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.”

--> FREE Documentary Series: "Exhausted" explores how you can regain, restore and replenish the endless energy you thought you had lost forever. Click here to save your spot!

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. 

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Environmental Health Trust is has filed a case against the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regarding 5G and wireless radiation, citing health and environmental concerns.

  • Reflect On:

    How are federal health regulatory agencies able to approve this technology without any appropriate safety testing? Is there an Industry influence? Why are health concerns raised by thousands of papers considered a "conspiracy?" What's going on here?

The case is Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC  case number 20-1025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Environmental Health Trust is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education, and policy and the only nonprofit organization in the world that carries out cutting edge research on environmental health hazards. They work directly with communities, health and education professionals, and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Dr. Devra Davis founded the non-profit Environmental Health Trust in 2007 in Teton County, Wyoming. She has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and has authored more than 200 publications in books and journals. She is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. Dr. Davis lectures at the University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Harvard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and major universities in India, Australia, Finland, and elsewhere.

She’s actually one of the scientists who was creating awareness about big tobacco and how they were deceiving the public back in the day, and she’s compared that with the current climate of wireless technologies, proving that these technologies, like 5G and its predecessors, may be harmful to not only human health, but environmental health as well. The bottom line is, it’s firmly established in scientific literature that there are biological effects to be concerned about. These technologies pose great risks, and it’s quite alarming that federal health regulatory agencies have approved the rollout of these technologies without our consent, and furthermore, without any health and/or environmental safety testing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists doing their part to try and tackle this issue together by raiding red flags.

What Happened: The Environmental Health Trust has filed a case against the Federal Communications Commission. They explain:

Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC’s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “safety” limits and the FCC’s refusal to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense.

Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones, laptops and cell towers. Furthermore, the FCC “sees no reason to take steps to protect children”, despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.  Therefore, its decision not to review the “safety” limits is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based and unlawful.

Our brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).

Here is a clip of Senator Richard Blumenthal during a hearing that took place last year, questioning wireless industry representatives about the safety of 5G technology. During an exchange with wireless industry representatives who were also in attendance, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radio-frequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

The EHT goes on to explain that:

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants.

Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

In large measure, the FCC simply ignored the vast amount of evidence in the record showing an urgent need for action to protect the public and the environment. EHT contends that the FCC ignored the recommendations of hundreds of medical experts and public health experts who called for updated regulations that protect against biological impacts and for the development of policies to immediately reduce public exposure.

The brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because its order is arbitrary and capricious, and not evidence-based; violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the FCC did not take a hard look on the environmental impacts of its decision; and violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because the FCC failed, as required by the TCA, to consider the impact of its decision on the public health and safety.

“The FCC entirely ignored the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, hundreds of scientists and over 30 medical and public health organizations. Wireless emission limits should protect children who will have a lifetime of exposure,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust. Scarato pointed out that the FCC “saw no reason to take steps to protect children” despite voluminous scientific evidence on the record showing that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.

“Equally shocking is how the FCC could state that the existing limits which were developed in 1996 are protective without even addressing the impact of the existing limits on the natural environment. In this regard, there was a noticeable absence of on-the-record comments by the EPA. In fact, the EPA recently stated that it has no funded mandate to even review research on RFR. Yet there is a great deal of evidence in the FCC proceeding showing that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to birds, bees and trees.”

Video of Press Conference 

Opening Brief 

EHT Submissions to 13-84

The science is also clear, there are thousands of peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern. For example, A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”

It outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed.  Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

Would it not be in the best interests of everybody to simply put this technology through appropriate safety testing?

It goes on to state that “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”

It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe.

This particular study emphasizes:

The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (7374). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

A number of countries have already banned wireless technology in schools, and more are taking action steps, but it’s difficult when so many governments are dominated by corporations. Many people believe we now live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, given the fact that they (corporations) have amassed so much power and have ways of dictating government policy. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing.

The list is quite long, and for the sake of a short read, if you want to learn more and access more of the science, you can start by visiting the Environmental Health Trust. It’s an excellent resource. There is a bit more information this article I recently published, but we’ve published many on the topic so you can browse around our site as well if interested, just use the search bar.

Why This Matters: 5G technology, and wireless technologies in general are a great example of measures being imposed on us against our will. It’s one of many examples that should have us questioning, do we really live in a democracy? Why has so much effort and awareness been raised, yet the idea that these technologies could pose a threat, and do pose a threat, is still considered a conspiracy theory within the mainstream? Why? What’s really going on here? Are there constant battles over human perception when it comes to certain topics? How much have we been misled? Is it time to start thinking for ourselves instead of relying on federal health regulatory agencies? How are we living? Why do we think the way we do? Human beings are full of unlimited potential, and there are better ways to do things here on planet Earth!

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Study: Exercising With Mask Induces a “Hypercapnic Hypoxia Environment” – Not Good

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in June 2020 raises some health concerns about people wearing masks while exercising. It also calls into question the ability of masks to stop Covid-19.

  • Reflect On:

    Are the mandatory orders that we are being given from government health authorities really the right thing to do? Why is there such a back-lash for questioning these measures? Should we not encourage questioning and discussion?

What Happened: A recent study published in the Journal Medical Hypothesis titled “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? – A physiological hypothesis” claims the following:

Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus. Hence, we recommend social distancing is better than facemasks during exercise and optimal utilization rather than exploitation of facemasks during exercise.

According to the authors, exercising with facemasks induced as “a hypercapnic hypoxia environment [inadequate Oxygen (O2) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange] . This acidic environment, both at the alveolar and blood vessels level, induces numerous physiological alterations when exercising with facemasks: 1) Metabolic shift; 2) cardiorespiratory stress; 3) excretory system altercations; 4) Immune mechanism; 5) Brain and nervous system.’

Further, poor saturation of haemoglobin would be anticipated due to increased partial pressure of CO2 at higher exercise intensity Fig. 2 demonstrates the extreme right shift of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve, which would be higher than that expected during exercise. This acidic environment would unload O2 faster at the muscle level, but due to higher heart rate and reduced affinity at the alveolar junction, the partial pressure of O2 would substantially fall, creating a hypoxic environment for all vital organs.

In the figure below, the authors present a dissociation curve that “is showing the extreme right side shift with the carbon dioxide rebreathing (PaCO2) and inadequate available Oxygen (PAO2). Red dotted lines show the right shift of the curve due to exercise without masks (↑PaCO2, PH and temperature). Violet dotted lines show the extreme curve shift during exercise with masks (↑↑↑↑PaCO2, PH and temperature). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)”

The authors also point out that “wearing of facemasks to prevent the community spread of the novel Covid-19 is itself debatable, considering the limited evidence on the subject matter. WHO recommends masks only for Covid-19 patients but the usage of masks is morally “exploited” among community individuals.”

This is important to recognize, the use of masks is indeed debatable. Right now, “fact-checkers” are going around the internet censoring and labelling any information that seems to question the efficacy of masks when it comes to Covid-19, or anything that contradicts the WHO organization. Why do voices looking at facts ad science, and providing another perspective get silenced?

The purpose of the paper cited in this article is to explore and question: Does the use of facemasks offer any benefit for ‘social exercisers’ during this pandemic; 2) Does exercising with facemasks alter normal physiological responses to exercise; 3) Does exercising with facemasks increase the risk of falling prey to Coronavirus; 4) How could “social exercisers” combat the physiological alteration?

Here’s another interesting claim by the researchers:

The study concludes:

Exercising with facemasks might increase pathophysiological risks of underlying chronic disease, especially cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Social exercisers are recommended to do low to moderate-intensity exercise, rather than vigorous exercise when they are wearing facemasks. We also recommend people with chronic diseases to exercise alone at home, under supervision when required, without the use of facemasks. Given the identified and hypothesized risks, social distancing and self-isolation appear to be better than wearing facemasks while exercising during this global crisis.

This isn’t the only paper that has called into question the use of a mask. This study, is one of multiple that conveys the idea that they might in fact increase one’s chance of contracting a respiratory infection.

For example,

According to a study published in BMJ Open in 2015,

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm. The controls were HCWs who observed standard practice, which involved mask use in the majority, albeit with lower compliance than in the intervention arms. The control HCWs also used medical masks more often than cloth masks. When we analysed all mask-wearers including controls, the higher risk of cloth masks was seen for laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection.

According to another study published a year after the one mentioned above,

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 many examples. Doctors have been making YouTube videos and giving interviews about the same concerns as well. Again, many of these videos and interviews have been deleted from big tech platforms like YouTube.

Why?

Why This Is Important: We are living in a time where simply questioning information that’s dished out to us is becoming harder and harder to do and talk about on the internet – a place where ideas are shared. When something credible opposes a narrative handed to the population via some very powerful people, not only is it censored and often removed, but a mass media campaign of ridicule ensues. Of course, the main strategy used in the mainstream is to call these ideas a “conspiracy theory” and cast doubt. Censorship + Ridicule = massive perception manipulation.

Below is a screenshot of what has happened with our YouTube channel January 1st 2019. We were demonetized and shaddow banned. This is just one example of big tech censorship we have experienced. Our Facebook page has been heavily cut, and we no longer get ranked in Google search. We often joke at the office that, if people knew what we’ve gone through to keep Collective Evolution afloat for the past 11 years they wouldn’t believe it.

This is why we created CETV. Our own platform we created to help us continue doing what we do. CETV is our inner circle membership site that provides news and tools to raise collective consciousness. You can support our work and get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

We thank everybody who has joined so far, you’ve truly kept CE going!

Why are there a digital authoritarian “fact-checkers” going around the internet and censoring information? Should people not have the right to examine information openly, freely and transparently and decide for themselves what is, and what isn’t, instead of having people in positions of power do it for them? Does this not leave room for mass manipulation of information?

The good news is that the censorship of information has drawn the attention of even more people, and has been a catalyst for some to recognize what’s really going on here.

Our physical rights are slowly being taken away under the guise of good will. Crisis’ like the coronavirus, or terrorism have always been used to do this. Create the problem, propose the solution and make it justified in the eyes of the masses. If we continue down this path and choose to be governed by those who do not have the best interests of humanity at heart, we are going down the path of total and complete population control.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, there is so much controversy and information out there that completely opposes the mainstream media narrative. This information and evidence, once seen, has such a big impact on one’s consciousness and perception of the world we live in. Just like 9/11, this coronavirus incident is serving the collective and sparking more questions about what exactly we are doing here. Why do we live the way we live? Why do we respond the way we respond? Why do we continue to follow orders from those whom we choose to let govern us when it isn’t even clear that their recommendations are for the best interest of humanity?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Trump Gives 1.16 Billion To Bill Gates’ Vaccine Alliance & Inks Deal With Pfizer For A COVID Vaccine

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Not long ago, President Trump gave more than a billion dollars to a vaccine alliance called Gavi that was co-founded by Bill & Melinda Gates. He also inked a deal with Pfizer for 100,000,000 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Are you going to get the vaccine? Will it be required to travel and to enter into certain buildings? If so, will you get it then? Are mandatory medical measures a violation of our freedom and human rights? Is it really for the good of everyone?

What Happened: Last month, US President Donald Trump “donated more to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases worldwide.” He did so in a statement of support for Gavi at the public Gavi pledge conference, which was hosted by the United Kingdom, on June 4th. So far, the United States has donated more than $12 billion for the development of COVID-19 vaccines and therapies, and “the U.S. commitment to immunization complements the work of innovators in the United States and other countries who are racing to find a vaccine and treatments for COVID­19.” (source)

Bill and Melinda Gates co-founded the Gavi alliance in the year 2000, it’s a public-private partnership that claims to support “global health-system strengthening and vaccine deployment for infectious diseases worldwide.”  (source)

Here’s a video clip of Trump talking about his decision.

Shortly after this, Trump announced that they will give nearly $2 billion to Pfizer, a big pharmaceutical company, for 100 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine that could make its way into the public domain sometime next year. According to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, the U.S. could buy another 500 million doses under the agreement if the vaccine is safe and effective in the U.S.

Multiple countries are now purchasing vaccines for the new coronavirus.

Why This Is Important: It’s important because the coronavirus vaccine is extremely relevant right now and on the minds of many as the only possible solution to this pandemic, at least that’s how it’s being marketed, despite the fact that multiple peer-reviewed studies and examples have emerged from all over the world regarding the success of other interventions.

For example, a study published last month in Frontiers in Immunology titled “Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)” concluded the following:

Quercetin displays a broad range of antiviral properties which can interfere at multiple steps of pathogen virulence – virus entry, virus replication, protein assembly – and that these therapeutic effects can be augmented by the co-administration of vitamin C. Furthermore, due to their lack of severe side effects and low-costs, we strongly suggest the combined administration of these two compounds for both the prophylaxis and the early treatment of respiratory tract infections, especially including COVID-19 patients.”

As far as vitamin C goes, this is not the only study or article to recommend its use when it comes to treating COVID-19. For examplem Medicine in Drug Discovery of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. High-dose intravenous VC was successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions.”

New York hospitals were also seeing success with Quercetin and Vitamin C. You can read more about that here. Vitamin C isn’t the only ‘alternative’ therapy, Hydroxychloroquine also caused quite a bit of controversy. The main point I am trying to make here is that mainstream media has not only ignored these facts, but there seemed to be a coordinated attack on the idea that these therapies can work. Once the mainstream media and organizations who are threatened come up with a way, whether it be by paying scientists or manipulating data, to ridicule an idea, that idea instantaneously loses credibility in the minds of the masses. That’s how much of a stranglehold mainstream media has, and has had on our collective perception.

Secondly, it’s important because according to organizations like the American Medical Association as well as the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy among people, parents, and, as mentioned by scientists at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit, health professionals and scientists continues to increase. This is no secret, as vaccines have become a very popular topic over the past few years alone. In fact, the World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health security. The issue of vaccine hesitancy is no secret, for example, one study (of many) published in the journal EbioMedicineoutlines this point.

This fact was also  emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced by the authors in the study above. At the WHO conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen–and we’re constantly looking on any studies in this space–still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

There are a number  of physicians and scientists raising awareness about this. The Physicians For Informed Consent are one of many such groups. This brings me to my next point, informed consent.

Vaccine mandates have already caused quite a controversy when it comes to children. The right to receive a medical or religious exemption is being taken away in various states, and a child cannot attend a public school unless they are up to date with the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule. This is done on the basis that unvaccinated children are a danger to vaccinated children, which is a highly flawed argument given the fact that vaccines aren’t safe and effective for everyone, which is why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has paid nearly $4 billion to families of vaccine-injured children, and that’s only counting approximately 1 percent of vaccine-injured children because most of them go unreported. You can read more about that here.

It’s also important because we need to weigh the dangers of the vaccine compared to the actual disease. The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.

Similar to CDC estimations, PIC’s analysis results in a COVID-19 CFR of 0.26%, which is comparable to the CFRs of previous seasonal and pandemic flu periods. “Knowing the CFR of COVID-19 allows for an objective standard by which to compare both non-pharmaceutical interventions and medical countermeasures,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president. “For example, safety studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should be able to prove whether or not the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the infection. (source)

You can read more about that story here.  So far, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that story, here.

Alan Dershowitz and Robert F. Kennedy recently had a vaccine debate regarding the safety of vaccines. It includes a discussion about the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. You can watch that and read more about it here.

Last but not least, it goes to show just how susceptible politicians and presidents are to what many before them have referred to as the invisible government. Donald Trump was clearly not a fan of vaccines, and that was made clear during his 2016 election campaign. When it comes to politics, big business always seems to win. Even those from within our federal health regulatory agencies are speaking up. In fact, only a few years ago, more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations and rougue interests  have on government policy. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.

The invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation…The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties…(and) control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under the cover of a self-created screen and seizers  our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” (source)(source) – John F. HylanMayor of New York City from 1918-1925

Another great one from Theodore Roosevelt

“Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”(source)

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, the new coronavirus and the measures taken to combat it have caused a lot of controversy. When someone like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said governments are using the coronavirus to push more authoritarian measures upon the population, it’s important that we listen. Instead, we prosecute them, exile them, and put people like Julian Assange who expose war crimes in jail while we agree with and identify with those who are committing the crime. What is encouraging, however, is that just like 9/11 did, COVID-19 is shifting human consciousness in a major way.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!