Connect with us

Awareness

New study: Vaccine Manufacturers & FDA Regulators Caught Hiding Risks of HPV Vaccines

Published

on

New Documentary: Watch: The Truth about vaccines – bit.ly/2uKN1FO

advertisement - learn more

A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.

Researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisonsdesigned to diminish their relative significance.

Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxicaluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a new drug against a “pharmacologically inert” placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines, pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine injuries.

Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups. Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups allowed industry researchers and government regulators to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of “significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.

The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain, they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.” In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate on their often-troubling findings.

advertisement - learn more

Abbreviated Trial Times

Typically, FDA requires drug companies seeking approval for a new drug to observe health outcomes in both the placebo and study groups for 4-5 years. Vaccine manufacturers take advantage of FDA regulatory loopholes that allow fast-tracking of vaccines and cut that period down to a few weeks or even a few days. This means that injuries that manifest, or are diagnosed, later in life—most neurodevelopmental disorders, for example—will escape attention entirely.

Further Smokescreens

Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra point to clinical trial data posted on the FDA webpagefor the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine approved in 2006. Those clinical trials deployed a panoply of the kind of cunning deceptions used by industry and government researchers. Unlike many of the other HPV vaccine clinical trials, these clinical studies employed a true saline placebo.

Across the Gardasil clinical studies, a group of 15,706 females ages 9-45 and males ages 9-26 received the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine. A control group of 594 individuals received an inert saline placebo. The industry researchers never explain the tiny relative size of the saline placebo group; it’s noteworthy that small size would have the effect of keeping unwanted signals weak. But a second control group of 13,023 received a so-called “spiked” placebo loaded with an aluminum adjuvant (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate or AAHS). The large size of this “spiked placebo” group suggests that the decision to keep the saline placebo group small was strategic.

Putting aside the thorny ethical question of whether study participants were told that they were being injected with a neurotoxin with probable associations with Alzheimer’s, dementia and other forms of brain disease, the inclusion of both saline and aluminum placebos provided these researchers a chance to do some genuine science. But the FDA webpage shows the troubling gimmick that was then employed by the FDA and Merck, which seems deliberately designed to blur datasets in order to mask adverse effects during the clinical trials. The table showing relatively minor injection-site adverse reactions—one to five days post-vaccination—displays three distinct columns for the three groups: Gardasil recipients, the aluminum “placebo” recipients, and saline placebo recipients (see table below). In the table, “Intergroup differences are obvious,” in the words of the Mexican researchers. For example, roughly three and a half times more girls/women experienced injection site swelling in the Gardasil group compared to the saline group (25.4% vs. 7.3%). In fact, by all five measures, both the Gardasil recipients and the aluminum placebo recipients fared two to three times worse than the saline recipients.

When it came time for Merck to report on the occurrence of more serious reactions, “Systemic Adverse Reactions” and “Systemic Autoimmune Disorders,” for example, the company scientists switched to a very different format. In these tables, the third column that reported results for the saline placebo recipients disappears. Instead, Merck combined the groups receiving the spiked aluminum placebo into a single column with the group receiving the genuine saline placebo (see example below). The merger of the two control groups makes it impossible to compare results for Gardasil versus the saline placebo or the aluminum placebo versus the saline placebo. In this way, Merck’s researchers obliterated any hope of creating a meaningful safety comparison.

Risks and Benefits

Given aluminum’s known neurotoxicity and its association with debilitating autoimmune conditions, it is unsurprising that there are no observable differences between the Gardasil and AAHS/saline groups. But, despite the researchers’ efforts to paper over adverse effects, they were not able to conceal the devastating health injuries to their human guinea pigs. The bottom line of these trials reveals a shocking truth: An alarming 2.3% of both their study and control groups had indicators of autoimmune diseases! These data are even more alarming when one considers that the observation period was curtailed after only six months. With this level of risk, it would seem that no loving parents would allow their daughter to receive this vaccine—particularly given the comparatively low risk posed by HPV in countries with appropriate cervical cancer screening tests. Even in countries such as India, where cervical cancer mortality is high due to late detection, leading Indian physicians argue that comprehensive screening should be the country’s top priority rather than the “panacea” of HPV vaccination.

Consider the math: According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an estimated 2.4 women per 100,000 die of cervical cancer in the US each year. On the other hand, the FDA’s Table 2 (above) shows that 2.3 per 100 girls and women developed an “incident condition potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder” after enrolling in the Gardasil clinical trial. It is difficult to understand how any rational regulator could allow more than two in 100 girls to run the risk of acquiring a lifelong autoimmune disorder, particularly when Pap smears are already doing an effective job of identifying cervical abnormalities. The NIH notes that the incidence and death rates for cervical cancer in the US declined by more than 60% after introducing Pap smear screening.

Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra make their own effort to illustrate the zany risk-benefit ratios associated with these vaccines when discussing the results of one of the 16 clinical trials. That study compared approximately 14,000 women who received either Gardasil 9 or the original quadrivalent Gardasil. Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

Implications for Aluminum Adjuvants

Merck found that astronomical casualty counts were equal among both Gardasil and aluminum “placebo” recipients. The inescapable implication is that aluminum adjuvants may be a principal culprit in the flood of injuries reported for the various HPV vaccines. This conclusion, if true, requires reevaluation of the use of aluminum adjuvants in several other vaccines, including some given to infants. Aluminum adjuvant levels have mushroomed since the 2003 removal of thimerosal from three pediatric vaccines. The following chart, prepared by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, illustrates the stunning amount of aluminum in vaccines.

Multiple peer-reviewed studies have connected aluminum exposures to a range of autoimmune and neurological disorders, including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, that have become epidemic coterminous with these aluminum exposures. A review in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition warns of dangerous accumulation of aluminum in the brain when, as in the case of vaccination, “protective gastrointestinal mechanisms are bypassed.” It’s time to go back to the drawing board on HPV vaccines and aluminum adjuvants. More importantly, FDA needs to start requiring the same rigorous pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines that it has long required for other drugs. All existing vaccines, particularly those containing aluminum, should be safety-reviewed according to these more stringent standards.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Is Doctors’ Cash Incentive Sidelining the Hippocratic Oath?

Published

on

California likes to brag about its “outsized influence” on the rest of the United States and its vaunted tendency to “experience the future earlier than other parts of the country.” However, having just passed the most draconian vaccine law in the nation—one that decimates the doctor-patient relationship and tells medically fragile children that they have no right to bodily integrity—it would appear that the state’s lawmakers and the medical trade groups that were only too happy to co-sponsor the legislation think it is trend-setting to model medical tyranny and the overthrow of the Nuremberg Code.

Within hours of the California Assembly’s 48-19 passage of SB 276, California Senators followed with their approval (28-11)—with all “ayes” in both chambers being Democrats—and the Democratic governor signed it along with last-minute companion bill SB 714. Illustrating the arrogant attitude prevailing among officialdom, the state health director (who recently resigned) casually dismissed the thousands who showed up to oppose the bill as “flat-earthers” and “booger-eaters.”

The editor of the independent news website California Globe called attention to the unseemly haste with which antidemocratic lawmakers “jammed through” legislation that essentially eliminates vaccine medical exemptions, quoting one dissenting Republican Senator as saying, “This Legislature is even scaring our medical community.” Is the Senator right? Just what doCalifornia doctors think about the unprecedented legislation that disses their sacrosanct relationship with patients and allows state bureaucrats to “illegally practice medicine over the top of the doctors”?

Some physicians were clearly concerned, turning out to testify against SB 276 or writing letters to ask the governor to veto the legislation. One physician wrote that the two bills “have created a climate of fear and anxiety,” leaving practicing physicians “afraid to speak up for fear of retribution, of being targeted by the state, for public censure and loss of professional respect.” Another doctor agreed that the legislation imposes “tremendous risk and liability—personally, professionally and financially”—on physicians who write valid medical exemptions, yet physicians bear “NO liability for giving contraindicated vaccinations, even if they cause foreseeable yet preventable harm.”

The climate of intimidation is one consideration. However, vaccination also offers doctors numerous financial incentives to toe the line. In fact, the majority of physicians appear to be willing participants in the U.S. vaccine program, no matter how many vaccines the CDC tells them to administer and no matter the evidence of vaccine damage that may be playing out before their eyes. Why not, when—as a private-practice physician affiliated with the CDC wrote a few years ago—nationally recommended vaccinations not only furnish “steady revenue” but can also improve a practice’s “financial viability.”

Follow the money

In 2015, the physician then serving as liaison to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on behalf of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) wrote an article reminding fellow AAFP members that “minimizing costs and maximizing reimbursement can make immunizations profitable.” In addition to offering tips on how to be a “savvy vaccine shopper” and obtain manufacturer discounts for ordering multiple vaccines, the doctor discusses how physicians can make money on administration fees for pediatric vaccines by “properly coding for the service.”

advertisement - learn more

Every two-year old is worth $400 if they meet the “Combination 10 Criteria” (View full size graph.)

As he explains, “proper coding” involves not just billing for the vaccine itself (and including a diagnostic code that “reminds the insurance company that this is part of the routine immunization schedule”), but also billing for the fee that “is supposed to cover the time, energy, and supplies required to administer the vaccine as well as the overhead associated with managing the vaccines.”

The good doctor then goes on to describe the pediatric vaccine administration codes that he considers the “most important” from a “financial point of view”:

These codes, which include a counseling component…can be used only for patients 18 years old or younger. The reason these codes are so valuable is that they pay per vaccine component. For example, if you administer an MMR vaccine, you may bill for three components (measles, mumps, and rubella). If you administer a DTaP/IPV vaccine (Kinrix) you may bill for four components (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio).

He notes that the codes were new as of 2011; prior to that year, combination vaccines actually resulted in lower rather than higher physician reimbursement.

Giving a “real life” example and again emphasizing that “the results are most dramatic for vaccines with multiple components,” the AAFP member describes billing for a two-month well-child visit at which the baby receives a five-component combination vaccine (DtaP/IPV/HepB) as well as three other vaccines—Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumococcal conjugate (PSV13) and rotavirus.

Without any vaccine counseling, the practice would only be able to bill for $125 total, but with additional billing codes for “brief counseling,” the total reimbursement (as of 2015) would shoot up to $300—an extra $175 for a few minutes’ effort. Noting that the counseling codes do not cover counseling provided by nurses, he adds that he can also make the extra $175 by providing “a short vaccine-counseling visit” himself, when possible, in lieu of scheduling a nurse visit. Proudly, he notes that vaccine reimbursement often exceeds reimbursement for the rest of the visit.

When it comes to the number of vaccines, the sky’s the limit

The Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) is a leading vaccine front group that receives significant funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the CDC and lobbies for the removal of vaccine exemptions. On its “Ask the Experts” webpage, the IAC tells physicians, “There is no upper limitfor the number of vaccines that can be administered during one visit.” Even though researchers have never tested this assertion—with zero studies on the safety of the full vaccine schedule or the effects of so many simultaneous and cumulative vaccines—the AAFP rep’s description of the financial benefits accruing from “proper” coding provides one reason why so many physicians may be willing to pile the vaccines on without question.

At a time when Medical Boards are going after doctors who overprescribe opioids, one might expect doctors to have concerns about inflicting vaccine injuries through over-administration of vaccines. Not to worry, says the IAC, which reassures doctors (on the same “no upper limit” webpage) that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program confers medical professionals with liability protection for “all vaccines that are routinely administered to children.”

Bolstered by the Hippocratic oath, patients generally “trust that the physician will act in their interest, or at least will do no harm.” The first principle of the Nuremberg Code emphasizes voluntary consent and interventions free of “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” As Children’s Health Defense General Counsel Mary Holland writes, “SB 276 is a clear example of government overreach.” However, while doctors who support compulsory vaccination and the revocation of vaccine exemptions are on the wrong side of history where the Nuremberg Code and their Hippocratic oath are concerned—clearly the case for the physician-author of SB 276 who has never acknowledged vaccine-injured children—for many, the absence of liability and the financial payoffs appear to be acceptable tradeoffs.


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.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Box Top$ For Education Is Not Supporting Education (Here’s Why)

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Box Top$ For Education program has kicked off yet again with messaging to suggest it helps schools across the country. However, when you go beyond the surface it's far from what it seems and promotes itself as.

  • Reflect On:

    What labels and initiatives do you let impact your behavior as a consumer?

National Box Tops for Education Week kicks off coast-to-coast fundraising.  For over 20 years, the Box Tops for Education program has provided families a way to help raise money for their school. The program was created to “help support education and benefit American schools” by providing a small amount of money from each item purchased. Does this program truly benefit education and support learning?

Who’s Really Benefitting?

General Mills, Inc., an American multi-billion-dollar multinational manufacturer, and marketer of branded consumer food is genuinely the benefactor. Giving a school 10 cents for every item bought is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money General Mills earns at the expense of our health. At first glance, it appears this company has been extremely generous, donating $719,000,000 in the last 20 years. If you do the math and divide each year’s totals by the 80,000 plus schools in the United States, it equates to a whopping $449 per school. As one can see, General Mills has done a fantastic marketing job, encouraging our kids to eat their garbage. Sure, we can buy school supplies, Kleenex tissues, and a few toxic cleaning products on the list, but what’s the fun in that.

Crappy, Overly-Processed “Food-Like” Products Do Not Support Learning

Diet and nutrition deeply affect a child’s learning ability. Sadly the qualifying products on the Box Top list including Hamburger Helper, Lucky Charms, Pillsbury Toaster Strudel, Fruit Roll-Ups, and alike do not achieve this.

Did You Know? The ingredient list for strawberry fruit roll-ups doesn’t include strawberries!

Instead, it contains genetically modified corn syrup and dextrose (refined sugar derived from GM corn, and artificial food dyes – red 40, yellow 5&6, blue 1 (derived from coal tar and petroleum).

Nutrient-rich homemade meals are being replaced with boxed, frozen, and canned foods due to higher prices of healthy food, our hectic lifestyles, and brainwashing tactics, such TV ads and campaigns such as the Box Top program.

advertisement - learn more

The Truth

Processed food lacks essential whole food nutrients the brain needs to function correctly. They contain ingredients such as genetically modified corn syrup, refined sugar, synthetic salt, unhealthy fats, artificial colors and flavors, chemical preservatives, and unrevealed heavy metals and pesticides. All of these ingredients work against a child’s ability to learn. 

Pesticides and antibiotics found in food today are detrimental to our healthy gut microbiota which are essential to brain function and development. Both are designed to kill bugs. So, we are destroying our gut bugs that help regulate and keep our immune systems strong and healthy to support our brain.

Studies have also shown that the high sugar content of processed foods may contribute to diabetes, which can affect a student’s learning in many ways. Blood sugar levels can affect cognitive functioning and school performance. According to many scientific journals and newsletters from prestigious universities like Harvard Medical School, processed food consumption are also linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, sleep problems, hyperactivity, attention; and mood symptoms including depression and anxiety.

Boxed foods are also linked to other severe health issues like obesity and high blood pressure. Two extensive European studies published by BMJ in May 2019 links processed foods with a range of health risks, including cardiovascular death. Another scientific study conducted by scientists from Yale University in the U.S. and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany indicated that “excess refined salt used in fast-food restaurants and the over-consumption of sodium from other processed foods may be one of the environmental factors driving the increased incidence of autoimmune diseases.”  Processed foods can also trigger cancer.  The researchers warn that the rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods “may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades.”

Don’t Be A Victim To The Marketing Ploy

We are poisoning ourselves, and the consequences are starting to show with the incredible rise of neurodevelopmental, mental illness, and diseases like cancer, asthma, diabetes, and many autoimmune disorders. So, let’s forgo the Box Top’s and find healthier and more productive ways to raise money for our schools. These big ag companies have no interest in changing current practices no matter how sick they’re making all of us. Or how many medications we are all dependent on. These companies are generating trillions of dollars of their products, and creating customers for life. General Mills and most food companies are owned by Monsanto/Bayer. They are adhering to FDA guidelines and are not violating any federal laws because they fund the FDA (Industry User Fees).

Fighting big lobbyist groups can seem like an impossibility for most of us, so we need to take our power back by voting with our dollar. We must refuse to purchase products with barcodes that are making 10 cents for our schools. And choose healthy instead.


Looking to help your family overcome ADHD, autism, anxiety and more without medication? Get access to download my FREE eBook ‘Every Parent’s Starter Kit to a Healthy Family’ by signing up HERE.

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Why Vegan and not Vegetarian? Vietnamese Monk Thich Nhat Hanh Answers The Question

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Vietnamese Monk Thich Nhat Hanh explains why he chooses not to consume any meat or dairy products, and points towards the overwhelmingly cruel food industry.

  • Reflect On:

    What gives us the right to torture animals, steal their babies, abuse them simply for our consumption? Where is our compassion, morality and empathy? Have we been made and brainwashed to believe that it's ok?

The most heartbreaking thing to see and to witness is an innocent benevolent being getting tortured and suffering. This is the realty of eating animal products today. Billions of animals are raised for slaughter every single year, and the overwhelmingly large majority of them go through horrific and terrifying experiences. It’s hard to imagine how anybody could eat or wear the clothes of diseased animals knowing what they went through. It’s also hard to believe that anybody who does eat or purchase products that have used animals in their manufacturing process would do that kind of “labour” themselves.

The truth is that many people still don’t know what these beings are going through. It’s absolutely heartbreaking, immoral, and unethical. Morality, empathy, and love are all emotions that need to return to planet Earth, and as long as we have multiple industries exploiting animals, that can’t happen.

If you’re unaware of what these animals are going through on a daily basis, a recent PETA investigation on two of the world’s top cashmere exporters revealed extreme cruelty, including the violent killing of cashmere goats. You can read more about it and see some footage of that here, if you’re interested.

You can view more examples of graphic footage in the trailer of “The Buddha Bowl,” a documentary in the making featuring personalities and some of the most influential and renowned spiritual leaders from all over the world sharing their perspectives on veganism. These include viewpoints from Buddha himself and from spiritual leaders from the past and present, totalling about 30 interviews on animal rights, environmental issues and health.

One of the people in that documentary is Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who is recognized as a global spiritual leader, poet and peace activist. The video below is not part of the documentary listed above, but from an interview taken a few years ago at a conference.

advertisement - learn more

Are We Even Designed To Eat Meat?

There is no doubt our world is becoming more awake, aware, and compassionate. Millions of people around the world have transitioned towards a plant-based diet. This represents the kind of compassion and empathy our world needs more of, and this diet can do nothing but benefit human health, the planet, and the animals.

It’s no secret that eating meat and animal products is destroying the Earth, as clearing land for animal grazing and slaughter is one of the leading causes of deforestation, and factory farms are an environmental disaster.

More people are also starting to become aware of plant-based diets and their health benefits.

A recent study conducted by researchers in California and France found that meat protein is associated with a very sharp increased risk of heart disease, while protein from nuts and seeds is actually beneficial for the human heart. The study is titled “Patterns of plant and animal protein intake are strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality: The Adventist Health Study-2 cohort,”

It’s one of many studies that’ve emerged over the years showing the benefits of plant-based diets and their ability to reverse diseases. On the other hand, many studies published have shown how the consumption of meat has the exact opposite effect.

Below is a clip from a recent CETV episode where CE founder Joe Martino and I go into the discussion a little deeper, with a specific focus on plant-based protein compared to meat protein. If interested, you can watch the full episode here by signing up for your free trial. CETV is a platform that we created to combat the censorship we’ve experienced over the past couple of years.

I also go into this type of discussion, if you’re interested in reading about it, in an article I recently published: “Another Study Suggests Humans Are Not Designed To Eat Meat.”

The Takeaway

Human beings are born with compassion and empathy. What we are doing to animals on our planet today, and how many continue to ignore it and be unaffected by it, is simply as a result of mass brainwashing and marketing by big food corporations. The truth is that we’ve been taught to ignore it, we’ve been taught to believe that it’s OK and it’s our right to do this to others who share the planet with us. No child would ever stand for such a thing unless they were taught to do so. It’s the same thing as racism, we are not born with it, we are taught it. I urge all those who are reading this to do their research into where the vast majority of our food and clothes are coming from, watch what these animals are going through, look into their eyes and and feel what they are feeling.

The ability to feel and understand the emotions of others, animal or human, is a HUGE and VITAL step towards creating a better world and a better overall human experience.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!