Connect with us

Awareness

The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption—Part 2 of 7

Published

on

Note from the World Mercury Project Team:  Following is Part Two 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.

advertisement - learn more

You can read part one here.

Principal reports authored by scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and CDC-sponsored reports published in the most influential medical journals are shown to be the product of scientific fraud and malfeasance by high-level CDC officials. The internal CDC documents include emails, memoranda, and transcripts of meetings and conference calls, are an irrefutable record revealing how key CDC studies and CDC-commissioned studies[12] were shaped by use of illegitimate methods, including data manipulation, selective inclusion, and deletion of data from the published reports.

To begin with, as a senior CDC scientist, Dr. Tom Verstraeten pointed out in an email that the Danish population studies – that compared Danish vs. US autism prevalence rates – used non-comparable populations:

  • By 1992, Sweden, Norway & Denmark had eliminated the use of Thimerosal from childhood vaccines, due to safety concerns; Japan followed suit; the U.S. did not.
  • Danish children were subjected to far fewer vaccines at different schedules, and exposure levels to the mercury preservative, thimerosal, was 75% lower than children in the U.S.
  • These significant disparate differences –by any standard – render the Danish epidemiological studies irrelevant to the US. Verstraeten scoffed at such studies as a comparison of “apples to pears”.

As will be documented below, mainstream academics accepted the published claimed findings of the CDC-sponsored Danish epidemiological studies without further examination. However, astute, skeptical, independent critics – both scientists and others – reviewed those pivotal studies in detail. These critics reported that the scientific integrity of those studies was undermined by statistical manipulation through which the MMR and thimerosal were exonerated as a causal contributor to autism.[13],[14]

  • Indeed, the Cochrane reviewers confirmed that the scientific integrity of the studies was undermined by: “bias in the selection of controls”; “lack of a properly constructed causal hypothesis”; “extensive under-counting of autism cases in the MMR group”; “unequal length of follow-up”; “missing 14% to 20% of original birth cohort”; “between 11% and 20% of adverse event data was missing”; and in CDC’s 2004 study (Pediatrics,) “more than a third of cases were excluded. (Cochrane MMR Reviews, 2005; 2012.)
  • Internal CDC correspondence, confirms that relevant findings documenting an increased risk of harm were deliberately omitted from the published and widely cited reports and even when scientists requested the full dataset of CDC’s own epidemiological study for independent analysis, CDC claimed that the data was “missing.”
  • Psychiatrist Poul Thorsen, MD, who was the principal Danish investigator of the Danish series of studies commissioned by CDC, failed to obtain ethics committee approval for key CDC-sponsored epidemiological studies – as is required under US and Danish law. Newly obtained internal CDC documents provide evidence of collusion and malfeasance by public health officials who attempted to cover-up those violations of legally mandated ethics committee review and approval.
  • A recently updated report by the World Mercury Project issued August 2017, includes many additional details documented in newly obtained CDC documents. The documents show that CDC officials took no action to evaluate the veracity of the data – even after they were informed in January 2009 about the missing CDC funds managed by the principal investigator.

“when CDC officials including Coleen Boyle, Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, Joanne Wojcik, and Diana Schendel became aware in 2009, that Poul Thorsen failed to obtain legally required permission for the autism biological and genetic data projects, these CDC employees participated in a cover-up with the Danish grantees.”

advertisement - learn more

  • CDC suppressed the findings of its large-scale 1999 study documenting a causal relationship between exposure to the vaccines containing Thimerosal (ethylmercury) and autism. The study found that exposure to Thimerosal during the first month of life increased the relative risk of autism 7-fold (7.6).
  • CDC also suppressed the original findings of another of its own studies that found a 340% (3.6) relative increased risk of autism for African American male babies following MMR vaccination in accordance with the CDC-recommended Childhood Vaccination Schedule.
  • CDC scientists worked in concert with CDC-commissioned Danish scientists to conceal the significantly reduced cases of autism in Denmark following the removal of Thimerosal in 1992.
  • The internal documents obtained by Robert Kennedy Jr and the World Mercury Project, provide evidence that high ranking CDC scientists committed massive fraud to protect CDC’s Childhood Vaccination Schedule to ensure high vaccination rates.
  • The other authoritative sources include the U.S. Grand Jury’s  criminal indictment of Dr. Poul Thorsen (2011) on 13 counts of fraud and 9 counts of money laundering. Thorsen was the principal CDC-commissioned psychiatrist in the Danish epidemiological studies. In addition to his failure to obtain ethics approval for studies published by The New England Journal of Medicine (2002), and by the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2010), Thorsen’s studies are shown to have been manipulated through fraudulent means. What’s more, he was criminally indicted by a US Grand Jury (2011) on 22-counts of fraud – including document forgeries – theft, embezzlement, and money laundering.
  • A detailed confidential report (2012) submitted by GlaxoSmithKline to the European Medicines Authority (EMA) documents the hazardous effects following vaccination with GSK’s 6-in-1 Infanrix Hexa vaccine. The report includes concealed sudden infant deaths.[17] [See Appendix 8]

The Challenges That Threatened Vaccine Orthodoxy & The Financial Interest Of Vaccine Stakeholders:

  • Dr. Wakefield lent validity to growing distrust in government assurances that all childhood vaccines and vaccination schedules are proven safe, by publicly expressing concerns about the safety of the MMR.
  • CDC scientists documented evidence of more than a 7- fold increased risk of autism for infants exposed to thimerosal. This finding had the potential of blowing the lid off the entire children’s vaccination schedule.
  • In 1999, the US Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a joint statement calling for the elimination of Thimerosal from all vaccines in the US.[18]
  • In 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOMreview[19] of the evidence, regarding whether vaccines laced with thimerosal posed a risk for children, concluded that the idea that thimerosal caused neurological disorders was “biologically plausible”. The committee made a series of recommendations, but CDC never implemented these recommendations:

“the use of thimerosal-free DTaP, Hib, and hepatitis B vaccines … case-control studies examining the potential link between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal-containing vaccines… further analysis of neurodevelopmental outcomes… research on how children, including those diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, metabolize and excrete metals, particularly mercury… research to identify a safe, effective, and inexpensive alternative to thimerosal”

CDC responded by stating the agency was “gravely troubled by the recommendation” of the PHS and the AAP, and ignored the IOM recommendations.[20] CDC dithered, and continued to recommend vaccines containing mercury, exposing millions of infants and children in the US to massive doses of thimerosal. CDC officials did so, with the endorsements of the FDA Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the Immunization Safety Committee of the Institute of Medicine. (See CDC Thimerosal Timeline 1999-2010)

In 2000, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set regulatory policy for the disposal of medications that are known environmental hazards. These are called hazardous pharmaceutical wastes. These include: “pharmaceutical with heavy metals, including the preservative thimerosal.

An EPA-sponsored biological study (2005)[21] by Dr. Thomas Burbacher and colleagues at the University of Rochester compared the biological (toxicokinetic) effect of consumed methylmercury to the effect of Hg (inorganic mercury) in vaccines containing thimerosal in infant monkeys. The seventeen monkeys assigned to the thimerosal group were vaccinated in accordance with the typical CDC recommended vaccination schedule. Those 17 infants retained “a much higher proportion of inorganic Hg in the brain (up to 71% vs. 10%) [compared to infants who ingested mercury]:

“A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic mercury for the thimerosal-exposed infants (34% vs 7%). There was a much higher proportion of inorganic Hg in the brain of thimerosal infants than MeHg infants (up to 71% vs. 10%).

Absolute inorganic Hg concentrations in the brains of the thimerosal-exposed infants were approximately twice that of the MeHg infants. Interestingly, the inorganic fraction in the kidneys of the same cohort of infants was also significantly higher following i.m. thimerosal than oral MeHg exposure (0.71±0.04 vs. 0.40±0.03). This suggests that the dealkylation of ethylmercury is much more extensive than that of MeHg.”

  • More than 165 studies have found Thimerosal to be harmful; 37 scientific published reports found a link between Thimerosal exposure and developmental disorders, including autism.[22]
  • More than 150 physicians and scientists who have published research demonstrating possible safety issues with vaccines (or ingredients in vaccines) are listed here.

Despite a body of scientific evidence, CDC continues to broadcast its reassuring, but untenable claim:

There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.” Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm.” (CDC website)

CDC and its bevy of vaccine stakeholders ignore the scientific evidence and the fact that most of the consumed mercury in fish is excreted.[23] The documented risks of Thimerosal – especially for young children and unborn neonates – who are at increased risk of neurological brain damage/autism – led to the eventual removal of Thimerosal from childhood vaccines – although CDC never conceded that fact.

However, some influenza vaccines contain 250 times the mercury level that EPA uses to classify hazardous pharmaceutical waste.[24] What’s more, since 2002, CDC expanded its recommendation for the flu vaccine. In 2010, CDC recommended the flu shot for very young infants (6 and 7 months old), and an annual flu vaccine for everyone – including children and pregnant women.[25]

The authors of a recently published review, Thimerosal: Clinical, Epidemiologic and Biochemical Studies (2015)[26] point out, that despite the existence of approved, effective preservatives, Thimerosal continues to be used in some vaccines administered to infants, children, and pregnant women.

As a consequence of CDC recommendations, the cumulative exposure of US children to Thimerosal remains relatively high. In developing countries, the amount of Thimerosal in childhood vaccines has not been reduced and the harmful consequences are documented.[17]

How Vaccine Safety Assessments & the Channels of Information Re: Vaccine Safety Are Tightly Controlled By Stakeholders to Ensure High Utilization of Vaccines

The CDC Verstraeten study findings were concealed from all but a small circle of scientists. CDC officials conspired to overturn the evidence of the thimerosal-autism risk documented by its own scientists.[27]

  • CDC commissioned an IOM review to exonerate thimerosal and the MMR;
  • CDC outsourced a series of dubious (incompatible) epidemiological studies that were designed to exonerate thimerosal as a causal link to autism;
  • CDC initiated  multiple international collaborative consortia  to control  the assessment standards of vaccine safety; to set the agenda for vaccine safety research, and to control the content of information about vaccine safety.

Evidence of Institutional Corruption at the Institute of Medicine

A transcript of a January 2001 closed-door meeting of the IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee (obtained in 2011 during Court proceedings)[28] records the discussion centered on the content of a CDC draft report before the IOM committee ever examined the evidence. The chair of the committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, of the Harvard School of Public Health, and IOM scholar, Dr. Kathleen Stratton, the study director, specified to committee members what conclusions they were expected to sign off on – no matter what the evidence shows:

CDC wants us to declare [sic] these things are pretty safe on a population basis.” [p33] “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect.”


Dr. Kathleen Stratton:  “The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is to pull the vaccine, [or] change the schedule. We could say it is time to revisit this, but we would never recommend that level.   Even recommending research is recommendations for policy. We wouldn’t say compensate, we wouldn’t  say pull the vaccine, we wouldn’t stop the program.”  [p74]

The influential IOM committee backed away from its 2001 recommendations and delivered the report that CDC had dictated and stressed that raising questions about the safety of vaccines poses the danger of rejection of vaccines:

The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism…

“Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines… ”  Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004)

The “body of evidence” that the IOM review relied on was 5 CDC-funded fatally flawed epidemiological studies; several of these were found to be fraudulent. [29]  Another study relied on the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) whose reliability is in doubt.[30]

All of these studies reiterated the uniform, pre-determined conclusion:

“there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders.” The IOM reviewers failed even to consider FDA’s risk assessment: An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines  (2001) which cautioned:

“some infants may be exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first 6 months of life that exceed EPA recommendations. Exposure of infants to mercury in vaccines can be reduced or eliminated by using products formulated without thimerosal as a preservative.”

Furthermore, the IOM committee refused to review pre-publication drafts of rigorous biological studies.[31] These included scientists from Columbia University (Molecular Psychiatry, 2004); University of Arkansas (NeuroToxicology, 2005); Northeastern University (Molecular Psychiatry, 2004); a U.S. epidemiological study by Johns Hopkins University (Pediatrics, 2005); Harvard University (Neuroscientist, 2005); and the University of Washington (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005).

The committee rushed to issue its report exonerating Thimerosal. The IOM report lent validity to irrelevant epidemiologic studies, government vaccination policies, and provided the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) with the rationale against compensation for autism. The conclusions reached by the IOM Committee were pre-determined, as were the studies upon which it relied. The committee delivered the findings that it was commissioned and paid to deliver.

This dishonest review by the IOM panel demonstrates the lack scientific integrity of a report issued by the Institute of Medicine, further validating public distrust of  “authoritative” government and quasi-government medical institutions. Nevertheless, the influence of this flawed report extends far and wide.

Dr. Robert Chen, Chief of Vaccine Safety for CDC’s National Immunization Program (NIP) initiated the Brighton Collaboration.[32] It was launched in 2000, by members of the Cochrane Collaboration:  Tom Jefferson, Harald Heijbel, Ulrich Heininger, Elisabeth Loupi, with funding obtained from the CDC and the WHO.

In an editorial in the BMJ Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Online (June 2000), Dr. Jefferson urged the UK government to launch a computerized vaccine exposure and outcome database such as the one the US CDC maintains (i.e., Vaccine Safety Datalink, VSD) in order to rapidly counteract public concern.

“Since the publication of the Wakefield study on 28 February 1998, public concern fueled by extensive media coverage caused a steady decline in MMR coverage in parts of the United Kingdom, with a subsequent risk of a decline in herd immunity and resurgence in morbidity.”

“As usual with vaccine “scare stories,” there was a delay between publication of the initial case series and that of population-based causal assessment study. During this time, declining coverage took place.”

“The impact on parents of a perceived causal link with a chronic disease that could threaten the life and wellbeing of their children is understandably great. Inevitably, in a proportion of cases the worry and emotion spills over into a threat of legal action against governments, manufacturers or individuals. This has the effect of taking the matter outside the scientific and healthcare arena and into the realm of the judiciary.” [33]

It would appear that Dr. Jefferson was unaware of the Verstraeten Vaccine Safety Datalink population-based study:

  • The objective of that singular CDC study was to determine whether the adjuvant thimerosal contained in most childhood vaccines at the time, posed a risk of harm to infants.
  • CDC researchers found a 7-fold increased risk of autism caused by exposure to thimerosal, a risk which CDC has continued to conceal from the public while proclaiming that no evidence of an autism risk exists.
  • The causal link that “just won’t go away”, was more than a perception; it was science-based evidence.

WMP NOTE:  This concludes Part Two. Part Three of the Seven-Part series is entitled: Gaining Control of Vaccine-Related Information: Establishing an Infrastructure.  Previously published articles: Sharov’s Introduction outlined 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.” Part Onefocused on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccine industry controlled vaccine safety assessments, controlled the science of vaccines and controlled the scientific and mass channels of information about vaccines.

More about the author: Vera Sharav is a Holocaust survivor and a fierce critic of the medical establishment. This article was originally published at www.ahrp.org. Stat news recently published an article about her and her work. 

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.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

30-Year Study Finds Weekly Use Of Disinfectants Greatly Increases Your Chances Of Lung Disease

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A 30-year study conducted by Harvard researchers and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research determined that people who use disinfectants just once a week have a 22-32% of developing lung disease.

  • Reflect On:

    There are many other natural alternatives out there these days. Some are listed in the article, be sure to do your research!

One of the most versatile cleaning supplies in the home, bleach disinfects anything it comes into contact with and can not only clean every surface but remove stains from fabrics, too. Despite its cleaning power, we’ve also long heard of the effects such chemicals can have on our health and wellbeing. The labels on such products make some of these clear, explaining they are corrosive and can irritate  eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, often through simple inhalation. Despite these warnings signs, people continue to buy into this corporate propaganda.

As previously stated in an article of ours from 2013:

It is important to note that there is no FDA-type organization that regulates the cleaning products that are brought into your home. Instead groups such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make warnings of the use of Chlorine Bleach publicly available. Under the assumption that consumers will continue to use Chlorine Bleach within their households, the following safety precautions are widely recommended:

  • Dilute the chlorine bleach with water. The lower concentration poses a potentially lesser risk of unwanted exposure.
  • Wear a safety mask and rubber gloves when working with bleach as a preventative measure.
  • Only use chlorine bleach in a well ventilated area to allow for sufficient air flow and to prevent the unwanted gasses from remaining stationary in the working space.
  • Never mix chlorine bleach with any other household cleaners.

It’s unlikely people exercise these precautions when dealing with this chemical, and it’s also interesting to note that even more studies have come forward since then confirming these risks.


A new study has found that people who use disinfectants just once a week have a 22-32% increased chance of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

“COPD is the third leading cause of death in the United States. More than 11 million people have been diagnosed with COPD, but millions more may have the disease without even knowing it. COPD causes serious long-term disability and early death. At this time there is no cure, and the number of people dying from COPD is growing,” according to the American Lung Association.

advertisement - learn more

The 30-year study was conducted by Harvard University and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. This new study could potentially link COPD to specific cleaning chemicals, as two other studies in European populations showed that “working as a cleaner was associated with a higher risk of COPD,” according to Orianne Dumas, a researcher at Inserm. Dumas goes on to say, “Earlier studies have found a link between asthma and exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants at home, such as bleach and sprays, so it is important to investigate this further.”

In 1989, the Harvard researchers found 55,185 working female nurses in the U.S. who did not have COPD, then analyzed those who were still working in 2009 over the next eight years. Participants were given a questionnaire to determine which disinfectants they used most frequently and why they used them. The disinfectants included glutaraldehyde (a strong disinfectant used for medical instruments), bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds (known as “quats”). In addition to the questionnaire, they took into account factors such as age, weight and ethnicity.

During this period they found that 663 were diagnosed with the condition. “In our study population, 37% of nurses used disinfectants to clean surfaces on a weekly basis and 19% used disinfectants to clean medical instruments on a weekly basis,” says Dumas.

The study aims to highlight the lack of health guidelines when it comes to cleaning and disinfectants, especially in healthcare settings, and researchers hope their results will prompt further investigation and better safety precautions.

There are many substantial alternatives to bleach like vinegar or essential oils, and if you’d like to further rid your home of harsh chemicals, check out this article (click here).

We need more people like these researchers, who dedicate their time to ensuring our safety when it comes to items we have incorporated into our lifestyle and assume are safe, doing this kind of work. This information isn’t meant to scare anyone, especially those of us who actively use these materials, but rather to bring more awareness so that we can educate ourselves and make healthier choices. There are countless healthy and safe alternatives when it comes to what we clean with, what we wear, and what we eat. You have to play the role of researcher in your own life if you expect to make positive change, and by having an open mind, you allow yourself to accept opportunities that can further your growth, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Alcohol Is Killing More People Than The Opioid Epidemic. So Why Aren’t We Talking About It?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Alcohol related deaths are the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the US.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we be glamorizing the consumption of alcohol in the media and in advertisements? Is it time to get real about the potentially life threatening risks of this drug?

In recent years, we have been hearing a lot about the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the nation. The Center for Disease Control reported that over 47,000 people died in the United States alone from an opiate overdose in 2017, that is almost 5 times the amount of deaths caused by opiates in 1999. This is important, and yes it is good this is getting the attention that it deserves. However, in the same year, an estimated 88,000 people died from alcohol related causes — Did anyone hear about that?

Alcohol is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, the first is tobacco and the second is poor diet and minimal physical activity. Given this, why aren’t we talking about it? And why don’t we see warning labels on alcoholic beverages? Why are we promoting such a harmful substance? We certainly don’t see huge billboards with people in bikinis popping oxycontin or injecting heroin, because we are well aware that these substances are addictive and can cause harm, so again, why are we openly promoting alcohol? Especially to young people?

Is It Because It’s Legal?

Is it possible that alcohol related deaths do not garner as much of a cause for concern because it is legal, easily available and socially acceptable? Most likely. Alcohol sales reached $253.8 billion in the US in 2018 — this might also have something to do with it.

I’m not suggesting that criminalizing alcohol is a solution to this issue or anything, the same way I don’t see how it’s still against the law to use any drugs at all, regardless of how bad they are for you. I believe that we should have the say in how we treat ourselves and what we put into our bodies, not the government or a legal system. But instead of being portrayed as a harmful substance, like opiates, crystel meth, and crack are — alcohol is glamorized by the media; often being portrayed as sophisticated, fun, sexy and generally just the cool thing to do.

Alcohol Is Basically Encouraged In Our Society

There is no doubt about it, the use of alcohol is deeply ingrained in our culture. So much so, that choosing not to drink is often the more odd thing to do. People will always ask, oh, how come you’re not drinking? As opposed to other drugs, people won’t typically ask, oh why aren’t you smoking meth tonight? Or whatever it may be.

Binge drinking is practically expected on the weekends, and for many people it is a way to unwind, let loose and have fun after a long workweek. Many people justify their consumption this way insisting that it’s fine, because, I don’t drink every day. The thing about alcohol abuse is that it doesn’t have to be every day to be considered a problem or for the person to be considered an alcoholic.

advertisement - learn more

There are many ways we tend to justify our use, because the thought of giving it up entirely or admitting that we even have a problem can be extremely overwhelming — especially if our entire livelihoods are centered on it.

How Much Is Too Much?

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) created a web site called “Rethinking Drinking” to highlight the amount of misconceptions about what is considered “low-risk” and “high-risk” alcohol consumption. It turns out, more than three drinks in a day or more than seven drinks per week for women and four drinks per day or 14 drinks per week for men are considered “high-risk,” and these patterns can be detrimental both in the short and long-term.

Some people might have an attitude of, I don’t drink at all during the week, so I have all of my allotted alcoholic beverages on the weekend — however, for men consuming 5 or more drinks and for women consuming 4 or more drinks in about a 2 hour period is considered binge drinking.

Is It Time To ‘Rethink That Drink’?

Should we have more campaigns aimed to raise awareness about the potential harm caused by alcohol? Because it is legal it seems to have this view of also being safe, because our government officials and lawmakers always have our best interest at heart, right? 😉 But if we aren’t educating young people effectively on the potential risks associated with alcohol consumption, then perhaps there should be more of an effort to make the risks known on the packaging and even eliminating ads. In my opinion, it simply does not make sense to be legally allowed to advertise something that is so harmful — especially in such a glamorized way.

I don’t know what it’s like now for teens and if it is still considered “cool” to drink and if there is a ton of peer pressure around the whole thing. My hope is that this view will shift, young people will be made more aware of the risks and more people will find the courage to step away from what is no longer serving them or what’s not in their best interest.

Many health advocates and people that are very cautious with regards to what they are putting into their body are still completely overlooking alcohol as a harmful substance. Now, there is no judgment to anyone who chooses to drink, but I think it’s time to take a good hard look at these things and at least have the awareness behind it. Surely, it can be fun from time to time to relax, to loosen up, to be silly, but when we are relying on it to escape our unhappiness from our current situation, well then maybe it’s time to face these situations head on, rather than escape them and change whatever is encouraging us to reach for that glass of wine, whiskey or beer in the first place.

How Can We Support Others?

The fact of the matter remains, many people who drink can do so sparingly, not in excess and not very often. They have a handle on it and it doesn’t interfere with their lives in a negative way. However, for the ones who have struggled — with drinking too much, too frequently, with black outs, it can be difficult to even know if it’s a problem because of how acceptable it is in our society.

If someone says, no thanks I’m not drinking, don’t ask why, and instead try, right on! And no peer pressure. I’ve had problems with drinking, have quit and relapsed twice, currently I’m sober. Before I stopped drinking this time around I would open up to some people about it, questioning my use and whether or not it was harmful, many people would tell me, ahh don’t be so hard on yourself! We are allowed to enjoy life, or shut down from time to time if we need to. If someone is expressing to you that they are concerned they might have a drinking problem, don’t make them second guess themselves, if they are opening up about it please try to support them. We don’t always know what others are going through — apparently even if they flat out tell us. This may also challenge our own relationship with alcohol, but if you can keep that separate.

Do You Have A Problem?

If you are concerned that you might have a drinking problem, you probably do. Keeping in mind that having a problem with alcohol doesn’t necessarily make you an alcoholic. You may have a problem with alcohol if you can identify with any of the following scenarios:

  1. Spending a lot of time obtaining, using, and recovering from the effects of alcohol.
  2. Cravings, or a strong desire to use alcohol.
  3. Being unable to cut down on alcohol use despite a desire to do so.
  4. Continuing to abuse alcohol despite negative interpersonal or social problems that are likely due to alcohol use.
  5. Using alcohol in physically dangerous situations (such as driving or operating machinery).
  6. Drinking more or for a longer time than originally intended.
  7. Continuing to abuse alcohol despite the presence of a psychological or physical problem that is probably due to alcohol use.
  8. Being unable to fulfill major obligations at home, work, or school because of alcohol use.
  9. Giving up previously enjoyed social, occupational, or recreational activities because of alcohol use.
  10. Having a tolerance (i.e. needing to drink increasingly large or more frequent amounts of alcohol to achieve the desired effect).
  11. Developing symptoms of withdrawal when efforts are made to stop using alcohol.

A great way to get things in check is to commit to a period of time without any alcohol consumption and monitor how you feel, what you accomplish, and if you feel uplifted. You may need to ask your friends to support you during this time and have some sober activities prepared! Board games, cards, movies, sports, hiking — all these things can be great sober fun!

If your problem is more severe than this, or you are needing help in any way, reach out to a trusted friend or family member or you may benefit from your local Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for a whole slough of support and resources. If that’s not your jam, check out Hello Sunday Morning for assistance in moderating your use.

My hope is that in the near future it will be more common not to drink and doing so will be more like taking a drug, or having an experience that is typically out of the ordinary.

It is never too late to make a change, first step is to get really honest with yourself…

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Joe Rogan May Take Down The Original Criticism Of “The Game Changers” Documentary

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Joe Rogan recently had James Wilks, the maker of "The Game Changers" documentary on to discuss the benefits of a plant base diet and to refute a previous episode where Chris Kresser debunked it.

  • Reflect On:

    When it comes to health, it's important sometimes to suspend what we believe and have been made to believe, and simply look at the information from a neutral perspective.

Joe Rogan has long ‘criticized’ vegans in various ways, and has also emphasized his belief that one cannot be optimally healthy on a vegan diet. He’s done this a number of times, which was hard for some onlookers to watch and listen to who have educated themselves on plant-based diets. Until recently, Rogan mainly focused on guests that were geared towards promoting meat-eating as optimal, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but a balance of understanding and information can go a long way to educating people.

One of the most recent examples of Joe Rogan and his guest ‘”debunking” a plant-based diet came from a critique of a recent documentary that is now airing on Netflix, called “The Game Changers,” made by filmmaker, James Wilks – a retired English mixed martial artist. The film was executively produced by James Cameron, and features interviews with the top scientists and doctors in their field who present an abundance of research and publications showing the benefits of a plant-based diet.

Not long ago, health coach and author Chris Kresser came on the “Joe Rogan Experience” after the documentary received a lot of attention, and the title of the podcast was titled: “Chris Kresser Debunks ‘The Game Changers Documentary.’

For someone like my self who has done a lot of research into the topic, it was frustrating to listen to it given the fact that it was quite clear, for me and others who had actually done thorough research from a neutral standpoint, that Kresser wasn’t really addressing all the facts, and was simply a big believer in what he was saying without even examining the information on the other side.

The challenge is, Rogan’s podcast was listened to by millions of people, and many came away actually believing the information that was said in the original debunking episode – information we later find out was completely incorrect. These types of episodes that massively mislead people are not just an issue with people who have large followings discussing vegan diets and health, but it’s a big issue with many other topics. This is why it was great that Rogan decided to have James Wilks on for a chance to defend his documentary, and the truth is he absolutely destroyed Kresser’s claims that were presented as facts in the previous podcast with Rogan. The best part was Kresser was on the show as well so he had a chance to truly make sure everyone was on the same page.

Wilks addressed every single criticism made by Kresser in the previous episode, from topics such as B12, protein amount, and protein quality, among many others. He also brought up the fact that we shouldn’t be listening to people like Kresser on such topics, but should be relying on properly published peer reviewed research that’s repeatable, non-industry conflicting research, as well as information that comes from the world’s leading scientists in the field of biology and nutrition, many of whom were presented in the Game Changers documentary. Or, people like Wilks, who have throughout done their research.  This episode really exposes how Kresser is not accurate or factual in his position on this topic, an important note for his followers.

advertisement - learn more

It’s important to keep in mind that not everything Kresser said previously had time to be addressed in this podcast, but it could have been. 100 percent of Kresser’s criticisms that were addressed were 100 percent completely debunked by Wilks, so much so that this is what Joe Rogan had to say via an Instagram post:

If interested, you can watch The Game Changers documentary on Netflix, and check out the podcast in question below.

Some Quotes From The Game Changers Documentary

One of these experts is Dr. Christina Warinner, who earned her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2010 and received her postdoctoral training at the University of Zurich (2010-2012) and the University of Oklahoma (2012-2014). She became a Presidential Research Professor and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma in 2014, and is currently a Leader in Microbiome Sciences at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

Her work has led to some very interesting findings and conclusions:

“Humans do not have any specialized genetic anatomical or physiological adaptations to meat consumption. By contrast, we have many adaptations to plant consumption.” (The Game Changers documentary)

She goes deeper in her presentation at the 2016 International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine, and in this TEDX talk she gave a number of years ago.

Gradual increases in brain sizes of early humans have also been attributed to meat, but research is showing that “because there is not a very strong match between meat consumption and gradual increases in brain size, scientists have looked to other options. And given that plant foods are such an important part of modern humans that hunt and gather foods, the money is on plant foods and shift in the kinds of plant foods as being the major driving factor in increasing brain size.” – Nathaniel J. Dominy

“We have a brain, that just is desperate for glucose. It’s such a fussy organ, that’s the only thing it really takes in for energy. Well, meat is not a very good source of glucose, to have a big brain like this you need to eat something different. And the most efficient way to get glucose is to eat carbohydrates.” – Dr. Mark Thomas, geneticist, University College, London (The Game Changers documentary)

With overwhelming scientific evidence to many of the most common deadly diseases, I discovered that the meat, egg, and dairy industries have been engaged in a covert response, funding studies that deny this evidence while burying their involvement in the fine print. One of the hired guns paid to conduct these studies is Exponent, INC. A company whose research was used by the Tobacco industry to deny the connection between second hand smoke and cancer. For more than 50 years, Exponent has generated studies that challenge the health-risks of everything from asbestos, arsenic and and mercury, to animal foods.” – James Wilks,  “The Game Changers” documentary

“The formula, works beautifully for people selling food, it works beautifully for people selling drugs to treat the diseases that bad food causes, and it works beautifully for the media, which can give us a new story about diet, everyday. But despite the appearance in our media of confusion, there’s massive global consensus about the fundamentals of a health-promoting, and it’s a diet that every time… In every population, every kind of research, it’s a plant food predominant diet, every time.” – Dr. David Katz, Founding Director of Yale University Prevention Research Center (The Game Changers documentary)

A Related CE Articles With More Information: 

Humans Are Not Designed To Eat Meat – Leading Microbiome Scientist Explains

12,000 Doctors Urge The FDA to put Cancer Warnings on Cheese 

Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer”

Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!