Connect with us

Awareness

The Tail Wagging the Dog: Death Categorization Drives Healthcare Decisions

Published

on

By World Mercury Project Guest Contributor Joy M. Fritz, posted here with permission.

advertisement - learn more

I work with doctors, coroners and the local county registrars every day to create death records. It’s what I do for a living and I wanted to share my thoughts on the mortality rates being thrown around on mainstream and social media regarding the influenza epidemic. Please note: This information I am sharing is not limited to influenza reporting, but rather, serves as a case study of how the mortality rate recording system (mal)functions at large.

--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.

I am sorry to say that death rates are NOT as simple or as valid as every news broadcaster with perfectly-trained vocal delivery makes them sound, and they are absolutely not the infallible pillar of medical history that the CDC purports.

This failed mechanism in the mortality rate ‘generator’, if you will, is the same for the hotly debated adverse vaccine reactions. This is the reason you see horrible adverse vaccine reactions and deaths being claimed by parents on social media, but no line item for them in national statistics.

An Imperfect System

Our current system for capturing mortality rates can and does provide a mostly uninvestigated and inaccurate picture of what causes a death. The process for creating and registering causes of death for public records is a complicated, convoluted, and politicized one. It is completely open to both ignorance and the manipulations of personal, professional, and governmental interests.

I have come to realize how greatly this reality becomes a public health issue during this current flu season when every major media outlet is providing us with live updates on the accruing death toll. Seeing these reports caused me concern for my family. My husband and I discussed what preventive treatment we might consider. I started reading the FDA package inserts for different flu immunization options to get informed on which might be safest for our infant and six-year-old. What I ultimately wanted to investigate was the risk of death. My kids getting sick is just part of life; other people getting sick is just part of life; lowering the risk of death to my family and the people around me is what I cared about when it came specifically to the seasonal flu.

The process for creating and registering causes of death . . . is completely open to both ignorance and the manipulations of personal, professional, and governmental interests.

I started researching mortality rates to find the line item in the CDC reports for “deaths due to influenza” vs. “adverse reaction to influenza medications and immunizations”. I found influenza rates, no problem. Flu medications and shots? No deaths reported. Awesome. What a simple decision to make! But, being in the mortuary industry and curious about how they get these reports, I looked at the last full report for 2014, dug deeper, and eventually found that they simply code and reorganize the data that they receive from death records—the very death records that I am typing up and registering every day.

advertisement - learn more

So my head started to explode. And I felt, and still feel, sick. I realized that without being aware of it, I knew exactly how influenza deaths are recorded, and why there was no line item in the CDC’s mortality rates for adverse reactions to common medical treatments.

Before I continue, please know that I will not be explaining all the ins and outs of my job, nor the incredibly rare reality that medication complications and adverse reactions do get captured (usually in box 112 of the death record, not as the primary underlying cause). Those exceptions are made possible by exceptional, and likely, very principled people, choosing individually to go above and beyond the call of protocol, whether that be the family that is aware of the impact of the legal documentation that occurs after death and stays level-headed and involved mere hours after the death of their loved one, or an insanely humble and honest doctor, in conjunction with the coroner medical-legal officer who trusts and cooperates with the honest doctor and vigilant family to think outside the box of their standard procedures. Almost five years and nearly 5,000 death certificates later, I can say with confidence that that kind of post-death communication concoction is at a statistical percentage point that even the CDC would consider insignificant.

What most people don’t know is that doctors are not allowed to attest to anything that is not a strictly NATURAL cause of death.

Core Considerations

So, in the spirit of very uncomfortable truthfulness, I will share a snapshot of the core issues embedded in the daily procedures of creating the death statistics that we so desperately need to make prudent health decisions for ourselves and our families. I will also include some examples of how these core issues would manifest into faulty statistical analysis at the level of our public health and lead to the miscalculation of the benefits and risks surrounding our individual medical choices.

Core Issue A: Doctors who provide causes have not all been trained the same way, and therefore do not provide standardized responses. This may at first glance seem minor, as it always has to me, but this directly affects the cause that the doctor lists on the death certificate. Some doctors prefer listing the underlying cause of death as the recent complications that occurred in the last days or weeks before death, such as pneumonia or influenza, while leaving out the more chronic illnesses that had led to the decline in health. Other doctors decide they will provide the more long-standing health conditions as the cause of death (for instance, diabetes, asthma or congenital abnormality) while leaving out the more immediate illnesses. Some doctors include both the short-term and long-term diagnoses.

Many factors play a role in which approach doctors choose. These include in what capacity the doctor saw the patient (hospital vs. hospice care for example) or the immediate availability of the complete medical record within the time frame being impressed by the mortuary due to upcoming funeral or cremation services, or simply the way the doctor personally prioritizes information. Furthermore, doctors feel limited as to what they can provide for a cause by the professional context in which they saw the patient, as determined by their specialty. For example, a primary care physician might provide a cause of death as “coronary artery disease” since that was what he/she was prescribing medication to the patient for, whereas the patient could simultaneously be being treated for stage four chronic kidney disease and be on dialysis. In this case, rather than the objectively more serious health condition being listed on the death certificate, the health condition that the doctor is most comfortable attesting to is listed. Again, way too many factors to go into in this piece, but the basic issue of the lack of standardization in cause of death diagnosis and reporting remains.

In the case of a patient who dies after contracting influenza, this patient could have all of the above-mentioned conditions on his/her medical record simultaneously, from influenza to asthma, pneumonia, congenital abnormality, coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease. Any ONE of those conditions listed is correct and valid, and could be entered as a stand-alone cause which would then be registered by me and the local and state registrar’s offices without a query. It’s the doctor’s preference and his medical opinion—yet the national attention given, medical research dollars, and yearly health choices we all make are swayed by whichever cause this particular doctor, with his/her own particular training and personality, decides to jot down on the worksheet and send back to me to enter into the official record.

CORE ISSUE B) What most people don’t know is that doctors are not allowed to attest to anything that is not a strictly NATURAL cause of death. Falls, medication complications or overdoses, causes with the word “injury” in it, anything that is considered an unnatural or external cause is outside the realm of their jurisdiction as far as the death record is concerned. The coroner would need to be contacted and agree to certify or co-certify a death record that has an unnatural or external cause listed. This is a whole other, very complicated reporting issue that I will not get into in this post. I will say, however, from the perspective of a mortuary representative, that everyone involved (doctor, coroner, registrar and myself) understands that the delay caused by any coroner involvement is highly dreaded and avoided if at all possible due to the amplified grief it can cause the family if they do not want an autopsy or investigation done or have to suffer a delay in services and/or an upset in their own personal closure process.

However, the majority of doctors are aware of their own limitation to certify only natural causes of death. And usually in the interest of serving the grieving family, they will provide the simplest natural cause that they know will quickly pass the approval of the local registrar’s office, fulfill their duty as a signing physician, and enable the grieving family to move forward with their scheduled burial or cremation services. It should be noted here that doctors are under an additional pressure since they have a limited time set out by their State Health and Safety Codes to provide causes of death to a funeral home. In California, it is within 15 hours of death, although that is rarely achieved. Delays of more than a few days after death would risk them getting their license reported to the state medical board for lack of compliance.

What Works About This System?

The system is created in such a way that naturally occurring infectious disease (such as influenza) can be and is being reported and recorded in national mortality rates. However, the lack of standardization in the way doctors report it creates an unreliable number to set as the threshold for what constitutes an epidemic.

What Does NOT Work About This system?

It does not report on the true consequential timeline of the patient’s medical treatment, including unnatural and external complications and errors in their medical care and is therefore woefully inadequate as the basis for ANY medical claims or recommendations.

The first example to illustrate the impact of this issue is as follows:

I read a post from a nurse the other day that shared her story of being hospitalized due to complications of the flu. Even though she had gotten the flu shot every year, she had only gotten influenza this year. Five days after experiencing flu symptoms, she went to her medical provider and was prescribed Tamiflu. She went through her course of medication. Her flu symptoms eased but she started getting a tightness in the chest, which further worsened until she needed to be hospitalized for pneumonia and a close call with sepsis. The conclusion of her post—and her medical opinion as a nurse—was that this year’s flu was very dangerous and anyone less healthy than she could have easily died with her symptoms, so she urged everyone to please get the flu shot to prevent the flu from spreading.

The saddest part about reading her story was discovering that she must not have read the Tamiflu manufacturer’s insert, which states that “No influenza vaccine interaction study has been conducted” and “Efficacy of TAMIFLU in patients who begin treatment after 40 hours of symptoms has not been established” and furthermore, “Events reported more frequently in subjects receiving TAMIFLU compared to subjects receiving placebo in prophylaxis studies, and more commonly than in treatment studies, were aches and pains, rhinorrhea, dyspepsia and upper respiratory tract infections.” (emphasis added)

This would lead to an alternate, very feasible medical conclusion that her hospitalization and pneumonia was the result of using a medication that has not been tested on a population of her vaccination status and symptoms duration, which also has the adverse reaction of a URTI.

…the likelihood of influenza causing the death is greater than the medication causing the death because of mortality rates—but they are the ones creating the mortality rates…

But what if someone less healthy than herself with her exact symptoms and medication course HAD died? Her medical opinion, and many other medical care providers’ opinions would have been that it was influenza that had caused the death, instead of the complications of the medication. In the medical provider’s mind, the likelihood of influenza causing the death is greater than the medication causing the death because of mortality rates—but they are the ones creating the mortality rates—so what is considered reasonable likelihood is being created in a closed loop, a regurgitating cycle.

So, whether the attending physician at the hospital was aware of this medical misstep by the other medical provider or not, in this case the hospital physician could simply put “Influenza” on the causes of death worksheet and send it back to me. Influenza would be entered in the death record and be reported in the state and then national database as such with no question from me or the government registrars.

A Public Health Reporting Conundrum

What this has created, then, is a serious public health reporting conundrum. Death due to complications of improperly prescribed medications are NOT being calculated into the national reporting agencies in a real-time setting. Neither would they be communicated in real-time to the public. Instead, people would simply hear of the rising influenza death toll and run for more medication (and likely not be reading the manufacturer’s insert either to verify if they truly are good candidates for that medication).

I have many friends and family in the medical industry and it is easily admitted that legal and personal liability is a factor in the considerations of proper reporting.

In this medication example, as you can imagine, even IF the recorders realize that the medication was prescribed erroneously, it would not be in the professional best interest of the medical provider or medical facility to report this prescription error and its possibly fatal complications to the family or public health officials. I have many friends and family in the medical industry and it is easily admitted that legal and personal liability is a factor in the considerations of proper reporting. However, if and when this possibly fatal prescription misstep was ever reported, it would be in some very passive EMR analysis many months or years later, with no urgency or real-time public health warning. The ability for government to cross-check and minutely examine nearly three million decedent medical records of varying electronic availability—annually—is just not there.

This failed mechanism in the mortality rate “generator”, if you will, is the same for the hotly debated adverse vaccine reactions. This is the reason you see horrible adverse vaccine reactions and deaths being claimed by parents on social media, but no line item for them in national statistics. It is not because they don’t exist or don’t happen. The real-time data reporting system of death recording is not set up to calculate these deaths. The families that become aware of the adverse reactions in time to request investigation (<24 hours after death), and are able to request any relevant pathological specimens to be procured before the burial or cremation of their loved one, would then need to have the time and resources to go through the lengthy reporting and court procedures through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the National Vacine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). A very few families do, and if they can establish enough scientific evidence (like pathology reports) and find and produce enough experts and professional support, they MIGHT eventually get the causes of death amended and compensation for their loss paid out by the allotted government fund. And after five, 10, 15 or 20 years, this passive data capture system might accrue enough statistical information to be reported back to the medical community so that they adjust their recommendations. However, with the HHS claim that only around 1% of vaccine injuries are reported to VAERS, even this may not be realistic.

So, just like in the medication example, any death due to an adverse reaction to the flu shot or for ANY regularly scheduled wellness immunization, would similarly not be captured in the standard process of death recording. As before, the doctor can still provide either influenza or any other natural-occurring immune response as the only cause of death. He would send it to me and I would enter it in, get the state to approve it, and “Voila!”—a thoroughly inaccurate mortality rate reporting. 

Impacting Informed Consent

One of the most difficult realities for me to recognize in examining the mortality rate reporting system that I am a part of, is that the medical community itself is suffering from the ignorance that this kind of circular mortality rate generating system creates. Doctors and coroners are limited by the already existing mortality rates to gauge the likelihood of what caused death. That kind of system can only regurgitate the same causes of death over and over again by forcing its reporters to use the same types of “acceptable” death diagnoses that already exist.

And these are the statistics the medical community uses to educate themselves and provide informed consent to the patient on what the most prudent option is for medical care to safeguard health and prevent death.

And, yes, I will take the opportunity here to say that we can logically apply this critical analysis of the lack of proper data capture to those reluctant to vaccinate or use medications. There is no current national data capture system that records the morbidity or mortality rates of those who choose less medical intervention or choose to not vaccinate themselves or their kids. We don’t know what their life expectancy, quality of life or mortality rate is in our modern day, with the advancements in hygiene, technology and post-disease-diagnosis medical care availability being considered. It could absolutely be worse, statistically, but we wouldn’t know.

For nationally reported statistics, we are left then with bad data on one side, and no control group data on the other. Hardly the recipe for safe or settled scientifically guided medical care.

Now where does that leave you and me? Our highly subjective—yet somehow infallible—weaponry of mortality rates, whether from national statistics or the social media horror stories, has us and all our friends and family swinging the manic flag of “People are dying!”

This flu season, for example, some of our friends are saying, “People are dying from flu! Get vaccinated! Take medication!” while other friends are saying, “People are dying from adverse reactions to medications and shots! Don’t get vaccinated! Drink elderberry!” And we are all running for the nearest remedies that we are sure will help us because of statistics—OR because we don’t see statistics reflecting our lived reality, so we do the best we can to discern our health without statistics.

But I’m the one creating these statistics and I offer you this: If you take one thing away from this, take away a healthier skepticism about even the most accepted mainstream, nationally reported, CDC or other “scientific” statistics. Humans who had no concept of their widespread impact made them. The numbers are not hard—they are very, very fluid. And conversely, have a healthier skepticism about all the alternative remedies we welcome as hopeful scientific-ish options. There is no unbiased, century-long, data capture system set up for these choices either.

As a parent, the most painful part of taking a step back and looking at all this, is having to humbly admit—I don’t know what the right thing to do is.

I don’t have the unbiased data I need to make the safest decision for my children.

I don’t know what the right thing to do is for myself, or for my husband.

I don’t know what side of the fence to stand on in the vaccination and mainstream medicine battlefield, and I don’t want to stand on a side: I just want the unbiased, uncorrupted and standardized data needed to accurately assess the benefits vs. the ultimate risks for my family’s health.

For nationally reported statistics, we are left then with bad data on one side, and no control group data on the other. Hardly the recipe for safe or settled scientifically guided medical care.

A Self-Reporting System

In the face of this fallible data capture system, my own resolution that I am willing to publicly recommend—no matter what medical choices you decide are best—would be:

  • Become self-reporters. Keep a health journal for each family member complete with dates and times and severity of symptoms of illness, and track dates and dosages of any medical treatment administered. Track degree of fevers, severity of migraines, frequency of ear infections, changes of behavior, hospitalizations, medication dosages and immunization combinations, etc.
  • Think critically and ask questions when you see inconsistencies in any health recommendations offered to you or your family. Request and encourage a satisfactory discussion of benefits and risks with your medical provider.
  • Download and thoroughly read the manufacturer’s insert provided on the FDA’s website for any medication or immunization you are considering, and verify that you are a good candidate for that medication. If you decide to use that medical treatment, record any minor reactions in the health journal, immediately report any somewhat severe reactions to your medical provider, and ask for that information to be added to your electronic medical record so that it might inform any future medical provider on your individual contraindications you may have in other medication courses. Remember that each of us is liable for our own health choices; you cannot expect a medical provider to be a perfect assessor of what’s best for you.
  • Follow up and make sure proper reporting was done on the medical provider’s part to the appropriate national databases, or report it yourself:  MedWatch reports for medications and VAERS reports for vaccines. This recommendation is less for you and more for others and for the sake of having the appropriate authorities informed so they can eventually take medical treatments off the market and create the demand for safer ones. Those kind of databases can only function well for the populations they serve if they are being used by everyone.

Yes, people are dying. Each and every day. I do their death records every flu season or surfing season. And try as hard as we do—and no matter how absolutely shredded inside I am, especially when I do an infant or child’s death certificate—we will never eradicate death. We CAN work to slowly eradicate and reform bad systems and misinformation. And even though there is no immediate gratification in it, we will probably save more lives when we work intelligently, truthfully and ethically towards a better future. That usually starts with a lot of humility and admitting that change is needed.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Multiple Studies Strongly Suggest Wireless Radiation Is Harming Our Bees

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Unnatural sources of electromagnetic seem to be harming not only us, but our bees, trees and other insects.

  • Reflect On:

    How is so much of this technology able to rollout without appropriate safety testing? Why do many countries already have bans and restrictions in places like schools and nursing homes?

Multiple studies have shown that unnatural sources of electromagnetic radiation “biological effects. period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-reviewed literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now, there is no question. We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects…” – Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician.

Here’s one out of thousands of studies that properly outline the health and environmental concerns of wireless radiation, including the novel 5G technology that’s been rolling out all over the world. Not long ago, The Environmental Health Trust  filed a case against the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regarding 5G and wireless radiation, citing health and environmental concerns.

Hundreds of scientists have been petitioning the United Nations about this issue but to no avail. Despite the concerns raising by more than 2000 studies, the topic is still ridiculed and sometimes even deemed a “conspiracy within the mainstream media.

If you want to find/read some more science on this subject, you can refer to this article for a few more examples, and be sure to visit the Environmental Health Trust for more.

What Happened: The Environmental Health TrustThe information below comes from and was put together by .

Electromagnetic fields from powerlines, cell phones, cell towers and wireless has been shown to negatively impact birds, bees, wildlife and our environment in numerous peer reviewed research studies. Specifically,  electromagnetic radiation has been found to alter bee behavior, produce biochemical changes and impact bee reproduction.

 publication by Daniel Favre describes the methodology for a study in which direct adverse were seen in the bees’ behavior following exposure to electromagnetic fields. Favre states, “The present data strongly suggest that honeybee colonies are affected and disturbed by electromagnetic waves (RF-EMF).” In his comprehensive review article, Ulrich Warnke  cites multiple studies which examine the effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure on bees and notes the vital importance of bees as pollinators. Research has found behavioral effects after electromagnetic radiation exposure including inducing artificial worker piping (Favre, 2011), disrupting navigation abilities (Goldsworthy, 2009Sainudeen, 2011Kimmel et al., 2007) decreasing rate egg laying rate (Sharma and Kumar, 2010) and reducing colony strength (Sharma and Kumar, 2010Harst et al., 2006). Furthermore, Neelima Kumar and colleagues found cell phone radiation  influences honey bees’ behavior and physiology.  (2011).

As Clarke et al. (2013) has reported, bees have a particular sensory modality which allows them to detect electric fields, and thus they are particularly susceptible to large amounts of electromagnetic radiation.

5G Millimeter Waves, Bees and Insects 

Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports is the first study to investigate how insects (including the Western honeybee) absorb the higher frequencies (2 GHz to 120 GHz) to be used in the 4G/5G rollout. The scientific simulations showed increases in absorbed power between 3% to 370% when the insects were exposed to the frequencies. Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” (Thielens 2018)

Clearly, more research is necessary to understand the full impact of RFR on bees and other insects. However, enough research has been performed to indicate an urgent need to reduce electromagnetic radiation exposures to protect the bee population and in turn, protect the environment.  As 5G will increase radiation exposures and use new higher frequencies shown to be highly absorbed into insects , scientists are calling for a moratorium on 5G.

Colony Collapse Disorder is thought to be caused by a combination of several factors including pesticides, chemicals and parasitic infection. Importantly, researchers have proposed that  the stress of ever increasing electromagnetic radiation exposure has weakened bee populations and added stress that then results in decreased ability to maintain their health when also exposed to increased pesticides, chemicals and infections. The bees resistance to environmental stressors is weakened by EMF exposure.

ARTICLES:

Herriman, Sasha. “Study links bee decline to cell phones.” CNN (30 June 2010).

Chokshi, Niraj. “If Cell Phones Are Behind the Bee Decline, What Are They Doing to Humans?” The Atalantic (30 June 2010).

  • “In a study at Panjab University in Chandigarh, northern India, researchers fitted cell phones to a hive and powered them up for two fifteen-minute periods each day. After three months, they found the bees stopped producing honey, egg production by the queen bee halved, and the size of the hive dramatically reduced.”
  • “Andrew Goldsworthy, a biologist from Imperial College, London, told CNN that the reason may have to do with radiation from cell phones and cell towers disturbing the molecules of the chemical cryptochrome, which bees and other animals use for navigation. The “other animals” part there is key: it includes humans.”

Derbyshire, David. “Why a mobile phone ring may make bees buzz off: Insects infuriated by handset signals.” Daily Mail (13 May 2011).

  • Dr Favre, a teacher who previously worked as a biologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, said: ‘This study shows that the presence of an active mobile phone disturbs bees – and has a dramatic effect.’
  • He placed two mobile phones under a beehive and recorded the high pitched calls made by the bees when the handsets were switched off, placed on stand-by and activated.
  • Around 20 to 40 minutes after the phones were activated, the bees began to emit “piping” calls – a series of high pitched squeaks that announce the start of swarming.

“Cell Phones Caused Mysterious Worldwide Bee Deaths, Study Finds.” Fox News (13 May 2011).

RESEARCH STUDIES AND REPORTS

Shepherd et al., Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 10

  • Exposure to ELF EMF reduced aversive learning performance and also increased aggression scores
  • “These results indicate that short-term exposure to ELF EMFs, at levels that could be encountered in bee hives placed under power lines, reduced aversive learning and increased aggression levels. These behavioural changes could have wider ecological implications in terms of the ability of bees to interact with, and respond appropriately to, threats and negative environmental stimuli.”

Shepherd et al., Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields impair the Cognitive and Motor Abilities of Honey Bees, Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 7932 (2018)

  • Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) pollution from overhead powerlines is known to cause biological effects across many phyla, but these effects are poorly understood. Honey bees are important pollinators across the globe and due to their foraging flights are exposed to relatively high levels of ELF EMF in proximity to powerlines. Here we ask how acute exposure to 50 Hz ELF EMFs at levels ranging from 20–100 µT, found at ground level below powerline conductors, to 1000–7000 µT, found within 1 m of the conductors, affects honey bee olfactory learning, flight, foraging activity and feeding. ELF EMF exposure was found to reduce learning, alter flight dynamics, reduce the success of foraging flights towards food sources, and feeding.
  • The results suggest that 50 Hz ELF EMFs emitted from powerlines may represent a prominent environmental stressor for honey bees, with the potential to impact on their cognitive and motor abilities, which could in turn reduce their ability to pollinate crops.

Cammaerts, Marie-Claire. “Is electromagnetism one of the causes of the CCD? A work plan for testing this hypothesis.” Journal of Behavior 2.1 (2017): 1006.

  • The decline of domestic bees all over the world is an important problem still not well understood by scientists and beekeepers, and far from being solved. Its reasons are numerous: among others, the use of pesticides and insecticides, the decrease of plant diversity, and bee’s parasites. Besides these threats, there is a potential adverse factor little considered: manmade electromagnetism.
  • The present paper suggests two simple experimental protocols for bringing to the fore the potential adverse effect of electromagnetism on bees and to act consequently. The first one is the observation of bees’ avoidance of a wireless apparatus; the second one is the assessment of colonies’ strength and of the intensity of the electromagnetism field (EMF) surrounding them. If bees avoid a wireless apparatus, if hives in bad health are located in EMF of a rather high intensity, it can be presumed that bees are affected by manmade electromagnetism. This should enable searching for palliative measures.

Favre, Daniel. “Disturbing Honeybees’ Behavior with Electromagnetic Waves: a Methodology.” Journal of Behavior 2.2 (2017): 1010.

  • “Mobile phone companies and policy makers point to studies with contradictory results and usually claim that there is a lack of scientific proof of adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on animals. The present perspective article describes an experiment on bees, which clearly shows the adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on these insects’ behavior. The experiment should be reproduced by other researchers so that the danger of manmade electromagnetism (for bees, nature and thus humans) ultimately appears evident to anyone.”

Balmori, Alfonso. “Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation.” Science of The Total Environment 518–519 (2015): 58–60.

  • Current evidence indicates that exposure at levels that are found in the environment (in urban areas and near base stations) may particularly alter the receptor organs to orient in the magnetic field of the earth.
  • These results could have important implications for migratory birds and insects, especially in urban areas, but could also apply to birds and insects in natural and protected areas where there are powerful base station emitters of radiofrequencies.

Redlarski, Grzegorz, et al. “The influence of electromagnetic pollution on living organisms: historical trends and forecasting changes.” BioMed Research International 2015.234098 (2015).

  • “Current technologies have become a source of omnipresent electromagnetic pollution from generated electromagnetic fields and resulting electromagnetic radiation. In many cases this pollution is much stronger than any natural sources of electromagnetic fields or radiation. The harm caused by this pollution is still open to question since there is no clear and definitive evidence of its negative influence on humans. This is despite the fact that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields were classified as potentially carcinogenic.
  • For these reasons, in recent decades a significant growth can be observed in scientific research in order to understand the influence of electromagnetic radiation on living organisms. However, for this type of research the appropriate selection of relevant model organisms is of great importance. It should be noted here that the great majority of scientific research papers published in this field concerned various tests performed on mammals, practically neglecting lower organisms.
  • In that context the objective of this paper is to systematise our knowledge in this area, in which the influence of electromagnetic radiation on lower organisms was investigated, including bacteria, E. coli and B. subtilis, nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans, land snail, Helix pomatia, common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, and clawed frog, Xenopus laevis.”

Richard Odemer, Franziska Odemer, Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success

  • We have therefore exposed honey bee queen larvae to the radiation of a common mobile phone device (GSM) during all stages of their pre-adult development including pupation. After 14 days of exposure, hatching of adult queens was assessed and mating success after further 11 days, respectively. Moreover, full colonies were established of five of the untreated and four of the treated queens to contrast population dynamics. We found that mobile phone radiation had significantly reduced the hatching ratio but not the mating success.

Clarke, Dominic, et al. “Detection and Learning of Floral Electric Fields by Bumblebees.” Science 340.6128 (2013): 66-9.

  • “We report a formerly unappreciated sensory modality in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris), detection of floral electric fields. Because floral electric fields can change within seconds, this sensory modality may facilitate rapid and dynamic communication between flowers and their pollinators.”

Cucurachi, C., et al. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Environment International 51 (2013): 116–40.

  • RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies.
  • Development and reproduction of birds and insects are the most strongly affected endpoints.

Favre, Daniel. “Mobile phone induced honeybee worker piping.” Apidologie 42 (2011): 270-9.

  • Electromagnetic waves originating from mobile phones had a dramatic impact on the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker piping signal. In natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony.

Goldsworthy, Andrew. “The Birds, the Bees and Electromagnetic Pollution: How electromagnetic fields can disrupt both solar and magnetic bee navigation and reduce immunity to disease all in one go.” (2009).

  • Many of our birds are disappearing mysteriously from the urban environment and our bees are now under serious threat. There is increasing evidence that at least some of this is due to electromagnetic pollution such as that from cell towers, cell phones, DECT cordless phones and Wifi. It appears capable of interfering with their navigation systems and also their circadian rhythms, which in turn reduces their resistance to disease. The most probable reason is that these animals use a group of magnetically-sensitive substances called cryptochromes for magnetic and solar navigation and also to control the activity of their immune systems.

Goldsworthy, Andrew. “The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields: Problems and Solutions.” (2012)

  • “Many of the reported biological effects of non-ionising electromagnetic fields occur at levels too low to cause significant heating; i.e. they are non thermal. Most of them can be accounted for by electrical effects on living cells and their membranes. The alternating fields generate alternating electric currents that flow through cells and tissues and remove structurally-important calcium ions from cell membranes, which then makes them leak.”

Thielens et al., “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 3924 (2018)

  • “Insects are continually exposed to Radio-Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields at different frequencies. This paper is the first to report the absorbed RF electromagnetic power in four different types of insects as a function of frequency from 2 GHz to 120 GHz.   All insects showed a general increase in absorbed RF power at and above 6 GHz, in comparison to the absorbed RF power below 6 GHz. Our simulations showed that a shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%.”
  • “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating. The studied insects that are smaller than 1 cm show a peak in absorption at frequencies (above 6 GHz), which are currently not often used for telecommunication, but are planned to be used in the next generation of wireless telecommunication systems.”

Greggers, Uwe, et al. “Reception and learning of electric fields in bees.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280.1759 (2013).

  • Honeybees, like other insects, accumulate electric charge in flight, and when their body parts are moved or rubbed together. We report that bees emit constant and modulated electric fields when flying, landing, walking and during the waggle dance.
  • The electric fields emitted by dancing bees consist of low- and high-frequency components. Both components induce passive antennal movements in stationary bees according to Coulomb’s law. Bees learn both the constant and the modulated electric field components in the context of appetitive proboscis extension response conditioning.
  • Using this paradigm, we identify mechanoreceptors in both joints of the antennae as sensors. Other mechanoreceptors on the bee body are potentially involved but are less sensitive. Using laser vibrometry, we show that the electrically charged flagellum is moved by constant and modulated electric fields and more strongly so if sound and electric fields interact.
  • Recordings from axons of the Johnston organ document its sensitivity to electric field stimuli. Our analyses identify electric fields emanating from the surface charge of bees as stimuli for mechanoreceptors, and as biologically relevant stimuli, which may play a role in social communication.

Harst, Wolfgang, Jochen Kuhn and Hermann Stever. “Can Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Studying Possible Non-thermal Influences on Honey Bees – An Approach Within the Framework of Educational Informatics.” Acta Systemica-IIAS International Journal 6.1 (2006): 1-6.

  • A pilot study on honeybees testing the effects of non-thermal, high frequency electromagnetic radiation on beehive weight and flight return behavior.  In exposed hives, bees constructed 21% fewer cells in the hive frames after 9 days than those unexposed.

Odemer, Richard & Odemer, Franziska. (2019). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success. Science of The Total Environment. 661. 553-562. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.154.

  • Chronic RF-EMF exposure significantly reduced hatching of honey bee queens. Mortalities occurred during pupation, not at the larval stages. Mating success was not adversely affected by the irradiation.mAfter the exposure, surviving queens were able to establish intact colonies.

Kimmel, Stefan, et al. “Electromagnetic radiation: influences on honeybees (Apis mellifera).” IIAS-InterSymp Conference (2007).

  • 39.7% of the non-irradiated bees had returned to their hives while only 7.3% of the irradiated bees had.

Kumar, Neelima R., Sonika Sangwan, and Pooja Badotra. “Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.” Toxicology International 18.1 (2011): 70–2.

  • The present study was carried out to find the effect of cell phone radiations on various biomolecules in the adult workers of Apis mellifera L. The results of the treated adults were analyzed and compared with the control. Radiation from the cell phone influences honey bees’ behavior and physiology. There was reduced motor activity of the worker bees on the comb initially, followed by en masse migration and movement toward “talk mode” cell phone. The initial quiet period was characterized by rise in concentration of biomolecules including proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, perhaps due to stimulation of body mechanism to fight the stressful condition created by the radiations. At later stages of exposure, there was a slight decline in the concentration of biomolecules probably because the body had adapted to the stimulus.

Lambinet, Veronika, et al. “Honey bees possess a polarity-sensitive magnetoreceptor.” Journal of Comparative Physiology A(2017): 1-8

  • “Honey bees, Apis mellifera, exploit the geomagnetic field for orientation during foraging and for alignment of their combs within hives. We tested the hypothesis that honey bees sense the polarity of magnetic fields.”
  • We created an engineered magnetic anomaly in which the magnetic field generally either converged toward a sugar reward in a watch glass, or away from it. After bees in behavioral field studies had learned to associate this anomaly with a sugar water reward, we subjected them to two experiments performed in random order. In both experiments, we presented bees with two identical sugar water rewards, one of which was randomly marked by a magnetic field anomaly. During the control experiment, the polarity of the magnetic field anomaly was maintained the same as it was during the training session. During the treatment experiment, it was reversed.
  • We predicted that bees would not respond to the altered anomaly if they were sensitive to the polarity of the magnetic field. Our findings that bees continued to respond to the magnetic anomaly when its polarity was in its unaltered state, but did not respond to it when its polarity was reversed, support the hypothesis that honey bees possess a polarity-sensitive magnetoreceptor.

Oschman, James and Nora Oschman. “Electromagnetic communication and olfaction in insects.” Frontier Perspectives (2004).

Philips, Alasdair and Jean Philips. “Animals, Birds, Insects and Plants.” Radiofrequency EMFS and Health Risks (2017).

  • The current problem is thought to be a combination of different factors. Pesticides are weakening the bees without killing them, making them more susceptible to other environmental pollutants. The bees seem to leave the hive looking for nectar and fail to return.

EMFs from telecommunications infrastructures could interfere with bees’ biological clocks that enable them to compensate properly for the sun’s movements and may fly in the wrong direction when attempting to return to the hive. They could disappear mysteriously. This phenomenon has been widely reported in the past months.

“Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees.”  Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, 2010.

  • This report details the on impacts of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees submitted to MoEF. It  warns of harmful radiation and recommends special laws to protect urban flora & fauna from threats radiation emerging from mobile towers.

Sainudeen, Sahib.S. “Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Clashes with Honey Bees.” International Journal of Environmental Sciences 1.5 (2011).

  • Recently a sharp decline in population of honey bees has been observed in Kerala. Although the bees are susceptible to diseases and attacked by natural enemies like wasps, ants and wax moth, constant vigilance on the part of the bee keepers can over come these adverse conditions. The present plunge in population (< 0.01) was not due to these reasons. It was caused by man due to unscientific proliferation of towers and mobile phones.”
  • Six colonies of honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) were selected. Three colonies were selected as test colonies (T1,T2&T3) and the rest were as control (C1,C2&C3). The test colonies were provided with mobile phones in working conditions with frequency of 900 MHz for 10 minutes for a short period of ten days. After ten days the worker bees never returned hives in the test colonies. The massive amount of radiation produced by mobile phones and towers is actually frying the navigational skills of the honey bees and preventing them from returning back to their hives.
  • The study concludes, “More must also be done to compensate individuals and communities put at risk. Insurance covering diseases related to towers, such as cancer, should be provided for free to people living in 1 km radius around the tower. Independent monitoring of radiation levels and overall health of the community and nature surrounding towers is necessary to identify hazards early. Communities need to be given the opportunity to reject cell towers and national governments need to consider ways of growing their cellular networks without constantly exposing people to radiation.”

Sharma, V.P. and N.K. Kumar. “Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations.” Current Science 98.10 (2010): 1376-8.

  • We have compared the performance of honeybees in cell phone radiation exposed and unexposed colonies. A significant (p < 0.05) decline in colony strength and in the egg laying rate of the queen was observed. The behaviour of exposed foragers was negatively influenced by the exposure, there was neither honey nor pollen in the colony at the end of the experiment.”

Sivani, S., and D. Sudarsanam. “Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – A Review.” Biology and Medicine, vol. 4, no. 4, 2012, pp. 202–16.

  • There is an urgent need for further research  and “of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593 showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies”.
  • “One can take the precautionary principle approach and reduce RF-EMF radiation effects of cell phone towers by relocating towers away from densely populated areas, increasing height of towers or changing the direction of the antenna.”

Warnke, Ulrich. “Birds, Bees and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’.” Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy 1 (2009).

  • Bees pollinate approximately 1/3 of all crops  and they are disappearing by the millions. Warnke raises the concern that the dense, energetic mesh of electromagnetic fields from wireless technologies may be the cause.

“Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United States.” Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2009.

  • “Potential Radiation Effects on Other Pollinators Radiation has also been implicated in effects on domestic honeybees, pollinators whose numbers have recently been declining due to “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) by 60% at U.S. West Coast apiaries and 70% along the East Coast (Cane and Tepedino 2001).
  • CCD is being documented in Greece, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland. One theory regarding bee declines proposes that radiation from mobile phone antennas is interfering with bee navigational systems. Studies performed in Europe have documented navigational disorientation, lower honey production, and decreased bee survivorship (Harst et al. 2006, Kimmel et al. 2006, Bowling 2007).
  • This research needs further replication and scientific review, including in North America. Because pollinators, including birds, bees, and bats, play a fundamental role in food security (33% of our fruits and vegetables would not exist without pollinators visiting flowers [Kevan and Phillips 2001]), as pollinator numbers decline, the price of groceries goes up.
  • Harst et al. (2006) performed a pilot study on honeybees testing the effects of non-thermal, high frequency electromagnetic radiation on beehive weight and flight return behavior. They found that of 28 unexposed bees released 800 m (2,616 ft) from each of 2 hives, 16 and 17 bees returned in 28 and 32 minutes, respectively, to hives. At the 1900 MHz continuously-exposed hives, 6 bees returned to 1 hive in 38 minutes while no bees returned to the other hive. In exposed hives, bees constructed 21% fewer cells in the hive frames after 9 days than those unexposed. Harst et al. selected honeybees for study since they are good bio-indicators of environmental health and possibly of “electrosmog.” Because of some concerns raised regarding the methods used to conduct the Harst et al.(2006) study, specifically the placement of the antenna where bees could contact it (i.e., potentially a bias), the experimental methods need to be redesigned and the studies retested to better elucidate and fine tune the impacts of radiation. The results, while preliminary however, are troubling. Kimmel et al. (2006) performed field experiments on honeybees under conditions nearly identical to the Harst et al. (2006) protocol except that bees were stunned with CO2 and released simultaneously 500 m (1,635 ft) from the hives. However, in one of their experimental groups, they shielded the radiation source and antenna in a reed and clay box to address potential biases raised in the Harst et al. study. Sixteen total hives were tested, 8 of which were irradiated. After 45 minutes when the observations were terminated, 39.7% of the non-irradiated bees had returned to their hives while only 7.3% of the irradiated bees had.”

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Study Says That Vaccines Don’t Work For Up To 10 Percent of People

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study points out that About 2–10% of healthy individuals fail to mount antibody levels to routine vaccines. 10 percent of the human population is approximately 780,000,000 people.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are the safety concerns being raised about vaccines completely ignored and unacknowledged by mainstream media? Why do they use ridicule and terms like "anti-vax conspiracy theorists" instead of simply acknowledging and countering the points made?

What Happened: Did you know that a large majority of people simply do not respond to routine vaccinations? This group is known as the non-responders. A study published in the journal Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics titled “Primary vaccine failure to routine vaccines: Why and what to do?” states the following:

About 2-10% of healthy individuals fail to mount antibody levels to routine vaccines…While inadequacies of the vaccine (such as incomplete attenuation, incorrect immunisation route or schedule, or failures in delivery due to interruption of the cold chain) are reasons for vaccine failures that can be logistically overcome, host-related factors for non-responsiveness (associated with the immune and health status, age, or genetic factors) are more difficult to define and underlying mechanisms of vaccine failure are largely unexamined or unknown.”

10 percent of the global population is approximately 780,000,000.

The study outlines how the most documented cases of this phenomenon is with the hepatitis b vaccine, and goes on to hypothesize reasons for why this is happening, and also makes suggestions for solving the problem but, again, the reason why so many people simply don’t respond to vaccines is simply unknown and needs to be studied more.

The 2-10% figure given by this paper is for healthy individuals, it’s also important to bring up the matter of immunocompromised people who have weakened immune systems. These people have a harder time of fighting infections the way healthy people do.

Immunocompromised children have weakened immune systems that prevent them from optimally fighting infections on their own. Consequently, they may be at increased risk of complications from infectious diseases as well as routine vaccinations.

The Physicians For Informed Consent, a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccination measures, state that “vaccines have not been evaluated for their potential to cause cancer, genetic mutations or impaired fertility in the general or immunocompromised populations. Due to these limitations, it is not known whether the benefit of vaccinating an immunocompromised  child outweighs the risk of vaccine injury to that child.”

Using The MMR Vaccine As Another Examples of One That Does Not Always Work: The failure of the measles vaccine has been well documented over the years. As far back as 1994, a paper published in JAME Internal Medicine titled “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons” was one of many to highlight this point.

The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles.

There are countless examples of measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations all the way up to the present day. There are also examples of measles outbreaks occurring as a result of the vaccine itself, not to mention that According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

For more details science and sources regarding the MMR vaccine, you can read this article I recently published on it specifically that goes into much more detail.

The Physicians For Informed Consent (mentioned earlier) put out some excellent downloadable PDF’s with regards to the MMR vaccine. There are four of them that all present different points.

  1. MEASLES: What Parents Need To Know
  2. MMR VACCINE: Is It Safer Than Measles? 
  3. Waning Immunity & The MMR Vaccine 
  4. FAQ’s: The MMR Vaccine versus the Measles

Herd Immunity: The Backbone of Vaccine Mandates: Herd immunity is a theoretical concept, yet for decades, it has furnished one of the key underpinnings for vaccine mandates in the United States. The public health establishment borrowed the herd immunity concept from pre-vaccine observations of natural disease outbreaks. Then, without any apparent supporting science, officials applied the concept to vaccination, using it not only to justify mass vaccination but to guilt-trip anyone objecting to the nation’s increasingly onerous vaccine mandates.

Apparently, herd immunity bullying sometimes works: A review of 29 studies showed that “willingness to immunize children for the benefit of the community” was a “motivating reason” for about a third of parents. There is one problem with using herd immunity as a motivator, however—the theory of herd immunity relies on numerous flawed assumptions that, in the real world, do not and cannot justify compulsory vaccination policies. In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favour of voluntary choice. – Children’s Health Defense (source)

Continue reading about herd immunity here.

The Takeaway: Vaccinations are quite a controversial topic, and vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among not only the global citizenry, but among doctors and physicians as well, which was also expressed at the recent World Health Organization vaccine summit. You can read more about that here.

Should we not have the right to choose what we inject into our and our children’s body? Why are concerns being raised by a number of scientists, publications and doctors regarding the dangers of vaccination always ignored, brushed off and completely unacknowledged by the mainstream media? Why does big media use ridicule, censorship and terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theory” instead of actually addressing and countering the points made by those who are concerned? What’s going on here? How much of an influence does big pharma have over big media?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Awareness

37% of Measles Cases Analyzed In The US In 2015 Were Caused By The MMR Vaccine

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in 2017 94 measles sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is the information presented in this article practically unknown and never given any mainstream media attention? How dangerous is the measles compared to the MMR vaccine?

What Happened: A study published in 2017 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology found that “During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences…” The authors developed a test that can identify measles vaccine strains rapidly in order to do this.

The new assay was able to detect RNA from five currently used vaccine strains, AIK-C, CAM-70, Edmonston-Zagreb, Moraten, and Shanghai-191. The MeVA RT-qPCR assay has been used successfully for measles surveillance in reference laboratories, and it could be readily deployed to national and subnational laboratories on a wide scale.

Why This Is Important: It’s important because this study begs the question, how often are measles outbreaks that cause quite a stir as a result of mainstream media coverage actually a result of the MMR vaccine itself? How often are people in these measles outbreaks analyzed and tested to determine whether they have contracted a wild type measles, or a vaccine strain measles? As far as I know there are no studies that have done this accept the one listed above that analyzed a 2015 outbreak. It’s quite common that measles outbreak are largely blamed on the unvaccinated, and the well documented failure of the measles vaccine is never really mentioned nor known about by the general public or doctors who recommend them.

The failure of the measles vaccine has been well documented over the years. As far back as 1994, a paper published in JAME Internal Medicine titled “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons” was one of many to highlight this point.

The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles.

At the time of this study, only one measles vaccine was in circulation and as a result of its documented failure, federal health regulatory introduced a second dose requirement for children. This measure has also shown little success, there are a number of examples. The fact remains that we’ve seen measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations which begs the question, is the vaccine even effective? Does it even work? Are the antibodies that the vaccine provides children sufficient enough to prevent your child from contracting the measles?

We already know that many healthy people do not respond to routine vaccinations? They are known as non-responders. Up to 10 percent  of healthy individuals fail to mount antibody levels to routine vaccines…” A study published in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics  highlights this point.

While inadequacies of the vaccine (such as incomplete attenuation, incorrect immunisation route or schedule, or failures in delivery due to interruption of the cold chain) are reasons for vaccine failures that can be logistically overcome, host-related factors for non-responsiveness (associated with the immune and health status, age, or genetic factors) are more difficult to define and underlying mechanisms of vaccine failure are largely unexamined or unknown.”

This means in the United States, for 32,800,000 vaccines will simply not work.

While inadequacies of the vaccine (such as incomplete attenuation, incorrect immunisation route or schedule, or failures in delivery due to interruption of the cold chain) are reasons for vaccine failures that can be logistically overcome, host-related factors for non-responsiveness (associated with the immune and health status, age, or genetic factors) are more difficult to define and underlying mechanisms of vaccine failure are largely unexamined or unknown.”

 Another study published in the highly authoritative Bulletin of the World Health Organization looked at recent measles occurrences throughout China and found that there were 707 measles outbreaks in the country recorded between 2009 and 2012, with a steep upward trend in 2013. “The number of measles cases reported in the first 10 months of 2013 – 26 443 – was three times the number reported in the whole of 2012.” This is odd considering that since 2009 “…the first dose of measles-virus-containing vaccine has reached more than 90% of the target population.” One would expect that with an increasing number of measles vaccinations there would be a decrease in measles occurrences.

Another example comes from a 2017 measles outbreak in vaccinated individuals in Israel—reported on by the CDC—where all but one patient had laboratory evidence of a “previous immune response” (secondary vaccine failure), and the one patient who did not display such evidence reported having received two doses of the vaccine (primary vaccine failure). In addition, the index patient—the one who launched the chain of transmission—had received three doses of the measles-containing vaccine.

A study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases – whose authorship includes scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA – looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak, which showed that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission). The study concluded that “measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.” (source)

“This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status.”

If we go back in history a little bit:

Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (source)

Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986, 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received the measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance.” (source)

In 2010, there were a number of children in Croatia who had contracted measles that were fully vaccinated (source). The interesting thing about this case was the fact that not only had they become infected with measles from the vaccine strain, rather than the normal “natural” strain, but they were also contagious.

 According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded that “outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” (source)

 An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” looked into an outbreak of 137 cases of measles in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.”(source)

Furthermore, let’s not forget that hundreds of children have died from the measles vaccine. According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.

Is The Vaccine More Dangerous Than The Measles? A Just Question: The Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) are a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures. Their information is based on science. Their mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and to unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccinations. Their vision is that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination.

You can check out their directors, advisors, and founding members here.

On their website, they’ve put out some excellent downloadable PDF’s with regards to the MMR vaccine. There are four of them that all present different points.

  1. MEASLES: What Parents Need To Know
  2. MMR VACCINE: Is It Safer Than Measles? 
  3. Waning Immunity & The MMR Vaccine 
  4. FAQ’s: The MMR Vaccine versus the Measles

One of them deals with “what parents need to know about the measles vaccine” and another one presents the information that has them questioning if the MMR vaccine is safer than the measles. They point out that the chances of dying from measles and make many comparisons to the vaccine.

The PDF’s are well-sourced and laid out in an easy to read and understand type of manner, and quite detailed. Their arguments are quite compelling, and it would be interesting to present this information to a physician on the opposite end of the spectrum in order to hear or read their rebuttal. So feel free to take a look at them if interested!

Below is the testimony of Dr. Brian Hooker, a long time biochemical engineer who has been researching this topic and publishing multiple peer-reviewed papers on it for decades.In the video, he drops some facts a lot of people simply don’t know because they are never acknowledged in the mainstream. Even those who support mass vaccinations are usually completely unaware of these facts. It was given at a public hearing in Washington State opposing mandatory vaccination measures.

Corruption: One great example of corruption would be senior CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson, who blew the whistle in 2014 on data corruption by executives within the CDC with regards to falsified data pertaining to the MMR vaccine. One study which purports to show no link between the vaccine and autism had some of its data sets removed, which otherwise showed a strong correlation between the vaccine to autism.

wo years after that more than a dozen senior CDC scientists anononymously put out a paper (the SPIDER papers) in which they expressed their concerns about the corruption within the agency, its complacency, and undue corporate influence on the published science. The revolving door that exists between these agencies contributes to the continued corruption. As an example, CDC Director from 2002-2009 Julie Gerberding became the head Merck’s vaccines division, which came with a $2.5 million annual salary and $5 million in stock options.

The Takeaway: Vaccinations are quite a controversial topic, and vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among not only the global citizenry, but among doctors and physicians as well, which was also expressed at the recent World Health Organization vaccine summit. You can read more about that here.

In today’s day and age, it’s important to ask ourselves if measures taken under the guise of goodwill are really necessary and good for us. Take terrorism, for example, the idea that those who fund the problem, arm the problem, and in some cases create the problem then propose the solution of foreign infiltration, again, under the guise of goodwill.

So what were the real intentions, to stop the terrorists or to take over the country for natural resources and economic power and control?

Are people capitalizing off of the coronavirus? Not just for profit but for control, like Edward Snowden mentioned?

It’s also important to note that pharmaceutical companies hold tremendous lobbying power, even more so than big oil. (source)

Ask yourself, should we not have the right to decide for ourselves what goes into our body? Especially when there is a tremendous amount of flawed logic with the idea of mass vaccinations? Should we not have access to appropriate double blind placebo controlled safety studies? How come there are none for vaccines?

Why are there massive ridicule campaigns against organizations, professionals and people who create awareness about vaccine safety? Is vaccine safety not in the best interests of everybody? Should we not be analyzing and questioning instead of simply believing?

We must ask ourselves if we want to continue to give our consciousness and perceptions about certain medications over to these global and federal health authorities or, is it time to start asking more questions and pointing out facts that don’t really resonate? Why is discussion being discouraged, censored and even punished?

Why is Julian Assange in Jail? Why do we jail those who expose crimes and identify with those who commit them?

At the end of the day, vaccines are not a one size fits all product, and that’s quite clear. There are risks associated with vaccines, and evidence suggests that they are nowhere near as rare as they’re made out to be.

If we can come together as billions and shut down for the coronavirus, imagine what we could do if we come together to oppose measures that we as a citizenry, and as an entire collective, do not desire.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!