By Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, Executive Director, World Mercury Project
Background: Peter Patriarca, an FDA employee, admitted back in 1999, in a confidential e-mail obtained through FOIA, that, “… the greatest point of vulnerability on this issue is that the systematic review of thimerosal in vaccines by the FDA could have been done years ago and on an ongoing basis as the childhood immunization schedule became more complex. The calculations done by FDA are not complex. I’m not sure if there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization policy bodies may have been “asleep at the switch” re: thimerosal until now”.
Since 1999, an entire generation of children both in the US and internationally has continued to be exposed to thimerosal – and it is time for this to stop. Nobody should be exposed to a known neurotoxin.
The Ongoing Saga: On March 30, 2017, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the World Mercury Project (WMP) team met with the Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Dr. Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D. and his colleagues to discuss the agency’s ongoing refusal to ban thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, from vaccines in the United States. CBER is the division of the FDA responsible for approving and monitoring the safety of all biological products, including vaccines, allergenic products, blood and blood products, and cellular, tissue, and gene therapies.
At the meeting, we presented a large amount of research showing the toxicity of thimerosal in humans, animals and cellular models, including at levels similar to those resulting from vaccine exposures. We expressed our alarm regarding the total lack of adequate safety testing of thimerosal prior to licensure, especially given its current use in vaccines approved for infants and pregnant women and its worldwide use in millions of vaccines given to children, particularly in developing countries. Dr. Marks promised to look over the studies and seriously consider our concerns.
After many months of back and forth emails, Dr. Marks sent a letter to us on July 11th that didn’t even look like he was in the same meeting. World Mercury Project was dismayed by CBER’s apparent unwillingness to seriously review the large archive of published science suggesting that using thimerosal is poisoning a generation of American children. From his follow-up response, it is clear that none of the information WMP provided was seriously read or even minimally digested. He made it clear in his letter that CBER does not intend to give any serious consideration to the abundant and mushrooming evidence of thimerosal’s profound toxicity. His letter was simply an exercise in blindly promoting an incredible vaccine industry orthodoxy that is unsupportable by empirical evidence.
Below is my letter back to Dr. Marks. We are awaiting his response.
Re: Response to your letter regarding the use of mercury in prescription drugs and vaccines.
Dear Dr. Marks,
On March 30th, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of the World Mercury Project met with you and your colleagues at the FDA to discuss our concerns regarding the continued use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in prescription drugs and influenza vaccines administered to pregnant women, infants and children.
During the meeting and in written letters following the meeting, we voiced concerns regarding:
- Lack of adequate safety studies prior to marketing thimerosal as a vaccine preservative.
- Thimerosal’s toxicity and ineffectiveness as a preservative.
- Mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccine administration resulting in mercury levels known to cause adverse outcomes.
- Exposure to vaccine-level thimerosal resulting in harmful depositions of inorganic mercury in the brain.
- The California Environmental Protection Agency’s listing of all mercury-containing products as reproductive and developmental toxicants under their Proposition 65 law.
Thimerosal was removed from all over-the-counter products when the FDA issued final rules in the Federal Register in 1998 acknowledging that thimerosal is not generally recognized as being safe or effective (GRASE). Why is this same product allowed in prescription drugs and vaccines?
At the end of our meeting, you reassured us that you would take our concerns seriously and would “follow the science” wherever it might lead you. For several months after our meeting, I contacted the FDA public liaison Ms. McNeill inquiring when we might expect to hear back from you regarding our concerns. Ms. McNeill told me that we had provided the agency with extensive information and that it was taking additional time to review the material. I was hopeful that FDA might finally, therefore, implement the 2001 recommendation of the Institute of Medicine that pregnant women, infants and children not be exposed to thimerosal-containing vaccines.
On July 11th, we received your written response to our concerns. I was dismayed by your agency’s apparent unwillingness to seriously review the large archive of published science suggesting that using thimerosal is poisoning a generation of American children. From your follow-up written response, it is clear that none of the information we provided was seriously read or even minimally digested. You make it clear in your letter that you do not intend to give any serious consideration to the abundant and mushrooming evidence of thimerosal’s profound toxicity. Your letter is simply an exercise in blindly promoting an incredible vaccine industry orthodoxy that is unsupportable by empirical evidence.
You cite in your written response FDA’s mushy biologics regulations which define safety as “the relative freedom from harmful effect to persons affected, directly or indirectly, by a product when prudently administered, taking into consideration the character of the product in relation to the condition of the recipient at the time.” 21CFR 600.39(p). You report that in applying this elastic regulatory standard, “FDA must weigh the risk of a vaccine or any drug against its benefits when determining whether a product is safe. If the benefits of the vaccine or other pharmaceutical product outweigh the risks of its side effects, then the FDA finds the product to be safe.” You further acknowledge that “the determination of a products safety is a relative rather than absolute measurement”,entirely subject to FDA’s “discretion and expertise.” Even operating under these malleable standards, FDA should consider that vaccines are products given to healthy individuals, and their risks should be measured by an extremely high bar since they are not treating a disease. Furthermore, FDA has no capacity to evaluate risks of thimerosal since, by FDA’s own admission to Congress, there has never been a long-term safety study performed on thimerosal in any human population including infants and pregnant women.
Vaccines containing thimerosal in the U.S. are predominantly influenza vaccines. Furthermore, thimerosal is still widely used in vaccines given to tens of millions of children in the developing world and, since U.S. policy influences worldwide policy, FDA bears responsibility for these policies. In the U.S., thimerosal-containing vaccines are administered to healthy six-month old infants, young children and pregnant women despite never having been safety tested in those populations. According to their product inserts, influenza vaccines have been associated with an increased incidence of seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Recent studies have linked influenza vaccines to miscarriage, autism and, possibly, birth defects. A significant percentage of influenza vaccines still contain thimerosal and studies should be done to see if thimerosal played a role in these outcomes. There has been limited testing of influenza vaccines in animal models, however, there have not been any adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal studies are not always predictive of human response, the package inserts for flu vaccines reiterate that flu vaccines “should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed”. In addition, there are numerous VAERS reports of injuries from thimerosal-containing vaccines. Therefore, it is imperative that vaccines administered to sensitive populations (pregnant women, infants and children) be held to the highest standards of safety. I think parents and the American public would be appalled to learn that vaccine safety determinations are “relative” and are within an FDA employee’s “discretion and expertise.” That discretion and expertise should actually require a factual basis, not just opinion. Needless to say, these decisions should be guided by the precautionary principle.
I have organized the remainder of my response into addressing the erroneous claims made in your letter.
Your Claim: The agency evaluates whether a preservative contained in a product is at such levels that when used at the recommended dose is not toxic to the recipient and that the “FDA … has repeatedly found that the vaccines currently being marketed that contain thimerosal are safe…”
WMP Response: Please show us the data used to evaluate thimerosal safety in infants and pregnant women. We do not believe they exist.
In an email discussion regarding the use of thimerosal-containing influenza vaccines administered to pregnant women, infants and children, in 1999, Dr. William Egan, acting Director of the Center for Drugs and Biologics (CDER), recommended that the statement, “The chronic, daily ingestion reported (in several studies-primarily Seychelles study) greatly exceeds the amount of mercury that a pregnant woman would receive from a single annual dose of thimerosal-containing influenza vaccine” “might well be deleted.” Egan went on to justify his recommendation by saying that the statement “…in some ways is misleading. I am not sure that I would want to argue, for example, that one could take the allowed amount of mercury for a year and administer it as a bolus injection with the same outcome as having it spaced out evenly over the year: the issue then becomes one of how much of a bolus can one give at one time without harmful effect and this data does not exist (or at least I’m not aware of them).”
Dr. Egan was right then and he is right today; such safety data do not exist. In fact, many toxicologists believe that large bolus dose exposures such as those resulting from thimerosal-containing vaccines are more harmful in comparison to small daily dose exposures that the body is much more capable of excreting without overburdening detoxification pathways in the body. This concern is supported by research that found a mercury dose given acutely may produce toxic effects, whereas the same dose distributed over a period of time may give no evidence of poisoning. (Koos and Longo,1976).
Your Claim: “Thimerosal has a long record of safe and effective use in preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines with no ill effects other than occasional hypersensitivity and minor local reactions at the site of injection.”.
WMP Response: There is ample evidence provided in multiple studies by federal agencies and independent scientists that spans the last 90 years which documents that thimerosal is neither an effective nor a safe vaccine preservative.
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1948 titled “The bacteriostatic and bactericidal actions of some mercurial compounds on hemolytic streptococci,” the authors vigorously argued that thimerosal was ineffective as a “disinfectant, germicide and antiseptic.” In the review of the literature in this paper, the authors cited eight studies from 1928, 1935, 1937, 1938, and 1944 all of which drew similar conclusions.
In 1975, the FDA convened a panel of experts to evaluate mercury-containing over-the-counter (OTC) products. The panel issued its reports in 1980 and in 1982. The FDA issued a report of the panel’s findings in the Federal Register where they concluded that “some mercury-containing preparations are not effective and others are not safe and effective for OTC topical antimicrobial use”.
With respect to thimerosal in particular, that panel found evidence from 1950 which concluded that “thimerosal was no better than water in protecting mice from potential fatal streptococcal infections.” Additionally, citing a 1935 study, the panel reported that thimerosal was “35.3 times more toxic for embryonic chick heart tissue than for Staphylococcus aureus.” Most of the literature reviewed addressed mercury’s lack of antibacterial properties. One review published in 1971 titled, “Three thousand years of mercury. A plea for abandonment of a dangerous, unproven therapy,” addressed mercury’s lack of effectiveness against fungal contamination as well.
The FDA-appointed expert panel concluded that “thimerosal was not safe for OTC topical use because of its potential for cell damage if applied to broken skin and its allergy potential. It is not effective as a topical antimicrobial because its bacteriostatic action can be reversed.” However, it wasn’t until 1998 that the FDA issued its final report banning the use of thimerosal in topical OTC products because it was not “safe and effective.”
There are also several more recent published reports of thimerosal’s failure as a preservative. Clusters of disease from Group A streptococcus infections were traced back to multi-dose vials of diphtheria toxoid, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid (DPT) vaccine which were contaminated after being opened. Additionally, in 2004, a Chiron plant that manufactured Fluvirin was forced to close because its vaccine was contaminated with Serratia marcescens. This vaccine used thimerosal as a preservative. In this case and in the many others cited, thimerosal failed to prevent bacterial growth.
In response to the reports from the FDA expert panel who reviewed the use of thimerosal in over-the-counter products in the 1980’s, the FDA published in the April 22, 1998 Federal Register Status of Certain Additional Over-the-Counter Drug Category II and III Active Ingredients. (April 22, 1998);63(77):19799-19802. 21 CFR Part 310 [Docket No. 75N-183F, 75N-183D, and 80N-0280 concluding that the use of thimerosal in over the counter products is not “generally recognized as safe or effective” (GRASE).
In the final rulemaking, the FDA states that “safety and effectiveness have not been established for the ingredients (mercury-based preservatives) included in this current final rule and manufacturers have not submitted the necessary data in response to earlier opportunities. The agency’s experience has been that under these circumstances companies have not submitted data in response to yet another opportunity. Consumers will benefit from the early removal from the marketplace of products containing ingredients for which safety and effectiveness has not been established.”
The World Mercury Project would like to know how is it possible that one division of the FDA recognizes that there is absolutely no safety or effectiveness data available for the use of mercury in over the counter products and essentially bans its use, while your FDA division of blood and biologics continues to recklessly allow its widespread use in over 100 prescription products including vaccines?
Your claim: “Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001).”
WMP Response: It’s disturbing that according to internal emails obtained by FOIA, Dr. Ball never conducted an extensive review of reports of harm. On November 23, 1998, Dr. Leslie Ball of the FDA asked internal reviewers to perform a Medwatch query on thimerosal. Medwatch is the FDA’s database for reporting adverse drug events. On January 7, 1999, Dr. Ball was informed by Fredrick Varricchio of FDA that there were 7000 reports containing the word thimerosal on FDA’s Medwatch. He stated, “I have some results for you. Problem is that there are 7000 reports that mention thimerosal. What to do now. Obviously looking at all 7,000 is a brute force approach.” Dr. Ball responded by saying, “perhaps you can get records on a subset of 50 or so we can look at them and get a general feel for what’s been reported before we go any further.” In a subsequent email on January 19th, Mr. Varricchio noted that the “plan is to get whatever is on the summary for every 100th report.” This means that only 70 adverse events out of 7000 reported to the FDA were actually reviewed by Dr. Ball and her team. This email calls into question the findings reported by Dr. Ball and also suggests that an extensive investigation has never been conducted by the FDA with regard to adverse events associated with the use of thimerosal. Would you allow any other medical product to be widely used based on review of one percent of the information available?
I am also, Sir, frankly shocked at your unwillingness to acknowledge the robust body of literature that has been published the last 18 years since concerns regarding thimerosal first surfaced within the FDA in 1999.
There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed, published studies that document the toxicity of thimerosal. Many of these investigated levels of mercury known to occur from vaccine exposure in cell and animal models. In 2013, Jose G. Dorea published a meta-analysis of thimerosal research related to vaccine exposure. Dorea searched major databases for human and experimental studies that addressed issues related to early life exposure to TCVs. The author concluded that: “ a) mercury load in fetuses, neonates, and infants resulting from TCVs remains in blood of neonates and infants at sufficient concentration and for enough time to penetrate the brain and to exert a neurologic impact and a probable influence on neurodevelopment of susceptible infants; b) etHg metabolism related to neurodevelopmental delays has been demonstrated experimentally and observed in population studies; c) unlike chronic Hg exposure during pregnancy, neurodevelopmental effects caused by acute (repeated/cumulative) early life exposure to TCV-etHg remain unrecognized; and d) the uncertainty surrounding low-dose toxicity of etHg is challenging but recent evidence indicates that avoiding cumulative insults by alkyl-mercury forms (which include Thimerosal) is warranted.” Dorea emphasized the importance of “a) maintaining trust in vaccines while reinforcing current public health policies to abate mercury exposure in infancy; b) supporting WHO policies that recommend vaccination to prevent and control existing and impending infectious diseases; and c) not confusing the ‘need’ to use a specific ‘product’ (TCV) by accepting as ‘innocuous’ (or without consequences) the presence of a proven ‘toxic alkyl-mercury’ (etHg) at levels that have not been proven to be toxicologically safe.”
For your convenience, I have included a sampling of 35 abstracts that represent the more current state of the science regarding thimerosal that has emerged since 1999 as an appendix. Even if Dr. Ball’s review had been adequate at that time, surely 18 years of further research should prompt an updated evaluation by the FDA.
Your Claim: A 2014 modeling study by your own Centers for Biologics Evaluation and Research employee, Dr. Robert Mitkus, showed that “peak body burdens of mercury following episodic exposures to thimerosal in this worst case did not exceed the corresponding safe body burden of mercury from MeHg at any time”.
WMP Response: The Mitkus study reported that the body burden of mercury in infants, over the first 4.5 years of life following yearly exposures to thimerosal from annual flu vaccines, was two orders of magnitude lower than that estimated for exposures to the lowest regulatory threshold for MeHg over the same time period. The author relies completely on these findings to conclude that their pharmacokinetic analysis supports the safety of thimerosal when used as a preservative at current levels in certain multi-dose infant vaccines in the United States. Mitkus fails to acknowledge the past levels of exposure that infants received from vaccines starting in the late 1980s and extending well into 2000, that were 187.5 mcg etHg the first year of life versus 12.5 mcg etHg from flu vaccines annually. He also makes the assumption that there are no other mercury exposures outside of thimerosal, which is not supported by either established science or common sense.
The model developed by Mitkus relied solely on blood levels and did not take into consideration the accumulation of mercury in the brain tissue. Data from the Burbacherstudy that assessed exposures from both methyl and ethyl mercury in infant non-human primates, based on vaccine level exposures, found that although there was little accumulation of Hg in the blood with repeated vaccinations, accumulation of Hg in the brain of infants did occur. In fact, there was a much higher proportion of inorganic Hg in the brain of thimerosal monkeys than in the brains of MeHg monkeys (up to 71% vs. 10%). Absolute inorganic Hg concentrations in the brains of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys were approximately twice that of the MeHg monkeys. Burbacher concluded that “the safety of thimerosal drawn from blood Hg clearance data in human infants receiving vaccines may not be valid, given the significantly slower half-life of Hg in the brain as observed in the infant macaques.” But that is exactly what Mitkus does in his model and reports in his study.
Mitkus also makes the statement that thimerosal is more quickly and extensively metabolized to inorganic mercury in the brain than is MeHg and that process of dealkylation “may be” a detoxification step. According to Burbacher, who is the author of the studies relied on by Mitkus in the development of his model, the statement that dealkylation may be a detoxification process is purely speculative and has not been established. Mitkus is referring to previous reports that have indicated that dealkylation of Hg is a detoxification process that helps to protect the central nervous system (Magos 2003; Magos et al. 1985). These reports are largely based on histology and histochemistry studies of adult rodents exposed to Hg for a short period of time. The results of these studies indicated that damage to the cerebellum was observed only in MeHg-treated animals that had much lower levels of inorganic Hg in the brain than animals comparably treated with ethylmercury. Moreover, the results did not indicate the presence of inorganic Hg deposits in the area where the cerebellar damage was localized (granular layer). In contrast, previous studies of adult M. fascicularis monkeys exposed chronically to MeHg have indicated that demethylation of Hg occurs in the brain over a long period of time after MeHg exposure and that this is not a detoxification process (Charleston et al. 1994, 1995, 1996; Vahter et al. 1994, 1995). Results from these studies indicated higher inorganic Hg concentrations in the brain 6 months after MeHg exposure had ended, whereas organic Hg had cleared from the brain. The estimated half-life of organic Hg in the brain of these adult monkeys was consistent across various brain regions at approximately 37 days (similar to the brain half-life in the Burbacher study). Stereologic and autometallographic studies on the brains of these adult monkeys indicated that the persistence of inorganic Hg in the brain was associated with a significant increase in the number of microglia in the brain. (Charleston et al. 1994, 1995,1996). The microgliosis and neuroinflamation documented in the brains of the adult monkeys in association with deposits of inorganic mercury are two hallmark findings in brain tissue of both children and adults with autism. Neuropathological studies of brain tissues from cerebellum, midfrontal, and cingulate gyrus obtained at autopsy from 11 patients with autism demonstrated the presence of an active neuroinflammatory processes in the cerebral cortex, white matter and, most notably, the cerebellum. In a subsequent study, microglia appeared markedly activated in five of 13 cases with autism, including two of three under age six, and marginally activated in an additional four of 13 cases. The authors concluded that microglial activation “represents a neuropathological alteration in a sizeable fraction of cases with autism. Given its early presence, microglial activation may play a central role in the pathogenesis of autism in a substantial proportion of patients.”
In responding to the Mitkus study, I also need to refer back to previous meetings with FDA CBER employees. When FDA assigned its pediatrician, Dr. Leslie Ball, to oversee the review, analysis and public reporting of thimerosal, Dr. Ball had little knowledge of toxicology or thimerosal. In 1999, Dr. Ball and her colleagues conducted an analysis that was prompted by the Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 which required FDA to compile a list of drugs and food that contain “intentionally” introduced mercury compounds and provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the exposure levels. They reported that the limits of exposure to mercury for an infant in the first year of life should be between 200-230 mcg total. Infants are exposed to approximately 80 to 100 mcg of organic mercury from environmental sources alone. Therefore, additional exposures from thimerosal-containing vaccines should be below 120 to 130 mcg the first year of life according to the FDA’s own findings. At the time this analysis was done, American children were routinely receiving 187.5 mcg of organic mercury during the first year of life from vaccines. This means American children were being exposed to cumulative levels of organic mercury in excess of federal safety guidelines.
The FDA consulted with an expert in the field of toxicology, Dr. Barry Rumack, MD, to better understand the potential impact of these exposure levels. Dr. Rumack had a private consulting practice where he offered “toxicologic and pharmacologic evaluation of drugs, biological and potentially toxic or hazardous agents for government and industry”. After creating several scenarios based on infants’ ages and weights, Dr. Rumack modeled both blood and body burden levels.
The models predicted sharp peaks of mercury concentrations in both blood and tissue, in a stair step sequence following each of the new thimerosal-containing vaccines given during the first six months of life. Based on these models, Rumack predicted exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines was dosing American children with mercury levels far exceeding all three federal safety guidelines established by EPA, FDA and ATSDR. There was no point in time from birth to approximately 16-18 months of age that infants were below the EPA guidelines for allowable mercury exposure. In fact, according to the models, blood and body burden levels of mercury peaked at six months of age at a shockingly high level of 120 ng/liter. To put this in perspective, the CDC classifies mercury poisoning as blood levels of mercury greater than 10 ng/liter. What is even more concerning is that the models developed by Dr. Rumack did not take into account background exposures from environmental and dietary sources of mercury.
In reporting the mercury exposure levels that result from thimerosal containing vaccines, the FDA chose not to report the findings from Rumack and Ball. Instead, they averaged the exposures over the first six months of life, even though the exposures only occurred at birth, two, four, and six months of age or during four days out of 180 days. In doing so, the agency could report that the exposures were below FDA and ATSDR guidelines in an effort to minimize concern.
In discussing this with independent toxicologists, I have been told that averaging exposures is not appropriate due to the fact that large bolus dose exposures are known to be more injurious than small daily dose exposures. If the FDA had reported the exposure levels from a daily dose perspective, it would reveal that infants were being exposed to mercury far in excess of ALL federal safety guidelines: FDA, ATSDR and EPA.
For example, my son at two months of age weighed 5 kg and received 62.5mcg Et Hg from his vaccines. According to the EPA methyl mercury guidelines of .1 mcg per kg per day, his maximum exposure level for that one day was 0.5 mcg of mercury. He received 125 times his daily allowable exposure level or 125 days of his daily allowable exposure. An analogy would be that it would be allowable to give my infant son a ½ tsp of Tylenol four times a day (320 mg), but if I gave him a 30-day dose of Tylenol (9,600 mg) on one day, it would be lethal. When I personally asked Dr. Ball why she reported the mercury exposure levels in this deceptive fashion, she responded, “That is what I was told to do.”
In a subsequent email to her superiors at FDA on July 6th, 1999 (six months after she had started her review of thimerosal), marked as being highly important and confidential and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, Dr. Ball asked Norman Baylor, PH D, Director of the Office of Vaccines Research Review, “Has the application of these calculations as exposure guidelines received the sign off by toxicologists? In prior discussions, the toxicologists seemed reluctant to state any Hg (mercury) level was “safe”.” Although there was no response back from Dr. Baylor in the FOIA documents we received, it is obvious that the answer was no.
By 2000, there was already a mountain of evidence that thimerosal was unsafe and ineffective. For example, in 1987 the Commission of the European Communities initiated a research project on 10 known or suspected spindle poisons including thimerosal. In 1993, as described in Mutation Research, 287 (1993) 17-22 thimerosal was identified as a strong inhibitor of microtubular assembly, a process which is essential for proper neuronal development. In 2000, Stajich et al. measured blood Hg levels in newborns administered the Hepatitis B vaccine, containing 12.5 mcg ethyl mercury, and found elevated post-immunization concentrations relative to pre-immunization levels in all neonates studied. Levels of blood mercury after exposure in low birth weight infants were 7.36 mcg/L (± 4.99). One infant was found to have mercury levels of 23.6 mcg/L after exposure, which supports the inter-individual variability of mercury intoxication. The study subjects had measurable blood Hg concentrations prior to immunization, indicating that risk assessment must include background mercury levels from other sources.
I also find it disturbing that safety assessments you reference take the position that thimerosal is a necessary ingredient for influenza vaccines. This, of course, is not true. Influenza manufacturers presently make approximately two-thirds of the U.S. influenza vaccine supply without the use of thimerosal by placing the vaccine in a single dose vial or syringe, which completely eliminates the need for a preservative.
Your Claim: The scientific evidence collected over the past 15 years does not show any evidence of harm, including serious neurodevelopmental disorders from the use of thimerosal in vaccines. The Institute of Medicine report from 2004 concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a link between thimerosal and autism based on several epidemiological studies.
WMP Response: A causal relationship between autism and vaccinations cannot be proven or rejected based on evidence from population-based epidemiologic studies – period. Epidemiological studies, by definition, are not designed to prove causality; they can provide only statistical associations. Therefore, the committee’s conclusion that the “body of epidemiologic evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship…” has no scientific meaning.
Further, in the IOM report the committee admitted that population-based studies would not be able to detect subpopulations that could be genetically more vulnerable to mercury at lower doses than typical. On page 139, the report states that “This hypothesis cannot be excluded by epidemiological data from large population groups that do not show an association between a vaccine and an adverse outcome. Depending upon the frequency of the genetic defect, a rare event caused by genetic susceptibility could be missed even in large study samples.”
What you also failed to acknowledge is that several of the same epidemiological studies reviewed by the IOM in 2004 documented an association between thimerosal-containing vaccine exposures during infancy and the subsequent development of motor and phonic tics. Tics are a family of neurological disorders that are also associated with a diagnosis of autism. A significant association between Hg exposure from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and a diagnosis of tic disorder (TD) has now been found in six epidemiological studies (Verstraeten et al. 2003, Andrews et al. 2004, Thompson et al. 2007, Young et al, 2008, Barile et al. 2012, Geier et al. 2015). The Thompson study states that, “The replication of the findings regarding tics suggests the potential need for further studies.” Tozzi et al. 2009, also found trends towards increased motor and phonic tics with increased thimerosal exposure but these did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the lack of a non-exposed control group. These studies employed various epidemiological methods such as case–control or cohort designs, and were conducted on cohorts of children from several different countries. In addition, several of these studies observed significant dose-dependent relationships between Hg exposure from thimerosal in vaccines and the risk of diagnosed TD. A study by Young et al. found a dose-dependent relationship between increasing Hg exposure from thimerosal in vaccines given between birth and seven months and also between birth and 13 months of age and the risk of a diagnosed TD. Researchers observed that, for a 100 μg Hg difference in exposure between birth and seven months of age, the risk for diagnosed TD was significantly increased (3.39-fold). For the same 100 μg Hg difference in exposure between birth and 13 months of age, the risk for diagnosed tics was also found to be significantly increased (4.11-fold).
Autism etiology and severity have also been associated with mercury levels. In June of this year, the international journal Science of the Total Environment published a compelling study from the Republic of Korea. The study identifies a strong relationship between prenatal and early childhood exposure to mercury and autistic behaviors in five-year-olds. The MOCEH study examines environmental exposures during pregnancy and childhood and their effects on children’s growth and development. A unique feature is that it includes five different blood samples: maternal blood from early and late pregnancy; cord blood; and samples from children at two and three years of age. In addition, the study asks mothers to complete three follow-up surveys and—when their child reaches age five—the 65-item Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), which assesses autistic behaviors.
The investigators report a significant linear relationship between mercury exposure and autistic behaviors (as indicated by a scaled score called an SRS T-score). Strikingly, they find that with a doubling of blood mercury levels at four time points (late pregnancy, cord blood, and at two and three years of age), SRS T-scores are significantly higher. They also looked specifically at SRS T-scores greater than or equal to 60. Sixty and above is the accepted threshold for detecting “mild to moderate” deficits of social behavior related to autism; scores of 76 or more are in the “severe” range. In these analyses, the same linear relationship holds for late pregnancy and birth (i.e., cord blood). With a doubling of blood mercury levels at these two time points, there is a 31% and 28% increase, respectively, in the risk of an SRS T-score of 60 or more. Finally, the researchers identify a stronger association between late-pregnancy mercury exposure and autistic behaviors in five-year-old boys versus five-year-old girls, perhaps due to mercury’s endocrine-disrupting properties.
Your Claim: Schechter and Grether, 2008, showed that California’s rates of autism continued to rise while thimerosal was being phased out from three of the early childhood vaccines.
WMP Response: This study has significant limitations in addressing what was really going on in the time period from 1999 to 2003. Schechter and Grether estimated exposure for each birth cohort but made no attempt to look at the actual thimerosal exposures of individual children relative to their diagnosis. In fact, looking at the data for the CDDS for the years immediately following their study, there was a notable flattening of the autism prevalence growth curve in the 2004-2006 birth cohorts, suggesting a possible effect of thimerosal phase-out. At the same time, however, any downward effect on autism rates would have been blunted by three national autism awareness campaigns, by Autism Speaks, the CDC and the AAP , starting early in 2005 and continuing into 2006 which raised public awareness dramatically.
While thimerosal was being phased out of the Hepatitis B, Hib and DTaP vaccines over those four years, thimerosal exposure through influenza vaccines was increasing. In 2004, the CDC started recommending flu shots for pregnant women in any trimester. In 2004, over 90% of the supply of influenza vaccines contained thimerosal. Studies of methyl mercury show that mercury is typically 1.7 times higher in cord blood than in maternal blood and there are no studies investigating the pharmacokinetics of ethylmercury in pregnancy. Concurrently, in January 2003, the CDC recommended flu shots with thimerosal for all children starting at six months of age. The idea that children were no longer being exposed to thimerosal was and is a fallacy.
Beyond California, in the spring of 2016, the CDC’s ADDM network finally reported the autism prevalence of children born in 2004. For the first time that data did not show an increase in autism prevalence compared to the 2002 birth year cohort. They both had a one in 68 prevalence. This suggests that the removal of thimerosal from the three pediatric vaccines may have flattened autism rates prior to the widespread uptake of the flu vaccine and increased awareness. That same paper, based on children born in 2004, reported a prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders with IQ<70 of 4.0 per 1000. This was a 15% drop from the previous report based on children born in 2002, when the prevalence of ASDs with IQ<70 was 4.7 per 1000. Note that this had nothing to do with percentages of the ASD population or additional higher-functioning children being diagnosed – this meant that there were actually fewer severely affected children on a population basis.
Finally, your focus on autism ignores the evidence of thimerosal’s associations with a range of other disorders including ADHD, speech disorders, seizure disorders, autoimmunity and eczema and the broader associations of mercury with auditory and speech impairment, nephrotoxicity and somatosensory disorders. According to the CDC, one in six American children of the thimerosal generation now suffers from a neurodevelopmental disorder. An HHS funded study found that 54% of children have a chronic disease. What evidence have you, if any, that thimerosal is not a major culprit in the epidemics that have devastated this generation? “None” is the answer!
Dr. Marks, I perceive you to be a smart man and sincere in your desire to protect children from harm. Do you, as an individual, not as the Director of CBER, really believe that the continued use of thimerosal in products given to pregnant women, infants and children, when it is completely unnecessary, is appropriate? I’m appealing to you as the mother of a young man who will never be able to take advantage of his full potential because he was harmed by thimerosal and other sources of mercury. It is my life’s mission, much like the mother who started MADD, to protect all children from this completely unnecessary exposure to mercury. I ask that you please again take our concerns to heart and help support our efforts instead of regurgitating the inaccurate and indefensible positions of your agency.
Lyn Redwood RN, MSN, Executive Director
World Mercury Project
Read our overview — background and all of the letters between FDA and World Mercury Project.
Scientist Explains Why He Believes Aluminum Is “Almost Certainly” Playing A Role in Autism
- The Facts:
Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University explains why he believes aluminum is playing some sort of role in Autism. And no, he doesn't mean that aluminum is directly causing autism.
- Reflect On:
How safe are our common medications? How much safety testing have they gone through? How much is still unknown?
A study published in 2018 discovered high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. The picture you see above is from the study, showing aluminum in brain tissue. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
The authors state that,
Human exposure to aluminium has been implicated in ASD with conclusions being equivocal , , , . To-date the majority of studies have used hair as their indicator of human exposure to aluminium while aluminium in blood and urine have also been used to a much more limited extent. Paediatric vaccines that include an aluminium adjuvant are an indirect measure of infant exposure to aluminium and their burgeoning use has been directly correlated with increasing prevalence of ASD . Animal models of ASD continue to support a connection with aluminium and to aluminium adjuvants used in human vaccinations in particular .
They note that the aluminum content of brain tissues from donors with a diagnosis of ASD was “extremely high” (Table 1). And they make the point that they “recorded some of the highest values for brain aluminum content ever measured in healthy or diseased tissues in these male ASD donors.”
My group has measured the aluminum content of probably more than one-hundred human brains, and these brain tissues taken from the individuals with a diagnosis of autism were some of the highest we’ve measured, bar none….In this relatively young group of people, some 13, 14, 15 years of age, we saw more aluminum than we’ve seen in almost any other circumstance, so this in itself is a very important finding.
Perhaps equally important if not more important were the microscopy studies. The microscopy studies enabled us to identify where the aluminum was in the brain tissue. When we looked at our brains of the people with a diagnosis of autism, we found something completely different, something we’ve never seen before. We found that the majority of aluminum was actually inside cells, intracellular.
Some of it was inside neurons, but actually the majority of it was inside non-neuronal cell populations. So we found that these cells were heavily loaded with aluminum. We also saw evidence that cells in the lymph, and in the blood, were passing into the brain. So they were carrying with them a cargo of aluminum, from the body into the brain. This is the first time in any human brain tissue that we have seen this so this is a standout, and as yet unique observation in autism. For myself, it very much implicates aluminum in the aetiology of autism, that doesn’t mean that aluminum causes it, but it means it’s almost certainly playing a role. – Dr. Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, lead author of the study cited above.
In this interview, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention, similar to what was said above, was:
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.
How Does Aluminum In Vaccines Differ From Other Sources of Aluminum?
Despite the fact that only a small amount of aluminum is contained in aluminum containing vaccines, it’s delivery to the body is different than the aluminum we take in from our food, for example.
When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr. Christopher Shaw – Canadian neuroscientist and professor of ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia (source)
Many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, and the topic of adjuvants was brought up.
Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization, brought up the topic of vaccine adjuvants like aluminum, for example. In certain vaccines, without these adjuvants the vaccine simply doesn’t work. Dr. Friede mentioned that there are clinical studies that blame adjuvants for adverse events seen as a result of administering vaccines, and how people in general often blame adverse reactions to vaccines being the result of the vaccine adjuvant. He mentioned aluminum specifically.
He showed concern given the fact that “without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.”
He also stated that:
When we add an adjuvant, it’s because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so, but when we add them it adds to the complexity. And I give courses every year on ‘how do you develop vaccines’ and ‘how do you make vaccines’ and the first lesson is, while you are making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety, and lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.
So, does the aluminum adjuvant in vaccines have a “history of safety?”
According to a study published as far back as 2011 in Current Medical Chemistry
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. (source)
A year after this,
A study published in BioMed Central (also cited in the study above) in 2013 found more cause for concern:
Intramuscular injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and brain where they were still detected one year after injection. Both fluorescent materials injected into muscle translocated to draining lymph nodes (DLNs) and thereafter were detected associated with phagocytes in blood and spleen. Particles linearly accumulated in the brain up to the six-month endpoint; they were first found in perivascular CD11b+ cells and then in microglia and other neural cells. DLN ablation dramatically reduced the biodistribution. Cerebral translocation was not observed after direct intravenous injection, but significantly increased in mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier. Loss/gain-of-function experiments consistently implicated CCL2 in systemic diffusion of Al-Rho particles captured by monocyte-lineage cells and in their subsequent neurodelivery. Stereotactic particle injection pointed out brain retention as a factor of progressive particle accumulation…
The study went on to conclude that “continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe.”
These authors followed up in and published a study study in 2015 emphasized:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.
I think it’s also important to mention that in 2018, a paper published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry found that almost 100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum in mice as vaccine adjuvants was absorbed into the systemic circulation and traveled to different sites in the body such as the brain, the joints, and the spleen, where it accumulated and was retained for years post-vaccination. (source)
This is simply information, it’s science, which never ceases to question. It should not be labelled as “anti-vax,” and those who believe that aluminum adjuvants should not be considered a cause for concern should simply explain why, and provide evidence and studies to back up their points. I have a hard time seeing why most people would not want to question this, as there is clearly more room to make our vaccines even more safer and effective.
New Billboards Aim To Raise Awareness About US Military Spending
- The Facts:
Just 3% of the annual US Military budget could end world hunger.
- Reflect On:
Is a world without war truly possible? Perhaps it's time this is a conversation we start to have and consider other ways of solving the worlds problems.
Sometimes the simplest things can have the most impact. In this case, it’s a billboard with a powerful message. Standing tall at the Southeast corner of Wells and James Lovell, across the street from the Milwaukee Public Museum for the month of February and again for the month of July, this billboard reads,
“3% Of U.S. Military Spending Could End Starvation On Earth.”
Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? Well, unfortunately it’s true and it really shows where the priorities of those in charge of America’s worldly affairs lie. A group of Milwaukeeans and other US citizens have chipped in to put up billboards such as this one in an effort to raise public awareness about this huge elephant in the room that no one seems to be talking about or addressing — the insane amount of funds allotted to the US military budget. These billboards are certainly giving people something to talk about.
Let’s Talk Stats
In 2008 the United Nations announced that $30 billion per year could end hunger on the planet. As of 2019, the annual Pentagon base budget, plus war budget, plus nuclear weapons, plus the Department of Energy, plus the Department of Homeland Security and all other military-related spending totaled around $1.25 TRILLION. So if you are wondering where the 3% statistic came from, 3% of $1.25 trillion = $30 billion.
Organizations World BEYOND War, Milwaukee Veterans For Peace and Progressive Democrats of America have all contributed to the making this billboard possible.
“As veterans, we know that endless wars and the Pentagon’s corporate handouts do nothing to make us safe. We waste hundreds of billions of dollars that would be better spent on pressing needs like education, health care, and averting catastrophic climate change. Educating and reminding people of the true costs of war is a primary mission of Veterans For Peace. We are happy to be a partner in this effort by World BEYOND War.”–Paul Moriarity, President of Milwaukee Veterans For Peace
There are billboards and other big ads going up in many cities across the world, including Limerick, Ireland, Alaska, Lansing, Michigan, Schenectady, NY, and Pittsburgh, PA. In the past ads were placed in Toronto, Canada, Syracuse, NY, Baltimore, ML, Charlottesville, VA and many other places. This incredible organization has also put out ads through Facebook advertising all in an effort to get the conversation started about the possibility of a world without war.
World BEYOND War
This statement is from the World BEYOND War website:
“World BEYOND War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
We aim to create awareness of popular support for ending war and to further develop that support. We work to advance the idea of not just preventing any particular war, but abolishing the entire institution.
We strive to replace a culture of war with one of peace in which nonviolent means of conflict resolution take the place of bloodshed.
World BEYOND War was begun January 1, 2014. We have chapters and affiliates around the world.
While public opinion has moved against war, we intend to seize this moment to crystallize that opinion into a movement that spreads awareness that war can be ended, that its ending is hugely popular, that war should be ended as it endangers rather than protects — and harms rather than benefits — and that there are steps we can and must take to move toward war’s reduction and abolition.
War is not ending on its own. It is being confronted by popular resistance. But too often that resistance takes the form of denouncing one war as unacceptable (in contrast to theoretical good wars), or opposing a war because it leaves a military ill-prepared for other wars, or rejecting a weapon or a tactic as less proper than others, or opposing wasteful military spending in favor of greater efficiency (as if the entire enterprise were not an economic waste and a moral abomination). Our goal is to support steps away from war and to spread understanding of them as just that — steps in the direction of war’s elimination.”
Is A World Without War Truly Possible?
Of course! Anything is possible and the fact of the matter is that most of us would much rather see a world without war, but we do not believe that there is anything we can do to stop it. Given the fact that over 50% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job it certainly makes one wonder, how is it that the US is able to justify the ongoing wars that essentially started because of this event? Fear plays a huge role in this.
The way I see it, war is an absolutely archaic practice, and it blows my mind every time I think about it. Is killing one another with bombs, drones and guns really the best solution to solve the world’s problems? Of course it’s not! But unfortunately psychopaths run our world and convince us using fear tactics that war is happening to protect us. As long as we believe and buy into these lies and fear one another, the more these heinous acts of senseless violence will continue.
As the saying goes, “fighting for peace is like f@*king for virginity.”
Thankfully organizations such as World BEYOND War exist, to at least get the conversation started about war. Hopefully, enough fellow humans will eventually stand up for what’s really right, put down their weapons, cease fire, stop enlisting into the military, and stop supporting it. We have a lot more power than we realize.
If you’d like to support the World BEYOND War movement, or purchase a billboard please click HERE.
‘The Event’ – What’s Really Happening & What You Need To Know About It
- The Facts:
It is alleged by many in the spiritual community that something called 'THE EVENT' will play out that will either bring about a great awakening and the end of an era of struggle and captivity for humanity.
- Reflect On:
Why do we always hear of events that involve humanity sitting around and waiting for something? Why is it that we never have to take responsibility for our part in something? We are here, not to wait for a saviour, but to take action within the self.
You probably have been hearing about ‘The Event’, in articles, vlogs and conversation. All around the internet are preparing people for what some are calling the ascension event that will suddenly wake everyone up and end all of the cabal behavior on the planet.
There’s a lot to say about this, and a lot of helpful info we can consider to bring ourselves to a point of understanding as well as practicality, i.e. what we can do. My intention here isn’t to burst any bubbles about this, but to bring us back to an authentic place within ourselves and also back to our intuition.
One final thing, over the course of the past 10 years I’ve not shared much about where I get my info, what I’ve been tapped into since I was younger, the practices I use and how I’ve practiced to truly develop some of these skills. I’ve kept more quiet because I personally like to fly under the radar; simply be myself, remain quiet and live the change and my truth. I don’t believe in having to be loud about our abilities to convince others of who we are. Tapping into intuition, having a strong connection 24 hours a day to my higher self, hearing beings, ‘downloading’ or visually seeing and connecting with peoples lives, getting consistent info downloads etc, these are all a natural part of my life but it’s not something that makes me or anyone else special. It’s simply part of developing it. Some of us may start with different ‘abilities’ more activated, but we can always develop things. CE wasn’t built the way it was simply by using my mind to figure things out, it took diligent conscious practice and intuition to know what was most serving for humanity and when. To take complex conscious ideas and make them reach a mass audience and create virality.
I share this because, we seem to be at a time where confusion is high, disinformation is even higher, and many of us aren’t truly practicing the information we are hearing about or learning. So I share this as what I’m about to convey below is important and I don’t wish to reduce the content to simply ‘I’ve done research,’ these truths come from deeper places. The same places you can access through heart based living and a solid connection to your higher self.
I believe we need to ‘cut the crap’ when it comes to all the identification with “I’m an intuitive,” “I’m an empath,” “I’m a channeller” etc, and realize we all have those abilities within us if we choose to awaken by practice. It’s time for true empowerment 🙂
What Has Been Said About ‘The Event’
First let’s begin with what’s being said. It is being called a breakthrough for the planet that will cause a number of different unfoldments. Some say the defeat and arrest of the cabal, resetting of financial systems, disclosure of ET’s, aliens coming to the planet, revelation of new and advanced technologies, new governments and political systems etc.
It’s being claimed that on the non physical plane: there will be a “big wave or flash of energy and light coming from the Galactic Central sun going towards the surface of the planet”. (The galactic central sun is an object in the Sagittarius constellation.) The energy from the Central Sun will stimulate a flash or special kind of light from the Sun that permeates the earth and humanity, raising the frequencies of all living entities on the planet.
It is said that it will not be a major negative event but one that is positive. Some are even suggesting to prepare with several weeks of food and supplies as it may knock out our current infrastructures. It’s also being said that this wave of energy will be soooo powerful that it will literally fry people’s brains and make them go crazy.
I have a lot to say about all of this.
First, A Note On Channeling
From what I have gathered, most people are learning ‘channeling’ information about this from various sources or beings out there. This of course is a real thing and completely possible, but there are caveats that we often don’t consider. I’ve experienced some very good, very talented channellers who are tapped right in to authentic stuff, then again I’ve also seen the opposite.
In a lot of ways I have always steered people away from channeling. Mainly because it takes a level of mastery to truly understand and feel out what one is tapping into. Not only that, much of the time the information you can get from your higher self is more than enough to keep you rolling, and it has nothing to do with channeling. Your connection to your higher self is constant if you practice. The desire to jump deep into channeling can sometimes come from an egoic desire to want to see the future, know the future or even in some ways.. have a ‘super power’ of sorts. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with this, but more so that this can be what pushes us to want it. Like I said above, of course there are many authentic channellers out there as well.
Over the 10 years I have been exploring and observing different channellers, I’ve noticed a lot of the same thing. Repeating the same stuff over and over again, repeating vague and often obvious things, noticing that the channelled info is simply coming from the mind of the channeller and not actually from another being or source etc. From a personal point of view, my message has always been about going within, instead of focusing so much attention on getting information like this from outside ourselves.
From a listener point of view, there is general curiosity which is a beautiful thing, but sometimes we also start jumping into the idea of wanting to know what’s going to happen, being aware of the future and what’s coming… so as to control things or be able to prepare. This can be helpful at times, but it can also be a source of getting us stuck or limited. It also resembles a faith based, religious-like mentality where we take word of what is to come, and then act on that, without ever checking how we feel inside. The way I’ve practiced over the years is, my primary source (85% – 90% of where I get my information like this) is from my own self or higher self, my secondary source would be corroborating information with various sources out there like other people, channellers, intuitives etc etc. I feel this is a more ideal course of action as it asks YOU to develop your own knowing and connection with & to your higher self. This is part of an authentic path towards shifting consciousness when we take action and make the necessary changes from within.
The Reality Of What’s Happening
I made a film several years ago called The Collective Evolution III: The Shift. It is all about the shift in consciousness taking place, what’s going on and where humanity is headed. It’s presented in a way that can be passed across any group; those that view things through science, spirituality or who are on the fence. The purpose of the film was to bring these understandings to a grounded and practical space, where much of the human experience exists at this time. In the film, I go into great detail about the cosmic ray portion of the shift, which much of The Event refers to. I’d recommend watching the film for further understanding, but will also elaborate below.
The shift we’re experiencing is ongoing. MANY waves have already hit our planet and are still coming. This has been happening for years and it is PART of what is causing so many of the changes we are seeing today. Shifts in the way people think, shifts in how our world works, insurgence of equality, the calls for changes in our financial systems, political systems and so forth.
These waves have been happening for decades and have been intensifying as we go. They are made up of cosmic bursts from our sun, the galactic sun, surrounding stars and so forth. All cosmic waves carry unique energies with unique signatures and information. This information carries the ability to evolve thought, ideas, DNA, change energy signatures and so forth. But it’s also important to note that this energy has be ‘throttled’ in a sense, through our agreement, and for good reason. More on this in a second.
THE EVENT is following the same path as many other claims like this. It makes this shift in consciousness about ONE thing, ONE moment and so forth. Much like we did with 2012.
Many claim “nothing happened in 2012” because they were looking for something physical and were looking for something HUGE to happen. Yet energies did in fact shift in big ways in and around the 2012 dates many were talking about. But they also shifted in ways prior to that, and after that as well. This shift is a process and one that will continue to unfold over time little by little. Yes many of us are wearing a bit thin as this intensifies, but this simply means we have work to do and it might be harsh to accept but if I’ve witnessed a prominent practice in the overall spiritual movement it’s not practicing what we preach. “I know that information already!” But are you doing it?
Continuing on here, yes, bigger events will continue to take place and mass ‘traumas’ will be experienced as we are challenged with big time change, but we won’t bite off more than we can chew. (I say traumas to describe what will feel like very tough times for many people as we realize, en masse, things like the existence of a cabal, how we’ve been systematically manipulated our entire lives, our spiritual connection hindered on purpose etc. This will be tough until we work through it all. Hence traumatic feelings.)
Humanity often feels like we are victim to things we experience. Energies, beings, events happening, other people etc, but we choose and agree to things and take them on as we are ready for them. This doesn’t mean that being ready for it won’t cause some pain, the idea isn’t avoiding pain. With pain we often get growth. Suffering comes when we choose to ignore the growth that can be presented to us through pain.
I know that idea doesn’t sit well with some of us but ask the question, where does sitting with pain and holding onto it forever lead us? Even from a logical perspective, the answer is to work past it and grow from it, as lingering only creates more suffering.
It has been 10 years since I founded Collective Evolution and began working in the consciousness space. During that time I have created a conscious media and education company (CE), 4 films in the consciousness space and have met many spiritual teachers from around the world for interviews, as friends and so forth. I also have diligently practiced exploring consciousness through sober means, developing my intuition and so forth. In my courses I spread the message of authentic change from within that is built around truly shifting your consciousness so your connection to self and your way of being is automatic, not built on acting from belief systems.
From this space I share simply that the overwhelming feeling points to the fact that humanity is on a journey, one that may be slow at times, but challenges US to be the ones that take action. We must take action from within to shift ourselves; it’s through that space within ourselves that we begin to take action to shift our external world.
Much like we see when we do EVERYTHING for someone and never challenge them to do their own work and suddenly they don’t quite learn and aren’t empowered in their own way, we are on that journey with the shift we face personally as well. Although it’s tempting to view a single event as something that will come in and do the bulk of the work for us, this isn’t going to happen simply because it doesn’t serve us. This is a gradual process.
We’re here to do the work within ourselves. Yes, energies will come in and assist with that process as the sun and central sun act as a purveyors of evolution, but it’s also up to us. Beings are already watching and assisting closely in slowing down many of the energies coming in due to the fact that they are a bit too intense for our consciousness at the moment. This is primarily because many of us aren’t actually practicing what we are learning. We read books, learn about things and then go on living in the same old ways. We don’t shift our diets, we don’t practice meditation or presence, we don’t disempower the ego and we don’t live from our hearts, even though we know this will lead us to a thriving world.
Partly this happens because our current world is intense. There is a lot of work being done to keep us stuck, keep us distracted and so forth. But this is simply presented as an added challenge, to help build our strength within ourselves. We CAN DO IT, otherwise we wouldn’t have bit off this much. Remember that.
Don’t Wait, It’s Now
More than waiting or focusing on a single event, look at what we have right here, right now – in our world and within ourselves. This is truly all we have to focus on, and as you have intuitive feelings towards other things, follow them. But remember to not get fixated on events, dates and promises that claim to come in and take care of everything for us. NOW is most important. Our financial systems, political systems, technologies and so forth will shift and evolve as we do.. it’s not one before the other. Remember quantum physics? We determine our external reality based on how our consciousness projects our world. How do we project a thriving world if we don’t do the internal work first to shift our consciousness? Our outside world simply reflects us. For it to shift, we must do so first.
Are you doing what you love in your life and living from a space where you follow your hearts desires? Are you practicing the observation of the ego and continually shifting from egoic consciousness to heart based living? Are you practicing meditation to reduce over-thinking and more presence? Are you treating others in a way you would want to be treated.. as much as you can, not just sometimes? Are you choosing to empathize and understand where people are at and why vs judging them and calling them names?
All of these things are ways to move towards living in the heart. It’s about going from the mind, to the heart.
Some Key Reflections
- When it comes to beings/aliens, remember that in many ways they are just souls having an experience and they may or may not have had experiences as humans. Their advice sometimes may be missing some key details on what it means to be human.
- Beings are not ‘above us’. Aliens are not ‘above us.’ We don’t need to bring the mentality in that humans are some primitive culture, as this brings about judgement most of the time. We are all just having experiences, and in many ways we teach things to these other beings just as they teach us.
- What can you do right now to practice living in your heart and make that a daily state of being?
- Getting or hearing information from outside of yourself is great, and it’s part of how we use one another to learn. Are you checking within yourself about whether or not things are true? How does it feel for you when you know it’s true?
Prime Minister Of Iceland Calls For Prioritizing “Well-Being” Of Citizens Over GDP
Prime Minister of Iceland Katrin Jakobsdottir is now urging governments to prioritize sustainability and family time over obsessing about economic...
8 Year-Old Mexican Girl Invents A Solar Water Heater & Wins Nuclear Science Prize
Innovation comes from all ages, and this is further seen in the story of Xóchitl Guadalupe Cruz, an eight-year-old girl...