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

30-Year Study Finds Weekly Use Of Disinfectants Greatly Increases Your Chances Of Lung Disease

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

    There are many other natural alternatives out there these days. Some are listed in the article, be sure to do your research!

One of the most versatile cleaning supplies in the home, bleach disinfects anything it comes into contact with and can not only clean every surface but remove stains from fabrics, too. Despite its cleaning power, we’ve also long heard of the effects such chemicals can have on our health and wellbeing. The labels on such products make some of these clear, explaining they are corrosive and can irritate  eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, often through simple inhalation. Despite these warnings signs, people continue to buy into this corporate propaganda.

As previously stated in an article of ours from 2013:

It is important to note that there is no FDA-type organization that regulates the cleaning products that are brought into your home. Instead groups such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make warnings of the use of Chlorine Bleach publicly available. Under the assumption that consumers will continue to use Chlorine Bleach within their households, the following safety precautions are widely recommended:

  • Dilute the chlorine bleach with water. The lower concentration poses a potentially lesser risk of unwanted exposure.
  • Wear a safety mask and rubber gloves when working with bleach as a preventative measure.
  • Only use chlorine bleach in a well ventilated area to allow for sufficient air flow and to prevent the unwanted gasses from remaining stationary in the working space.
  • Never mix chlorine bleach with any other household cleaners.

It’s unlikely people exercise these precautions when dealing with this chemical, and it’s also interesting to note that even more studies have come forward since then confirming these risks.


A new study has found that people who use disinfectants just once a week have a 22-32% increased chance of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

“COPD is the third leading cause of death in the United States. More than 11 million people have been diagnosed with COPD, but millions more may have the disease without even knowing it. COPD causes serious long-term disability and early death. At this time there is no cure, and the number of people dying from COPD is growing,” according to the American Lung Association.

advertisement - learn more

The 30-year study was conducted by Harvard University and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. This new study could potentially link COPD to specific cleaning chemicals, as two other studies in European populations showed that “working as a cleaner was associated with a higher risk of COPD,” according to Orianne Dumas, a researcher at Inserm. Dumas goes on to say, “Earlier studies have found a link between asthma and exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants at home, such as bleach and sprays, so it is important to investigate this further.”

In 1989, the Harvard researchers found 55,185 working female nurses in the U.S. who did not have COPD, then analyzed those who were still working in 2009 over the next eight years. Participants were given a questionnaire to determine which disinfectants they used most frequently and why they used them. The disinfectants included glutaraldehyde (a strong disinfectant used for medical instruments), bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds (known as “quats”). In addition to the questionnaire, they took into account factors such as age, weight and ethnicity.

During this period they found that 663 were diagnosed with the condition. “In our study population, 37% of nurses used disinfectants to clean surfaces on a weekly basis and 19% used disinfectants to clean medical instruments on a weekly basis,” says Dumas.

The study aims to highlight the lack of health guidelines when it comes to cleaning and disinfectants, especially in healthcare settings, and researchers hope their results will prompt further investigation and better safety precautions.

There are many substantial alternatives to bleach like vinegar or essential oils, and if you’d like to further rid your home of harsh chemicals, check out this article (click here).

We need more people like these researchers, who dedicate their time to ensuring our safety when it comes to items we have incorporated into our lifestyle and assume are safe, doing this kind of work. This information isn’t meant to scare anyone, especially those of us who actively use these materials, but rather to bring more awareness so that we can educate ourselves and make healthier choices. There are countless healthy and safe alternatives when it comes to what we clean with, what we wear, and what we eat. You have to play the role of researcher in your own life if you expect to make positive change, and by having an open mind, you allow yourself to accept opportunities that can further your growth, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

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

Alcohol Is Killing More People Than The Opioid Epidemic. So Why Aren’t We Talking About It?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Alcohol related deaths are the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the US.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we be glamorizing the consumption of alcohol in the media and in advertisements? Is it time to get real about the potentially life threatening risks of this drug?

In recent years, we have been hearing a lot about the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the nation. The Center for Disease Control reported that over 47,000 people died in the United States alone from an opiate overdose in 2017, that is almost 5 times the amount of deaths caused by opiates in 1999. This is important, and yes it is good this is getting the attention that it deserves. However, in the same year, an estimated 88,000 people died from alcohol related causes — Did anyone hear about that?

Alcohol is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, the first is tobacco and the second is poor diet and minimal physical activity. Given this, why aren’t we talking about it? And why don’t we see warning labels on alcoholic beverages? Why are we promoting such a harmful substance? We certainly don’t see huge billboards with people in bikinis popping oxycontin or injecting heroin, because we are well aware that these substances are addictive and can cause harm, so again, why are we openly promoting alcohol? Especially to young people?

Is It Because It’s Legal?

Is it possible that alcohol related deaths do not garner as much of a cause for concern because it is legal, easily available and socially acceptable? Most likely. Alcohol sales reached $253.8 billion in the US in 2018 — this might also have something to do with it.

I’m not suggesting that criminalizing alcohol is a solution to this issue or anything, the same way I don’t see how it’s still against the law to use any drugs at all, regardless of how bad they are for you. I believe that we should have the say in how we treat ourselves and what we put into our bodies, not the government or a legal system. But instead of being portrayed as a harmful substance, like opiates, crystel meth, and crack are — alcohol is glamorized by the media; often being portrayed as sophisticated, fun, sexy and generally just the cool thing to do.

Alcohol Is Basically Encouraged In Our Society

There is no doubt about it, the use of alcohol is deeply ingrained in our culture. So much so, that choosing not to drink is often the more odd thing to do. People will always ask, oh, how come you’re not drinking? As opposed to other drugs, people won’t typically ask, oh why aren’t you smoking meth tonight? Or whatever it may be.

Binge drinking is practically expected on the weekends, and for many people it is a way to unwind, let loose and have fun after a long workweek. Many people justify their consumption this way insisting that it’s fine, because, I don’t drink every day. The thing about alcohol abuse is that it doesn’t have to be every day to be considered a problem or for the person to be considered an alcoholic.

advertisement - learn more

There are many ways we tend to justify our use, because the thought of giving it up entirely or admitting that we even have a problem can be extremely overwhelming — especially if our entire livelihoods are centered on it.

How Much Is Too Much?

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) created a web site called “Rethinking Drinking” to highlight the amount of misconceptions about what is considered “low-risk” and “high-risk” alcohol consumption. It turns out, more than three drinks in a day or more than seven drinks per week for women and four drinks per day or 14 drinks per week for men are considered “high-risk,” and these patterns can be detrimental both in the short and long-term.

Some people might have an attitude of, I don’t drink at all during the week, so I have all of my allotted alcoholic beverages on the weekend — however, for men consuming 5 or more drinks and for women consuming 4 or more drinks in about a 2 hour period is considered binge drinking.

Is It Time To ‘Rethink That Drink’?

Should we have more campaigns aimed to raise awareness about the potential harm caused by alcohol? Because it is legal it seems to have this view of also being safe, because our government officials and lawmakers always have our best interest at heart, right? 😉 But if we aren’t educating young people effectively on the potential risks associated with alcohol consumption, then perhaps there should be more of an effort to make the risks known on the packaging and even eliminating ads. In my opinion, it simply does not make sense to be legally allowed to advertise something that is so harmful — especially in such a glamorized way.

I don’t know what it’s like now for teens and if it is still considered “cool” to drink and if there is a ton of peer pressure around the whole thing. My hope is that this view will shift, young people will be made more aware of the risks and more people will find the courage to step away from what is no longer serving them or what’s not in their best interest.

Many health advocates and people that are very cautious with regards to what they are putting into their body are still completely overlooking alcohol as a harmful substance. Now, there is no judgment to anyone who chooses to drink, but I think it’s time to take a good hard look at these things and at least have the awareness behind it. Surely, it can be fun from time to time to relax, to loosen up, to be silly, but when we are relying on it to escape our unhappiness from our current situation, well then maybe it’s time to face these situations head on, rather than escape them and change whatever is encouraging us to reach for that glass of wine, whiskey or beer in the first place.

How Can We Support Others?

The fact of the matter remains, many people who drink can do so sparingly, not in excess and not very often. They have a handle on it and it doesn’t interfere with their lives in a negative way. However, for the ones who have struggled — with drinking too much, too frequently, with black outs, it can be difficult to even know if it’s a problem because of how acceptable it is in our society.

If someone says, no thanks I’m not drinking, don’t ask why, and instead try, right on! And no peer pressure. I’ve had problems with drinking, have quit and relapsed twice, currently I’m sober. Before I stopped drinking this time around I would open up to some people about it, questioning my use and whether or not it was harmful, many people would tell me, ahh don’t be so hard on yourself! We are allowed to enjoy life, or shut down from time to time if we need to. If someone is expressing to you that they are concerned they might have a drinking problem, don’t make them second guess themselves, if they are opening up about it please try to support them. We don’t always know what others are going through — apparently even if they flat out tell us. This may also challenge our own relationship with alcohol, but if you can keep that separate.

Do You Have A Problem?

If you are concerned that you might have a drinking problem, you probably do. Keeping in mind that having a problem with alcohol doesn’t necessarily make you an alcoholic. You may have a problem with alcohol if you can identify with any of the following scenarios:

  1. Spending a lot of time obtaining, using, and recovering from the effects of alcohol.
  2. Cravings, or a strong desire to use alcohol.
  3. Being unable to cut down on alcohol use despite a desire to do so.
  4. Continuing to abuse alcohol despite negative interpersonal or social problems that are likely due to alcohol use.
  5. Using alcohol in physically dangerous situations (such as driving or operating machinery).
  6. Drinking more or for a longer time than originally intended.
  7. Continuing to abuse alcohol despite the presence of a psychological or physical problem that is probably due to alcohol use.
  8. Being unable to fulfill major obligations at home, work, or school because of alcohol use.
  9. Giving up previously enjoyed social, occupational, or recreational activities because of alcohol use.
  10. Having a tolerance (i.e. needing to drink increasingly large or more frequent amounts of alcohol to achieve the desired effect).
  11. Developing symptoms of withdrawal when efforts are made to stop using alcohol.

A great way to get things in check is to commit to a period of time without any alcohol consumption and monitor how you feel, what you accomplish, and if you feel uplifted. You may need to ask your friends to support you during this time and have some sober activities prepared! Board games, cards, movies, sports, hiking — all these things can be great sober fun!

If your problem is more severe than this, or you are needing help in any way, reach out to a trusted friend or family member or you may benefit from your local Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for a whole slough of support and resources. If that’s not your jam, check out Hello Sunday Morning for assistance in moderating your use.

My hope is that in the near future it will be more common not to drink and doing so will be more like taking a drug, or having an experience that is typically out of the ordinary.

It is never too late to make a change, first step is to get really honest with yourself…

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

Alternative News

Joe Rogan May Take Down The Original Criticism Of “The Game Changers” Documentary

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Joe Rogan recently had James Wilks, the maker of "The Game Changers" documentary on to discuss the benefits of a plant base diet and to refute a previous episode where Chris Kresser debunked it.

  • Reflect On:

    When it comes to health, it's important sometimes to suspend what we believe and have been made to believe, and simply look at the information from a neutral perspective.

Joe Rogan has long ‘criticized’ vegans in various ways, and has also emphasized his belief that one cannot be optimally healthy on a vegan diet. He’s done this a number of times, which was hard for some onlookers to watch and listen to who have educated themselves on plant-based diets. Until recently, Rogan mainly focused on guests that were geared towards promoting meat-eating as optimal, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but a balance of understanding and information can go a long way to educating people.

One of the most recent examples of Joe Rogan and his guest ‘”debunking” a plant-based diet came from a critique of a recent documentary that is now airing on Netflix, called “The Game Changers,” made by filmmaker, James Wilks – a retired English mixed martial artist. The film was executively produced by James Cameron, and features interviews with the top scientists and doctors in their field who present an abundance of research and publications showing the benefits of a plant-based diet.

Not long ago, health coach and author Chris Kresser came on the “Joe Rogan Experience” after the documentary received a lot of attention, and the title of the podcast was titled: “Chris Kresser Debunks ‘The Game Changers Documentary.’

For someone like my self who has done a lot of research into the topic, it was frustrating to listen to it given the fact that it was quite clear, for me and others who had actually done thorough research from a neutral standpoint, that Kresser wasn’t really addressing all the facts, and was simply a big believer in what he was saying without even examining the information on the other side.

The challenge is, Rogan’s podcast was listened to by millions of people, and many came away actually believing the information that was said in the original debunking episode – information we later find out was completely incorrect. These types of episodes that massively mislead people are not just an issue with people who have large followings discussing vegan diets and health, but it’s a big issue with many other topics. This is why it was great that Rogan decided to have James Wilks on for a chance to defend his documentary, and the truth is he absolutely destroyed Kresser’s claims that were presented as facts in the previous podcast with Rogan. The best part was Kresser was on the show as well so he had a chance to truly make sure everyone was on the same page.

Wilks addressed every single criticism made by Kresser in the previous episode, from topics such as B12, protein amount, and protein quality, among many others. He also brought up the fact that we shouldn’t be listening to people like Kresser on such topics, but should be relying on properly published peer reviewed research that’s repeatable, non-industry conflicting research, as well as information that comes from the world’s leading scientists in the field of biology and nutrition, many of whom were presented in the Game Changers documentary. Or, people like Wilks, who have throughout done their research.  This episode really exposes how Kresser is not accurate or factual in his position on this topic, an important note for his followers.

advertisement - learn more

It’s important to keep in mind that not everything Kresser said previously had time to be addressed in this podcast, but it could have been. 100 percent of Kresser’s criticisms that were addressed were 100 percent completely debunked by Wilks, so much so that this is what Joe Rogan had to say via an Instagram post:

If interested, you can watch The Game Changers documentary on Netflix, and check out the podcast in question below.

Some Quotes From The Game Changers Documentary

One of these experts is Dr. Christina Warinner, who earned her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2010 and received her postdoctoral training at the University of Zurich (2010-2012) and the University of Oklahoma (2012-2014). She became a Presidential Research Professor and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma in 2014, and is currently a Leader in Microbiome Sciences at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

Her work has led to some very interesting findings and conclusions:

“Humans do not have any specialized genetic anatomical or physiological adaptations to meat consumption. By contrast, we have many adaptations to plant consumption.” (The Game Changers documentary)

She goes deeper in her presentation at the 2016 International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine, and in this TEDX talk she gave a number of years ago.

Gradual increases in brain sizes of early humans have also been attributed to meat, but research is showing that “because there is not a very strong match between meat consumption and gradual increases in brain size, scientists have looked to other options. And given that plant foods are such an important part of modern humans that hunt and gather foods, the money is on plant foods and shift in the kinds of plant foods as being the major driving factor in increasing brain size.” – Nathaniel J. Dominy

“We have a brain, that just is desperate for glucose. It’s such a fussy organ, that’s the only thing it really takes in for energy. Well, meat is not a very good source of glucose, to have a big brain like this you need to eat something different. And the most efficient way to get glucose is to eat carbohydrates.” – Dr. Mark Thomas, geneticist, University College, London (The Game Changers documentary)

With overwhelming scientific evidence to many of the most common deadly diseases, I discovered that the meat, egg, and dairy industries have been engaged in a covert response, funding studies that deny this evidence while burying their involvement in the fine print. One of the hired guns paid to conduct these studies is Exponent, INC. A company whose research was used by the Tobacco industry to deny the connection between second hand smoke and cancer. For more than 50 years, Exponent has generated studies that challenge the health-risks of everything from asbestos, arsenic and and mercury, to animal foods.” – James Wilks,  “The Game Changers” documentary

“The formula, works beautifully for people selling food, it works beautifully for people selling drugs to treat the diseases that bad food causes, and it works beautifully for the media, which can give us a new story about diet, everyday. But despite the appearance in our media of confusion, there’s massive global consensus about the fundamentals of a health-promoting, and it’s a diet that every time… In every population, every kind of research, it’s a plant food predominant diet, every time.” – Dr. David Katz, Founding Director of Yale University Prevention Research Center (The Game Changers documentary)

A Related CE Articles With More Information: 

Humans Are Not Designed To Eat Meat – Leading Microbiome Scientist Explains

12,000 Doctors Urge The FDA to put Cancer Warnings on Cheese 

Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer”

Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

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!