Connect with us

Awareness

Debunking One of The Greatest Myths About GE Crops: “Genetic Modification of Crops Has Been Happening In Nature For Thousands of Years”

Published

on

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

advertisement - learn more

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

advertisement - learn more

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

25 Reasons to Avoid the Gardasil Vaccine

Published

on

It has been 13 years since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supplied fast-tracked approval for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine—promoted for the prevention of cervical cancer and other conditions attributed to four types of human papillomavirus (HPV). The agency initially licensed Gardasil solely for 9- to 26-year-old girls and women, but subsequent FDA decisions now enable Merck to market Gardasil’s successor—the nine-valent Gardasil 9 vaccine—to a much broader age range—9 to 45 years—and to both males and females.

As a result of Gardasil’s expanding markets not just in the U.S. but internationally, the blockbuster HPV vaccine has become Merck’s third highest-grossing product, bringing in annual global revenues of about $2.3 billion. However, Gardasil’s safety record has been nothing short of disastrous. Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have just produced a video detailing the many problems with the development and safety of Gardasil. Please watch and share this video so that you and others may understand why Mr. Kennedy refers to Merck’s methodologies as “fraudulent flimflams.”

What follow are 25 key facts about Gardasil/Gardasil 9, including facts about the HPV vaccines’ clinical trials and adverse outcomes observed ever since Merck, public health officials and legislators aggressively foisted the vaccines on an unsuspecting public.

Inappropriate placebos and comparisons

  1. A placebo is supposed to be an inert substance that looks just like the drug being tested. But in the Gardasil clinical trials, Merck used a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant called AAHS instead of using an inert saline placebo.
  2. Among girls and women who received the vaccine and among girls and women who received AAHS, an astonishing 2.3% in both groups experienced conditions indicative of “systemic autoimmune disorders,” many shortly after receiving Gardasil.
  3. Multiple scientific studies associate aluminum not just with autoimmune diseases but with autism, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and Parkinson’s disease as well as behavioral abnormalities in animals.
  4. Merck lied to study participants, falsely saying that the clinical trials were not safety studies, that the vaccine had already been found to be safe and that the “placebo” was an inert saline solution. [Source: The HPV Vaccine on Trial  (photo evidence, pp. 6 and 12).]
  5. When Merck conducted clinical trials for its next HPV vaccine formulation, Gardasil 9, it used Gardasil as the “placebo” in the control groups, again relying on the lack of an inert placebo to mask safety signals.
  6. The 500 micrograms of aluminum adjuvant (AAHS) in Gardasil 9 are more than double the amount of aluminum in Gardasil; this raises the question of whether Gardasil 9’s heavy reliance on the Gardasil trials for comparison is justifiable.
  7. The World Health Organization states that using a vaccine (rather than an inert substance) as a placebo creates a “methodological disadvantage” and also notes that it may be “difficult or impossible” to assess vaccine safety properly without a true placebo.

Inappropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria

  1. In the only Gardasil trial in the target age group (11- and 12-year-old girls) with a control group design, fewer than 1200 children received the vaccine and fewer than 600 served as controls. This single trial involving fewer than 1800 children set the stage for the vaccine’s subsequent marketing to millions of healthy preteens all over the world.
  2. The Gardasil clinical trials had numerous exclusion criteria. Not allowed to participate in the trials were people with: severe allergies; prior abnormal Pap test results; over four lifetime sex partners; a history of immunological disorders and other chronic illnesses; reactions to vaccine ingredients, including aluminum, yeast, and benzonase; or a history of drug or alcohol abuse—yet Merck now recommends Gardasil for all of these groups.

Inadequate monitoring

  1. Some of the study participants—but not all—were given “report cards” to record short-term reactions such as redness and itching. The report cards monitored reactions for a mere 14 days, however, and Merck did not follow up with participants who experienced serious adverse events such as systemic autoimmune or menstrual problems.
  2. Injured participants complained that Merck rebuffed their attempts to report adverse side effects. In numerous instances, Merck maintained that these “weren’t related to the vaccine.”
  3. Half (49.6%) of the clinical trial subjects who received Gardasil reported serious medical conditions within seven months. To avoid classifying these injuries as adverse events, Merck dismissed them as “new medical conditions.”
Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the U.S. are 2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000—or 37 times that of cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer risk-benefit ratio not worth it

  1. The median age of cervical cancer death is 58 years. Gardasil targets millions of healthy preadolescents and teens for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Interventions for healthy people must have a risk profile that is also practically zero.
  2. Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the U.S. are 2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000—or 37 times that of cervical cancer.
  3. With 76 million children vaccinated at an average cost of $420 for the three-shot Gardasil series, the cost of saving one American life from cervical cancer amounts to about $18.3 million dollars. By contrast, the value of a human life according to the Department of Health and Human Services’s (HHS’s) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is $250,000—the maximum amount that the government program will award for a vaccine-related death.
  4. According to Gardasil’s package insert, women are 100 times more likely to suffer a severe event following vaccination with Gardasil than they are to get cervical cancer.
  5. The chances of getting an autoimmune disease from Gardasil, even if the vaccine works, are 1,000 times greater than the chances of being saved from a cervical cancer death.
  6. Women in Gardasil clinical trials with evidence of current HPV infection and previous exposure to HPV had a 44% increased risk of developing cervical lesions or cancer following vaccination.
  7. Women who get the Gardasil vaccine as preteens or teens are more likely to skip cervical cancer screening as adults, mistakenly assuming that HPV vaccination is a replacement for screening and that the vaccine will eliminate all risk.
Since Gardasil came on the U.S. market in 2006, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Fertility effects

  1. Accumulating evidence points to Gardasil’s potentially severe adverse effects on fertility, including miscarriage and premature ovarian failure.
  2. Merck never tested the vaccine for fertility effects. However, Gardasil and Gardasil 9 clinical trials showed high spontaneous miscarriage rates of 25% and 27.4%, respectively—significantly higher than the background rates of approximately 10%-15% in this reproductive age group.
  3. Polysorbate 80 and sodium borate (Borax) are associated with infertility in animals. Both are Gardasil ingredients, and both were present in the one clinical trial protocol that professed to use a benign saline placebo.

Post-licensing

  1. In 2015, Denmark opened five new “HPV clinics” to treat children injured by Gardasil. Over 1300 cases flooded the clinics shortly after their opening.
  2. Since Gardasil came on the U.S. market in 2006, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
  3. Merck lied to VAERS about the case of Christina Tarsell’s death, falsely claiming that her doctor blamed a virus instead of Gardasil. [Source: The HPV Vaccine on Trial  (p. 144).]

The vaccine that should never have been licensed

As suggested in the conclusion to the 2018 book The HPV Vaccine on Trial, the rollout of Gardasil in 125 countries worldwide has illustrated—in an all-too-real and shocking manner—the phenomenon that prompted Hans Christian Andersen to write “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Around the world, over 100,000 Gardasil-related adverse events have now been reported to the FDA and WHO, and accounts continue to multiply of “scandal, lawsuits, severe injuries, and deaths.” For almost 200 years, Andersen’s story has taught readers about the need to speak the truth, pay attention to evidence and listen to children. The rosy narrative manufactured for the dangerous Gardasil vaccine must not be allowed to hold sway any longer. It is time, in the words of the HPV Vaccine on Trial authors, to proclaim—loudly—that “the Emperor has no clothes.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Wikileaks: Ecuador is Being Run By “Criminals & Liars.” Assange’s Entire Legal Defense Given To The United States

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange's belongings.

  • Reflect On:

    How do the global elite have the right and power to do what they do to people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden? Do we really live in a democracy when small groups of people in power can basically make decisions that go against the majority?

What’s happening with Julian Assange is heart-breaking. He’s a hero, just like Edward Snowden. Government secrets are kept, not to protect ‘national security’ as commonly claimed, but rather to protect political and corporate interests. After all, the United States is evidently run by a small group of corporations. These corporations have a huge influence when it comes to dictating government policy, and they do not like those who disclose their secrets. For years, Wikileaks has been leaking documents that’ve exposed major corruption within multiple governments, including the United States and basically the entire western military alliance. They’ve exposed that our world operates very differently than how it’s been presented, and they’ve never had to retract a single story. They exposed the invisible government, or “the real menace of Republic,” a term coined by John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City. Hylan has said that the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.”  (source)

Transparency is what Julian Assange is all about, and the American empire and even the global empire have been desperately trying to keep their secrets and prosecute anyone or anything that threatens their secrecy. That’s what this is all about. And they proved that with Chelsea Manning.

It’s not just people like Assange who are being demonized and hunted, it’s alternative media as well. The war on ‘fake news’ that’s been happening for the last little while has resulted in alternative media outlets being labeled as ‘fake’, even if they’re presenting credible information and sources. Any media outlet who even questions a controversial issue has been labeled as ‘wrong’ or ‘fake.’

What is happening to Assange is extremely unjust, and should serve as a massive ‘wake up’ call for anyone who isn’t already ‘awake.’ Truth and free press threaten the ability of the global elite to continue their cycle of creating problems and then proposing solutions in order to achieve their desired outcome. Some of the biggest leaks WikiLeaks has made were when they revealed the connections between terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to the western military alliance, and more specifically to the US government. Current presidential candidate and Congresswoman at the time, Tulsi Gabbard, even introduced a bill to stop this from happening.

We saw arms deals and the funding/support of terrorist organizations that the US claimed to be fighting against. This is a great example of how the global elite funds and creates a problem in order to justify a desired outcome (in this case it was heightened national security measures back home to protect people from ‘the war on terror’ and justify their infiltration of another country for ulterior motives).

I could go deeper into this, but the bottom line is that the arrest of Julian Assange comes at the hands of the criminals around the globe he was exposing, and it’s ironic that they are using their power and influence over mainstream media to portray Assange as the one who needs to be put behind bars.

advertisement - learn more

The Latest Update On Assange

Below is the latest update from the Wikileaks team via a recent press release.

Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange’s belongings.

Neither Julian Assange nor U.N. officials have been permitted to be present when Ecuadorian officials arrive to Ecuador’s embassy in London on Monday morning.

The chain of custody has already been broken. Assange’s lawyers will not be present at the illegal seizure of his property, which has been “requested by the authorities of the United States of America.”

The material includes two of his manuscripts as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment. The seizure of his belongings violates laws that protect medical and legal confidentiality and press protections.

The seizure is formally listed as “International Assistance in Criminal matters 376-2018-WTT requested by the authorities of the United States of America.” The reference number of the legal papers indicates that Ecuador’s formal cooperation with the United States was initiated in 2018.

Since the day of his arrest on April 11, 2019, Mr. Assange’s lawyers and the Australian consul made dozens of documented demands to the embassy of Ecuador for the release and return of his belongings, to which they received no response.

Earlier this week the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, who met with Mr. Assange in Belmarsh prison on April 25, asked to be present to monitor Ecuador’s seizure of Assange’s property. Ecuador inexplicably refused the request, despite the fact that since 2003, Ecuador has explicitly committed itself to granting unimpeded open invitations for UN special rapporteurs to investigate any aspect of their mandate in Ecuadorian jurisdiction.

The seizure and transfer of Mr. Assange’s property to the U.S. is the second phase of a bilateral cooperation that in January and February saw Ecuador arranging U.S. interrogations of past and present Ecuadorian diplomats posted to the embassy of Ecuador in London while Mr. Assange was receiving asylum. The questioning related to the U.S. grand jury investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks. As part of phase one of the cooperation, the United States also asked Ecuador to provide documents and audiovisual material of Assange and his guests, which had been gathered during an extensive spy operation against Assange inside the embassy.

On Friday, President Lenin Moreno initiated a state of emergency that suspends the rights of prisoners to “inviolability of correspondence, freedom of association and assembly and freedom of information” through Executive Decree 741.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks said:

“On Monday Ecuador will perform a puppet show at the Embassy of Ecuador in London for their masters in Washington, just in time to expand their extradition case before the U.K. deadline on 14 June. The Trump Administration is inducing its allies to behave like it’s the Wild West.”

Hrafnsson continued:

“Ecuador is run by criminals and liars. There is no doubt in my mind that Ecuador, either independently or at the behest of the US, has tampered with the belongings it will send to the United States.”

Baltasar Garzon, international legal coordinator for the defence of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, said:

“It is extremely worrying that Ecuador has proceeded with the search and seizure of property, documents, information and other material belonging to the defence of Julian Assange, which Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated, so that these can be handed over to the agent of political persecution against him, the United States. It is an unprecedented attack on the rights of the defence, freedom of expression and access to information exposing massive human rights abuses and corruption. We call on international protection institutions to intervene to put a stop to this persecution.”

Lawyer for Mr. Assange, Aitor Martinez, whose confidential legal papers were photographed with a mobile phone by embassy workers as part of a spy operation against Mr. Assange in October 2018, said:

“Ecuador is committing a flagrant violation of the most basic norms of the institution of asylum by handing over all the asylee’s personal belongings indiscriminately to the country that he was being protected from–the United States. This is completely unprecedented in the history of asylum. The protecting country cannot cooperate with the agent of persecution against the person to whom it was providing protection.

Ecuador has now also refused a request by the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joe Cannataci, to  monitor and  inspect the cooperation measure. Ecuador’s refusal to cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur defies the entire international human rights protection system of the United Nations. Ecuador will from now on be seen as a country that operates outside of the system of safeguards of rights that defines democratic countries.”

Ecuadorian defence attorney for Mr. Assange, Carlos Poveda, said:

“In the face of countless abuses, and acting on provisions in domestic legislation and international human rights instruments, the defence has challenged the execution of this measure. All applications have been rejected. While the prosecution office proclaims its commitment to human rights protections, there has been no transparency and the investigation is conducted in secret. Without justification, and absent of all legal criteria, the measure shows the interest in obtaining information that the United States can use to proceed with its flagrant persecution. Meanwhile Ecuador has hinted that it too intends to proceed with investigations. Meanwhile, to date our criminal complaints of espionage against Julian Assange remain unprocessed, despite the gravity of the facts reported.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

New Study Finds That Measles Outbreaks Are Occurring In Many VACCINATED Individuals

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study from China has been added to the long list that questions the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine given the fact that outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated populations and within vaccinated individuals.

  • Reflect On:

    Are vaccines really as safe as they're marketed to be?

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding measles outbreaks right now, and a lot of mainstream media bombardment in North America whereby unvaccinated children are wrongfully blamed for multiple measles outbreaks. This media hysteria capitalizes on terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” instead of actually acknowledging the points that are being made by vaccine awareness advocates, many of whom are scientists and doctors. The point is, when people are trying to shut down and block credible information and critical thinking, you know something is up.

When it comes to the measles, blaming these outbreaks on unvaccinated people makes absolutely no sense at all. Why? Because, since the introduction of the measles vaccine, outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations. Furthermore, ample evidence has been presented showing that vaccinated people might also be shedding their virus and infecting others with it.

For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)

There are dozens of studies on measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations that found that the cause of these outbreaks was not due to failure to vaccinate, but rather because of a failing vaccine. I will provide more examples further in the article, but for now, I want to get to some recently published information.

This research was published in the journal Vaccine, titled “Assessing measles vaccine failure in Tianjin, China,” and it’s another study showing measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.

“Despite increasing global measles vaccination coverage, progress toward measles elimination has slowed in recent years. In China, children receive a measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at 8 months, 18– 24 months, and some urban areas offer a third dose at age 4–6 years. However, substantial measles cases in Tianjin, China, occur among individuals who have received multiple MCV doses.” 

advertisement - learn more

The study explains how there has been an increase in global measles vaccinations, and they’re right. Despite this fact, mainstream media in America continues to blame low vaccination rates for these outbreaks, when that could not be further from the truth. Luckily, the CDC has a super-easy, interactive map that illustrates this data very clearly, and it would be great if members of the mainstream media actually started to take a look at the data. Vaccination rates in the States are actually very high. So why are they blaming the unvaccinated? Washington State, for example, has a 90 percent MMR vaccination coverage.

The study from China goes on to explain:

 Twenty-nine percent of those in the surveillance dataset and 54.4% of those in the case series received at least one dose of MCV. The minimum and median time-to-diagnosis since vaccination revealed an increase in time since vaccination for incremental doses. Considerable measles cases in Tianjin occur in vaccinated children, and further research is needed to understand the reasons for vaccine failure.

Another study published in the highly authoritative Bulletin of the World Health Organization looked at recent measles occurrences throughout China and found that there were 707 measles outbreaks in the country recorded between 2009 and 2012, with a steep upward trend in 2013. “The number of measles cases reported in the first 10 months of 2013 – 26,443 – was three times the number reported in the whole of 2012.” This is odd considering that since  2009 “…the first dose of measles-virus-containing vaccine has reached more than 90% of the target population.” (source)

A study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases – whose authorship includes scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA – looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak, which showed that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission). The study concluded that “measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.” (source)

Furthermore, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, 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. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has 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 and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine makers’ flawed products.

From 2013 to 2017, measles killed 2 people, but the vaccine killed 127 people. The odds of dying from the measles are 0.01 – 0.02 percent, meaning you have a greater chance of getting hit by a lightning bolt multiple times. Furthermore, if your child contracts the measles, they will be immune for life, but that cannot be said for vaccinated children.

Our Episode About Vaccines On CETV

On a recent episode of CETV, we discussed the mainstream media and the way they fear monger and blame the unvaccinated without addressing important facts. We talked about the history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, provided multiple clips from scientists and doctors sharing information related to the above, and cited examples of fraud, specifically with regards to the MMR vaccination and the CDC.

Below you can watch our discussion, and the first hour is free. To watch the other 2 hours of this episode, become a member of CETV.

Another Episode Specifically About The MMR Vaccine

In a later episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe, Richard and I discussed New York’s mandatory vaccination order as well as Del Bigtree’s analysis of the MMR studies he received and the reason that Big Pharma does not want to do proper, large-scale studies on the safety of vaccines.

A FOIA request by Del Bigtree reveals that the 8 studies supporting the release of the MMR vaccine were only 6 weeks long, used only 800 children, and led to respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses in many of the children.

Related Recent & Important Articles On Vaccines

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

Worlds Leading Authority On Aluminum Toxicity Has GoFundMe to Study Aluminum In Vaccines Shut Down

We now know that aluminum, once injected, does not leave the body but travels to distant organs and the brain. More information on that in the article linked above.

More Examples of Measles Outbreaks In Highly Vaccinated Populations

A measles outbreak in vaccinated individuals occurred in Israel during 2017—reported on by the CDC—where all but one patient had laboratory evidence of a “previous immune response” (secondary vaccine failure), and the one patient who did not display such evidence reported having received two doses of the vaccine (primary vaccine failure). In addition, the index patient—the one who launched the chain of transmission—had received three doses of the measles-containing vaccine.

If we go back in history a little bit:

Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (source)

Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986, 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received the measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance.” (source)

In 2010, there were a number of children in Croatia who had contracted measles that were fully vaccinated (source). The interesting thing about this case was the fact that not only had they become infected with measles from the vaccine strain, rather than the normal “natural” strain, but they were also contagious.

According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded that “outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” (source)

An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” looked into an outbreak of 137 cases of measles in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.” (source)

According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity…” due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded that “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.” (source)

According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded that “incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.” (source)

According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccines before their first birthday. (source)

According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak. (source)

Furthermore, what about the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients? Studies have shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain up to a year after injection.  There are several other concerning vaccine ingredients like aborted human fetal cells, formaldehyde, and MSG. Why are these never looked at when studies are being conducted? You can read more and access information and studies about aluminum here.

The Takeaway

How safe are our vaccines? Why does the mainstream constantly use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” to brainwash people instead of actually addressing the points made by vaccine awareness advocates? Why are they always attacking instead of just discussing? It’s OK to question vaccines, think for yourself, utilize critical thinking, and seek out information that mainstream media seems to ignore.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

UPDATE: YouTube has demonetized our channel for no apparent reason.

For as little as $3 a month, you can contribute to helping CE thrive! Thanks for being on our Hero's Team. We appreciate you and your support deeply! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.