Connect with us

Awareness

Can Baby Powder Cause Ovarian Cancer? 3 Natural Alternatives If You Don’t Want To Use It Anymore

Avatar

Published

on

Do you use baby powder?

advertisement - learn more

Have you thought twice about its safety?

--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!

For years, without knowing, and blindly trusting, many of us apply harmful chemicals to our delicate parts, such as our bottoms, feet, armpits, and groin — anywhere that is moist and emits odour. Unfortunately, the talc in baby powder destroys our delicate skin and microbial community and confuses our immune system, sprouting cancer in reproductive organs.

Massive lawsuits were recently awarded to cancer sufferers by Johnson & Johnson, the formulators of baby powder.

On August 21, 2017, a jury in California recently ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to a woman who says she developed terminal ovarian cancer as a result of using the company’s baby powder. And in February 2016, a Missouri court ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million in damages to the family of Jackie Fox, a woman who died of ovarian cancer.

Both lawsuits said the cancer was linked to their longtime habit of applying baby powder. Two other Missouri court cases against Johnson & Johnson went in favour of the women who sued, leaving the company on the hook for $197 million. And more than 2,500 lawsuits are pending in the state.

advertisement - learn more

Nearly $700 million dollars has been paid out to women who have suffered serious illness and death for simply using something many of us have not been properly informed comes with serious health consequences.  We assume that just because it’s advertised as safe for our babies that it is.

My goal in this article is to give you the full disclosure you haven’t received, and talk about the hero woman of this story who died in the process of getting the truth out.

How Can We Protect Ourselves From This?

  • Let’s distinguish between: What’s proclaimed vs. not disclaimed?
  • When will these lawsuits be enough for us to listen?
  • What to use instead that’s safer and perhaps more effective

The same people who have repeatedly brainwashed us through marketing luxury purses, perfumes, prescriptions, people, and products that poison us more than beautify us, because you’re not enough without them, are the same people who are echoing the same in studies, saying “The research is not enough to prove that talc is toxic enough to cause ovarian cancer.”

Who are these people? The 1% in charge of virtually every message we hear from the skewed media and news, and so-called beauty and health products.

So what’s the problem with talc? 

#1 Let’s Distinguish — Proclaimed vs. Disclaimed

What’s Proclaimed (aka What We’re Told):

Talcum powder is made from talc, a mineral made up mainly of the elements magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction, making it useful for keeping skin dry and helping to prevent rashes. It can be found in powdered cosmetics, deodorants, and more. 

What’s Not Proclaimed (aka the Dark Truth About Talc):

Talc is a powdered native hydrous magnesium silicate sometimes containing a small portion of aluminum silicate. Talc can be contaminated with asbestos fibers, posing risks for respiratory toxicity and cancer. Studies by the National Toxicology Panel demonstrated that cosmetic-grade talc free of asbestos is a form of magnesium silicate that also can be toxic and carcinogenic — so much so that it is banned in the EU as well as in Canada, both of whom place much more scrutiny on the ingredients allowed in their food and drug products.

So why are these things not banned in America?

One word: greed.

We’re the lab rats.

Although many attempts have been made by doctors, researchers, and attorneys since the first discovery of its potential threat to our ovaries, J&J still refused to change the formula.

Dr. Daniel Cramer, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, has served as a paid consultant on several ovarian cancer cases against Johnson & Johnson, and published one of the first studies noting an association between talc and ovarian cancer in 1982.  It found a 92% increased risk for ovarian cancer with women who reported genital talc use.

“This story goes back a long, long way, back into the ’70s when people noted that ovarian cancer had many similarities to asbestos exposure,” he says. “Meanwhile another group in England found talc that was deeply embedded in ovaries and said there might be a story here.”

According to the EWG on this site, 23,653 studies in PubMed science library may include information on the toxicity of this chemical.

In 1993, The United States National Toxicology Program concluded “talc is a carcinogen.” Then, in 1996, the condom industry stopped dusting condoms with talc at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was the direct result of the scientific concern about the ovarian cancer risk from vaginal exposure to talc.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, also called talc a possible carcinogen in 2010.

In spite of this overwhelming evidence, they continued to aggressively market the powder. The internal documents obtained in the lawsuits reveal the company knew years ago that “Retrospective studies have implicated talc use in the vaginal area with the incidence of ovarian cancer.”

Yet, even after paying over half a billion dollars in lawsuits that Johnson & Johnson baby powder had a direct link to these womens’ cancers, they deny the toxicity of their product and continue to stand behind it.

“Several decades of medical research do not support the hypothesis that use of talcum powder causes ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Hal Lawrence, chief executive officer of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Other Risk Factors of Baby Powder — Hormonal Chaos?

Talc aside, another group of chemicals called Phthalates are commonly found in baby lotions and powders. This class of ingredients, also abundantly formulated in cosmetics, is among 70,000 other registered chemicals that have hormonal effects on the body.

These factors are called xenoestrogens, foreign estrogens that mimic the functions of our natural estrogens. When they enter our body, they attach themselves to our cells’ receptor sites, taking over our naturally produced estrogens’ functions to control growth and development, negatively affecting our breasts, skin, menstruation, and fertility.

Over time, high exposure to these ‘fake estrogens’ can promote unnatural growth in tissues such as fibroids, cysts, tumours and weight gain. It also wreaks havoc on the endocrine system, leaving women with a myriad of hormonal health imbalances, one of the most common conditions I see today in my practice. PMS, heavy bleeding, cancer, PCOS, infertility, acne, mood swings, chronic fatigue, weight gain, and more are all too misunderstood by the medical community and thought to have unknown causes. Research suggests it’s caused by a condition called Estrogen Dominance, however, the result of an accumulation of chemicals in the body. Essentially, all the products we use on a daily basis and the effects of their ingredients stack up over time.

So the next time you read a study that says “not toxic in small doses,” ask yourself how much these small doses of various products add up over years of use.

We’re putting hundreds of different products, full of xenoestrogens, onto our bodies. When applied to the skin, they are far more potent than those ingested orally, because they travel directly to the tissues instead of passing through the liver. So even if talc weren’t the issue, as per Johnson & Johnson’s representatives, perhaps you should consider seeking alternatives due to these negative ramifications.

Studies are now showing that one in two men, and one in three women in this generation are estimated to have cancer, and over 75% of America is now overweight or obese, at least in part because of the hormonal imbalances caused by xenoestrogens, we should all aim to reduce our exposure as much as possible. Read how here.

#2 When Will These Lawsuits Be Enough for Us to Listen?

The Scary Truth:

Johnson & Johnson knew about the risk since the early 1980s, and even before, yet did not protect its customers.

The medical community is nevertheless claiming to ‘not know’ the cause of ovarian cancer — but I beg to differ.  Overwhelming proof shows that for most cancers today, the underlying cause is manmade chemicals, environmental toxins, and in a large proportion of cancers, xenoestrogens.

My question to you is, when will it be enough?

How many kids ‘dying too young’ of cancer need we witness?

How exhausted, hormonally imbalanced, diseased, and infertile do we need to become?

How many lawsuits, how many women have to suffer, how many loved ones die, before we wake up and learn from their losses?

Ms. Echeverria, who was too sick to testify in court, started using Johnson’s baby powder when she was 11 and continued after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, unaware that some studies had linked talc to cancer, said her lawyer, Mark Robinson. She stopped using it after hearing news reports of a verdict in another lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, he said, and now wanted to warn other women.

“She told me, ‘I’m not doing this for myself,’ ” Mr. Robinson said. “She knows she’s going to die. She’s doing this for other women. She wants to do something good before she leaves.”

And good she did, as a warrior champion of ovaries and baby butts everywhere.

Now let’s talk alternative solutions.

Thankfully, there are plenty of other choices you can use instead that you probably already have in your kitchen!

#3 Three Healthy and Beautifying Alternatives

  1. Baking Soda (aluminum free)
  2. Arrowroot (Paleo baking soda) – comes from plants
  3. Diatomaceous earth – comes from fossilized diatoms, aka algae

Baking Soda?

Sodium Bicarbonate works very effectively to absorb odour. Apply it just as you would baby powder. As with all things, however, you should test out a little at a time to see how your body reacts, especially because these are sensitive areas. Be sure to purchase the kind without aluminum so your heavy metal levels don’t look like the below chart. I test for heavy metal toxicity in my online nutrition company, and often see metals in excess of safe ranges, which negatively impacts our health, causing auto immune disease, neurological damage, and brain disfunction, and has ties to virtually every symptom you can think of.

What Is Arrowroot?

Arrowroot is derived from several tropical South American plants. Tapioca starch is derived from the crushed up pulp of the South American cassava plant, a woody shrub. I bought it long ago to use in my vegan and paleo recipes as alternatives to flour and cornstarch that otherwise are genetically modified and filled with heavy metals, which leech minerals such as zinc, Vitamin C, and iron from our body. Since zinc is perhaps the most important mineral to boost immune health, we want to stay as free from GMO ingredients as possible, to combat cancer.

What Is Diatomaceous Earth?

Diatoms are hard-shelled algae that come from bodies of water and have a high silica content, which makes it good for hair and skin use. It’s been called a miracle dust.

Benefits of Diatomaceous Earth:

  • Better digestive health
  • Healthier colon
  • Better food absorption
  • Clearer skin
  • Healthier hair and nails
  • More energy
  • Lower Candida levels
  • Kills parasites and worms in the body (works for dogs too)

This miracle powder also works as a ‘deodorant’ to decrease odour. You can also use it in hair to ditch dandruff and also sprinkle it into your shoes (instead of talc) for foot fungus.

If you are going to buy it, make sure it’s food grade diatomaceous earth. You can get a huge 10 pound bag for around $20.

Closing Points and Takeaways

It’s our job to pay attention and be mindful of the things we put on, in, and around our body. We must stop assuming that decades old FDA regulations are in place to protect us. It is impossible to test for reactions of not only how one unique person would react to these harsh ingredients, but also how two or thousands of combinations react inside of the body. So it’s on us to research and test ourselves.

I am still surprised to hear how many people don’t realize that what you apply to your skin becomes a part of you, just as any bite of food you take does. Your skin eats too, and these applied toxins become a burden to our organs of elimination.

I’ve worked with thousands of clients and this is the most under-addressed topic, which most don’t consider could have such a drastic impact on health.

You could eat the perfect diet, and have the perfect exercise/yoga/rest routine, but if you’re slathering toxins like talc to your body, your odds of disease, fat, fatigue, and frustration are still very high.

Bottom Line:  If we love on our skin-biome and treat it well, it can keep us energetic and happy, reduce pain and disease, and lessen the signs of aging. The best two ways to do this are to feed our body probiotics (this is the brand I use), and then consume food for these bugs with prebiotics such as leafy greens and fermented foods. I teach this, step by step, in my four-week online program, The Warrior Cleanse.  Then, stop consuming and applying things to the skin and body that destroy the ‘good guys’ within it.

For a great resource on what products are safe to put on your body, check out the free online resource, Environmental Working Group at EWG.org.

For more empowering articles just like this, and how to steer clear of these toxins, check out my website, Facebook page, and Youtube channel for all things hormones/cleansing and fat burning fitness!

Cleanse your Body, Heal your Hormones, Ignite your Life!

 

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

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

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

Positive Association Found Amongst COVID Deaths & Flu Shot Rates Worldwide In Elderly

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently published paper has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

  • Reflect On:

    Why does vaccine hesitancy continue to grow worldwide? What's going on? What information/factors are contributing to this hesitancy?

What Happened: A recently published study in PeerJ  by Christian Wehenkel, a Professor at Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango in Mexico, has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

According to the study, “The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR (influenza vaccination rate) of people ≥65 years-old. There is a significant increase in COVID-19 deaths from eastern to western regions in the world. Further exploration is needed to explain these findings, and additional work on this line of research may lead to prevention of deaths associated with COVID-19.”

To determine this association, data sets from 39 countries with more than half a million people were analyzed.

The study was published on October 1st, and two weeks later a note from the publisher appeared atop the paper emphasizing that correlation does not equal causation, and that this paper “should not be taken to suggest that receiving the influenza vaccination results in an increased risk of death for an individual with COVID-19 as there may be confounding factors at play.”

The paper provides evidence from others which have recently been published that ponder if the flu shot could increase ones chance of contracting and dying from COVID-19.

For example, this study published in April of 2020, reported a negative correlation between influenza vaccination rates (IVRs) and COVID-19 related mortality and morbidity. Marín-Hernández, Schwartz & Nixon (2020) also showed epidemiological evidence of an association between higher influenza vaccine uptake by elderly people and lower percentage of COVID-19 deaths in Italy, which directly contradicts the author’s own findings and suggests that the flu shot may help prevent COVID-19 related deaths.

He goes on to mention another study:

In a study analyzing 92,664 clinically and molecularly confirmed COVID-19 cases in Brazil, Fink et al. (2020) reported that patients who received a recent flu vaccine experienced on average 17% lower odds of death. Moreover, Pawlowski et al. (2020) analyzed the immunization records of 137,037 individuals who tested positive in a SARS-CoV-2 PCR. They found that polio, Hemophilus influenzae type-B, measles-mumps-rubella, varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), geriatric flu, and hepatitis A/hepatitis B (HepA-HepB) vaccines, which had been administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years, were associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates.

So, its important to mention that correlations between the flu vaccine have also found that it may decrease ones chance of deaths from COVID-19.

But are there studies that have shown an increased chance of death or contracting other respiratory viruses as a result of getting the flu shot? Yes.

That’s also discussed in the paper. For example, he mentions a paper published in 2018:

In a study with 6,120 subjects, Wolff (2020) reported that influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a higher risk of some other respiratory diseases, due to virus interference. In a specific examination of non-influenza viruses, the odds of coronavirus infection (but not the COVID-19 virus) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher, when compared to unvaccinated individuals (odds ratio = 1.36).

The study above found the flu shot to increase the risk of other coronaviruses among those who had been vaccinated for influenza by 36 percent. The study was conducted prior to COVID-19, so it’s not included and only applies to pre-existing coronaviruses. The study also found an even higher chance of contracting human metapneumovirus amongst those who had received the flu shot.

Below are some more studies regarding the flu shot and viral infections that hint to the same idea.

  • 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.
  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.
  • 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.
  • 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Why This Is Important: We live in an age where vaccinations are heavily marketed. We’ve seen this with the flu shot time and time again and we are also living in an age where a push for more mandated vaccines seems to be growing.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

This is a touchy subject that dives into medical ethics and the connections that big pharmaceutical companies have with our federal health regulatory agencies and health associations. Vaccines are a multi billion dollar industry.

At a recent World Health Organization conference on vaccine safety, it was expressed that vaccine hesitancy is growing at quite a fast pace, especially among doctors who are now becoming hesitant to recommend certain vaccines on the schedule. You can read more about that and find links to the conference here.

We have to ask ourselves, why is this happening? Is it because people and professionals are becoming aware of certain information that warrants the freedom of choice? Should freedom of choice with regards to what we put in our body always remain? Are we really protecting the “herd” by taking these actions?

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice.

When it comes to the flu shot, I put more information and science as to why so many people seem to refuse it, in this article if interested.

The University of California is currently being sued for mandating the flu shot for all staff, faculty and students. A judge has prevented them from doing so as a result until a decision has been made. You can read more about that here.

In South Korea, 48 people have now died after receiving the flu shot this season causing a lot of controversy. You can read more about that here.

The Takeaway: There are many concerns with vaccines, and vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Should these statistics alone warrant the freedom of choice? Should the government have the ability to force us into measures, or would it simply be better for them to present the science, make recommendations and urge people to follow them? When the citizenry is forced and coerced into certain actions, sometimes under the guise of good-will, there always seems to be a tremendous amount of uproar and people who disagree. Why are these people silenced? Why are they censored? Why are they ridiculed? Why don’t independent health organizations receive the same voice and reach that government and state “owned” or organizations do? What’s going on here? Do we really live in a free, open and transparent world or are we simply subjected to massive amounts of perception manipulation?

When it come to the flu shot there is plenty of information on both sides of the coin that point to its effectiveness, and on the other hand there is information that points to the complete opposite. When something is not 100 percent clear, freedom of choice in all places should always remain, in my opinion.

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

Some South Korean Doctors & Politicians Call To Stop Flu Shots After 48 People Die

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The number of South Koreans who have died after getting flu shots has risen to 48, but health authorities in South Korea have found no link between the vaccine and the deaths.

  • Reflect On:

    Is the flu shot as safe as it's marketed to be?

What Happened: It’s that time of year and flu shot programs are rolling out across the globe. The number of South Koreans who have died after getting the flu shot has now risen to 48 and some South Korean doctors and politicians have called to stop flu shots as a result, according to Reuters. The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) has decided not to stop the program, and that flu vaccines would continue to be given and will reduce the chance of having simultaneous epidemics in the era of COVID-19.

Health authorities in South Korea have explained that they’ve found no direct link between these deaths and the shots. KDCA Director Jeong Eun-kyung said, “After reviewing death cases so far, it is not the time to suspend a flu vaccination programme since vaccination is very crucial this year, considering…the COVID-19 outbreaks.”

According to Reuters, “Some initial autopsy results from the police and the National Forensic Service showed that 13 people died of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and other disorders not caused by the vaccination.”

The South Korean government is hopeful to vaccinate approximately 30 million of the country’s 54 million people.

Concerns Some People Have With The Flu Shot: One concern many people seem to have is the worry of a severe adverse reaction.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot.

Moss is one of many who believe that the flu vaccine is not as effective as it’s been marketed to be. For example,  A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines the following:

Recently outlined A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal)  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

These are just a few examples out of many claiming that the flu shot has not really been effective, opposing others that claim it is.  Mercury that’s still present in some flu shots also seems to be a concern.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that more doctors are starting to be hesitant when it comes to recommending vaccines.

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…

This is no secret, and actions against mandates are being taken. The University of California was recently sued for making the flu shot mandatory. That trial will begin soon, and you can read more about it here, and find information regarding the claim that the flu shot can help in the times of COVID-19.

The Takeaway: We are living in an age of extreme censorship of information, no matter how credible or how much evidence is provided, information that goes against the grain always seems to receive a harsh backlash from mainstream media as well as social media outlets. Why is there a digital fact checker patrolling the internet? Should people not have the right to examine information openly and freely and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

As far as vaccines are concerned, despite the fact that there are many safety issues the scientific community  is bringing up, a push for vaccine mandates continues and the idea that we are protecting other people is usually the narrative that’s pushed hard. Vaccine skepticism is growing at a fast pace among people of all professions, and people aren’t stupid. There’s a reason why more and more people are starting to question what we’ve been told for years, and those reasons should be acknowledged and openly discussed amongst people on both sides of the coin.

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!