Connect with us

Awareness

New Research Shows Another Strong Connection Between Vaccines & Autism

Published

on

By J.B. Handley, Co-Founder, Generation Rescue and Board Member, World Mercury Project

In a brand new published study, the only science vouching for the “safety” of injected aluminum adjuvant has come under extreme criticism by heavyweight scientists. Dr. Robert J. Mitkus — author of the misleading aluminum safety study from 2011 — could change the autism debate forever by telling the truth.

advertisement - learn more

While you were (hopefully) enjoying the winter holidays, a study was published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (it went online on December 27th) that could change the autism debate permanently. In fact, this new study placed the burden of proof for the safety of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines so squarely on the shoulders of a lone FDA scientist — Dr. Robert J. Mitkus — that he alone could permanently change the outcome of the autism debate. Forever.

Aluminum science is moving at light speed

Science moves at a glacial pace. By scientific standards, what has been learned about the aluminum adjuvant from vaccines in just the past few years has been genuinely revolutionary, and should scare the daylights out of every parent on the planet. Mystifyingly, the first time ANYONE decided to test the impact, biologically, of aluminum adjuvant was 2007, where it was pioneered by Dr. Christopher Shaw at the University of British Columbia. I’ll let him explain:

It’s hard to put Dr. Shaw’s work in proper context. Our public health officials, signing off on a massive growth in the number of vaccines given to children, and therefore massive growth in the amount of injected aluminum, had never conducted biological studies to assess the safety of aluminum, which allowed Dr. Shaw to do something groundbreaking in 2007.

It also raises an obvious question: what have our regulatory agencies been relying upon to assess the safety of injected aluminum?

advertisement - learn more

The answer: a single study published in 2011 by Dr. Robert J. Mitkus in the journal Vaccine.

About Dr. Mitkus

Dr. Robert J. Mitkus is a Computational Toxicologist in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. He’s held that position since 2010. He’s also an adjunct professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Maryland. Previously, Dr. Mitkus was a “Mammalian Toxicologist” for the EPA, he received a Ph.D. in Toxicology from the University of Maryland in 2004.
Dr. Mitkus’ published study, “Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination” from 2011 is the Gold standard and the primary document the FDA relies upon to declare injected aluminum safe for use in infants. It is, quite literally, the SOLE defense the FDA and CDC cite for any concerns raised about injected aluminum. In fact, Dr. Mitkus’ study was in part a response to safety concerns about aluminum, as he writes in the Abstract of his study:

“Because concerns have been expressed by the public that aluminum in vaccines may pose a risk to infants, we developed an up-to-date analysis of the safety of aluminum adjuvants.”

As you can guess, Dr. Mitkus’ paper gave aluminum the “all clear” sign.

“…for infants, our study demonstrates that there is little risk for aluminum toxicity following immunizations administered according to ACIP recommendations even with maximal exposures to aluminum adjuvant. For the general population of infants, who receive less than the maximal dose, the risk is even lower.”

To the layperson, this study would probably be reassuring. To scientists who are closely studying the issue of injected aluminum adjuvant, and particularly to scientists who are doing their own biological studies of aluminum adjuvant, Dr. Mitkus’ study is somewhere between a professional disgrace and a fraudulent disaster, but I’ll let them explain.

Aluminum: A Primer

Recent science, completed all over the world, is pointing the finger at aluminum adjuvant injected into newborns as the probable cause of autism. Here’s a simple graphic to explain what has been learned:

Source: Vaccine Papers

I have written extensively about this topic, most recently just a few weeks ago.

In a nutshell, scientists all over the world have learned the following about aluminum adjuvant, most of it since 2010 (not a single one of these new discoveries or published studies was considered in Dr. Mitkus’ paper).

  1. From Canada, 2012“Aluminum (Al) is highly neurotoxic and has been shown to impair both prenatal and postnatal brain development in humans and experimental animals.”
  2. From France, 2013“However, continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier…”
  3. From France, 2015“Thus alum and other poorly biodegradable materials taken up at the periphery by phagocytes circulate in the lymphatic and blood circulation and can enter the brain using a Trojan horse mechanism similar to that used by infectious particles. Previous experiments have shown that alum administration can cause CNS dysfunction and damage, casting doubts on the exact level of alum safety.”
  4. From France, 2016“We conclude that Alhydrogel [aluminum adjuvant] injected at low dose in mouse muscle may selectively induce long-term Al cerebral accumulation and neurotoxic effects.”
  5. From England, 2017“The amount of aluminum in the brain tissue was, I would say, extraordinarily high. Very high. 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. The only ones we’ve seen that are similar were a recent study of familial Alzheimer’s. This in itself is a very important finding.”

So, versus ten years ago, scientists now know that aluminum adjuvant, when injected, can 1) impair brain development, 2) remain in the brain much longer than thought, 3) is brought into the brain by macrophages that grab the aluminum from the vaccine injection site and recirculate it, 4) may actually be worse when injected in small doses repeatedly (like it’s done during vaccination), and 4) there’s remarkably high levels of aluminum in the brains of people diagnosed with autism. Dr. Chris Exley, the author of this most recent study (#5, and the subject of my recent article) was so moved by the results of his study he said the following:

“I did not see a role for aluminum in autism. And I didn’t see a role for aluminum in vaccines in autism. I have to change my mind now on both of these. I have to change my mind that aluminum has a role in autism, I believe it now does. Now, because I have seen the same cells that we will see at an injection site carrying a cargo of aluminum into the brain tissue of individuals who died with autism I would now say that we have to think very carefully about who receives a vaccine that includes an aluminum adjuvant. We need to think carefully, is this vaccine a life-saving vaccine or not? If it isn’t, don’t have it with an aluminum adjuvant.”

Below is Dr. Chris Exley. He’s arguably the world’s leading expert on aluminum neurotoxicology. He just said he’d shy away from any vaccines containing aluminum. He now also believes “aluminum has a role in autism.” These are revolutionary things for scientists to be saying, and they’re being said by the leading scientists in their field.

It’s a video of him discussing his recent study.

One of the other leading aluminum scientists, Dr. Romain Gherardi, went on T.V. in France recently to talk about his work, the work that found vaccine aluminum showing up in the brain, and staying there. He was a lead or co-author of all three of the papers from France I cited above. Just listen:

I wanted you to get a feel for Drs. Gherardi and Exley, and to hear from them directly. I want you to understand that these are two of the leading aluminum scientists in the world. I need you to appreciate the “weight” of their words, because then my comment makes more sense.

If science were pro wrestling, then Drs. Gherardi and Exley just body-slammed Dr. Robert Mitkus and his 2011 study so badly, he may never get up off the canvas.

Dr. Mitkus’ Paper — scientists are “empty handed”

What would be lost on the average layperson trying to make some sense of Dr. Mitkus’ work is the reality that the only biological science Dr. Mitkus considered in making his safety assessment was a single study that infused (rather than injected) aluminum citrate (rather than aluminum hydroxide) into adults (rather than babies). At least Mitkus acknowledges this difference in the paper, noting “The determinations of the kinetics of aluminum retention by Priest were based on experiments where human volunteers were given an intravenous injection of aluminum citrate. For vaccines, the injection is intramuscular, the aluminum is in an insoluble form (e.g., as the phosphate or hydroxide of aluminum), and muscle at the site of injection is considered to be a storage depot for aluminum.” It’s hard to put this seemingly minor detail in proper context:

In no other drug on the planet (except for vaccines) would safety standards ever be determined without using the actual product (aluminum hydroxide) administered in the proper way (intramuscular injection), into the proper patient population (infants). Of course, we now know that doing so has triggered devastating results (just ask Dr. Shaw, above).

Vaccine Papers, an excellent resource on this topic, provides some additional perspective on Dr. Mitkus’ study, citing one of its “fatal flaws”:

“The MRL [minimal risk level for aluminum] is derived from feeding experiments with aluminum salts, not experiments with injected aluminum adjuvant. The safety of injected aluminum adjuvant must be determined from experiments with injected aluminum adjuvant (insoluble and persistent), not ingested, water-soluble aluminum. Scientific studies have established that injected aluminum adjuvant has unique toxic properties and ways of moving around the body (“kinetics”) that are not the same as ingested water-soluble aluminum.”

And, Vaccine Papers provides a final refutation:

“Mitkus 2011 is the best scientific evidence vaccine promoters have for defending Al adjuvant safety. It is fatally flawed and incredibly bad. It is not based on any toxicity experiments with actual Al adjuvant. It ignores key studies that contradict the assumptions it is based on. And yet, government agencies (FDA, CDC) and vaccine promoters cite it as powerful and conclusive evidence of safety. Aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles are very different from dissolved aluminum ions. Consequently, the only scientifically-valid way to establish the safety of injected aluminum adjuvant, is by experiments with injected aluminum adjuvant. Studies of ingested, soluble aluminum salts cannot establish the safety of Al adjuvant. Models of only dissolved aluminum cannot be used to determine the toxicity of the particles. Ignoring the toxicity of Al adjuvant particles is scientifically indefensible. Why do the vaccine promoters rely on oral-ingestion studies to defend Al adjuvant safety? It is because they have no experimental research showing that injecting Al adjuvant is safe! They are empty-handed.”

In 2016, Neil Miller published a study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons called “Aluminum in childhood vaccines is unsafe” where he too disassembled Dr. Mitkus’ study, stating it had “major flaws” including the fact that Dr. Mitkus studied “dietary aluminum fed to mice” and reiterated that, “to determine the safety of injected aluminum, scientists must conduct experiments with injected — not ingested — aluminum.” Miller concluded:

“Aluminum adjuvants are added to several vaccines to elicit a more robust immune response and increase vaccine efficacy. Infants and young children throughout the world receive high quantities of aluminum from multiple inoculations. Incremental changes to the vaccination schedule during the past several years significantly increased the quantity of aluminum in childhood shots. Numerous studies provide compelling evidence that injected aluminum can be detrimental to health. Aluminum is capable of remaining in cells long after vaccination and may cause neurologic and autoimmune disorders. During early development, the child’s brain is more susceptible to toxins and the kidneys are less able to eliminate them. Thus, children have a greater risk than adults of adverse reactions to aluminum in vaccines.”

The Body-Slam: “Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants”

Just one week ago, this highly critical study of the safety standards used for vaccine aluminum adjuvant was published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. The study, “Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants” addressed the limitations of studies relied upon, in particular Dr. Mitkus’ study, by both the FDA and the CDC, to declare vaccine aluminum “safe” to be injected into children. The study authors included the aforementioned Dr. Romain Gherardi, and Dr. Chris Exley. They explained:

“To date, aluminum adjuvants per se have, perhaps surprisingly, not been the subject of any official experimental investigation, and this being in spite of the well-established neurotoxicity of aluminum.”

The study authors also mention a laundry list of countries who have produced studies implicating aluminum-containing vaccines in chronic illness:

“The occurrence of myalgia and arthralgia, chronic fatigue and neurological disorders following multiple injections of aluminum-containing vaccines against hepatitis B, tetanus and human papilloma virus (HPV) has been reported in many countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, and USA.”

The study authors made many of the same criticisms of Dr. Mitkus’ work that I have shared with you above from Vaccine Papers and Neil Miller. But, they did so in a prestigious journal, and they did so with the weight of their collective backgrounds. It would be a bit like Warren Buffet telling you that your business is a poor investment. The gist of their paper? None of the studies done to date on aluminum safety would properly answer if aluminum is in fact safe. (Remember, in all cases, the study authors of this paper have done their own biological studies of aluminum adjuvant, and found it to be highly neurotoxic.) Their conclusion:

“Both paucity and serious weaknesses of reference studies strongly suggest that novel experimental studies of Al adjuvants toxicokinetics should be performed on the long-term, including both neonatal and adult exposures, to ensure their safety and restore population confidence in Al-containing vaccines.”

Words like “paucity” and “serious weaknesses” are not words you want to hear when you are the CDC or the FDA, certifying that something is safe when it appears that’s not remotely true. Dr. Mitkus, are you listening?

The “Big 6” of aluminum science have stepped forward, changing everything

At great potential cost to their careers, it appears that six scientists — none American — have stepped forward to sound the alarm loudly about the extreme danger of aluminum, and perhaps initiate a reckoning of the true cause of the autism epidemic once and for all. Dr. Chris Exley of Keele University; Drs. Romain Gherardi and Guillemette Crepea of Université Paris Est Créteil; Drs. Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic of the University of British Columbia; and Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld of Tel Aviv University have all contributed to the understanding we now have of aluminum, and the way it appears uniquely able to trigger immune activation events in the brains of certain children, leading to autism. Looking at some of their quotes collectively will help you appreciate how bold their statements really are. This new scientific understanding of aluminum changes everything. For me personally, I feel like I finally have a plausible explanation for what happened to my son.

“Now, because I have seen the same cells that we will see at an injection site carrying a cargo of aluminum into the brain tissue of individuals who died with autism I would now say that we have to think very carefully about who receives a vaccine that includes an aluminum adjuvant. We need to think carefully, is this vaccine a life-saving vaccine or not? If it isn’t, don’t have it with an aluminum adjuvant.”—Dr. Chris Exley, Keele University (England), 2017

“Concerns about its [alum’s] safety emerged following recognition of its unexpectedly long-lasting biopersistence within immune cells in some individuals, and reports of chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive dysfunction, myalgia, dysautonomia and autoimmune/inflammatory features temporally linked to multiple Al-containing vaccine administrations…In the context of massive development of vaccine-based strategies worldwide, the present study may suggest that aluminium adjuvant toxicokinetics and safety require reevaluation.” — Dr. Guillemette Crépeaux, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort (France), 2016

“Thus alum and other poorly biodegradable materials taken up at the periphery by phagocytes circulate in the lymphatic and blood circulation and can enter the brain using a Trojan horse mechanism similar to that used by infectious particles. Previous experiments have shown that alum administration can cause CNS [central nervous system] dysfunction and damage, casting doubts on the exact level of alum safety.”- Dr. Romain K. Gherardi, Université Paris-Est Créteil (France), 2015

“…it is somewhat surprising to find that in spite of over 80 years of use, the safety of Al adjuvants continues to rest on assumptions rather than scientific evidence. For example, nothing is known about the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Al adjuvants in infants and children…Yet, in spite of these observations children continue regularly to be exposed to much higher levels of Al adjuvants than adults, via routine childhood vaccination programmes.” — Dr. Chris Shaw, University of British Columbia (Canada), 2012

“continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier.” — Dr. Romain Gherardi, Université Paris-Est Créteil (France), 2013

“Experimental research has showed that alum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. Thus, efforts should be put in clarifying the potential threat of alum-containing vaccines.”- Dr. Yehuda Shoefeld, Tel-Aviv University (Israel), 2013

“The problem with vaccine- derived aluminum is really twofold: It drives the immune response even in the absence of a viral or bacterial threat and it can make its way into the central nervous system. It is not really a matter of much debate that aluminum in various forms can be neurotoxic.” — Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, University of British Columbia (Canada), 2013

What can Dr. Robert J. Mitkus do?

I firmly believe that Dr. Robert J. Mitkus, a federal employee of the FDA, can help unravel the autism mess. All he needs to do is tell the truth. He needs to admit that these scientists are right, that the paper being relied upon to vouch for the safety of injected aluminum that he wrote in 2011 is inadequate, in light of much more recent science about aluminum adjuvant, and that the regulatory agencies need to heed the warnings of these scientists, as they explained so eloquently in their recently published paper. It’s time for honest scientists to step up and do the right thing.

Addendum:

Here are two slides developed by the website Vaccine Papers that help explain the aluminum-autism connection, you can get your own copy right HERE.

J.B. Handley is the father of a child with Autism. He and his wife co-founded Generation Rescue, a national autism charity. He spent his career in the private equity industry and received his undergraduate degree with honors from Stanford University. He is also the author of “The Only Vaccine Guide a New Parent Will Ever Need” , An Angry Father’s Guide to Vaccine-Autism Science”, and “7 reasons CDC employees should be “crying in the hallways

 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

What If Everything We Know About Depression Was Wrong? [Video]

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    There is a lot more to depression than currently meets the eye. If it is a chemical imbalance in the brain, then there is still something that is causing it. It's time to dig deeper and shed some light on this issue that affects millions worldwide.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we more depressed now more than ever? Our current society isn't set up for us all to have a fair chance of living the best possible life imaginable.

It is no secret, the amount of people who are suffering from mild to severe depression is astronomical, at an all-time high. In fact, the World Health Organization estimates that over 300 Million people around the world have some form of depression. Not to mention many sufferers go undiagnosed. What is going on here? Science tells us that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, but why are we seeing the rise illness at such alarming rates? Perhaps, it’s time to rethink what we think we know about depression.

Is it possible that it is not our brains that are causing us to be depressed, but rather our society? We do not have our basic needs met, we have to work hard to afford to live, often doing jobs in which we have no passion for. We have debt that keeps us completely enslaved to this whole never-ending cycle, and through all this, we are expected to be feel good?

Whether we are working a job with a 6-figure salary or a minimum wage job, many of us are still depressed. Money won’t make us happy, although this is what we are often led to believe. Even those pulling in large salaries find it difficult to find the time to spend with their families, or do something that they are passionate about or brings them joy.

Why are we the only species on the planet that has to pay for our food, water, and shelter? This is such a simple question that is rarely asked.

Now this isn’t to say we blame our society for how we feel, because ultimately WE have control over how we feel. It’s simply that our environment makes it no easier. True peace, is found within, yet our society is pushed to be so distracted that we find little time to go within and find that peace. Instead we’re in constant survival mode.

Opening Up The Dialogue

The video below is a brilliant explanation by author, Johann Hari. He describes an alternate view of what is really causing us to be so depressed in the first place. He has suffered from depression as well and was convinced that this issue was all in his head — the chemical imbalance we hear so much about. He felt it was a sign of weakness and was ashamed of his condition.

advertisement - learn more

After being prescribed anti-depressant medication and being on the highest dose possible, Hari was still suffering. This is what led him to realize that there had to be more to this issue than a chemical imbalance. After all, what kept causing these feelings to reemerge?

Check out the video below to hear the insight he’s gained after years of studying the true causes of depression.

Where Do We Go From Here?

By talking about this issue, in-depth, and opening up this dialogue, perhaps we can gain new insight in regards to what we can actually do to begin to try and solve this problem. We don’t have to live a life of despair and hopelessness, there are solutions to this issue and at the very least it’s worth a shot, especially when it seems as though all else has failed.

If there is a chemical imbalance within the brain, something has caused that, and as said in the video, there are a number of different things that may be contributing to that. Lack of nature, connection, purpose, holding on to grief, shame, and trauma. As mentioned, we also spend little time turning within and truly reflecting on self. This is probably the greatest relief found in moving beyond depression.

Can we find out what is truly ailing us in order to let it go so we can move on with our lives and thrive as we were meant to?

Much Love

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

U.S. Hesitates To Approve Resolution To Promote Breastfeeding In Order To Protect Corporate Interests

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    At a World Health Organization meeting, The U. S. Delegation was the sole objector to a resolution to encourage breast-feeding, in favor of corporate interests.

  • Reflect On:

    When will we, as a collective, be able to take our power back from corporations so that they can no longer have a negative influence on the health and well-being of humanity?

Let me know if you’ve seen this playing out in the geopolitical arena before:

  1. A proposal is made to a large governing body that is in the interests of humanity
  2. A state power objects because the proposal is not in the particular interests of corporate sponsors of that state power
  3. A battle ensues, where the virtually self-evident truths of what is of interest to humanity are countered by arguments of cunning deceptive pretense
  4. Whoever is most powerful wins the battle regardless of the cogency or sincerity of their respective arguments

Familiar? Sure it is. It plays out weekly in the headlines, across a swath of issues of human concern: our health, safety, freedom, and prosperity. Let’s take a look at the latest example concerning a breastfeeding resolution made recently to the World Health Organization.

1. The Proposal

According to this New York Times article, a resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly. Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Elisabeth Sterken, director of the Infant Feeding Action Coalition in Canada, said four decades of research have established the importance of breast milk, which provides essential nutrients as well as hormones and antibodies that protect newborns against infectious disease.

2016 study in The Lancet found that universal breast-feeding would prevent 800,000 child deaths a year across the globe and yield $300 billion in savings from reduced health care costs and improved economic outcomes for those reared on breast milk.

It is a matter of debate whether the World Health Organization is fundamentally working on behalf of humanity, but in the case of this resolution, it appears that its passing would clearly have both health and economic benefits for the people of the planet.

advertisement - learn more

2. The Objection

Before the resolution was brought to the floor the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations. American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversations. However the Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained in an email that,

“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children. We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.”

Ah, the care and concern over human welfare by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services is heart-warming, especially as an organization so fastidiously sucking the golden teet of large corporations.

3. The Battle

Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was first confronted by the American delegation. If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. In addition to the trade threats, Todd C. Chapman, the United States ambassador to Ecuador, suggested in meetings with officials in Quito, the Ecuadorean capital, that the Trump administration might also retaliate by withdrawing the military assistance it has been providing in northern Ecuador, a region wracked by violence spilling across the border from Colombia, according to an Ecuadorean government official who took part in the meeting.

The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced. The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States. Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico, and the United States.

During the deliberations, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contribution to the W.H.O., several negotiators said. Washington is the single largest contributor to the health organization, providing $845 million, or roughly 15 percent of its budget, last year.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s. “What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.

4. The Outcome

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them. A Russian delegate said the decision to introduce the breast-feeding resolution was a matter of principle.

“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” said the delegate, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

He said the United States did not directly pressure Moscow to back away from the measure. Nevertheless, the American delegation sought to wear down the other participants through procedural maneuvers in a series of meetings that stretched on for two days, an unexpectedly long period.

The final resolution preserved most of the original wording, though American negotiators did get language removed that called on the W.H.O. to provide technical support to member states seeking to halt “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children.” The United States also insisted that the words “evidence-based” accompany references to long-established initiatives that promote breast-feeding, which critics described as a ploy that could be used to undermine programs that provide parents with feeding advice and support.

Theatre Of The Absurd

It is worth reading the New York Times article itself to see that, while it does clearly lay out the egregious abuse of power that corporations can bring to the political area, the main purpose of the article was to blame Donald Trump for the entire arsenal of strong-arm tactics, even framing the corporations fundamentally as bystanders.

If you are able to disentangle the anti-Trump rhetoric, what you will find underneath is a kind of ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ playing out in front of our eyes, again and again, where there is a clash between good (in the interests of humanity) and evil (in the interests of the few). I can’t help but think that at some transcendent level, this drama continues to play over and over again in the media to somehow wake us up to this reality we have been condoning; that we as a collective have been willing to give our power over to corporations to act against the best interests of humanity simply for their own profit.

If so, it’s time for us, as individuals and as a collective, to take our power back and create a world where large corporate entities are dissolved or stripped of the power to continue to negatively impact the health and well-being of humanity.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Nearly 1/3 Of Early Deaths Could Be Prevented By Giving Up Meat, Says Harvard

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    More and more evidence is emerging that highlights the tremendous benefits of adopting a plant-based diet. This lifestyle can have a drastic impact on our environment, animal welfare and our health.

  • Reflect On:

    What small changes could you make in your diet today to protect yourself from easily preventable diseases? Why is it that we are so addicted to meat to begin with? Have you considered at least cutting down meat intake?

Whether it be from a place of compassion, growing concern for environmental sustainability or a more thorough understanding of what it really means to be healthy, one thing is clear — more and more people are cutting out or at least cutting back on meat and other animal products, and for good reason. Scientists from the University of Harvard have found that at least one-third of all early deaths could be prevented if everyone moved over to a vegetarian diet.

Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard Medical School says that the overwhelming evidence in regards to the benefits of a plant-based diet has been extremely underrated.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that around 24 percent or, 141,000 deaths each year in Britain were entirely preventable, the majority of those numbers were due to smoking, alcohol or obesity.

New figures from Harvard are now suggesting that at a minimum, 200,000 lives could be spared each year if people were to simply cut meat from their diets.

While speaking at the Unite to Cure Fourth International Vatican Conference in Vatican City, Dr. Willet said, “We have just been doing some calculations looking at the question of how much could we reduce mortality shifting towards a healthy, more plant-based diet, not necessarily totally vegan, and our estimates are about one-third of deaths could be prevented.

“That’s not even talking about physical activity or not smoking, and that’s all deaths, not just cancer deaths. That’s probably an underestimate as well as that doesn’t take into account the fact that obesity is important and we control for obesity.

advertisement - learn more

“When we start to look at it we see that healthy diet is related to a lower risk of almost everything that we look at. Perhaps not too surprising because everything in the body is connected by the same underlying processes.”

Another speaker at the conference, British-born Professor, David Jenkins of the University of Toronto, credited with developing the glycemic index, which outlines how carbohydrates impact blood sugar, also told the conference that the benefits of a plant-based diet have been ‘undersold.’

According to Jenkins, humans would do better by following a “simiam” diet, similar to that of lowland gorillas who eat stems, leaves, vines, and fruits compared to the increasingly popular “paleo” diet, which cuts out carbohydrates and encourages regular consumption of meat.

Where’s The Science?

Dr. Jenkins and his team recently teamed up with The Bronx Zoo in New York and traveled to central Africa to research and record the feeding habits of gorillas.

After recreating the diet for humans, translating to 63 servings of fruit and vegetables a day, they observed a 35 percent fall in cholesterol in only two weeks, which is the equivalent of taking statins.

“That was quite dramatic,” he said, “We showed that there was no real difference between what we got with the diet and what we got with a statin.”

Statins are a prescription drug that is often prescribed by doctors to patients with high cholesterol in an attempt to stave off heart disease. Nearly 15.5 million people are currently eligible for statins equating most men over 60 and most women over 65. Because of side effects, many prefer not to or stop taking the drugs — what if the answer was much more simple the whole time?

According to Dr. Jenkins, “We’re saying you’ve got a choice, you can change your diet to therapeutically meaningful change or you can take a statin. Drug or diet.”

President of the Committee for Responsible Medicine has also stated that people need to wake up to the health benefits of a plant-based diet.

“I think we’re underestimating the effect,” he told delegates. “I think people imagine that a healthy diet has only a modest effect and a vegetarian diet might help you lose a little bit of weight. But when these diets are properly constructed I think they are enormously powerful.

“A low-fat vegan diet is better than any other diet I have ever seen for improving diabetes. With regards to inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, we are seeing tremendous potential there too. Partly because of things we are avoiding and cholesterol but also because of the magical things that are in vegetables and fruits which just aren’t in spam.”

Not Sure If A Plant-Based Lifestyle Is Right For You?

Vegetarianism and veganism is no longer a fad or a hipster trend — the benefits, for our environment, to learn to live compassionately towards all beings and for our health are countless and evidence is only growing. With more and more plant-based alternatives, vegetarian restaurants, recipe blogs and a large growing community, it has never been easier to consider cutting back on meat and other animal products.

If it is too drastic for you to just cut out these products altogether, that’s fine in the short term. By starting small, perhaps by making one day a week a meatless day, be it Meatless Monday, or some other day, you can begin to get a feel for plant-based recipes and meals that could be a nice segue for your transition. From there, you may want to consider something called Reducetarianism, which is pretty much what it sounds, drastically lowering your consumption of meat and other animal products. Often when people think about adopting a plant-based diet they start to think of all of the things that they will no longer be able to have.

Well, fortunately, this isn’t an all-or-nothing type of scenario; by significantly lowering your consumption of these products you are still making a huge difference. You can eat a primarily plant-based diet and eat your grass-fed, ethically raised steak, too — if that’s your thing.

These rules aren’t set in stone, play around with it, start incorporating more fruits and veggies, taking days off meat, find what works best for you and your lifestyle! You may find that the less meat you are eating the more in tune with your body you are and the easier it is to see what makes you feel good and what doesn’t.

Have you recently made the transition to a plant-based diet? We’d love to get the discussion going over at the CE Community on Facebook.

Much Love


Related CE Articles

Why I’m A Weekday Vegetarian (Video)

Would You Go Vegan To Save The World? New Study Suggests It’s The Best Option

If You Think A Plant-Based Diet Means Eating Salad & Broccoli All Day Then Read This

Why Veganism In The U.S. Has Grown 600% In The Past 3 Years

Why Killing Animals For Food Will Soon Be A Thing Of The Past — According To Richard Branson

Everything You Need To Know About Getting your Protein From Plants

Studies Show What Happens To Hear When You Go Vegan Or Vegetarian

Federal Report Finds Plant-Based Diet Is Best: The Meat Industry Is Not Happy About It

And countless others…. HERE.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!