Connect with us


Depression Is Not A Prozac Deficiency & Other Fallacies of Western Medicine



This article was written by Ali Le Vere for It’s republished here with their permission. For more information from Greenmedinfo, you can sign up for the newsletter here.

advertisement - learn more

When people come to me for holistic health advice, my main objective is to provide evidence-based health information supported by the scientific literature. One of the quintessential pillars of my mission is to share those practices with empirical validation in order to elevate therapeutic nutrition to the same perceived mainstream legitimacy as any other science-based discipline.

Oftentimes, however, people thank me and say that they will see what their primary care physician, or worse yet, their specialist, has to say about it. Although I always advocate that you run any intervention or modality past a licensed physician for contraindications and medical advice, I can’t help but flat-out cringe when they tell me they will solicit natural health advice from their allopathic doctor, due to the shortcomings of biomedical education in true lifestyle- and diet-based preventative medicine.

Truth be told, anything other than the provision of surgery or drugs is simply not the wheelhouse of a conventional provider. More often than not, an endocrinologist will not be versed in the use of selenium with myo-inositol to return TSH to normal concentrations in Hashimoto’s patients with subclinical hypothyroidism (Nordio & Raffaella, 2013). It is similarly unlikely that a neurologist will prescribe cannabis, which is supported by the literature for migraine headaches, before resorting to more dangerous triptans, muscle relaxants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Baron, 2015). Nor will a cardiologist be familiar with the use of berberine from goldenseal to lower cholesterol, reduce hypertension, mitigate oxidative stress, and improve cardiometabolic parameters (Hunter & Hegele, 2017).

A rheumatologist is unlikely to be acquainted with the literature demonstrating that fasting ameliorates the manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus by enhancing populations of regulatory T cells, which invoke peripheral immune tolerance (Liu, Yu, Matarese, & La Cava, 2012). Likewise, most dermatologists will be unfamiliar with findings that high dose vitamin D in concert with a calcium-restricted diet results in dramatic clearance of skin lesions and significant re-pigmentation in psoriasis and vitiligo, respectively (Finamor et al., 2013). You would also be hard pressed to find a psychiatrist aware that a multi-center double-blind human study elucidated that passionflower extract reduces anxiety in generalized anxiety disorder as well as mexazolam, a benzodiazepine, or that rose oil exerts anxiolytic properties comparable to diazepam in an animal model (Mori et al., 1993; de Almeid et al., 2004).

Over the years, before my foray into functional medicine, I saw a revolving door of specialists, each compartmentalized into their respective silos, as a consequence of the Cartesian dualism and reductionism that prevails in conventional medicine. This isn’t my first time at the rodeo.

advertisement - learn more

I have been dismissed, demeaned, and downright disparaged when I have implicitly questioned the culturally constructed authority of the man in the white coat, who we anoint with almost religious reverence as the guardian of a sacred body of privileged knowledge. When I have brought abstracts from the scientific literature to their attention, I have at times been greeted with frank hostility if the findings presented contradicted their pre-existing beliefs, formulaic treatment algorithms, and literal indoctrination.

I have heard medical physicians attempt to masquerade misinformation as fact, stating that autoimmune disease is just luck of the draw and that it is un-related to diet and lifestyle variables, when in fact the scientific literature, such as an article published in the prestigious Public Library of Science One (PLoS One) entitled “Genetic factors are not the major causes of chronic diseases,” directly contradicts this claim. In fact, research has revealed that chronic disease is only 16.4% genetic, and 84.6% environmental (epigenetic and exposome-related) (Rappaport, 2016).

I have witnessed gastroenterologists tell patients with severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to eat whatever they want, and claim that ulcerative colitis is unrelated to the commensal gut flora, when studies have demonstrated that high potency, multi-strain probiotics such as VSL #3 used in conjunction with standard therapies result in remission in 93% of subjects compared to 36% of controls (Miele et al., 1999). I have had neurologists tell me straight-faced that Lyme disease is exceedingly rare, when in actuality, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the number of new cases each year is approaching 300,000, a number rivaling that of breast cancer (CDC, 2013).

Although medical doctors worship at the altar of evidence-based standards of care, they frequently engage in cognitive dissonance and confirmatory bias, as the mantle of science upon which they hang their hats and derive their legitimacy is anything but objective fact (Morris, Wooding, & Grant, 2011). This is underscored by studies which have demonstrated that there is an average 17 year lag time between what is illuminated in scientific research to be translated into clinical practice (Morris, Wooding, & Grant, 2011).

​​As catalogued in psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Brogan’s seminal book, A Mind of Your Own, a 2013 article from the Mayo Clinic Proceedings advocated that 40 percent of current medical practices should be completely discarded (Prasad et al., 2013; Brogan, 2016). Similarly, she cites how an analysis of Cochrane reviews, one of the highest forms of research, arrived at the conclusion that 62 percent of medical treatments were negative or had no evidentiary support for efficacy (Berman et al., 2001).

Likewise, Dr. Brogan (2016) highlights how a 2011 meta-analysis performed by theBritish Medical Journal of 2,500 medical treatments found that only 36 percent of treatments were likely to be beneficial (Garrow, 2007). Thus, when you receive care from a licensed medical physician, there is a 64 percent chance that you will receive a treatment that is neither scientifically supported to be beneficial nor likely to be beneficial (Garrow, 2007).

The flawed premise of the allopathic model is exemplified by a public statement Dr. Brogan unearthed from Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the esteemed scientific journal, the Lancet, who stated, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (Horton, 2015; Brogan, 2016).

The Fallacy of the Serotonin Theory of Depression

Especially culpable are the oncologists, profiteering off of the carcinogenic therapies of radiation and chemotherapy in the cancer industrial complex; however, the vast majority of allopathic physicians with whom I have interacted are peddling the silver bullet wares of Big Pharma and demonstrate little receptivity to deviance from their uniformly applied, algorithmic treatment approaches. I have encountered doctors within the medical fraternity with open minds, but by and large, due to the protocols and lenses through which they are trained to operate, medical doctors do not stray from their quick fix philosophies and magic bullet approaches.

For example, although there is no scientific validity to the serotonin deficiency hypothesis of depression, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac and Zoloft are administered like candy, with flagrant disregard for their long-term ramifications and adverse side effects (Brogan, 2016). In 2010 alone, 254 million prescriptions were written for antidepressants, and according to the Center for Disease Control, 1 in 10 Americans over age 12 takes antidepressants (Insel, 2011).

But everyone knows that depression is a chemical imbalance, right? Wrong. If you are wondering why everybody mindlessly repeats this mantra, engendering an echo chamber where everyone is thinking alike, yet no one is thinking—look no further than Big Pharma direct-to-consumer marketing.

According to Lacasse and Leo (2015), “Such advertisements [do] not accurately reflect the scientific status of the serotonin theory in the psychiatric research community” (p. 206). For instance, psychiatrist and historian Healy (2004), states, “Indeed, no abnormality of serotonin in depression has ever been demonstrated” (p.12). Instructor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Joseph Glenmullen, similarly articulates, “A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found” (Glenmullen, 2000, p.197).

Further, biochemist and Nobel Prize Winner Julus Axelrod concluded that, “Whatever was wrong in depression, it was not lowered serotonin” (Healy, 2004, p. 12). Another Nobel Prize winner, Avrid Carlson, likewise advocates abandonment of the over-simplified theory where a neurotransmitter excess or deficiency leads to mental illness given the lack of evidence to this effect (Shorter, 2009). In fact, as Dr. Brogan underscores in A Mind Of Your Own, animal studies, imaging studies, and human studies have never confirmed a link between neurotransmitter levels and depression (Brogan, 2016).

Northwestern University hospital psychiatrist David Kaiser states this most eloquently with, “…Patients have been diagnosed with ‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and there is no real conception of what a correct chemical imbalance would look like…Yet conclusions such as ‘depression is a biochemical imbalance’ are created out of nothing more than semantics and wishful thinking of scientists/psychiatrists and a public that will believe anything now that has the stamp of approval of medical science” (Kaiser, 1996).

In 2011, Ronald Pies, psychiatrist at Tufts University and former editor of the prestigious trade journal Psychiatric Times, explained that over-booked psychiatrists employ the chemical deficiency explanation to justify their dispensation of medication, knowing full well the inaccuracy of this theory (Lacasse & Leo, 2015). Pies states, “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well informed psychiatrists” (Lacasse & Leo, 2015). In 2014, Levine named this phenomena, “Psychiatry’s Manufacture of Consent”.

“My impression is that most psychiatrists who use this expression feel uncomfortable and a little embarrassed when they do so. It’s kind of a bumper-sticker phrase that saves time, and allows the physician to write out that prescription while feeling that the patient has been ‘educated'” (Pies, 2011).

The pharmaceutical industry has taken advantage of this erroneous serotonin deficiency theory in order to promote patient compliance with antidepressant medication regimens and to acquire lifetime users. Studies have shown that when depressed individuals are told that they have a confirmed deficiency of serotonin underlying their depression, they find the idea of antidepressant medication more credible than psychotherapy and also anticipate its effectiveness, ushering in a placebo effect (Deacon & Baird, 2009). However, outcomes suffer, as “They also had more pessimism about their prognosis and a lower perceived ability to regulate negative mood states, yet experienced no reduction in self-blame” (Lacasse & Leo, 2015, p. 208).

From a medical anthropology perspective, when you lift the veil on psychiatry, you discover the irreproducibility of diagnoses and their arbitrary nature, in that they are not based on objective biochemical biomarkers. The famous Rosenhan experiment, where subjects feigned hallucinations and then were admitted into psych wards, concluded that we cannot differentiate the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals, revealed the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnostic categories, and also illuminated the dehumanization produced by psychiatric labels (Rosenhan, 1973).

A Novel Model of Depression

Instead of being a discrete disease entity, depression is a symptom, like nausea, tremors, sweating, or a cough. The evidence points to an inflammatory cytokine model of depression, whereby inflammatory intercellular signaling molecules like interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, interferon (IFN) gamma, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, produced by the innate immune system, penetrate the blood brain barrier and create mood disorders including anxiety, panic attacks, and depression—which are symptomatic of systemic inflammatory processes (Dantzer, 2008).

In fact, elevations in inflammatory cytokines are observed in subjects with major depressive disorder, and a concomitant “resolution of a depressive episode is associated with normalization of levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines” (Hannestad, DellaGioia, & Bloch, 2011). Likewise, administration of the cytokines, such as IFN-gamma, which is given as a treatment for hepatitis C, induces a predictable major depressive episode in one fourth of patients (Udina et al., 2012).

The inflammatory model of depression is further buttressed by studies demonstrating that the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and TNF-alpha are significantly higher in depressed patients compared to controls (Dowlati et al., 2010). Further, inflammation, as indicated by elevations in serum high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), is an independent risk factor for de novo major depressive disorder in women, which researchers posit, “supports an aetiological role for inflammatory activity in the pathophysiology of depression” (Pasco et al., 2010, p. 372).

Another line of evidence is that the intravenous injection of Salmonella abortus equi endotoxin is accompanied by increased circulating levels of cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-alpha, the levels of which are significantly correlated with transient escalations in anxiety and depression (Reichenberg et al., 2001.

Beck et al. (2013) submits this and several other lines of evidence in his ground-breaking paper where he discusses that, “Depression is associated with a chronic, low-grade inflammatory response and activation of cell-mediated immunity… It is similarly accompanied by increased oxidative and nitrosative stress (O&NS), which contribute to neuroprogression in the disorder”. Rather than a Prozac or Zoloft deficiency, Beck (2013) provides scientific proof that depression is induced by systemic inflammation related to factors such as vitamin D deficiency, psychosocial stressors, smoking, obesity, nutrient-poor diets, a sedentary lifestyle, leaky gut, atopy, dental caries, and impaired sleep (Beck et al., 2013).

Cytokine induced sickness behavior—a more accurate description of clinical depression—is a phenomenon characterized by relapsing-remitting aches, pains, lethargy, apathy, loss of appetite, attenuation of parasympathetic tone, altered thermoregulation, flattening of diurnal rhythms (adrenal ‘fatigue’), and social withdrawal, which evolved as an adaptive mechanism to facilitate the retreat from society required for the body to slow down and heal (Dantzer, 2008).

This is the evolutionary reason behind the depression and self-imposed social isolation that frequently accompanies autoimmunity and other chronic illnesses. It is also one of the contributory factors behind the comorbidity of autoimmune disease, neurodegenerative diseases, and infection with depression, and the reason why depression often accompanies acute, inflammatory illnesses such as colds and flus (Dowlati et al., 2010; Reichenberg et al., 2011).

Cytokine induced sickness behavior leads to endocrine, autonomic, perceptual and behavioral changes which enable ill individuals to better cope with infections (Dantzer, 2001).

Depression is now being re-conceived of as a decompensation of the mechanisms that regulate sickness—and because a pathogen is often behind chronic, dysregulated immune responses in autoimmunity—some researchers such as Turhan Canli are suggesting depression be re-branded an infectious disease.

In the opinions of many researchers, however, a neuro-inflammatory model, with pathologic neural microglial activation in the brain, better characterizes depression (Brites & Fernandez, 2015).

​​The Implications of the Flexner Report for ‘Alternative’ Medicine

Most of us can acknowledge the historical malfeasance of psychiatry; however, limitations exist when it comes to diagnosis and treatment of traditionally somatic diseases as well. The knowledge deficit when it comes to anything other than pill-for-every-ill Big Pharma-driven, conflict of interest-ridden medicine is exemplified from a passage extracted from my recent piece, ‘How Functional Medicine can Reverse Your Autoimmune Disease’:

“Any historian of the evolution of medicine understands the inextricable marriage between the pharmaceutical industry and the conventional medical establishment.

Business magnate and philanthropist, John D. Rockefeller, funded the earliest American medical schools on the condition that synthetic, petroleum-based drugs from which his businesses would profit be the cornerstone of disease treatment.

He also hired Abraham Flexner to submit his famous early twentieth century report to Congress, which made illegal the practice of medicine by ‘itinerant healers’ such as hydropaths, chiropractors, naturopaths, and herbalists. This produced a climate of warring practitioners and fostered “sectarian antagonism,” “internecine hatreds,” and “mutual hostility” in the medical profession, and led to the concerted dissemination of propaganda dismissing their healing modalities as “quackery” (McKeown, 1979).

The American Medical Association sponsored a massive smear campaign such that natural medicine practitioners were marginalized and barred from inclusion in orthodox medical societies, forbidden from formal licensure, and stripped of prestige and legitimacy. For instance, “A committee of the AMA recommended that the Massachusetts Medical Society, which continued to harbor homeopaths among its members, lose representation until it purged itself of heretics” (McKeown, 1979).

Thus ushered in the era of chemotherapy and synthetic pharmaceutical drugs, the magic bullet solution to all of humanity’s ills.

As a consequence, here we stand today, in the largest chronic disease epidemic in human history, where only one third of medical doctors receive a single course in nutrition during their professional training (Adams et al., 2006). Among that third who receive nutrition instruction, the average time spent learning nutrition-related material is a mere 23.9 hours (Adams et al., 2006).

Thus, if you are seeking advice on therapeutic nutrition and holistic lifestyle interventions from your conventional physician, you’re barking up the wrong tree.”

Where Conventional Medicine Fails, Functional Medicine Succeeds

Dr. Sidney Baker, one of the founding fathers of the functional medicine paradigm, employed a metaphor of a tacks in one’s foot to describe how functional medicine removes the tacks, one by one, that are allowing disease to manifest, whereas biomedicine ignores the tacks and administers xenobiotic poisons, or prescription pharmaceuticals, in a symptom-suppressive manner to mask the ache. In another metaphor, functional medicine looks to the origins of the “check engine light” that appears on your dashboard, rather than putting masking tape over it to conceal the harbinger of malfunction.

Our health care system is, in at its essence, a disease management system, entangled and enmeshed with corporate agendas and conflicts of interest.  During one of my extended hospitalizations, during a massive health crisis, it struck me that one of the nurses attending to my care said, “You don’t go to the hospital to get better”. By the same token, I’ve learned over my three decades of escapades with chronic illness, that you don’t go to the [regular] doctor to get well.

This is revealed by studies which have found that at least 44,000 and up to 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. Deaths due to iatrogenesis, or harm inflicted by the medical establishment, kill more people than motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297) or AIDS (16,516), and exceed the number attributable to the 8th leading cause of death (Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2000). Moreover, the total national costs of adverse events are between $37.6 billion and $50 billion dollars (Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2000).

Worse yet, is that conventional medicine belittles nutraceuticals as unsafe and unproven and relegates natural medicine to realm of make-believe, despite the litany of high quality peer-reviewed literature supporting their use. Of the 136 million emergency room (ER) visits each year, only 23,000 (0.019%) are attributed to dietary supplements, whereas 731,000 (thirty one times that number) are associated with adverse events resulting from the correct, prescribed use of medical drugs—not overdoses (Geller et al., 2015).

Of these ER visits resulting from supplement use, 20% were owing to accidental ingestion by children under the age of four, and 60% of the 3000 visits attributed to people over age 65 were due to swallowing issues (Geller et al., 2015). Products responsible for 42% of the total ER visits were supplements advertised for energy and weight loss, many of which contained stimulants and ingredients that were undeclared active pharmaceuticals rather than dietary supplements (Geller et al., 2015). Hence, authentic, high-quality, professional-grade nutraceutical supplements have excellent safety profiles, whereas the medical use of pharmaceuticals is a major source of morbidity and mortality.

In addition, whereas Western medicine excels at acute, emergency care, it fails when it comes to the burden of non-communicable disease, with an infant mortality rate higher than 27 other developed countries, and a fifth-time ranking as the worst health care system among all industrialized nations (Helman, 2014; Ingraham, 2014). Although the United States has the most expensive health care system in the world, it ranks lowest in terms of “efficiency, equity and outcome” (Helman, 2014).

Further, the marriage between the pharmaceutical companies, insurance carriers, and medical system dictates the treatments offered to patients, which are patentable and profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The file drawer phenomenon, where publication bias favors the reporting of positive findings, means that negative drug trials which yield unfavorable results can be permanently shelved and never revealed to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the process of drug approval.

For example, a 2008 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed how 37 out of 38 positive studies on antidepressants were published, whereas only 3 of 36 negative studies, demonstrating no benefit, were published as such (Turner et al., 2008; Brogan, 2016). The author states, “Selective publication of clinical trials, and the outcomes within those trials, can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk–benefit ratio” (Turner et al., 2008).

Thus, for those who can afford it, I recommend embarking on your healing journey with a functional medicine practitioner for a revolutionary operating system in which antecedents, or predisposing factors, triggers, or instigating factors, and mediators, also known as perpetuating factors, are systemically addressed in order to remove each proverbial tack that is contributing to dysfunction and pathology. Contrary to my dismal experience within Western medicine, all of the functional medicine doctors I have encountered have had a genuine desire to engage in an egalitarian therapeutic partnership and to systematically unearth the root causes of my diseases.

Anyone with training through the Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM) should be well acquainted with the root cause resolution, bio-individualized approach that can help you reverse your autoimmune condition, mood disorder, or other chronic illness.

Related CE Article: Study Finds That Big Pharma Completely Lied About Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) For Depression

Ali Le Vere (the author) holds dual Bachelor of Science degrees in Human Biology and Psychology, minors in Health Promotion and in Bioethics, Humanities, and Society, and is a Master of Science in Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine candidate. Having contended with chronic illness, her mission is to educate the public about the transformative potential of therapeutic nutrition and to disseminate information on evidence-based, empirically rooted holistic healing modalities. Read more at @empoweredautoimmune on Instagram and at Science-based natural remedies for autoimmune disease, dysautonomia, Lyme disease, and other chronic, inflammatory illnesses.


Adams et al. (2006). Status of Nutrition Education in Medical Schools. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83(4), 941S–944S.

Baron, E.P. (2015). Comprehensive review of medical marijuana, cannabinoids, and therapeutic implications in medicine and headache: What a long strange trip its been. Headache, 55(6), 885-916. doi: 10.1111/head.12570.

Beck et al. (2013). So depression is an inflammatory disease, but where does the inflammation come from? BMC Medicine, 11. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-200

Berman et al. (2001). Reviewing the reviews. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17, 456-466.

Brogan, K. (2016). A Mind Of Your Own: The Truth about Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives. New York, NY: Harper Wave.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Press Release: CDC provides estimate of Americans diagnosed with Lyme disease each year. Retrieved from

de Almeida et al. (2004). Anxiolytic-like effects of rose oil inhalation on the elevated plus-maze test in rats. Pharmacology and Biochemistry of Behavior, 77(2), 361-364.

Dowlati et al. (2010). A meta-analysis of cytokines in major depression. Biological Psychiatry, 67(5), 446-457. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.09.033.

Finamor, D., Sinigaglia-Coimbra, R., Neves, L.C.M., Gutierrez, M., Silva, J., Torres, L.D.,… Coimbra, C. (2013). A pilot study assessing the effect of prolonged administration of high daily doses of vitamin D on the clinical course of vitiligo and psoriasis. Dermato-Endocrinology, 5(1), 222-234.

Garrow, J.S. (2007). What to do about CAM: How much of orthodox medicine is evidence based? British Medical Journal, 335(7627), 951.

Geller et al. (2015). Emergency department visits for adverse events related to dietary supplements. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 1531-1540

Glenmullen, J. (2000). Prozac backlash. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hannestad, J., DellaGioia, N., & Bloch, M. (2011). The effect of antidepressant medication treatment on serum levels of inflammatory cytokines: a meta-analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(12), 2452-2459. doi: 10.1038/npp.2011.132.

Healy, D. (2004). Let them eat Prozac: The unhealthy relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and depression. New York: New York University.

Helman, M. (2014). U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World. Time Magazine. Retrieved from

Horton, R. (2015). Offline: What is Medicine’s 5 Sigma? Lancet, 385, 1380.

Hunter, P. & Hegele, R. (2017). Functional foods and dietary supplements for the management of dyslipidaemia. National Reviews in Endocrinology, [Epub ahead of print].

Ingraham, C. (2014). Our infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment. Washington Post.

Insel, T. (2011). Post by Former NIMH Director Thomas Insel: Antidepressants: A complicated picture. National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved from

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. (2000). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US). Retrieved from:

Kaiser, D. (1996). Against biologic psychiatry. Psychiatric Times, 8(12).

Lacasse, J.R., & Leo, J. (2015). Antidepressants and the chemical imbalance theory of depression: A reflection and update on the discourse. The Behavior Therapist, 206-266.

Lan, J., Zhao, Y., Dong, F., Yan, Z., Zheng, W., Fan, J., & Sun, G. (2015). Meta-analysis of the effect and safety of berberine in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipemia and hypertension. Journal Of Ethnopharmacology, 69. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2014.09.049

Liu, Y., Yu, Y., Matarese, G., & La Cava, A. (2012). Cutting edge: fasting- induced hypoleptinemia expands functional regulatory T cells in systemic lupus erythematosus. Journal Of Immunology, 188(5), 2070-2073. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1102835

Mori et al. (1993). Clinical evaluation of Passiflamin (passiflora extract) on neurosis – multicenter double blind study in comparison with mexazolam. Rinsho Hyoka (Clinical Evaluation), 21, 383-440.

Morris, Z.S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question? Understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510-520.

Nordio, M., & Raffaella, P. (2013). Combined treatmetn with myo-insoitol and selenium ensures euthyroidism in subclinical hypothyroidism patients with autoimmune thyroiditis. Journal of Thyroid Research.

Pasco et al. (2010). Association of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein with de novo major depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 197(5), 372-377. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.076430.

Prasad et al. (2013). A decade of reversal: An analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(8), 790-798.

Rappaport, S.M. (2016). Genetic factors are not the major causes of chronic diseases. PLoS One, 11(4), e0154387.

Reichenberg et al. (2001). Cytokine-associated emotional and cognitive disturbances in humans. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(5), 445-452.

Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 179(4070), 250-258.

Shorter, E. (2009). Before Prozac: The troubled history of mood disorders in psychiatry. New York: Oxford.

Turner et al. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 252-260

Udina et al. (2012). Interferon-induced depression in chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(8), 1128-1138. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r07694.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



advertisement - learn more


Scientist Replies To The Medical Industry’s False Claims About Aluminum Safety



In Brief

  • The Facts: is a pro-aluminum industry website. It even lists an Aluminum Caucus. This is a look into their list of “myths” about the safety of aluminum product they promote to see if their claims pass the proof-by-Pubmed test.

  • Reflect On:

    With all of the science clearly contradicting the medical and aluminum industry's claims of safety, how are they still able to approve the use of aluminum in our medications? It makes to sense, especially from a scientific standpoint.

By: James Lyons-Weiler, CEO/Director, The Institute for Pure and Applied KnowledgeCHD Contributing Writer

“Myth” #1: Exposure to aluminum causes Alzheimer’s Disease Claim: “Aluminum is not linked to Alzheimer’s disease, the cause (or causes) of which is unknown. In the words of the Alzheimer’s Association, ‘The research community is generally convinced that aluminum is not a key risk factor in developing Alzheimer’s disease.’

The World Health Organization has also concluded that “there is no evidence to support a primary causative role of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease.’”

JLW’S ANALYSIS: It is highly odd to see the Alzheimer’s Association and the World Health Organization describing a type of consensus that there is no role for aluminum as a primary cause in Alzheimer’s disease for one simple fact: amyloid, the gunk that gums up the brain in Alzheimer’s dementia, is part aluminum. In fact, this has been known since 1985 [1].

…when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

So why and how could these organizations claim that aluminum does not play a primary causal role? The most likely explanation is the use of incorrect science and/or focus on the incorrect level of evidence. When a substance is co-localized to the site of condition, that’s pretty strong evidence that is play some role in the process – even if it is an inhibitory role, it’s still a role. But when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

advertisement - learn more

Examples include asbestos and various lung conditions. Asbestos fibres are extremely small; the most dangerous are <2 microns. When you breathe asbestos fibre in, the fibres remain in lung tissue for a long time and cause scarring and inflammation, leading to pleural plaques, widespread pleural thickening, pleural effusion, asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma [2].

Another example is the CDC’s use of the finding of the Zika virus in one brain of an aborted fetus with microcephaly to conclude that the Zika virus induces microcephaly. Dr. Anthony Fauci of US NIAID proclaimed that the finding was the “strongest evidence yet” that Zika was the cause of microcephaly in Brazil in 2015. However, oddly, although the incidence of Zika infection in Brazil increased with the mosquito season in 2016, there was no corresponding uptick in microcephaly– and no study was conducted to seek a role of the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccination in the slums of Northeast Brazil where the microcephaly outbreak peaked. So, evidence at multiple levels should be considered in the assessment of causality.

Amyloid is, of course, universally recognized as key deposit in the brain of people with Alzheimer’s disease. But what many people do not realize is that amyloid is produced in the bones, and as people age, their bone density reduces, and amyloid can be released. When it deposits in the brain, the compound (which is part aluminum), can lead to cerebral amyloid angiopathy, a condition in which blood vessels in the brain become coated and clogged with amyloid. This can lead to strokes and contributes to age-related dementia. So healthy bones are very important to reduce the amount of amyloid, and therefore aluminum, in the brain. Medium weight training is required as people age to keep bones strong.

The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia.

When aluminum itself enters the brain (and there is zero doubt that occurs [3-5]), it can have numerous effects. One, of course, is to serve as a building block by combining with amyloid precursor protein. Aluminum can also have nefarious influences on a brain cell’s ability to fold proteins properly, lead to disease condition in which cellular necrosis (seepage of oddly, improperly shaped proteins) can occur, wreaking havoc with intercellular signaling. The inflammasome can be activated, leading to the recruitment of intrinsic immunity cellular responses (including microglial activation[6]). It causes the release of cytokines, especially IL-6, which make the brain’s innate immune cells act as if nearby cells are under viral attack. The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia. Vaccine Papers has a good resource for studies on the effects of various forms of aluminum [7].

“Myth” #2: Aluminum present as an active ingredient in some antiperspirants leads to breast cancer. Claim: “Aluminum is not, nor has it ever been, classified as a carcinogen. Further, there is no convincing scientific evidence that aluminum-based antiperspirant use contributes to the development of breast cancer. Less than 0.02% of aluminum in contact with skin is taken up by the body, the rest being excreted in a very short time.”

“The American Cancer Society states “There are no strong epidemiologic studies in the medical literature that link breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, and very little scientific evidence to support this claim. In fact, a carefully designed epidemiologic study of this issue published in 2002 compared 813 women with breast cancer and 793 women without the disease. The researchers found no link between breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, deodorant use, or underarm shaving.’”

JLW ANALYSIS: study by Linhart et al. (2017)[8] found that the use of aluminum-containing deodorant increased both aluminum content in breast tissue and breast cancer risk, confirming studies from as early as 2003 (McGrath 2003) [9]. A growing number of studies show that mammary epithelial cells cultured accumulate mutations when exposed to aluminum [10]. While the epidemiological literature is divided, it is surprising to see provide only the single study that found no link, while two other studies, including one that pre-dated the study they did cite, do report increased tissue burden and increased risk of breast cancer.

Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

“Myth” #3: Consuming aluminum in antacid pills can cause health problems. Claim: “Aluminum is poorly absorbed by the body. This means that most (at least 99.9%) of aluminum ingested from food and water merely passes through the digestive tract and out of the body. Several studies have found no adverse effects for those who have ingested even large quantities of aluminum-containing antacids from antacids…

Additional reassurance regarding aluminum’s safety can be derived from the fact that frequent users of oral antacids may consume very high quantities of aluminum (e.g. up to 1000 mg/day), several orders of magnitude higher than the intake from ordinary food and water intake, yet no adverse health effects have been demonstrated…

The Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry notes, ‘An extremely small amount of the aluminum found in antacids [is] absorbed [through ingestion].’ And further, ‘The FDA has determined that aluminum used as food additives and medicinals such as antacids are generally safe.’”

JLW Analysis: Now this is interesting, because Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital says that we get “far more” aluminum from diet than from vaccines. But we will come back that. is correct to say we absorb a tiny fraction of the aluminum we ingest. However, any dietary aluminum from one source has a cumulative effect from dietary aluminum from any other source. So, for example, cooking rhubarb in aluminum foil will lead to very high levels of ingested aluminum. Following that up with an antacid that contains aluminum adds to the total. Taking pills that contain aluminum in a carrier base also increases the dose. And then taking aluminum-containing vaccines at the same time increases the total aluminum compound dose even further. Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

For a given day, a one-time exposure is probably not a concern for 130-lb woman or 1 180 lb-man. But in children, it’s a different story. Why? Body weight determines the toxicity of a dose. And while ATSDR looked at the effects of dietary aluminum, it is incorrect to say that studies found no ill effects. One key study (Golub et al., 1989) [11] in fact did report food intake problems (cyclic food intake, indicative of exposure to a toxin, or poison), in spite of being represented by the FDA as not finding any adverse reactions. Numerous other studies also showed that dietary forms of aluminum have adverse events (see accumulated list [12]).

The primary concern over aluminum toxicity are its whole-body accumulation, and its synergistic effect on the toxicity of other toxic chemicals in our environment – such as fluoride. A study by Kaur et al. in 2009 [13] found alterations in the neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin) due to fluoride in rats, and that the changes were more pronounced in animals given fluoride and aluminum together. They reported that histological evidence showed “deprivation of neuronal integrity with higher magnitude in concurrent fluoride and aluminum exposure, as compared to fluoride alone” and they concluded that aluminum appears to enhance the neurotoxic hazards caused by fluoride.

“Myth” #4: It is dangerous to cook with aluminum pots and pans. Claim: “The Food and Drug Administration studied this issue in the early 1980s and reported no safety concerns from using aluminum cookware. More recently, the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry reported that ‘foods cooked in aluminum pots are generally considered to be safe.’

An independent study by America’s Test Kitchen in 2012 found that “In lab tests … tomato sauce … cooked in an aluminum pot for two hours and then stored in the same pot overnight was found to contain only .0024 milligrams of aluminum per cup.” For the sake of comparison, according to the FDA, ‘the daily aluminum intake for man from all dietary sources can range from 10 to 100 mg per day.’ Consumption at this level is considered safe.”

JLW Analysis: The category “GRAS” is an archaic category based on no science, but rather a general assumption of safety applied to food additives based on information available prior to the 1960s (and before). As we know, we are living in an increasingly toxic environment; we do not live on our grandparent’s planet. But even absent concern with low doses of aluminum from pots and pans, any amount is cumulative to aluminum from other exposures. Since there are alternative materials, why take on further risk given that aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous?

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

“Myth” #5: The aluminum salts used to clean municipal drinking water pose a danger to human health. Claim: “Virtually every municipal water purification system in the world uses aluminum salts to remove impurities and provide safe, healthy and accessible drinking water. The global public health benefits enabled by these systems are numerous and have prevented innumerable water-borne diseases.

Health Canada spent 10 years and millions of dollars studying this issue and concluded: ‘There is no consistent, convincing evidence that aluminum in drinking water causes adverse health effects in humans, and aluminum does not affect the acceptance of drinking water by consumers or interfere with practices for supplying good water.’”

JLW Analysis: Here we have a clearly misleading effort to cherry-pick not just from the scientific literature. The same report cited by also reported:

An increase in pre-weaning mortality and a delay in weight gain and neuromotor development in surviving pups were reported in the offspring of albino Wistar rats given oral doses (in the diet) of aluminum chloride (equivalent to about 155 and 192 mg Al/kg bw per day) from day 8 of gestation through parturition… Neurotoxicity and weight loss were also reported in mouse dams fed a diet containing aluminum lactate at 500 or 1000 ppm from day 0 of gestation to day 21 postpartum.

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

In a study in which pregnant rats were exposed to a 20% solution of Maalox (a stomach antacid) in tap water (approximately 3.2 mg Al/mL) from the second day of gestation, Anderson et al.205 found that offspring of aluminum-exposed dams showed significantly more aggressive responses, although the time spent on each aggressive response was less than in controls. Furthermore, the offspring of aluminum-exposed mothers showed a significantly longer latency period in the escape-training phase following a three-day period of exposure to non-avoidable shocks.

The report cited by also included:

Several epidemiological studies have reported a small increased relative risk of AD associated with high aluminum concentrations in drinking water… All these studies have methodological weaknesses, but a true association between high aluminum concentrations in drinking water and dementia (including AD) cannot be ruled out, especially for the most elderly (e.g., over 75)…

According to a review by Doll… the evidence from several epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies suggests that aluminum is neurotoxic in humans but does not suggest that it causes AD. However, Doll… stressed that the possibility that aluminum does cause AD must be kept open until the uncertainty about the neuropathological evidence is resolved.

Aluminum in water can easily be avoided by consuming silica-rich mineral water, which is purported to help reduce total body burden of aluminum [14]

On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.

“Myth” #6: Aluminum contained in certain vaccines make them unsafe. Claim: “Aluminum salts have been used to improve the immune system’s response to vaccines for more than 70 years. Most of the small amount of aluminum used in the vaccinations is quickly expelled by the body. About half of the aluminum is gone in 24 hours; three-quarters is eliminated in two weeks and virtually all of it disappears within three years.”

“There are recent reports of a neurologic disease called macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) suspected to be caused by injections of aluminum-containing vaccines. The role of aluminum in the mechanism of this disorder is unclear. The only known undesirable effects that are attributable directly to aluminium salts contained in vaccines are possible local inflammatory reactions, which in some cases are due to the speed of the injection of the vaccine or to insufficient agitation of the vial.”

“In 2008, the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) stated: “From the most recent evidence, there is no reason to conclude that a health risk exists as a result of administration of aluminium-containing vaccines. Neither is there any good scientific or clinical basis for recommending any change in vaccination practice.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that the use of aluminum in vaccines is safe.”

JLW Analysis: Here we see the same abuse of logic that was used to argue that ethyl mercury from vaccines cleared quickly: the “gone” that is referencing here are serum levels; there are precious few studies that examine whole-body elimination rates but Flarend et al. [15] found only 4.6% of aluminum left the body of rabbits after 28 days.

Calculations of the “safe” levels of aluminum by Mitkus et al. (the US FDA) [16] were based on myriad flawed assumptions, most importantly the use of dietary aluminum vs. injected vaccine forms of aluminum, on adult mice (instead of infant mice) to assess the safety of aluminum for use as injected forms in infant humans. But even then, we now know that their actual calculations were flawed exercises in a shell game: divide doses into three body compartments, use serum clearance rather than whole body clearance, and divide exposure by 365 days… and then the numbers look safe. We don’t need the numbers to just look safe. We need to know the safe levels of doses of injectable forms of aluminum using dose escalation studies. This was the conclusion of an extensive and careful IPAK analysis [17] which found these and other flaws and concluded that:

“On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.”

Regarding aluminum from vaccines and diet, Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia offers health care consumers a video on the webpage featuring Dr. Paul Offit, a CHOP employee claiming (quite incorrectly for infants up to six months of age) that we get far more aluminum from food and water, and anything made of water, than we would ever get from vaccines.

Again, IPAK’s analysis shows, considering body weight, that the information published on the CHOP website is incorrect, and, like, is misleading consumers into a false sense of safety. This finding is consistent with that of Dorea and Marques [18].

IPAK Calculated Accumulations of Aluminum in Humans by Source. See report [19] for details and additional results. (mcg/kg = micrograms per kilogram cumulative body burden.)

Parents are being tricked by the CHOP website into bringing their infants to be exposed – repeatedly – to acute toxic doses of injected aluminum to accept a medical procedure and pharmaceutical product that is only assumed to be safe – not shown to be safe by science.

Studies now exist that show that aluminum is found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease – and studies exist that show that safe removal of aluminum via chelation is effective in reducing the symptoms of these and other conditions (19). The consumption of silica-rich mineral waters was found to increase urinary excretion of aluminum from patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS) (20).  Reversal of a disease by removing a factor proves that factor is a key cause.

Therefore, I believe that both CHOP and are committing fraudulent false advertising, and one or more class action suits against both should be taken up as soon as possible. The webpage and the CHOP video spreading false and misleading information on aluminum safety must come down.



We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



Continue Reading


The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reasons exist explaining why it makes more sense not to receive the flu vaccine. It makes more sense to focus on a strong and healthy immune system to combat the flu, yet the vaccine is heavily marketed every single year.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many concerns being raised every single year regarding the flu shot, why does the corporation still blast out mass marketing, propaganda false information and fear?

This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of His work is reproduced and distributed here with the permission. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:”

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivations which generate the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review (CDR), considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to be the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic value of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or outright propaganda that flu vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’ao-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter (see our article on the vaccine agenda: Transhumanism/Dehumanism).  In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to-produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, xenotrophic retroviruses, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove real world “effectiveness,” only a surrogate marker of “efficacy.”  Yet, recent research indicates in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses, running diametrically opposed to the orthodox tenets of classical vaccinology.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strain) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).

advertisement - learn more

It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Support of the immune system, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.

Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection

The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress, influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune system to function effectively. [Note: In some cases, we may become infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater immunity.]

Moreover, there is an ever-growing appreciation within the scientific community that influenza cannot be defined as a completely exterior vector of morbidity and mortality, as portrayed within the mainstream, but is actually comprised of many proteins and lipids derived from the host it occupies, and may even be more accurately described as a hijacked cellular microvesicle (exosome), i.e. it’s as much us as other.

Learn more by reading our recent articles on the topic, “Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory,” and “Profound Implications of the Virome for Human Health and Autoimmunity,”and by watching the incredibly eye-opening NIH lecture by Dr. Herbert Virgin below on the virome and the potentially indispensable role that viruses play in establishing the baseline genotype-phenotype relationship within the human immune system:

Additionally, while there are a broad spectrum of natural substances which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.

For instance, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma attack. For more information on Vitamin D and immunity, visit the amazing research resource on the topic:

Other preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and are available without a prescription include:

1) Echinacea Tea: J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Aug;6(4):327-34

2) Elderberry:  J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.

3) American Ginseng:  J Altern Complement Med.  2006 Mar;12(2):153-7.

4) Green Tea: J Nutr. 2011 Oct ;141(10):1862-70. Epub   2011 Aug 10.

5) Probiotics: Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):e172-9.

6) Vitamin D: PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11088. Epub 2010 Jun 14.

Learn more by visiting our Anti-Influenza Research Portal.

Sayer Ji is founder of, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



Continue Reading


Author Of “How To End The Autism Epidemic” Reveals A Deep Truth About Autism



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Author, JB Handley has published a book regarding the link between vaccines and autism. It's full of information that's never acknowledged, presented or even known about by most Doctors.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many examples, lawsuits, and scientific evidence, not to mention hundreds of scientists and doctors speaking out, why is there never a platform generated for an open discussion between experts in the field? Why is one side always ridiculed?

Discussing vaccines and autism isn’t an explosive topic, it’s thermonuclear. Both sides of the argument feel, with great passion, that the health and welfare of children is at stake. Much of that passion is the product of several lies told repeatedly. These lies form a foundation for self-interested parties to deny, obscure, and misdirect the truth about what’s happening to millions of children. They pit well-meaning parents against well-meaning parents. Remove the lies and you’re left with a deeply disturbing explanation for why so many children seemingly have autism out of the blue.  JB Handley – Author of How To End The Autism Epidemic 

How To End the Autism Epidemic – with many people saying is the best book on the link between vaccines and autism – is already an Amazon best seller (it hit the list even before it was released) and has recently been sent to all of the senators in Washington.

Author, JB Handley, whose own son Jamieson, showed warning signs that very night after receiving his 6 vaccines given at his ‘well baby’ appointment at two months of age.  Handley shares that something was clearly very wrong after that visit to the trusted family paediatrician, and his once perfectly healthy baby quickly morphed into a very sickly child.

Jamieson quickly regressed into autism and was often in constant pain with severe gut issues, his future now ruined.  This tragedy, that has also become millions of other parent’s far too eerily similar nightmare, propelled Handley on a journey that has become his life’s mission and purpose. Nothing fuels a parents fire to do something, more than that of their own child’s suffering.  It also is the reason why parents of other injured children won’t go away, until something is done about this crippling crisis.

JB, who studied at the prestigious Stanford University, has a very sharp grasp and innate ability to interpret and convey science, which is truly impressive. The research gone into this book is meticulous.

The book is written in a way that is concise and incredibly compelling, but most importantly, it is easy to understand.  This is a very important factor when discussing vaccine topics, simply because much of the ‘vaccine science’  in the last few decades has been manipulated, and you usually need a very sharp mind to see how this has happened.

advertisement - learn more

The way studies are written actually go over most people’s heads, and this is why most don’t look at the studies themselves in detail, for they simply do not understand what things mean, or how to question the data presented, let alone to see how the statistics were manipulated.

The book enables the reader to clearly see inside popular studies which are repeatedly shared in the public to shut down further discussion on issues surrounding vaccine safety and efficacy.

Whilst JB writes only briefly on his own families experience with autism, the book relies mostly on information from science, emails from FOIA requests, court transcripts, and expert testimonials and shares some truly shocking things.  I won’t go into all of them here of course, but there is one testimony from a court case with a leading ‘vaccine expert’ Dr. Stanley Plotkin, that you should be aware of – so that it encourages you to question the ethics of the entire industry – and to purchase the book to find out what other bombshells it contains.

Whilst denying it at first, when questioned by Lawyer Mr. Siri, Dr. Plotkin admitted that he had conducted experimental vaccine tests on mentally disabled subjects (both adults and children), as well as babies born to mothers in jail.  Testing on the most vulnerable of people means that you can conduct studies where the results can easily be manipulated (for example, you won’t have to say in the study that vaccines cause mental illness if a test subject already is mentally ill).

This is highly disturbing to say the very least, but these sorts of ethics are not at all rare in the vaccine industry.

The book also exposes financial interests that many of the well-known vaccine proponents such as Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Peter Hotez, Dr. Eric Fombonne and Dr. Paul Shattuck have.  Combined it’s many tens of millions.  It’s easy to see why they are used publicly (and so often)  to provide ‘expert commentary’ that vaccines are safe and effective.

For decades, the concern regarding vaccine ingredients was mainly around the neuro-toxic thimerosal, in recent years, there has been a switch to focus on aluminum, an adjuvant found in many of today’s vaccines at alarmingly high amounts. JB has written extensively about this in articles and information is also found in his book.

One expert who has been studying aluminum for decades is that of Professor Chris Exley who had this to say about JB’s book

I have been thinking about the toxicity of aluminum for thirty-five years. It is my life’s work. Before we completed our recent research on aluminum in brain tissue in autism, I could not see a direct link between human exposure to aluminum and autism. I certainly saw no immediate role for aluminum adjuvants in vaccines in autism. The missing link was a mechanism whereby the brain would be subjected to an acute exposure to aluminum, for example, as occurs in aluminum-induced dialysis encephalopathy. Pro-inflammatory cells, some originating from blood and lymph, heavily loaded with a cargo of aluminum in brain tissue in autism provided that missing link. We all tolerate the toxicity of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. Unfortunately, some of us are predisposed to suffer, as opposed to tolerate, the toxicity of aluminum adjuvants, and this may cause autism.

Autism is a disease, and it is not inevitable. J.B. Handley’s elegant synthesis of what we know and what we need to know argues that autism could and should be preventable. I agree with him.―Professor Christopher Exley, PhD, fellow, Royal Society of Biology; professor of bioinorganic chemistry, Keele University

Like it or not, the subject of whether or not ‘vaccines cause autism’ is one that won’t go away, and if anything, becomes talked about more each day, simply because so many parents are sharing that they too, saw something happen to their own children that they can only put down to recent vaccines.

The Implications of Truth

Despite what we are told by the mainstream media and medical industry when it comes to vaccines causing autism, the science here isn’t anywhere near settled.  Some of you might perhaps realize this ‘parroted’ term is perhaps repeated on purpose, it’s used to ‘shut down’ further discussions.  And this should make you question why?  Why are we not able to ask important questions, regarding safety, ingredients and studies?  What other drugs, that you know of, are we not allowed to question?  Could it be down to money?

Imagine if it did come out that vaccines triggered autism in children.  Wouldn’t there be a tidal wave of court cases with hundreds of thousands of claimants wanting compensation?  I wonder how much money this would amount to? The US Government has already paid out close to US 4 Billion (with taxpayers money) and that is for vaccine injury, not for Autism claims.

It is already estimated that for the cost for caring for people with autism will surpass $1 trillion in 2025, and this figure is nothing to do with compensation.  It is a frightening future that we have and one that is headed our way very soon.

The Science is Not Settled…

Science is never settled because it is a field that should always be encouraging further research and critical questioning.  Science has become so corrupted over the last few decades that it is actually an area that should now perhaps raise suspicion, especially where big profits are involved, and especially if the companies who produce the products aren’t held responsible financially if something goes wrong.

Vaccines, unlike drugs, are protected by a 1986 law that gives protection to all vaccine manufacturers. They cannot be sued.  This is disturbing to most people when they discover this, and with very good reason.  Without liability, why would a company bother to change how something is made, to improve it, if no one is going to come knocking on your door demanding change and making you pay anyone that sues you for damage? It’s called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

It is particularly intriguing to see that vaccine research is an area that vaccine manufacturers and those that speak for them, staunchly seem to not want this to be looked into further – especially around the issue of vaccine safety, and it’s connection to autism.

Vaccines have not been tested adequately in relation to them increasing the rates of autism, you might be shocked to know that only one, the MMR  (and also only one ingredient, Thimerosal) has been studied by the CDC – with questionable results at that.  They never mention these other studies on Thimerosal toxicity or acknowledge the comments made by their longtime scientist Dr. William Thomspon, who blew the whistle on the MMR vaccine.

Thompson bravely told the world that it was “the lowest point” in his career that he “went along with that paper.” He said that the authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did, that he was “complicit and went along with this, and that he regrets that he has “been part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

Vaccines contain so many different ingredients and to have just studied one, seems beyond incredulous. With over 20 different types of vaccines (some which have multiple diseases in them) this is terrible ‘evidence’ that vaccines don’t cause autism.  The CDC (which, unbeknownst to the average person, actually owns 20 vaccine patents) cannot state that is true, because they have simply, not studied them all.

So the science here is most certainly not at all ‘settled.’

What does the US vaccine court say about vaccines causing autism?

Inside JB’s book is a chapter titled ‘The clear legal basis that vaccine’s cause autism’ is dedicated to how the vaccine court operates, and where it was admitted that a child’s injury, and subsequent diagnosis of autism, was because of a vaccine.  One case, which was leaked to the public, regarding Hannah Polling, whose family was given $20 million in compensation, under the condition they never speak out about the finding.  For those that want to deny there is a connection between vaccines and autism, this is a chapter they will have real trouble refuting.

Autism is predicted to affect a whopping 1 in 2 children by the year 2025. Yet nothing seems to be being done by the medical industry about the ’cause’, and certainly nothing effective for its treatment.  Many families are suffering in silence and are becoming impoverished looking after their sick children.

For those in countries like Australia and the UK, where people rely on the socialized ‘free’ health care system, many children are not being given the testing and the treatments that they need. Whilst genes are typically blamed for autism, yet there is no definitive gene for autism.  The money being put into autism research is just not going into the right areas, that would make a huge positive difference.  If it was, the autism rates would be going down.

I feel this is important to note, that the book is not about making the author money to line his pockets. 100% of the profits from How To End The Autism Epidemic are all being donated to several organizations, to help families dealing with autism.

We could do something about autism, and we could do it quickly if our Governments paid attention. The answers are found in this book.

If you are concerned about this issue, want solid science and to want to know the truth about how the vaccine industry operates, this book is for you.

To purchase the book in either paper back of kindle, please click here Remember, the proceeds go to helping other families dealing with autism.

Below is an interview with the author JB Handley


Vaccine Court has paid 3.7 billion in damages to families

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more



We Need Your Support...


With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.