Connect with us

Awareness

6 Scientific Reasons Why You Should Consider Not Smoking Weed On A Regular Basis

Published

on

It’s about being balanced and informed — exploring the upsides and downsides to cannabis.

advertisement - learn more

We’ve reported many times on the benefits of cannabis and its potential in medical applications, but what about the other side of the coin? Is it fair to say that cannabis carries no risks? When treating people and seeing positive benefits, what negative effects might also arise?

Marijuana has been the subject of intense debate over these last few years. Now legal in multiple states in the U.S. and authorized for medicinal purposes in even more, an increasing number of people are recognizing how arbitrary the line is between legal substances, like alcohol and cigarettes, and illegal ones, like pot — particularly since both alcohol and cigarettes have been shown to be extremely detrimental to the human body, while marijuana has not.

But what’s the reason for that? Obtaining marijuana to study has proven to be incredibly difficult for many researchers and therefore getting study results has been tough. 

So given that this natural substance is being used incredibly regularly, and yet doesn’t have a full scope of research behind it, we wanted to balance the scales and bring awareness to the fact that we should really think twice before using this substance daily for long periods of time, particularly under the misconception that it’s completely safe. The exception here would be if you have been prescribed it for a medical issue, but it’s still good to be aware of the risks.

This article came in response to a recent article that pointed out the many benefits of smoking cannabis without mentioning the risks involved. We feel any research that takes this approach is simply not beneficial to public awareness.

advertisement - learn more

To be clear, we’re not saying this plant should be illegal. It’s a plant, but we don’t know as much about its safety in daily and long term use as we’d like.

We Can’t Blindly View It as Safe

The massive support for the legalization of marijuana does have its drawbacks, as it leads people to believe that smoking marijuana is completely harmless, and even good for you. While it can be quite therapeutic for dulling pain or alleviating anxiety, so can alcohol and even prescription drugs. It seems like people are willing to see the downsides of those substances, but not do the same for cannabis.

In reality, research shows that smoking cannabis on a regular basis may still be hazardous. Many forget that the plant’s medicinal benefits are most readily accessed when it is ingested, not smoked.

It is admittedly encouraging to see all of the support for the legalization of marijuana, and all of the evidence emerging that smoking it is not as harmful as it was originally said to be. Marijuana legalization threatens many industries, so perhaps this is why it has taken so long to get the ball rolling.

That being said, more of a balance is needed: With so much support out there for marijuana, many people, especially young people, think there are no health consequences involved with smoking it. This is why we’ve decided to put together a list of seven reasons why you should really consider not smoking marijuana on a regular basis.

We are very well aware of the other side of cannabis (articles). For example, we recently published an article showing how cannabis helped cure a girl from cancer. She is one of many examples of people who have benefited immensely from cannabis, and it’s important to raise awareness about how paediatric cannabis is saving lives. You can read that article here.

We have also published a number of articles on why marijuana should be legal, as well as reported on the dozens of health benefits it boasts, from helping people with pain and epilepsy to replacing prescription drugs and more.

A number of studies have been published that show cannabis completely annihilates cancer. We are talking about decades of research (a simple Google search for scholarly articles on cannabis and cancer will show you this). Despite this fact, no human clinical trials have been conducted. Here is an article of a molecular biologist explaining how THC kills cancer.

It’s also important to mention that we are not against smoking weed, but based on the science, wish to convey that smoking weed regularly on a daily basis for a period that lasts more than a year could be harmful to your health.

“Really, the way to do these things, is to do them rarely so that your whole system can reassert itself and come to equilibrium. . . I think the real way to do cannabis is like, once a week. . . . “

— Terrence McKenna (source)

1. Most of the Medicinal Benefits of Marijuana Come From Different Methods of Ingestion, Not Smoking

Cannabinoids are any group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate cannabinoid receptors that already exist in our body, and our bodies themselves actually produce compounds called endocannabinoids. These play a vital role in the human body, helping to create a healthy environment. Cannabinoids themselves also play an important role in immune system regeneration. Studies have shown that multiple constituents of cannabis can kill cancer cells, repair damaged brain cells, and more. The medical potential of this plant is truly miraculous, and it’s a shame that, despite decades of research showing undeniable results, like its ability to completely annihilate cancer, human clinical trials are only n0w commencing, and only in conjunction with chemotherapy drugs.

It’s important to know that, contrary to popular belief, smoking cannabis does not assist a great deal in treating disease within the body, as therapeutic levels cannot be reached through smoking. Creating oil from the plant or eating the plant is the best way to absorb cannabinoids. Smoking also alters the plant molecules; when cannabis is heated and burned it changes the chemical structure and acidity of the THC, which in turn negates its therapeutic value. The smoke from marijuana is toxic to the body, just as the smoke from any other substance would be. (I will discuss this further on in the article.) Furthermore, anytime you burn something and inhale it, you create oxidation within the body, which is unhealthy and can lead to many issues.

None of the health benefits of marijuana come from smoking it. When one says “cannabis cures cancer,” that doesn’t mean smoking it.

2. Heavy Marijuana Use Is Linked to Lower Dopamine Levels in the Brain

Researchers in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University have found that heavy smokers of marijuana could have a compromised dopamine system. When studying heavy smokers, they discovered lower dopamine release in one region of the brain, the striatum, which is the part of the brain that’s involved in working memory, impulsive behaviour, and attention. Several other studies have shown that addiction to other drugs can have similar effects on dopamine release, but this is the first evidence of its kind linking it to smoking cannabis.

The study examined 11 adults between the ages of 21 and 40 who were heavily dependent on cannabis against 12 healthy control subjects. 16 was the average age these individuals started smoking, and they had not stopped since.

Their press release outlines how the study was conducted, and the methods used:

Using positron emission tomography (PET) to track a radiolabelled molecule that binds to dopamine receptors in the brain, the scientists measured dopamine release in the striatum and its subregions, as well as in several brain regions outside the striatum, including the thalamus, midbrain, and globus pallidus. The cannabis users in this study stayed in the hospital for a week of abstinence to ensure that the PET scans were not measuring the acute effects of the drug. Participants were scanned before and after being given oral amphetamine to elicit dopamine release. The percent change in the binding of the radiotracer was taken as an indicator of capacity for dopamine release.

Compared with the controls, the cannabis users had significantly lower dopamine release in the striatum, including subregions involved in associative and sensorimotor learning, and in the globus pallidus. (source)(source)

Anissa Abi-Dargham, MD, a professor of psychiatry (in radiology) at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and a lead author of the paper, said that “the bottom line is that long-term, heavy cannabis use may impair the dopaminergic system, which could have a variety of negative effects on learning and behaviour.” She also went on to emphasize that “these findings add to the growing body of research demonstrating the potentially adverse effects of cannabis, particularly in youth, at the same time that government policies and laws are increasing access and use.” 

Here is another study that was done two years ago that examines the same thing.

While correlation doesn’t always mean causation, it doesn’t mean we should disclude a possible connection. You have to make your own judgements, use the Bradford Hill Criteria, and look at a number of different studies from both sides.

Based on everything I’ve looked at, in my opinion, marijuana smoking does have some sort of effect on the brain in multiple ways, differing from person to person. Whether it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ I’m not sure.

3. Smoking Marijuana Linked to Schizophrenia, But It’s Complicated

A number of studies have linked smoking cannabis to schizophrenia and psychosis. For example, a fairly recent study found that schizophrenia plays a role in a person’s likelihood of smoking weed. The study showed that genetic variants predicting schizophrenia  can also be used to predict a person’s tendency to smoke pot. The study showed that the same genes that predispose people to enjoying smoking cannabis might also predispose some to develop schizophrenia.

Lead author of the study, Robert Power, a genetic psychiatrist at King’s College London, stated that “there is a well-established link between people who use cannabis and schizophrenia.” 

Based on the scientific literature, it’s quite clear that there is a link, and at the same time, it seems to be clear that there isn’t. Mathew Hill, a cell biologist at the University of Calgary, tells us “the relationship is an ongoing debate in the scientific world — at least what the nature of the association is.” He also told us that “there is little evidence that, at a population level, cannabis use during adolescence is a primary contributing factor in the development of psychiatric illness.”

Just because some studies show an associative link does not mean there is one. At the same time, it doesn’t mean that there’s not one. This is the key! Some studies have shown that people who are in the early stages of schizophrenia that also smoke weed experience much larger brain modifications, like changes in white matter, compared to those who are not susceptible to schizophrenia.

What is clear is that people who already show signs of psychotic illness do experience adverse effects from smoking marijuana.

“There is definitely some kind of genetic basis to increased vulnerability to these adverse effects [in people with schizophrenia] that go beyond the correlational association discussed in this paper”

— Mathew Hill (source)

Again, it’s well-known that marijuana smoking by people with schizophrenia only worsens the disease, and a number of studies have shown that smoking marijuana actually increases the development of schizophrenia in those who might be genetically predisposed to it. So, if you have a family history of psychotic illness, smoking weed is something you might not want to partake in — or if you suffer from any other ailment that’s classified as a mental illness, for that matter.

One thing seems to be certain: Cannabis smoking does affect the brain in various ways, especially at crucial stages of brain development in adolescents.

Below is a great publication and a good summary to find out more information about this topic and why it’s so confusing. Again, this connection is still up for debate in the scientific world, and conflicting studies emerge every single year. This suggests that we simply don’t know enough and therefore should be careful with our habits.

So, the next time someone tells you that there is a link between schizophrenia and marijuana smoking, they’re wrong, and the next time someone tells you there is no link, they are also wrong! The best way to avoid any risk is to just avoid smoking marijuana altogether.

Clearing the smoke: What do we know about adolescent cannabis use and schizophrenia?

4. Smoking Marijuana Changes Your Brain

One recent study found that using marijuana daily for at least four years or longer can create certain anatomical changes in the brain. In this particular study, researchers used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine the brains of approximately 50 adults who were chronic marijuana users, compared to more than 60 people who didn’t use marijuana at all.

Researchers found that the people who had been smoking daily for at least four years had a smaller volume of gray matter in their orbitofrontal cortex, a phenomenon usually associated with addiction.

Lead author of the study Francesca Filbey, an associate professor in the School of Behavioural Brain Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas, said that “not only is a change in structure, but there also tends to be a change reflected in the connectivity.” 

This is concerning, especially given the fact that grey matter is a major component of the central nervous system, and is associated with muscle control, sensory perception, memory, emotions, speech, decision making, and self-control. Loss of grey matter has also been implicated in a number of psychiatric disorders, including depression. There is a widespread reduction of grey matter in people who suffer depression, and while smoking marijuana may give temporary relief from depression, if someone doesn’t have it, they might feel depressed.  Marijuana could therefore contribute to depression, and the fact that people feel better when they smoke it might make them think that it helps with their depression — a dangerous pattern that could lead to continual grey matter depletion.

Again, there are a number of studies that show smoking marijuana can drastically change the brain, and also disrupt brain development.

Another recent study also found that marijuana smokers showed signs of damage in the corpus callous, which is a major white matter tract that connects the left side of the brain to the right side. However, the study did mention that the people examined could have had deviant brain structures prior to their use.

A study published a few years ago showed that people who constantly smoke marijuana have abnormal brain structures, but multiple studies have also shown that marijuana smokers show no difference in brain structure.

The list goes on and on, but one thing is for certain: The effects on the brain are unclear. Further research is needed to identify what smoking marijuana does to the brain, because the research is inconclusive and contradictory right now.

5. Smoking Harms the Lungs

Regardless of what you are smoking, smoke is harmful to lung health; this is a no-brainer. Whether it’s burning wood, tobacco, or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. According to the American Lung Association:

Smoking marijuana clearly damages the human lung. Research shows that smoking marijuana causes chronic bronchitis and marijuana smoke has been shown to injure the cell linings of the large airways, which could explain why smoking marijuana leads to symptoms such as chronic cough, phlegm production, wheeze and acute bronchitis.

Again, marijuana smoke contains a similar range of harmful chemicals to that of tobacco smoke, and there is no shortage of research suggesting that long-term marijuana smoking leads to an increased risk of some respiratory problems. Despite this proven correlation, there is no association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer.

There are other alternatives to smoking marijuana, however, such as vaporizing or eating it.

6. Smoking Marijuana Can Increase Your Risk of Serious Cardiovascular Disorders

Multiple studies have connected smoking marijuana with potential cardiovascular disorders. One recent study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association noted:

Several striking cardiovascular complications following cannabis use raised the issue of the possible implication of cannabis in cardiovascular outcomes and the necessary national review. Despite the known underreporting, the rate of cannabis-related cardiovascular complications reported steadily rose during the past 5 years. Cardiovascular disorders represented 2% of the reports related to cannabis, classified into cardiac, cerebral, and peripheral complications. The majority consisted of acute coronary syndromes and peripheral arteriopathies. This result is consistent with previous findings and strengthens the idea that cannabis may be responsible for serious complications, in particular on the cardiovascular system.

Another recent study, published last year, concluded, “The evidence reported in this article point toward an undisputed linkage between cannabis consumption and potentially lethal cardiovascular complications.” (source)

Something to Consider:

Trouble Living Life Without Smoking

As with so many of our other favourite habits, smoking is a vice, and many people who smoke weed have difficulty stopping. Life often feels boring without it; smoking becomes a need and almost a mental addiction (we know there is no physical addiction involved.) And this is obviously problematic. It is rare to find someone who will be able to smoke a joint a couple of times a month, which is the amount many experts in the field of “mind-altering” drugs propose. It’s a substance that is abused and not given the respect it deserves, often being used as an escape — helping the person avoid asking themselves why they feel the need to alter their state so often. If you are a regular smoker and notice that without smoking for a night or two you become bored, anxious, or depressed, or have certain feelings come up because you don’t have a joint in your hand, it may be time to consider reducing your usage, and perhaps facing those negative feelings head on.

If you have a hard time going without smoking a joint, that in itself is a problem. Alternatively, if you are a regular marijuana smoker but can easily stop for weeks at a time, without any desire to smoke, perhaps you don’t have a problem. The main point here is that smoking shouldn’t be used to escape one’s problems because it just prolongs the process of facing them.

How Is it Grown?

These days, it’s hard to find ‘pure’ weed. Most people are unaware of the original source, and marijuana can be grown with harmful pesticides. In fact, it wasn’t after the legalization of marijuana in Colorado that authorities found dangerous pesticides in most of the marijuana being sold. You can read more about that here.

Where do the seeds come from? When Big Pharma takes over, what type of seeds will they be, and how will it be grown? Are they genetically modified? There are still many questions to be asked.

Concluding Comments

So what can you take from all of this? We simply don’t know enough about this plant to smoke it every day and expect no repercussions. A misleading culture surrounding marijuana’s safety has been established and it’s something we need to start questioning.

Many natural substances are harmful to you if you have too much of them or use them too regularly. Even natural medicinal botanicals are not meant to be used every day and come with risks.

Again, we hope this helps to clear up the negative stigma around marijuana, but also the blindly positive stigma around it, too. Balance is important in this case, and what we strive to convey in this report.

We Need Your Support...

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

Alternative News

Roll Up Your Sleeves Folks: 271 New Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Pipeline

Published

on

“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Wilson Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die, become chronically ill with vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders or are otherwise disabled from vaccine injuries. (That law has led directly to an expected reckless, liability-free development of scores of new, over-priced, potential block-buster vaccines, now numbering over 250. The question that must be asked of Big Medicine’s practitioners: How will the CDC, the AMA, the AAFP and the American Academy of Pediatrics fit any more potentially neurotoxic vaccines into the current well-baby over-vaccination schedule?)

PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America),  the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association and powerful lobbying group, says that 

“today, more than 7,000 medicines are in development globally, all of which have the potential to help patients in the United States and around the world.  According to another data source, there are 3,400 medicines in development today just in the United States, an increase of 40 percent since 2005.” (http://phrma.org/pipeline#sthash.TnxVihsT.dpuf)

PhRMA also says that today 

“the 271 vaccines in development span a wide array of diseases, and employ exciting new scientific strategies and technologies. These potential vaccines – all in human clinical trials or under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – include 137 for infectious diseases, 99 for cancer, 15 for allergies and 10 for neurological disorders.” (http://phrma.org/press-release-medicines-in-development-vaccines#sthash.rI4cQ6Tg.dpuf)

Whenever the FDA signals that it is ready to grant marketing approval for a new vaccine or drug, the first step for the pharmaceutical company’s marketing department is to promote an “educational” advertising campaign designed to instill fear in parents (and their pediatricians) about the horrible illnesses (albeit previously unknown, benign or rare) that even us doctors hadn’t yet recognized as being significant up until recently, most of us physicians have gone along with the fear-mongering that makes our practices busier while it also makes billions of dollars in profits for some unworthy CEO or Wall Street investment banker, hedge fund manager or mutual fund investor – all at the expense of America’s precious and vulnerable children who are at high risk of being sickened along the way.

advertisement - learn more

The TV commercials, medical journal articles and drug representatives will be trying to educate us about a new, unaffordable vaccine that will somehow be squeezed into an already crowded and potentially deadly group of shots that America’s already at-risk-of-vaccine-injuries infants will now be receiving at their next well-child (perhaps soon to become chronically ill).check-up.

 Recognizing this, and so as not to overload the already over-loaded well-child inoculation schedule, perhaps he CDC (the Big Pharma-subsidized and vaccine cheerleader Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) will be adding shots to the in-hospital and irrational Hepatitis B shot that it recommends be given on day one – when vulnerable mothers are too exhausted and emotionally confused to give truly informed consent.

Many state legislatures are, as we speak, considering (or have already passed laws) criminalizing the previously legal parental right of refusing vaccinations on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs. That is happening right now in Wisconsin’s Republican-dominated legislature, Minnesota’s split GOP/DFL legislature, and California’s Democratic Party-dominated legislature – where it is already signed into law by Democrat Jerry Brown. These poorly informed – and heavily bribed politicians don’t realize that their legislative efforts will be blindly forcing unsuspecting patients to submit to every new blockbuster vaccine that successfully emerges from the pipeline. Talk about making decisions on the basis of partial information or propaganda from sociopathic corporate entities! Attention, Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar and other assorted legislators. Are you listening to the real science or to the corrupted, pseudoscience of Big Pharma?

Below is a list of 146 new vaccines that were in the pipeline as of 2010. The list, PhRMA proudly tells us, is now up to 271 new vaccines as of 2013. For a full listing of these vaccine trials, go to: http://phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/infectiousdiseases2010%20%281%29.pdf

For parents whose infants’ brains and bodies are immunologically and developmentally immature, be aware that your children may be forced to suffer untested-for and therefore unacknowledged long term neurological, autoimmune and chronic illness adverse effects. Parents need to be aware that if their infant dies, is sickened or is made chronically ill by vaccine ingredients, they, as protective parents, will be forbidden to sue the guilty drug company (or the doctor that administered them) for appropriate damages.

Parents and grandparents of children need to be aware of the fact that many of these new vaccines will be containing contaminants (such as unfilterable viral particles, bacterial particles, monkey kidney cell fragments, human fetal cells, squalene (in anthrax and some experimental swine flu vaccines), peanut oil (a likely cause of the epidemic of peanut allergies), formaldehyde and even foreign DNA fragments) as well as known neurotoxic additives such as formaldehyde and aluminum (and perhaps even mercury), all of which are known genetic toxins and known causes of  (sometimes subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle – but always preventable) brain damage, vaccine-induced epilepsy, autoimmune disorders, the so-called, but erroneously labeled “shaken baby syndrome” (now increasingly understood to represent a vaccine-induced encephalitis), SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), dementia, autism spectrum disorders, mitochondrial toxicity, damage to the brain’s microglial and astroglial cells (the brain’s immune system), etc.

NOTE: Much of the information in this column is derived from easily accessible books and websites, including Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child by Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH; The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination is Not Immunization, by Tim O’Shea,  DC; Screening Sandy Hook, Causes and Consequences by Deanna Spingola (an online e-book); the writings and lectures of Russell Blaylock, MD; Immunologist J. Barthelow Classen, MD; Harold E Buttram, MD, Dr Sherri Tenpenny, Dr Suzanne Humphries, Dr Kenneth Stoller, Dr Andrew Wakefield, Dr Mark Geier, and Dr Joseph Mercola, and the following two articles: http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdfhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccine-induced-immune-overload-and-the-epidemic-of-chronic-autoimmune-childhood-disease/5431013.

A List of 146 of the 271 Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Developmental Pipeline (as of 2010)

 (NOTE: The corporations that have the largest financial interest in the success of the trials is listed in bold letters.)

sanofi pasteur prevention of Clostridium difficile

ACE BioSciences prevention of traveler’s diarrhea caused by Campylobacter jejuni

ACE BioSciences prevention of traveler’s diarrhea caused by Escherichia coli

sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis Phase III DTP vaccine

Aeras Global tuberculosis

Novartis Vaccines prevention of influenza A infection (H5N1 subtype)

Antigenics treatment of herpes simplex virus

BioSante Pharmaceuticals anthrax Phase I/II vaccine

Intercell USA anthrax

KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections

Aduro BioTech treatment of hepatitis C 

Emergent BioSolutions anthrax vaccine

AlphaVax prevention of influenza virus infections in the elderly

DynPort Vaccine botulism vaccine

Inviragen Chikungunya virus vaccine

Celldex Therapeutics cholera vaccine (live attenuated)

ChronTech Pharma hepatitis C (DNA vaccine)

Virionics prevention and treatment of hepatitis C

Vical prevention of cytomegalovirus (DNA vaccine)

AlphaVax prevention of cytomegalovirus infections

Hawaii Biotech prevention of dengue fever

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of dengue fever (tetravalent)

Acambis mild to severe dengue fever

sanofi pasteur DTP-Hep B

sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, hepatitis B, polio, Hib

Dynavax treatment of hepatitis B

Crucell prevention of Ebola virus infections

Vical prevention of Ebola virus infections

GenPhar Ebola virus vaccine

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of infectious mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr virus)

BioSolutions Escherichia coli infections

Celldex Therapeutics prevention of cholera, Escherichia coli infections

Protein Sciences prevention of influenza virus infections in adults and children

sanofi pasteur influenza virus infections (new mass production method)

sanofi pasteur prevention of influenza virus (intradermal micro-injection)

Protein Sciences influenza virus infections

GlaxoSmithKline rotavirus infections in infants

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of cytomegalovirus (recombinant vaccine)

GlaxoSmithKline influenza virus (trivalent, thimerosal-free) for children ages 3-17

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Streptococcus pneumoniae

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus infections, hepatitis B, meningococcal group C infections, poliomyelitis (infants)

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Haemophilus and pneumococcal infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Haemophilus and pneumococcal infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus infection in children

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) for children and infants

GlaxoSmithKline staphylococcal infections 

MedImmune influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype) intranasal

Novavax prevention of influenza A virus infection

Hawaii Biotech prevention of West Nile virus infection

Novartis Vaccines helicobacter pylori

Pfizer hepatitis B (DNA)

Emergent BioSolutions hepatitis B

GenPhar hepatitis B

Novartis Vaccines treatment of hepatitis C

GlaxoSmithKline hepatitis E (recombinant)

Dynavax prevention of hepatitis B

Pfizer treatment of herpes simplex virus infections (DNA vaccine)

AuRx prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus infections

sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, Hib

Intercell prevention of influenza virus seasonal influenza

Novartis Vaccines prevention of herpes simplex virus infections

Acambis prevention of encephalitis virus

Bavarian Nordic smallpox vaccine

sanofi pasteur influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) in adolescents, children and infants

CSL Behring prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) for the elderly

Baxter Healthcare prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype)

Vical prevention of influenza A virus (DNA – H1N1 subtype)

Baxter Healthcare prevention of influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype)

DynPort Vaccine influenza virus

Antigen Express influenza virus infections H5N1 vaccine

Novavax prevention of influenza virus (particle vaccine)

Dynavax prevention of influenza virus infections

Vaxin influenza virus infections (intranasal)

Abbott Laboratories prevention of influenza virus (cell culture-derived)

Intercell prevention of Japanese encephalitis in children

Novartis Vaccines malaria vaccine (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)

Vical malaria vaccine

BioSante Pharmaceuticals prevention of malaria (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)

GenVec malaria vaccine (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)

Crucell malaria vaccine 

Sanaria malaria vaccine

GenPhar Marburg virus (DNA vaccine)

MedImmune parainfluenza virus infections in children and infants

MedImmune prevention of respiratory syncytial virus infections in infants

MedImmune prevention of parainfluenza virus infections in children and infants

MedImmune prevention of influenza virus (quadrivalent) for adolescents and children

sanofi pasteur Neisseria meningitidis A, C  in toddlers 9 months-12 months

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Neisseria meningitidis groups C and Y, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and tetanus toxoid

sanofi pasteur meningitis in infants

Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group B infections vaccine group B

Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group A, C infections in children

Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group A, C infections in infants

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of malaria (recombinant vaccine)

NanoBio prevention of influenza virus (intranasal)

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus inactivated split-trivalent vaccine

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Neisseria meningitidis groups A, C in children

LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals norovirus infections (intranasal)

Novartis Vaccines prevention of influenza virus

Protein Sciences prevention of influenza A pandemic (H5N1 subtype)

Meridian Biosciences parvovirus infections

Crucell prevention of influenza virus infections

Pfizer meningococcal group B infections (meningococcal “plague” vaccine)

DynPort Vaccine Yersinia infections (injectable)

Baxter Healthcare prevention of seasonal influenza virus

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza A virus (“pre-pandemic”)

Pfizer prevention of pneumococcal infection in the elderly (Prevnar 13 Adult™)

sanofi pasteur rabies vaccine

BioSante Pharmaceuticals ricin poisoning (“biodefense” vaccine)

Soligenix ricin poisoning

sanofi pasteur prevention of rotavirus infections

Bharat Biotech prevention of rotavirus infections

Emergent BioSolutions anthrax (Fast Track) “protective antigen” vaccine

Inhibitex staphylococcal infections

Vical prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus infections

Emergent BioSolutions shigella infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of herpes simplex virus infections

PharmAthene anthrax (“protective antigen” – rPA)

BioSante Pharmaceuticals staphylococcal infections (“biodefense” vaccine)

Nabi Biopharmaceutical prevention of staphylococcal aureus infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of staphylococcal aureus infections

Nabi Biopharmaceutical prevention of streptococcal B infections

Emergent BioSolutions prevention of streptococcal infections

Novartis Vaccines prevention of streptococcal infections

sanofi pasteur prevention of meningitis and pneumonia (tetravalent)

Inviragen treatment of dengue fever

Intercell USA prevention of traveler’s diarrhea due to E. coli (“patch” technology)

GlaxoSmithKline tuberculosis

Aerus Global TB prevention of tuberculosis in young children

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of  tuberculosis in adults

sanofi pasteur prevention of tuberculosis

DynPort Vaccine tularemia

Emergent BioSolutions prevention of typhoid (live typhoid organisms – oral vaccine)

Novartis Vaccines prevention of typhoid fever

Celldex Therapeutics typhoid fever

Merck prevention of herpes zoster (shingles)

Merck hepatitis B in infants

Merck human papillomavirus infections

Merck staphylococcal infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of varicella zoster virus

VaxInnate prevention of influenza A virus

VaxInnate influenza A virus infections in elderly patients

VaxInnate prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype)

Inovio Pharmaceuticals human papillomavirus infections

Inovio Pharmaceuticals prevention of influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype)

Xcellerex prevention of yellow fever


Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement from medicine, he had spent the last decade practicing what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) mental health care”. Dr Kohls has been actively involved in peace, justice and nonviolence issues for much of his adult life and, since he retired, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine (www.readerduluth.com). His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, psychiatry and other movements that threaten American democracy and civility.

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission and request of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Click here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

We Need Your Support...

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

Las Vegas Man Unable to Speak, Walk, See or Breathe Just Days After Getting Flu Shot

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A few days after getting a flu vaccine, Shane Morgan fell ill with a disease in which a person’s nerves are attacked by the immune system, causing paralysis and, in extreme cases, death.

  • Reflect On:

    How much 'evidence' do we need that the Pharmaceutical Industry is not an advocate for human health? Can we see our way out of this system of deception?

It is starting to seem like we can write a new story every few days about someone having an adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. As I mentioned in an article from last week, ‘After Getting Flu Shot, New York State Senator Gets Sick For Two Weeks, Then Dies,’ the latest flu vaccine is being suspected of actually delivering a dangerous strain of the flu that is resistant to vaccines.

And whether or not Las Vegas’ Shane Morgan had a highly adverse reaction to the vaccine itself or actually contracted this strain of flu, it is very clear in his and his wife’s mind that his adverse reaction was caused by the flu shot. Here’s what happened, according to this Las Vegas Review-Journal article:

On Nov. 2, Shane and Monique, 31, who live in North Las Vegas and are new parents to 8-month-old Briar, got their flu shots. They were planning to see Shane’s 23-year-old daughter, Sidnee Nutter, and her 4-month-old, and Nutter requested the whole family get vaccinated to protect her infant. They typically didn’t get vaccinated, but they happily obliged.

“The only reason I took this was because I didn’t want to lie to my daughter,” Shane said. In the days that followed, Shane fell ill. He was weak and achy; he had a fever and a sore throat. By Nov. 14, he asked his wife to take him to the hospital. “That’s when we really started getting worried,” Monique said. His arms and legs were going numb.

Soon after he was admitted to the hospital, he ‘was sedated and intubated, unable to breathe on his own.’ Now, two weeks later he still ‘can’t walk. His left eye is paralyzed and shut. Tubes protrude from his neck.’

Diagnosis

The doctors have made a diagnosis of ‘Guillain-Barre syndrome.’ More on this disease from the article:

advertisement - learn more

He may have months of recovery left from the rare disease, in which a person’s nerves are attacked by the immune system, causing paralysis and, in extreme cases, death. The cause of the disease that affects one or two in a million isn’t known, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the disease can creep up after a bout of diarrhea, a respiratory infection or an infection from Campylobacter jejuni bacteria.

In rare cases, people come down with Guillain-Barre after having the flu or getting a flu shot, though the CDC can’t show a causal effect.

So let’s go over this slowly. The Western Medical Establishment has put a fancy name to a symptom, a person’s immune system going out of whack, and called it a disease. Of course, the CDC will say it doesn’t know what causes this disease; they are only willing to offer a few conditions which precede the onset of the disease, including having the flu or getting the flu shot. Again, this admission with the disclaimer that ‘the CDC can’t show a causal effect.’ And why? Is it perhaps because that would give someone direct grounds to sue Big Pharma?

What has the CDC really done here? They have concocted a fancy hyphenated name to de-couple immune system degradation from the introduction of pathogens into the body that would seem logically to be the cause of that immune system degradation. For an organization that prides itself on their research and commitment to objective science, they certainly pull the ‘we don’t know the cause’ rabbit out of the hat whenever it serves the purposes of Big Pharma.

Are Anti-Viral Vaccines Actually Delivering A Toxic Virus?

You may have seen in my earlier article ‘Researcher Jailed After Uncovering Deadly Virus Delivered Through Human Vaccines‘ that respected researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits had isolated a murine leukemia virus, essentially a mouse virus, in examining patients who had a variety of serious diseases such as cancer, motor-neuron disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). It was later suggested that this mouse virus likely had been transmitted to these people through vaccines. She explains how vaccines could become infected by this mouse virus when the vaccines are being made:

What we were doing to attenuate, to make the virus less pathogenic, less toxic, is we were passing them through mouse brains, so we were passing them through the brains of mice, and every scientist who works with these viruses, and worked at the National Cancer Institute recognized the possibility that if you put human tissue and mouse tissue together the possibility is that you’re going to pick up a virus that is silent, in the mouse, that is it doesn’t hurt the mouse, but it kills the human, or causes serious disease in the human.

As discussed in that article, the very possibility that people could start to believe that vaccines are transmitting a toxic virus to those who are injected with the vaccine was such a threat to the Big Pharma’s vaccine industry that she was immediately pressured into discrediting her own study, and in refusing to do so she was immediately jailed, and told that she would be ‘destroyed.’ Such is the fate of people who look too deeply and honestly into the true causes of many of our diseases and illnesses.

Flu Strains Getting More Dangerous

The business of vaccination is certainly a huge money-making venture, such that Big Pharma continues to be willing to put out the many fires that are brought on by honest researchers as well as a population getting more sick and diseased in lock step with the increase in the proliferation of vaccines. One of those fires is the clearly documented notion that the ubiquity of the flu vaccine is the actual cause of new deadlier strains of the flu that are more resistant not only to vaccines but to the protective mechanisms of our immune system.

If you consider the fairly straightforward idea that vaccines are working against our immune system and thus are degrading our natural immunity to diseases, then it stands to reason the logical step to take would be the complete cessation of all flu vaccination in our society. My bet is that it would not be long before we would see an increase in the health in the general population, the dying off of many strains of the disease, and an increase in ‘natural immunity’ to diseases in general that parents are able to pass on to their offspring. In the video below, researcher Dr. Andrew Wakefield explains the idea of ‘natural herd immunity’ very cogently:

As far as vaccines go, I would not argue that there is absolute, definitive proof that vaccines are harmful to the average person–and that is because proper, objective testing is not being undertaken. But far more sinister than proper testing not being undertaken due to costs or proper scientific mechanisms is the indisputable fact that Big Pharma, with the CDC in their pocket, care absolutely nothing about human health. Everything they do is based on the metric of profit. They do not want the causes of human disease to be found whenever that would force them to remove pharmaceuticals from human consumption, and are willing to try to convince us that they simply ‘don’t know’ the cause of certain diseases, that they are complicated, mysterious. It’s an embarrassment.

Hypothetical Statement

Doctors and advocates in the mainstream will continue to say whatever they can, spin things in whatever way necessary, to make it seem like, despite the evidence, it’s still a good idea to take the flu vaccine. In fact, their continued livelihood depends on it. Here is the typical example from that same article:

While adverse reactions to the flu vaccine happen, it’s still considered the standard to protect against the flu, which can be dangerous and deadly, said Dr. Fermin Leguen with the Southern Nevada Health District. “The likelihood of people developing Guillain-Barre after the flu shot are very small compared to the risks of developing the flu itself,” Leguen said. “Events like this are unfortunate … but it’s a very rare condition.”

So rather than saying, ‘Shane Morgan had a serious adverse reaction to the flu vaccine and we are going to find out why so it doesn’t happen again,’ the medical establishment would hypothetically say something more like this:

‘Shane Morgan has somehow contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome. We don’t know how it got it, maybe he always had that condition and it just got triggered somehow. While sometimes people come down with Guillain-Barre after having the flu or getting a flu shot–in rare cases, it must be noted over and over again–we can’t show a causal effect. So we will treat his Guillain-Barre syndrome using our pharmaceutical wizardry, and if he survives, we expect to be treated as heroes for saving him.’

Suffice it to say that, simply on the basis of their motives and those of the industry, nothing they say can really be trusted, including the fact that they can’t show a causal effect.

The Takeaway

I personally became much healthier and much more resistant to illness when I consciously moved away from allowing pharmaceutical products to enter my body. My 4-year old son is bright, healthy, energetic, and has neither taken any vaccines nor has ever been seen by a Western doctor. And I am soundly convinced that this is a part of the reason for his good health. When we see that the Western Medicine Establishment has overly complicated and obfuscated ‘health’ to suit their own nefarious agenda and purposes, then we come to realize that completely stepping away from this industry and their synthetic products is what is really best for our health.

We Need Your Support...

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

CDC Caught Spreading Misinformation About The Flu Shot: Here Are The Details

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The CDC declares to the public that the flu vaccine greatly reduces the risk of elderly people dying of the flu as though it was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim has been thoroughly discredited.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we bombarded through mass marketing and media to support and get the flu shot every year, without no mention of all of the scientists and doctors that are creating awareness about why we shouldn't. What is going on here?

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone aged six months and up, including pregnant women, get an annual influenza vaccine. The two fundamental assumptions underlying the CDC’s policy are that vaccination reduces transmission of the virus and reduces the risk of potentially deadly complications. Yet multiple reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claims.

Notwithstanding the science, to increase demand for the pharmaceutical companies’ influenza vaccine products, the CDC makes use of fear marketing, asserting as fact that tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, even though the CDC’s numbers actually estimate that are controversial because they are based on dubious assumptions that appear to result in a great overestimation of the negative impact of influenza on societal health.

The primary justification for the CDC’s flu vaccine policy is the assumption that it significantly reduces the mortality rate among people aged 65 and older, the group at highest risk of potentially deadly complications from the flu. The CDC declares to the public that the vaccine does so as though this was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim that the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of death among the elderly has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.

… contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.

The Implausibility of the CDC’s Claims

Concerns about the CDC’s mortality claim were raised by researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a study published in April 2005 in Archives of Internal Medicine (now JAMA Internal Medicine). Their concern was prompted by the observation that, despite a considerable increase in vaccination coverage among people aged 65 or older—from at most 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001—pneumonia and influenza mortality rates had actually substantially risen.

That is to say, to quote a review published in Virology Journal in 2008, contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, “influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.” (Emphasis added.)

As the authors of the 2005 NIH study commented, this result was “surprising” since vaccination was supposed to be “highly effective at reducing influenza-related mortality”—an assumption underlying CDC policy that “has never been studied in clinical trials”.

advertisement - learn more

Relying instead on post-marketing observational studies of the general population, the CDC has claimed that vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-related deaths is as high as 80 percent. Furthermore, to support its claim of an enormous benefit, the CDC has relied on a meta-analysis of observational studies that concluded that vaccination reduces the number of flu-season deaths from any cause among the elderly “by an astonishing 50%.”

In their own study, however, the NIH researchers found that, over the course of thirty-three flu seasons, influenza-related deaths were on average only about 5 percent and “always less than 10% of the total number of winter deaths among the elderly.”

The obvious question was: How could it be possible for the influenza vaccine to reduce by halfdeaths during winter from any cause when no more than one-tenth of deaths in any given flu season could be attributed to influenza?

The most obvious answer was that it couldn’t, and so the researchers examined more closely the methodology of the observational studies that the CDC was relying upon. The conclusion they drew from doing so was that the CDC’s implausible numbers were due to a systemic bias in those studies. There was a “disparity among vaccination” in these studies between cohorts that received a flu vaccine and those that didn’t.

Specifically, it wasn’t that vaccinated individuals were less likely to die, but that sick elderly people whose frail condition made them more likely to die during the coming flu season were less likely to get a flu shot.

Faced with this identification of a systemic bias in their methodology and despite the obvious implausibility of its own claims, the CDC’s response was to question the methodology of the NIH researchers’ study while reiterating its unshaken faith in the studies it was relying upon to promote the flu vaccine.

Notwithstanding the lack of science to support the statement, and no doubt prompted by the need for government agencies to show solidarity on public vaccine policy, the CDC and NIH subsequently published a joint statement claiming that the seasonal flu shot was the best way to protect old people from dying.

The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses.

Ironically, and tellingly, while commenting on the lack of evidence that the vaccine was preventing deaths among the elderly and the observed increase in mortality, the NIH researchers in their 2005 study had also acknowledged the effectiveness of naturally acquired immunity at reducing mortality (emphasis added):

“The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses. Because of this strong natural immunization effect, by 1980, relatively few deaths in this age group (about 5000 per year) were left to prevent. We found a similar pattern in influenza-related mortality rates among persons aged 45 to 64 years, an age group with substantially lower vaccine coverage. Together with the flat excess mortality rates after 1980, this suggests that influenza vaccination of persons aged 45 to 74 years provided little or no mortality benefit beyond natural immunization acquired during the first decade of emergence of the A(H3N2) virus.”

The way the NIH’s joint statement with the CDC contrasted with its own research findings is a remarkable illustration of the institutionalized cognitive dissonance that exists when it comes to public vaccine policy.

The CDC’s Mortality Claims Further Debunked

Numerous additional studies have since been published highlighting the lack of credibility of the CDC’s claims about the vaccine’s effectiveness. A systematic review published in The Lancet in October 2005 found a “modest” effect of the vaccine on mortality, but its authors—which included lead author Tom Jefferson, a top researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration—cautioned that this finding must be interpreted in light of the apparent systemic bias of the observational studies. They likewise attributed the perceived effect of the vaccine to a difference in vaccination rates among the cohorts “and the resulting selection bias”.

Randomized controlled trials could minimize any such bias, they observed, but the evidence from such studies was “scant and badly reported.” Hence, placebo-controlled trials were needed to “clarify the effects of influenza vaccines in individuals”. The problem was that such studies were considered impossible “on ethical grounds” due to the fact that mass vaccination was already recommended as a matter of public policy.

In other words, the science wasn’t done before the CDC made its universal vaccination recommendation, and now they refuse to do the science on the grounds that government technocrats have already made up their minds that everyone aged six months and up should get an annual flu shot.

The lead author of the 2005 NIH study, Lone Simonsen, was also coauthor with W. Paul Glezen of a commentary in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2006 that reiterated the problems with the CDC’s claims. Although the vaccination rate for elderly people had increased by as much as 67 percent from 1989 to 1997, there was no evidence that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or deaths. On the contrary, “mortality and hospitalization rates continued to increase rather than decline”. The studies the CDC cited to support its claim of a dramatic reduction in mortality suffered from a selection bias that resulted in “substantial overestimation of vaccine benefits.”

study in the International Journal of Epidemiology also published in 2006 confirmed the systemic selection bias of the observational studies. Its authors concluded that not only had the results of those studies indicated “preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors”, but that the magnitude of this demonstrated bias “was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed”. (Emphasis added.)

Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.

Influenza vaccine researcher Peter Doshi followed up with a letter to the BMJ published in November 2006 under the headline “Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence”. As he summed up the situation, “Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.”

Furthermore, “influenza vaccines impose their own particular burden—to the tune of billions of dollars annually.”

Indeed, the very high cost of yearly vaccination for large parts of the population was among the considerations of a 2014 Cochrane meta-analysis that concluded that the results of a systematic review of existing studies “provide no evidence for the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”

A randomized controlled trial studying the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination in healthy adults under aged 65 and published in JAMA in 2000 found that this practice “is unlikely to provide societal economic benefit in most years”—when, according to their data, it generated greater costs than to not vaccinate.

Peter Doshi followed up in 2013 with another BMJ commentary. After all those years, the CDC was still sticking to its claims. And yet, if the CDC’s claims were true, it would mean “that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.”

Despite scientists pointing out the “healthy user bias” inherent in the observational studies that the CDC relied on to support its bold claims, “CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms.”

“If the observational studies cannot be trusted,” Doshi asked, “what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none…. This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.” (Emphasis added.)

“Perhaps most perplexing,” Doshi added, “is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence.”

He further observed how government agencies promote the flu shot by claiming it’s been proven safe. He cited the example of a YouTube video produced by the NIH in which the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, declared that it was “very, very, very rare” for a serious adverse event to be associated with the influenza vaccine.

Yet, “Months later, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after many (one in every 110 vaccinated) children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction to influenza vaccines—and also unexpected—occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents (about one in every 55,000 vaccinated). Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental researchers confirmed the vaccine’s role in these serious events.”

The NIH’s presenter in the video, Anthony Fauci, also happened to be among the opponents of conducting randomized, placebo-controlled studies to determine the safety of the influenza vaccine. “The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.”

“Drug companies”, Doshi continued, “have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease.” Only, in the case of the influenza vaccine, “the salesmen are public health officials”.

Conclusion

In summary, there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claim that the influenza vaccine reduces hospitalizations or deaths among the elderly. The types of studies the CDC has relied on to support this claim have been thoroughly discredited due to their systemic “healthy user” selection bias, and the mortality rate has observably increased along with the increase in vaccine uptake—which the CDC has encouraged with its unevidenced claims about the vaccine’s benefits, downplaying of its risks, and a marketing strategy of trying to frighten people into getting the flu shot for themselves and their family.

By Jeremy R. Hammond, Guest Contributor, Children’s Health Defense

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.

We Need Your Support...

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

EL

We Need Your Support...

 

With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.