Connect with us

Awareness

Is Tylenol Damaging Your Child’s Brain?

Published

on

This article was written by William Parker,  an Associate Professor at Duke University, where he has worked in the Department of Surgery since 1993. It was printed here with the permission of Greenmedinfo.com. You can sign up for their newsletter here.

advertisement - learn more

A number of non-peer-reviewed articles have been written and published on the web claiming that there is literally nothing to fear from acetaminophen during pregnancy. There are two types of articles that fall into this category. First, reputable watchdog organizations have weighed in on the issue, declaring acetaminophen use during pregnancy and during childhood to be proven safe. In particular, the National Health Service of the UK and the Center for Accountability in Science have both strongly criticized the Spanish study from 2016 showing a link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and ADHD/autism.

-->Watch now: Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting and hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!

The second type of article is generally written by a science writer working for an organization that runs a website. Often quoting one to three experts who claim that is perfectly safe and that pregnant women and families should not be concerned, many of these articles are published by reputable sources that are generally trustworthy. Typically, an expert is being asked to comment on one particular publication showing a link between acetaminophen use (usually during pregnancy) and some sort of neuropsychiatric problem (autism, lowered IQ, hyperactivity, and/or social/behavioural problems, depending on the study). There are several important things to consider when evaluating these articles:

1.  There are a number of University Professors who have studied the use of acetaminophen on the developing brain and who are keenly aware of the potential dangers. A partial list of these individuals is provided below.

2.  Being an expert in acetaminophen neurotoxicity during development means that considerable time has been invested in studying the issue. Any true expert in this issue will be aware of basic facts regarding acetaminophen neurotoxicity. These facts include the following:

(a) Studies in animal models (both in mice and in rats) demonstrate that acetaminophen use during a sensitive period of brain development causes long-term alterations in the brain and is manifested as problems with social function.

advertisement - learn more

(b)  Margaret McCarthy, Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, has worked out the probable mechanism by which acetaminophen-induced brain damage occurs. Her research team has found that the male brain is considerably more sensitive to acetaminophen than the female brain, possibly accounting for the gender bias in autism.

(c) There are (as of January 2017) a total of 8 published studies evaluating the long terms effects on children of acetaminophen use during pregnancy or during childhood. Two of these (one in 2014, one in 2016) were published in JAMA Pediatrics, one of the most highly respected pediatric journals. All studies point toward acetaminophen use being associated with long-term problems with neurological function. Each study design has included some attempt to control for indication. In all studies, acetaminophen use rather than indication has been identified as the key factor associated with cognitive problems. A formal meta-analysis is not currently possible because of the varied outcome measures and study designs, but all 8 studies point in the same direction: Acetaminophen is neurotoxic to the developing brain. The studies are not “cherry picked”, selecting only those which find an effect. All studies point toward a neurotoxic effect of acetaminophen in the developing brain.

(d)   Acetaminophen substantially alters brain chemistry and temporarily impairs awareness of social issues in adult humans.

(e)  Testing of acetaminophen safety in children did not include any evaluation of brain function, and no long-term studies were ever conducted. The primary manufacturer of acetaminophen in the US acknowledges that the drug has never been shown to be safe for brain development when used during pregnancy or in childhood. All safety tests were performed with the assumption that any side effects would be acute in nature (e.g., bleeding or acute organ damage). This assumption was based on observations made with acetaminophen in adults and with aspirin in children. It was not based on any experience with acetaminophen use in children.

3.     Having prescribed tens of thousands of doses of acetaminophen does not make anyone an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen, any more than eating thousands of pounds of chips makes somebody an expert in the effects of an inflammatory diet. Credentials and certifications that allow physicians to prescribe acetaminophen do not make them experts, and elevated positions in the medical community do not qualify anybody as an expert on the effects of acetaminophen. If somebody does not know those basic facts listed above, then they are not an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen. Usually, the experts will have published one or more peer-reviewed manuscripts on the topic. Those are the people to ask when an expert is needed.

4.     It is tempting to point accusing fingers at physicians who say that acetaminophen is safe when they literally have no grasp whatsoever of the relevant scientific literature. However, this would be a mistake. I have tracked down a few of these individuals who were quoted in a very public format, and one individual, in particular, didn’t even remember having made a comment on the topic. The most likely explanation is that a reporter asked them if acetaminophen was safe, and their response based on their training (not on the knowledge of the literature) was that it is safe. After all, if they didn’t think it was safe, they would not be administering it dozens of times per day. So, if a reporter asks a physician if something is safe, and they provide their knowledge based on what they have been taught and how they practice, then it is hard to blame them. The reporter didn’t ask them to spend days or even weeks reviewing the literature in detail, but rather assumed that any physician administering something dozens of times per day would know the literature. (This is a false assumption. No physician has the time to study all current literature on every drug they administer.) So, in a nutshell, a tragic propagation of incorrect information is occurring despite the best of intentions of all parties involved.

5.     Unless an organization such as the National Health Service has the time to review a topic thoroughly, they should remain silent on an issue. It took a team of us two years to put together our summary of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, regarding the potential neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during development. It took the NHS only days to publish their recent criticism of the 2016 Spanish study. Offering questionable criticisms of a single paper without reviewing the literature to see how that publication fits into the big picture is a disservice to the public being served.

6. Reading the published quotes from many “experts” who exonerate acetaminophen, it is apparent that the logic falls into one of two categories.

(a) Everybody is doing it, so it must be OK.

(b) This single study is not perfect, so no change in practice should be made.

Neither of these criticisms is logically sound, of course. These two criticisms are often combined and were, in fact, part of the critical comments directed toward the first paper showing that acetaminophen probably has substantial neurotoxicity during development (published in 2008 by Steve Shultz). Further, the evaluation of study weaknesses is usually skewed and not entirely valid. Since the idea that acetaminophen is safe is being embraced, then any merit in the paper is often undermined to make the case. This is certainly true of the published (peer reviewed) criticisms of the 2008 Shultz paper.

7.     Many on-line sources support the view that acetaminophen can be very dangerous to the developing brain. Probably the most reliable source, the FDA, is remaining silent on the topic until something more definitive is done. The FDA knows that this is extremely urgent, but unfortunately, our FDA is not linked well (in a practical manner) with our NIH, and thus they can’t dictate research priorities.

8.     Here is a list (not comprehensive) of experts regarding the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during brain development.

(a)   First, I’ll thank the wonderful team of individuals who helped put together our comprehensive review on this topic. Shu Lin, a professor with me in Duke’s Surgery Department, is a very dear and long-time friend of mine who has supported me through countless projects over the past 22 years. Staci Bilbo, director for research on Autism at Harvard, is a friend and collaborator who has helped me understand what causes inflammation and the role of inflammation in brain dysfunction. Chi Dang Hornik, a pediatric pharmacist at Duke, contributed greatly to our understanding of the frequency of acetaminophen administration and the available formulations of the drug. Many thanks to Martha Herbert. As a Harvard professor and clinician, she has a great appreciation for the clinical data obtained from patients with autism. Cindy Nevison, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, rounds out our team, providing critical information about the epidemiology of autism. (Thanks also to our interns (Rasika Rao and Lauren Gentry) and research analyst (Zoie Holzknecht) who were a tremendous help in compiling information and preparing that information for publication.)

(b)  Margaret McCarthy, chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, it the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the biochemistry of the human brain and how that is affected by acetaminophen and other drugs in that class.

(c)   Chittaranjan Andrade, Chair of Psychopharmacology at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, has written a peer-reviewed paper on the topic of acetaminophen-induced brain damage. He nicely summarized a number of studies looking at the connection between acetaminophen and neurological damage. His final conclusion is that the drug is probably more associated with ADHD than autism, but the conclusion was limited to exposure during pregnancy and his work was conducted before some critical studies were published in 2016.

(d)  Henrik Viberg is a professor in the Department of Organismal Biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. He has studied how exposure of mice to acetaminophen during development can cause long-term brain damage.

(e)   In 2015, a group of scientists working with Laurence de Fays at the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products in Brussels acknowledged the clinical studies and the studies in animal models which indicated that acetaminophen could be dangerous to the developing fetus, but concluded that paracetamol is “still to be considered safe in pregnancy”. At the same time, they state that “additional carefully designed studies are necessary to confirm or disprove the association (between acetaminophen and brain damage to children)”, and that “care should be taken to avoid raising poorly founded concerns among pregnant females”. We very strongly agree with the conclusion that more studies are needed, but very strongly disagree with the conclusion that women should be kept in the dark about the matter. It is important to point out that several more studies have come out since Laurence de Fays’ report. One of those is a 2016 manuscript in JAMA Pediatrics (see the next expert), a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which addresses the concerns raised by de Fays, so it is possible that de Fays’ group may now have a different opinion.

(f)   A team of scientists and doctors working with Evie Stergiakouli at the University of Bristol analyzed data from a prospective birth cohort, and concluded that “children exposed to acetaminophen prenatally are at increased risk of multiple behavioral difficulties”. They found considerable evidence indicating that the association was not due to the confounding factors that concerned de Fays’ group (previous expert).

(g)  Jordi Julvez at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain worked with a team of a dozen clinicians and scientists to publish their 2016 study linking acetaminophen with autism and ADHD.

(h)  Amany A. Abdin, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology, Tanta University, Egypt, wrote a review of the acetaminophen/autism connection and published it in the journal Biochemistry and Pharmacology: Open Access. Her conclusion in 2013 was that the drug is not safe and that the acetaminophen/autism connection should receive attention.

(i)    The original paper that identified a connection between neuropsychiatric disorders and acetaminophen was published by Steve Shultz while at the University of California at San Diego. Coauthors on the paper included Hillary Klonoff-Cohen, currently an Endowed Professor and Director of the MPH program at the University of Illinois.

(j)    Four scientists, including research scientist Ragnhild Eek Brandlistuen and professors Hedvig Nordeng and Eivind Ystrom in the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Oslo, coauthored a study showing a connection between adverse neurodevelopment and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

(k)  Jorn Olsen, Professor and Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at UCLA, published one of the more recent papers (2016) showing a connection between autism and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

(l)    Five professors (John M. D. Thompson, Karen E. Waldie, Clare R. Wall, Rinky Murphy, and Edwin A. Mitchell) from four different departments at The University of Auckland published their findings in PLOSone in 2014 which “strengthen the contention that acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy increases the risk of ADHD-like behaviours. Our study also supports earlier claims that findings are specific to acetaminophen.”

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Our Biology Responds To Events Before They Even Happen

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple experiments have shown strong evidence for precognition in several different ways. One of them comes in the form of activity within the heart and the brain responding to events before they even happen.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we have extra human capacities we are unaware of? Perhaps we can learn them, develop them, and use them for good. Perhaps when the human race is ready, we will start learning more.

Is precognition real? There are many examples suggesting that yes, it is. The remote viewing program conducted by the CIA in conjunction with Stanford University was a good example of that.  After its declassification in 1995, or at least partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate:

To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise… The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions. (source)

The kicker? Part of remote viewing involves peering into future events as well as events that happened in the past.

It’s not only within the Department of Defense that we find this stuff, but a lot of science is emerging on this subject as well.

For example, a study (meta analysis) published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding this phenomenon that were conducted by several different laboratories. These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event and reacts to the event before it has occurred. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured regarding the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system.

A few years ago, the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Dean Radin, visited the scientists over at HearthMath Institute and shared the results of one of his studies. Radin is also one of multiple scientists who authored the paper above. These studies, as mentioned above, tracked the autonomic nervous system, physiological changes, etc.

Scientists at HeartMath Institute (HMI) added more protocols, which included measuring participants’ brain waves (EEG), their hearts’ electrical activity (ECG), and their heart rate variability (HRV).

As HMI explains:

Twenty-six adults experienced in using HeartMath techniques and who could sustain a heart-coherent state completed two rounds of study protocols approximately two weeks apart. Half of the participants completed the protocols after they intentionally achieved a heart-coherent state for 10 minutes. The other half completed the same procedures without first achieving heart coherence. Then they reversed the process for the second round of monitoring, with the first group not becoming heart-coherent before completing the protocols and the second group becoming heart-coherent before. The point was to test whether heart coherence affected the results of the experiment.

Participants were told the study’s purpose was to test stress reactions and were unaware of its actual purpose. (This practice meets institutional-review-board standards.) Each participant sat at a computer and was instructed to click a mouse when ready to begin.

The screen stayed blank for six seconds. The participant’s physiological data was recorded by a special software program, and then, one by one, a series of 45 pictures was displayed on the screen. Each picture, displayed for 3 seconds, evoked either a strong emotional reaction or a calm state. After each picture, the screen went blank for 10 seconds. Participants repeated this process for all 45 pictures, 30 of which were known to evoke a calm response and 15 a strong emotional response.

The Results

The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.

How mind-altering is that?

Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”

Another significant study (meta-analysis) that was published in Journal of Parapsychology by Charles Honorton and Diane C. Ferrari in 1989 examined a number of studies that were published between 1935 and 1987. The studies involved individuals’ attempts to predict “the identity of target stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred million seconds to one year following the individuals responses.” These authors investigated over 300 studies conducted by over 60 authors, using approximately 2 million individual trials by more than 50,000 people. (source)

It concluded that their analysis of precognition experiments “confirms the existence of a small but highly significant precognition effect. The effect appears to be repeatable; significant outcomes are reported by 40 investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations. The precognition effect is not merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline, but rather is an effect that covaries with factors known to influence more familiar aspects of human performance.” (source)

The Takeaway

“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
 Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)

We are living in a day and age where new information and evidence are constantly emerging, challenging what we once thought was real or what we think we know about ourselves as human beings.  It’s best to keep an open mind. Perhaps there are aspects of ourselves and our consciousness that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps if we learn and grow from these studies, they can help us better ourselves and others.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Top Three “Alternative” Treatments For Covid-19 That’ve Been Ridiculed By Mainstream Media

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple "alternative" treatments have shown success with regards to treating COVID-19 patients. These treatments have been ridiculed and labelled as fake within the mainstream instead of being explored and discussed openly.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there is much ridicule when it comes to health solutions that don't come from big pharmaceutical companies?

“Fact-checkers” are patrolling the internet hard and censoring an enormous amount of content and specific media organizations, like Collective Evolution. Working simultaneously together with this fact-checker is mainstream media, which for the most part have become mouthpieces for the “establishment,” and have become a tool to promote information that just isn’t true or has very little backing while simultaneously  ridiculing anything that threatens their narrative. Big media’s connections with special interests from big corporations and government agencies alone is quite large. You can read more about that and find multiple examples in an article I published earlier on that specific topic that goes into more detail, here.

Mainstream media has been exposed many times with regards to spreading misinformation and propaganda. Examples of misinformation from mainstream media keep pouring out, and there’s little doubt in the eyes of many that they are simply being used to push a false narrative, and have been doing so on many different topics for a long time.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. … It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernay’s (Propaganda 128)

The latest example of perception manipulation comes with regards to alternative treatments for the new coronavirus that have appeared to generate some success, at least enough that should warrant a joint investigation by multiple countries and health organizations. Instead of that happening, ridicule is instantly created using big media, and casting doubt on these alternate treatments ensues. This, to me, appears to be a very clever business tactic.

What’s even more alarming is the fact that the world’s leading epidemiologists, scientists, and many doctors are being banned from YouTube and other social media platforms for simply sharing their research and opinions, many of which go against that of our federal health regulatory organizations and The World Health Organization (WHO).

These days, it’s big business that regulates and controls what is deemed to be “the cure” or “the treatment.” This doesn’t seem to be a battle to stop Covid-19 as much as much as it seems to be a battle to exaggerate the danger and harms of Covid-19, as well as market the vaccine as the only possible solution, as the only thing without question that has any potential to work. But this simply isn’t true.

Why are people like Bill Gates becoming our health authority, why are some countries attacking the WHO? Why is there a digital “fact-checker” going around the internet? Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Should people not have the right to examine information, sources, expert opinions and evidence openly and freely and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t? What’s really going on here?

Events like this pandemic only serve the collective and encourage people to ask more questions. It helps them see and become more aware of the corruption our world is dealing with, and has been dealing with for a long time. In order to stop it, we must first at the very least become aware of it. This process has been taking place for quite some time now, and gets more intense every single day, month and year.

Who are the treatments below ridiculed? Why does the mainstream claim they have no legitimacy when clearly, they do? Instead we are told to wear masks like our lives depend on it. You can read more about the legitimacy of masks with regards to fighting the new coronavirus, here.

This does not mean that these are cures, they are simply examples of low risk treatments for coronavirus patients that have, again shown potential and success, which means they should have been openly explored by our health authorities, not ridiculed.

Vitamin C. Any Legitimacy?

Vitamin C has been completely ignored as being a substance of great use during this pandemic, and for health and other ailments in general. More than once did mainstream media and fact-checkers claim that there is no evidence whatsoever that Vitamin C could be of some assistance, but this simply isn’t true.

A doctor who was seeing success with it on Covid-19 patients recently had his practice raided by the FBI as a result of using it. You can read more about that here.

Meanwhile in China, Dr. Zhi Yong Peng, a professor and the Chief of Critical Care Medicine at Zhongnan Hospital, in Wuhan, China, recently explained how  treating COVID-19 patients with high dose intravenous vitamin C has been successful. He is the principle investigator for “Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia” (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. The article was written by Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist from Shanghai, China. Dr. Cheng has been updating everyone via his YouTube channel about vitamin C treatment cases out of China for quite some time now. The published article explains how 50 moderate to severe Covid-19 cases have been successfully treated with intravenous vitamin C.

Multiple hospitals in New York were noticing that it was helping as well. You can read more about that here.

Again, instead of health authority figures coming together to examine this kind of thing, it’s instant ridicule and condemnation without any investigation. This doesn’t seem right? Why aren’t we working together? Why are big business interests coming before people’s health? This isn’t anything new.

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine along with Zinc have also made a lot of noise. Dr. Anthony Cardillo, an ER specialist and CEO of Mend Urgent Care explained the treatment combination he is seeing great success with or severe COVID patients. He has been prescribing the zinc and hydroxychloroquine combination on patients experiencing severe symptoms associated with COVID-19, and he’s not the only one. You can read more about that here.

Professor Didier Raoult from France not long ago published his early results for Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. 973 patients out of 1063, according to him, have shown “a good clinical outcome.” You can read more about that and find other examples, here.

President Trump has even taken this treatment, along with others within the political realm like the president of El Salvador, for example.

This drug was never considered dangerous, all of a sudden, it is now? Why?

Herbs in Madagascar

Tremendous success has been seen in Covid-19 patients in Madagascar. In an and interview with FRANCE 24 and RFI, Madagascar’s President Andry Rajoelina defended his promotion of a controversial homegrown remedy for Covid-19 despite an absence of clinical trials. “It works really well,” he said of the herbal drink “Covid-Organics.” They are, as the president expressed, herbs that have been brewed to extract their medicinal properties. He explains that his country has been doing things this way for a very long time, and they’ve always worked.

You can learn more about that by watching an interview with him here.

The discussion also goes into the western pharmaceutical lobby, which is quite large. Vimeo also recently banned a documentary showing the strong influence that pharmaceutical companies have on the WHO. This type of thing gained a lot more attention years ago when Wikileaks released documents showing a great deal for concern with regards to pharmaceutical influence within the WHO.

The pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (source)

The Takeaway

Many would compare what’s going on today as a medical tyranny. It’s powerful, and in my opinion it’s one of the main causes of poor health and dangerous medicines. What’s happening in the world of medicine, from business to academia is being exposed more and more everyday. At the end of the day, this type of system needs people who believe in it. Our perception, our own consciousness has been manipulated to accept a system that greatly harms and oppresses our full potential. Imagine a world we we all explored cures and treatments for various diseases based on what works best, instead of finding a way to somehow own it, and sell it. We have the potential to do a lot better than what we are doing. Big business and control is standing in the way, and we are the tools the use to sustain their business model. The more of us that snap out of it, the closer we get to creating something completely new and effective, and something that is a true representation of our potential to treat and heal the sick.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Neurosurgeon Explains How Masks “Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Russel Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, and former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center shares his thoughts on wearing masks for the new coronavirus.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has so much controversy surrounded this pandemic? Why is one side going really hard to ridicule another? Why is there so much censorship of information?

There are a number of weird facts and pieces of evidence that’ve emerged regarding the new coronavirus which are putting into question the measures we have taken, and are taking as a collective. One major theme during this outbreak seems to be the fact that not everything that we’re being told within the mainstream is true. For example, there have been multiple credible sources explaining how Covid-19 deaths have been inflated. For example, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, recently stated that, even if it’s clear one died of an alternative cause, their death will still be marked as a COVID death. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths amid complaints that it inflated numbers. This has been a common theme throughout the US as well as the World. A few recent studies have also pointed out that what we are seeing here infection fatality rate wise, is something within the ball park of a seasonal flu. You can read more about that here.

Controversy has also surrounded testing kits. Tanzania’s President John Magufuli has dismissed imported coronavirus testing kits as faulty, saying they returned positive results on samples taken from a goat and a pawpaw. This made no sense at all and suggests foul play. Testing kits in the recent past have also been found to be contaminated with bacteria or Covid-19 itself. You can read more about that here.

Complimenting this type of information comes statements from people like Edward Snowden, emphasizing that governments are using this to push more authoritarian measures on the citizenry that will remain in place just as they did after 9/11.

As a result of new information, mainstream media has started a massive ridicule campaign of any type of information that opposes or provides another narrative to that of the World Health Organization (WHO).

We have to ask ourselves, why is this information our there? What does it mean? And why is there such a tremendous effort to ridicule it? What’s really going on here? When the world’s leading scientists and epidemiologists get censored from social media platforms for sharing their research and opinion, yet people like Bill Gates become our health authority, that should immediately set off some red flags and raise questions.

Should people not have the right for themselves to examine information and evidence and determine for themselves what is real and what is not?

Not only have social distancing and lockdown measures been heavily criticized, so to has the idea of wearing a mask, something that’s being promoted and recommended by various health authorities.

Below are a few recent articles on the subject that we’ve already published if you’re interested:

Study Finds That Cloth Masks Can Increase Healthcare Workers Risk of Infection

Masks: Are There Benefits or Just a Comfort Prop? Let the Facts Speak

One of the latest to offer their opinion on the matter is Dr. Russel Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, and former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

Below was a piece written by him that was originally published at Technocracy.

“By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” — Russell Blaylock, MD

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.   Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.  Repeated episodes of hypoxia have been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!