Connect with us

Lifestyle

Why You Should Consider Going To An Organic Hair Salon

Published

on

Since making the transition over to organic foods and products, I have asked myself many times why I still go to a traditional salon. I didn’t even know organic salons existed until one of our writers, Organic Olivia, raved about her experience at Mauricio Hair, the first non-toxic/organic salon in NYC. Since I don’t live in New York, or even in a large city, I expected to have to travel pretty far to find one. When I learned there was actually one in my own region, I was ecstatic.

advertisement - learn more

I visited two salons, and the women working in both told me they had decided they simply couldn’t be subjected to the harsh chemicals they were being exposed to daily any longer, and didn’t want to expose their clients to them anymore, either. One woman became so sensitive to them that she had no choice but to use and learn about organic products so she could still practice her passion.

--> High Quality CBD Our friends at PuraThrive worked with industry experts to create one of the most bioavailable CBD extracts possible. Get yours today before it runs out. Click here to learn more.

Naturally, people assume that if a product is used in a salon it is regulated and safe for use (a mistake we make with most things, including our food), but there are many loopholes in the Toxic Control Substance Act (TSCA) and within the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (which hasn’t been updated since 1938) does not require premarket safety approval of products, nor does it require cosmetic companies to disclose the “chemicals [used] or gain approval for the 2,000 products that go on the market every year. And removing a cosmetic from sale takes a battle in federal court,” reports Scientific American. Which in short means that salon workers and clients have no way of knowing which products are safe, allowing them to be routinely exposed to hazardous chemicals. Even now, the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), the agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the maximum exposure limit for chemicals, hasn’t updated its Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for chemicals used in salon products that have adverse health effects.

How Hair Dye Works

Dana Oliver from The Huffington Post asked cosmetic chemist Ni’Kita Wilson, chief executive officer of Catalyst Cosmetic Development, and Elizabeth Cuannane Phillips, Philip Kingsley’s trichological expert, to explain what hair dye is really doing to our hair. The following is taken from the interview. 

For hair dye to work, ammonia literally lifts up your hair cuticle…

advertisement - learn more

Hair dye has a couple of barriers that it has to overcome before it actually deposits the color onto your hair. “It needs to be able to get into the hair shaft, and obstacle one is the cuticle, which is the hair’s protection,” explains Wilson. “If you think how tree bark has that outer covering, that is almost how our cuticle acts. So in order for [dye] to penetrate through the cuticle, it has to be lifted up.” Enter, ammonia. This chemical elevates the pH of the hair, and in doing so, the cuticle relaxes and lifts up. “The problem with that is once you’ve disturbed the cuticle, the damage has started because the cuticle is not meant to be lifted up,” says Wilson.

… and peroxide destroys your current color.

Now that the cuticle is lifted, the next step is to actually dye the hair. “In order to get the color that you wanted, your current color has to be destroyed,” according to Wilson. “That’s where the peroxide comes in, and that breaks down your natural hair pigment. Peroxide is very drying on the hair, which contributes to the damage of the hair. Now the cuticle is lifted, your pigment has been broken down, so now your hair should be straw-like.”

Now the color from the dye has to be developed, and that’s the pre-mix that you do. “You put that in and while it’s sitting, it’s going into the hair strand and beginning to develop. Keep in mind that your cuticle is lifted for however long you have before you rinse, and the dye is penetrating into your open cuticle and hair shaft. The longer your cuticle is lifted up, the more it’s weakening. Once you rinse, your cuticle comes down because the color has deposited, but the damage is already done,” says Wilson.

The result? Your hair is more damaged than before you entered the salon. According to Hilton Bell, owner of International Hair and Beauty Systems, the ammonia in normal hair colouring solutions creates tiny holes in the hair. “In fact the shaft of hair is starting to resemble Swiss cheese.” This leads to breakage, dryness, and overall hair damage.

Effects on Salon Workers

In 2014, Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) released “Beauty and Its Beast: Unmasking the impact of toxic chemicals on salon workers,” a thorough report that “analyzes the unique chemical exposures that salon workers experience, the health impacts they suffer, and the need for greater research, regulation, and innovation to ensure improved health and safety in the salon industry.”

In the report, they revealed the following discoveries:

Hair salon workers have an increased risk of several types of cancer, including breast cancer, lung cancer, cancer of the larynx, bladder cancer, and multiple myeloma. Hairdressers and cosmetologists are also more likely to give birth to low birth weight babies, especially when their work involves using hairspray and permanent waves, and have an increased risk of miscarriage and babies born with cleft palates.

In addition, a significant proportion of salon workers experience skin conditions like dermatitis, and breathing problems, such as asthma and cough, due to chemical exposures from their work. Some studies found that over 60% of salon workers suffer from skin conditions, such as dermatitis, on their hands. Salon workers are significantly more likely than comparison groups like office workers to suffer from cough and nasal and throat irritation due to their work.

The WVE is especially against the Brazilian Blowout, a popular straightening treatment which, along with other straightening products, contains high levels of formaldehyde (up to 10%!) even when labeled “formaldehyde-free.” Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is so toxic that it continues to expose customers and salon workers to toxic fumes for months after its initial application.

Salon worker Jennifer Arce performed just one Brazilian Blowout treatment that exposed her to what her doctor suspected was “possible chemical poisoning.” She suffered breathing problems and migraines, bloody noses, blistery rashes, and bronchitis.

“Exposure to formaldehyde doesn’t end with the treatment—the fumes are reactivated every time heat is applied to the hair,” says Arce. “So when a client who’s had a Brazilian Blowout done elsewhere comes into the salon to get a haircut or color and has her hair blowdried, flatironed, curled, or processed under the hood dryer, the fumes that come out of her hair make me and several of my coworkers sick all over again.”

After hearing similar horror stories from other salon workers, Jennifer took to gathering letters to send to the FDA. When the California Superior Court ordered GIB, the makers of the Brazilian Blowout, to stop selling its product in California after finding that it emits smog-forming pollutants at levels higher than allowed by the California Air Resources Board, GIB was asked to present a new, reformulated product to meet California Air Quality Standards.

Other countries, most notably, Canada, France, Ireland, and Australia immediately recalled hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde, based on their own testing results.

Effects on Customers

Horror stories abound of people whose home hair dying experiences turned ugly, such as that of 17 year old Tabatha McCourt, who suffered a rare allergic reaction and died 20 minutes after applying the dye despite having coloured her hair plenty of times before. One Reddit user posted about his brother John, who suffered a terrible head swell from applying at-home dye. Such anaphylactic reactions, believed to be sparked from the chemical ingredient para-phenylenediamine (PPD) which is present in 99% of all hair dyes, can even cause people to go into a coma.

Asthma
Persulfates are chemicals found in bleaching agents and hair dye and comprise 60% of most commercial hair products. Continued inhalation of persulfates can lead to persistent cough, throat discomfort, wheezing, lung inflammation, and full-blown asthma attacks. Ammonia is another common contributor to asthma attacks when using hair dye. In high concentrations, it can easily exacerbate pre-existing breathing conditions.

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
According to data retrieved from the National Cancer Institute, 30% of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma cases are caused by regular use of commercial hair dye. 4-ABP is a hair dye byproduct that has also been proven to have carcinogenic effects. The byproduct is commonly found in blonde, red, and black hair dyes but may not be listed on the label.

Multiple Myeloma
Men who use hair dye every once in a while to cover up their greys may still be at risk for developing this cancer of the bone marrow. Research has shown that multiple myeloma risk is greatly increased in Caucasian males who use commercial dye products.

Alternatives With Quality

So what are your options? We hear it all the time. While natural may be better for us, it doesn’t seem to produce quite the results we’re looking for.

Huffington Post writer Rebecca Adams documented her experience going to an organic salon that used Organic Color System. She visited New York City’s Yarok Beauty Kitchen and was taken care of by Mordechai Alvow. “The process was exponentially more enjoyable, since the anti-oxidant blend of aloe vera leaf, comfrey root, orange peel and grapefruit seed in the organic dye didn’t have the same headache-inducing effects of the harsh-smelling, ammonia-filled dye you get in most salons.” In the end, she decided that this treatment was the best for her: “After Alvow was done with me, the color was the most striking shade of copper red I’ve ever had, and I didn’t have that pesky line of demarcation that always gives me what I call ‘fire roots’ (freshly dyed roots that never seem to blend properly until after a couple of washes). The best part: My hair felt 10 pounds lighter and as soft as an 8-year-old’s. Needless to say, I’m an organic hair dye convert.” (Check out her full experience, pictures and all, here).

Hilton Bell, the owner of International Hair and Beauty Systems and an exclusive distributor in the U.S. of Organic Color Systems, not only claims that organic products are better for everyone involved, but that they work better, too. A website dedicated to organic salon products explains just why his system is so great:

Bell is the exclusive distributor in the U.S. of Organic Color Systems, a revolutionary hair coloring product that, until recently, was only available in Europe. Unlike the old versions of organic color that merely coated the hair with semi-permanent tint, Organic Color Systems is a permanent color that uses modern advances in color technique.

By using a conditioning substance with a lower pH, Organic Color Systems gently opens the hair cuticle to color it. It’s simply a gentler way of altering the hair’s color. And, with less damage to the hair, the color comes out more vibrant, the hair more lustrous.

And, contrary to the common belief about natural hair products, this product can achieve all the results of traditional color. Even stubborn grays don’t stand a chance. All the ranges of the color chart are possible, from fiery reds to frosty platinums. Salon owners rave about their increased business as word of mouth spreads.

Here is another list of organic hair dyes you can check out if you want to scan the market.

Needless to say, the world is changing, and people are looking for healthier alternatives to common products which will work as well, if not better, than their chemically-laden and harmful counterparts. You might feel like a kid again trying to find that one salon you can call ‘yours’ and you may encounter some stylists who don’t quite meet your standards, but few things worthwhile in this life come easily!

I highly encourage you to seek out organic salons in your area and inquire about their methods and why they chose to make the switch. Their answers may inspire you. Or perhaps, armed with this information, you can convince a traditional salon to go organic, too.

Sources

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/hair-dye-process_n_4181186.html

http://www.stewartlonky.com/uncategorized/toxic-hair-salons-the-high-price-of-beauty/

http://healthscamsexposed.com/2013/05/5-deadly-reasons-to-stop-dying-your-hair/

http://www.greenamerica.org/livinggreen/how-to-go-nontoxic-at-the-salon.cfm

http://simplyorganicbeauty.com/more-hair-salons-going-green/

 

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?

What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.

“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield

Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…”

Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.

When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here.  The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.

Are Masks Effective?

Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively  that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal  by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.

When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.

Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.

They are one of many who have emphasized this point.

More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.

Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.

This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.

How Effective Are Vaccines?

Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.

According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,

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. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. 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. VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines..

In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.

According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.

It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.”  The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.

It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.

Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.

The Takeaway: 

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

A Rushed COVID-19 Vaccine “Could Actually Worsen the Covid-19 Pandemic” – Scientists

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study outlines how a rushed covid vaccine could make the pandemic worse.

  • Reflect On:

    Do all of our vaccines go through appropriate safety testing? Why are they a liability free product? Why are so many concerns being raised by so many scientists completely ignored by mainstream media, but a rushed coronavirus vaccine isn't?

What Happened: A paper recently published in The Lancet titled “Covid-19 vaccine trials should seek worthwhile efficacy” states the following:

Deployment of a weakly effective vaccine could actually worsen the COVID-19 pandemic if authorities wrongly assume it causes a substantial reduction in risk, or if vaccinated individuals wrongly believe they are immune, hence reducing implementation of, or compliance with, other COVID-19 control measures. Deployment of a marginally effective vaccine could also interfere with the evaluation of other vaccines, as subsequent vaccines would then have to be compared with it rather than with a placebo.

The paper also points out that “There is a danger that political and economic pressures for rapid introduction of a COVID-19 vaccine could lead to widespread deployment of a vaccine that is in reality only weakly effective (eg, reducing COVID-19 incidence by only 10–20%), perhaps because of a misleadingly promising result from an underpowered trial.”

Why This Is Important: The race for a coronavirus vaccine has highlighted how science has become extremely politicized. Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, stated the following for that precise reason:

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

The corruption is never-ending when it comes to the link between corporations, politics and government agencies. In fact, only a few years ago, more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency.  It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.  These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. We would like to see high ethical standards and thoughtful, responsible management restored at CDC. We are asking that you do your part to help clean up this house!

Mainstream media outlets are picking up on the desire for a rushed vaccine and blaming Donald Trump. But this isn’t because of the dangers of a rushed vaccine, it’s simply to make the president look bad. That’s politics, two different politicians could be pushing for the same thing, but how it’s portrayed and beamed into the minds of the masses via mainstream media may be different depending on their political/corporate affiliations.

Here’s an article from the New York Times regarding Gerald Ford and his rushed vaccine. CNN recently published an article titled “Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be ‘colossally stupid.’

To paint vaccines in any type of harmful light is something we don’t really see from mainstream media. Perhaps there are going to be multiple vaccines here? One that is rushed and demonized by mainstream media, and another to follow that is praised, both most likely being colossal money makers.

But the question, are vaccines safe and effective in general?

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) has already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported.

Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. (source)

This completely contradicts the CDC’s claim that 1/1,000,000 people are injured from vaccines.

Recent Articles Published Regarding Vaccine Efficacy In General:

Landmark FDA Paper On Aluminum Safety In Vaccines

RFK Jr. & Children’s Health Defense Sue University of California For Making Flu Shot Mandatory

Biochemical Engineer Drops Bombshell Facts About Measles & The MMR Vaccine In Washington

US Gov & Yale Hold Clinical Trials To Test “Persuasive Messages For COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake”

81% of Clinical Trial Volunteers Suffer Reactions to CanSino Biologics’ COVID-19 Vaccine

Recent Coronavirus Article: We Have a Lot of Evidence That It’s a Fake Story All Over The World – German Doctors

The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Why are the safety concerns addressed by many scientists and doctors always ignored and never addressed/countered? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Landmark FDA Paper On Aluminum Safety In Vaccines Found To Have A Critical Math Error

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A group of scientists and physicians known as The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) have discovered a crucial math error in a FDA paper regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why have there been no studies by regulatory agencies in conjunction with independent scientists to see where vaccine ingredients travel to in the body after the are injected? Why no appropriate safety testing for the aluminum vaccine adjuvant?

What Happened: The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) outline that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have already raised concerns about the negative effects of aluminum exposure in humans.

They state the following:

 Because some vaccines contain aluminum, the FDA published a paper in 2011 (Mitkus et al.) to address concerns about aluminum exposure from vaccines in infants. The paper compared the aluminum exposure from vaccines in infants to a safety limit of oral aluminum determined by the ATSDR. However, this study incorrectly based its calculations on 0.78% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream rather than the value of 0.1% used by the ATSDR in its computations. As a result, the FDA paper assumed that nearly 8 (0.78%/0.1%) times more aluminum can safely enter the bloodstream, and this led the authors to incorrectly conclude that aluminum exposure from vaccines was well below the safety limit.

You can read their “Erratum in “Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination” here.

The Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) are a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures. Their information is based on science. Their mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and to unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccinations. Their vision is that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination.

According to Dr, Christopher Shaw, a member of PIC and a professor at the University of British Columbia who has performed numerous studies on the effects of injected aluminum,

“We knew that the Mitkus et al. paper modeling aluminum clearance had to be inaccurate since it was assuming that injected aluminum kinetics were the same as the kinetics of aluminum acquired through diet. Now, in addition, we see that they did their modeling based on using the incorrect level of aluminum absorption. What is particularly striking is that despite all these errors, since 2011, Mitkus et al. is used by CDC and other entities as the basis for claiming that aluminum adjuvants are safe.”

Dr. Shira Miller, president of PIC, said, “We posted the Mitkus 2011 erratum on ResearchGate in hopes of bringing it to the attention of scientists and researchers who are interested in the safety of the quantities of injected aluminum found in childhood vaccines and would be in a position to further research the safety concern.”

When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system.- Shaw

The PIC has released a PDF called Aluminum Vaccine Risk Statement with a lot more information. You can access it here.

Why This Is Important: The idea that it’s safe to inject children with aluminum containing vaccines is based on presumption. No appropriate safety studies exist to show this is the case, which is why A group of scientists from multiple countries recently published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science”  state the following,

 “The safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”

The publication goes on to address concerns it has with another paper that was published a year prior, emphasizing that the authors of that specific publication, JP Goullé & L Grangeot-Keros,

Described general knowledge on aluminum (Al) exposure, kinetics and toxicity but made very little effort to delineate the scientific questions specifically related to Al adjuvants in vaccines. Instead of representing the bulk of their review, the subject of Al adjuvants covered no more than one third of the 3 page-text. Numerous important papers on the topic were omitted, i.e. 20 years of scientific publications in clinical, post-mortem, in vitro and in vivo experimental studies published by independent research teams, worldwide experts in this topic, were simply omitted.

In 2018, shaw published a paper in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that found almost 100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum in mice as vaccine adjuvants was absorbed into the systemic circulation and traveled to different sites in the body such as the brain, the joints, and the spleen where it accumulated and was retained for years post-vaccination. (source)

study published in BioMed Central (also cited in the study above) in 2013 found more cause for concern:

Intramuscular injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and brain where they were still detected one year after injection. Both fluorescent materials injected into muscle translocated to draining lymph nodes (DLNs) and thereafter were detected associated with phagocytes in blood and spleen. Particles linearly accumulated in the brain up to the six-month endpoint; they were first found in perivascular CD11b+ cells and then in microglia and other neural cells. DLN ablation dramatically reduced the biodistribution. Cerebral translocation was not observed after direct intravenous injection, but significantly increased in mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier. Loss/gain-of-function experiments consistently implicated CCL2 in systemic diffusion of Al-Rho particles captured by monocyte-lineage cells and in their subsequent neurodelivery. Stereotactic particle injection pointed out brain retention as a factor of progressive particle accumulation…

The study went on to conclude that “continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe.”

These authors followed up and published a study in 2015 that emphasized:

Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.

A paper published in 2018 discovered high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. That particular paper has now been downloaded more than 1 million times.

The particular paper cited above was published by Dr. Christopher Exley.

Exley was also one of the authors on the main paper cited at the beginning of this article. Here is a very interesting interview with him if you’re interested. He’s considered to be one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, if not the world’s leading expert. You can find out more about his research and what he’s up to by visiting his Instagram page.

The point is, this topic is hot right now, as it should be, and it seems that our federal health regulatory agencies continue to ignore the concerns being made and the studies being published.

Here is an important clip from Dr. Larry Palevsky, a board-certified Paediatrician currently practicing in New York talking about aluminum and how it differs in adjuvant form.

According to a study published as far back as 2011 in Current Medical Chemistry 

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. (source)

The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Why are the safety concerns addressed by many scientists and doctors always ignored and never addressed/countered? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!