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!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Updates On The New Coronavirus Vaccine – Are You Going To Take It? Will It Be Mandatory?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple companies have started clinical trials and testing of potential vaccines for the new coronavirus.

  • Reflect On:

    Vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, will the coronavirus be mandatory, and what will be the penalty for those who refuse?

Special Note To Our Readers: We are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list. Thank you. 

The coronavirus is taking the world by storm, and many pharmaceutical companies are in a race to develop the vaccine that will be put into circulation for the public. Obviously, it takes some time to develop a vaccine, usually just over a year, but there have been some initiatives put in place to potentially fast-track the coronavirus vaccine. We will have to wait and see.

As of now, media outlets are reporting on multiple developments. For example, tests in mice of a potential vaccine for the new coronavirus have shown that it does indeed induce an immune response against it, at levels that could possibly prevent infection. According to Global News,

A team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in the United States said they were able to move quickly in developing a potential COVID-19 vaccine after working on other coronaviruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

Forbes is reporting that the second phase of human trials for a new vaccine from Moderna may start this spring. Moderna’s cofounder and chairman Noubar Afeyan told CNBC that, while it’s challenging to put a timetable on the vaccine’s progress, “We expect [phase two trials] to happen in the spring, perhaps early summer.”

The second phase involves expanding to hundreds of people in different groups based on certain characteristics like age and physical health. The third phase is potentially the last with the vaccine being given to thousands of people to test its efficacy and safety. Many vaccines also go through a fourth phase after they’ve been approved and licensed.

advertisement - learn more

And President Donald Trump had this to say:

We’re working with the best scientists, doctors and researchers anywhere in the world, we’re racing to develop new ways to protect against the virus, as well as therapies, treatments, and ultimately a vaccine and we’re making a lot of progress. (source)

The Big Questions

So, it seems to be coming. The big questions are: When? Will it be mandatory? Will You Take it?

According to organizations like the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among people, parents, and yes, even health professionals and scientists. The latter was a big concern for some high-profile speakers at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit.

No longer a secret, challenging vaccine safety has become a very popular topic over the past few years alone. In fact, the World Health Organization lists ‘vaccine hesitancy’ as one of the biggest threats to global health security. This is discussed in the introduction of this study (one of many) published in the journal EbioMedicine:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

This fact has been emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced by the authors in the study above.At the WHO conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

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–and we’re constantly looking on any studies in this space–still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider, and if we lose that, we’re in trouble.

So, the point is, vaccine hesitancy is increasing around the world. Given this fact, it’s safe to say that many people are not going to be interested in taking the coronavirus vaccine. This includes many scientists and doctors. Will it be mandatory as some vaccines are for children to attend public school?

The Greater Good?

The vaccine space right now is truly something else at the moment. Those who wish to maintain their freedom and keep informed consent in place are receiving a harsh backlash from Federal Health regulatory agencies who wish to take this freedom away, it seems, in the name of the ‘greater good.’

Scientists and doctors who are creating awareness and explaining why they don’t believe vaccines should be mandatory, or as safe as they’re marketed to be, receive a large amount of pushback and censorship. Platforms like Collective Evolution are having their social media platform distribution and reach completely cut. Physicians for Informed Consent is another one of many examples.

Because of all of the attacks and censorship of our ability to discuss vaccine safety concerns, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons are suing Rep. Adam Schiff for “censoring vaccine debate.” You can read more about that here.

Again, we ourselves have also received a tremendous amount of backlash, demonitizaton and more as a result of sharing peer-reviewed research and expert opinion that questions the safety of vaccines.  There are many examples, the latest one being presenting the work of Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University. In our article, we explained why he believes aluminum is playing some sort of role in Autism. And no, he doesn’t mean that aluminum is directly causing autism, we made that quite clear. We also presented multiple other studies questioning the safety of the aluminum adjuvant in some vaccines. You can read that article here.

Why are we being censored for presenting such science? Why are scientists like Exley subjected to so much character assassination when his questions, concerns, and science is solid? This CE article about Exley was flagged by ‘fact-checkers’ as false news, despite the fact that it is scientifically sound and simply presents the opinion and research of multiple scientists and experts.

Since when is science supposed to stop asking certain questions? What was actually ‘false’ about the article cannot be adequately explained, and perhaps this is why Facebook or the fact checkers will not reply to us nor even have a discussion about it. They’ve simply flagged the article, one of many, and greatly reduced the reach of our social media platform without replying to our inquiries. We go into more detail about what we and others are experiencing, in the article Proof: Fact Checkers Are Misleading You.

We are actually worried that Facebook may delete our entire Facebook page, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, I didn’t want to go too deep into the issues that are being brought up with regards to vaccine safety, as much as I wanted to outline that a coronavirus vaccine is coming, while simultaneously pointing out that vaccine hesitancy is still on the rise. This combination no doubt will spark even more controversy and censorship in the near future, when really, there should be full transparency of all sides and the concerns raised.

Terms and  ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax” should not be used. Encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety is in everyone’s best interest.  After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination. That’s just good science.

These times also highlight how much trust the public has lost when it comes to trusting government and federal health regulatory agencies. Perhaps this is not a result of misinformation, but a shift in consciousness and so many examples of lies and deceit. Our world is starting to question measures and actions like it never did before. People are waking, people are thinking, people are becoming much more intelligent, not the other way around.

Articles From Collective Evolution That Go Into More Detail About The New Coronavirus.

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!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Continue Reading

Awareness

The “Inconvenient Truth” About Mental Illness & Prescription Medications

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Prescription drug sales and deaths are at an all time high. With side effects and dangers, and a lack of safety testing in some cases, are they always the best and only option for mental health treatment?

  • Reflect On:

    Why are alternative treatments for mental health lacking? Is it because they are not as effective as prescription medication or do not turn a profit?

A worrisome trend has emerged in the last few decades that many physicians are choosing to ignore: As the amount of psychiatric drug prescriptions increase, our mental health declines. It’s time we swallow the hard pill and ask ourselves, are psychiatrists doing more harm than good?

I know that, to some of you, this question seems absurd. Why would licensed medical practitioners purposefully harm their patients? But that isn’t really what’s happening here, as the issue relates more to the over-prescription and misuse of mental health drugs, and the corporately funded miseducation that prompts this behaviour, than any malicious intentions on the part of individual people.

The “Inconvenient Truth” About Mental Illness and Prescriptions

In 2013, approximately 17% of Americans were prescribed at least one mental health drug, in comparison to only 10% in 2011. The amount of people on psychiatric prescription drugs has drastically increased over the past 10 years and now 12% of adult Americans are taking some form of antidepressants alone (source).

It’s not just adults affected by the over-prescription of these drugs; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 11% of children between the ages of 4 and 17 were diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011. However, the American Psychiatric Association maintains that even though only 5% of American children suffer from the disorder, the diagnosis is actually given to around 15% of American children. This number has been steadily rising, jumping from 7.8% in 2003 to 9.5% in 2007. The simple reason for this increase? Profit.

However, despite the fact that the number of mental health drugs prescribed increases every year, our mental health has actually decreased. The amount of people who are considered to be so disabled by mental illness that they require Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) has increased by almost two and a half times between 1987 and 2007, from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. Not surprisingly, the rise in the number of children affected by this is even worse, with a thirty-five-fold increase in that same timeframe (source). So, if the number of prescriptions are increasing, why is our mental health declining?

This phenomenon is what Thomas Insel, former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, refers to as the “inconvenient truth” of mental illness. Suicide rates per 100,000 people have reached a 30-year high and substance abuse, especially with opiates, has become a national epidemic.

advertisement - learn more

Edmund S. Higgins, MD and Professor of Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina, explains, “More people are getting treatment and taking medications today than ever before, so what is going on? I would argue that a lack of precision and objectivity in diagnosing and treating mental illness has stalled our progress.” Furthermore, Big Pharma has played a crucial role in creating the mental health drug epidemic.

Big Pharma’s Role in Increasing Prescriptions

This seems to be the general consensus of the North American population: If an advertisement or a misinformed MD says, “There’s a pill for that,” you take it. Our reliance on pharmaceutical drugs didn’t form by accident, however; it was carefully planned and funded by Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical industry manufactured it by heavily advertising drugs, bribing physicians, and funding health studies.

Big Pharma has done an excellent job of feeding the public propaganda through advertisements and education, as the more pills you take, the more money they make. The pharmaceutical industry has played a substantial role in increasing the amount of prescriptions and overall diagnoses of A.D.H.D. in the U.S. (read an article I wrote about this here) and other mental health illnesses. As Dr. Irwin Savodnik of UCLA explains, “The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Doctors typically use the knowledge from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to diagnose and treat mental illness. But the DSM has had its fair share of criticism, as it favours the use of pharmaceutical drugs over therapy and other healing modalities. Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief of The Carlat Psychiatry Report Daniel J. Carlat, M.D, criticized the DSM, stating, “In psychiatry, many diseases are treated equally well with medication or therapy, but the guidelines tend to be biased toward medication.”

Holistic mental health practitioner Dr. Tyler Woods further explains:

The DSM tends to pathologize normal behaviors. For instance, the label “Anxiety Disorder” can be given as a result of some kinds of normal and rather healthy anxieties but the DSM will have experts view it and treat it as mental illness. In addition simple shyness can be seen and treated as “Social Phobia”, while spirited and strong willed children as “Oppositional Disorder”. Consequently, many psychotherapists, regardless of their theoretical orientations, tend to follow the DSM as instructed. (source)

In fact, Big Pharma has played a significant role in manufacturing our very definitions of mental illnesses and how they form in the first place. For example, the U.S. considers A.D.H.D. a neurological disorder whose symptoms are the result of biological disfunction or a chemical imbalance in the brain, much like many other mental disorders. However, other countries such as France see these mental disorders, including A.D.H.D., as a social context issue rather than a biological one, with many contributing factors and recommended treatments other than drugs. Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician, author, and the Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, states:

When it was found that psychoactive drugs affect neurotransmitter levels in the brain, as evidenced mainly by the levels of their breakdown products in the spinal fluid, the theory arose that the cause of mental illness is an abnormality in the brain’s concentration of these chemicals that is specifically countered by the appropriate drug. For example, because Thorazine was found to lower dopamine levels in the brain, it was postulated that psychoses like schizophrenia are caused by too much dopamine. . . .

That was a great leap in logic . . . It was entirely possible that drugs that affected neurotransmitter levels could relieve symptoms even if neurotransmitters had nothing to do with the illness in the first place (and even possible that they relieved symptoms through some other mode of action entirely).

Why Pills Cannot Solve All of Our Problems

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take prescription medication for mental illness; that’s something that you and your doctor should decide. However, if your doctor fails to address any other means of dealing with your mental health, always choosing pills first rather than as a last or even second resort, then perhaps you should think about finding a doctor who understands the benefits of at least considering alternative options.

It’s important to note that even if prescription drugs are the reason our mental health is worsening, they’re certainly not the only reason. We’ve increased our amount of time spent using technology, staying indoors, and being sedentary, as well as worsened our diets and overall physical health with fast food, chemicals, toxins, animal products, and more — all of which may contribute to this decline in mental health.

However, there’s no denying the fact that Big Pharma has had a tangible and worrisome role in the psychiatric drug epidemic. Medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker addresses this “inconvenient truth” by using depression as an example. Depression used to be considered a self-limiting illness that, even in severe situations where a patient requires hospitalization, could be cured within six to eight months. Very rarely would patients relapse, and if they did it would typically be many years later.

When antidepressants hit the market, our outlook on depression completely shifted. Even though antidepressants may have been created with good intentions, the reality is that patients taking these drugs are relapsing more quickly and more often. Whitaker explains that many patients on antidepressants will only recover partially in comparison to the full recoveries he’s seen in people who never took them in the first place.

In fact, only around 15% of those treated with antidepressants actually go into remission and maintain their mental health long-term. The other 85% are continuously relapsing or experience chronic depression.

It is clear that in many cases, we need to stop looking for outside help when it comes to our mental health. Our mental health is just that — it’s ours. It’s controlled by us, whether we like it or not. Many mental illnesses don’t stem from biological issues, contrary to what Big Pharma wants you to think, but are rather the result of different stressors in our lives. So, if we were able to connect with ourselves on a deeper level and actually get to the root of the problem, perhaps some of these disorders wouldn’t be so severe.

Related CE Content:

Study Finds Turmeric Is As Effective As Prozac For Treating Depression

Almost No Children In France Are Medicated For ADHD: Here’s How They Define & Treat It

Professor Outlines The “Surprisingly Dramatic” Role That Nutrition Plays In Treating & Curing Mental Illness

Picture source. 

 

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!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Continue Reading

Awareness

Fact-Checking The Fact Checkers About Coronavirus & Vitamin C Treatment – Is It Really “Fake News”?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The idea that vitamin C can have some potential in treating and preventing the new coronavirus is being invalidated and even labelled as 'fake news' by some. If this was true, why are clinical trials for intravenous vitamin C underway in China?

  • Reflect On:

    Can we rely on our medical system to provide the best possible solutions, or will profit always come first? How much trust have they lost among the general population over the years?

An article published by LiveScience, a mainstream science website, states that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus.” Mainstream media has been attacking the idea that vitamin C could have some potential to prevent or even treat the new coronavirus. This rhetoric follows statements that have come out from government health regulatory agencies. Take Health Canada, for example, who recently tweeted that there are no natural health products “that are authorized to protect against” the new coronavirus. They go on to state that “any claims otherwise are false.”

This is a problem that’s plagued our world since the introduction of the mainstream medical industry. Arnold Seymour Relman, a former Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal, states this problem clearly: 

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” (source)

The question people need to be asking is, where does government loyalty lie? Perhaps it’s with the industry that spends two times more than any other lobby in congress. This is why nothing can be used as a treatment, for any disease, unless it’s patented and presented to us by a pharmaceutical company. “Alternative” treatments are always branded as ‘fake’ and even ‘dangerous’.

Vitamin C Trials and Treatment

This recent coronavirus outbreak might provide the latest insight into this matter. Going back to the statement above from LiveScience that states “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus”: if this is really the case, then why would China start multiple clinical trials to examine whether or not intravenous vitamin C can be helpful in treating people with coronavirus?

The article in LiveScience did not acknowledge this originally, but they added an update stating that researchers at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University had launched a clinical trial with 140 patients in February to test whether ultrahigh doses of vitamin C, delivered intravenously, could treat the viral infection more effectively than a placebo. The test group will receive infusions twice a day for seven days, with each infusion containing 12g of vitamin C. (The daily recommendation for an adult man is only 90mg.) The trial will be completed in September, and no results are yet available, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

advertisement - learn more

That being said, Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, has been updating everyone via his YouTube channel about vitamin C treatment cases out of China. We have been covering his updates as he is in direct contact with this treatment and isn’t simply an armchair scientist at the moment. We feel at this time this is a very important detail as he is seeing and hearing results first hand, not simply theoretically. Dr. Cheng is a US board-certified anti-aging specialist. He claims that vitamin C is now in the Shanghai Government treatment plan.

Dr. Cheng was paramount in bringing high-dose vitamin C to the table as part of potential treatment and prevention measures. Unfortunately in the West, this option is still being denied by much of mainstream media and governments are not talking about it. Instead, it’s fear and chaos which we do not feel helps anyone to stay healthy or get better.

According to Cheng, 50 moderate to severe cases of Covid-19 infection were treated with high-dose IVC. Dosing of IVC ranged from 10,000 – 20,000 mg a day for 7-10 days, with 10,000 mg for moderate cases and 20,000 for more severe cases. The first bit of good news was that all patients who received IVC improved and there has been no mortality. Secondly, as compared to the average of a 30-day hospital stay for all Covid-19 patients, those patients who received high dose IVC had a hospital stay of about 3-5 days shorter than the other patients.

In one particularly severe case where the patient was deteriorating rapidly, an extra dose of 50,000 mg IVC was given over a period of 4 hours and it caused the patient’s pulmonary (oxygenation index) status to stabilize and improve as the critical care team observed in real time. You can watch all of the updates from Cheng via his Youtube Channel.

Related CE Articles: Good Coronavirus News: High Dose Vitamin C Shows Good Results In China Hospital

How To Take Vitamin C Orally. It MAY Help Protect Against Viruses

Enjoy This Free Conscious Breathing Course To Bring Peace & Heightened Immunity

So, at the very worst we can officially say that we don’t know, but there are some positive signs thus far, which again, is obvious due to the fact that they would even begin a clinical trial, and the explanation as to why such a hypothesis exists is explained within the clinical trial website listed earlier. To say that it’s false or extremely unlikely is, in fact, the false news.

Looking For Some Vitamin C?

For anyone looking for a high-quality vitamin C, we have been using and recommending liposomal vitamin C. There are many brands out there. We are using this one from PuraThrive as it is very high quality and has an incredible clinically proven absorption rate.

The Takeaway

Is it really safe and truthful to make the claim that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus”? This is the rhetoric we’ve been hearing from mainstream media sources for quite a while, and articles posted on social media providing evidence that it may show some promise are being flagged by fact checkers as fake news. Again, if it was extremely unlikely, why use so many resources that are required to start a clinical trial in the first place? Why are we getting a completely different perspective from an MD in China that’s providing the world with updates? These are important questions to ask, as this example simply highlights one of the biggest problems that plagues the mainstream medical industry, which is a complete denial of the potential of natural treatments. Because these treatments cannot be patented and turned a profit, they are ridiculed, ignored and brushed off.

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!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!