Connect with us

Awareness

Why We’re Not Anti-Vax, And Why We All Need To Stop Choosing “Sides” In The Vaccine Debate

You asked for it, and we’ve answered. Here’s our official stance on the “vaccine debate.”

Published

on

We often post articles on the potential health risks of certain vaccines and the ingredients within them, and in turn we receive a lot of comments and messages claiming we’re pushing an “anti-vaccine agenda.”

advertisement - learn more

People will see an article title on the CE website or our Facebook page that conveys an issue with a particular vaccine, such as our more recent article titled “If You Have a Teenager You Should Be Concerned: Big Pharma Was Just Caught Lying About the HPV Vaccine,” and then immediately categorize us as being “anti-vaxxers.”

Many of us identify as being anti-vaccines, just as many people identify as being anti-abortion, anti-religion, anti-war, anti-establishment, or whatever else we actively state we are staunchly, or sometimes blindly, against.

One of the issues with identifying with these labels is that whenever we take this approach, we’re often coming from a place of anger and hatred. All of a sudden, we allow our personal beliefs to trump science and the truth because they’re so heavily fuelled by our desire to express our personal opinions or be “right.”

Though it’s important to stand up for what you believe in, it’s equally as important to remain detached from those beliefs so they can change and adapt as we, as a collective, grow and evolve.

With that, we’d like to clarify our “stance” on vaccines. Collective Evolution is neither for nor against vaccines. We do not identify as being anti- or pro- vaccines, we are simply pro-informed choice, pro-science, and pro-humanity. We do not choose sides, because there should be no “sides” to choose from in the first place.

advertisement - learn more

Each vaccine is extremely different, posing different health benefits and risks, and to lump them all into one group just so we can label ourselves as being pro- or anti- vaccines will not help us progress as a society or help to advance science.

Just because vaccines have served us in the past doesn’t negate the fact that many of them pose some very serious health risks. Likewise, just because one vaccine poses severe side effects doesn’t mean that all vaccines pose the same health hazards.

When did we start letting our own personal beliefs and desire to choose a “side” trump scientific evidence?

Why We Need to Stop Identifying as Being Pro- or Anti- Vaccines

Maybe you’ve been asked which side of the debate you’re on, or maybe you’ve just noticed the growing number of people who claim they’re pro- or anti- vaxxers. The fact of the matter is, by choosing sides, we’re taking attention away from the science and increasing division.

When we label ourselves as anti-vaccines, we may start to only believe and research the problems within the vaccine industry, ignoring the benefits they’ve provided us in the past and confusing specific side effects of certain vaccines as being applicable to all vaccines. Likewise, when we claim to be “pro-vaccine,” we start to ignore the very real health risks associated with many vaccines.

Jennifer Margulis, PhD and co-author of the book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, made an excellent point in questioning why it is that we don’t call someone anti-antibiotics if we question some of the safety issues associated with them or choose not to take them, yet if we raise health concerns over vaccines, we’re suddenly labelled as “anti-vaxxers.”

Some of the ingredients in certain vaccines have been proven to pose serious health risks, yet when we ask our doctors or even our peers about them, they often become defensive. These questions aren’t meant to hurt their feelings or threaten the medical field, but rather advance it. If we know that certain ingredients in vaccines can cause serious allergic reactions, side effects, autism, or even death, why are we just turning a blind eye toward them?

Doctors are also scrutinized for speaking out about vaccines, or categorized as “anti-vaxxers” for simply questioning the CDC’s aggressive vaccine schedule for every single child, regardless of risks, side effects, and standard of living. Children are also categorized as being unvaccinated when their parents decide to choose which vaccines they receive based on what diseases they’re at risk for and what side effects each vaccine presents. Even when they do receive some vaccinations, just not all, they’re deemed unfit to be around their peers.

Dr. Paul Thomas and science journalist Jennifer Margulis further elaborate on this subject in the following video:

This isn’t about right or wrong, nor should it be about pro- or anti- vaccines, but rather science. We rarely advance ourselves without making mistakes and altering the way we do things until we’re successful, and science isn’t any different. So, why is it that so many people ignore the studies that prove the potential side effects of certain vaccines? Why are so many people so quick to shut down the claims of concerned parents, or worse, families who have experienced vaccine injuries firsthand?

Actress Jenny McCarthy was one of those concerned parents, as her child became autistic after being vaccinated. Jenny took matters into her own hands and cured her child’s autism using a bio-medical plan and detoxing her child from the heavy metals all of us are so often exposed to, including those within vaccines. McCarty raised an excellent point in a CNN interview (which you can watch here), suggesting a huge reason why the medical community denies the scientific evidence against some ingredients in certain vaccines is because vaccines are profitable.

This may not be much of a surprise to many, as Big Pharma is a money-making machine that typically puts profit before people. Doctors get paid to push drugs onto us, not to help us get off them and cure us. You can even figure out exactly how much your personal doctor gets paid to sell you drugs (read more about that in our CE article here). This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s the very basic motive of a profitable business, and Big Pharma represents very big business. 

In addition, we need to stop lumping all vaccines into one giant “vaccine category.” Vaccines are all very different, which is why so many of them exist. You don’t just get one vaccine and get all of the health benefits and risks associated with them. Each vaccine has different ingredients, meaning they have different properties and side effects as well.

It doesn’t make sense to be pro- or anti- vaccines for the sole reason that vaccines aren’t all the same, so we shouldn’t support or oppose every single one of them for the exact same reasons. 

There’s no war against vaccines, there’s just concerned parents, scientists, and human beings coming forward to question ingredients within these shots. So, what exactly are people so concerned about?

Evidence of Different Vaccines Posing Severe Health Risks

First of all, the correlation between vaccines and autism is very real, despite what many doctors, news outlets, and government organizations state. A study published by Dr. Brian Hooker, PhD, in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, found up to a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. You can read more about this specific study in our CE article here.

Another study published in the International Journal of Toxicology outlines the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopmental disorders. It suggests that early mercury exposure could increase the risk of autism.

The Division on Autism and Development Disabilities even published a scientific paper on the potential link between mercury and autism, stating:

To sum up, there has been a great deal of information from different studies that seems to indicate that repetitive mercury exposure during pregnancy, through thimerosal, dental amalgam, and fish consumption, and after birth, through thimerosal-containing vaccinations and pollution, in genetically susceptible individuals is one potential factor in autism.

Of course, that doesn’t mean every case of autism is caused by vaccines, but there’s certainly enough evidence to suggest there is a correlation between autism and some vaccines, and that  this clearly deserves further research.

Plus, there are many studies that suggest there is no causal link between autism and vaccines, but those don’t negate the studies that have found one. It’s just very clear that more research needs to be conducted, and that we need to stop blindly denying scientific evidence just because it threatens our current belief systems.

In fact, the Italian court has recognized that the MMR vaccine has caused autism in the past. In one case, the Italian Health Ministry admitted the MMR vaccine specifically caused autism in a 9-year-old boy. You can read more about that case in our CE article here.

paper published in 2012 by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, argues severe adverse reactions to the chemicals (like aluminum) within vaccines are linked to life-threatening conditions associated with the heart and brain. The paper goes on to argue there is a relationship between autism and acute adverse reactions to vaccinations, particularly in regards to the MMR vaccine.

As Dr. Seneff explains:

Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.

If there’s any aluminum present in these vaccines — it’s not in the MMR vaccine, but is added to most others — that could present many issues. A paper published by Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic of the University of British Columbia showed vaccines with aluminum adjuvants increase the risk of developing autism, autoimmune diseases, and neurological problems later in life. A demonstrated neurotoxin, aluminum is the only approved adjuvant in the U.S. Its use presents the risk of brain inflammation, autoimmunity, and other adverse health consequences.

study published in the International Journal of Medicine revealed flu vaccines may result in inflammatory cardiovascular changes and increase risk for serious heart-related events, like a heart attack. The study states:

Together with an inflammatory reaction, influenza A vaccine induced platelet activation and sympathovagal imbalance towards adrenergic predominance. Significant correlations were found between CRP levels and HRV parameters, suggesting a pathophysiological link between inflammation and cardiac autonomic regulation. The vaccine-related platelet activation and cardiac autonomic dysfunction may transiently increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Not to mention the flu shot is filled with tons of chemicals we shouldn’t be putting into our bodies anyways. Your body is likely strong enough to fight a common cold, and if it’s not, then you should focus on building your immune system without harming your body with this type of vaccination. Plus, the effectiveness is slim to none, as many people still get the flu even after being vaccinated. You can read more about the flu shot in our CE article here.

Perhaps the most controversial vaccine out there is Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that has caused some very serious reactions in teenagers, including death. You can read more about HPV vaccine injuries and deaths in our CE articles here and here.

A huge controversy regarding Gardasil is its claim that it can prevent cervical cancer, which turns out to be less than true. Dr. Dianne Harper is one of a select few specialists in OB/GYN (in the world) who helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved.

Since Harper’s involvement in getting Gardasil approved, she has condemned the vaccine, stating that it is neither safe nor effective. She exposed that the tested length of the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing HPV infection is not long enough to prevent cervical cancer, which, as she states, can take decades to develop. She has also stated that vaccination will not decrease the number of cervical cancer cases, but a routine of regular pap smears will.

Of all the women who get an HPV infection, approximately 70% of those will clear that infection all by themselves in the first year. You don’t even have to detect it or treat it. Within two years, approximately 90% of those women will clear it all by themselves. By three years, you will have 10% of that original group of women left who still have an HPV infection, and 5% of this 10% will have progressed into a pre-cancerous lesion.

So, “now you have that small group of women who have pre-cancerous lesions and now let’s look at that moving into invasive carcinoma. What we know then is that amongst women with . . . [pre-cancerous] lesions . . . it takes five years for about twenty percent of them to become invasive carcinomas. That’s a pretty slow process. It takes about thirty years for forty percent of them to become invasive cervical carcinomas.” (source)

Despite all of this information on the risks of Gardasil and vaccine deaths as a result of getting them, you still have this massive fear campaign spearheaded by Big Pharma aimed at concerned parents, convincing them that HPV can cause cancer.

Another serious issue with vaccines in North America is the recommended vaccine schedule itself. Many parents completely support all of the vaccines administered to their children; their concerns lie within the schedule on which their children receive these shots. The timeline is very aggressive, lumping multiple vaccines into a short timeframe.

Many doctors have spoken out about the necessity of altering each child’s vaccine schedule to fit their own needs based on each individual kid’s risk factors. For example, Dr. Paul Thomas stated:

Until a large doubleblind study comparing unvaccinated children with vaccinated children is done, we cannot rule out the current American vaccination schedule as a contributing factor in autism. My own clinical experience has shown that waiting until age 3 is safer and healthier for children, significantly reducing the chance of neurological and immunological damage that may be triggered by this vaccine.

Dr. Thomas also suggests his patients follow “a slower, evidence-based vaccine schedule that calls for only one aluminum-containing shot at a time.” When you compare the current vaccine schedule in North America to those in other countries, even more medically advanced ones, they vastly differ.

Many people attribute this difference to Big Pharma’s stranglehold over the U.S. government, which would make sense. Big Pharma plays a huge role in the medical community and the drug approval process, and often strong-arms the government into shifting the law in their favour. This begs the question: Is the current vaccine schedule what’s good for our kids, or what’s profitable for Big Pharma?

If you’d like to read more about vaccine safety, check out the following CE articles:

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

If You Have A Teenager You Should Be Concerned: Big Pharma Was Just Caught Lying About The HPV Vaccine

Flu Vaccines in Pregnancy and Childhood: What You Need to Know

Pediatric Vaccines Market To Become Worth More Than $40 Billion USD Globally By 2022

New In Vivo Studies Find Most Common Vaccine Ingredient – Alhydrogel (Aluminum) – In Distant Organs & The Brain

What Bill Nye Gets Wrong About Vaccines & Alternative Medicine

Final Thoughts 

The general purpose of a vaccine is to provide immunity against one or several diseases, which is really awesome. What’s not awesome are the potential side effects associated with some of the ingredients added to these vaccines, and the rapid timeline on which they’re administered to American children.

It’s not about demonizing doctors or vaccine makers, it’s about shedding light on some of the potential dangers of specific vaccines and their ingredients. Your doctors aren’t all out to get your children, they’re simply following the recommended schedule as stated by the CDC. It’s important to remember that your doctors aren’t in school anymore, either. They’re not constantly being educated about the newest discoveries in the medical industry, which is why it’s so important to do your own research.

We’re not suggesting you become your own doctor, but rather, to at least be aware of the potential issues related to certain medical practices, including vaccinations, so you can ask your doctor the right questions. If your doctor doesn’t know how to answer your questions, or refuses to, then perhaps you need to find a new doctor!

Even if you do educate yourself on all of the advantages and risks associated with each vaccine and you choose to vaccinate your child with however many shots, that’s fine too. We’re not telling you not to get vaccinated, we’re simply encouraging people to make informed decisions and trying to empower people to feel confident in asking any questions they have to their doctors so they can make the best choices for their families.

We encourage you to stop choosing sides and look at issues from a more well-rounded, unbiased perspective. When we choose sides, we often ignore the evidence that’s stacked against us because we feel an emotional connection to our viewpoint. Take politics, for example; people choose to be “left” or “right” winged, and all of a sudden they start blindly defending their party and ignoring the issues within it.

Just look at the last election: So many people literally denied Hillary Clinton’s crimes and wrongdoings because they so badly wanted Trump to lose. The same is happening within the vaccinations debate: anti-vaxxers forget that not all vaccines and their makers are evil, and pro-vaxxers blindly deny scientific evidence that suggests vaccines could be harming us.

It’s not about expressing hatred toward the medical industry, either. Science has helped us advance significantly over the past century, allowing us to live longer and healthier lives. However, the medical industry has never been, and probably will never be, perfect. We make mistakes and try controversial treatment methods, all in our search for medical treatments.

Just look at psychiatry. We used to lock pretty much anyone up in psychiatric wards and literally torture them. We used electroshock therapy and performed lobotomies as psychiatric treatments, and although those were cruel, they helped psychiatry get to where it is today.

When it comes to vaccines, there’s no denying they’ve played a significant role in progressing our health to where it is today. However, we’re living in a very different time, and the science clearly suggests some of these ingredients are not healthy for our bodies.

So, are we going to keep inspiring division amongst ourselves by choosing sides and continue to bury our heads in the sand when it comes to the health risks of vaccines, or are we going to actually accept and admit there’s a problem here? Remember, there should only be one side when it comes to the vaccine debate, and that side is science. 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Glyphosate & Colorectal Cancer in Young Adults

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by By Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, President of Children’s Health Defense.

  • Reflect On:

    How did our federal health regulatory agencies ever approve something so dangerous and damaging to human health?

In Part I, “The Disturbing Increase in Colorectal Cancer in Young Adults,” we called attention to the steep rise in colorectal cancer incidence in young people in their twenties and thirties and discussed the risks associated with viral vaccines. In Part II, we discuss glyphosate as another plausible culprit in the colorectal cancer epidemic.

Gut bacteria play a pivotal role in shoring up brain health and overall health. This fact has become a widely acknowledged talking point in scientific circles as well as in the popular press. The reverse is also true—when diet or environmental factors produce gut dysbiosis (an imbalance of the microbes that reside in the gastrointestinal tract), the imbalance can “impact the pathologies of many diseases.”

Colorectal cancer has increased by 51% in Americans under age 50 since the mid-1990s, and researchers suggest that “early life exposures…may be contributing to the rise” in that age group. A leading hypothesis is that gut dysbiosis is playing an active part—perhaps by disrupting young people’s immune response and triggering overactivation of cell signaling proteins in the colon. Some researchers have even posited a “bidirectional self-feeding relationship” between the gut microbiome and colorectal cancer, with gut dysbiosis contributing to colorectal cancer growth and progression, and tumor growth in turn disturbing the gut microbiome.

Autism investigators have been at the forefront of research on the gut microbiome. They point to environmental toxins and antibiotic use as two influences that can shift the gut’s microbial composition in an unfavorable direction. Scientists attribute up to 85% of colorectal cancers to environmental and microbial factors. Glyphosate (the leading ingredient of Roundup) is both an herbicide and a patented antimicrobial. Could the upward trend in glyphosate usage that began roughly three decades ago have something to do, therefore, with the skyrocketing incidence of colorectal cancer in young people? Although recent court cases linking Roundup to cancer have focused mostly on other types of cancer such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the evidence that glyphosate wreaks havoc with gut bacteria has led many researchers to suspect that the answer is yes.

Glyphosate in the air and everywhere

These days, glyphosate exposure affects everyone, not just farmworkers. Newsweek reported in 2016 that the world is “awash in glyphosate,” with a fifteen-fold increase in Roundup use since the mid-1990s. American agriculture sprays glyphosate on at least 70 food crops. As a result, glyphosate residues are now rampant in the U.S. food supply, including in the processed Cheerios, Doritos and Oreos so frequently gobbled up by children and adolescents.

Studies have documented concerning levels of glyphosate in Americans’ urine and breastmilk. One study of U.S. adults found that average glyphosate levels in urine increased by a factor of thirteen over the two-decade period between 1993–1996 and 2014–2016—and seven out of ten study participants had glyphosate levels above the limits of detection. Mean levels of a glyphosate metabolite called AMPA measured approximately 36 times higher in the second time period. Moms Across America has reported high levels of glyphosate in three out of ten breastmilk samples tested.

advertisement - learn more

Glyphosate and the gut

A variety of in-progress clinical trials are exploring the link between the intestinal microbiota and colorectal cancer. Completed studies have already shown that individuals with colorectal cancer “display instability in the composition of their gut bacterial communities when compared with healthy controls” and have elevated levels of unfavorable bacterial species. Several of these species exhibit “pro-inflammatory and pro-carcinogenic properties, which could consequently have an impact on colorectal carcinogenesis.” In fact, researchers suggest that measurement of these out-of-whack bacterial populations could have “potential value as a marker of colon cancer.”

The widespread and intensive use of glyphosate has exacerbated “distortions in microbial communities.” Researchers note that:

Shifts in microbial compositions due to selective pressure by glyphosate may have contributed to the proliferation of plant and animal pathogens. …[W]e hypothesize that the selection pressure for glyphosate-resistance in bacteria could lead to shifts in microbiome composition and increases in antibiotic resistance to clinically important antimicrobial agents.

Researchers Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff have written extensively about glyphosate in a series of papers elucidating “pathways to modern diseases.” They note that in animals, glyphosate “has been shown to disrupt gut bacteria…, preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens.” Overgrowth of opportunistic pathogens can lead to a breakdown of the gut lining and the development of “leaky gut” syndrome. Researchers describe “the loss of gut barrier integrity” as “an early event which contributes to chronic inflammation,” and they have observed both gut dysbiosis and a dysfunctional intestinal barrier in colorectal cancer patients.

Turning a blind eye

Far from sticking up for American consumers, U.S. regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have largely turned a blind eye to concerns about glyphosate safety. The environmental website EcoWatch reported in 2016 that although the FDA routinely tests foods for pesticide residues, it had never tested for glyphosate residues until that year; EPA critics believe that the agency “has been unduly influenced by the agrichemical industry.” EcoWatch also observed that U.S. regulators allow a much higher “acceptable daily intake” of glyphosate than is permitted in other countries.

In July, 2019, Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, asserting that the company’s labeling and marketing practices “deceive parents who seek to be mindful of what is contained in the baby foods they provide to their infants.” Independent laboratory testing identified multiple synthetic pesticides, including glyphosate, in Beech-Nut’s “Naturals” line of baby food. Children’s Health Defense and Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. take the health of our most precious resource—our children—very seriously and are at the forefront of legal efforts to challenge fraud and free children from exposure to toxic chemicals.

The rising toll of colorectal cancer deaths in young people who are in the prime of life points to the urgent need to reset regulatory priorities and put people before profits. Glyphosate’s deleterious effects on the gut microbiome—just one of many problems associated with the herbicide—are one more nail in the coffin for a toxic product that is well past its use-by date.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Awareness

Johnson & Johnson Found To Have Knowingly Allowed Asbestos In Their Baby Powder

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Johnson and Johnson have recently lost lawsuits for negligence in knowingly allowing carcinogenic substances in their talc-based hygiene products.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we starting to turn the page on an era where human health and safety are not the prime considerations in the manufacturing of consumer products?

We are starting to awaken to the fact that it seems to be the rule, and not the exception, that large Western corporations put profits above human health considerations. The only time they seem to give any regard to human health concerns is when their forecasts of potential lawsuits down the road would likely exceed the cost measures needed to ensure the safety of their product.

Johnson & Johnson is just one of a long line of corporate perpetrators who believed that covering up and lying about known health concerns would make better business sense than taking the time and resources to actually address those health concerns within their products.

Contaminated Baby Powder: The Height Of Indignity

One would think, regardless of an understanding that the bottom line is a priority for most private companies, that the health and safety of a nursing mother and her newborn child would be sacrosanct for any industry. The reality is that this is simply not the case, even though J&J could have mitigated this problem from the start.

Companies that mine talc are required to take extra steps to ensure the absence of asbestos in their talc. Instead, J&J allegedly went to great lengths to fake it.

Not only did the company know about the asbestos contamination, evidence suggests, but J&J also failed to warn its customers about the link between Baby Powder and cancer or replace its talc with a safer alternative. As a result, J&J guaranteed its customers’ exposure to asbestos.

And regardless of their size or numbers, asbestos fibers are lethal at any capacity. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has stressed repeatedly, there is no safe level of exposure. (source)

advertisement - learn more

The Testimony of Scientist James Webber

Baby Powder’s contamination with asbestos (a mineral that naturally occurs near talc) has long been the subject of lawsuits. But only in recent years has evidence begun to unravel J&J’s defense – that the company had no idea – and threatened its success in lawsuits to come.

In March, a California jury awarded $29 million to Terry Leavitt, a woman who said that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-powder-based products caused her terminal mesothelioma. Environmental scientist James Webber testified in her high-profile California trial and made these observations:

During several hours on the stand, Webber explained how he ran tests that showed “clear” evidence of asbestos contamination in the mines from which J&J sourced talc.

“The testing I have seen [shows] that it was present at least as early as 1971 and up through the late 1990s,” said Webber, who ran an asbestos laboratory in New York state.

Despite denying it publicly, J&J had observed this contamination in internal memos. Its notes dismissed the amount of asbestos in its talc as “but a trace,” Webber alleged. But that was just an optimistic interpretation of superficial testing, he said: the tests used methods too weak to detect microscopic asbestos fibers. Webber insisted the actual tests results revealed there could be millions of asbestos fibers per gram of talc.

And J&J’s inaccurate reports were allegedly only the tip of the iceberg. In some instances, Webber said, photos attached to J&J’s reports revealed that “they had been seeing it and not reporting it.”  (source)

And It’s Getting Worse

The $29 million verdict, in California Superior Court in Oakland, was the latest defeat for the healthcare conglomerate facing more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide. And things may be getting even worse for J&J, according to ZeroHedge:

Johnson & Johnson shares are down over 5% after Bloomberg reports that, according to people with knowledge of the matter, the U.S. Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation into whether Johnson & Johnson lied to the public about the possible cancer risks of its talcum powder…

Now, a grand jury in Washington is examining documents related to what company officials knew about any carcinogens in their products, the people said.

The Takeaway

It seems as though corporations have long been willing to take the calculated risk of short-cuts and denials instead of ensuring that their products are safe for public use. My suspicion is that a part of our collective awakening process will be issuing in a new business paradigm in which human health and safety become paramount.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Awareness

Prescription Infant Formulas Found To Be Contaminated With Aluminum

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple brands of prescription infant formula were found to contain high levels of aluminum.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we be questioning the quality of products that come from pharmaceutical production? Do we veer away from natural methods of raising children more than we should? At what cost?

You may not think aluminum is a big deal, but it is. For anybody who has looked into aluminum toxicology, it’s quite clear and apparent that it has no place inside of any living biological organism. Putting it simply, it wreaks havoc on our biology. High amounts of aluminum have been found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease, with experts in the field believing that aluminum brain accumulation may be one of the main causes of Alzheimer’s disease.

It’s also been discovered within the brains of MS patients, and some of the highest aluminum content ever recorded in brain tissue has also been discovered in people with autism. Aluminum is associated with several diseases. But an adult body can do a great job of flushing out aluminum.

Despite the fact that aluminum has no place within earth’s biota, it’s still present in many of our medications, our food, and even in the water that we drink due to contamination since the industrial revolution. Aluminum inside the body is a new phenomenon and still understudied. Again, there is a threshold, and aluminum that is injected via vaccines doesn’t exit the body–there is strong evidence that it remains inside the body and ends up in distant organs and eventually inside of the brain. If you want to access more studies on that topic, you can read this article I published that provides them and goes into more detail. You can also watch this interview with Christopher Exley, where he also points to that fact.

A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has shown that multiple popular infant prescriptions are contaminated with aluminum. You may be asking how much aluminum, but the authors make it a point to stress that there are no safe amounts of aluminum levels that can be inside of a human body, let alone a newborn baby. That being said, the amounts found are listed within the abstract of the study:

Historical and recent data demonstrate that off-the-shelf infant formulas are heavily contaminated with aluminium. The origin of this contamination remains to be elucidated though may be imported via ingredients, packaging and processing. Specialised infant formulas exist to address health issues, such as low birth weight, allergy or intolerance and medical conditions, such as renal insufficiency. The aluminium content of these prescription infant formulas is measured here for the first time. We obtained 24 prescription infant formulas through a paediatric clinic and measured their total aluminium content by transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry following microwave assisted acid/peroxide digestion. The aluminium content of ready-to-drink formulas ranged from 49.9 (33.7) to 1956.3 (111.0) μg/L. The most heavily contaminated products were those designed as nutritional supplements for infants struggling to gain weight. The aluminium content of powdered formulas ranged from 0.27 (0.04) to 3.27 (0.19) μg/g. The most heavily contaminated products tended to be those addressing allergies and intolerance. Prescription infant formulas are contaminated with aluminium.

Another very important point made right off the bat by the authors:

advertisement - learn more

Human exposure to aluminium is a serious health concern. Aluminium exposure in infants is understandably a burgeoning issue. While infant exposure to aluminium continues to be documented, its consequences, immediate and in the future, have received only scant attention and research is required to understand the biological availability of aluminium through formula feeding. For example, how much aluminium is absorbed across the neonate gut and its subsequent fate, including excretion.

There is already too much aluminium in infant formulas and herein we have measured its content in a large number of prescription formulas, products which are fed to vulnerable infants in their first months of life. Many of these products are heavily contaminated with aluminium.

As for the specific infant formulas, you can refer to the study. The researchers obtained 24 prescription infant formulas via the Paediatric Clinic of Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, United Kingdom. The ready-to-drink and powdered products were new, ready-to-be used and unopened samples. These formulas are for babies with some sort of growth restriction, like for preterm infants or infants who have poor weight gain. There were also powdered formulas for allergies and intolerances and powdered formulas with additional amino acids.

The authors contacted each manufacturer and expressed that they denied knowing that there was any aluminum in their products, which means it’s still a mystery as to their source. The authors hypothesize on a number of ways that aluminum could be entering into the formulas.

In their conclusion, the authors emphasize that:

Where possible, breast milk feeding should be prioritised, as the aluminium content of breast milk is invariably an order of magnitude lower than in formula feeds. Where infant formulas are the only source of nutrition for many infants in their first weeks and months of life, aluminium ingested in formula feeds will be the major contributor to their body burden of aluminium. The last thing that vulnerable infants fed specialised formulas for their specific nutritional/medicinal need is additional aluminium in their diet.

Detoxing

There is a lot of information out there on how a person can detox from aluminum and other heavy metals. There are multiple studies, and based on what I’ve looked into, water with high amounts of Silica are effective in draining aluminum out of your body and brain. Herbs like cilantro and substances like chlorella and spirulina are also great for removing some metals. The information is out there, so be sure to do your research.

The Takeaway

It’s concerning to think about what these corporations are doing. Again, aluminum should hold no place in our society, it should’ve remained well below our surface as part of the Earth’s crust for a reason. It wasn’t until humans began digging it out and using it for a number of things, irresponsibly I might add, that we started to see the health implications which still go largely ignored by the medical community.

In fact, heavy metal accumulation and detoxification of aluminum haven’t been addressed at all, which is odd given the fact that heavy metal accumulation is linked to a variety of diseases.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!