This is a republished article to bring attention to the unprecedented amount of Glyphosate that’s now found in soil all across the world, most notably in North America. It’s also being republished to bring awareness to heavy metal pollution, of which aluminum is one of many that now abundantly present in our environment, for the first time in human history.
It is also very important to mention that aluminum via injection (vaccines) does not exit the body, but rather stays in the body and travels to distant organs, eventually ending up in the brain. You can access the two articles linked below to learn more about that, and read the science for yourself.
-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!
The latest to come out of the field, apart from identifying where the aluminum travels in the body after vaccination, is the fact that researchers recently opened up the brains of several deceased autistic people and found some of the highest brain aluminum content ever measured.
“What basically seems to have happened — aluminium was not bioavailable, traditionally, in the world’s biota until the Industrial Revolution, and so, it just had no place in any biochemical reaction that was normal. And where it does occur, now, because we are increasingly surrounded by it, we live in what’s called the Age of Aluminium. . . . It shows up in so many products. Again, it’s great stuff to make airplanes and computers out of, but it shows up in our food, it shows up in our water, it shows up in our air, it shows up in our medicines, including vaccines, it shows up in our antacids, and various things we take into our bodies. So we increasingly have this compound that is not part of any normal biochemical process, on Earth, for anything, that now can only go in and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions in the body, including in the brain.” (source)
Above is a great quote from Dr. Christopher Shaw, a neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia, illustrating how aluminum has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. It’s in our deodorant, it’s in our vaccines, it’s in our homes, and it’s in our food, and as he explains, while the body does a great job of eliminating it from the body, it does have a threshold.
He also explains how the aluminum in vaccines is different from that which occurs naturally. Adjuvants like aluminum (one of the most common) are a component of vaccines that potentates the immune response to an antigen. The adjuvant is basically used to invoke the desired immune response. This is why the body does not rid itself of the aluminum in this form, because that’s the whole point of adjuvants — they are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over again. It can’t be excreted because it must provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. This is why they put it into vaccines in the first place.
But there is no debating the toxicity of aluminum. This has been confirmed in scientific literature for a very long time. Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, a professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and an honorary professor at UHI Millennium Institute who is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
Glyphosate, the main active ingredient found within Monsanto’s “Roundup” Herbicide, is (unfortunately) another ingredient that can be found almost everywhere. For example, a study from the U.S. Geological Survey, titled “Pesticides in Mississippi Air and Rain: A Comparison Between 1995 and 2007,” reveals that Roundup herbicide (aka glyphosate) and its toxic degradation byproduct AMPA were found in over 75% of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007. Researchers weren’t surprised, given the fact that 2 million kilograms of glyphosate were applied statewide in 2007. (0)(5)
“So, what is the toxicological significance of the discovery of glyphosate in most air samples tested? In the month of August, 2007, if you were breathing in the sampled air you would be inhaling approximately 2.5 nanograms of glyphosate per cubic meter of air. It has been estimated the average adult inhales approximately 388 cubic feet or 11 cubic meters of air per day, which would equal to 27.5 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of glyphosate a day.” (source)
It’s been discovered in California wines, even “organic” ones, in our food, and in animal feed, a topic that remains a big time debate between citizens and Monsanto.
Almost all levels of science that are used to approve the products that surround us, from food to cosmetics and more, have been taken over by corporations, and many prominent scientists have been fighting against this blatant corruption for years.
This why John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”
This was more than 10 years ago. but Dr Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has discussed the same issue, revealing that half of all the published literature could be false. (source)
“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides. This idea is spread by manufacturers, mostly in the reviews they promote, which are often cited in toxicological evaluations of glyphosate-based herbicides. However, Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. Moreover, despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.”
— R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691
A German study that concluded in June 2013 has discovered a significant amount of glyphosate in the urine of people and animals from all across Europe (1)(2)(3). Their analysis found that every urine sample contained concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20 times more than the limit for drinking water. Apart from being used increasingly in food production, glyphosate-based weedkillers are often sprayed onto railway lines, urban pavements, and roadsides.
The study examined urine from city workers, journalists, and lawyers who had no direct contact with glyphosate, so it’s interesting to see that it turned up in their urine samples — particularly since they were urban residents, not rural. Another study collected urine samples from 18 different countries from all over Europe and showed similar results.
And recently, amidst mounting evidence proving this to be true, the World Health Organization (WHO) finally admitted that this substance causes cancer.
Glyphosate, Aluminum, and the Pineal Gland
“What’s appalling is that we have known about these dangers for decades yet have done little about it. Nearly 20 years ago, scientists at the National Research Council called for swift action to protect young and growing bodies from pesticides. Yet today, U.S. children continue to be exposed to pesticides that are known to be harmful in places they live, learn and play.”
– Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)
At the Third International Symposium on Vaccines in March 2014 and as part of the 9th International Congress on Autoimmunity, MIT scientist Dr. Stephanie Seneff gave a presentation titled “A Role for the Pineal Gland in Neurological Damage Following Aluminum-adjuvanted Vaccination.”
In her heavily cited paper, she explains how many common neurological disorders, like Autism and Parkinson’s, for example, have a common origin. These are: an insufficient supply of sulfate to the brain and enhanced toxic metal exposure (e.g., aluminum, mercury) due to our impaired ability to detoxify and eliminate them. She also shows that such metals interfere with sulfate synthesis, causing cellular debris to accumulate.
It goes on to explain that Heparan sulfate in the lysosomes is critical for recycling cellular debris, garbage, and damage that could lead to disease. Multiple studies have shown that a deficiency in Heparan sulfate levels leads to autism. In summary, the paper points to the idea that autism and Alzheimer’s disease, rates of which continue to rise, are caused by a severe deficiency in sulfate supplies to the brain, and that the Pineal Gland, which Rene Descartes called “the seat of the soul” can synthesize sulfate stimulated by sunlight, and deliver it via melatonin sulfate. Aluminum, mercury, and glyphosate, working together, can derail this process. They work synergistically.
Personally, I believe the spiritual significance of the Pineal Gland, as well as the biological aspects of it to not be well understood, so it is troublesome that we know things like this can have an effect on it us not only physically, but spiritually as well.
“One of the consequences of insufficient sulfate in the brain is that it impairs the brain’s ability to eliminate heavy metals and other toxins. To make matters worse, those same toxic metals also interfere with sulfate synthesis. The net result can be an accumulation of cellular debris.”
– Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD (source)
Some interesting studies have been done when it comes to Heparin sulfate, which also plays a key role in fetal brain development, protecting against damaging free radicals. When it comes to the link between autism and sulfate deficiency, human and animal studies have both presented intriguing evidence.
In conclusion, the researchers state:
“In this paper, we have developed the argument that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup, and aluminum, a pervasive toxic metal in our environment, operate synergistically to induce dysfunction in the pineal gland leading to the sleep disorder that is characteristic of multiple neurological diseases, including autism, ADHD, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, anxiety disorder and Parkinson’s disease. We further argue that impaired supply of melatonin and sulfate to the brain as a consequence of pineal damage can explain how the disrupted sleep can lead to more general neurological damage, and we propose that this is a significant component of the disease process. The steady increase in glyphosate usage on corn and soy crops aligns remarkably well with the increase in sleep disorder and in autism, as well as other neurological diseases. We have shown how disruption of CYP enzymes and promotion of anemia and hypoxia, due to both aluminum and glyphosate, and disruption of gut bacteria by glyphosate, can cause a pathology leading to deficiencies in both melatonin and sulfate in the cerebrospinal fluid that is characteristic of autism and Alzheimer’s disease. Insufficient sulfate leads to impaired lysosomal recycling of cellular debris, and insufficient melatonin leads to sleep disorder, vascular disease and impaired protection from ROS damage in the brain.”
Below is an excellent interview with Dr. Seneff that provides an overview of who she is and what she does.
Related CE Articles:
For more of our articles on aluminum, you can click here.
To read more of our articles on glyphosate and Roundup, click here.
More On Aluminum In Vaccines, From A Previous Article
Chemicals that are commonly used in the production of vaccines, according to the CDC, are done so to improve the effectiveness of the vaccine. Adjuvants like aluminum (one of the most common) are a component of vaccines that potentates the immune response to an antigen. The adjuvant is basically used to invoke the desired immune response.
Aluminum has been added to vaccines for approximately 90 years, and since then, a lot of controversy, especially in recent years, has emerged regarding their safety and effectiveness.
This controversy comes as a result of a number of recent studies (some of which are presented in this article) outlining clear concerns over the use of aluminum in this manner, as well as the fact that over the past few years, billions of dollars have been paid to families with vaccine injured children.
There are a number of reasons why more parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children.
This is quite concerning, given the fact that recommended immunization rates have more than doubled in the past few decades. In some developed countries, by the time a child is 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds, along with high amounts of aluminum adjuvants through routine vaccinations.
Here are some eye opening reasons why so many people are starting to question the safety of administering vaccines that contain aluminum.
Below is a a video from Chris Shaw who you’ll more about later in the article
No Safety Assessments (Toxicity Studies) For Vaccine Ingredients
Again, aluminum has been added to vaccines for approximately 90 years, and one disturbing fact that many people still don’t know is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?
So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum.(source)
I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients…and testing specifically in animal models…Back then, the FDA states that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe, when I read this I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine. (source)
She also has documents which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. They show that health authorities and vaccine manufacturers made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates, which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity.’ ” (source)
If we take a look at the FDA’s website/guidelines, it’s not like this is a secret. The statement above (from Lucija) comes from their 2002 guidelines, which is a fairly recent document, but more than 10 years later, despite all of the studies demonstrating clear cause for concern, not much has changed.
Until recently, few licensed vaccines have been tested for developmental toxicity in animals prior to their use in humans. (source)
Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children. – Jose G. Dores, Professor at the University of Brasillia’s department of nutritional sciences. (source)
Aluminum Is An Experimentally Demonstrated Neurotoxin
The use of this adjuvant has been connected to all kinds of diseases, from autism to brain disease to Alzheimer’s and much more.
Experimental research … clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic (source)
There are numerous studies which have examined aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time. (source)
If significant aluminum load exceeds the body’s capacity to get rid of it, it is deposited into various tissues that include bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. Aluminum is found in cigarettes, cosmetics, food, medicines (aspirin), and much much more. It’s in our environment, and we are surrounded by it. This is concerning, because aluminum was not really around until the industrial revolution. Today, it shows up in so many products. And we know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body, into areas it shouldn’t be, and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic… and that’s not just for aluminum in vaccines.
We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions. – Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia
Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and Honorary Professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
The Body Reacts Differently To Aluminum Adjuvants In Vaccines Than To Aluminum Absorbed Into The Body From Food, Water, Medicine, etc…
Just imagine, you have a higher than normal body burden of aluminum. You are potentially accumulating it in certain areas in the body. You then receive multiple vaccinations, all of which contain some aluminum. In those multiple vaccinations, aluminum is acting as adjuvant and antigen, it sets off cascades of potential responses which I believe potentially can then cascade around the body, setting off potentially other stores of aluminum, whether they be in the brain, or the bone, the connective tissues, the places where we might expect to find high or raised levels of aluminum. Could this type of cascade effect explain why an aluminum adjuvant could then in some individuals only, produce such adverse effects? … Many of the adverse affects that you see in people who have suffered following vaccination are very similar to the known effects of aluminum intoxication. Dr. Christoper Exley (source)
One of the most common arguments to support the administration of aluminum into vaccines is the fact that a person usually accumulates more aluminum in their body each day from food alone, but what is not often considered is that your body has a different method of flushing it out of your system. They body is very good at doing this, usually through the kidneys, as illustrated by the video above.
But when you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into the same mechanism of excretion, and that’s the whole point of adjuvants, they are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over again. It can’t be excreted because it must provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. This is why they put it into vaccines in the first place. Something to think about.
Another great video here, a clip of Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia, explaining the dangers of putting aluminum into vaccines as an adjuvant.
***HERE is an article that explores in depth (heavily sourced) why so many parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. It’s important to present this information because these parents are often criticized and misunderstood.
“Wearing A Mask…Offers Little, If Any, Protection From Infection” – Harvard Doctors
- The Facts:
A study published in the New England Medical Journal outlines how it's already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting.
- Reflect On:
Should we have the freedom to wear masks? Why are so many things we are doing right now contrary to data and evidence? Are these measures helping us thrive, or are they totalitarian type measures?
What Happened: Is this fake news? No, it’s a quote directly from a paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D. Whether or not it’s may be up for debate, but one thing is for sure, the conversation shouldn’t be censored. According to the paper:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients.
The study goes on to examine whether a mask alone is even an effective health-care measure, and discusses its capability alone devoid of other, what seem to be more important practices, like washing your hands. The point is, outside of a healthcare setting, where their usefulness is still questionable, they provide no clear protection from Covid-19, so why are they being mandated like they are? Instead of a mandate, should the citizenry simply be encouraged to wear masks, with the government explaining the science and still giving people a choice? Why are they saying it’s to protect other people when there is no evidence that it actually does that?
What’s interesting about this particular study is that it’s one of multiple that mention how masks are more of a symbolic representation. As mentioned above, the paper states that “in many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Again, the study is an examination of the validity of masks in a health care setting (which is also questionable) with regards to the new coronavirus, and clearly states that it’s already known that they offer almost zero protection in a public setting.
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.
The study provides other justifications for masks, but the prevention of Covid-19 is not one of them.
Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016, titled “The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction.”
As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.
The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…
A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.
The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)
There are studies out there that also suggest that wearing masks can indeed help prevent Covid-19, especially in an acute care setting, it’s just that we are hearing so much of it that we forget to examine the science on the other side of the coin.
The list goes on, these are just a few examples.
The next important question to ask ourselves is, are health authorities making this pandemic out to be more serious than it actually is? Many scientists and epidemiologists from around the world have expressed this belief, and many of them, as a result, have been censored by social media platforms. Why is there an authoritarian “fact-checker” going around censoring information, evidence, and opinions being presented by some of the worlds leading scientists in this area simply because it opposes the narrative given to us by organizations like The World Health Organization? (WHO)
Are masks being used to prolong fear and hysteria?
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. Why are we taking such measures for a respiratory infection when tens of millions of people get infected and die from respiratory viruses every single year?
Why is there so much controversy surrounding the deaths? For example, in Toronto Canada, “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” (source)
Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, recently stated that, even if it’s clear one died of an alternative cause, their death will still be marked as a COVID death.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths amid complaints that it inflated numbers. This has been a common theme throughout the US as well as the World.
Vittorio Sgarbi, Italian politician Mayor of Sutri gave an emotional speech at a hearing on the 24th of April where he emphasized that the number of deaths in Italy due to COVID-19 are completely false and that the people are being lied to.
This isn’t even the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to manufactured deaths.
What’s really going on here? Is this actually about the pandemic, or was Edward Snowden right? That governments are using the new coronavirus to impose more authoritarian measures on the population, measures that will stick around long after the virus is gone? You can read more about his comments here.
Was Dr. Ron Paul correct when he said that this virus is less dangerous than it’s being made out to be? And that people will profit both politically and financially from this in the form of more of our basic rights being taken away? Is this simply being used like the justification for mass surveillance was used? To protect the population, or is it for, as NSA whistle-blower William Binney says, “total population control?” You can read more about his comments here.
It’s quite clear that a large portion of the population doesn’t agree with various medical mandates, and wearing masks is one of those mandates. The reason is justified, and that’s simply because there is no evidence that they can protect the general public, and depending on the material, in some cases it can be harmful. I find it hard to believe that someone would have an issue with someone else not wanting to breathe in their own carbon monoxide, but I also understand that many peoples perception with regards to this pandemic has been severely manipulated.
On the flip side, due to so many instances where things don’t make sense, this pandemic is contributing to another large amount of people questioning what we are being told and being forced to do by our government, this is causing a deep awakening of the masses. Perhaps this is the larger reason it’s playing out from a collective consciousness perspective.
At the end of the day, more measures are continually pushed upon the population without their consent. We don’t have to continue to obey, continue to elect, and help maintain a system that is clearly not serving us to thrive.
The Physicians For Informed Consent Ask If The MMR Vaccine Is More Dangerous Than The Measles
What Happened: 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.
The organization itself is much bigger than the founding members, and includes a coalition of organizations, doctors and scientists.
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.
- MEASLES: What Parents Need To Know
- MMR VACCINE: Is It Safer Than Measles?
- Waning Immunity & The MMR Vaccine
- 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.
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. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine-injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
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!
Why This Is Important: When it comes to both our individual and collective health, all of us simply want what’s best. Nobody can really deny that, especially for our children. The issue is, many people have been made to believe that vaccines are for the greater good of everybody. We are made to believe that children, for example, who are not vaccinated are actually a danger to the vaccinated children.
The Physicians for Informed Consent are well aware of this argument, and they present a lot of information on why that’s not true. At the end of the day, in order to produce “herd immunity” from vaccines, the vaccines must be 100 percent effective for everybody, all of the time. We already know that that’s not the case and that a large majority are susceptible to vaccine injury. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act alone is enough to argue against mandatory vaccination and the idea that the unvaccinated are a risk to the vaccinated. In fact, vaccines have been known to spread diseases. This has happened with polio as well as the measles.
For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear-mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)
There are actually decades of examples when it comes to the measles.
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.
Soft Drink Companies Caught Using Big Tobacco’s Playbook To Lure Young Children
- The Facts:
Documents obtained by researchers clearly outline the unethical and immoral actions Tobacco companies used to 'hook' kids onto sugary drinks. They use the same tactics they did for smoking.
- Reflect On:
Why do and have our federal health regulatory agencies allow such products to be approved as safe for consumption when they are clearly linked to a variety of diseases, like cancer?
Many moves made by multiple big corporations are extremely unethical, immoral, and downright shocking. These corporations have completely compromised our federal health regulatory agencies, and it’s quite clear that they do not care about the health of the human race and will do anything when it comes to the success of the products they manufacture, including taking illegal and/or immoral actions.
One of the more recent examples comes from the tobacco industry. Companies within the industry used colors, flavors, and marketing techniques to lure and entice children as potential future smokers. They actually used and applied these same strategies to sweetened beverages starting as early as 1963, according to a study conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco.
As the Sugar Scientists point out:
The study, which draws from a cache of previously secret documents from the tobacco industry that is part of the UCSF Industry Documents Library tracked the acquisition and subsequent marketing campaigns of sweetened drink brands by two leading tobacco companies: R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris. It found that as tobacco was facing increased scrutiny from health authorities, its executives transferred the same products and tactics to peddle soft drinks. The study was published in the March 2019 issue of BMJ.
“Executives in the two largest U.S.-based tobacco companies had developed colors and flavors as additives for cigarettes and used them to build major children’s beverage product lines, including Hawaiian Punch, Kool-Aid, Tang and Capri Sun,” said senior author Laura Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH, of the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. “Even after the tobacco companies sold these brands to food and beverage corporations, many of the product lines and marketing techniques designed to attract kids are still in use today.” (source)
The new papers, which are available in the UCSF Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library, a subset of the UCSF Industry Documents Library, reveal the close and tight knit relationships between the big tobacco and big food industries. In fact, in the 60s and 70s, these companies conducted taste tests with mothers and their children to evaluate sweetness, colors and flavors for Hawaiian Punch product line extensions. The children’s preferences were prioritized.
Kool-Aid Joins Marlboro
Meanwhile, tobacco competitor Philip Morris had acquired Kool-Aid, via General Foods, in 1985. The company flipped its marketing audience from families to children, created its “Kool-Aid Man” mascot, and launched collaborations with branded toys, including Barbie and Hot Wheels. It also developed a children’s Kool-Aid loyalty program described as “our version of the Marlboro Country Store,” a cigarette incentives program. (source)
“The Wacky Wild Kool-Aid style campaign had tremendous reach and impact,” said first author Kim Nguyen, ScD, MPH, who is also with the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. “Lots of kids in the ’80s dreamed of getting swag from the Wacky Warehouse. What is really ‘wacky’ is that the Kool-Aid kid program was modeled after a tobacco marketing strategy designed to build allegiance with smokers.”
The tobacco giant also acquired Capri Sun and Tang, and used similar child-focused integrated marketing strategies to drive those sales.
“The industry claims that these tobacco-inspired marketing strategies are not actually targeting children and should be excluded from these industry-led agreements,” said Schmidt. “But the evidence cited in our research shows that these product lines and marketing techniques were specifically designed for and tested on children.” (source)
The UCSF Industry Documents Library was launched in 2002 as a digital portal for tobacco documents. Today, the library includes close to 15 million internal tobacco, drug, chemical and food industry documents used by scientists, policymakers, journalists and community members in their efforts to improve and protect the health of the public.
At the end of the day, it’s important to recognize that government health authorities and the corporations we buy our food from, among other things, really don’t care about us. This has become extremely evident, as they are responsible for the sharp rise in numerous diseases. It’s not uncommon to see parents buy their children products similar to the ones listed above, and that’s due to mass brainwashing and the fact that we’ve been made to feel that these products are actually safe. This is why awareness is so critical.
“Wearing A Mask…Offers Little, If Any, Protection From Infection” – Harvard Doctors
What Happened: Is this fake news? No, it’s a quote directly from a paper published a couple of months ago in...
Ex VP of Major Military Contractor DynCorp & Sr. Pentagon Official Guilty For Child Sex Abuse
DynCorp has been implicated in trafficking children all over the world, why have they not been properly investigated? What Happened:...