Following is Part Four in Vera Sharav’s seven-part exposé of the complex and widespread corruption that exists in the vaccination program, the deceptive practices by officials of “authoritative” international public health institutions and further evidence of the callous disregard for the plight of thousands of children and young adults who suffer irreversible harm.
The series is called “The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption” by Vera Sharav, for The World Mercury Project. You can access the previous parts of the series here here.
Japan Has Become Ground Zero Where The HPV Vaccine Debacle Is Unfolding In Public View
In Japan, young women and girls suffering from severe chronic generalized pain following vaccination with Merck’s Gardasil® or GSK’s Cervarix®, are speaking out and have organized. The issues are being debated at public hearings at which scientific presentations have been made by independent medical experts who validated the women’s suffering, with documented evidence of the severe nature of the pain related to the HPV vaccine. The opposing view, presented by scientists aligned with the vaccine establishment, disregarded the scientific plausibility of the evidence, and declared the pain was a “psychosomatic reaction.”
Such public debates do not take place where vaccine stakeholders are in full control of vaccine safety information.
Following a public hearing (February 2014) at which scientific evidence was presented by independent scientists the Japanese government, not only rescinded its recommendation that girls receive the HPV vaccine, Japan established guidelines and special clinics for evaluating and treating illnesses caused by the vaccine. It is a scenario that Merck, GSK, and vaccine stakeholders globally are extremely anxious to suppress.
The Merck-commissioned, CSIS report co-authored by Dr. Larson, paints a picture of an all-out war over media coverage – not over the high rate of serious adverse reactions. The authors resort to the usual tactic of discrediting vaccine-injured individuals; they dismissed the serious health effects suffered by girls and young women following vaccination, as trivial. The CSIS report presents the entire issue as an epidemic fueled by Internet rumors and “vaccine hesitators”.
“Over the last year, controversy within the Japanese medical and political arenas over the HPV vaccine has touched the public at large. Through social media and highly publicized events, anti-vaccine groups have gained control of the narrative surrounding the HPV vaccine.”
Global Collaborators in Action: Trash Honest Scientists to Suppress Inconvenient Evidence
The following case demonstrates how the global network of government/academic and industry stakeholders suppresses information about genuine scientific findings and when needed is engaged in corrupt practices to thwart the airing of information about vaccine safety issues. This case involves inconvenient scientific laboratory findings in post-mortem tissue samples, showing that the HPV vaccine was contaminated with foreign HPV DNA fragments. The case also involves evidence (contained in internal correspondence) of deceptive practices by officials of “authoritative” international public health institutions.
In January 2016, pathologist Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD, Director of Milford Medical Laboratory sent an open letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Margaret Chan, in which he challenges the integrity of the GACVS Statement on the Continued Safety of HPV Vaccination (issued March 2014), and charges professional misconduct on the part of the following individuals (and suggests that others may have also been actively involved) in a scheme to deliberately mislead the Japanese Expert Inquiry on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine safety before, during and after the February 2014 public hearing in Tokyo”:
Dr. Lee challenged the integrity of the GACVS Statement on the Continued Safety of HPV Vaccination written by Dr. Pless, accusing him of deliberately misrepresenting his scientific findings in order to mislead non-scientific readers and those who set vaccination policies. Dr. Pless is accused of deliberately conflating two unrelated articles, dealing with two different chemicals, written by different authors “apparently to create a target to attack.” Furthermore, Dr. Lee notes that the GACVS Statement relied on an unpublished 12-year old “Technical Report” written by an unofficial, unnamed “group of participants” (according to CDC’s disclaimer).
These are the facts:
In 2011, Dr. Lee found that every one of the 13 Gardasil samples that he examined contained HPV L1 gene DNA fragments. He also found that the HPV DNA fragments were not only bound to Merck’s proprietary aluminum adjuvant but also adopted a non-B conformation, thereby creating a new chemical compound of unknown toxicity. This non-B conformation, Dr. Lee believes, is responsible for the array of autoimmune illnesses experienced by children and young women following vaccination with Gardasil.
In 2012, Dr. Lee testified at a coroner’s inquest of the death of a New Zealand teenager, 6 months after receiving 3 Gardasil vaccine injections. He then published his case report in the open access journal, Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology (2012).Dr. Lee was a presenter at the Tokyo hearing (2014) at which he disputed those who claimed the young women weren’t really suffering severe pain; they were having “psychosomatic reactions”. He stated:
“I do not believe psychosomatic reactions can cause sudden unexpected death in sleep, or inflammatory lesions in the brain as demonstrated by the MRI images and the brain biopsy histopathology with perivascular lymphocytes and macrophages and demyelination.”
Following the public hearing, GAVC issued a statement (March 12, 2014) aimed at discrediting Dr. Lee’s research by conflating his research with the research of other scientists who presented at the Tokyo hearing. This case should have been prominently reported in the medical journals and by the mass media, and the allegation should have been investigated. Mainstream publications have been silent; the case was reported only in alternative news outlets.
HPV vaccine Controversy Erupts in the Streets of Columbia
In March 2015, hundreds of parents marched in streets of Bogota demanding treatment for their daughters who suffer from serious medical conditions following the second dose of Gardasil.
The marchers demanded that government health officials should:
- Provide adequate treatment for the 800 girls known who are affected to date;
- Suspend the use of HPV vaccines in Colombia until such time as the safety issues are resolved;
- Conduct adequate studies to determine the exact cause(s) of the serious adverse effects following the HPV vaccine;
- The parents challenged the Colombian National Institute of Health (INS) for its statement dismissing the connection between the vaccine and these diseases, which they, like the other collaborating institutions, attributed to psychosomatic hysteria.
The young girls and their parents, however, have the world’s foremost expert on autoimmune disorders on their side. Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld shocked the audience of the III Colombian Symposium on Autoimmunity by stating he would not recommend HPV vaccines for his own daughter. When asked about the mass psychosomatic theory used to explain the newly emerged medical conditions shortly after HPV vaccinations, Dr. Shoenfeld replied:
Dr. Shoenfeld further stated that in Colombia hundreds of children are suffering from autoimmune disorders that emerged directly after HPV vaccination:
“If there is a case, or an avalanche of cases, this must be investigated in the proper way. To say it is something psychological or viral is not enough. You need scientists from different disciplines to analyze it.
We believe aluminum is a toxic substance for the brain. It accumulates, continues this for weeks and months. It’s like a Trojan Horse for the brain. Aluminum is a neurotoxin. Experimental research shows clearly that aluminum adjuvants have a potential for inducing serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum adjuvants carry a risk for autoimmunity, inflammation of the brain and neurological long-term complications and therefore can have profound and widespread consequences for health.”
In July 2016, a victims’ group filed a multi-plaintiff lawsuit in the district courts of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka against the Japanese government and the two pharmaceutical companies that had produced these vaccines. Furthermore, in December of the same year, additional victims joined the multi-plaintiff lawsuit, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 119 (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017).
Journal Editors With Financial Conflicts of Interest Have Enormous Power
Two studies confirm that: Most Editors of Top Medical Journals Receive Industry Payments (Retraction Watch, Nov. 2017) The following case is an example of how tightly controlled publication channels have utterly corrupted science. The case demonstrates the great difficulty encountered by independent scientists who have not sold their integrity to the highest bidder.
The study, Behavioral Abnormalities In Young Female Mice Following Administration Of Aluminum Adjuvants And The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Gardasil, was conducted in Israel. The senior author, Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld is an internationally recognized authority, who is considered to be the pillar in the field of autoimmunity. The focus of his research, however, threatens the vaccine industry by examining “the roles and mechanisms of action of different adjuvants which lead to autoimmune/inflammatory response.” Indeed, Dr. Shoenfeld identified a new syndrome ASIA (Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants).
The HPV-mouse study was published in the journal Vaccine in January 2016. It was summarily withdrawn a month later following orders by the Editor-in-Chief, Gregory Poland.
Dr. Poland’s direct conflicts of interest  include those disclosed on the Mayo Clinic website: “Dr. Poland is the chairman of a safety evaluation committee for investigational vaccine trials being conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. Dr. Poland offers consultative advice on new vaccine development to Merck & Co., Inc.” [Dr. Robert Chen is an Associate Editor of Vaccine]
Before the publication withdrawal by the editor of Vaccine, the article had languished for 8 months at the Journal of Human Immunology and was then rejected by that journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Michael Racke. According to the American Academy of Neurology:
“Dr. Racke has received personal compensation for activities with EMD Serone, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Genentech, and Amarantus as a consultant.” [EMD Serono, Inc. is a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.]
How is it that this incestuous relationship did not raise loud cries of foul play? Those rejections by editors who had deep vested financial interest in protecting vaccination rates, whose own financial interest was intertwined with vaccine manufacturers, elicited no protest from the scientific academic community.
Instead, these rejections were followed by vicious attacks against two of the scientists, by industry’s cyber hit-squads that are hired to attack independent scientists whose honest research contradicts vaccine orthodoxy/ That is viewed as a heresy inasmuch as it poses a financial threat. [Read Appendix 10]
The study was revised, again peer-reviewed, and published in the journal Immunological Research (Nature-Springer) (2017).
The reported findings remained the same:
“Vaccine adjuvants and vaccines may induce autoimmune and inflammatory manifestations in susceptible individuals. To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant exposures can be toxic to humans and animals…It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes…
In light of these findings, this study highlights the necessity of proceeding with caution with respect to further mass-immunization practices with a vaccine of yet unproven long-term clinical benefit in cervical cancer prevention”.
The basis for those findings was deemed to be scientifically sound by three sets of peer-reviewers, at three different journals.
The debate about the safety of the HPV vaccine was the subject of a documentary on TV2 Denmark, aired in March 2015. The Danish Health and Medicines Authorities requested the European Medicines Agency to assess the whether a causal link exists between HPV-vaccines and Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and/ or Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS).
The EMA published its report absolving the vaccine and denigrating the clinical findings by Louise Brinth, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the Frederiksberg Hospital whose retrospective case series of 39 patients, was published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination(2015)
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, Director of the Nordic Cochrane Center, and author of Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, took a leading role in the battle for truth about the HPV vaccine. In May 2016, Dr, Gøtzsche, and colleagues, sent a scathing letter of complaint to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), challenging that institution’s very legitimacy.
The letter cites EMA’s failure to comply with the EU Treaty and Charter mandating “openness [to] enable citizens to participate“; its failure to “live up to the professional and scientific standards…when evaluating the science and the data related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.” And the letter cites the wide disparity between EMA’s secret, internal (256 p) HPV safety report and the official, misleading EMA report that disparages and misrepresents clinical evidence documenting serious health hazards following the HPV vaccination:
“The official EMA report gives the impression of a unanimous rejection of the suspected harms. However, only seven months earlier, the EMA had resolved that “’ causal relationship between the dizziness and fatigue syndrome, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) and Gardasil [one of the HPV vaccines] can neither be confirmed nor denied’”. “The EMA’s official 40-page report is misleading, as it gives the citizens the impression that there is nothing to worry about in relation to vaccine safety and that the experts consulted by the EMA agreed on this. However, the EMA’s internal report reveals that several experts had the opinion that the vaccine might not be safe and called for further research, but there was nothing about this in the official report.”
The letter cites EMA’s opaque, secretive modus operandi; the mandated, life-long confidentiality agreements signed by EMA panelists and scientific experts; the EMA’s failure to evaluate the safety of vaccines in accordance with scientifically legitimate procedures; failure to identify the experts selected by the EMA; EMA’s reliance on vaccine manufacturers’ safety assessment of their own products, disregarding their “huge financial interests“; and the letter cites undisclosed financial conflicts of interest of EMA administrators and the conflicts of interest of panelists upon whom the EMA relies for safety assessments.
- Dr. Gøtzsche affirms that: “All available material about suspected harms of a public health intervention directed towards healthy children should be accessible to anyone“.
It should be of concern to Dr. Gøtzsche and others who uphold the right of the public to honest safety assessments of medical interventions that CDC internal documents reveal that CDC officials purposely concealed data about suspected serious harms following the administration of multi-virus vaccines to infants in accordance with CDC childhood vaccination schedules.
WMP NOTE: This concludes Part Four. Part Five of the seven-part series will be entitled:Internal CDC Email Correspondence Reveals a Corrupt Culture.
Previously published articles: Sharav’s Introduction to the full article, L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science, outlines her well-researched and documented belief that, “Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies.” Part One focuses on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccine industry control vaccine safety assessments, control the science of vaccines and control the scientific and mass channels of information about vaccines. In Part Two Ms. Sharav interprets the complex web of internal CDC documents, revealing how key CDC studies and CDC-commissioned studies were shaped by use of illegitimate methods. Part Three takes a closer look at the Brighton Collaboration and the extraordinary influence these stakeholders have in the business of vaccines and their power to control the science and research and manipulate reports to further their own interests.
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.
Institutional Inertia: Is Enough Being Done to Protect Children from Aluminum Toxicity?
Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust. For most of human history, aluminum was not bioavailable; however, it became so in the late 1880s when chemists developed and patented the smelting process that helped turned the metal into the fixture of modern life—and the omnipresent “ecotoxin”—that it is today. Roughly 130 years later, it is no exaggeration to say that aluminum has become an active (albeit unhelpful) “participant in human evolution.”
The scientist citing aluminum’s outsized biological influence—Professor Chris Exley of the United Kingdom’s Keele University—is one of the world’s foremost aluminum experts. He points out that because aluminum exposure is largely insidious, complacency about aluminum’s effects persists despite the nearly universal body burden that human beings now carry. While the metal’s effects appear to be “invariably deleterious,” variables such as age and gender also shape vulnerability. Infants in their first year of life are particularly susceptible to aluminum bioaccumulation, raising concerns about the high levels of absorbable aluminum reported in infant formula and in the parenteral (intravenous) nutrition solutions given to premature babies. Suggesting that these reports represent the “tip of an iceberg,” one group of researchers cautions that not only does aluminum constitute a “significant component of newborns’ exposure to xenobiotics and contaminants,” but the consequences of aluminum overload in the perinatal period can have pathological consequences that persist into adulthood.
Two routes of early exposure
Studies documenting aluminum contamination of infant formula date as far back as the mid-1980s, and many have recommended doing something about it. Yet, a quarter of a century later, when Professor Exley and a coauthor examined the aluminum content of fifteen leading brands of formula, they found that 2010 levels remained virtually unchanged—and were about 10 to 40 times higher than the amount of aluminum in human breast milk. Depending on the brand, the aluminum content ranged from 200 to 700 micrograms per liter of formula—the equivalent of up to 600 micrograms ingested per day based on standard formula intake. At these levels, a healthy six-month-old boy weighing 7.9 kilograms would take in almost 80 micrograms of aluminum per kilogram per day (μg/kg/day), far in excess of the maximum daily dose of 4 to 5 μg/kg/day recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of “accumulation and toxicity.”
One out of every 10 U.S. infants is born preterm, and the preterm birth rate has risen every year since 2015. These premature babies face a particularly elevated risk of “systemic aluminum intoxication.” Due to the immaturity of their gastrointestinal (GI) system, it is common practice to administer nutrients parenterally, sometimes for weeks on end. However, parenteral nutrition (PN) solutions exhibit the same “unresolved” (and decades-old) aluminum toxicity problems as infant formula. One study reported that keeping within the FDA’s recommended aluminum limit of no more than 5 μg/kg/day would only be “feasible” in PN patients weighing 50 or more kilos—and most preterm infants weigh well under three kilograms at birth. Even worse, after premature infants leave the hospital, they often transition to a diet of aluminum-containing formula.
Infants—including preemies—are more vulnerable to aluminum toxicity than adults for several reasons. First, infants have a blood-brain barrier that is highly susceptible to disruption by drugs and toxins. Second, infants lack adequate GI protection, and oral ingestion of aluminum worsens the problem by damaging gut homeostasis (to the point that researchers consider it a risk factor for various inflammatory bowel diseases). Third, whereas the kidney is the organ that the body relies on to excrete aluminum (both ingested and intravenous), the neonate’s kidney is “functionally immature,” making aluminum accumulation “inevitable.” Even in adults with normal kidney function, studies show that only 30% to 60% of the PN aluminum load gets excreted, resulting in build-up of aluminum in the bones and tissues (notably the brain, liver and kidney).
Inertia and its consequences
Taking stock of manufacturer inertia with regard to infant formula’s aluminum content, Professor Exley speculated in 2010 that manufacturers either are failing to monitor their products’ aluminum content or “are not concerned at these levels of contamination.” In either case, he notes, manufacturers have little excuse for their inaction: “Manufacturers of infant formulas have been made fully aware of the potentially compounded issue of both the contamination by aluminium and the heightened vulnerability, from the point of view of a newborn’s developing physiology, of infants fed such formulas.”
Early exposure to high levels of aluminum can have varied harmful effects, increasing children’s longer-term disease susceptibility as well as contributing to conditions such as uremia (a type of kidney disease), bone disorders and neurologic disorders, among others. A study that followed preterm infants for 15 years into adolescence found that the teens who had been exposed to parenteral aluminum had reduced bone mass in the lumbar spine and hips—risk factors for later hip fractures and osteoporosis.
Other routes of exposure
Infant formula and PN are not babies’ only routes of exposure to high levels of aluminum. Studies point to possible toxic effects for the embryo and fetus (including effects on fetal metabolism) resulting from maternal use of antacids and other aluminum-containing pharmaceutical products. Moreover, common components of a pregnant woman’s diet (such as the citric acid found in fruit) increase absorption of the aluminum in these products.
Aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are another significant source of early exposure. Young children receive multiple aluminum-containing vaccines in their first three years, and more as adolescents. A two-month-old infant may receive up to 1,225 micrograms of aluminum from the vaccines administered at a single well-baby visit and a cumulative 4,925 micrograms by 18 months of age. Regulators have never properly assessed these astronomical levels of aluminum for safety. Co-exposure to aluminum and mercury (still present in influenza vaccines) makes matters synergistically worse.
Injection as the route of exposure is another important consideration. Toxicologists note that “Depending on the type and route of exposure,” aluminum clearance may have multiple half-lives estimated in hours, days—or years. Evidence indicates that the body does not easily eliminate vaccine forms of aluminum, which can make their way into the brain; in fact, manufacturers have expressly designed the aluminum used in vaccines to provide “long-lasting cellular exposure.”
In 2018, Exley published another groundbreaking study that confirmed the presence of consistently high levels of aluminum in the brains of individuals who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Other studies have linked aluminum to autism severity. In a recent letter published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology by an independent scientist, the writer describes three converging lines of evidence supporting a link between aluminum adjuvants (Al-adjuvants) and ASD: ecological correlations of vaccination and aluminum adjuvants; experiments in mice; and the discovery of aluminum in ASD brains. He concludes:
While there may certainly be not enough “hard data” evidence to claim that Al-adjuvants in vaccines are responsible for ASD, there is even less evidence supporting the opposite conclusion that Al-adjuvants are completely safe to use without any long-term downfall.
Thus far, regulators and manufacturers—whether of infant formula, PN solutions, vaccines or other aluminum-containing products—have been largely tone-deaf to the crescendo of studies pointing to aluminum toxicity in the very young (or, for that matter, in individuals across the life span). Among those sounding the alarm, many have taken pains to distance themselves from conceding the potential risks of aluminum adjuvants, cavalierly dismissing the aluminum in vaccines as a “relatively small amount.” Even without accounting for adjuvant risks, though, aluminum experts recognize the importance of banishing complacency. Reducing “aluminum-related human pathology, not only in neonates but even in children and adults,” they admit, is also likely to contribute to “the prevention of the epidemic increase of neurodegenerative diseases of elderly people.”
50 Things You Could Be Doing Instead Of Staring At A Screen
- The Facts:
The average adult spends as much as 12 hours a day in front of a screen while at home.
- Reflect On:
How much of our screen time is providing value to our lives? Is our screen time benefiting us or taking time away from doing what we love and spending real, quality time connecting with friends and family?
There is no doubt about it, screens have become a central part of many of our lives. From the moment we wake up and turn off our alarms and do a quick check of Facebook, Instagram and/or Twitter notifications, email, and other apps — screens have the capacity to suck us in, right from the start of the day. The act of checking our screens has become so common nowadays that many of us spend the majority of our waking lives staring at various screens including smartphones, tablets, and computers.
There are some people who argue that before smartphones and tablets, it was the television set, and before that, the radio, and before that, the newspaper. However, we can’t ignore the fact that it is currently an epidemic, as many people (myself included at times) are so sucked into this virtual reality, they do not realize that it is a potentially harmful addiction.
Some believe that this type of technology is just a natural part of human evolution and that in may ways it benefits our lives. To a degree, this is true, as there are many amazing perks of technology and it absolutely can be used to benefit our lives — being able to access any information we are seeking, learning a new language, instrument, or practically anything we want, attending online courses, webinars or education programs, connecting with loved ones that are far way. But really think about your screen time and how it’s spent. Is it benefiting your life in any way? Or is it a compulsive habit? Whenever you have a spare moment–waiting in line, in an elevator, whenever you feel that you are bored–is that when you reach for your phone? Are you mindlessly scrolling through your Newsfeed, photofeed or Twitter feed? Potentially comparing your life to others, getting lost looking at the pictures from people you hardly know? Obsessing over celebrities and “influencers” that actually provide no value to your life? Sometimes we might have the T.V. on, watching a show, whilst at the same time mindlessly scrolling through our feeds. This is a double screen-time wham-o! Essentially getting lost in whatever is available to take you away from yourself and basically inhibit your ability to give love, care and attention to yourself.
We Are Wasting Valuable Time
Many of us, again often including myself, have dealt with a deep dissatisfaction with our lives — maybe we are not happy with our careers or our relationships, or perhaps we lack purpose, passion and drive. Yet, instead of doing something that could benefit ourselves, we instead choose to escape those feelings. We reach for our screens in a desperate attempt to get our next “fix,” our dopamine hit that gives us temporary relief from our dissatisfaction with our lives. This IS an addiction and it is important to be aware of that. What would happen if instead, we leaned into our feelings of discomfort and spent time in deep reflection about what is working in our lives and what’s not?
Using Tech To Help Moderate Our Use Of Tech
A great tool for me has been an app called “Moment” that basically tracks your screen time and how much time has been spent on each app. Without consciously trying to change your screen time habits, I challenge you to download this app and check out your screen time at the end of each day. Much like I was, you may be surprised to learn how much time you might be completely throwing away on social media.
After all, “Lost time is never found again.”
If you’re like me, you may be thinking, “Well, what the heck else am I supposed to be doing?” And you may still enjoy spending some time on social media, but as with pretty much everything else in life, moderation is key! You may want to try setting a daily limit for screen time for yourself and sticking to it. If you can’t, then you know you may have a problem worth exploring.
50 Things You Can Do Instead Of Staring At A Screen
Below I have provided a list of 50 things you could be doing instead of scrolling or staring at a screen. While some of these are going to seem extremely obvious, you may not always think of them when you are sucked into the glowing light of a screen. This is meant to be a quick reference, it may be even beneficial to print this list off or copy it onto a physical piece of paper so that you ironically don’t need a screen to view it.
- Read a book
- Read a magazine
- Go for a walk
- Go for a hike
- Clean out your closet
- Write in your journal
- Play an instrument
- Play with your pet
- Practice a new language
- Listen to a podcast
- Draw a picture
- Paint a picture
- Literally sit and do nothing
- Do yoga
- Go to the gym
- Workout from home
- Call up a friend (use headphones or speakerphone to chat)
- Write a letter you intend to send
- Write a letter you don’t intend to send
- Plan out tasks you intend to accomplish within the next week
- Bake something
- Cook something
- Meet a friend for tea
- Play a board game or cards
- Go swimming
- Do a massage exchange with a friend
- Redecorate your home
- Give yourself an opportunity to really feel your feelings
- Notice the urge to reach for your phone
- Practice grounding
- Volunteer your time
- Go to a comedy show
- Listen to music
- Write a list of 10 things you are grateful for
- Go to the library
- Try something new
- Sit in quiet reflection
- Study something that sparks your interest using books
- Get clear on your vision for the next 5 years of your life
- Go to a Meetup group
- Dance around your living room
- Practice eye-gazing with yourself in the mirror, or with someone else
- Clean out your fridge
- Take a cold shower
- Have a bath
- Downsize your belongings
- Repair something that is broken
Bonus* Make a list of things that you’ve always wanted to do, but felt like you haven’t had the time.
Reasons Why Many People Refuse The Flu Shot: Facebook Has No Right Censor This Information
- The Facts:
Despite the fact that Facebook and other platforms like Google are censoring important information pertaining to vaccines, science is science and should be made freely available. Studies show that the flu vaccine is not really effective.
- Reflect On:
Why are terms like "anti-vax" and ridicule used by advocates of vaccines instead of simply addressing and countering the points made by vaccine safety advocates?
If you haven’t already heard, Facebook is censoring information and articles about vaccines that are “anti-vax” or information that in some way paint vaccines in a harmful light. This is extremely concerning, because there are a number of experts in the field, doctors and scientists, who have been publishing research in several peer-reviewed journals that do bring up concerns about vaccines. It’s simply facts, information and science, yet it’s still being censored which makes no sense.
Why is Facebook limiting the reach of posts and articles that are presenting peer-reviewed science and the view-points and research of medical health professionals and scientists? Is it because Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ are funded by big pharmaceutical interests? An important question to ask. FakeNews watchdog NewsGuard aims to hold independent media accountable for their stories. Funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR, NewsGuard seems to have a clear agenda in favour of mainstream media. That’s one example, and you can read more about that here. Why does mainstream media always use ridicule and terms like “anti-vax” instead of simply addressing and countering the concerns made by vaccine safety advocates, like the points presented in this article?
When it comes to the flu vaccine specifically, Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:
The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of vaccine related injuries are the flu shot. I think many of you it’s been recommended to you that you get the flu shot, I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact, the CDC statistics are, that every year they look at vaccine effectiveness, for this particular year the vaccine effectiveness is 48 percent, so that means it’s not highly effective. It’s not even all that effective, if you look at the scientific literature…the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine is moderate to weak. It is not strong evidence. They say the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine to people over the age of 65 is not there, it’s inconclusive. So a lot of the things we’ve been told as Americans about vaccinations are not really based on the science. (source)
Here’s a great video of Doctor Toni Bark, who has been the medical director for various departments and hospitals, explaining why vaccines are not a one size fits all product. Here’s another one of Dr. Mary Holland, who is a professor at New York University School of Law. This is evident when one examines the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA), because it’s already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine maker’s flawed products. Furthermore, this act safeguards pharmaceutical companies from harm, meaning that they cannot be sued or blamed, nor held accountable for their productscausing injury. Therefore, vaccines are a liability free product that are being mandated on children, the manufacturers have no incentive to make a safe product.
What We Did As A Result of Censorship
Facebook is blocking many of our posts from our own audience, Youtube demonetized us and many articles like this particular one, will be labelled and are labelled as “fake news.” As a result, in order to (attempt to) stay alive and continue doing what we do, we created a platform called CETV. It’s away for people to access information without organizations like Google or Facebook stepping in to censor it. You can sign up for your free trial if you’re interesting in browsing through what we have, and if you’re interested in supporting us you can get a monthly/yearly subscription after that if you want to continue. In one of our latest episodes, CE founder Joe martino and I discuss the flu vaccine. Below is a brief clip of the episode, again, you can sign up for a free trial to watch the full episode.
More Important Info About The Flu Shot & Why Some People Are Refusing it
Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.” In it, he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”
He goes on to state:
But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).⇓ All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.
After reading this paper, a great quote from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comes to mind:
Every year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and pharmaceutical companies mount an aggressive campaign in the mainstream media to persuade Americans to get their flu shots. Flu shots are big business: industry analysts estimate that within the next five years, the U.S. flu vaccine market will be worth almost $3 billion annually. And profit margins are growing as manufacturers increase price premiums for the newer four-strain vaccines. The U.S. expects to distribute roughly 166 million doses for the 2017-18 flu season, up from 146 million doses in the previous year. As pharmaceutical companies bombard American consumers with ubiquitous billboards, drugstore enticements and radio announcements to “get your flu shot now,” the CDC has advised the industry to hike demand through the use of a “recipe” of scare-mongering messaging. (See Figure 1) CDC recommends “creating concern, anxiety and worry” among the American public. (source)
Mercury (Thimerosal) Is Still In Flu Vaccines
Thimerosal-containing flu vaccines contain 250 times the mercury level the EPA uses to classify hazardous waste. Unused thimerosal-containing flu vaccine should be returned to the manufacturer for appropriate disposal. (source)
Ethylmercury is still used as an ingredient inside many flu vaccines. The CDC claims that it’s safe, and it exits the body and has published a handful of studies suggesting this, but they do not demonstrate that the mercury actually exists the body and does no harm. Meanwhile, on the other hand there are well over 100 studies raising various concerns when it comes to Ethylmercury, and not one that can clearly demonstrate that it’s safe to inject into people, let alone little children.
For example, a study published in Biomedical Research International explains:
There are over 165 studies that have focused on Thimerosal, an organic-mercury (Hg) based compound, used as a preservative in many childhood vaccines, and found it to be harmful. Of these, 16 were conducted to specifically examine the effects of Thimerosal on human infants or children with reported outcomes of death; acrodynia; poisoning; allergic reaction; malformations; auto-immune reaction; Well’s syndrome; developmental delay; and neurodevelopmental disorders, including tics, speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism.
Again, it’s one of many, another concern, as stated in this study published in the Journal of Toxicology is that”Ethylmercury is a lipophilic cation which can cross the blood-brain barrier”
This is why a number of studies, like this one published in Neurochemical research, emphasize that “Abating Mercury Exposure In Young Children Should Include Thimerosal-Free Vaccines.”
Dr. Christopher Exley, a professor at Keele university who is simply studying the bioaccumulation of injected aluminum, has made some interesting discoveries. But first, let’s look at study in 2015 emphasized:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.
Furthermore, in 2018, a paper published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry found that almost 100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum in mice as vaccine adjuvants was absorbed into the systemic circulation and traveled to different sites in the body such as the brain, the joints, and the spleen, where it accumulated and was retained for years post-vaccination. (source)
Aluminum is not in the flu vaccine, but it’s interesting to look at what happens to it when it’s injected, because strong evidence suggests that it crosses the blood brain barrier. The CDCs claims that the mercury contained in flu vaccines exits the body isn’t backed up by research, furthermore, they don’t specify the differences that may come about from mercy that we inject, compared to mercury that we ingest. This is why I’m using the aluminum example here.
Exley has been interviewed multiple times about this subject, and many studies and his research point to the same findings: Aluminum in vaccines does not exit the body, and it has been linked to multiple diseases, which can develop immediately post-injection or up to decades later in life for certain neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
A study by Exley and his team published in 2018 should have made headlines everywhere, as it discovered historically high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains. The study was conducted by some of the world’s leading scientists in the field.
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us. Exley. (Taken from a video interview with him that’s found in this article)
Dr. Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia said of his study titled “Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration,” that it simply triggered silence from the federal health regulatory agencies who largely ignored it, despite the fact that “massive damage to motor neurons” were found in mice. (source) The point is, there is a large body of evidence showing that injected aluminum doesn’t exit the body, but travels to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain.
So what are we to think about mercury? Why haven’t our federal health regulatory agencies tested this?
As you can see, concerns with vaccinations exist and they should not be censored.
We are living in an age where access to information is becoming extremely limited. Independent media outlets that present information and evidence, no matter how well sourced, are being blocked and threatened by social media platforms like Facebook and organizations like Google if the narrative threatens various corporate and political agendas. This censorship should serve humanity, and play a role in waking up even more people as to just how wrong this is, clearly, there are many people out there who are feeling threatened by organizations that share credible information that threatens their interests. At the end of the day, truth cannot be stopped and will continue to leak out on various topics. When it comes to vaccines, science, and the questioning of vaccine safety should obviously encouraged, and not shunned.
Highly Recommended: Flu Vaccine Facts: What You Need to Know for 2018-19
An Explosive Documentary Exposing Pedophiles In Parliament & The British Royal Family
”They use all forms of persuasion to prevent people from speaking out, to silence people. Threats, intimidation, blackmail, financial deprivation....
Scientists Discover Biophotons In The Brain That Could Hint Our Consciousness Is Directly Linked To Light
Scientists found that neurons in mammalian brains were capable of producing photons of light, or “Biophotons”! The photons, strangely enough,...