Connect with us

Lifestyle

These Plants Are Oxygen Bombs & They Clean The Air In Your Home

Published

on

Everyone would love to have a fresh, clean living space to come home to each day, and while part of that is up to us, we can put some house plants to work to keep our air clean quite effectively. Thankfully, NASA’s Clean Air Study helps us know which are effective.

advertisement - learn more

Environmental toxins are important to cut down on. With toxins entering our body from our air, clothing, food, water, cosmetics, soaps, shampoos etc, not being aware of what we’re exposed to can increase our risks of disease.

--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.

Eighty-four thousand chemicals are legal for commerce in the US. Incredibly, all are essentially unregulated. In 2011, chemicals accounted for more than $763 billion in revenue. For example, the six billion pounds of BPA produced every year generates about $8 billion in profits for its manufacturers.

One thing many people don’t realize is that especially during winter months the air in your house doesn’t circulate and filter as well. When you use cleaning products and things like that, you are toxifying the air pretty quickly without having anything to help clean or circulate the air. You and your family then breathe this air all day long. This is partly why it’s so important to choose all natural cleaning products as much as you can.

Whether you are in a small apartment or a big house, having clean air is important. Plants are great for removing carbon dioxide from the air but some plants are even more powerful than that and can do a great job improving the air quality in your home. Plus they look great and carry a great energy.

Azaleas

IMG_3579

advertisement - learn more

If you use low quality and toxic detergents and cleaners in your home, this plant can help filter the air in your kitchen. It’s highly recommended to use environmentally sustainable cleaners that don’t make the air in your home toxic to begin with.

English Ivy (Hedera Helix)

english ivy

If you grow English Ivy, it’s best for pots due to its invasive nature. Research found it to be useful in eliminating airborne fecal-matter particles. The plant is also great for a family who still allow smokers to smoke inside. Its ability to soak up carcinogens from second-hand smoke helps to purify small areas. It’s flexible when it comes to growing conditions and doesn’t require much maintenance.

Peace Lily (Spathiphyllum)

PLT8inspath_wdtpr09SMP_PF
The perfect fit for any laundry or bathroom, the peace lily specializes in the removal of mold spores. The plant itself does not require large amounts of water or sunlight to survive and even features often beautiful flowers that make it a decorative piece. In addition to mold, the plant is also known to remove formaldehyde and trichloroethylene. (Warning: If you own or live with cats the Peace Lily is known to be extremely toxic to cats if they consume it)

Bamboo Palm (Chamaedorea Seifrizii)

chamaedorea plant on white

Normally never growing larger than 10 feet tall, the Bamboo Palm is an easy addition to almost any interior space. As a plant is it recognized as one of the best at filtering out benzene and trichloroethylene, both of which can regularly creep into living spaces. The bamboo palm is also great next to pieces of furniture that may be prone to off-gassing formaldehyde, another toxin it can naturally handle pretty well.

Chinese Evergreen (Aglaonema)

Aglaonema-Chinese-Evergreen-2

What truly makes the Chinese Evergreen cool is the development of its effectiveness. The more time the plant spends in a space, the more effective it becomes at removing the air pollutants and toxins of the area. Much like the Peace Lily it can happily exist in even a low-light setting and can often bloom and produce berries as well.

Aloe Vera


Aloe-Vera

The Aloe Vera plant is incredibly easy to grow and maintain, and like many of its counterparts is wonderful for filtering out air pollutants and toxins. However what sets the Aloe Vera plant apart is the healing ability of the gel within each of its leaves. Rich in vitamins A, C, E, B1, B2, B12 and many more the gel can effectively be used to help heal cuts and burns. Aloe has also been linked to assist with detoxification, alkalinity, digestion, the immune system, skin health and much more. It truly is a super plant that can even be easily grown in a small pot on a window sill.

Pelargonium

nov-27-dec-10-2014-021a

This beautiful flower does a great job cleaning the air, removing unwanted odors, killing bacteria and it also helps to keep moths away. If you use the essential oils from the plant, they are great for sleep and calming the nervous system.

Spider Plant (Chlorophytum Comosum)

spider-plant

The Spider Plant requires natural light but shouldn’t be exposed directly to the sun. We have a bunch of these around our office at CE and we love them. They thrive quite easily and don’t take much maintenance. They do a great job of sequestering carbon monoxide so a kitchen is a great place for these. You can even make more plants from this plant very easily as it grows baby versions of itself.

Rubber Plant (Ficus Elastica)

Ficus_elastica

Like its name suggests the Rubber Plant is one tough character capable of surviving and thriving in much less light and lower temperatures than most plants of its size. Of all Ficus plants tested, it scored the best in removing toxins and pollutants from the inside of homes. It is especially tough on formaldehyde.

Snake Plant (Sansevieria Trifasciata)

snake-plant

The Snake Plant focus on doing it’s important work at night.  It sucks in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen during the night, helping people sleep better. Many choose to keep it in their bedroom or carpeted living room. As with many of the plants in this list, it’s easy to take care of and it can even prevent the formaldehyde that leaks from your carpet and wood furniture from sticking around the air.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study

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!