Celebrities tend to be very careful when it comes to voicing their opinion on controversial topics. And this caution is understandable — one wrong word to the wrong person can spell the end of a career, as can being labelled a quack for holding fringe beliefs.
Yet the simple fact of celebrity means that their words have the potential to be heard by the entire world, and this power can be used for good or for ill. They really do have the power to influence people’s thoughts, which is a frightening thought.
Most of the time, celebrities are paid to push ideologies and sell products; they paint a picture of how one should strive to be, look, and act, to make us feel as if we weren’t good enough just the way we are. All of this is meant to make us buy things, of course. That is what makes it so refreshing to see celebrities use their influence to raise awareness about important and even controversial topics.
Some of the latest examples include Roseanne Bar, Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Brand, Lady Gaga, and Jim Carey. In fact, it wasn’t long ago when Jim Carey slammed mandatory vaccinations for children enrolled in Californian public schools.
This time, it’s actor Robert De Niro who is taking a stand and lending his star power to an important issue, choosing to defend a film detailing the ‘other side’ of the vaccine debate.
A documentary which explores the possible harmful health outcomes of vaccines, titled Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, was set to premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival this April despite severe public backlash. De Niro has defended his decision to include the film with the following statement:
In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However, this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening Vaxxed. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue. (source)
Filmmaker Penny Lane, who made the documentary Nuts, about a snake oil salesman and medical fraud, had this to say to Rolling Stone Magazine:
While it is true that we documentary filmmakers constantly debate vexing questions about the perceived and real differences between our work and the work of traditional journalism, I assure you that we are not debating whether it is okay to knowingly spread dangerous lies.
Consider how many lies there are in the first 30 seconds of the Vaxxed trailer. Wakefield’s cinematic disregard of the truth means his film should not be called a documentary any more than Loose Change is.
In other words: issues around truth and ethics in documentary can get thorny. But this one is easy. This film is not some sort of disinterested investigation into the “vaccines cause autism” hoax; this film is directed by the person who perpetuated the hoax. (source)
The above statement (by Penny Lane) is, in my opinion, extremely misleading. This is not a hoax, and as Di Niro pointed out, there is plenty of evidence that should be sparking an open discussion about this issue. Many people who support vaccinations constantly point to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a doctor who was accused of medical fraud and falsifying information when he made the connection between vaccines and autism. What most fail to realize is that since this controversy, a huge number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals showing a potential link between vaccines and autism.
As of now, Vaxxed was scheduled to screen on April 24th at the film festival, but, it’s since been pulled. According to the Huffington Post, De Niro said:
After reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca film festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.
The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy. However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.”
Mike Adams from Natural News obtained an interview with the producer of the film, Del Bigtree, who told them that (you can view the interview below):
To watch every major newspaper tell people not to see a movie, a movie they had never seen, is an unprecedented moment in this country. When has that ever happened?
Every major newspaper is saying don’t go see a movie they haven’t watched themselves. What’s next, are they going to tell us to start burning books in the streets? We’ve never seen anything like this.
This is supposed to be a country based on freedom of expression, and our entire media that [claims to] represent speech and expression, is telling everybody to shut down free speech. Journalism is officially DEAD in America.
We have a whistleblower at the CDC who is still sitting at the CDC, an awarded scientist, who is being protected by whistleblower status, and the media is saying we are making things up. They say they’ve debunked the whistleblower, but you can’t debunk someone who hasn’t had his day in court, just like you can’t review a movie you haven’t seen.
The CDC whistleblower he is referring to is Dr. William Thompson, there is more on him below under the “Scientific Fraud’ section. How can we call the complete ignorance and lack of interest to even investigate this topic, science?
Below is an interview with Del:
This is odd, given the fact that he supported the film in the first place, he is the co-founder of the film festival. Perhaps he was pressured to remove it? We don’t know.
Why It’s Obvious There Is Something To Talk About Here
There are a number of reasons why we should be supporting honest and open discussion about vaccinations. Below is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote that goes into more detail. It’s approximately a year old, and since then even more revelations have come out that could be added to it, but I think it’s enough to give you the gist as to why more and more people are starting to question vaccine safety,
At the end of the day, it’s really not about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination” and 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.
And it’s not just parents; doctors have concerns too.
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 outlines how “up to 43 % of GPs sometimes, or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine to their patients.”
The percentages differ because the study was broken down by vaccine and frequency of recommendation. 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 French 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.” (source)
Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science and information, some of which will be presented in this article. This research is nowhere near emphasized to in the same way that pro-vaccine research is. Parents who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children are clearly intelligent, and they should not be made to look like fools. 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. I want to show that, despite the way they are portrayed in mainstream media, these parents aren’t crazy. They are intelligent, well-informed, and concerned for the welfare of their children.
# 1 The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
The idea that vaccines are, in some way, linked at all to autism is most often greeted with a harsh reaction. Some people won’t even entertain the idea, or look at information that suggests there could be a link. Truth is, there are plenty of studies to support this link, or at the very least the possibility of there being 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 peer reviewed publications all the way to 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. (1)
In March of 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, 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 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex and MCO. (2)
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. (3)
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.(4)
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.” (5)
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 (in any way) be linked to autism. But that rejection is usually out of ignorance, and those guilty are parents, people like me and you. It’s our tendency to believe what we are told (usually through mass marketing ) without ever doing the research for ourselves which is the problem.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES COULD BE LINKED TO AUTISM
As I did in the previous section, I will try to start of with a couple of more recent studies. If vaccines aren’t linked to autism, then why are scientists/researchers emphasizing that they could be, and showing that there is a possible link? (Keep in mind the Bradford -Hill Criteria, which is explained in some of the studies.) These studies are contradictory to the ones above, yet conducted by people of 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, Louisiana, and MIT outlines how up until the 1820s, when the industrial extraction of AI 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.” (6)
Biosemiotic entropy is basically 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 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 that:
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. (7)
The paper points out how aluminum could be a culprit in the development of a wide body of neurodegenerative diseases, 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 ).
The paper also points to the fact that brain inflammatory responses have long been recognized as a factor in the etiology of many neurodegenerative diseases like autism; it provides a host of citations for that as well.
They (Dr. Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic) also published a paper in 2011 that was approved for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. They offered the following observations:
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. (8)
Shaw and Seneff also recently published a paper in the journal Immunome Research outlining a lot of evidence pointing to the dangers of aluminum in vaccines. (9)
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. (10)
A paper published in the journal Entropy also identifies “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.” (source)
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. (11)
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. (12) 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. (14)
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. The study 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.” (13)
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. (14)
“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 and the elderly, and to children in developing countries. (15)
“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’’ [emphasis added]. 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 specific publications on the links between vaccinations and autism, refer to the following citations .” – Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine. (source)
For more studies you can refer to these to start off your research.
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.
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.
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 claim a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
It is simply ridiculous for the “pro-vaccine” community to say there is absolutely no link and that vaccines could not be one out of several possible contributing causes to the development of autism.
Concluding Statement About The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
As you can see above, there are many peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals by experts at various institutions 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 which show a potential link to autism – when there are 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.” – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, they can instantly be deemed “conspiracy theorists” or greeted with some sort of rude response that makes them out to be “fools.” 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 actually 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 to be one of the most well 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.” (source)
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 suggests that 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.”
“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.” (16)
A congressional record from May 1, 2003 shows that there could be, and that many scientists themselves believe that there is a high risk of autism as a result of Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Again, this is a congressional report 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. (17)
Insider “whistle-blowers” with verified credentials have also played a role with parents who are concerned about vaccinating their children. This type of thing has been going on for quite a while. 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 alluded to the fact 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 has been in elitist circles and obviously in and around people who’ve held powerful positions, making these comments. Of course these are concerning comments, and to not completely dismiss them as false isn’t a “bad” thing. One of the biggest concerns for parents was the fact that he, in June 2005, authored an article in Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between vaccines and autism. Both of the articles were retracted. (18)(19) 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 “whistle-blower” is not science, it does add to the science that is already there by giving it an “extra leg” so to speak. stuff like this seems to be cropping up every year giving parents more reasons not to vaccinate their children, just as it is cropping up every year giving parents more reasons to vaccinate their children.
We also have statements (hundreds) from scientists and doctors like this one (quote below) which also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Much 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” (considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world). – Dr. Marcia Angell, Physician, Author, Former Editor in Chief of the NEJM (20)
A more recent example (and perhaps one of the biggest) would be long time CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson. In fact, he has authored and co-authored dozens of studies, many of which are commonly pointed out by the “pro-vaccine” movement. A couple of them are actually cited above that show there is no link between vaccines and autism. Just a few months ago this is what he had 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. (22)
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.” (21)
He also alluded to 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.” (23)
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.”(22)
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. At least they admitted that yes, Dr. Thompson did actually blow the whistle:
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. (24)(25)
That being said, he also said this 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. (25)
This brings me to my next point. With regards to the data omitted above, Dr. Thompson made the call to scientist Dr. Brian Hooker (22)(24)(25), who published the real findings which found that there was a 340 percent 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.(26) This is why I am linking it here and not with the studies above (first point).
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. (27) 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.” (28)
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 do so because they have done the research. Most vaccine supporters are completely unaware of this information, which is understandable, since it’s not readily available and certainly not offered in the mainstream. These are just a few of many examples, as I am trying to make this article as short as possible (not easy).
#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; many people really do believe that every vaccine is fine to inject into somebody. Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, they have to go through a long process where parents have to 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 tax payers 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 sheer number of 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, and while some might be completely safe, harmless, and necessary, some might not be.
If we take a look at Gardasil, for example:
“It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” – Dr. Chris Shaw, Professor at the University of British Columbia, in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences.
There have been several documented cases of injury as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. A recent article in the Toronto Star recently brought this issue up as well; you can view that here.
Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper 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. They concluded that:
“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.” (If you are interested you can access the paper here)
They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases which 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, and what I am referring to in a recent article I wrote:
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?
If we look at another example of the literature that’s out there regarding the flu vaccine, just to pick one, 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 outlines 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. (28)
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.
“Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.” (28)
A study published in the Journal of Paediatrics, found that 85 percent of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70 percent in those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood; a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16 percent 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?” Collignon (Director of Infectious Diseases & Microbiology at Australian National University) concluded: “There is poor evidence on how well influenza vaccines prevent any influenza complications in children 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.”
Reports of things like children in Europe developing Narcolepsy after the H1N1 pandemrix vaccine do not help either. There are so many examples, and no doubt these examples contribute significantly 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.
A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International found that:
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. (30)
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. 
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 clearly enough information out there regarding the ingredients in vaccines, throughout this article, that makes a parent look pretty sane for choosing not to vaccinate their baby. At the same time there is a lot of medical research out there that shows the parents who choose to vaccinate their babies are pretty sane as well.(32)
No Safety Assessments Exist (Toxicity Studies) For Vaccine Ingredients, this is another very important point.
For example, aluminum has been 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.(source)
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 states 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 this 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.’ ” (source)
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, not much 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. – Jose G. Dores, Professor at the University of Brasillia’s department of nutritional sciences. (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)
There are numerous studies which have examined aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time. (source)
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, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and Honorary Professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
Related CE Article:
# 6 Vaccine Safety Evidence Is Not Rock Solid. One Size Does Not Fit All.
Forcing a parent to vaccinate their child is not a sound scientific one. 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 established (firmly) in scientific literature (7)(8).
One important point parents often point to is the fact that clinical trials that could address vaccine safety concerns have not been conducted. There are no studies that have been published in these peer reviewed medical journals examining the health outcomes of vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations. The lack of these controlled trials appears to be because vaccines have been assumed to be safe since their inception, which 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, Poland (Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and co-author of “The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists” (33)) and fellow researchers ask whether “with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,” it is time to consider “how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?” They concluded that “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, which is important to consider. (34)(35)
Here is a related video explaining why vaccines should not be considered completely safe.
Again, can you really blame parents with all of this information out there?
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. The reason I wrote this article was to help shed light on why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. This side is so rarely discussed. There are so many documents and so much peer-reviewed scientific literature alluding to adverse events after vaccination and the dangers associated with vaccinations. It appears that the risks associated with them are far greater than what we have been told, and an unnecessary amount of pressure is placed on parents to vaccinate their children.
Too many people are uninformed, and might make a comment such as “what about the polio vaccine” and completely ignore all of the relevant information in this article. They might not know things like in 1977 Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the US 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 US today. I am not sourcing this little tidbit here 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 how a parent could ever be made to look like a “fool” for choosing not to vaccinate their child. It’s also not even a fraction of the amount of information out there that goes into history, more science, fraud, and more. I cannot do your research for you. 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.
(32) Tomljenovic, L. and Shaw, C.A. (2011) One-size fits all? Vaccine. 2012; 30(12):2040.9
We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.
So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.Watch the interview here.
Media Misses Key Detail On Recent Trump GMO/Pesticide Ban ‘Lifting’, Here’s Why
- The Facts:
Trump's administration recently released a memo cancelling a 2014 Obama-era memo about GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticide use. The media covered this story as a 'lifting of a ban' on GMOs, yet that's not what either memo says.
- Reflect On:
Why are we still leaving the door open for GMO and pesticide use in both administrations? Why is the media, across the whole board here, using any story possible to put people against the current administration? Has the deep state lost control?
In early August, Trump’s administration released a new memo from the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the 2014 version of the memo, out of Obama’s administration would be cancelled and the terms of the new memo would now be in place.
The memo was in reference to a GMO and neonicotinoid bans that put in place to help protect the bee population and wildlife refuges. The 2014 memo was a positive step forward as it was publicly stating, even at higher governmental levels, that GMOs were harmful to agriculture and wildlife, as were neonics. This initial memo was coined a GMO and neonics ban, even though the language in the memo doesn’t actually say that.
Before we continue, we recognize and have painstakingly covered, the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides and GMOs on our environment and wildlife. We have called for an all-out ban, based on our research, numerous times over the last 6 years and still hold completely strong to that truth.
What is discussed in both of these memos in regards to how to go about using pesticides and GMOs are NOT safe for our environment and wildlife. The fact that both administrations are leaving the door open for use is not in humanities best interest.
The 2014 Memo
Specifically, the 2014 Obama-era memo states that when it comes to both GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides, they can be used on a case by case basis when refuge managers request such and the case is brought through the proper channels of approval.
Below is a piece of that memo, which can also be viewed here, referring to the requested use of neonics.
When it came to the subject of GMOs in the 2014 memo, Obama’s administration made their stance very clear as well:
In both cases, we see that it was never an all-out ban, but simply an open door where neonicotinoid pesticide use and GMO use to be requested and reviewed on a case by case basis.
Now let’s have a look at the 2018 memos that resulted in media coverage alluding to a ‘lifting of the GMO and neonic ban’ put in place by the Obama administration.
“The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted.” Reuters
The 2018 Memo
When referring to GMOs, the 2018 memo states:
And when speaking about neonicotinoid pesticides the 2018 memo states:
As you can see once again in both cases, the language is the same. There was never an all-out ban in place, and all uses will be based on approval on a case by case basis.
What Media Coverage In This Way?
When we initially printed this story, we only had access to the 2018 memo that was recently released. Based on widespread media coverage and the memo itself, it appeared as though this was, in fact, a lifting of the ban. But once we got our hands on the 2014 memo from the Obama admin, it became clear this was the same language, and that the media was now weaponizing this story against Trump’s administration.
You may follow CE’s work a lot, or you may be new to it, we are politically neutral and do not side with political parties in any way. We report on what ACTUALLY happens, not a slanted angle based on a political agenda. In that perspective, we are not attached to events but can instead see how they play into a big picture.
With that said, why did the media cover this story in a manner that was so damning to the Trump administration?
We have been reporting on the fact that from our observation, experience, and analysis, as well as our conversations with contacts we have connected to the intelligence communities, we feel that Trump has come into this space as an outsider to the specific cabal/deep state group that has been in control for many many decades. This was the cabal group that would have put Hillary in place if there wasn’t a divide taking place in the intelligence community that had the plan flipped. You can learn about that in detail here.
Leading up to the election, and since he has been POTUS, Trump has been all out attacked by every single news station, with the exception of FOX, in a big way – an unprecedented happenstance. Since we know that only 5 corporations own all of the US media, and these 5 corporations are tied to powerful elite within the deep state, it would begin to seem like a war on an outsider more than anything else. Again, a detail we have covered in depth over the last 2 years as many examples of this have surfaced.
Below is a video that dives into this story and the deep state involvement in more detail, but the thing to note here is, we must step beyond identity politics and siding with a political party in general if we want to see the truth of our world and begin to change it. This is the illusion being set forth to divide us and keep us from unifying under a deep understanding. Before we react to and believe much of what is coming out of the mainstream media today, we must recognize this deeper war taking place here and dig deeper to find the truth.
We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.
So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.Watch the interview here.
World’s Largest Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link
- The Facts:
A groundbreaking study shows the strong connection between Cell Phone towers and cancer. It's one of many showing how electromagnetic radiation is harming human health at an exponential rate, and another example of industry trumps science.
- Reflect On:
There are thousands of scientists creating awareness about this, but the industry has become so powerful that they can do whatever they want. How are they allowed to continue when we have definitive proof of harmful health effects? What's going on?
Scientists call on the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer to re-evaluate the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation after the Ramazzini Institute and US government studies report finding the same unusual cancers.
I am posting this article with the permission of Environmental Health Trust and can be found online at ehtrust.org.
(Washington, DC) – Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy announced that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer. A $25 million study of much higher levels of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has also reported finding the same unusual cancer called Schwannoma of the heart in male rats treated at the highest dose. In addition, the RI study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats and precancerous conditions including Schwann cells hyperplasia in both male and female rats.
The study findings are making headline news. Read the Corriere Di Bologna article “Cellulari, a study by Ramazzini: “They cause very rare tumours.”
“Our findings of cancerous tumours in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumours of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans,” said Fiorella Belpoggi Ph.D., study author and RI Director of Research.
The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.
“All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according to the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding,” explained Ronald Melnick Ph.D., formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). “Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures.”
“This important article from one of the most acclaimed institutions of its kind in the world provides a major new addition to the technical literature indicating strong reasons for concern about electromagnetic radiation from base stations or cell towers,” stated Editor in Chief of Environmental Research Jose Domingo PhD, Professor of Toxicology, School of Medicine at Reus University, Catalonia, Spain.
“The US NTP results combined now with the Ramazzini study, reinforce human studies from our team and others providing clear evidence that RF radiation causes acoustic neuromaa (vestibular schwannoma) and gliomas, and should be classified carcinogenic to humans,” stated Lennart Hardell MD, PhD, physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on environmental causes of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.
“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus Anthony B. Miller MD, Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of Canada and the UK, and Senior Medical Advisor to EHT who is also a long-term advisor to the World Health Organization.
“This study raises concerns that simply living close to a cell tower will pose threats to human health. Governments need to take measures to reduce exposures from cell tower emissions. Cell towers should not be near schools, hospitals or people’s homes. Public health agencies need to educate the public on how to reduce exposure from all sources of wireless radiofrequency radiation—be it from cell towers or cell phones or Wi-Fi in schools,” stated David O. Carpenter MD, former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. “This is particularly urgent because of current plans to place small 5G cell towers about every 300 meters in every street across the country. These 5G ‘small cell’ antennas will result in continuous exposure to everyone living nearby and everyone walking down the street. The increased exposures will increase risk of cancer and other diseases such as electro-hypersensitivity.”
You can listen to the full press conference below:
Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds, and their study design is unique in that animals are allowed to live until their natural deaths in order to allow detection of late-developing tumors. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age. This longer observation period has allowed the RI to detect such later-occurring tumors for a number of chemicals, and their published research includes studies of benzene, xylenes, mancozeb, formaldehyde and vinyl chloride.
The Ramazzini research results come in the wake of similar findings from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) large-scale experimental studies on cell phone radiation. Both studies found statistically significant increases in the development of the same type of very rare and highly malignant tumor in the heart of male rats—schwannomas.
“This publication is a serious cause for concern,” stated Annie J. Sasco MD, DrPH, SM, MPH, retired Director of Research at the INSERM (French NIH) and former Unit Chief at the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, France, who commented that, “some of the results are not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of animals involved. Yet, that does not mean they should be ignored. Larger studies could turn out statistically significant results and in any event statistical significance is just one aspect of the evaluation of the relation between exposure and disease. Biological significance and concordance of results between humans and animals clearly reinforces the strength of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The facts that both experimental studies found the same types of rare tumours, which also have pertinence to the human clinical picture, is striking,”
“Such findings of effects at very low levels are not unexpected,” stated Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president of EHT, pointing to a Jacobs University replication animal study published in 2015 that also found very low levels of RFR promoted tumour growth. “This study confirms an ever-growing literature and provides a wake-up call to governments to enact protective policy to limit exposures to the public and to the private sector to make safe radiation-free technology available.”
In January 2017 at an international conference co-sponsored by Environmental Health Trust and the Israel Institute for Advanced Study at Hebrew University, Fiorella Belpoggi PhD, Director of Research at the Ramazzini Institute, presented the study design and the findings that RFR-exposed animals had significantly lower litter weights. Belpoggi’s presentation and slides are available online. The Ramazzini findings of lower litter weights are consistent with the NTP study, which also found lower litter weights in prenatally exposed animals. At that time, the Italian journal Corriere published an article about the presentation of the Ramazzini study and quoted Belpoggi’s recommendation of “maximum precaution for children and pregnant women.”
Noting that “current standards were not set to protect children, pregnant women, and the growing numbers of infants and toddlers for whom devices have become playthings,” Davis, who is also Visiting Professor of Medicine of Hebrew University Medical Center and Guest Editor in Chief of the journal Environmental Research, added, “Current two-decade-old FCC limits were set when the average call was six minutes and costly cell phones were used by very few. These important, new, game-changing studies show that animals develop the same types of unusual cancers that are being seen in those few human epidemiological studies that have been done. In light of these results, Environmental Health Trust joins with public health experts from the states of California, Connecticut and Maryland, as well as those in France, Israel and Belgium to call on government and the private sector to carry out major ongoing public health educational campaigns to promote safer phone and personal device technology, to require and expedite fundamental changes in hardware and software to reduce exposures to RFR/microwave radiation throughout indoor and outdoor environments, and to institute major monitoring, training and research programs to identify solutions, future problems and prevention of related hazards and risks.”
“More than a dozen countries recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation exposure to children, and countries such as China, Italy, India and Russia have far more stringent cell tower radiation regulations in place when compared to the United States FCC. However, this study provides scientific evidence that governments can use to take even further action,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT.
The article is “Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission” by L. Falcioni, L. Bua, E.Tibaldi, M. Lauriola, L. De Angelis, F. Gnudi, D. Mandrioli, M. Manservigi, F. Manservisi, I. Manzoli, I. Menghetti, R. Montella, S. Panzacchi, D. Sgargi, V. Strollo, A.Vornoli, F. Belpoggi . It appears in Environmental Research published by Elsevier.
This study is making headline news. See examples here:
About Environmental Research
Environmental Research publishes original reports describing studies of the adverse effects of environmental agents on humans and animals. The principal aim of the journal is to assess the impact of chemicals and microbiological pollutants on human health. Both in vivo and in vitro studies, focused on defining the etiology of environmentally induced illness and to increase understanding of the mechanisms by which environmental agents cause disease, are especially welcome. Investigations on the effects of global warming/climate change on the environment and public health, as well as those focused on the effects of anthropogenic activities on climate change are also of particular interest.
About Environmental Health Trust
EHT is a scientific virtual think tank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. EHT maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies: more than a dozen countries recommend reducing wireless exposure to children.
Ramazzini Institute Resources
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation
Conference Call Bios
Fiorella Belpoggi, PhD
Lead author of the new study will discuss how the research was designed to test cell tower base station radiation association with cancer. Dr. Belpoggi is the Director of the Ramazzini Institute Research Department and Director of the Cesare Maltoni Research Center, Bologna, Italy. Dr. Belpoggi has been invited as an expert participant to meetings on the evaluation and safety of chemicals at the European Parliament, at the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs and at the European Food Safety Agency and as a temporary advisor to the World Health Organization/European Centre for Environment and Health .Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds. Full Bio
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
Dr. Hardell is a clinical and medical research doctor at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden. He has published more than 300 peer-reviewed scientific articles specializing in epidemiological research studying cancer risks related to exposure to environmental toxins such as Agent Orange, the herbicide glyphosate, and cell phone radiofrequency radiation. As one of the world’s leading experts on this topic, he served as an expert on the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) Working Group for the classification of radiofrequency fields in 2011. Bio here.
Ron Melnick, PhD
Dr. Melnick is a toxicologist, served 28 years a a scientist with the National Institutes of Health focused on assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He lead the design of the $28 Million National Toxicology Program(NTP) Studies on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation. Dr. Melnick can discuss comparisons between the Ramazzini Institute research and the recently released NTP data on cell phone exposure on rats and mice.
David O. Carpenter, MD
Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician and graduate of Harvard Medical School. He is the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. He has been involved in this topic since the 1980s when he served as the Executive Secretary of the New York State Powerlines Project. He is Co-editor of the Bioinitiative Report and has testified on EMF issues to both houses of Congress and also to the President’s Cancer Panel. He has two books and numerous publications on EMF, and over 400 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of human health and environmental exposures. Bio here
Devra Davis, MPH, PhD
Dr. Davis is an epidemiologist, former member of the National Toxicology Program Scientific Review Board is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Turkey. She was Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. President of Environmental Health Trust, she is also an award-winning scientist and author on environmental health issues. She can address the emerging studies on cell phone radiation worldwide. Full Bio
Watch Dr. Melnick present on the NTP study last year in this video.
© 2018 Environmental Health Trust. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Environmental Health Trust ehtrust.org. Want to learn more? Sign up for the newsletter here. Link is here https://ehtrust.org/
We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.
So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.Watch the interview here.
Don’t Buy Anyone An Amazon Echo – Not Even Yourself
- The Facts:
A group of hackers have successfully turned the Amazon Echo into a surveillance tool to listen in on the conversations of unknowing targets.
- Reflect On:
Even if hacking these devices is difficult to do, does the fact that it is possible to make you reconsider using "smart speakers" such as these? What is your privacy worth to you?
In recent years “smart speakers” are becoming popular as home tools to assist with day-to-day tasks; making phone calls, searching google and basically anything else you might use your phone for. Upon command, they wake up and complete the task given and offer a hands-free, voice-activated method to make our lives easier, so what could possibly go wrong? Well, recently a group of Chinese hackers have figured out a way to use the popular Amazon Echo as a spy device and listen in on the day-to-day conversations of targeted individuals.
This group of hackers has spent months developing a new method for essentially hijacking the Echo. While it is far from a total takeover of the smart speakers, it is, from what we know, the closest thing to a practical demonstration of how these devices can absolutely be utilized as a method of secret surveillance.
During the recent DefCon security conference, researchers Wu HuiYu and Qian Wenxiang shared their presentation called, Breaking Smart Speakers: We Are Listening To You, explaining how they hacked into an Amazon Echo and turned it into a spy bug.
Now, before we start thinking Big Brother is listening, it is important to know that this hack involved a modified version of the echo, which did have some parts swapped out. However, this doctored device was still able to hack into other, non-modified devices and it does so by connecting both the hackers Echo and a regular Echo to the same local area network, or LAN. This process allowed the hackers to turn their own modified Echo into a listening bug by relaying audio from the other Echo’s speakers without any indication that they were transmitting anything.
Although this was a difficult process, the Chinese hackers proved that it was, in fact, possible and could represent a first step towards exploiting this increasingly popular device.
So, What Does Amazon Have To Say?
Before the presentation, the researchers notified Amazon of the upcoming exploit and they pushed out some security fixes back in July when asked about the attack from Wired, the company responded by stating that, “customers do not need to take any action as their devices have been automatically updated with security fixes.” The spokesperson added that “this issue would have required a malicious actor to have physical access to a device and the ability to modify the device hardware.”
Unfortunately, that last statement overlooks the fact that the hackers did not have access to the physical device that they were intercepting — only the LAN and anyone can get their own Echo quite easily online and in stores. So, although Amazon updated the security of these devices, it is still possible that hackers could once again, figure out a way to gain access to the device.
According to the hackers,
“After a period of practice, we can now use the manual soldering method to remove the firmware chip…from the motherboard and extract the firmware within 10 minutes, then modify the firmware within 5 minutes and [attach it] back to the device board,” they write. “The success rate is nearly 100 percent. We have used this method to create a lot of rooted Amazon Echo devices.”
Do We Need To Be Concerned?
To be able to effectively and easily hack an Echo remotely wouldn’t be easy, says Jake Williams, a former member of the NSA’s elite hacking team Tailored Access Operations. However, if spies were able to take over a device like the Echo it would make a powerful tool for surveillance because unlike a phone, it picks up sound from a room, not only right next to the device, but anywhere in earshot.
“These smart speakers are designed to pick up all the noises in the room, listen and transcribe them,” says Williams. “As a result, they’d make phenomenal listening devices if you can exploit them.”
Let’s not forget about what happened earlier this year where a couple from Portland, Oregon received a phone call from a person they knew warning them to unplug your Alexa device right now, you’re being hacked. This person had received a voice mail which contained a private message between the couple talking about hardwood floors. You can read more about that here.
I Have Nothing To Hide, Why Should I Care?
This is a common response from many people in regards to privacy issues. But this issue goes so much deeper than that. As Edward Snowden says,
“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
We have a right to our privacy. If these devices can, in fact, be used as surveillance tool’s then there is a very good chance that they are being used. We have already seen a tremendous level of corruption from the NSA spying on Americans’ and even Facebook violating our rights and using messenger to listen in on our conversations. Why would we feel that these devices that are literally plugged into our homes and flat out listening to us and our “commands” couldn’t be used as a method of surveillance?
Cell phone’s alone have been proven to be able to listen in even when the phone is turned off. These smart speakers have even more capacity as they pick up sound all over the place and have a much broader range.
Should you let this stop you from getting your own Echo or similar device? Well, that’s up for you to decide, for me it’s not worth it.
Meet The Kid Who’s Never Eaten A Gram Of Sugar In Her Life – Here’s What She Looks Like Today
There is a good chance that many of you read the headline of this article and scoffed at the idea...
Federal Court Rules In Favour of Big Pharma & Determines That CBD Has No Medicinal Value
Last week the hemp industry in the United States faced a roadblock after the federal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of...