Written by Vera Sharav
Note from the World Mercury Project Team: Following is Part One in a seven-part series of Vera Sharav’s in-depth exposé of the complex and widespread corruption that exists in the vaccination program. Her investigation has uncovered decades-long fraudulent activity that has permeated the vaccine industry. Sharav’s research is a must-read by those in our community because it explains the intricate groundwork that has led us to the debacle we are now living with – an epidemic of sick children.
-->Help Support CE: Donate to Collective Evolution to help us move past the challenges censorship has put on independent media. Click here to contribute!
The exponential increase in the autism / autism spectrum prevalence rate since 1985 (1 in 2,500) to 2016 (1 in 45) is evidence of an epidemic, not, as the deniers will have it, “an optical illusion” or “a statistical mirage”
“today a million and more Americans, almost all under thirty, have been formally diagnosed with autism…Most with an autism diagnosis will never [lead normal lives] or be responsible for their health and welfare. Both the increase and the burden it imposes are widely recognized by thousands of parents and frontline professionals such as nurses and teachers. Yet some of the most prominent and powerful people in medicine, the media, and government deny it.” [DENIAL: How Refusing to Face the Facts about Our Autism Epidemic Hurts Children, Families, and Our Future, Mark Blaxil and Dan Olmsted (2017)]
Are children’s rights to a normal life being sacrificed as collateral damage to protect high utilization of vaccines?
The focus of this appendix is how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccine industry control vaccine safety assessments, control the science of vaccines and control the scientific and mass channels of information about vaccines. These primary stakeholders gained control by establishing an elaborate web of collaborating institutional partnerships which they fund. The collaborating institutional stakeholders include:
- The American Academy of Pediatrics,
- The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI, UK),
- The World Health Organization,
- WHO-Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS),
- The European Medicines Agency (EMA),
- The European Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (ECDPC),
- The Brighton Collaboration and the Brighton Collaboration Foundation,
- The Cochrane Collaboration,
- The Institute of Medicine,
- The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS),
- The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) which is bankrolled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
- World Bank and others.
Numerous additional industry front groups are popping up on social media to spread vaccine propaganda, such as the European Health Parliament (EHP, situated in Brussels, created in 2017). EHP is bankrolled by Johnson and Johnson and is affiliated with Google, Politico and others. [Appendix 10 is being updated. It will publish shortly.]
All of these institutions became de facto stakeholders in promoting vaccination policies while presenting themselves as independent authoritative sources of information about vaccine safety.
Through this elaborate network of collaborative partnerships, industry gained global control of vaccine safety assessments – which are applied as the single standard, used mostly to rule out a causal relationshipbetween vaccination and serious adverse events following vaccination. These centrally controlled assessments are applied indiscriminately in all cases, disregarding individual human susceptibility factors.
One of the intended features of these collaborating partnerships is to camouflage the identity of the funding source for vaccine research and professed independent reviews of vaccine research. Medical journals, as the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton acknowledged, “devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” Indeed, the BMJ (British Medical Journal) entered into undisclosed partnership agreements with both major vaccine manufacturers. In 2008, BMJ and Merck entered into partnership and in 2016, BMJ and GlaxoSmithKline formed a partnership as well. Additionally, vaccine stakeholders control the vast channels of propaganda – including Google, which has formed a partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.
The financial interest of these collaborating partnerships conflicts with the tenets of medical ethics and scientific integrity – such as transparency and independent assessment of the data. The consequences of these ill-suited partnerships are demonstrated by evidence of corrupt vaccine safety assessments; evidence of harm following vaccination is either concealed or defined as non-related; journal publications are corrupted by fraudulent reports, and honest scientific findings are suppressed. The entire web of vaccine stakeholder- collaborations is geared toward issuing uniform vaccine safety pronouncements that promote vaccination policies crafted to ensure high vaccination rates, translating to ever higher profit margins.
Much of the evidence is documented in thousands of internal CDC documents (some were obtained in 2011); additional CDC internal documents were obtained in July 2017. The evidence is also documented in transcripts of closed-door meetings, such as the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) at Simpsonwood (2000); the Institute of Medicine Committee on Immunization Safety Review (2001); and the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI, 1990). These documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Evidence was also gathered in the course of a criminal investigation of Dr. Poul Thorsen by the U.S. Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
What Did CDC Officials Know About Thimerosal; When Did They Know It, & What Did They Do About It?
In 1974, the FDA convened a panel of experts to conduct a comprehensive review of the safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter medicines. One facet of the review was OTC drugs that contained mercury whose function was to kill bacteria to prevent infection. In 1980, the Advisory Review Panel submitted its report to the FDA, having reviewed 18 products containing mercury. It found the products either unsafe or ineffective. The report cited several studies demonstrating human hypersensitivity to thimerosal:
“mercury compounds as a class are of dubious value for anti-microbial use. Mercury inhibits the growth of bacteria, but does not act swiftly to kill them.”
“The Panel concludes that thimerosal is not safe for OTC topical use because of its potential for cell damage if applied to broken skin, and its allergy potential. It is not effective as a topical antimicrobial because its bacteriostatic action can be reversed.”
After the determination by the FDA advisory committee, Eli Lilly chose to cease production of Thimerosal-containing products. Despite the evidence, Thimerosal continued to be added to vaccines. In 1990, Professor Hans Wigzell, Rector of the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, and member Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, wrote “Difficult to Substitute Mercury as a Preservative in Bacterial Vaccines”, in which he recommended that:
“a study [be conducted] to show if there is a difference in general toxicity when uptake of mercury is from the stomach-intestines or after injections…This should be studied in relation to the tremendous large number of subjects vaccinated with preparations containing thimerosal sodium; Our goal is to develop, as soon as possible, vaccines completely free of mercury.”
In 1991, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, an internationally renowned Merck vaccinologist, wrote a memo to the president of Merck’s vaccine division stating:
“6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish. When viewed in this way, the mercury load appears rather large. The key issue is whether thimerosal, in the amount given with the vaccine, does or does not constitute a safety hazard. However, perception of hazard may be equally important.” 
The FDA delayed issuing its final rule on thimerosal until 1998, stating: “safety and effectiveness have not been established for the ingredients (mercury based preservatives)… manufacturers have not submitted the necessary data in response to earlier opportunities.”The rule, however, applied only to OTC products.
In 1991, Dr. Peter Aaby, Director of the Bandim Health Project, a demographic surveillance system (in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa), which is affiliated with the Statens Serum Institute, identified non-specific adverse vaccine effects which go beyond the specific protective effects of the targeted disease. He noted that these non-specific effects can be beneficial or harmful. Dr. Aaby has conducted a series of comparative “natural studies” of vaccinated and unvaccinated children in high-mortality regions in rural Africa, that consistently confirmed that:
“Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”
The First Large-Scale Scientifically Sound CDC Epidemiological Study
The 1999 CDC study sought to determine the relative risk for infants following exposure to thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines was conducted by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten and three CDC colleagues who examined the evidence documented in CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They analyzed the medical records of 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997 that were maintained by four HMOs and assessed the risk of autism for the children at different ages.
This was a scientifically solid study; it provided scientific documentation that: exposure to thimerosal during the first month of life increased the relative risk of autism by 7.6 i.e., 760%.
The VSD data revealed additional risks as well: 1.8 increased relative risk for a neurodevelopmental disorder; 2.1 relative risk for speech disorder; and 5-fold increased relative risk for a nonorganic sleep disorder. The evidence documents that infants exposed to vaccines laced with thimerosal during the first month of life are at an alarmingly high increased risk of serious harm.
In December 1999, Dr. Verstraeten sent an email to his co-authors and CDC colleagues, Dr. Robert Davis and Dr. Frank DeStefano; the subject line was “it just won’t go away”. The email attachments included four tables with relative risk data and the Abstract of their study findings, that he was submitting for a presentation, at the high level (by invitation only) meeting, convened by CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service, at Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Georgia (2000).
The title of their study: “Increased Risk Of Developmental Neurologic Impairment After High Exposure To Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine In First Month Of Life.”
The meeting was chaired by Richard Johnston, M.D., an immunologist and pediatrician (University of Colorado) who stated:
“The data on its toxicity (shows) it can cause neurologic and renal toxicity, including death. We learned [sic] a number of important things about aluminum, and I think they also are important in our considerations today.”
“Aluminum salts are important in the formulating process of vaccines, both in antigen stabilization and absorption of endotoxin. Aluminum and mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site and at different sites.”
“However [sic] there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures that relate and allow us to draw any conclusions from the simultaneous exposure to these two salts in vaccines…” [p. 19-20]
Dr. Verstraeten began his presentation by stating: “what I will present to you is the study that nobody thought we should do.” The study categorized the cumulative effect of thimerosal-containing vaccines administered to infants after one month of life and assessed the subsequent risk of degenerative and developmental neurologic disorders, and renal disorders before the age of six. Dr. Verstraeten stated that ALL of these relative risks were statistically significant.
And he noted that: “mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury.” When asked about the risk of aluminum, he stated: “the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one.”
Following the presentation, Dr. Roger Bernier (Associate Director for Science NIP) stated: “We have asked you to keep this information confidential….Consider this embargoed information.”[p. 113]
It is clear from the EIS transcript that the response to Dr. Verstraeten’s research findings differed between pediatricians, who were genuinely concerned about the hazards of both Thimerosal and aluminum, whereas officials of government and non-government organizations (NGOs, that are dependent on government and industry support, such as the World Health Organization), focused on the threat to vaccination policy and the risk of litigation were intent on burying the data and maintaining secrecy about the findings.
Pediatricians focused on the risks, public health: Dr. William Weil, represented the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) stated:
“moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.”[p.24]
“Although the data presents a number of uncertainties, there is adequate consistency, biological plausibility, a lack of relationship with phenomenon not expected to be related, and a potential causal role that is as good as any other hypothesized etiology of explanation of the noted associations.
In addition, the possibility that the associations could be causal has major significance for public and professional acceptance of Thimerosal containing vaccines. I think that is a critical issue. Finally, lack of further study would be horrendous grist for the anti-vaccination bill. That’s why we need to go on, and urgently I would add.” [pg. 187 & 188]
“The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” [p.207]
[Dr. Weil may well have been informed by the following research report: Aluminum Neurotoxicity in Preterm Infants Receiving Intravenous-Feeding Solutions in the NEJM(1997) whose authors concluded: “In preterm infants, prolonged intravenous feeding with solutions containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurologic development.” More on aluminum vaccine adjuvants below.]
Dr. Johnson: “This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal-containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available… I do not want [my] grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.” [p. 198]
Dr. Robert Brent [a Scientific Adviser to an industry front-group] focused entirely on protecting corporations from lawsuits:
“The medical/legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous and therefore, it is important that the suggested epidemiological, pharmacokinetic, and animal studies be performed. If an allegation was made that a child’s neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find junk scientist who would support the claim with “a reasonable degree of certainty”.
But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned.” [pg. 229, emphasis added]
*[Dr. Brent was a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) a food and chemical industry front group which the Center for Science in the Public Interest described as, “Voodoo Science, Twisted Consumerism”]
Dr. John Clements, who represented the WHO at the EIS conference, expressed alarm about the direction of the research, which he viewed as posing a threat to vaccination uptake if the information reaches the public:
“I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which way the boat should go at all. And I really [don’t] want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted…, and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between thimerosal and various neurological outcomes. I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic.” [Emphasis added]
“…even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work that has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say.”
“My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe. “ [emphasis added]
“I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations.
My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much. I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through. What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? How will it be presented to a public and a media… I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here.“ [p. 247—249]
Other comments from those present include:
“We could exclude the lowest exposure children from the database”; “We could remove children that got the highest exposure levels since they represented an unusually high percentage of the [adverse] outcomes”; “We can push and pull this data any way we want to get the results we want;” “We could have predicted the outcomes.”
CDC’s Dr. Bernier reminded everyone: “consider this embargoed information…and very highly protected information.”
The concerns expressed at this Epidemic Intelligence Service meeting, by Dr. Clements and other public officials and industry representatives who asserted their determination to conceal the thimerosal evidence from the public, has been the policy of CDC and an international network. However, concealing the evidence does not eradicate the evidence. A compendium of 80 peer-reviewed, published studies found evidence of a link between thimerosal and neurological disorders, including autism. A recent Review paper (April 2017) documents that the continued use of thimerosal in underdeveloped countries provides evidence of its harmful impact.
WMP NOTE: This concludes Part One. Part Two of the Seven-Part series will be entitled: Public Trust of Government Pronouncements Regarding Vaccine Safety is Validated By Evidence of Deception and Corrupt Practices. Sharov’s Introduction outlines her well-researched and documented belief that, “Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies.”
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
University of California Sued For Making Flu Shot Mandatory: Latest Updates
- The Facts:
A hearing will take on November 4th as to whether or not the University of California will be allowed to mandate the flu vaccine for all staff, faculty and students. This comes after they were sued after announcing the mandate this past summer.
- Reflect On:
Why has vaccine hesitancy grown so much amongst scientists and doctors?
The University of California is one of many in the United States that have made the flu shot mandatory for all students, staff and faculty. Originally, Flu shots were required to be taken by November 1st of this year, according to UC, but Judge Richard Seabolt has halted their ability to do that until November 4th, when he will determine whether or not UC can or cannot mandate the flu vaccine.
Due to the growing amount of evidence that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, let alone completely safe, attorney’s Rick Jaffe Robert F. Kennedy Jr, renowned attorney and Chair of Children’s Health Defense are sued the University of California for mandating the flu shot. You can read a bit of their reasoning here.
According to Greg Glaser., general counsel at the Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC), “In this lawsuit against the UC Board of Regents over their new flu vaccine mandate, some of the world’s top experts have provided declarations opposing the flu shot mandate…Their declarations will have a s significant impact on decisions made regarding public health.”
Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of PIC says “there’s data showing that the flu shot increases one’s chances of non-flu illness by 65% – meaning that not only does this mandate lack scientific justification, but it puts UC students, faculty and staff at a greater risk of other respiratory illnesses…The studies referenced in the UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate suggest positive effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of illness caused by flu viruses; however, that benefit may be outweighed by an increase in non-flu respiratory illnesses. And although the possibility has been studied, there is no evidence that the vaccine prevents the spread of influenza.”
UC will not take adverse action against any employee or student who comes to campus who has not had a flu shot. We will see what happens during the trial.
Jaffe states: The judge is obviously taking this motion very seriously, and that is a very good thing. He wanted more time to consider all the papers and write an opinion that will have enormous implications. Judge Seabolt gets to be the first judge in the country to weigh in on whether the state can mandate a vaccine during a pandemic where the vaccine doesn’t treat the pandemic disease and where there is reason to believe that the flu shot could actually increase COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths. That’s alot to think about. It seems like he’s trying to get it right, and that is certainly extremely encouraging, since in my view, the more anyone reasonable thinks about it, the worse the mandate looks because of the lack of proper procedure in its issuance, and the lack of proof that the vaccine won’t cause much more harm than good. So I am all for the judge taking all the time he needs on this.
There are many concerns with vaccines, and vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.
Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference statesd that:
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…
A study published in the journal Vaccine found a greater risk of contracting coronavirus among individuals in the study who received the influenza vaccine. These studies were conducted prior to COVID 19, and apply to already circulating coronaviruses prior to the novel coronavirus.
- A 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.
- A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.
- A 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.
- A 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.
A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines the following:
“Recently outlined A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.”
I’ve put more information and science about the flu shot that goes more in depth and provides more sources in an article I published last year: “Reasons Why People Refuse The Flu Shot”
The Takeaway: Why do federal health authorities and state health affiliated organizations and institutions have a right to mandate a vaccine. What about the opinions of independent health organizations? Why do their voices constantly go unacknowledged and in some cases, ridiculed?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
World Doctors Alliance: “We Do Not Have A Medical Pandemic.” Fake News?
- The Facts:
Formed under the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee,” an alliance of hundreds of doctors and scientists, the "World Doctors Alliance recently held a press conference sharing their views about the coronavirus.
- Reflect On:
Why are tens of thousands of doctors and scientists all over the world being ridiculed and in many cases censored for sharing their research and opinions?
Update/correction: The scientific community has determined that the virus that causes COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a strain of seasonal flu, and it is far more deadly than the flu.
What Happened: Once again, doctors and scientists are and have been sharing the opinion that COVID-19 should not be classified as a pandemic virus due to the fact that it’s, in their opinion, nowhere near as dangerous as big media is making it out to be.
An organization made up of well over 500 German doctors and scientists called “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” who share the same perception discussed in this article have also created the “World Doctors Alliance.” Not long ago they held a press sharing their perspective.
Below is a clip of one of the members, Dr. Elke De Klerk, founder of Doctors for Truth from the Netherlands sharing her thoughts. Below that you will find the press conference recently held by the alliance.
Many expert have been emphasizing that we are dealing with something no more dangerous than the flu. For example, approximately 40,000 scientists, doctors and more than half a million concerned citizens have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration explains that “Covid-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.”
The CDC also released new infection/fatality estimates that show numbers on par with seasonal flu. This recent release also has many people and experts calling into question the severity of the virus, this was well after John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old.
The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
Then there is the controversy surrounding the PCR tests and the idea that a large majority of cases may actually be false positives. You can read more about that here and here. This as been coupled with the fact that many COVID deaths may not have actually been the result of COVID. You can read more about that here and here.
These groups are made up of veteran experts in the field, Nobel Laureates, Professors of Medicine, Doctors and more, yet all it takes is for an Anthony Fauci like figure to oppose their opinion, and this is the perspective that gets beamed across mainstream media outlets, radio and television while the opposing view is nothing but ridiculed and “debunked.” This is very bizarre to say the least, mainstream media alone has the power to make the majority seem like the minority, and the minority seem like the majority. They have a huge reach when it comes to regulating the perception of the masses.
The exampels listed above are a few of many.
Right now, the Great Barrington Declaration mentioned above and the idea of “heard immunity” is being heavily ridiculed in the mainstream, without any of the renowned scientists who support the declaration having an opportunity to share their opinion via mainstream media.
For the other side of the coin, here’s a perspective you can read from Health Feedback, a Facebook Fact-Checker, with regards to infection fatality rate. According to them it’s much higher than the flu, and COVID is very dangerous.
Below is a recent full press conference held by the alliance.
Is This Fake News? Nothing in this article is fake, these opinions are actually being shared by doctors and scientists around the world, and a lot of them. As far as what they are saying and the opinions expressed above, this is what’s come under the scrutiny of Facebook Fact-Checkers. It’s been emphasized during this pandemic that any type of information that does not come straight from federal health regulatory agencies and the World Health Organization is not to be trusted.
Here’s an article from Health Feedback, for example, explaining why low infection fatality numbers do not mean that the virus is not dangerous.
The organizations above have been speaking up regarding the censorship they’ve experienced from social media giants, and this has also been a common theme throughout this pandemic. Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus. According to him, “the level of stupidity” going on here is amazing.
According to Fact-Check.org:
A video posted by a European-based group called World Doctors Alliance falsely claims the novel coronavirus is “a normal flu virus” and there is no COVID-19 pandemic. Actually, COVID-19 is deadlier than the seasonal flu, and some European nations are combatting a second wave of cases.
According to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we remain in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic, with an uptick in case numbers and hospitalizations straining the ability of medical centers in some areas to cope. Some European governments have imposed more restrictions to fight another wave of cases.
Yet on Oct. 10, Heiko Schöning, a German physician and head of a group known by the German acronym ACU2020, announced formation of an organization called World Doctors Alliance to challenge the veracity of the COVID-19 pandemic. The alliance website claims it is “abundantly clear that the ‘pandemic’ is basically over and has been since June 2020.”
An 18-minute video announcing the group’s formation was posted on the ACU2020 website but has since been taken down by YouTube for violating its terms of service. Still, portions of the video featuring two doctors challenging the science behind the pandemic are circulating on Facebook with false assertions and statistics.
Staking out the group’s position, Elke De Klerk, a Dutch general practitioner, says on the video, “We do not have a pandemic” and calls COVID-19 a “normal flu virus” – claims flatly rejected by the WHO, CDC, and other experts.
De Klerk claims the pandemic designation was based on poor testing, with the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, molecular test returning false positive results in “89 to 94%” of the cases. That’s not true.
While the false positive rate remains an area of continued examination, preliminary studies show the test’s false positive rate is far less than De Klerk claims. A recent article in the British medical publication The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, said estimates in the U.K. place the false positive rate in the 0.8 to 4% range, while false negatives could run as high as 33%.
As for the virus that causes COVID-19, scientists universally agree it is a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a strain of influenza.
While the death rate for COVID-19 remains uncertain, as we have reported, evidence suggests it is higher than for seasonal influenza.
In the U.S., where COVID-19 has caused more than 220,000 deaths, the worst flu season in the past decade killed an estimated 61,000 people in 2017-18, as we’ve reported. In fact, COVID-19 so far has killed more people in the U.S. than the past five flu seasons combined, and hundreds more die each day.
In addition, a CDC study released Oct. 20 found hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the Veterans Health Administration had a five times higher risk of death than patients with the flu.
You can read more from them here.
The Takeaway: It’s been quite intriguing to see so many scientists and doctors completely oppose the recommendations and claims made by the World Health Organization (WHO) since the beginning of this pandemic. What’s even more shocking for lots of people is the fact that many scientists and doctors have been completely censored for sharing their research and opinion regarding anything to do with COVID if it opposes the information and recommendations set out by the WHO.
It’s not hard to see why so many people are confused and so many of us have beliefs that completely differ from one another.
Should people not have the right to examine information and opinions and decide for themselves what is and what isn’t Should there be a digital fact checker patrolling the internet limiting peoples ability to see certain information? Do organizations like the WHO and our governments really make decisions that are in and for our best interests, or are there other interests being served here?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Our Body Makes Neurotransmitters, Should We Give It Nutrition Instead of Psych Meds?
- The Facts:
If our body is nutrient deficient or full of toxins, it can lead to cell death, immunodeficiency, and physical and mental health illness. When diet and lifestyle is addressed remarkable changes can occur.
- Reflect On:
Have you ever tested your nutrient levels? How much time and care are you putting into your diet to ensure that your body is getting what it needs to thrive?
“Those with psychiatric symptoms aren’t missing certain chemicals. They are missing certain nutrients that make those chemicals.” – Healing Without Hurting
Our bodies are amazing machines. When we provide our cells with nutrient-dense whole food nutrition free of chemicals, additives, pesticides, and herbicides, our bodies flourish. If our body is nutrient deficient or full of toxins, it can lead to cell death, immunodeficiency, and physical and mental health illness. According to the July 2017 edition of Nutrients, thirty-one to forty-five percent of the United States population has some nutritional deficiency. Before a psychiatrist prescribes a psychiatric medication, testing for levels of nutrients in the body is essential.
The brain is the greediest organ of our body, with some particular dietary requirements. It’s hardly surprising that nutritional deficiencies lead to mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, memory deficiencies, attention, cognition issues, sleep problems, and sensory processing disorders. The most common nutrient deficiencies leading to mental disorders are omega–3 fatty acids, B vitamins, minerals, and amino acids that are precursors to neurotransmitters.
When diet and lifestyle is addressed, and an intervention is put in place to correct for deficiencies, there is a remarkable change. In a 2016 study in the Journal of Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine, “patients reported multiple benefits across all conditions addressed and felt their emotional and or neurological symptoms diminished significantly.”
Other symptoms of nutritional deficiencies include weight gain due to a slower metabolism, fatigue, salt and sugar cravings, muscle weakness, diminished sex drive, hair loss, brittle hair and nails, and scaly skin. There are many causes of nutritional deficiencies including, eating a Standard American Diet (SAD) lacking essential nutrients, low absorption due to poor digestion, metabolic issues due to genetic mutations, lack of nutrients in our soil, and medications. And so, a vicious cycle ensues.
“Common medications deplete vital nutrients essential to your health.” -Hyla Cass, MD.
The sad reality is that many people eat poorly-paying no attention to how their eating habits affect their mental health, and many are too quick to find the “quick fix” remedy. Our allopathic psychiatrists and doctors do not get training in a systems biology to treatment, nor are they encouraged to offer this advice. The lack of knowledge in this area is primarily because the pharmaceutical companies fund our medical schools. There is no money in good nutrition or healthy people.
Why We Need to Eat Enough Protein
Eating enough protein is vital. We can get adequate protein from many plant sources, as well as meat products. Everyone talks about how those with mental health issues need more dopamine or serotonin, which usually translates into more medication. However, if we look at the physiology behind how neurotransmitters are made in the first place, most of them depend on an adequate intake of protein. Protein is broken down into amino acids, and the amino acids are then converted to neurotransmitters with the help of other nutrients such as B vitamins and specific minerals.
Interestingly, medication does not increase the levels of these chemicals in the body; it only re-uptakes what is already there. So, if a person is deficient, the medication may do little to remedy the situation. If it recirculated back to the brain where there may be too much already, side-effects could occur.
Two of the most common brain chemicals involved with depression are dopamine and serotonin. These chemicals, called neurotransmitters, regulate mood. Serotonin deficiency can lead to depression. Hence why antidepressants known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) are typically the go-to medication treatment.
Serotonin is actually created by an amino acid called tryptophan. Niacin (vitamin B3) is part of the metabolizing process of forming serotonin from tryptophan. Therefore, niacin deficiency can also directly impact mood by affecting your production of serotonin. Dopamine is produced from the amino acid tyrosine and phenylalanine, both of which can be obtained from protein-rich foods.
Melatonin is an important hormone that helps to regulate our sleep cycle. The conversion of serotonin to melatonin is controlled by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus, the coordinator of the body’s circadian rhythms. Many doctors, both holistic and conventional, often recommend it for sleep problems. Although generally safe in lower doses and limited time, supplementing this powerful hormone may have some side effects. Some of them include nightmares, grogginess, seizures, tics, headaches, nausea, diabetes, small testicles, and depression. To avoid synthetic substitutes, we can provide the brain’s pineal gland what it needs to make melatonin. The necessary nutrients include tryptophan, GABA, fatty acids, B vitamins, zinc, and magnesium.
As one can see, proper nutrition and getting enough nutrients is essential to our mental well-being. Instead of running to get a script, perhaps it is time to address the many other root causes of mental health issues, including nutritional deficiencies. To learn more about how to help you or your family overcome ADHD, autism, and mental health conditions, while at the same time improving your overall health, I am offering a FREE downloadable PDF of an online presentation I recently gave containing these tips and much more. Learn why eating protein is essential and why microbiome diversity is critical. SIGN UP HERE to receive your free download today. And to purchase my award-winning book Healing Without Hurting, click here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Admits That 94 Percent of “COVID-19 Deaths” Had Other Causes/Conditions
What Happened: According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), out of all the deaths that have been labelled as...
Edward Snowden’s Tweet That Exposed What Our TV’s Are Doing To Us
Years ago, Edward Snowden accomplished one of the most significant intelligence leaks in U.S. history, confirming to the world that...