Connect with us

Awareness

The Flu Vaccine: Why It’s Completely Useless & Potentially Dangerous

Published

on

A recent New York Times article urging readers to follow the CDC’s flu shot recommendation provides a useful case study of how the mainstream media manufacture consent for public vaccine policy by systematically deceiving the public about what the science says.

advertisement - learn more

By Jeremy R. Hammond, Guest Contributor, World Mercury Project 

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone aged six months and up, including pregnant women, get an annual flu shot to protect against the influenza virus. The mainstream media characterize this recommendation as being firmly grounded in science. The demonstrable truth of the matter, however, is that what the government and media say science says and what science actually tells us are two completely different things.

By deceiving the public about what the science says, the media serve to manufacture consent for public vaccine policy. A useful illustration of how the media serve this function is a New York Times article published in January and written by Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine and regular Timesblogger. The article is titled “Why It’s Still Worth Getting a Flu Shot”, and Carroll’s purpose in writing was to persuade his readers that, even though this season’s influenza vaccine was “particularly ineffective”, everyone should still get it.

Details and Deceptions

The argument Carroll presents is that, even in flu seasons like this past one when the vaccine is not well-matched to the predominant circulating strain of the influenza virus, since the vaccine is so extraordinarily safe, it still confers a great benefit to society.

To support his argument, Carroll cites two studies from the prestigious Cochrane collaboration, a global independent organization specializing in meta-analysis that does not accept any industry funding. (A meta-analysis is a kind of study in which researchers search the literature for relevant studies and review the body of evidence available by combining the results of studies that meet the inclusion criteria.)

advertisement - learn more

According to Carroll, a 2010 Cochrane review of influenza vaccination in healthy adults found that 37 people need to be vaccinated in order for one person to see the benefit, which represents “a big payoff in public health.” Mistakenly describing it as having been published in 2016, Carroll also cites a subsequent 2012 Cochrane review of vaccine effectiveness in healthy children that found “an astonishing payoff in medical terms”: just six children aged six or younger had to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of influenza. Carroll further claims that the science shows us that harms from the flu vaccine are “almost nonexistent”.

Carroll could have made his case stronger by citing the actual number from the 2010 Cochrane review, which is 33, not 37. This was an error Carroll evidently carried over from a secondary source, which is perhaps an indication that he never read the actual Cochrane review, which might also help explain how he could so grossly mischaracterize that review’s actual findings, as you’re about to see.

For starters, it is curious why Carroll would cite the estimated effectiveness of the vaccine “under ideal conditions”—which is to say when the vaccine completely matches the circulating virus—in order to support his argument that it’s worth getting even in poorly matched years. Why didn’t he instead cite the study’s more relevant estimate of vaccine effectiveness under “average conditions”, when the vaccine only partially matches the circulating strains?

The most obvious answer is that relaying the review’s finding that “100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms” would be counterproductive to his purpose.

And yet their review turned up ‘no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications’

But that’s just the start of Carroll’s deception. Whereas he characterizes the 2010 review as though the science fully vindicates public policy, in fact the Cochrane researchers were highly critical of the CDC’s recommendation and challenged the fundamental assumptions underlying it. They observed that the primary rationales the CDC has offered are that mass vaccination will (1) reduce transmission of the virus and (2) reduce the risk of potentially deadly complications from influenza. And yet their review turned up “no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications” (emphasis added).

In fact, none of the studies they looked at even presented any results “evaluating the ability of this vaccination to interrupt the spread of the disease”. Likewise, none bothered to report “any evidence of effect on complications.” In other words, none of the studies the Cochrane researchers looked at in their comprehensive review of the literature even seemed to consider the question of whether the central assumptions underlying the CDC’s recommendation were actually true.

This is a remarkable illustration of the institutional myopia that exists when it comes to the politically sensitive issue of vaccines.

Ignoring the Warnings

Once recent study, however, did bother to look at the question of whether the vaccine prevents transmission. Published on January 18, 2018, in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaPNAS, the study’s authors screened volunteers with confirmed cases of influenza and took breath samples. And among their findings was “an association between repeated vaccination and increasedviral aerosol generation” (emphasis added).

In fact, subjects who had received the influenza vaccine in both the current and the previous season were found to shed over six times more aerosolized virus than those who did not get a flu shot during either season.

The Cochrane researchers found not only that ‘reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin’, but also that ‘there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.

Another thing Aaron Carroll failed to disclose to Times readers is the rather important caveat that the Cochrane researchers attached to their findings about the vaccine’s effectiveness. And it’s not as though this caveat was easy for him to miss; it’s presented as an explicit “WARNING” right at the top of the review just below the abstract.

The authors’ warning notes that their review included numerous studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which independent studies have unsurprisingly shown to be biased in favor of their own products. The Cochrane researchers found not only that “reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin”, but also that “there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, even the estimate of 100 people needing to be vaccinated for one person to receive a benefit may be overly optimistic.

Whereas the Times would have us believe that the Cochrane review found that the flu vaccine confers “a big payoff in public health”, in fact, the conclusion the review authors actually arrived at was that their findings “seem to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure” (emphasis added).

The Cochrane Collaboration in a 2014 update of their review even more bluntly concluded, “The results of this review provide no evidence for the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.” (Emphasis added.)

And whereas the Times would have us believe that the science has been settled that harms from the vaccine are “almost nonexistent”, in fact, the 2010 meta-analysis expressed concern about the lack of safety data. “The harms dataset from randomized studies is small”, they observed, and the studies’ authors “appear to regard harms as less important than effectiveness assessment.” Even among the studies that weren’t funded by the industry, “the quality of the majority of influenza vaccines studies is low”.

Where’s the Payoff?

Turning to the second Cochrane study Carroll cites, the 2012 review did find that evidence from randomized controlled trials “shows that six children under the age of six need to be vaccinated with live attenuated vaccine to prevent one case of influenza”. However, they once again cautioned that this finding needs to be interpreted in light of the “evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies” tending to show favorable results.

While Carroll describes the finding of the vaccine’s effectiveness in children under six as “an astonishing payoff in medical terms”, he does not relay the review’s finding with respect to children aged two or younger, which was that the perceived benefit of the vaccine was “not significantly more efficacious than placebo.” In other words, there was no good evidence that the vaccine is effective at preventing influenza in children younger than three. One would think that information, too, would be worth relaying to the public; but, then, that disclosure would not align with his whole purpose for writing, so it is understandable why Carroll would choose not to mention it.

Perhaps the reason Carroll did not cite this number is that it wouldn’t have actually helped his case at all, since that result was “not significantly more efficacious than placebo.” In other words, there was no good evidence that the vaccine is effective at preventing influenza in children older than six. One would think that information, too, would be worth relaying to the public; but, then, that disclosure would not align with his whole purpose for writing, so it is understandable why Carroll would choose not to mention it.

While the Cochrane researchers had intended to examine the question of safety as well as effectiveness, the absence of good quality data meant that they could not even carry out safety comparisons. Furthermore, specific influenza vaccines were known to be “associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions.

Yet another fact the Times chose not to disclose to readers is that, far from science having established that harms from the vaccine are “almost nonexistent”, the 2012 review found that there was “no usable data” on the safety of the vaccine for children under two.

In other words, according to Carroll’s own source, the flu vaccine has not been properly studied for safety in children aged six months to two years, despite the CDC recommending routine vaccination of children in this age group.

In fact, while the Cochrane researchers had intended to examine the question of safety as well as effectiveness, the absence of good quality data meant that they could not even carry out safety comparisons. Furthermore, specific influenza vaccines were known to be “associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions.”

Especially in light of such known risks, the review authors remarked that “It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age…. If immunization in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.” (Emphasis added.)

In addition to recommending the vaccine for infants as young as six, the CDC also advises pregnant women to get the flu shot, even during their first trimester. The aforementioned 2014 Cochrane review looked at the science specifically with this recommendation in mind. And what they found in their systematic review of the literature was that the number of randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of vaccinating pregnant women was zero.

The absence of proper safety studies is also noted right on the package inserts that the manufacturers include in the box with their products. For example, the insert for GlaxoSmithKline’s inactivated influenza vaccine, Fluarix, discloses that “Safety and effectiveness of FLUARIX have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers.” While limited studies have been done on reproductive and developmental toxicity in rats, there are “no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women.” Furthermore, “caution should be exercised” when vaccinating breastfeeding mothers since “It is not known whether FLUARIX is excreted in human milk.” Medical practitioners are advised to inform patients “that safety and efficacy have not been established in pregnant women.”

Mercury Menace

The CDC’s recommendation that pregnant women get the flu shot is all the more disturbing given the fact that multi-dose vials of the flu vaccine contain the preservative Thimerosal, which is half ethylmercury by weight. Ethylmercury is a known neurotoxinthat can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain. It can also cross the placental barrier and enter the brain of the developing fetus.

While Thimerosal-free single-dose versions of the vaccine are available, the CDC does notspecify in its recommendation to pregnant women that they should opt for this version in order to avoid unnecessarily exposing their fetus to the toxic effects of mercury.

As a review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in December 2017 noted, “there are no safe blood-level values for any of the heavy metals during pregnancy”, particularly since “the placenta is incapable of protecting a human fetus with regards to neurotoxicants or most other heavy metals.” The review stated that the practice of including known neurotoxins among vaccine ingredients “has to be considered dangerous, irresponsible, and certainly should be ended.”

The authors further commented that the use of mercury as a vaccine ingredient could explain the finding of a CDC-funded study published last September in the journal Vaccine that found an association between the influenza vaccine and spontaneous abortion. The CDC researchers looked at the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 flu seasons and found that women who received a flu shot had twice the risk of having a miscarriage within 28 days of receipt than women who did not get the vaccine. Looking just at the 2010-2011 season, vaccinated women had a 3.7 times greater risk of having a spontaneous abortion. Moreover, since the 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccines have included a varying pandemic H1N1 (or pH1N1) antigen component; and most alarmingly, the CDC researchers found that vaccinated women who had also received a pH1N1-containing influenza vaccine in the prior season had a 7.7 times higher risk of spontaneous abortion.

…the Cochrane researchers actually went so far in their criticism of the agency as to accuse the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to support their policy.

Toeing the CDC Line

In sum, whereas the New York Times would have us believe the science is settled that the influenza vaccine confers “a big payoff in public health” and carries “almost nonexistent” risk, even its own sources from the medical literature found no scientific evidence to support the CDC’s recommendation and highlighted the alarming lack of good quality safety studies despite the known serious harms associated with the vaccine.

In fact, whereas the New York Times characterizes the 2010 meta-analysis as though it vindicated public policy, the Cochrane researchers actually went so far in their criticism of the agency as to accuse the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to support their policy.

Previous versions of their review, they noted, “have been extensively misquoted especially in public policy documents.” The specific example they presented of how their findings were being deceptively manipulated by public health officials was a 2009 CDC policy document outlining its rationale for universal influenza vaccination. As the Cochrane researchers stated, “The CDC authors clearly do not weight interpretation by quality of the evidence, but quote anything that supports their theory.”

It is perhaps not too surprising, therefore, that the New York Times would so deceptively mischaracterize the science regarding the effectiveness and safety of the influenza vaccine, given the fact that, by doing so, it was simply following the CDC’s example.

This article is a condensed adaptation of part one of a multi-part exposé on the influenza vaccine. Click here to read the full original essay. Click here to sign up for the author’s newsletter to stay updated with his work on vaccines and receive his free downloadable report, “5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process”.

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.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

A Documentary Series Exploring The Most Powerful ‘Alternative Medicines’ Known To Man

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new 9-part documentary series called Proven: Healing Breakthroughs Backed By Science. Is set to begin. It's free to sign up for to watch, and you can do so in the link provided within the article.

  • Reflect On:

    Is our current medical industry concerned with health and wellness, or profit? Why don't they promote substances they cannot profit off of that seem to work for a number of illness better than prescription drugs? What's going on here?

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

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)

It’s quite well known that interest in “alternative medicine” is growing, and has been growing for quite a long time. This doesn’t seem to be a trend that’s going to stop. Every single year, month and day it’s clear that its popularity will continue to increase exponentially. I put the word alternative because prior to modern day medicine, it wasn’t cosidered alternative, it was simply considered medicine, just like organic food wasn’t considered organic, it was just normal food.

The Documentary Series

This type of medicine is something we were at Collective Evolution are incredibly passionate about, which is why we’ve been creating awareness about it for ten years now. This is why we are also excited about a new 9-part documentary series called Proven: Healing Breakthroughs Backed By Science.

It’s premiering in a few days, so be sure to sign up (it’s free). You can watch the trailer here if interested. 

A heightened interest in this topic  is happening for multiple reasons, one of them is the fact that healthcare providers are losing confidence in pharmaceutical grade medicine. Many doctors and scientists are feeling uncomfortable with the idea of prescribing certain medicines, and many publications have come out for a number of years showing that some of them can be harmful and inadequate. There are many of examples to choose from, from prescription drugs all the way to some vaccines. Perhaps the latest being the statements made by  Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project, explaining how healthcare providers are now concerned about vaccine safety. You can read more about that here.

Another reason is because there are thousands of studies now showing that many “alternative” medicines and therapies (that your doctor doesn’t know about or isn’t allowed to recommend) are far superior for many of the chronic health conditions we suffer from.

This is exactly what the docu-series goes into and provides evidence for.

It’s also happening due to the amount of corruption and fraud that’s been exposed within our federal health regulatory agencies, and again, there are many examples to choose from. One of the best would be the SPIDER papers. A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). They raised concerns “about the current state of ethics at our agency.  It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behavior.

The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs. This is what makes drugs so different from anything else in life… Virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… the reason patients trust their medicine is that they extrapolate the trust they have in their doctors into the medicines they prescribe. The patients don’t realize that, although their doctors may know a lot about diseases and human physiology and psychology, they know very, very little about drugs that’ve been carefully concocted and dressed up by the drug industry. – Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (source)

Last but not least, the biggest reason why many people are gravitating towards this type of medicine is simply because it’s working for them. There is extreme legitimacy, in some cases, when it comes to alternative treatment. Again, this is exactly why more and more people every single year gravitate towards these options.

 

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Was Trump Right? New Study Shows Success With Use Of Chlorine Dioxide On COVID-19

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent preliminary study in Ecuador has looked at the use of chlorine dioxide as a treatment for COVID-19. Thus far, after oral and intravenous treatment, patients have recovered in only 4 days.

  • Reflect On:

    Is this yet another cheap and effective treatment we should be looking at producing instead of expensive and controversial vaccine development?

US President Trump recently became the laughing stock of mainstream media for suggesting that disinfectant should be injected into people to fight against the virus. While the media may have blown the context of his statements out of proportion, a recently published preliminary study shows he may have actually been right.

A clinical trial, involving more than 100 patients suffering from COVID-19, who were given chlorine dioxide, both orally and/or intravenously, showed that patients were cured within 4 days, so says biophysicist Andreas Kalcker. The trial was carried out by the Asociacion Ecuatoriana de Medicos Expertos en Medicina Integrativa, overseen by a medical group of clinicians in Ecuador.

These noteworthy results deserve much more research, but like other alternative treatments, you might guess that this information will be censored in the coming days.

Chlorine dioxide, an incredibly cheap and easy to produce solution, has been widely used for many purposes including disinfecting bottled drinking water. Most humans have come into contact with CLO2 as a result of its common uses.

You can learn more about CLO2 and this new study in the video below from Andreas Kalcker.

Chlorine Dioxide Is A Registered ‘Excellent’ Bactericide, Fungicides and Anti-Microbial Agent

Chlorine dioxide is registered with the EPA (Registration No. 74986-1), as it is considered an ‘excellent’ bactericide, fungicide and antimicrobial agent.  It is also interesting to note it has passed the EPA’s stringent DIS/TISS guidelines for use as a disinfectant and as a food-contact surface sanitizer.

It also being used to clean transport, a bus company in Sacremento shared that they using chlorine dioxide to disinfect its seats of Coronavirus.

Are people dying needlessly of COVID-19 while on ventilators? This is a question many people have been asking given the amount of people who have been dying after being o ventilators for an extended period of time.

According to Mike Adams of Natural News:

Ecuador has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus, and the current “standard of care” promoted by Western medicine — largely based on the use of ventilators — has been killing the vast majority of critical patients while utterly failing to address the real root of the problem.

Covid-19 isn’t an Acute Respiratory Disease (ARD), it turns out. Rather, it often presents as an inflammation and blood clotting condition (see The Lancet research, below) which causes the blood to be unable to carry oxygen, resulting in patient hypoxia and eventual asphyxiation.

This is why intravenous chlorine dioxide — which immediately delivers a high dose of oxygen to blood cells — is believed to work so effectively against covid-19. It reportedly restores the oxygen-carrying capacity of hemoglobin and clears the clotting in the lungs, all while destroying pathogens.

Chlorine Dioxide Patents

This information may not be commonly known, but there are many patents involving the use of Chlorine dioxide.  These two are very interesting:

  1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190015445A1/

Disclosed is an injection containing chlorine dioxide in therapeutic applications such as in-vivo stem cell regeneration, anti-tumor and anti-aging

  1. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1955719B1/

This one is about treatment for treating respritory viruses. Disinfection, sterilisation or deodorisation of air using gaseous or vaporous substances, e.g. ozone

Mainstream media has stated that oral use of chlorine dioxide is ‘dangerous,’ but is that entirely accurate? Depending on the dose used, as with any potential medicine, it can be completely safe and effective as discussed in Kalcker’s video above. If you’d like to do more research for yourself on the subject, including exploring the safety of ingestion, please check out these scientific papers.

WHO’s CLO2 Drinking Water Studies

The World Health Organisation promotes that chlorine dioxide is a safe, non toxic, water disinfectant. You might like to read about the findings of chlorine dioxide showing no toxic effects to kidneys, and that it does not have evidence it has mutagenic or carcinogenic effects.  Some of the studies on animals were carried out for 2 years, and three months on humans.  This was the conclusion:

Studies in healthy adult male volunteers lasting up to 12 weeks showed no clear treatment related effects on blood, urine analysis or physical examination at doses of sodium chlorite (Chlorine Dioxide)  and sodium chlorate estimated to be in the region of 0.036 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as chlorite or chlorate. The authors concluded that the absence of detrimental physiological responses within the limits of the study demonstrated the relative safety of oral ingestion of chlorine dioxide, chlorate and chlorite (Lubbers, Chauhan & Bianchine, 1981, 1982; Lubbers  & Bianchine, 1984; Lubbers et al., 1984a,b).

Read the WHO’s own paper here.

When we see results like we see with CLO2, should it not be standard practice to explore these possibilities with open hearts ad open minds to see if we can come up with a fast solution to global challenges? Why is there little coverage of information like this? Why is so much effort spent casting doubt and debunking solutions like this without proper testing? Why is the focus always on expensive, profitable and potentially unsafe vaccines?

 

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Wireless Industry Admits That No Safety Testing Has Been Conducted For 5G Technology

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Below is a clip of Senator Richard Blumenthal during a hearing that took place last year, questioning wireless industry representatives about the safety of 5G technology.

  • Reflect On:

    Why doesn't the industry conduct studies along with independent scientists to see if 5G technology is safe? Do they care? Do they know something we don't? Is it even scientifically possible for 5G to be considered safe? Why not just find out?

Important notice to our readers. A global online summit featuring the leading doctors, scientists and activists in the field is set to take place about 5G technology, the health concerns and what you can do about it. It’s completely free to sign up and watch. If you want to reserve your spot, you can sign up HERE to watch it. Once you sign up you’ll be taken to a link where you can download our free E-Book on 5G. It covers what 5G is and an abundance of peer-reviewed research is cited for anybody in your life or in your family who actually questions if there are really any legitimate concerns.

In December 2018, US. Senator Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At  a hearing, that took place last year, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and instead, just echoing, “the general statements of the FDA.” Blumenthal also decried the FDA’s statements as “pretty unsatisfactory.” The PDF of Carr’s complete response is available here.

During an exchange with wireless industry representatives who were also in attendance, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radio-frequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

The point is that the industry has not conducted any safety testing of these technologies and is currently rolling them out. This also echoes many studies that have been published that are raising concerns. For example A study published in 2019 in Frontiers in Public Health is one of many that raises concerns about 5G technology. It points out that “novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed.” It goes on to emphasize that the range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure.   These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function. In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts, acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.”

It’s one of many that  outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed. Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

Not only does the industry need to conduct studies, but studies should also be conducted independently. So far, the studies that have been published make it quite clear that there are biological effects of this type of technology.

Ask yourself, how can this type of technology be rolled out and approved without any safety testing? What’s going on here? Why are the cries for safety testing my the citizenry, scientists and doctors constantly ignored? What does this say about our world and our supposed democracy? Why do some mainstream media outlets ridicule the idea that this type of technology can be dangerous? How can hundreds of scientists and doctors be considered conspiracy theorists for raising concerns? How can thousands of scientific peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about this type of technology continue to go ignored by the industry?

A Global Online Summit on 5G Technology Is Set To Take Place

These questions, along with the health concerns of 5G technology and what we can do about it, will be the topic of a global online summit that’s set to take place the first week of June. The summit will feature multiple doctors, scientists and activists in the field. It’s going to be very informational, very informative, and it’s going to be completely free.

If you want to reserve your spot, you can sign up HERE to watch it.

Once you sign up you’ll be taken to a link where you can download our free E-Book on 5G. It covers what 5G is and an abundance of peer-reviewed research is cited for anybody in your life or in your family who actually questions if there are really any legitimate concerns.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!