Connect with us

Health

Spanking Your Child Can Have Negative Effects on Their Personality & Lower Their IQ

When it comes to disciplining children, physical abuse has been proven to have longterm detrimental effects on their mental health.

Published

on

It’s natural to wonder how we became the person we are and where, or when, our insecurities and fears first took root. More often than not, we turn to our childhood for answers and try to determine when certain seeds were planted that inspired doubt or hesitancy in our personalities. As we grow older, we come to better understand our childhood environment as we get to better know ourselves and our family relationships. We may come to realize that certain habits of our parents marked on our home and shaped how we handle the world today. Simply put, how you were raised directly impacts the person you become, whether you recognize it or not.

advertisement - learn more

Some new parents may harbour fears about this very fact. In some cases, they don’t want to be like their own parents, but they also don’t want to spoil their child. New parents seek all forms of alternatives, all forms of raising a child in the best possible way they can, and when it comes to punishment in particular, there are plenty of schools of thought. You may say to yourself that you were hit as a child and turned out fine, but that was your norm, and it’s difficult to pin down just how it affected you. Research suggests this kind of punishment does leave a mark, however.

-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!

The late Dr. Murray Straus dedicated his life to better understanding the negative effects that corporal punishment has on the psyche of a child and how it can affect them as an adult. Having authored hundreds of scholarly papers and 15 books, including Behind Closed Doors and Beating the Devil Out of Them, he is an internationally recognized sociologist and founded the very field of family violence research. Dr. Straus was the co-director of the Family Research Laboratory and a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire. 

Spanking and IQ

A relatively new study by Straus explores the link between spanking and IQ. Supported by the University of New Hampshire and presented by Straus, along with Mallie Paschall, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, to the International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma in 2009, it reveals a troubling trend. “All parents want smart children. This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen,” Straus says. “The results of this research have major implications for the well being of children across the globe.”

The duo studied samples of 806 children ages two to four and 704 children ages five to nine and then retested both groups four years later. The IQs of children between the ages of two and four who were not spanked ranked five points higher compared to those who were spanked in their same age group. Children who were five to nine years old that were not spanked were 2.8 points higher in IQ four years later compared to their spanked counterparts.

“How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking the, the slower the development of the child’s mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference,” Straus reveals.

advertisement - learn more

Nationally

Straus and colleagues collected data on corporal punishment in 32 nations among 17,404 university students who experienced spanking when they were children and found lower national average IQ in nations where spanking was more prevalent. Those whose parents used corporal punishment on them even into their teen years showed the strongest link between the behaviour and their IQ. Their data determined two explanations for the relation of corporal punishment to lower IQ:

  1. Corporal punishment is extremely stressful and can become a chronic stressor for young children, who typically experience corporal punishment three or more times a week. For many it continues for years. The research found that the stress of corporal punishment shows up as an increase in post-­traumatic stress symptoms, such as being fearful that terrible things are about to happen and being easily startled. These symptoms are associated with lower IQ.
  2. A higher national level of economic development underlies both fewer parents using corporal punishment and a higher national IQ.

This research doesn’t surprise me. When a parent chooses to discipline in the form of abuse or aggression, it can only display to the child poor conflict resolution skills, as the outcome for ‘bad behaviour’ is only determined by the abuser and implemented physically rather than by verbally engaging the child and helping them to realize why their acts were not appreciated or accepted.

According to Straus:

The worldwide trend away from corporal punishment is most clearly reflected in the 24 nations that legally banned corporal punishment by 2009. Both the European Union and the United Nations have called on all member nations to prohibit corporal punishment by parents. Some of the 24 nations that prohibit corporal punishment by parents have made vigorous efforts to inform the public and assist parents in managing their children. In others little has been done to implement the prohibition. . . .

Nevertheless, there is evidence that attitudes favoring corporal punishment and actual use of corporal punishment have been declining even in nations that have done little to implement the law and in nations which have not prohibited corporal punishment,

Personality

A study published in the Journal of Family Psychology by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan claims that children who get spanked are more likely to “defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties.“

And this study was more comprehensive than most. Researchers explain “it is the most complete analysis to date of the outcomes associated with spanking, and more specific to the effects of spanking alone than previous papers, which included other types of physical punishment in their analyses.” This study is based off of a meta-analysis of 50 years of research involving over 160,000 children.

The analysis focuses on what most Americans would recognize as spanking — an open-handed hit on the behind or extremities. When any parent chooses to spank their child, more often than not his or her intention is to create long-term obedience, but in reality, it only creates immediate obedience. “We found that spanking was associated with unintended detrimental outcomes and was not associated with more immediate or long-term compliance, which are parents’ intended outcomes when they discipline their children,” says Elizabeth Gershoff, an associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Undoubtedly, parents only want what’s best for their children, so their intention of course isn’t to cause long-term harm through what they’ve always believed to be an appropriate form of discipline. That’s why it is vital for all parents to recognize the impact they could unknowingly be having on their offspring.

“The upshot of the study is that spanking increases the likelihood of a wide variety of undesired outcomes for children. Spanking thus does the opposite of what parents usually want it to do.”

— Co-author Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work

Most people would say that there is a clear distinction between physical abuse and spanking, but both were associated with the same detrimental child outcomes in the same direction and nearly the same strength. As Gershoff explains, “our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree,” and “no clear evidence of positive effects from spanking and ample evidence that it poses a risk of harm to children’s behavior and development.”

Another problem with spanking is that the cycle of harm is most likely to continue. The study explains that adults who were spanked as children were more likely to support physical punishment for their own children.

Unfair Situations

Researchers with Tamagawa University and the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology in Japan published a paper in the journal Nature Human Behavior that describes possible implications for those who suffer from depression relating to unfair situations. As reported by Medical XPress:

In the study, volunteers were asked to play a video game in which rewards were offered—some of the volunteers were given more than half of the rewards, some were given less than half, and a third group got the same as other players. As the volunteers played the game, the researchers watched blood flow in the brain courtesy of an MRI machine. The researchers focused on the amygdala and hippocampus because they have been associated with  in people. They report that the way those brain regions responded when players felt the game was unfair toward them offered a reliable means for predicting depression levels in those people a year later—and that was regardless of whether the volunteer had scored as a pro-social person versus an individualist on a test before playing the . They also found that among the brains of volunteers who received more than their share, they could only predict depressive levels in pro-social people.

I find this information to be relevant because, from the perspective of a child, when an adult resorts to physical punishment to amend an issue, the child is likely to feel that something took place that wasn’t right or fair in regards to how a person is to generally be treated. While I agree more research should be done to investigate these suggestions, I think we inherently know that abusing a child, in any way, is wrong, and we don’t need research to prove this.

“It is time for psychologists to recognize the need to help parents end the use of corporal punishment and incorporate that objective into their teaching and clinical practice. It also is time for the United States to begin making the advantages of not spanking a public health and child welfare focus, and eventually enact federal no ­spanking legislation.”

– Dr. Murray Straus

Gentle Parenting 

What does this approach look like?

Rebecca English wrote an article in The Conversation that provides some tips for parents looking to take a different approach to discipline.

Below is an excerpt from the article.

Here are a few steps that parents take to encourage a partnership with their children:

  1. They start from a place of connection and believe that all behaviour stems from how connected the child is with their caregivers.
  2. They give choices not commands (“would you like to brush your teeth before or after you put on your pyjamas?”).
  3. They take a playful approach. They might use playfulness to clean up (“let’s make a game of packing up these toys”) or to diffuse tension (e.g. having a playful pillow fight).
  4. They allow feelings to run their course. Rather than saying “shoosh”, or yelling “stop!”, parents actively listen to crying. They may say, “you have a lot of/strong feelings about [the situation]”.
  5. They describe the behaviour, not the child. So, rather than labelling a child as naughty or nice, they will explain the way actions make them feel. For example, “I get so frustrated cleaning crumbs off the couch.”
  6. They negotiate limits where possible. If it’s time to leave the park, they might ask, “How many more minutes/swings before we leave?” However, they can be flexible and reserve “no” for situations that can hurt the child (such as running on the road or touching the hot plate) or others (including pets). They might say: “Hitting me/your sister/pulling the dog’s tail hurts, I won’t let you do that.”
  7. They treat their children as partners in the family. A partnership means that the child is invited to help make decisions and to be included in the household tasks. Parents apologise when they get it wrong.
  8. They will not do forced affection. When Uncle Ray wants to hug your child and s/he says no, then the child gets to say what happens to their body. They also don’t force please or thank you.
  9. They trust their children. What you might think of as “bad” behaviour is seen as the sign of an unmet need.
  10. They take parental time-outs when needed. Before they crack, they step away, take a breath and regain their composure.

The bottom line is, we are the ambassadors for our children. They look up to us, they depend on us, and they can only assume we will make the best possible decisions for their safety and happiness. I believe we owe it to them to do our own research and to be proactive in creating a dialogue with them, gauging their reactions and responses to discipline, and, most of all, being patient. Being a parent is an endless process of growth and transformation for you and your child, so let’s make it a beautiful one.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

“Wearing A Mask…Offers Little, If Any, Protection From Infection” – Harvard Doctors

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in the New England Medical Journal outlines how it's already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we have the freedom to wear masks? Why are so many things we are doing right now contrary to data and evidence? Are these measures helping us thrive, or are they totalitarian type measures?

What Happened: Is this fake news? No, it’s a quote directly from a paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D. Whether or not it’s may be up for debate, but one thing is for sure, the conversation shouldn’t be censored. According to the paper:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients.

The study goes on to examine whether a mask alone is even an effective health-care measure, and discusses its capability alone devoid of other, what seem to be more important practices, like washing your hands. The point is, outside of a healthcare setting, where their usefulness is still questionable, they provide no clear protection from Covid-19, so why are they being mandated like they are? Instead of a mandate, should the citizenry simply be encouraged to wear masks, with the government explaining the science and still giving people a choice?  Why are they saying it’s to protect other people when there is no evidence that it actually does that?

What’s interesting about this particular study is that it’s one of multiple that mention how masks are more of a symbolic representation. As mentioned above, the paper states that “in many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Again, the study is an examination of the validity of masks in a health care setting (which is also questionable) with regards to the new coronavirus, and clearly states that it’s already known that they offer almost zero protection in a public setting.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.

The study provides other justifications for masks, but the prevention of Covid-19 is not one of them.

Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016, titled “The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction.”

As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.

The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…

A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.

The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)

There are studies out there that also suggest that wearing masks can indeed help prevent Covid-19, especially in an acute care setting, it’s just that we are hearing so much of it that we forget to examine the science on the other side of the coin.

The list goes on, these are just a few examples.

Manufactured Panic?

The next important question to ask ourselves is, are health authorities making this pandemic out to be more serious than it actually is? Many scientists and epidemiologists from around the world have expressed this belief, and many of them, as a result, have been censored by social media platforms. Why is there an authoritarian “fact-checker” going around censoring information, evidence, and opinions being presented by some of the worlds leading scientists in this area simply because it opposes the narrative given to us by organizations like The World Health Organization? (WHO)

Are masks being used to prolong fear and hysteria?

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. Why are we taking such measures for a respiratory infection when tens of millions of people get infected and die from respiratory viruses every single year?

Why is there so much controversy surrounding the deaths? For example, in Toronto Canada, “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” (source)

Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, recently stated that, even if it’s clear one died of an alternative cause, their death will still be marked as a COVID death.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths amid complaints that it inflated numbers. This has been a common theme throughout the US as well as the World.

Vittorio Sgarbi, Italian politician Mayor of Sutri gave an emotional speech at a hearing on the 24th of April where he emphasized that the number of deaths in Italy due to COVID-19 are completely false and that the people are being lied to.

This isn’t even the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to manufactured deaths.

What’s really going on here? Is this actually about the pandemic, or was Edward Snowden right? That governments are using the new coronavirus to impose more authoritarian measures on the population, measures that will stick around long after the virus is gone? You can read more about his comments here.

Was Dr. Ron Paul correct when he said that this virus is less dangerous than it’s being made out to be? And that people will profit both politically and financially from this in the form of more of our basic rights being taken away? Is this simply being used like the justification for mass surveillance was used? To protect the population, or is it for, as NSA whistle-blower William Binney says, “total population control?” You can read more about his comments here.

The Takeaway

It’s quite clear that a large portion of the population doesn’t agree with various medical mandates, and wearing masks is one of those mandates. The reason is justified, and that’s simply because there is no evidence that they can protect the general public, and depending on the material, in some cases it can be harmful. I find it hard to believe that someone would have an issue with someone else not wanting to breathe in their own carbon monoxide, but I also understand that many peoples perception with regards to this pandemic has been severely manipulated.

On the flip side, due to so many instances where things don’t make sense, this pandemic is contributing to another large amount of people questioning what we are being told and being forced to do by our government, this is causing a deep awakening of the masses. Perhaps this is the larger reason it’s playing out from a collective consciousness perspective.

At the end of the day, more measures are continually pushed upon the population without their consent. We don’t have to continue to obey, continue to elect, and help maintain a system that is clearly not serving us to thrive.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Continue Reading

Health

COVID-19: “For People Younger Than 45, The Infection Fatality Rate is Almost 0%” – Stanford Professor

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old.

  • Reflect On:

    Are all of the measures we are being forced to take actually about the virus, or about something else? Why have we never done this for more dangerous respiratory viruses that circle the globe? What's going on here?

What Happened: John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University is one of many scientists around the world, and one of several from Stanford University, who has been telling the world that the new coronavirus, so far according to the data, is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be by mainstream media. For example, earlier on in the pandemic he published an article titled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“ In the article, he argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate. He stated that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless.”

This is exactly what these numbers did. In fact, they were the basis and justification for the lockdown.

It turns out he was right. The idea that the infection rate is much larger than previously thought seems to be well accepted and clear in the scientific community, and multiple studies have come out emphasizing the same over the past few months.  Not long ago, several academics from the Stanford School of Medicine, including Ioannidis, suggested that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza based on the data they found in their study.

In a recent interview with Greek ReporterIoannidis estimated that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases. He warned that “the draconian lockdowns imposed in many countries may have the opposite effect of what was intended. He told the Greek Reporter that “the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives.

He isn’t the only world renowned scientist to call these measures “draconian.” You can see another example here. In fact there are many of them, a large majority of whom have been censored by platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Since when are the expert opinions and research of scientists in this field constantly censored simply because they oppose the views of our federal health regulatory agencies and World Health Organization? Why is there a digital authoritarian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t?

Not only are people experiencing huge economic impacts, but it’s also having a health impact. A new article published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can read more about that here.

Here’s what Ioannidis, had to say about the infection fatality rate now that things have progressed further:

0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.  (source)

The idea that the death rate is far lower than original estimates, and even far lower than what the numbers show now seems to be quite obvious. Even CNN recently acknowledged this, only to state that just because it has a low infection fatality rate doesn’t mean that we should get too comfortable. In other words, keep wearing your mask.

Even the CDC recently announced that they may stop calling COVID-19 an “epidemic” due to the remarkably low death rate. You can read more about that here.

Why This Is Important

This all begs the question, are all of the measures that our federal health regulatory agencies forcing us to adopt actually necessary? Are they even good for us? Is this really about the virus, or are we simply having our perception manipulated by big media and powerful people, just as we have with regards to a number of other topics, like ‘the war on terror,’ for example. Why is there so much information showing that masks, for example, should not really be mandatory?

Why have we taken the measures that we’ve taken for this virus, but don’t do it for all of the other severe respiratory viruses that infect and kill millions of people around the world every single year?

For example, did you know that metapneumovirus has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5? Did you know that outbreaks of metapneumovirus have been well documented every single year, especially in long term care facilities with mortality rates of up to 50%? (pubmed 18820584) Did you know that human metapneumovirus infection results in a large number of hospitalizations of children every single year? Did you know it has a substantial morbidity rate, again in the elderly, but also among children as well? Did you know nearly 1-2 million children every single year die of these types of respiratory illnesses because they lead to acute respiratory illness? Imagine if the infection rates and death numbers were constantly tracked, and put on an easy to access website, mainstream media, radio etc. Imagine if the other coronaviruses and respiratory illnesses that are more severe in some cases, and arguably more infectious in some cases, were subjected to constant monitoring and beamed out to the population every single minute, could you imagine the hysteria that would be created?

At the end of the day, it seems quite clear that this virus is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and again, based on the data, it doesn’t seem to be any more dangerous than what we’ve already been experiencing for years. So again, it begs the question, what’s really going on here, and why have governments used the coronavirus, as Edward Snowden said, the same way they used 9/11? To push more authoritarian measures on the population without their consent?

The number of controversies surrounding the coronavirus is quite revealing. Even people whose deaths are marked as COVID deaths may not have died as a result of the coronavirus. You can read more about that here. This, along with the high infection rate even drives the infection mortality rate lower.

The Takeaway

Never in history have we experienced such a collective distrust for health authorities that we rely on to provide us with truthful information. As a result, more people are starting to think for themselves instead of believing what they are told. The coronavirus, just like 9/11, is really contributing to another massive shift in consciousness, where even more people become aware of the deceit corruption, as well as the politicization of science that seems to plague our world and waking up to the realization that our world is not how it’s been presented to us, and that our perception of major events always seems to be subjected to high levels of manipulation.

We are the ones that choose the system we live in. We are the ones that continue to play the game every four years and elect a ‘leader.’ All this does is reinforce as a system we no longer want to play with. Is it time to stop giving our power away to others, and begin organizing in another fashion? Is our current political model truly serving us to thrive? If billions of us can together and follow instructions for a global lockdown, imagine what else we could do on a collective level for other important issues…

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Physicians For Informed Consent Ask If The MMR Vaccine Is More Dangerous Than The Measles

Published

on

What Happened: The Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) are a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures. Their information is based on science. Their mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and to unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccinations. Their vision is that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination. 

You can check out their directors, advisors, and founding members here.

The organization itself is much bigger than the founding members, and includes a coalition of organizations, doctors and scientists.

On their website, they’ve put out some excellent downloadable PDF’s with regards to the MMR vaccine. There are four of them that all present different points.

  1. MEASLES: What Parents Need To Know
  2. MMR VACCINE: Is It Safer Than Measles? 
  3. Waning Immunity & The MMR Vaccine 
  4. FAQ’s: The MMR Vaccine versus the Measles

One of them deals with “what parents need to know about the measles vaccine” and another one presents the information that has them questioning if the MMR vaccine is safer than the measles. They point out that the chances of dying from measles and make many comparisons to the vaccine.

According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine-injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

The PDF’s are well-sourced and laid out in an easy to read and understand type of manner, and quite detailed. Their arguments are quite compelling, and it would be interesting to present this information to a physician on the opposite end of the spectrum in order to hear or read their rebuttal. So feel free to take a look at them if interested!

Why This Is Important: When it comes to both our individual and collective health, all of us simply want what’s best. Nobody can really deny that, especially for our children. The issue is, many people have been made to believe that vaccines are for the greater good of everybody. We are made to believe that children, for example, who are not vaccinated are actually a danger to the vaccinated children.

The Physicians for Informed Consent are well aware of this argument, and they present a lot of information on why that’s not true. At the end of the day, in order to produce “herd immunity” from vaccines, the vaccines must be 100 percent effective for everybody, all of the time. We already know that that’s not the case and that a large majority are susceptible to vaccine injury. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act alone is enough to argue against mandatory vaccination and the idea that the unvaccinated are a risk to the vaccinated. In fact, vaccines have been known to spread diseases. This has happened with polio as well as the measles.

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

There are actually decades of examples when it comes to the measles.

The Takeaway

Vaccinations are quite a controversial topic, and vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among not only the global citizenry, but among doctors and physicians as well, which was also expressed at the recent World Health Organization vaccine summit. You can read more about that here.

In today’s day and age, it’s important to ask ourselves if measures taken under the guise of goodwill are really necessary and good for us. Take terrorism, for example, the idea that those who fund the problem, arm the problem, and in some cases create the problem then propose the solution of foreign infiltration, again, under the guise of goodwill.

So what were the real intentions, to stop the terrorists or to take over the country for natural resources and economic power and control?

Are people capitalizing off of the coronavirus? Not just for profit but for control, like Edward Snowden mentioned?

It’s also important to note that pharmaceutical companies hold tremendous lobbying power, even more so than big oil. (source)

Ask yourself, should we not have the right to decide for ourselves what goes into our body? Especially when there is a tremendous amount of flawed logic with the idea of mass vaccinations? Should we not have access to appropriate double blind placebo controlled safety studies? How come there are none for vaccines?

Why are there massive ridicule campaigns against organizations, professionals and people who create awareness about vaccine safety? Is vaccine safety not in the best interests of everybody? Should we not be analyzing and questioning instead of simply believing?

We must ask ourselves if we want to continue to give our consciousness and perceptions about certain medications over to these global and federal health authorities or, is it time to start asking more questions and pointing out facts that don’t really resonate? Why is discussion being discouraged, censored and even punished?

Why is Julian Assange in Jail? Why do we jail those who expose crimes and identify with those who commit them?

At the end of the day, vaccines are not a one size fits all product, and that’s quite clear. There are risks associated with vaccines, and evidence suggests that they are nowhere near as rare as they’re made out to be.

If we can come together as billions and shut down for the coronavirus, imagine what we could do if we come together to oppose measures that we as a citizenry, and as an entire collective, do not desire.

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!