Connect with us

Alternative News

What The World Continues To Ignore About The Recent Mass Shooting In Florida (And All Others)

Author, Anna Rodgers, interviews Dr. Faye Snyder, Child Forensic Evaluator, author and the founder of the PaRC parenting school, who has spent the last several decades studying and evaluating why people like, Nikolas Cruz, carry out such violent acts and what do we need to do to ensure that these acts don’t keep happening.

Avatar

Published

on

We can expect more massacres. We can expect more prisoners. We can expect more premature deaths from overdosing. We can expect more selfish people without empathy. We can expect mental hospitals will become the order of the day, and some people will never leave, if they are being treated according to the medical model.

advertisement - learn more

We will see more domestic violence, and we will see the courts abused and more false complaints will be filed as well as real ones. More parents will lose their children because children’s protective services and the courts don’t know how to tell the difference between a false complaint and a real one.

--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!

– Dr. Faye Snyder, Child Forensic Evaluator

With another tragic recent mass shooting, this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Florida, we are seeing a flood of articles about what happened, and the controversial debate on gun laws.

However, these articles often are missing an angle that is incredibly important for us to start looking much deeper at, and that is, what might have happened to Nikolas Cruz in his life, for him to carry out these terrible atrocities.

His lawyer has publicly stated that he is a ‘sad and broken child’, and we know that he was adopted at birth, and we also know that at age 5, his adopted father died. Late last year, Nikolas also lost his adopted mother, Linda, who passed away from pneumonia.

advertisement - learn more

It is also reported that Nikolas’s younger brother Zachary, was committed involuntarily for mental observation, after his brother carried out the shootings. 

Clearly these boys have suffered greatly due to their past, from the broken attachment from their birth mother and from the subsequent loss of both of their adoptive parents.

What we do not know in detail is, what else has happened during Nikolas’s life that will help us to understand why he wanted to kill so many people. 

We know that many people also suffer similar pasts, and do not carry out acts like this. But in Nikolas’s case when did the cracks begin to show? Just in the last few years, or were they always there?

Neighbours are now coming forward and sharing bits of information, like that Nikolas was a ‘deeply troubled’ child who often displayed violence, sometimes even to animals.  How did his adoptive parents deal with this? How did they help him deal with problems and his emotions? 

We must also ask, why on earth did he have access to guns if people around him knew he had a fragile mind?  On his instagram he had selfies with knives and guns and left comments on youtube that he was going to be a ‘professional school shooter’. Why wasn’t this a clear warning sign for those around him to do something about this?

More is also coming to light about all of the complaints (some were even to the FBI) and police visits regarding Nikolas’s behaviour.  In a video by Stefan Molyneux called The Truth About The Florida School Shooting And Nikolas Cruz, Stefan shares some very alarming information that shows there were so many warning signs that were just blatantly ignored.

After Nikolas’s adopted father passed away, Linda his adoptive mother, asked a neighbours daughter if she would care for the children. Whether she meant for a short while or permanently we do not know, however was that a sign that things were not well in the Cruz’s home and support was desperately needed?

In Nikolas’s life, Linda would have been the only person that had remained for the longest time – even if things were not perfect at home – she was still there and so, for her to pass away also, may have been the final straw on what broke Nikolas and sent him on a downward spiral.

Are we are looking at someone here with a deeply broken heart which led to a deeply broken mind, where he wanted to take his pain out on others?

In this case, we may never know the answers to these questions. However, we cannot continue to just say someone like Nikolas is ‘evil’, and leave it at that, and blame other things, this will not help us stop these acts from happening again.  We must look at why and start talking about what broken attachments are doing to peoples minds.

I asked Dr. Faye Snyder, Child Forensic Evaluator, author and the founder of the PaRC parenting school, who has spent the last several decades studying and evaluating why people like Nikolas carry out such violent acts, what do we need to do to ensure that these acts don’t keep happening.  I also asked her what she thinks about the high rates of American children and teens who are on psychiatric medications.

Interview with Dr. Faye Snyder

Anna Rodgers: Dr. Faye, What causes the violence we are seeing in USA schools?

Dr. Faye Snyder: Do we really want to know? With so much focus on stopping the violence, it would be great if we really wanted to know what causes it.

Why do you think we don’t want to know what causes it?

We don’t want to know cause, especially if it is a problem of broken attachments. There are too many ramifications for asking mothers or fathers to maintain an empathic attachment to their babies for at least three years.

Can you explain what that means?

I don’t believe I recall any violent predator who has not suffered a broken attachment. In my book: The Predictor Scale: Predicting and Understanding Behavior, according to Critical Childhood Experiences, I have included about 25 vignettes on real people, and the formula holds in every case.  

This is the primary cause, far above abuse.

Not only that, but insecure attachments magnify all other emotional injuries, while secure attachments mitigate them. From broken attachments there stems separation anxiety, fears of abandonment (leading to a cold acceptance of isolation), mistrust, emptiness, expectations of rejection, feelings of worthlessness, jealousy, bitterness and a need to blame (pretty much in that order)… and from there becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if someone doesn’t read the cues and intervene in the family.

In all of this, there is no development of empathy—only rage and hatred. One must experience empathy to give it. That’s the way it is with mirror neurons. We treat others as we have been treated.

Below is an interview with Dr. Faye and Stefan Molleneux, about what loneliness, broken attachments and traumatic childhoods do to people. 

Why don’t our ‘experts’ identify these children before it’s too late? 

I don’t believe forensic evaluators understand the essential causes of violence. There is too much focus on genetic explanations and too much assumption of inborn behaviours with very little understanding of attachment trauma and the role of mirror neurons in our development.

Unfortunately, the harm done by male privilege and the backlash of the women’s movement has depended upon genetic assumptions. It is rather conflicting logic and difficult to follow. We believe that there is no difference in capabilities for women and men, but we believe mothers can put their babies in daycare, and the negative results are from genes, rather than daycare.

We ignore the science of evolution and how babies were evolved over millions of years to spend the first three years with their mothers followed by an individuation process facilitated by fathers. We blind ourselves to the results of rotating caregivers and of behaviours imprinted in the home via mirror neurons.

We miss what is right in front of us to see. The damage done by rotating caregivers is exploited by the pharmaceutical industry as evidence of ‘fragile genes’. The imitation by one generation of another is assumed to be evidence of genetic instruction rather than evidence of imprinting by mirror neurons.

Schools offer more funding for children who have a medical diagnosis, and they prefer medicated students, because they are easier to manage. HMOs prefer the medical model, because they can get them in and out faster and save money.

Employers like women in the work force, because we lower the wages by flooding the market. We don’t want this information from our experts.

Do you have a simple formula we could follow for looking for signs? 

Actually, I have spent the last thirty years trying to develop a clear formula, based upon my observations. I have put together this:

40% failed attachment – whether lack of attunement or lack of continuity, as in having rotating caregivers

30% child abuse – whether physical, sexual or emotional

15% being raised in a family that blames  the child (leading to bitterness, revenge and retaliation)

15% from requiring members of the family to keep their complaints and emotions to themselves (which forbids self-reflection and ultimately healing). 

It sounds like we could use this formula to help with prevention?

If we really do want to prevent violence, our attempts to assess children should include school counselor’s notes on their attachment history (quality and continuity); the family’s method of modifying behaviour (abuse, shame, or exploitation versus safe affection, coaching and encouragement); the family’s inclination to judge, blame and retaliate, versus self-reflect and self-correct; and the family’s inclination to repress the authentic personality, creating a child who is withdrawn and who lives “underground”, telling adults what they want to hear, instead of learning respectful ways of expressing their thoughts and feelings, something some parents don’t want to hear, all the while building up more anger and bitterness inside.

Would the schools be willing to give parents the option of coming in to learn better parenting techniques as well as giving the child a consequence? If the parents decline, maybe then the child’s name goes on a registry.

Are we ready for that kind of renewal? By the time they enter school, they will be highly symptomatic with the above developing traits. Are we ready to ask questions? Are we ready to intervene in families because their children exhibit these traits?

Below: Constitutional Attorney Jonathan Emord speaking on the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings and why there should be a federal investigation.

So many children and teens in the USA are on psychiatric medications more than ever – do you think this is going to help?

Bear with me for taking a detour here. When I was in school, we all sat nicely in class, went home and did our homework. We didn’t have domestic violence, guns, drugs, rapes, suicides, shootings and a lot of mental illness at school. There was some, but nothing like today. Children are not what they used to be. Today’s children are more symptomatic than in evolutionary history because evolution designed small children to be with their mothers continuously until at least three years of age, if not until age five.

These disturbed children are perfect tools for the medical model to convince us that some of us are born defective. We have been told that research exists to prove these children were born with fragile genes. The research has been modified to sell more drugs and to make us believe the problems are inborn, not from our parenting. Thus, we conclude that these children who threaten us also victimize their poor parents. The cause is disguised by the belief that our children were born that way, at least in part. So, instead of offering the parents parenting classes, we give drugs to their children.

Thus, the solution to medicate is often an absolute disaster. Almost all the children and young adults who have become mass shooters were on psychotropic drugs, which put these disturbed individuals over the edge. Some say that it’s the drugs alone that put the individual in a homicidal or suicidal state. These medications interfere with learning. They neutralize the evidence of neglect and abuse. They create addiction. They create symptoms of lower intelligence. They create psychosis rather than insight. They alter reality and a child’s capacity to adapt to it. They are chemical lobotomies to make these acting-out, symptomatic children more manageable.

Instead of getting that they suffer and need our help, we attempt to neutralize them, but the side affects are psychosis and intolerance. In some cases, they were not even that disturbed, but the medication caused them to become psychotic.

Nearly all the shooters have been on psychotropic medications and got reportedly worse under the medication. That is, their thinking about their plight in life becomes more disturbed, and their solutions become more psychotic. Did you know that we are giving psychotropic drugs to infants and toddlers now? This is getting out of control with terrible consequences.

Do you think parenting is getting better or worse?

Yes, it’s better and no, it’s worse. What is better is our understanding of the harm of corporal punishment. Sex abuse is out of the closet. Intolerance of gay children has diminished. Today, agents from children’s protective services take children away from parents who hit their children or they require parenting classes to parents who spank, which present alternative and more effective ways to discipline than teaching children violent ways to respond to disagreements.

So, fewer children are punished with whippings or spankings these days, but other parents have become so sympathetic with their children’s lives that many of them have become ‘rescuers’. They protect their children from learning, growing and discovering cause and effect. They fail to learn to solve problems or to become resilient. They often raise childlike adults who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. These children act entitled. They often believe they should not have to bear a negative feeling or a difficult task. They are wimps. The results are epidemic.

Some mothers actually believe they ‘need’ their children. They don’t help them grow up and individuate. Often, because mothers want to compensate their children for not being there or because they have inferred that discipline is traumatic, we have seen them rescue their children from negative consequences. Every time they do for their child what the child could be learning to do, they weaken their child for life.

Some fathers may even think bullying behavior by a toddler is a cute display of high self-esteem. Some parents rescue children from bad grades by doing their homework for them. They rescue them from consequences in school, by fighting the authorities on behalf of their children or by ignoring the negative reports, as if they are just phases that will be outgrown.

I apologize for beating a dead horse, but the worst parenting is sometimes done with regret. Putting babies and toddlers in daycare (especially for full days 5 days a week, although some infants won’t do well being separated, even for small periods at all) causes the greatest harm, because abandonment trauma predisposes us to all other trauma, as if we have those “fragile genes” that researchers infer when they interpret their results.

The usual response I get is that, “I have to work. Some mothers just have to work. What are we supposed to do?” Sometimes it’s said in hopelessness. Sometimes it’s said in anger. I usually respond, “I am a feminist, myself, and I understand. I’m so sorry, but I didn’t create the human design. I’m just the messenger. Maybe we can brainstorm about what else you can do.”

If something isn’t done to help children and teens deal with their trauma’s what do you think will happen in the future?

You know, I watched the town hall meeting after the massacre. I was very impressed with the character of those older children. I do believe there is good parenting going on out there, but maybe it’s in more affluent neighborhoods, where mothers or father can commit to being the stay-at-home parent. The parents who have the healthiest children have the children who will be the wisest and make the best leaders. They will excel.

Still, we are all watching children go down hill. We can expect more massacres. We can expect more prisoners. We can expect more premature deaths from overdosing. We can expect more selfish people without empathy. We can expect mental hospitals will become the order of the day, and some people will never leave, if they are being treated according to the medical model. We will see more domestic violence, and we will see the courts abused and more false complaints will be filed as well as real ones. More parents will lose their children to the lesser parent, because children’s protective services and the courts don’t know how to tell the difference between a false complaint and a real one.

What do you think may have tipped Nikolas over the edge?

If I knew what I would need to know, I could answer you, but I don’t have enough information. After every mass shooting I am struck by the lack of coverage over the shooters early childhood. Nothing told yet explains his actions.

The other real question is why don’t reporters seek to find out what happened in the first five years. They assume, as does the public, that those years are irrelevant. We will remain in the Dark Ages until we appreciate the critical importance of those first years and learn to ask those questions. That, in it self is evidence of what happens when we don’t believe parenting and childhood cause these behaviors. We like to think the behaviors were inevitable and inborn.

I can somewhat answer your question about what caused this killer to kill. First there are people on psychotropic medications that have committed violent acts and murders who would not have otherwise done so and who did not have childhoods sufficiently horrible to otherwise account for their behaviors. So, simply bad childhoods, as well as terrible childhoods, can end in violence if you add psychotropic medications to the mix.

I know one researcher, who says that those who can’t handle the meds can be identified for intolerance via lab testing before taking them, but it would cost us a few hundred dollars to do the advanced assessment, and most people don’t want to spend the extra money.

Otherwise, I have to speculate. In order for Nicholas to turn out this violent, he would have to have suffered a failed attachment. Nothing in the news indicates a failed attachment, but he suffered several experiences before his rampage that would trigger a failed attachment. Adoption at birth would not create a failed attachment. That’s not to say that some infants don’t suffer being taken from their biological mother, but they can recover if the adoptive mother is sufficiently attentive. It’s hard to imagine a couple that wanted to adopt so very much not creating a sufficient attachment, but we really do not know as his adoptive parents are no longer here to ask.

We know Nickolas’ father died when he was younger. He probably experienced some bullying and social rejection after he had no father to lean on. We can’t know whether the attachments with his parents created social skills and a sense of lightheartedness. I wonder if he had that.

Cruz does have the slight look of fetal alcohol syndrome, which could explain why he was adopted at birth. He might have been taken from his birth mother, because she was an alcoholic. You might see the same sort of look in Adam Lanza and some other shooters. If he had FAS, he would have had more difficulty attaching and more difficulty adopting social skills.

He could therefore end up on the autism spectrum, which only means that he would have had difficulty forming social relationships. Between the lack of social skills and the odd appearance, the child would possibly attract social ostracism and bullying. In that situation, you could say that students at the school could have contributed to the rejection, isolation and rage that Cruz seemed to suffer, something that perhaps his adoptive mother was able to mitigate. (A similar phenomenon took place at Columbine, despite the inept assessment by the FBI.)

He did seem to react to triggers of a failed attachment like social rejection. Another trigger was a breakup with his girlfriend followed by seeing her with another guy. After that, or perhaps before that, he experienced the death of his mother and expulsion from school. For someone who felt so much rejection and loss, the medication could have put him over the top.

What issues can adopted teens have? 

Adopted children don’t have major attachment or abandonment issues if they are adopted at birth. However, “adopted at birth” often does not mean adopted at birth. I have known of multiple situations where adopted at birth mean that there was no mother until the legal system allowed for the adoption. Sometimes the newborn is motherless for weeks or even months. That would create major insecurity in a personality for life.

Children who are adopted at an older age, but still during the attachment years of zero to three or four, have often undergone a trauma or two before they lost a parent and experienced abandonment (even by the death of a parent). The younger they were, the worse the impact on the child when the attachment failed. Children with attachment failures, whether adopted or having suffered a failed attachment in the home (i.e. post partum depression, parents leaving the infant for a vacation, putting the baby in daycare or a cold, non-empathic mother) will have major behavioral issues as teens.

If they fall in love and everything goes well, there is some healing. If they fall in love and they are rejected, their internal scars are re-opened. If they have not learned impulse control as a child, they are in big trouble and their acting out will be commiserate with their level of rejection and rage.

Nikolas was recently expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Would this have also triggered abandonment issues?

Rejection inflames abandonment issues. Children in schools should be taught this, for their own safety’s sake. They should all care about a child who is being bullied for their own safety’s sake. Bullies put all the children at risk. Oh, and bullies have been bullied.

The media don’t seem to report much on the childhoods of perpetrators.  What would you like to see the media start to do? 

I would like the media, school counsellors, therapists, judges, police, social workers and FBI to ask and answer the following questions:

  • What happened in the child’s first three to five years?
  • Who took care of him as an infant?
  • What kind of care was it?
  • Was he enjoyed as an infant?
  • Were there attachment breaks?

This is critical. Dig, and they will find it. Guaranteed (about 40% of cause).

Find out what kind of interaction the child had with his parents. Was his father critical and rejecting, as is often the case of shooters, or was he a supportive coach about how to navigate the world? Did he hold a high bar and encourage growth? Was the child’s mother critical and rejecting or nurturing? How was he disciplined? Was there abuse (sexual, emotional or physical)? (About 30% of cause)

Did the family have a blame ethic where they just blame the child for everything, or were they modeling self-reflection and self-correction? Reporters will probably find that the families are critical of others if not of the child. They will be prone to blame and may have a drive for punishment (15% of cause).

Was the child driven “underground” or did they encourage him to express his thoughts and feelings, even if critical of them? The parents may have innocently been oblivious to the child’s feelings and thoughts and are simply not good at recognizing suffering and enfolding a sufferer, because their own parents didn’t. The child may have learned to keep his tormented thoughts to himself, leaking outside of the home if not in it. A child who cannot share his suffering with a caring adult will not be able to heal and may become a time bomb.

Hopefully, that caring adult would be the parents.

I believe reporters are afraid to walk on this ground, even if they know about it. It is forbidden. As long as it is forbidden to identify parenting as the cause, we will have shooters and other disturbing grown children amongst us. If reporters would gather this information, we could begin to keep the data on causation and begin to prove to the public what they must know for things to improve.

Otherwise, reporters indirectly telegraph the notion that these behaviors were inborn. That we look at the problem with so much concern but don’t see parenting as a cause is evidence of our deliberate blindness, as consumers of the media.

Should we be angry with Nikolas Cruz? Where do we lay the blame? Guns?

Time bombs are created in the home. They are not born. They are created with a specific formula, which even the FBI does not understand. Forensic evaluators often do not understand this formula.

If reporters would begin to cover this news, we could turn this around. Since this news is taboo, and there is only one institution that gets to oversee childhood treatment, we need child protective services to release information to the press about these factors. They should not be confidential. This information should belong to the public. Bad parenting should not be protected as confidential information. That’s us sending suffering underground.

We are entitled to privacy, but not secrecy when our choices harm others. I’d like to add that these social workers should be trained much better in assessment, as well. (I wish I could do it. I almost became a trainer for “front end” responders with child protective services, but they became suddenly very private and the arrangement was off.)

Nickolas Cruz was a child who had to grow up. Given the events of his life, it was not going to end any other way. It’s up to us. Do we really want to know why people behave this way? Are we prepared to make changes?

Faye Snyder, PsyD, aka Dr. Faye, has written seven books on understanding behavior. She is an expert on parenting, attachment, relationship skills, anger management, domestic violence, child custody, trauma, healing, sexual trauma, sex offending and assessment. 

Dr. Faye also is the founder of  PaRC The Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation is a non-profit agency dedicated to educating the world on the critical importance of parenting and relationship skills via the Snyder Causal Theory and Treatment, while raising mental health to new levels, one person and one family at a time.

www.thecausaltheory.com

www.Drfayesnyder.com

You might like to watch a video called Blaming Parents – is this what Dr. Faye thinks we should do?

Further ReadingWhat the Florida school shooting reveals about the gaps in our mental health system

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Another Lawsuit Filed Against Merck Claiming HPV Gardasil Vaccine Caused Debilitating Injury

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Another lawsuit has been filed alleging severe injury and disability as a result of the HPV vaccine. This time it's on behalf of Sahara Walker, a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries after receiving the vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are concerns regarding vaccinations always unacknowledged by mainstream media? Why are those who raise concerns always considered "anti-vax conspiracy theorists?"

What Happened: Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, a law firm based in the United States, along with attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr recently filed their fourth lawsuit against Merck on behalf of Sahara Walker. Walker is a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries from the Gardasil HPV vaccine.

Two days after she took the vaccine, she starting vomiting and experiencing headaches, sever body aces, extreme fatigue that had her bed ridden where she remained, unless she used a wheelchair.

Over time Sarah’s symptoms became more severe. In 2015 her medication schedule rose to 55 pills a day while she endured 54 doctor appointments. She was eventually diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope, postural  postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), a form of orthostatic intolerance called orthostatic hypotension, small fiber neuropathy and severe autoimmune autonomic neuropathy.

An article written by Kennedy explains,

Today, Sahara, 19, takes 14 prescription medications and receives an expensive intravenous immunoglobulin treatment every three weeks.

“I want to warn kids of the terrible risks for this vaccine and let other injured girls know that they are not alone,” Sahara explained. “The Gardasil vaccine stole my life. Before Gardasil, my future was filled with endless possibilities. Now, my life is a parade of accommodations and medical interventions. It’s not how a 19 year old should live. I’m fighting for all of us.”

If Merck had warned Sahara’s mother about Gardasil’s dangers, she never would have allowed her daughter to receive the HPV vaccine.

“We are pro-vaccine, but we would have never had Sahara get Gardasil if we knew the risks,” Sahara’s mother said. “She went from perfectly healthy to sick and disabled within days of the shot. It’s beyond any doubt that Gardasil caused her injuries.”

Internal documents showed that Merck cherry-picked its own data to mislead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and doctors about Gardasil’s safety and efficacy. We aim to get justice for Sahara and others impacted and to force Merck to stop defrauding the public so that we can protect our children.

Why This Is Important: Deaths and permanent disabilities have been reported as a result of the HPV vaccine all across the globe for many years.

For example, researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9)

Japan stopped recommending the HPV vaccine as a result of serious adverse reactions. Multiple films have documented this phenomenon, we’ve written about one of them before called Sacrificial Virgins.

There are a number of documented examples from all over the world, and they are full of debate between the manufacturer and the person injured with regards to whether or not the vaccine actually played any role in the injuries and deaths. For example, A 14-year-old boy named Christopher Bunch passed away more than a year ago, and the mother and father are claiming that it was as a result of the HPV vaccine. His mother started a petition over a year ago claiming that her son “died as a direct result of the HPV vaccine.”

On January 26th, the father of the boy, Elijah Eugene Mendoza-Bunch, wrote this via his Facebook page,

So back on December 11th 2019 I sent an email to CEO Ken Frazier of Merck song to speak with him about the HPV VACCINE and how it killed my son and how it is destroying lives. Well here we are January 25th (the day I got it in the mail) and this is the response from Merck….

You can view their response and read more about that story here.

These are just a few of many examples.

Science Calling The Vaccine Into Question: A new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.”  The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.

 A study published in 2013 in Current Pharmaceutical Design carried out a review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. They found that,

HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.

Vaccine ingredients have also come under a lot of scrutiny over the years, especially aluminum, and the HPV vaccine contains aluminum.

“There has not been any clinical trials designed and carried out to test the safety of aluminum adjuvants. Not a single clinical safety trial for any vaccine that includes an aluminum adjuvant.” – Professor Christopher Exley, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry and group leader of the Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keele University.

It’s concerning that aluminum hasn’t been tested for safety.  Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization mentioned at a WHO vaccine conference at the end of 2019, that there are clinical studies that blame adjuvants for adverse events seen as a result of administering vaccines, and how people in general often blame adverse reactions to vaccines being the result of the vaccine adjuvant. You can find a link to that conference and read more about it here.

Professor Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia in Canada explains that injected aluminum doesn’t come into the same methods of excretion as the aluminum we take in from food, for example. When we inject aluminum, it stays in the body, it may cross the blood brain barrier, enter into cells and various organs in the body.

When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr. Christopher Shaw –  Canadian neuroscientist and professor of ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia (source)

In 2018, shaw published a paper in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that found 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)

Exley and a team of scientists published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”

The publication goes on to address concerns it has with another paper that was published a year prior, emphasizing that the authors of that specific publication, JP Goullé & L Grangeot-Keros,

The Takeaway: Did you know that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) Act has paid  out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children? This is not money coming from the pharmaceutical company. The NCVIA insures that these payments come from taxpayers, the pharmaceutical companies are not held liable. Vaccines are a liability free product.

Why is any type of information that paints vaccines in a ‘negative’ light completely unacknowledged in the mainstream? Does the information in the article alone not warrant some sort of discussion, or at least some sort of acknowledgement as to why some people are concerned?

Why does mainstream media always use terms lie “anti-vax conspiracy theorist” and ridicule? More important than facts and who is right or wrong is our ability to communicate with each other without consequences. We must learn to see the perspective of those who disagree with us, and understand and feel why they feel the way they do. This needs to be our focus, if we can’t get along with people who disagree with us, we are never going to move forward and this applies to everyone.

I would argue that there is more than enough information out there regarding vaccinations that support the idea of informed consent instead of mandatory measures.

 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Portuguese Court Rules That The PCR Test “Is Unable To Determine” A COVID-19 Infection

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A Portuguese court has determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus determined that the detainment of four individuals was unlawful and illegal.

  • Reflect On:

    With no clear cut answer, and many doctors and scientists contradicting each other, should governments be allowed to take measures that restrict our freedoms? Instead of force, should they provide the science and simply make recommendations?

What Happened: The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal. (source)

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals is unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus.

The court found that, based on the currently available scientific evidence, the PCR test is unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that a positive test actually corresponds to a COVID-19 infection for several reasons, two of the main reasons were that the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used, and the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.

This was also brought up recently by tech mogul Elon Musk who recently revealed he had four tests completed in one day. Using the same test and the same nurse, he received two positive results and two negative results, causing him to state his belief that “something bogus” is going on here. He then asked his Twitter following

“In your opinion, at what Ct number for the cov2 N1 gene should a PCR test probably be regarded as positive? If I’m asking the wrong question, what is a better question?”

In the Portuguese appeal hearing, Jaafar et al. (2020) was cited, stating that “if someone is testing by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is  <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”  The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

They also cited Surkova et al. (2020), stating that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that “in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society.”

The court also made the point that a medical diagnosis is a medical act, thus only a physician can determine if a person is ill, no other person or institution has a right to do that.

The court concluded that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so, i.e., by someone who is not a certified physician [to practice medicine in Portugal a degree is not enough, you need to be accepted as qualified to practice medicine by undergoing examination with the Ordem dos Médicos, roughly our equivalent of the UK’s Royal College of Physicians].”

In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them….From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test. (source)

According to Vasco Barreto, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Chronic Diseases (Cedoc) of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa,  it was irresponsible the way two magistrates dealt with the case. “PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%. That is, in the overwhelming majority of cases they detect the virus that causes covid-19,” he said. This is indicated in a scientific article that is cited in the judgment, but that is read “completely wrong” by the magistrates, according to Germano de Sousa, former President of the Ordem dos Médicos and owner of a network of laboratories.

You can read more on why this judgement was “unscientific” according to them, here.

Why This Is Important: When it comes to the testing used to detect a COVID-19 infection, there is a wealth of information making it quite clear that the  (PCR)  tests are inadequate and unreliable for determining who is infected and who isn’t. As a result, there seems to be a strong possibility, according to many experts, that the number of cases recorded around the globe probably include a great number of false positives, meaning people who tested and do test positive for the virus don’t actually have it.

But is this true?

There is also a great deal of information making it quite clear that the PCR tests being used are indeed accurate, and very accurate. So, ask yourself this, how can there be “clear” information on both sides? What’s the correct information? How do we know what to believe? Are you open to consider another perspective about this pandemic, one that opposes what you believe? Can you see from the perspective of another person even though they may disagree with you?

There are many examples to choose from that reflect the idea that PCR tests are not accurate, and that they are. For example, the Bulgarian Pathology Association claimed that they are “scientifically meaningless.”  They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points.

It’s been a common theme. Well after this, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stated that:

“The false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the virus.”

In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled: “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon argued the proportion of positive tests that are false is actually “around 90%”.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

On the other side of the coin, According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

It also seems to be accepted by many scientists in the field that the number of infected persons is much higher than what we’ve been made to believe from testing, thus driving the infection/fatality rate even lower than what we are seeing. Estimates of infection fatality rate are on par with seasonal flu from this perspective according to many scientists and health professionals.

For example, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist created The Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown. Approximately 45,000 doctors and scientists have now signed it. The compares COVID -19 to the seasonal flu.

The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.”  John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here.

These are a few of multiple examples.

Is There Conflicting Info Due To The Politicization of Science? 

Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has recently published an article about COVID-19 in the BMJ, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine.

In it, he offers some food for thought,

Politicians and governments are suppressing science….Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas…The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

The Takeaway: Politicization of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandize and enrich those in power.”

Are we really going to get anywhere if we are constantly polarized with regards to what we believe about this pandemic? More important than information and facts is our ability to empathize with another person who does not share our own beliefs and try to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do. It’s also important for them to empathize with you, and at the end of the day we all must do this with each-other if we want to move forward. Polarization and separation, constantly arguing and fighting with one another will never get us anywhere at all, and simply leaves us open as a collective to harmful responses by governments.

Why is so much information being censored? Why is everything that’s controversial these days deemed a “conspiracy theory” and not really explored by a large majority of people? Given we are deeply feeling the need to make sense of our world, is it time we begin to look at developing the inner faculties necessary to move beyond ideology, limited thinking patterns and truly begin looking at what evidence around us says?

If there’s anything this pandemic has taught us, it’s that we need to change the way we think and how we relate with one another. Obviously, the measures being forced upon us are difficult, and may be causing a lot more harm than good, if any good at all.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!