Connect with us

Health

Over 2,000 Peer-Reviewed Studies Show A Big Problem With Your & Your Children’s Favourite Gadgets

Avatar

Published

on

According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

advertisement - learn more

As societies industrialize and the technological revolution continues, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. These sources include video display units (VDUs) associated with computers, mobile phones and their base stations. While these devices have made our life richer, safer and easier, they have been accompanied by concerns about possible health risks due to their EMF emissions.

-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with Franco DeNicola to explore how we can overcome fears and uncertainty during this time. This episode includes some helpful exercises as well. Click here to listen!

For some time a number of individuals have reported a variety of health problems that they relate to exposure to EMF. While some individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the fields as best they can, others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle. This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS.

Other sources of this type of radiation include power lines and WiFi technology.

The WHO fact sheet quoted above also describes Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity in detail, and is based on the combined research of a WHO Workshop on the subject (Prague, Czech Republic, 2004), an international conference on EMF and non-specific health symptoms (COST244bis, 1998), a European Commission report (Bergqvist and Vogel, 1997), and recent reviews of the literature.

However, many of the facts cited seem to be countered by a growing number of publications and scientists. For example, they argue that EMFs are simply a “perceived” problem, and the sensitivities are psychological rather than physical. They state that “well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.” They also state it’s possible “these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.” In conclusion, they suggest that “treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home.”

advertisement - learn more

These arguments are reminiscent of those surrounding Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, because for decades a plethora of publications and scientists were showing what it can do to the human body, yet it wasn’t until recently that the World Health Organization admitted that it is carcinogenic. Why does it take so long for new evidence to be considered? Why do they state that substances are safe in the face of such staunch opposition from so many professionals, and why do we assume things are safe until proven otherwise? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Are we seeing the same thing with electromagnetic radiation?

If It’s Not A Concern, Then Why…

If it’s not as much of a concern as many feel it to be, then why are more than 200 scientists from more than 40 countries petitioning the United Nations about this issue? The information above provided from the WHO is more than a decade old, and in 2015 this group of scientists urged the United Nations and its organization to encourage precautionary measures and conduct an environmental assessment. They also asked for the WHO to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women, and for the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to assess the potential impact of EMF exposure on all living organisms.

Why are there more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern on this topic? According to the appeal sent to Antonio Guterres (among others), Secretary-General of the United Nations:

Numerous scientific publications have found that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below international exposure guidelines adopted by most industrialized nations. There is discrepancy in how this matter is considered at the WHO, however. While WHO accepted its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s recommendation that classifies both ELF/EMF and RF/EMF as Group 2B “Possible Carcinogens,” it also, in direct contrast to these warnings, recommends the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) guidelines for exposure standards. These guidelines, developed by a self-selected 2 independent industry group, have long been criticized as not protective given the science now established.

“Independent Industry Group”

The importance of highlighting industry’s role in this matter shouldn’t be ignored, since modern day science is, unfortunately, plagued by industry corruption and scientific fraud. Not long ago, however, the Berkeley City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance to require cellphone retailers in Berkeley, California, to provide consumers with information regarding the dangers associated with the wireless industry and, more specifically, on cell phone radiation.

It specifically requires all cellphone retailers in the area to provide consumers with a notice on radio frequency (RF) radiation exposure and the proper guidelines to help users avoid this type of exposure. Warnings may include the dangers associated with carrying a phone tucked into a shirt, pants, bra, or anywhere else on a person that may exceed federal safety guidelines.

The ordinance was created with the help of Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard University, the California Brain Tumor Association, and Robert Post, the Dean of Yale Law School, who believes, along with hundreds of other scientists, that the research is sound.

The concerns raised by all of these scientists also had at least 12 elementary and middle schools in Ontario and B.C. impose bans on wireless internet by not installing it or removing it completely from their classrooms. You can read more about that here.

 

Hearing From the Creator of the Initiative

The initiative was started by Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University, who has joined a group of scientists from around the world making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,”said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation.”

Below is a video of him speaking about this issue.

Do You Have Electromagnetic Sensitivity? What Can You Do About It?

For starters, the best think you can do is not to worry, because this is how powerful the mind-body connection really is. 

It’s also important to mention that children’s brains absorb much more radiation than those of adults. According to Mary Redmayne, Ph.D,. a professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine at Australia’s Monash University:

There is much high-quality research showing bio-physiological effects from permitted electromagnetic exposures; these findings are not nullified by research which fails to find effects. To claim that the ‘weight of evidence’ does not support these effects (even if it were true) is misleading. To infer that this means no precautions are needed is illogical and non-scientific.

It would help parents and policy makers if consensus among advisory organisations and scientists could be reached acknowledging that assurance of safety of chronic low-dose radiofrequency exposure cannot be guaranteed and is related to ill-health in some people. Therefore, minimising exposure, especially children’s, is sensible. This should be treated like other daily health precautions and warnings such as those about diet.

A publication from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, titled “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields Up To 300 GHZ,” cites an abundance of scientific research regarding these non-natural fields and their affect on human biology.

Here are the IARC’s Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.

The symptoms can differ a lot between sufferers, but will normally include some of the following: sleep disturbance, tiredness, depression, headaches, restlessness, irritability, concentration problems, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, frequent infections, blood pressure changes, limb and joint pains, numbness or tingling sensations, tinnitus, hearing loss, impaired balance, giddiness and eye problems. There have been reports of cardiovascular problems such as tachycardia, though these are relatively rare.

Many of the symptoms reported resemble those of  multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).

Some steps you can take are:

    • Don’t let your child use a cell phone.
    • Keep your cell phone use to a minimum.
    • Reduce or eliminate your use of other wireless devices.
    • Limit cell phone use to areas with excellent reception.
    • Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body, and do not sleep with it under your pillow or near your head.
    • Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone.
    • Respect others; many are highly sensitive to EMF. Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others’ cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.
    • Walk barefoot on the earth
    • Worry less. The power of consciousness with regards to our health is huge. This has been demonstrated by recent findings within quantum physics, the placebo effect, and many other interesting phenomena, like neuro-plasticity. This could explain why some people who have such unhealthy lifestyles, but don’t worry and enjoy themselves still live longer. The human body is great at adapting — all we have to do is help it out a little bit.

Below is a great lecture from Dr. Scott Eberle, who trained as a family physician, worked for nearly two decades as an AIDS specialist, and continues as a hospice medical director. After an episode of carbon monoxide poisoning in 2010, he began having symptoms that, in retrospect, signalled the initial onset of this type of sensitivity. In 2013, his health plummeted until he finally figured out the cause.

What’s the Diagnosis, Doctor?” was published in Sonoma Medicine in 2104. “An Underworld Journey: Learning to Cope With Electromagnetic Sensitivity” was published by Ecopsychology in 2017. See also: “So You Think You Might Be Electrosensitive “and “Guidelines for Making a Home Radiowave Safe.” Read more from Dr. Eberle here.

Devices You Can Get to Help Protect You, Backed by Science

As a result of this growing issue that’s gaining more attention, scientists and researchers are now teaming up to find ways to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation. One example would be the devices manufactured by Earth-Calm. They have been tested in the lab by multiple scientists, with full reports and results available on the website.

I just wanted to provide an example, and let people know that there are several companies developing these products. I recommend doing the research, reading the studies and results, as well as contacting the scientists who are conducting these studies.

 

2,000+ Peer-Reviewed Studies

The truth is, there are more, but these 2,000 come from the 200+ scientists who are petitioning the UN about this issue, as mentioned above. Below is the list. Feel free to look them up and contact them for more information.

Armenia

Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., UNESCO Chair – Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, Armenia

Australia
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Env.Health Educator/Researcher, Advisor, Environmental Health Trust; Doctors for Safer Schools, Australia
Dr. Peter French BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD, FRSM, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia
Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia
Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia
Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia
Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia, Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia

Austria
Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria
Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria
Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria

Bahrain
Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain

Belgium
Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium

Brazil
Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil
Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil
Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil
Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil
Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Cellular&Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Canada
Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada
Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada
Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of Toronto, Canada
Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD. Molecular Oncologist (ret.), British Columbia, Canada
Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

China
Prof. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China
Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health, Jilin University, China
Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering,  Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China
Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China
Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China
Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Croatia
Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Egypt
Prof. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Estonia
Dr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
Mr. Tarmo Koppel, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Finland
Dr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland
Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland
Prof. Dr. Osmo Hänninen, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Finland
Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen.
Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland

France
Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director
Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France Georgia
Prof. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia

Germany
Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany
Prof. Dr. Hynek  Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany
Prof. Dr. Karl Hecht, MD, former Director, Institute of Pathophysiology, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany
Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ.Physics; Ex-Head, Dept. Clinical Research, Medical University, Lubeck, Germany
Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, MD, Member, Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V, Bamberg, Germany
Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany

Greece
Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou,  M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D.,  Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, Radiobiology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece
Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece

Iceland
Dr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

India
Prof. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India
Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India
Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India
Associate Prof. Dr Amarjot Dhami, PhD., Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India
Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur National University, India
Prof. Girish Kumar, Ph.D., Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India
Dr. Pabrita Mandal PhD.,Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India
Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Prof. Dr. Kameshwar Prasad MD, Head, Dept of Neurology, Director, Clinical Epidemiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India
Dr. Sivani Saravanamuttu, PhD., Dept. Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, India
Dr. N.N. Shareesh, PhD., Melaka Manipal Medical College, India
Dr.  R.S. Sharma, MD, Sr. Deputy Director General, Scientist – G & Chief Coordinator – EMF Project, Indian Council of Medical Research, Dept. of Health Research, Ministry/Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
Prof. Dr. Dorairaj Sudarsanam, M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., Fellow – National Academy of Biological Sciences, Prof. of Zoology, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Dept. Advanced   Zoology & Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, South India

Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Prof. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, Iran
Prof. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Iran
Prof. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics&Macromolecules Lab; Instit. Biochemistry&Biophysics, University, Tehran, Iran
Prof.  Seyed Mohammad Mahdavi, PhD., Dept of Biology, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Prof. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Prof. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran
Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Prof. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran

Israel
Michael Peleg, M.Sc., radio communications engineer and researcher, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Prof. Elihu D. Richter, MD,MPH, Occupational&Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health&Community Medicine, Israel
Dr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel
Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel
Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

Italy
Prof. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy
Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
Prof. Giovanni Di Bonaventura, PhD, School of Medicine, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italia
Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy
Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy
Vale Crocetta, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomolecular and Pharmaceutical Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti, ItalyProf. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life&Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy
Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS-International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy
Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy
Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy
Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetics Institute of the National Research Council, Italy
Dr. Arianna Pompilio, PhD, Dept. Medical, Oral & Biotechnological Sciences. G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy
Prof. Dr. Raoul Saggini, MD, School of Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases, B.Ramazzini, Bologna. ItalyProf. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy

Japan
Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan

Jordan
Prof. Mohammed S.H. Al Salameh, Jordan University of Science & Technology , Jordan

Kazakhstan
Prof. Dr, Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

New Zealand
Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand

Nigeria
Dr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria
Prof. Olatunde Michael Oni, Ph.D, Radiation & Health Physics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Oman
Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman

Poland
Dr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland
Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Romania
Alina Cobzaru, Engineer, National Institutes Research & Development and Institute of Construction & Sustainability, Romania

Russian Federation
Prof. Vladimir N. Binhi, Ph.D., A.M.Prokhorov General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University
Dr. Oleg Grigoyev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation
Dr. Maxim Trushin, PhD., Kazan Federal University, Russia

Serbia
Dr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research “Sinisa Stankovic”, Belgrade, Serbia
Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Slovak Republic
Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, South Korea
Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea
Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of  Korea, South Korea
Prof. Hak-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea
Prof. Jae Seon Lee, MD,  Department of Molecular Medicine, NHA University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, South Korea
Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Woman’s University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Won Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea
Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea
Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea
Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea

Spain
Prof. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain
Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain
Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain
Prof. Dr. Miguel López-Lázaro, PhD.,  Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Seville, Spain
Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Prof. Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain

Sweden
Dr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden
Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden
Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

Switzerland
Dr. phil. nat. Daniel Favre, A.R.A. (Association Romande Alerte, Switzerland

Taiwan (Republic of China)
Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China

Turkey
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Associate Prof.Dr. Halil Abraham Atasoy, MD, Pediatrics, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey
Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey
Prof. Dr. Osman Cerezci, Electrical-Electronics Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey
Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ali H. Eriş, MD, faculty, Radiation Oncology Department,  BAV University Medical School, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
Prof. Associate Prof. Ayse Inhan Garip, PdH., Marmara Univ. School of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Turkey
Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Head, Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical School, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Selim Seker, Electrical Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr, NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), PhD.,Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey

Ukraine
Dr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Ukraine
Prof. Victor Martynyuk, PhD., ECS “Institute of Biology”, Head of Biophysics Dept, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ukraine
Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Instit. Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

United Kingdom
Michael Bevington, M.A., M.Ed., Chair of Trustees, ElectroSensitivity UK (ES-UK), UK
Mr. Roger Coghill, MA,C Biol, MI Biol, MA Environ Mgt; Member Instit.of Biology; Member, UK SAGE Committee on EMF Precautions, UK
Mr. David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK
Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD,  Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London,  UK
Emeritus Professor Denis L. Henshaw, PhD., Human Radiation Effects, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK
Dr. Gerard Hyland, Ph.D., Institute of Biophysics, Neuss, Germany, UK
Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK
Emeritus Professor, Michael J. O’Carroll, PhD., former Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Sunderland, UK
Mr. Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK
Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, BrunelUniversity London, UK
Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., independent neuroscience and environmental health research, UK

USA
Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA
Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of  South Carolina, USA
Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA
Prof. Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA
Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA
Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
Paul Raymond Doyon, EMRS, MAT, MA , Doyon Independent Research Associates, USA
Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA
Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA
Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA
Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA
Neha Kumar, Founder, Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Shielding Alternatives, Pvt. Ltd; B.Tech – Industrial Biotech., USA
Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA
B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA
Prof. Trevor G. Marshall, PhD, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, USA
Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA
Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA
Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA
Dr. Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA
Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
L. Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA
Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
Dr.  Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA
Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
Camilla Rees, MBA, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA
Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA
Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA
David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA
Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

Supporting Scientists who have published peer reviewed papers in related fields

Michele Casciani, MA, Environmental Science, President/Chief Executive Officer, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy
Enrico Corsetti, Engineer, Research Director, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy
Jacques Testart, Biologist, Honorary Research Director at I.N.S.E.R.M. (French National Medical Research Institute), France
Xin Li, PhD candidate MSc, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, USA
Dr. Carlos A. Loredo Ritter, MD, Pediatrician, Pediatric Neurologist, President, Restoration Physics, North American Sleep Medicine Society, USADr. Robin Maytum, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Biological Science, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Prof. Dr. Raúl A. Montenegro, Ph.D, Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba; President, FUNAM; Recognitions: Scientific  Investigation Award from University of Buenos Aires, UNEP ‘Global 500’ Award (Brussels, Belgium), the Nuclear Free Future Award (Salzburg, Austria), and Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award, Sweden), Argentina.
Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland
Dr. Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Biologist, Neuroscientist, Adviser to the Dutch EHS Foundation, Netherlands
Dr. Carmen Adella Sirbu, MD, Neurology, Lecturer, Titu Matorescu University, Romania

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Health

Study: Weekly Use of Disinfectants Greatly Increases Your Risk of Fatal Lung Disease

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A 30-year study conducted by Harvard researchers and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research found that people who use disinfectants once a week have a 22-32% increased chance of developing lung disease.

  • Reflect On:

    How reliable are regulatory agencies when it comes determining how safe the products we use for cleaning are for our health and environment? Did you know that there are a number of effective alternatives and products available out there?

Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

What Happened: A 30-year study conducted by researchers at Harvard University alongside researchers at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) found that regular use of bleach and other commonly used disinfectants can increase your chances of developing fatal lung disease. The study found that those who used these types of products just once a week had up to a 32% increased chance of developing the condition.

It’s called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Researchers looked at the incidence of the disease for the study in more than 55,000 nurses in the United States. Nurses were used for the study because they use disinfectants to clean surfaces on a regular basis. In this study population, 37 percent of nurses used disinfectants to clean surfaces on a weekly basis and 19 percent used them to clean medical instruments on a weekly basis.

In the UK alone, COPD is present approximately 1.2 million people. It includes various lung conditions like chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Obviously there are multiple factors that play a role, but according to this study, disinfectants are definitely one of them or at the very least, can’t be ruled out. Correlation may not mean causation but it’s safe to assume that breathing in these substances is not really safe, in my opinion, and can be detrimental to our health.

As far as deaths go, 25,000 people a year die from COPD in England. This number represents the third highest death rate from the disease. This study is thought to be the very first to identify such a link between COPD and specific cleaning products/chemicals known as “quaternary ammonium compounds (quats).”

To the best of our knowledge we are the first to report a link between disinfectants and COPD among healthcare workers, and to investigate specific chemicals that may underlie this association…Some of these disinfectants, such as bleach and quats, are frequently used in ordinary households, and the potential impact of domestic use of disinfectants on COPD development is unknown…Earlier studies have found a link between asthma and exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants at home, such as bleach and sprays, so it is important to investigate this further.- Inserm researcher Orianne Dumas (source)

The researchers analysed data from a mass study on female US nurses commenced by Harvard in 1989. In 2009, they looked at those who were still working as nurses who had no history of COPD and tracked them until May this year. During that period, 663 were diagnosed with the condition.

A follow up study published in 2019 examining more than 70,000 nurses came to the same conclusions.

We found that use of several specific disinfectants was associated with higher risk of COPD development; these included hypochlorite bleach (chlorine), hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds (commonly used for low-level disinfection of noncritical items, such as environmental surfaces) and glutaraldehyde (used for high-level disinfection). Several of these exposures often occurred concurrently, and disentangling the role of each product was challenging. When studying combinations of exposure to specific disinfectants, we found the highest risks of COPD incidence among nurses exposed to hypochlorite bleach or hydrogen peroxide and in those combining these exposures with exposure to aldehydes. Both the chemical properties of specific products and the greater number of products used could explain these elevated risks. Moreover, all of the agents that were associated with COPD incidence when evaluated separately have been described as airway irritants.

Why This Is Important: 

The everyday use of bleach currently has no specific health guidelines, and that’s very true with many other products as well. Cosmetics is a great example, that particular industry is not quite regulated as it should be, and products that do pass through federal health regulatory regulation and inspection are not always safe. Glyphosate is a great example, and there is a growing concern today among academics, journalists and everyday people regarding the close relationship between these regulatory agencies and the companies that manufacture these products. Sure they may work, but the case with many of these products is that there are alternatives that are just as effective and much more safer.

Whether it’s banking soda and vinegar, tea tree oil and lemons, or something else, the market and natural health stores are now filled with cleaning products that do not pose the same threat as mainstream conventional cleaning products. They’re not hard to find, all it takes is a simple internet search, or a trip to your local natural health food store. Many regular chains are also starting to carry more health and environmentally sound cleaning/disinfectant products as well. If you’re truly concerned and put effort into searching, you’ll have no problem finding these products.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Health

How Effective is The Covid-19 Vaccine?

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is widely touted by the media and the medical establishment, but there are important questions to be asked about this claim.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we being given all information available from covid vaccine study to make informed decisions? Are the studies even being done in a way that represents what effects the vaccine may have on the whole population?

Are you going to decline the Covid-19 vaccine if it is offered to you? Why or why not? No matter how certain you are in your reasoning there will no doubt be someone else who feels exactly the opposite to you and will be just as certain of their position. We trust different sources of information, we have had different experiences with vaccines and we have different impressions of the threat of SARS-COV2 to us and our species.

I would suggest that those in the “vaccine cautionary” community would decline the vaccine based on their ideas around its potential risks. On the other hand, supporters of the vaccine are more likely to focus on its potential benefits. The debate has largely been centered around the disagreement people have about the risks. In this essay I will consider the uncertainty I and others have about its benefits.

Is the Medical Community biased about the Vaccine?

As a contributor to Collective Evolution I am well aware of the “cautionary” perspective on vaccinations and CDC directives. As a physician, I have a reasonable understanding of how those in the medical community regard the “best of what modern science has to offer”. I am part of a Physician group on social media where doctors can seek advice from each other around all matters Covid-19, from interesting cases to rare side effects to how to address special concerns raised by patients. It has been alarming to realize how unilateral the support of vaccination is in this community. 

I mean no disrespect to my medical colleagues. Many of those in this community have seen their patients die from this very real virus. They have had to struggle with the divergent directives coming from the CDC. They have had to work through many weeks where Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was in short supply as their hospital wards rapidly reached capacity and overflowed. Now that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have met minimum requirements for efficacy under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), they are faced with yet another impediment to getting themselves and their patients through this pandemic: growing skepticism around the vaccine coming from the very same people they are endeavoring to help. Their frustration around the situation is understandable, but is it biasing them?

Before consenting to any intervention it is important to understand its relative risks and benefits. As I mentioned earlier, there has been much concern in the “vaccine cautionary” sphere about side-effects and deaths. Here I will take a closer look at what we know about the benefits of the vaccine based on Pfizer-Biontech’s  briefing document to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. How confident can we be in the efficacy of the vaccine? Has the manufacturer done its due diligence in its analysis and in being transparent? These are the central questions that need to be answered.

Understanding False Positives and Negatives

There has been a lot of discussion about the rate of “false-positives” with regard to the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test for confirming infection with SARS-COV2. The PCR test can return a positive result even if only trace fragments of the virus are present. Fragments of the virus on a nasal swab is not necessarily representative of an active infection or transmissibility. Moreover the sensitivity of this test is dependent on the number of amplification cycles, or the cycle threshold (Ct), used.  The Ct is not standardized. It is not unreasonable to say that there will be a percentage of people who test positive that do not have the disease. Nevertheless, without a better test we as the public must treat all positive PCR tests as an indication of an infection. We must assume the test is right. The rate of false positives, whatever it is, is directly proportional to the overestimation of the prevalence of the disease. 

Here I would like to discuss the significance of “false-negatives”. These are people who get a negative PCR result but may still be infected. The rate of false negatives is directly proportional to the underestimation of disease prevalence. This aspect of the inaccuracy of our primary diagnostic test gets relatively little attention for practical reasons. If you are suffering symptoms consistent with Covid-19 but have a negative PCR test we assume that you have Covid-19 anyway. In other words, if someone is symptomatic we assume that the test is wrong, i.e. that it is a false-negative, and necessary measures are taken. We quarantine and isolate until we feel healthy again whether we have Covid-19 or not. 

Because we are in the midst of a pandemic we have no choice but to make these assumptions. We are responding appropriately given the limitations of the test. Because of the assumptions we are forced to make, we are exaggerating the prevalence of the disease and our response to it to some extent. It is the nature of the situation we are in.

How do we know that the Vaccine is 95% effective?

With this in mind I would like to discuss a post in the opinion blog of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that appeared earlier this month. The author, Peter Doshi (PhD and Associate Editor at the BMJ), takes a rigorous look at the results reported by Pfizer regarding the efficacy of their mRNA vaccine. The success of their vaccine has been widely publicized to be 95%. Where exactly does this figure come from?

During the four weeks of observation (three weeks between 1st and 2nd dose followed by 7 days), 162 participants who received the placebo expressed symptoms of Covid-19 and tested positive by PCR. Compare that with only 8 in the group that received their experimental vaccine. The chance of getting Covid 19 after receiving the vaccine was about 20 times lower than if you got the placebo. This is the basis of the claim that their vaccine was 95% effective, well over the 50% threshold required for Emergency Use Authorization that allows their product to be deployed despite the fact that the two-year Phase III trial is still 20 months from completion.

How did Pfizer handle study participants in the “Suspected Covid-19” group?

It is less commonly known that of the nearly 38,000 participants in the Pfizer study, 3,410 fell into a group labeled “suspected Covid-19”. These are people who developed symptoms consistent with disease but tested negative by PCR. 1,594 of those in this group received the vaccine and 1,816 received the placebo. It should be quite clear that how we regard this much bigger group of symptomatic participants will have an enormous impact on the true efficacy of the vaccine. In other words, if we assume that the PCR test was accurate in all of these people and that they didn’t have Covid-19 and developed symptoms from another virus, the flu for example, then the vaccine would in fact be 95% effective as reported. On the other hand, if the PCR test was wrong every time and they all in fact had Covid-19, the efficacy of the vaccine would be much different: 1602 (1594 + 8) in the vaccine wing vs. 1978 (1816 + 162) in the placebo wing results in a vaccine efficacy of only 19%. 

The PCR test (like any test) can be wrong some of the time and right some of the time. No test is 100% accurate, however in this situation the accuracy of the PCR test has a very large impact on how we interpret the results of the vaccine trial. The true efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine can be known only if we know how many symptomatic people in each wing had Covid-19 despite testing negative by PCR.

It is likely that the percentage of false negatives are different in each arm. As the FDA briefing document on the Pfizer study and the BMJ piece correctly note, there should be fewer false negatives in the vaccine group. Why? It is because there is a greater chance of developing Covid-19 symptoms after receiving the vaccine compared to getting a placebo. Reactogenicity, or the acute response of the body to the vaccine, is common. Most of the acute inflammatory reaction to the vaccine occurs in the first seven days after receiving the vaccine. Looking more closely at the data, 409 patients in the vaccine group developed symptoms in the first seven days after inoculation. Compare this to 287 in the placebo group. If we assume that any participant who expressed symptoms in the first seven days must be suffering from the side effects of the vaccine or the placebo and not a new Covid-19 infection, the efficacy of the vaccine would still only be 29% if everyone else in that group was a false negative. This is admittedly a very large assumption but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

There are other more extreme possibilities. If all of the vaccinated participants who were suspected of Covid-19 truly did not have the disease and all of the unvaccinated (placebo) participants who were suspect did have the disease we would have a true miracle vaccine. Why? It would mean that only 8 people got the disease in the vaccinated group compared to 1978 in the placebo group. This would mean that the vaccine was approximately 99.6% effective. On the other hand, if all those who got vaccinated in the suspected group got Covid-19 and those who got the placebo didn’t, the vaccine would be not just ineffective, it would be dangerous.

Putting aside extreme and unlikely possibilities, the matter of the 3,412 “suspected Covid-19” participants and our assumptions about them still has very large implications. Let us say hypothetically that we as a nation decide to vaccinate our entire population with the Pfizer vaccine assuming that it has a 95% efficacy in preventing the disease. In other words, we are assuming that none of those “suspected” of having Covid-19 actually have the disease. This is in fact the assumption that the FDA is making when approving the use of the vaccine under the EUA. We can predict that within a month about 6.3% people will develop Covid-like symptoms from something other than vaccine reactogenicity or the disease itself. This is based on the number of participants who became symptomatic (from something other than reactogenicity) despite getting the vaccine and testing negative (1,185) divided by the total number who got the vaccine (18,801) = 0.063. That’s what happened in the study.

In a population of 300 million, we would expect roughly 19 million people to develop symptoms of Covid from something other than SARS-COV2 within a month. We can agree that we must be extremely confident about whether these 19 million people have the disease or not. Why would we assume they all don’t have Covid-19 when the vaccine trial itself considered them to be “suspected” of having it? We won’t. We shouldn’t, and practically speaking, we will be in the same situation we are in right now.

Pfizer either did not do or report additional testing that would have helped

The real issue here is that we shouldn’t be guessing about such important numbers. What do you suppose Pfizer did, knowing that this larger pool of symptomatic participants could have an enormous impact on the estimation of their vaccine’s efficacy? In my opinion, they should have tested everyone who developed symptoms for antibodies to help quantify the percentage of false negative PCR tests. If a participant felt like they were coming down with Covid-19 but had a negative PCR test, it seems clear that performing an antibody test would have offered additional clarity. This was either not done or not reported.

We must be careful when interpreting the power of a vaccine study. Although tens of thousands of people were enrolled, the only meaningful numbers with regard to efficacy have to do with those who contracted the disease during the period of observation. This is the only way to assess the efficacy of the vaccine. When Pfizer only considers participants that became symptomatic and tested positive we only have a group of 170 cases to cross compare.

The 3,410 people who became symptomatic but tested negative during the four weeks of observation would represent a much larger set of cohorts and would amplify the power of the study 20 fold if infection could be confirmed or ruled out through additional testing. In other words, the 3,410 symptomatic people should be the ones that Pfizer were hoping would emerge when they enrolled 37,000+ individuals in their study. I find this lapse in diligence suspicious and at the very least inexplicable, especially in light of the latitude they are granted under the EUA. The fact of the matter is that we do not know if this was done. Pfizer, per their own protocol, will not make this data available until the trial is completed 20 months from now. 

Why didn’t Pfizer look harder?

This forces us to ask some sobering questions. If Pfizer is required (or has agreed) to make all data available in two years, would they have conducted antibody tests on the “suspected Covid” group? If those results told a different story it would be quite damning, if not now, eventually. Their product would not be permitted for use under the EUA if a 50% efficacy requirement could not be met. On the other hand, if antibody tests were conducted and the results confirmed the impressive efficacy of the vaccine, why wouldn’t they have made the data available right now?

It should be clear that if Pfizer’s primary goal was to obtain approval under the EUA they would have had little incentive to do further testing to confirm their product’s efficacy. Why would they take the risk of seeking more information on 3,400 participants that could potentially overturn their results that were based on only 170 outcomes? This is where we must be very careful in our assessment of the situation. If you believe Pfizer and vaccine manufacturers are only out for profit, it would be easy to conclude that they are being manipulative. If you believe that these corporations are seeking to improve public health and safety you may grant them a lot of latitude here. To be truly objective we must ask if they have been scientific in their approach.

At the very least I feel that they have not been diligent, and their position hints at disingenuousness: Pfizer didn’t mention this group of participants in their 92 page report or in their publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. This group was only mentioned in two paragraphs of a 53 page briefing to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA submitted December 10, 2020. The FDA, an agency of the department of Health and Human Services that ostensibly serves to protect the public by ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products and medical devices, continues to remain silent around this issue.

The Take Away

The 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is widely touted by the media and the medical establishment. Why didn’t Pfizer test or report the testing of an enormously important group of participants in their trial? We can predict that without these additional tests deploying the vaccine will not change our behavior nor our attitude to this pandemic.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Norway Investigates 29 Deaths in Elderly Patients After Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Norway has registered a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first Covid-19 vaccination shot, raising questions over which groups to target in national inoculation programs.

  • Reflect On:

    Should freedom of choice always remain here? Should governments and private institutions not be allowed to mandate this vaccine in order to have access to certain rights and freedoms?

What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Older and sick people with co-morbidities were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

On the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”

“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

Madsen also told the BMJ that,

There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:

In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.

“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.

“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”

Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

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.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, among many others.

Pfizer’s Questionable History:  Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, 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.

The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored.

In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!