Connect with us

Awareness

The Vaccine Program’s Unintended Consequences: The Tale of Two Hepatitis B Studies

Published

on

For more information, please visit The World Mercury Project.  Here’s a link to their Facebook page.

advertisement - learn more

In 1991, US public health authorities began recommending that all infants get the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, stipulating that they receive three doses within the first six months of life, starting at birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) followed suit with its own recommendation in 1992, instructing countries to vaccinate from birth even where hepatitis B virus was uncommon. Two 2018 studies (one in the US and one in India) take a closer look at the outcomes and implications of these blanket prescriptions. Although the studies focus on different aspects of their countries’ respective vaccine programs, both are cautionary tales, highlighting the fact that one-size-fits-all vaccine recommendations frequently steamroll over important biological risks and immune system subtleties, thereby introducing troublesome unintended consequences.

-->Help Support CE: Donate to Collective Evolution to help us move past the challenges censorship has put on independent media. Click here to contribute!

U.S. Children & Taxpayers on The Hook

Until the early 2000s, the HepB vaccine in the US contained organic ethylmercury in the form of the preservative thimerosal—totaling 37.5 micrograms across the three doses. Regulators have never bothered to set any safety standards for ethylmercury, but government researchers have shown that the toxicity mechanisms of ethyl- and methylmercury (the type of mercury found in fish) are similar, and some believe that even the tiniest amounts carry a risk of adverse neuropsychological outcomes.

Fixated on the sole indicator of increasing HepB vaccine coverage, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bragged in 2002 about having achieved a 90% national coverage rate in young children. However, a 2018 cross-sectional studypublished in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health strongly suggests that the 1990s-era thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine had far less praiseworthy consequences, causing considerable harm to children and also exacting a high price from US taxpayers.

The researchers used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data to consider 1,192 boys aged 7-8 years—a sample statistically representative of over 24 million American boys. Building on their own and others’ prior research linking thimerosal to developmental disabilities, they considered boys who either did or did not receive three doses of thimerosal-containing (1994–2000) or thimerosal-reduced (2001–2007) HepB vaccine in infancy (the “exposure”), defining the outcome as increased long-term risk of receiving special education services. They restricted their sample to boys because of males’ greater susceptibility to mercury toxicity.

…in the decade from 1991–2001, exposure to thimerosal-containing HepB vaccines in the first six months of life resulted in an estimated 0.5–1 million US children being diagnosed with learning disabilities

For the subgroup born between 1994 and 2000, boys who received three doses of thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine were at a more than nine-fold significantly higher risk of receiving special education services compared to boys receiving no doses of HepB vaccine. Extrapolating to the US population as a whole, this means that almost 1.3 million US boys born from 1994-2000 received special education services directly attributable to receiving three doses of thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine—costing taxpayers over $180 billion. An earlier study by some of the same authors found that in the decade from 1991–2001, exposure to thimerosal-containing HepB vaccines in the first six months of life resulted in an estimated 0.5–1 million US children being diagnosed with learning disabilities, representing lifetime costs in excess of $1 trillion.

advertisement - learn more

Vaccine-Induced Versus Natural Immunity

As noted, the WHO has strongly promoted universal HepB vaccination and particularly the initial birth dose. However, in India, which introduced the HepB vaccine around 2006, approximately three-fifths (61%) of women deliver at home rather than in a health facility, making it next to impossible for health providers to administer newborn vaccines. In recognition of these realities, the Indian government’s two-pronged policy is to give HepB vaccine at birth to the 39% of babies born in institutional settings but to otherwise administer the first dose at six weeks. About 45% of Indian children receive the birth dose (although the WHO wants to double that number); irrespective of timing, 86% of Indian children reportedly receive all three HepB doses. However, India is home to an estimated one-third of the world’s unvaccinated children, meaning that many children still do not receive any HepB vaccine at all.

A 2018 study published in the Indian Journal of Pediatrics took advantage of these ready-made comparison groups. The multiregional study (2013–2015) recruited children 1-5 years of age who were already having blood drawn and whose parents consented to hepatitis B testing (N=2,671). Three-fifths (59%) of the children had received at least three doses of HepB vaccine, and just over half of these (880/1566) had their first dose at birth. The research team considered several intriguing questions:

  1. Are there any differences in vaccine efficacy for the two HepB schedules (birth dose versus six-week dose)? After testing all samples for a marker of chronic hepatitis B infection, the investigators concluded that birth vaccination offered “no added protection”—lending support to the government’s “pragmatic” approach of waiting until six weeks to vaccinate babies born at home.
  2. What are the levels of protective antibodies in fully HepB-vaccinated children, and do they change over time or according to birth dose? The researchers measured antibodies in a subset of 865 children who had received three doses of HepB vaccine. Seven in ten (70%) had protective levels of antibodies—but 30% of fully HepB-vaccinated children did not [emphasis added]. Moreover, when the researchers considered the children’s age, they found that vaccine-induced protection waned rapidly and significantly, falling from 82% of under-one-year-olds to 47% of five-year-olds. Receiving a birth dose made no difference.
  3. What are the levels of protective antibodies in children who have not received any HepB vaccine? Finally, the researchers examined hepatitis B immunity in 370 children who had never received any HepB vaccine. Nearly half (45%) of non-HepB-vaccinated one-year-olds were naturally immune, and 29% still had antibody protection at age 5. The researchers credited these protective levels of antibodies to natural, passively acquired immunity from unvaccinated mothers.

Overzealous promotion

The results of the two hepatitis B studies touch on many facets of the vaccine debate that the public health community is rarely, if ever, willing to discuss. These largely ignored topics include:

  • The ongoing, adverse neurodevelopmental impact of toxic vaccine ingredients such as aluminum adjuvants and thimerosal, which is still present in annual flu shots, some meningococcal meningitis vaccines and the Td (tetanus-diphtheria) booster;
  • The fact that economic and political factors—rather than vaccine effectiveness—are often key drivers of decisions about vaccine timing and schedules;
  • The failure of HepB (and other) vaccines to reliably generate protective antibody levels in all fully vaccinated individuals—this phenomenon of impaired immunogenicity is a widely known “Achilles’ heel” of many vaccines; and
  • The corresponding (and vastly underestimated) importance of natural immunity.
mothers in highly measles-vaccinated communities have lower antibody levels and, therefore, far less ability to confer passive protection to their babies.

Regarding this latter point, the authors of the Indian HepB research, led by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, call attention to the “surprising” persistence of passively acquired hepatitis B antibodies in their own study population and in other studies. Pointing to studies of measles immunity, they note that mothers in highly measles-vaccinated communities have lower antibody levels and, therefore, far less ability to confer passive protection to their babies. This is because the measles vaccine “induces lower antibody levels than does natural infection and the antibody levels of vaccinated cohorts are no longer boosted by exposure to wild-type infection.” A study in the Czech Republic that compared 18-29-year-olds who were vaccinated and unvaccinated for mumps found that only 19% of vaccinated individuals in that age group had acquired immunity versus almost half (48%) of the unvaccinated, leading to the conclusion that only natural infection can lead to “long-term persistence of antibodies.” A growing number of studies also are indicating that prior exposure to natural infections such as measles and mumps may be health-protective later in life.

Back in 2003, Dr. Puliyel wrote a letter to the editor that questioned other researchers’ overestimation of the benefits of hepatitis B vaccination in terms of vaccine efficacy and cost per life-year saved. The letter concluded with a caution to guard against “overzealous” vaccine promotion. In the current climate of an ever-expanding vaccine schedule and hundreds more vaccines in the pipeline, those words of warning seem timelier than ever.

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.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

World Doctors Alliance: “We Do Not Have A Medical Pandemic.” Fake News?

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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?

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 De Klerk’s own country, the Netherlands, there have been more than 6,800 deaths attributed to COVID-19 so far this year, compared to 2,900 due to flu and pneumonia in 2018-19.

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?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Our Body Makes Neurotransmitters, Should We Give It Nutrition Instead of Psych Meds?

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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 issuessleep 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.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

WHO Estimates 35 Million Infected With COVID

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Executive director of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Health Emergencies Programme Dr. Michael Ryan recently stated that according to their best estimates, 10 percent of the world's population has been infected with Sars-Cov-2.

  • Reflect On:

    Are rising case numbers as much as a concern as they're being made out to be? Is COVID more dangerous than all other viruses that have been circling the globe before it, infecting hundreds of millions and killing tens of million a year?

This article has been updated and corrected.

What Happened: Dr Michael Ryan, a former trauma surgeon and epidemiologist who is now the executive director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Emergencies Programme recently revealed that the WHO believes approximately 10 percent of the world’s population has been infected with COVID-19. This is their “best estimate” and far exceeds the number of officially recognized cases. The idea that more people are infected than we are aware of has been a common theme and the general consensus among the scientific community since early on in this pandemic. For example, a study published in April  by several academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggested that COVID-19 has infected many more than what the tests were showing, driving the infection fatality rate on par with seasonal influenza.

Our current best estimates tell us that about ten percent of the global population may have been infected by this virus. This varies depending on country, it varies from urban to rural, it varies between different groups.” – Dr Ryan, “session 1” at 1:01:33 (source)

This latest estimate means approximately 780 million people have been infected, and the number will continue to grow according to the WHO.

According to Facebook Fact Checker Health Feedback,

As Ryan clarified during a 12 October 2020 virtual press conference, he did not confirm that 10% of the global population had been infected, but that 10% was the upper bound of the estimated number of infections so far:

[W]hat I was actually trying to communicate was that the vast majority of human beings on this planet remain susceptible to the virus. I believe what I said was that many studies had demonstrated that 10% or less of people had been infected, although that was very variable with some slum areas, high-risk populations like health workers being much higher.

Maria Van Kerkhove, epidemiologist and COVID-19 technical lead for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, stated that recent estimates of COVID-19’s IFR “all converge around a point estimate of around 0.6%. That may not sound like a lot, but that is a lot higher than influenza, and the infection fatality ratio increases dramatically with age.” Most recent studies estimate an overall COVID-19 IFR around 0.68%[1], which is consistent with the general scientific consensus that COVID-19 is at least ten times more deadly than seasonal flu.

As Christophe Fraser, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, explained in a Twitter thread, the overall IFR estimate for an average seasonal flu is around 0.04%. Thus, even if COVID-19’s IFR was indeed 0.14% as claimed, it would still be about four times higher than that of seasonal flu.

You can read more from them here.

If deaths attributed to COVID are not actually a result of COVID, then the rate would be even lower. You can read more about that here.

Why This Is Important: These numbers beg the question, does COVID really warrant mass global lockdowns and other preventative measures we’ve taken, or should it simply be treated as another virus like many others than have been circling the globe for decades, killing and infecting tens of millions of people every single year. Many people are asking how COVID is any different.

More than 34, 000 scientists and doctors, as well as more than 150,000 people have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, opposing a second COVID-19 lockdown because, according to them, it’s doing much more harm than good.

It’s called “The Great Barrington Declaration” and it states the following:

 “Covid-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

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.

A group of Canadian doctors in the province of Ontario have come together and written an open letter to Ontario premier Doug Ford. The letter is signed by 20 doctors and professors of medicine from faculties at the University of Toronto, McMaster University and the University of Ottawa and from hospitals such as Sick Kids. The letter was sent to ford on September 27th, and it argues against a return to lockdown measures as a way to tackle rising COVID-19 cases. You can read more about that here.

The CDC also released new infection/fatality estimates that 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 has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. It turns out he was right.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can access that and read more about it here.

In Germany, more than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19 and express the same sentiments. You can read more about that here.

The list of medical and scientific experts opposing the measures being taken by multiple governments is quite long. The examples above simply represent a tidbit and I’ve used them in multiple articles, but I just wanted to get the point across with a few examples. .

Not long ago  I wrote about Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University who recently gave an interview stating “there is more harm from the lockdown than there is from COVID.” He’s one of many experts who feel this way, and explains why. In that article I put more examples of renowned doctors and scientists from around the world who do and have opposed lockdown measures.

Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history (source)

The Other Side of The Coin: According to Facebook fact-checker Health Feedback,

The claim that the COVID-19 pandemic response has been unwarranted has taken many forms. Some involved misleading comparisons with other respiratory diseases like the flu and tuberculosis, while others relied on misinterpretations of COVID-19 mortality reports and unsupported accounts of fabricated COVID-19 test results. In September 2020, numerous Facebook posts making the same claim emerged (see examples here and here), this time highlighting the age-specific infection mortality ratio (IFR) that was added to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 10 September 2020 (see archive of website with the update note). These posts have gone viral, receiving more than 37,000 shares.

They note that a low IFR does not equate to a virus that is not dangerous, and in fact point to the exact opposite.

They go on to explain that

Scientists have observed that some survivors suffer from damage to various organs, including the lungs and heart, as well as the nervous system. Such damage could lead to chronic health problems, as this news article in Science reported, although it is currently unclear exactly how long such damage persists and how often it occurs. However, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 can be so severe that physicians and researchers are preparing to provide rehabilitation services to patients to facilitate their return to a functional life[2,3].

Finally, even a small IFR can translate into a large number of deaths if the virus spreads among a large group of people. Indeed, in spite of COVID-19’s relatively small IFR, the U.S. has recorded more than 200,000 COVID-19 deaths at the time of this review’s publication while there have been more than 1 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide, according to the Coronavirus Resource Center by Johns Hopkins University.

You can read their full post here.

Why This Is Important:

The point is, the number of scientists and doctors around the world who are opposing actions taken by multiple governments, as well as recommendations from the WHO is quite overwhelming. What’s suspicious is the fact that none of these measures ever quite receive the mainstream media attention that they deserve, and one narrative/perception of COVID seems to dominate our television screens.

Is there a battle for our perception happening right now? Is our consciousness being manipulated? Why is there so much conflicting information if everything is crystal clear? Why are alternative treatments that have shown tremendous amounts of success being completely ignored and ridiculed?  What’s going on here, and how much power do governments have when they are able to silence the voice of so many people? Should we not be examining information openly, transparently, and together?

Is the new coronavirus, like 9/11, a catalyst for a shift in human consciousness. Are people ‘waking up’ as a result of what has, is and will transpire?

Why are so many doctors and scientists being censored and shadow banned on social media for simply sharing their research, evidence and opinions just because they contradict government health agencies and organizations like the WHO?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!