Connect with us

Awareness

10 False Claims Made By The “Pro Vaccine” Community

Avatar

Published

on

We’re living in an age where parents increasingly report that their typically developing children declined cognitively and physically after receiving vaccines. Despite the sound science supporting these parent claims, government agencies and mainstream media continue issuing the now shopworn mantra that vaccines are “safe and effective” ignoring published research and even common sense that indicate otherwise.

advertisement - learn more

World Mercury Project has put together a list of the most common misrepresentations in the vaccine safety debate and provided the facts and references that support the reality that vaccines can and do cause injuries including autism and many other adverse health outcomes.  

--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!

Claim 1. Vaccines save lives

Claim 2. Vaccines don’t cause autism.

The safety of combining vaccines, which include aborted fetal tissue debris, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, animal and human DNA, and more—in infants and young children has not been tested.

Claim 3. All vaccines have been rigorously tested and are completely safe

This is patently false. The reason Congress exempted vaccine makers from liability in 1986 was BECAUSE vaccines were causing harm. Since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act went into effect, the federal government program has paid out 3.8 billion dollars in vaccine injuries and death.

  • In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”
  • The current CDC pediatric schedule recommends children receive as many as nine vaccines all at the same office visit. The safety of combining vaccines, which include aborted fetal tissue debris, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, animal and human DNA, and more—in infants and young children has not been tested.
  • There are no large-scale studies comparing health outcomes in vaccinated children vs. those who haven’t received vaccines. However, a recent peer-reviewed study found that vaccinated children had an increased risk of autism (4.2 times), ADHD (4.2 times), learning disabilities (5.2 times), eczema (2.9 times) and an astounding 30 times the risk of allergic rhinitis compared to unvaccinated children.
  • In 2016, the Vaccine Injury Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) collected 59,117 reports of adverse events from vaccines, including 432 deaths, 1091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations and 10,284 emergency room visits. According to HHS, the reported events are only 1% of the actual number. Therefore, the U.S is likely experiencing millions of adverse reactions from vaccines per year.

 

Claim 4. Vaccinations produce herd immunity and prevent dangerous, even deadly, diseases. Anti-vaxxers are causing epidemics and eroding the public trust.

  • Herd immunity cannot be achieved through vaccination if vaccines aren’t effective. The Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine is just one that isn’t working. Mumps cases in the U.S. have been on the rise in recent years with over 5,000 cases reported in 2016, more than any year in the past decade, and they are occurring in highly vaccinated populations. Recent outbreaks of disease in vaccinated populations are proving that all vaccines are not efficacious. Additionally, immunity from vaccines is usually temporary unlike the lifelong immunity typically produced by experiencing a childhood illness.
  • In 2010, two former Merck virologists filed a federal lawsuit claiming that Merck committed fraud in lying about the efficacy of the mumps component of their MMR vaccine. The suit, now in the hands of a federal judge, charges that Merck was aware of the declining efficacy of the mumps vaccine but still claimed it was 95% effective.
  • As the CDC continues to deny that there is a vaccine safety problem, studies show that the biggest impediment to broad vaccine acceptance and coverage is public mistrust of government regulators.
  • Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, said that public distrust is growing because of inaction on the part of agencies regarding vaccine safety.
  • The only polio that is diagnosed now in America is the vaccine strain and those cases are compensated in Vaccine Court.
  • Ironically, many of today’s vaccines don’t actually prevent the vaccinated individual from harboring and transmitting the disease in question. This is true of pertussis,  diphtheria, and as already noted, polio.
  • The death rate from measles as far back as 1922 was extremely low—4.3 in 100,000. Consider that this was nearly 100 years ago—before electric refrigerators, before washing machines, before antibiotics, and IV hydration, and the advances of modern medicine.
  • Eight years before the measles vaccine was introduced, children went to school, and even to Disneyland, which opened its doors in 1955, and mothers didn’t live in fear of routine illnesses like measles.
Not only has thimerosal never been completely taken out of vaccines, but much more aluminum was—and continues to be—added, again with no scientific research to support the safety of doing so.

Claim 5. Thimerosal (ethyl mercury) was taken out of vaccines in 1999 and autism rates still continued to rise. Also, the ethyl mercury in vaccines is less toxic than methyl mercury. 

  • Between 1999 and 2003, thimerosal was being gradually removed from the Hep B, Hib and DTaP vaccines. However, the exposure to thimerosal due to flu shots was simultaneously ramping up.  Flu shots were originally recommended for pregnant women in 1997 but, initially, uptake of these shots was low (only 12.4% by 2002).  In 2004, the CDC recommended flu shots for all pregnant women in any trimester.  By 2012-2013, uptake of flu shots during pregnancy had steadily increased to approximately 50%.  So, the children born after 2004 were increasingly likely to have been exposed to thimerosal in utero, and a lot of it.
  • Concurrently, in 2001, the CDC recommended flu vaccines for high-risk infants over six months of age.  In January 2003, the CDC recommended routine annual flu shots for all children starting at six months of age.  Coverage initially was very low.  In the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 influenza seasons, only 4.4% and 8.4% of children, respectively, were fully vaccinated for flu.  In the 2004-2005 flu season, the childhood uptake rate had shot up to 48%.  In the years after the phase out of mercury in the Hep B, Hib, and DTaP, children were increasingly being exposed to thimerosal through flu shots.  In 2004, over 90% of the flu shot supply was preserved with thimerosal.
  • There is no justification for injecting mercury, a known neurotoxin, into anyone, but definitely not pregnant women and children. The developing fetus is especially vulnerable to mercury exposure because fetal cord blood mercury levels are typically about double the mother’s mercury blood levels. Approximately 36 million flu shots containing 25 mcg. of mercury are in the supply for the 2017-2018 flu season.
  • A 2017 CDC study reviewing data from the 2010-11 and 2011-2012 flu seasons linked spontaneous abortions to flu vaccines, finding that women vaccinated with the inactivated influenza vaccine had 3.7-fold greater odds of spontaneous abortion within 23 days than women not receiving the vaccine. For women who received the H1N1 vaccine in both seasons covered in the study, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the 28 days after receving a flu vaccine was 7.7 times greater. The vast majority of flu vaccines available during the seasons studied were multi-dose formulations containing 25 mcg. of mercury.
  • Meningococcal vaccines may still contain 25mcg of mercury from thimerosal. Using EPA guidelines for mercury exposure, an individual should weigh 550 lbs. to “safely” process this amount of mercury. Of course, this is based on the INGESTION of methyl mercury. No guidelines have been established for INJECTING any form of mercury. Thimerosal is still included in “trace amounts” in other vaccines.
  • Not only has thimerosal never been completely taken out of vaccines, but much more aluminum was—and continues to be—added, again with no scientific research to support the safety of doing so.
  • Despite claims made by vaccine pundits and repeated in the media, ethyl mercury found in vaccines is not safer than methyl mercury found in fish. A recent meta-analysis showed that inorganic mercury has a half-life in the brain of several years. This is concerning since we know infant primates exposed to equal amounts of ethyl mercury compared to methyl mercury were found to have more than double the amount of inorganic mercury deposited into their brain tissue.
  • While it’s true that ethyl mercury clears the blood more quickly than methyl mercury, the organs of toxicity are the brain and kidneys. Ethyl mercury rapidly crosses into the brain where it gets trapped and is not easily excreted. Clearing the blood does not mean that the ethyl mercury has left the body.
  • Curiously, one division of the FDA has labeled thimerosal as not being “Generally Recognized As being Safe and Effective (GRASE), while another branch continues to allow the use of thimerosal in vaccines and over 130 prescription drugs. 

Claim 6. The study by Wakefield claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has been disproven. This study was retracted and the author discredited. Other MMR studies prove no link as well.

  • The Wakefield Lancet paper never claimed that the MMR causes autism. Wakefield presented case histories of 12 children with bowel disease and autistic regression their parents claimed occurred after the MMR shot. Wakefield called for more study. From the conclusion: We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.
  • Since the paper’s retraction, senior level CDC scientist turned whistleblower Dr. William Thompson said that a 2004 CDC study found an association with the MMR and the onset of autism in African-American boys and in children with no other developmental concerns before the vaccine, a condition they termed “isolated autism.” Thompson submitted thousands of documents to Congressman Bill Posey of Florida in 2014 regarding his claims. Subsequently, Congressman Posey made a statement from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives saying, in part: 

“Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children’s health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth…In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examinedthe possibility of a relationship between [the] mumps, measles, rubella vaccine and autism. In a statement released in August, 2014, Dr. Thompson stated, ‘I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 articlpublished in the journal Pediatrics.’ “          

Since 2014, requests to allow Dr. William Thompson to testify have been denied by the CDC.

advertisement - learn more

Claim 7. Autism is genetic, not environmental. There is no epidemic because changing diagnostic criteria explains the rise.

  • There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic and diagnostic substitution cannot account for the skyrocketing numbers of children now diagnosed with autism.
  • What we can glean from the science is that autism requires an environmental triggerto cause the epidemic increases we’re seeing in not only autism, but ADHD, tics, allergies and a laundry list of other childhood disorders that we have not seen in past generations.
  • Researchers have been searching for the elusive autism gene for decades and still haven’t found it despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars in their pursuit. There may be as many as 1,000 genes involved in autism risk and many of the most promising genetic findings are acquired mutations that point to environmental factors as the cause of the mutations. The expansion of genetic studies has found that, in families who have two children diagnosed with autism, the siblings often don’t share the same gene changes, which has raised the possibility that the disorder isn’t inherited even when it runs in families. This begs the question of shared environmental factors or risk conditions.
  • One of the largest twin studies to date published in 2011 also found the role of the environment has been underestimated.  The study found that the children’s environment represents more than 1/2 the susceptibility: 55% in severe autism and 58% in the broader spectrum, while genetics was involved in 37% and 38% of the risk respectively.
  • We often hear that autism starts in utero because initial studies that looked at abnormal brain growth associated with autism reported the abnormalities occurred prenatally, but that work has been challenged by Harvard researchers who used advanced imaging techniques and reported that the brain overgrowth was being driven by the white matter of the brain.  The observed overgrowth of the white matter occurred after birth and may be related to the process of myelination. The white matter overgrowth was also seen in infants with developmental language disorders, which is often one of the first symptoms of autism in children.

Claim 8.  The United States already has a vaccine safety commission

  • Any appearance of vaccine safety efforts made by the CDC and its pundits is a facade. A government agency charged with ensuring high vaccination uptake in the population should not be entrusted to ensure that vaccines are as safe as possible.
  • The CDC is in the vaccine business, a tremendous conflict of interest when that same agency is tasked with promoting mass-scale vaccination. According to a 2003 UPI Investigation, the CDC held 28 vaccine licensing agreements at that time. In 2017, another analysis found that the CDC now holds at least 57 patents related to vaccines.
  • Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, who determine vaccine recommendations, are allowed to have financial conflicts, some even profiting from the vaccine decisions the committee recommends.
  • The revolving door between the CDC and the vaccine industry is blatant and has gone unchecked for decades. 

Claim 9. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is an “anti-vaxxer”

  • This type of bullying terminology is an attempt to censor opinion and silence debate. There are very real problems with vaccine safety, efficacy, pharmaceutical influence in public interest decision making and policy, and conflicts of interest among the regulators of our government agencies expected to protect Americans from harm. That is the story that needs to be covered. Name calling does nothing to advance the discussion of these critical issues.
  • Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ensured that all of his six children were fully vaccinated. But when he read the independent, peer-reviewed research linking vaccines with serious health conditions and talked to pharmaceutical and government “experts”, he was convinced that mercury was driving the epidemic of neurological and immunological injuries impacting today’s children in numbers never before seen in history.
  • Kennedy was also concerned over the lack of true vaccine safety science. The few existing CDC safety studies are rife with errors and additionally, CDC whistleblower William Thompson claims some of them to be fraudulent.
  • Proclaiming that Mr. Kennedy is “anti-vaccine” effectively dismisses not only what tens of thousands of parents have witnessed but also what a growing amount of published, reputable science is bearing out. He wants trustworthy regulators who will actually do their jobs in protecting the health of our nation’s citizens.
When it comes to the safety and well-being of their children, parents and caregivers have every right to pose questions

Claim 10. Unvaccinated people make others sick. Vaccines should be mandatory with no philosophical, medical or religious exemptions.

  • History shows us that vaccinated people can also spread diseases and infections. This is well illustrated by the 2016 Harvard mumps outbreak and the 2017 mumps outbreak at Syracuse University wherein all people diagnosed with mumps had received both recommended doses of the MMR vaccine. As mentioned above, according to two former Merck virologists who worked on the mumps portion of the MMR, the mumps vaccine is not effective.
  • In addition to the lack of efficacy in vaccines such as the MMR, vaccines made with live viruses such as MMR, chicken pox, rotavirus, influenza, and shingles can cause shedding of the viruses to the close contacts of  those vaccinated. When it comes to the safety and well-being of their children, parents and caregivers have every right to pose questions, no matter the topic. Parents research the safest car seats, cribs, strollers and everything else that involves their children. Vaccines should also be on the table for questioning, researching, discussing, or criticizing. And if parents decide to refuse vaccines for their children, those decisions should be respected.
  • “One size fits all” is a questionable policy when it comes to medical treatment. Knowledgeable doctors realize that there isn’t a single medical procedure that works well for the entire population—and that includes vaccines. Published science also supports the fact that some people with genetic predispositions or biological susceptibilities should not have vaccines.  We desperately need more research in this area so we can identify those likely to be harmed so we can modify their vaccine schedule. Have we traded acute childhood illness for lifelong chronic disease? The American public is become increasingly aware of the rapid decline in the health of our nation’s children and are worried that the ever-expanding childhood vaccine schedule—that has tripled since the 1980’s—may be responsible for the current epidemic of serious childhood health conditions.  These concerns are warranted given the fact that over half of the children in this country—54%–now have a chronic health condition.
  • Mandated vaccines are in direct opposition to informed consent, the number one tenet of the Nuremberg CodeThe voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Ignoring facts, research and conflicts of interest within regulatory agencies has created a smoke screen to cover the obvious truth of the matter—vaccines are not as safe and effective as our government agencies and mainstream media would have us believe. Vaccines can and do cause serious injuries including autism and many other adverse health outcomes.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

COVID-19 Has A 99.95% Survival Rate For People Under 70 – Stanford Professor of Medicine

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large divide between so many doctors and scientists with regards to the response to the pandemic? Why is one side constantly ridiculed and censored by Big Tech companies? Should governments have the authority to mandate lockdowns?

What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in California recently appeared on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.

During the conversation, Dr. Bhattacharya said that the survival rate from COVID-19, based on approximately 50 studies that’ve been published providing seroprevalence data, for people over 70 years of age is 95 percent. For people under the age of 70, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.95 percent. He went on to state that the flu is more dangerous than COVID-19 for children, and that we’ve (America) had more flu deaths in children this year than COVID deaths.

Obviously, his comments are open to interpretation and similar comments floating around the internet have been refuted by Facebook ‘fact-checkers.’

Bhattacharya has cited this study, published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization to come to his conclusion, along with, as mentioned above, many more.

These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.

The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.

The Declaration states,

The Declaration was written from a global public health and humanitarian perspective, with special concerns about how the current COVID-19 strategies are forcing our children, the working class and the poor to carry the heaviest burden.  The response to the pandemic in many countries around the world, focused on lockdowns, contact tracing and isolation, imposes enormous unnecessary health costs on people. In the long run, it will lead to higher COVID and non-COVID mortality than the focused protection plan we call for in the Declaration.

The declaration also states that as herd immunity builds, the risk of infection to all, including the most vulnerable, falls. Bhattacharya has explained that he and his colleagues don’t see herd immunity as a strategy but as a simple “biological fact,” adding, “It will eventually happen. That’s how epidemics end. So, the only question is how you get there with the least amount of human misery, death, and harm.” The best way, he said, is to “acknowledge who actually is in danger and devote enormous creativity, resources, and energy to protect them.”

The Declaration recommends implementing measures that protect the vulnerable without locking down the entire population, shutting down businesses and limiting people’s access to health-care.

Stefan Baral, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, said he supported adaptive interventions to protect at-risk people rather than broad lockdowns of entire populations. He said his mother lives in Sweden and “there’s nowhere else I would have wanted my mom to be. I love my mom and I feel she’s safe there.”

A report published in the British Medical Journal  titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May . According to the data, Covid-19 only accounts for 10,000 of the 30,000 excess deaths that have been recorded in senior care facilities during the height of the pandemic. The article suggests and also quotes British Health officials stating that these unexplained deaths may have occurred because Quarantine measures have prevented seniors from accessing the health care that they need.

Bhattacharya has also cited an estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicating that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation by the end of this year.

These are just a few  many examples and concerns the declaration is referring to.

Another perspective on these survival rates? According to  Professor Robyn Lucas, head of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University,

Survival rates and the percentage of the population who have not died are two very different numbers, “They are using the whole population, rather than the number who have diagnosed infection. So this is not really ‘survival’ – to survive a disease you have to have the disease in the first place,” Prof Lucas told AAP FactCheck in an email. (source)

Why This Is Important: Never before have we seen so many renowned doctors, scientists, and experts in the field oppose the recommendations and actions taken by the World Health Organization and multiple governments to combat a health crises. The fact that there is a great divide among the scientific and medical community makes one ponder how governments can have the mandatory authority to lockdown our planet when there isn’t really a scientific consensus to do so.

What’s also quite concerning is the fact that big tech companies, like Facebook, have been actively censoring and flagging information and opinions that oppose those of the WHO and government health authorities. Unpopular opinions and recommendations aren’t really given any attention by mainstream media either, and they’re often ridiculed by them. The Great Barrington Declaration is a great example.

Because of all the discrepancy, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for governments to simply present the science and make strong recommendations and leave the citizenry to do what they’d like to do. To each is own, that’s just my opinion. I believe we are more than capable enough, and intelligent enough to determine the right course of action for ourselves. A lot of people have lost trust in their government and this is because actions taken by them have simply called into question whether or not they make decisions with humanities best interests at heart.

Are they really executing the will of the people?

When it comes to COVID-19, we’ve seen that this may not be the case. Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine in the British Medical Journal.

It it, he states the following:

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

When we allow governments and give them the power to use force when so many people disagree with their recommendations, it makes one question just how much power do thee entities have? And why? Why do we choose to be governed in such a way? Why aren’t we free to make our own decisions?

More important than facts is our ability to get along with one another and see from the perspective of another. We must understand why those who disagree with us feel the way they do, and they must try to understand us. Constantly arguing and disagreeing with each other and always being in a state of constant separation doesn’t solve anything. Now more than ever we need to respect one another and try see from a perspective that’s not our own. Can’t we find some middle ground and all get along? It’s ok to ask questions and challenge our governments, in fact, it should be encouraged.

Many of us are feeling the loss of freedoms, and even with new measures like that which is presented in this article, we are now seeing how our reality may become limited should we choose not to participate in certain measures we don’t agree with. The trouble we seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID, the fears we have around it, and how to come together as a community to ‘draw a line’ as to where we may be taking things too far.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?

No, I’m not talking about no Great Reset here, I’m talking about something much deeper. I’m talking about re-examining the deep questions of who we are, why we are here and what type of future we truly want to create. Questions that we may have forgotten about as we have gone on chasing what our current worldview and system dangles in front of us. Perhaps it’s time to take a breath and see the crisis’ in front of us as a call to ask some much deeper questions than common conversation invites us to ask.

A great place to start with these questions, and something I deeply urge people to consider doing, is doing something like a media/news fast that includes important questions and reflections designed to re-imagine and examine your worldview. I have just released a new short course on CETV called How To Do An Effective Media Detox. Check out CETV and this course as a great place to start. – Joe Martino

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Positive Association Found Amongst COVID Deaths & Flu Shot Rates Worldwide In Elderly

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently published paper has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

  • Reflect On:

    Why does vaccine hesitancy continue to grow worldwide? What's going on? What information/factors are contributing to this hesitancy?

What Happened: A recently published study in PeerJ  by Christian Wehenkel, a Professor at Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango in Mexico, has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

According to the study, “The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR (influenza vaccination rate) of people ≥65 years-old. There is a significant increase in COVID-19 deaths from eastern to western regions in the world. Further exploration is needed to explain these findings, and additional work on this line of research may lead to prevention of deaths associated with COVID-19.”

To determine this association, data sets from 39 countries with more than half a million people were analyzed.

The study was published on October 1st, and two weeks later a note from the publisher appeared atop the paper emphasizing that correlation does not equal causation, and that this paper “should not be taken to suggest that receiving the influenza vaccination results in an increased risk of death for an individual with COVID-19 as there may be confounding factors at play.”

The paper provides evidence from others which have recently been published that ponder if the flu shot could increase ones chance of contracting and dying from COVID-19.

For example, this study published in April of 2020, reported a negative correlation between influenza vaccination rates (IVRs) and COVID-19 related mortality and morbidity. Marín-Hernández, Schwartz & Nixon (2020) also showed epidemiological evidence of an association between higher influenza vaccine uptake by elderly people and lower percentage of COVID-19 deaths in Italy, which directly contradicts the author’s own findings and suggests that the flu shot may help prevent COVID-19 related deaths.

He goes on to mention another study:

In a study analyzing 92,664 clinically and molecularly confirmed COVID-19 cases in Brazil, Fink et al. (2020) reported that patients who received a recent flu vaccine experienced on average 17% lower odds of death. Moreover, Pawlowski et al. (2020) analyzed the immunization records of 137,037 individuals who tested positive in a SARS-CoV-2 PCR. They found that polio, Hemophilus influenzae type-B, measles-mumps-rubella, varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), geriatric flu, and hepatitis A/hepatitis B (HepA-HepB) vaccines, which had been administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years, were associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates.

So, its important to mention that correlations between the flu vaccine have also found that it may decrease ones chance of deaths from COVID-19.

But are there studies that have shown an increased chance of death or contracting other respiratory viruses as a result of getting the flu shot? Yes.

That’s also discussed in the paper. For example, he mentions a paper published in 2018:

In a study with 6,120 subjects, Wolff (2020) reported that influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a higher risk of some other respiratory diseases, due to virus interference. In a specific examination of non-influenza viruses, the odds of coronavirus infection (but not the COVID-19 virus) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher, when compared to unvaccinated individuals (odds ratio = 1.36).

The study above found the flu shot to increase the risk of other coronaviruses among those who had been vaccinated for influenza by 36 percent. The study was conducted prior to COVID-19, so it’s not included and only applies to pre-existing coronaviruses. The study also found an even higher chance of contracting human metapneumovirus amongst those who had received the flu shot.

Below are some more studies regarding the flu shot and viral infections that hint to the same idea.

  • 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.
  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.
  • 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.
  • 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Why This Is Important: We live in an age where vaccinations are heavily marketed. We’ve seen this with the flu shot time and time again and we are also living in an age where a push for more mandated vaccines seems to be growing.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

This is a touchy subject that dives into medical ethics and the connections that big pharmaceutical companies have with our federal health regulatory agencies and health associations. Vaccines are a multi billion dollar industry.

At a recent World Health Organization conference on vaccine safety, it was expressed that vaccine hesitancy is growing at quite a fast pace, especially among doctors who are now becoming hesitant to recommend certain vaccines on the schedule. You can read more about that and find links to the conference here.

We have to ask ourselves, why is this happening? Is it because people and professionals are becoming aware of certain information that warrants the freedom of choice? Should freedom of choice with regards to what we put in our body always remain? Are we really protecting the “herd” by taking these actions?

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice.

When it comes to the flu shot, I put more information and science as to why so many people seem to refuse it, in this article if interested.

The University of California is currently being sued for mandating the flu shot for all staff, faculty and students. A judge has prevented them from doing so as a result until a decision has been made. You can read more about that here.

In South Korea, 48 people have now died after receiving the flu shot this season causing a lot of controversy. You can read more about that here.

The Takeaway: There are many concerns with vaccines, and vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Should these statistics alone warrant the freedom of choice? Should the government have the ability to force us into measures, or would it simply be better for them to present the science, make recommendations and urge people to follow them? When the citizenry is forced and coerced into certain actions, sometimes under the guise of good-will, there always seems to be a tremendous amount of uproar and people who disagree. Why are these people silenced? Why are they censored? Why are they ridiculed? Why don’t independent health organizations receive the same voice and reach that government and state “owned” or organizations do? What’s going on here? Do we really live in a free, open and transparent world or are we simply subjected to massive amounts of perception manipulation?

When it come to the flu shot there is plenty of information on both sides of the coin that point to its effectiveness, and on the other hand there is information that points to the complete opposite. When something is not 100 percent clear, freedom of choice in all places should always remain, in my opinion.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!