Connect with us

Awareness

A Pivotal Point In The Campaign To Stop The Damage Being Done From GMOs & Vaccines

Thousands of US doctors are now prescribing GM free diets since “the consumption of genetically modified foods are causing pain and inflammation, brain fog, allergies, skin rashes, gut problems, fatigue, asthma, autism and cancers and that these uncomfortable conditions improve when eating GMO food ceases” says Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating.

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Important Note from Collective Evolution: Before reading, please keep in mind that we’ve published multiple, heavily sourced articles regarding the GMO/Vaccine issues.

advertisement - learn more

Many of our articles regarding vaccines come from Robert F. Kennedy Jr of The World Mercury Project. You can view them HERE, all of the most recent up-to-date science regarding this issue can be found there.

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

Below is an article written by the Collective Evolution core team, but there are multiple dozens on our site. This one in particular gives a general overview of the science and information out there as to why more parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children.

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Child

Researchers Show Where The Aluminum Goes After It’s Injected Into A Babies Body From A Vaccine

To read our articles on the Gardasil /HPV vaccine, you can click here.

advertisement - learn more

When it comes to the GMO debate, you can refer to the below articles for why our stance is the way it is on that topic:

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

How Monsanto Genetically Modifies Our Food Compared To What Happens Naturally In Nature

The GMO Agenda takes a menacing leap forward with EPA’s Silent Approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNAI Corn

Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

New Study Finds A Very Strong Correlation Between GMOs and Two Dozen Diseases

Many anti-GMO activists are convinced there is a connection between glyphosate along with genetically engineered foods, and the increasing levels of autism in children. My research has led me to put the blame for autism and other developmental disorders at the feet of the vaccine industry but in reality I think that both the biotechnology and the vaccine industries are implicated in the exponential rates of these diseases and other adverse health events.

Related CE Article: Study Shows How Glyphosate & Aluminum Operate Synergistically To Destroy The Human Brain

Jeffrey Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, and Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives. In a presentation called The Real Truth about GMO’s he speaks about how the consumption of genetically modified foods are causing all sorts of health issues such as gut problems, brain fog, allergies, skin rashes, fatigue, asthma, and autism and that these conditions improve when eating GMO food ceases. In fact, thousands of US doctors are now prescribing GM free diets.

The revolution is beginning.

However a few notes on how we have arrived at this point are in order.

Tragically, Monsanto, otherwise known as the “most evil corporation on Earth” with their dirty products such as Agent Orange and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), is in charge of our food supply. This is a company which along with Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods were responsible for  The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875   which gave the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard

The FDA declares that testing of these novel genetic modifications is not required before they are released. Monsanto merely needs to tell the FDA that their products are safe. That is all that is needed before they are sold, and then eaten by the public.

However many studies show very real problems in animals fed GM food. One of these independent studies found that buffalo, goats and sheep in India are dying after grazing on Bt cotton plants. Those who care for the animals are also getting sick with skin rashes and respiratory issues.

Jeffrey Smith describes the production of a genetically modified organism (GMO)

A bacterium such as Bacillus thuringiensis is used to create a corn plant that is able to produce its own toxic insecticide. The Bt toxin from the bacillus makes holes in the cell walls of insects to kill them. From there the gene from the bacterium is used to make millions of copies which are shot via a gene gun into millions of corn cells – with the hope that genes find their way into the DNA of some of the cells, which are then cloned, becoming Bt corn.

Massive damage is caused to the DNA of the plant by this process of insertion and cloning in that 2-4% of the DNA is changed. This is significant, for these changes may result in an increase or decrease in the amount of proteins in the plant. The changes may also mean that some genes are shut off or that silent genes are turned on.

But did the regulators and the biotech industry look for these changes before the GM corn went on the market? Incredibly and inexcusably they did not. With the GM corn already in the food supply an independent scientist found there were 43 proteins that had changed in the process of creating the corn. One gene that was previously silent had been switched on and was a known allergen, able to cause allergy or death in the susceptible consumer. There were also other proteins that during the process of cloning had changed shape.  According to Smith such changes are important and can cause no harm or can be lethal. And yet the regulators don’t believe this experimental stuff needs testing.

This is really alarming in that greater than 90% of all soybean, cotton and corn acreage in the U.S. is used to grow genetically engineered crops. Other approved novel foods include sugar beets, alfalfa, canola, papaya and summer squash.

Of this runaway technology Jeffrey Smith claims:

We are taking the products of this immature science causing massive damage to the most compactified level of nature – the DNA.

But in the eyes of Monsanto the ideal future looks like this:

One hundred per cent of all commercial seeds would be GM and patented.

As Jeffrey Smith has said:

They are planning to replace nature. This is a pivotal time.

The main reason for genetically engineering plants is to sell more herbicide. Yes, this gamble with the very basis of life is so our food can be sprayed with poison.  Every year 2 billion kilograms of the water soluble carcinogen – Glyphosate is used worldwide. It’s in our air, in our rainfall, in the plants, our food and in our bodies.

Glyphosate binds with plant minerals so these nutrients are unavailable for the plant. In the process, plants are made deficient in nutrients and become weak and sick and so do the animals who eat the plants. We eat the crops and the sick animals and it’s no surprise that we too, fall ill. The reason it is such a successful herbicide is because it deprives the plants of nutrients and creating diseases in the soil around it.

As to how the consumption of Glyphosate affects humans…

Glyphosate blocks the shikimate pathway in our gut. The bacteria in our bodies use this important pathway to create L-Tryptophan, an essential amino acid that is so important to our well being. Mood and behaviour are improved when we switch to organic foods.

The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals. However, this pathway is present in both human and mammal’s gut bacteria, which play a massively important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology

Some actions we can take to remove our food supply from this corporate power:

  • Ensure that what we eat is natural
  • Grow our own food
  • Ask restaurants whether their food is GM. Menus are now gluten free so how about asking for a GM free menu.
  • Sharing information about GM foods and how to avoid them

And as we spread the word about GMO’s we must also protest the number of chemically laden vaccines our children now receive. In the US the number of vaccines given to children from birth to the age of 18 years is now 74 doses.

The wise words of osteopathic physician and anti-vaccination activist Dr Sherri Tenpenny come to mind:

True health cannot come from a needle. Injecting people with something to try to keep them well is a 200 year mistake.

The rate of autism in the US is now 1 in 25. Of course autism isn’t the only adverse event that frequently occurs after vaccination. Chronic pain conditions, seizures, gastro-intestinal disorders, arthritis in its many forms, diabetes and infertility are among the huge and ever growing list of side effects.

A vaccine that has the highest number of adverse events of any vaccine is Gardasil the HPV vaccine that is marketed as preventative against cervical cancer even though there is no proof that the vaccine has ever prevented a single case of cervical cancer in the world. Brian Hooker, father of a vaccine-damaged child speaking in Vaccines Revealed calls it:

A dirty vaccine…loaded with aluminium. Aluminium doesn’t belong in the human body.

But in spite of the fact that there are now over 81,000 recorded adverse events following the administration of Gardasil the manufacturers are trialling it on babies. This sadly is true. We urgently need to turn this around.

But not before a new cohort of 12-13 year-olds are injected with the latest HPV vaccine. Gardasil 9 has 5 more antigens and more than twice the amount of aluminium per shot than Gardasil.

From the start of this school year Australian teenagers will be injected with Gardasil 9 replacing the quadrivalent Gardasil.

Lack of safety studies on Gardasil 9

In 2014 the US FDA approved the use of Gardasil 9 for females ages 9 to 26 years and males ages 9 to 15 years for prevention of vulvar, vaginal, anal, and cervical cancers. Gardasil 9 is marketed as protective against nine HPV types: 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

Even though the vaccine is new, the approval by the FDA was completed without the usual review given by the VRBPAC (the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee). The committee is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the safety of vaccines and other health products.

A letter to the FDA from Marion Gruber, Director of Office of Vaccines Research and Review CBER gives the reason for their decision:

 Our review of information submitted in your BLA (biologics license application) including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues which would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion.

But there is much evidence to suggest that this review needed to be done. Rather than use an inert placebo such as normal saline, Gardasil 9 was compared directly to the quadrivalent Gardasil in two of the studies. A comparison with Gardasil is hardly reassuring for there have been thousands of adverse events and hundreds of deaths  following its administration.

These are 2 very different vaccines. Gardasil 9 has 5 more antigens than the quadrivalent Gardasil. Also in Gardasil 9 the HPV antigens 6, 16, and 18 have been increased.

Gardasil                                   Gardasil 9

How do the changes to the number and strength of the antigens affect the recipients of this new vaccine?

Increased amounts of the aluminium adjuvent

Gardasil 9 contains 500 mcg of aluminium per dose. This is more than double the amount of aluminium contained in a dose of Gardasil which has 225 mcg.  It is alarming that this huge amount of aluminium is to be injected into young bodies. This is because aluminium causes the body to turn against itself. This is what we are seeing in many of the girls who have had their lives severely affected after their Gardasil shots.

One of the severe adverse events is premature ovarian failure in young teenage girls. POF occurs due to the destruction by aluminium of the maturation process of the eggs in the ovaries. Shockingly this condition is underreported at the present time because many girls are on the contraceptive pill but once they stop the damage will be obvious. This is very serious, more infertility and loads of heartache to follow.

Disturbingly the aluminium adjuvant in these vaccines does not require clinical approval. Gardasil and Gardasil 9 contain amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate (AAHS) a new form of aluminium which causes the immune system to become 104 times more powerfully stimulated than would occur naturally. It is important to be aware that this HPV vaccination program continues despite the fact that there is no scientific proof that the vaccines have ever prevented a single case of cervical cancer. And the adverse events continue to increase after administration of the HPV vaccines.

In FDA approved Gardasil 9: Malfeasance or Stupidity?  researcher Norma Erickson has examined the Gardasil 9 package insert where she found that the rate of serious adverse events in the trials of Gardasil 9 was 2.3 %. This means that for every 100,000 people who are given Gardasil 9 there will be 2300 serious adverse events and yet the cervical cancer rate in the US is around 7 women per 100,000. Talk about insanity!

And that’s not all she found when she examined the insert package. During the trials 2.4% of the recipients developed an autoimmune disorder which means that 2400 people could now be suffering from new diseases just because they had this new Gardasil 9.

And there’s more to be learnt about the development of autoimmunity. Norma Erickson explains the process of molecular mimicry as it applies to Gardasil in a presentation Humphries/Erickson – What Biologically Plausible Mechanisms of Action are Health Agencies Ignoring? Within the many proteins found in our bodies there are 82 peptides. One of the antigens in Gardasil, the HPV 16 LI protein, almost identically matches 34 of these peptides. The importance of this information is as Erickson explains:

It is extremely possible that when you develop an antibody to the HPV 16 protein you are also developing an antibody reaction to your own system in multiple locations. The number of viral matches and locations makes the occurrence of autoimmune cross reactions in the human body following HPV 16 vaccination almost unavoidable.

We need to keep protesting the under-reported tragedy that is the theory and practice of vaccination. Our recent ancestors managed to live healthy lives without genetically engineering their food supply and over vaccinating their children.

Let’s turn this around.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Lebanese Hospital Becomes The World’s First To Go 100 Percent Vegan (Food)

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A hospital in Lebanon has become the first in the world to adopt a completely vegan menu.

  • Reflect On:

    Are people aware of the physical and emotional torture the majority animals we eat go through? Are people aware that a diet free of animal products can be very beneficial for human health. Are people aware that animal agriculture is destroying Earth?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

At the beginning of March, Hayek Hospital in Beirut, Lebanon became the first hospital in the world to serve 100 percent vegan only meals. Prior to this change, patients had a choice between animal based meals and vegan meals, and included with that was information about the health benefits of choosing plant-based foods versus the dangers of consuming animal products. The hospital made the announcement via their Instagram page, stating that “Our patients will no longer wake up from surgery to be greeted with ham, cheese, milk, and eggs…the very food(s) that may have contributed to their health problems in the first place.”

When the World Health Organization classifies processed meat as a group 1A carcinogenic (causes cancer) same group as tobacco and red meat as group 2A carcinogenic, then serving meat in the hospital is like serving cigarettes in a hospital. When the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) declare that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious disease comes from animals. When adopting a plant based exclusive diet has been successfully proven not only to stop the evolution of certain diseases but it can also reverse them. We then, have the moral responsibility to act upon and align our beliefs with our actions. Taking the courage to look at the elephant in in the eye.

Their various statements also point to the role that animal agriculture plays in spawning infectious diseases, citing the Centers for Disease Control’s estimate that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious diseases come from animals. “We believe it’s well about time to tackle the root cause of diseases and pandemics, not just treat symptoms,” they note.

This was a great statement. The modern day medical industry only seems to be focused on medications, and only medications that can turn a hefty profit, to treat and cure disease instead of addressing root causes. It’s good to see things changing, but a big problem remains. If a plant that grows in abundance, for example, has the potential to cure a disease, will we ever hear about it? Will the medical industry be interested in it? Probably not, but when a drug is made and patented from that plant in a specific way, that’s when we will. This is not to say that modern day medicine is useless, but today now more than ever a big problem exists, and this problem may be killing more people than it’s helping.

Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), a Harvard professor of medicine and also a former Editor-in-Chief of NEMJ, was frustrated that “the medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” (source)

According to Forks Over Knives,

While Hayek is the first hospital to completely purge animal products from its menu, a number of hospitals have begun offering more plant-based options in recent years. Both New York and California have enacted laws requiring hospitals to offer a plant-based option with every meal. In 2018 NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue launched the Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine Program to help patients transition to a whole-food, plant-based lifestyle.

The American Medical Association passed a resolution in 2017 calling on U.S. hospitals to provide healthful plant-based meals to promote better health in patients, staff, and visitors. The American College of Cardiology has issued similar recommendations.

In my opinion, “veganism is a very fine form of nutrition” (Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, heart surgeon), and as mentioned above, there is plenty of science to back up that statement.  I’ve written about it many times before from a health perspective.

Here’s an article that goes into more detail and science if you’re interested, it also addresses history, and how our teeth and guts are designed and more. Here’s another one regarding a study that found a strong association between eating animal protein and a premature death from all causes, including multiple cancers and type 2 diabetes.

The studies cited in that article note that meat eating is strongly associated with up to a 75 percent increased chance of early mortality, and that protein from animals may cause harm, while protein from plants may help reverse disease and have a protective effect.

There are hundreds of these studies, and the ones I cite are just a few examples.

This is obviously a very controversial topic in the eyes of many, and it’s not hard at all to find conflicting information on the subject. I am no doubt bias in my beliefs and opinions here.

One thing is for certain, the way we treat animals on this planet is extremely heartbreaking and unnecessary. Animals are separated from their families, raised for slaughter and are kept in torturous conditions on a daily basis. It’s truly unbelievable and horrific. It’s the biggest genocide and example of both physical and emotional torture the world has ever seen. I don’t think anybody can witness what really goes on in most slaughterhouses can come out not being impacted.

On top of this, animal agriculture is one of, if not the greatest contributer to environmental degradation and pollution on our planet. Animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of deforestation. Every single day, close to 100 plant/animal/insect species are lost because of this practice.

Final Thoughts: At the end of the day it seems that, from a health perspective, processed meats, and other meats are no doubt harmful to human health. People can make the argument that other animal products may not be and that we are meant to consume them. People can also make the complete opposite argument. One thing that can’t be argued is, again, the torture, physical and emotional abuse that comprise the source of where animal products come from for the majority of people who eat them.

There is a big split, as with many other topics, amongst people on this issue. There are even vegan influencers who are creating splits within the ‘vegan community’ itself, which is unfortunate. I personally believe that, from a health perspective, animal products are not at all required for anybody and are again, overall, harmful to human health.

The more pressing issue, again, is the treatment of our animal brothers and sisters, and how we are constantly using and abusing them. It’s indicative of world that lacks empathy, compassion, understanding and love, as well as our inability to see ourselves in another. This can be seen in many aspects of the current human experience, be it war, human trafficking and more. That being said, it’s great to see human consciousness shifting towards a more compassionate, empathetic type of awareness. This is evident by the “vegan” movement alone, as it’s become quite large over the past few years and will continue to grow. Some of the biggest animal food producers have already gone out of business, and it’s great to see more people in the health community as well recognize that it’s a win for health, a win for environment, and most importantly, a win for the very emotional, intelligent, animals, who are similar to us in so many ways. We have so much to learn from them.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Caloric Restriction vs. Fasting: Why One Can Result In Weight Gain While The Other Helps Burn Fat

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 3 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In the video below, Dr. Jason Fung explains the difference between caloric restriction and sending the body into "starvation" mode compared to fasting.

  • Reflect On:

    Fasting has been used as a health intervention for thousands of years, and is being used today by doctors who are educated on the topic. Why is it completely ignored by mainstream medicine? Is it because "big pharma" can't make any money off of it?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Some would say that the best solution to weight gain is eating right and exercising. I couldn’t agree more. Obesity is one of the deadliest problems humanity faces today, and just as important as diet and exercise is for addressing this issue, even more important are the emotional and personal reasons as to why so many people damage themselves and make themselves more prone to serious disease.

Apart from diet and exercise, initiating a proper fasting regimen can have tremendous health outcomes, especially for overweight people. It wasn’t but a decade ago when fasting to lose weight was considered unhealthy and dangerous. Today, we have a tremendous amount of science that’s been published clearly showing that fasting can be an effective health intervention for people of all body types, especially for people who are overweight and suffer from certain diseases. It’s an excellent way to help your body burn fat. Fasting has been used and is currently being used as an intervention for type two diabetes, cancer and more. Fasting has been shown to trigger stem cell regeneration, autophagy, which in turn can help clear out toxins and damaged cells, repair DNA, improve metabolism, lower blood sugar, boost brain function, reduce the risk of age related disease, lessen inflammation which improves a wide range of health issues from arthritic pain to asthma and more. It’s no wonder why so many ancient cultures from different parts of the world used fasting as medicine and as a health intervention.

As shown in the science, fasting is generally safe for everybody. This many not be true if you already have underlying health conditions or are taking certain medications. This is why it’s important to consult a health professional about it, but the issue is, the majority of health professionals are not well educated in fasting interventions. Those who have educated themselves have been treating their patients with fasting and are drawn to it due to its ability to provide so many benefits.

One of these doctors is Dr. Jason Fung, who on his blog and his YouTube channel, as well as the books he’s written provides a wealth of information and science regarding fasting. I often refer people to the work of Fung, or others like Dr. Valter Longo if they want to begin their own research about fasting. Again, there is a wealth of science and “scholarly” articles available on the subject for anybody who wants to search for it as well. It’s not heard to find.

In the video below, Fung explains why fasting is much different from caloric restriction or having your body go into “starvation mode.”  You can also check out his article, “The difference between calorie restriction and fasting” for some great information as well.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Deeper Questions Behind The “Lab Origins” Debate

Avatar

Published

on

By

13 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    It is being slowly accepted that SARS-COV2 originated in a laboratory. The delay in this admission has not been due to media "spin" alone but from scientists themselves.

  • Reflect On:

    How can we "trust the science" if the scientists are being disingenuous?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

As the majority of Americans gather around the prevailing voice of our trusted medical institutions, those opposing it seem to be digging in their heels as well. Why is this happening? After all, we are not arguing over religion or political ideology (or at least we shouldn’t be). This pandemic and its management falls squarely in the realm of science, something that should be objective and indisputable. How is the layperson supposed to make sense of the growing polarity concerning this issue? Unless one has related training in virology, epidemiology, statistics and a decent understanding of the history and the sequence of investigations that have led scientific opinion to consensus positions before this pandemic, there is no way to be “scientific”. How are we to know whether the edicts coming from our leaders are reasonable and founded? This puts us in a difficult position, one that we are unable or unwilling to acknowledge: we have to trust someone else. The question is, whom?

Mainstream Media is beginning to acknowledge that SARS-COV2 originated in a lab

There has recently been a shift in the mainstream narrative. Some of these mainstream sources have been willing to take a hard look at where this virus came from: the “lab origins” thesis. In this recent interview with evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, popular satirist and political commentator Bill Maher admits that “it would almost be a conspiracy theory to think it didn’t start in a lab.” The reasons for this are clear to anyone who has looked beyond the veil of simplistic statements and abjectly poor investigative journalism coming from mainstream sources. Gain of Function studies on SARS viruses were being conducted in publicly funded laboratories in this country for years prior to 2014. One could argue this was part of bioterrorism research just as easily as it was part of a pandemic preparedness effort. It is not so hard to see that in order to be prepared to combat a highly contagious and virulent pathogen we must be able to study the pathogen itself. Pandemic preparedness and bioterrorism research are basically the same thing.

As the story unfolds in the mainstream narrative, it is becoming apparent that the wet market hypothesis will soon be jettisoned for its sheer implausibility. Is it likely that this virus could survive in a bat or pangolin for generations while mutating in such a way that it could not only immediately survive in a human body but be so virulent as well? What are the factors that would be involved in allowing this new strain to behave unlike previous SARS viruses in terms of its copious presence in our nasopharyngeal cavities, apparent transmissibility in the asymptomatic and enduring pathogenicity when floating around in the air or lurking on surfaces? The answer is far more than one, making this wet market to global pandemic story all the more unacceptable.

As establishment science comes to its senses, we are left with the reality that the pandemic has most probably been the consequence of a laboratory research that got out of control. It may not be excusable or forgivable but at least we can take comfort that our attention has been refocused on what is plausible. However simply acknowledging the high probability of lab origins and moving forward with all the same initiatives to combat this virus is not enough. There are more questions that need to be posed first.

How did some Scientists “spin” the science?

This argument over SARS-COV2 origin is not new at all. It was being hotly debated a year ago for some of the same reasons I mentioned above. The lab origin thesis was effectively (and prematurely) purged from “acceptable” discussions when a paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-COV2” (KG Anderson et al) appeared in Nature Medicine (March 17, 2020). This piece served as the foundation of a wall of scientific opinion that was rapidly erected to contain the dangerous “conspiracy theory” that the virus was a product of human intention and ingenuity. If you were to read the piece it would be hard to not end up shrugging your shoulders and going along with the authors’ thesis. The authors are well-respected and published scientists that include W. Ian Lipkin, pathologist, neurobiologist and epidemiologist at Columbia University,  internationally recognized for his work around W. Nile Virus and SARS. They are assured in their conclusions and offer the reader, among other things, a comparative study of the peptide structure and genetic sequence of this virus and closely related variants. 

I am a physician and was led to this piece months ago in my research into this topic. I admit that I was left scratching my head. It wasn’t until I tuned in to a blog surrounding this and other issues hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass, a respected and dutiful researcher of pandemics and bioterrorism, that l was able to grasp where the misdirection was introduced. Dr. Nass correctly points out that it may not be possible to irrefutably prove that the virus was of lab origin or not, however it is the erroneous assumptions and unsound logic the authors of the Nature Medicine article use that point to the obscuration of the facts in a manner we could reasonably deem as deliberate.

After presenting us with a thorough description of the structure of SARS-COV-2 and analysis of its means of entering human cell lines via the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, the authors introduce their challenge to the lab origins position. The authors state:

“While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”

Anderson et al are presenting their first line of attack on the Lab Origins hypothesis. Because their computational analysis predicts that a different and more “optimal” receptor-binding domain (RBD) portion of the spike protein on SARS-COV-2 could have been built, they say, it must have arisen naturally. The authors are assuming that if the virus was the product of bioterrorists they would have designed it differently. Is this sound logic? It is not. First, the authors are presupposing that their computational method is the only one available for use. Second, there is no reason to assume that a bioterrorist would choose the genetic solution that was “optimal”. Moreover, picking a “solution” identical to a computationally derived genetic sequence would leave an obvious clue that human hands were involved. This is in fact what the authors are correctly pointing out. 

This line of reasoning sheds light upon their foundational assumptions about the sophistication and intentions of would-be bioterrorists. Are they experimenters in laboratories building a novel coronavirus to a computer model’s specs to study it? Or are they true bioterrorists seeking to design a bioweapon that has no trace of human manipulation? Obviously one cannot know. Making either assumption cannot be part of any rigorous forensic analysis.

The authors go on:

“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”

Here the authors are introducing yet another unfounded assumption: If the virus was designed as a biological weapon, why would a known coronavirus backbone necessarily be used as a basis for genetic manipulation? Certainly that option would be entertained by a team of bioterrorism researchers, but it is illogical to begin with that assumption. There are undoubtedly coronavirus backbones that have been genetically manipulated and remain behind closed doors and outside of public databases, i.e. unknown. It is equally logical to conclude that because no known backbone was used the virus was purposefully manipulated.  

In any case, genetic manipulation is not the only way to create a backbone of a virus. The oldest way is to use passage, a laboratory technique where a virus is cultured through a series of cell lines from different species resulting in a viable product that will survive in the target species. Other techniques are also readily available: exposing a known virus to mutagenic factors, collecting those that survive and repeating the process or simply mixing related viruses together to see what recombinant products result. None of these methods will result in a “solution” that would be in any way predictable at the outset. Indeed, that is the advantage of using such techniques. This is a fact that is well known to virologists, making the authors’ analysis all the more suspicious.

It is undeniable that the authors were using poor logic and unfounded assumptions to make unsound conclusions. This should have been obvious to the scientific community at that time, and this paper should not have made it through the editorial process of such a respected publication as Nature Medicine. The disquieting thing is that quite the opposite occurred. The article instead served as the seminal piece to squelch all arguments for the lab origin hypothesis once a flurry of subsequent publications cited it. Who should be held accountable for this? The authors? The editorial committee of Nature Medicine? The cadre of scientists that chose to use this publication to “manufacture consensus”? The mainstream media for failing in their responsibility to offer a balanced view of the debate around this article? None can be held solely responsible and all were required to perpetuate the distortion. The implications here are very serious and impossible to ignore.

Who can we rely upon to faithfully report “the science”?

Are there no stops to the dissemination of baseless “scientific” opinion? This is a question that rarely gets asked because we tend to assume that in the end, scientific consensus will be reached without the need for oversight. We are talking about science and scientists here, not policy makers or private industrialists with conflicts of interest and personal gains that hang in the balance. Yet the lines between science, industry and policy-making are blurrier the closer we look. In any case, who can we rely upon to ensure that the scientists are doing their job in formulating sound approaches to the problems at hand? There isn’t anyone, other than the scientists themselves. So what went wrong here? How did the Anderson paper end up deftly hamstringing a viable theory about the origins of SARS-COV2 a year ago using specious logic and unnecessary assumptions? Why didn’t anyone say anything? Despite what is generally known, many did.

Here’s where things get hopeful, depending on how you look at them. It would be wrong to dismiss all virologists, epidemiologists and researchers as slaves to corporate funded research institutions and group-think. Behind the veil of headlines that tout the rigor of the data and fuel the “trust the science” mantra there are collections of perspicacious and tireless researchers and journalists that have been pushing back against the established opinion and raising valid concerns about the hijacking of the narrative by members of their own ilk. Notably RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense and Dr. Joseph Mercola have published an excellent paper that comprehensively summarized the ongoing work of Dr. Alina Chan of MIT’s Broad Institute who has documented the timeline and significance of how the spin has been manufactured by the scientific community themselves. Of course, many are familiar with Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Mercola not because of what they are bringing to complex discussions but because of their stigmatization as purveyors of “anti-vax” and “pseudoscience” opinions. Once so marked they are felled by the mainstream media machine with all the efficiency and discrimination of a logger’s chainsaw in an old-growth forest.

There are others that are broadcasting the same signal of reason. DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19) is a group of independent scientists, journalists and researchers that have been bringing attention to the suspicious ways that the debate surrounding the origin of SARS-COV2 has been marginalized within the scientific community itself (more about their work here). For example, “A Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals and medical professionals of China combatting Covid-19” appeared in the correspondence section of the esteemed medical journal Lancet in March of 2020. In this letter the authors explicitly characterize any dissent to the natural origins hypothesis as “rumour, disinformation and conspiracy theories”. 

What are we to make of such accusations leveled against scientists by scientists? This sort of rhetoric has no place in any scientific discussion of any kind and should be a matter of real concern for everyone. Has science been corrupted by the same forces that are undeniably turning investigative journalism into a means of promulgating propaganda in some instances? If that were the case, how then are we to “trust the science”?

The Predicament that we are in

We are in an uncomfortable situation. Unless we can independently dismantle the arguments like those in the Anderson paper, or can understand the significance of the appearance of a mysterious 12 nucleotide sequence in the SARS-COV2 genome that confers the virus with a polybasic furin cleavage site (resulting in a substantial increase in virulence described here), or can appreciate the implications of a situation where scientific journals publish papers without requiring authors to supply the raw data required for independent genomic confirmation, we are stuck. If the science is being spun or misrepresented or poorly reported, there would be no way to know it.

Determining the origin of SARS-COV2 is an important question that still needs to be answered definitively. Attempting to answer this question has brought light to more disturbing questions. We cannot expect the layperson to comprehend the scientific studies that underpin our approach to this pandemic, let alone critique the logic and assumptions made by the authors of these papers. Expecting that a news correspondent, mainstream or otherwise, is anymore capable of dissecting such information is not realistic either. Until we come to grips with this we will not be able to grasp the enormity of the crisis we are facing.

The Takeaway

An honest examination into the origin of SARS-COV2 suggests a danger more pernicious than the virus itself. How much of scientific opinion is dictated by non-scientific interests? How many other “consensus” positions are rooted in inexcusably poor reasoning and assumptions? If we can only rely on independent researchers to bring clarity to these topics, who is going to give them a voice? If there is a fact that can be extracted from this debate it would be that “trusting the science” and trusting what a media source says about “the science” can be two very different things. 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!