices of hygiene, yet have increased our sources of autointoxication: GMO foods, processed food-like products, overeating, fluoride in water, and chemicals in everything from household cleaners to plastics – just to name a few.

Please watch “Under Our Skin” to learn more about Chronic Lyme disease and how the medical industry continues to ignore this epidemic. The full documentary is available here with a short preview below.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

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

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written By Kristina Kristen, Guest Writer, for Children's Health Defense, posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    How much do pharmaceutical companies really care about our health? Why is important information on vaccines never acknowledged and countered by the mainstream?

In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.”

The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness.

American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children.

Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies

In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school.

Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuriesover a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category.

Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs:

advertisement - learn more
  • Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay).
  • Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive.
  • Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.
  • Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants.
  • Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine.
  • Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions.

Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms.

U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances?

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months.

Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results

The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba.

If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood?

To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.

Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.

Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits? 

Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injuryfrom the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.

Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?

A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.


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

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

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

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod