Connect with us


Why The Ongoing Thimerosal (Mercury) Travesty Needs To End



The lessons learned from the ongoing saga of thimerosal are significant to all who care about vaccine safety, want justice for the injured, and to prevent future harm. The government has said they corrected the thimerosal issue and want us to believe the case is closed. But has the public been fooled with swapping one heavy metal toxicity for another? While thimerosal is still in some flu shots and is especially harmful to pregnant women, infants and children, there are increasing amounts of aluminum exposures from vaccines as more shots are added to the schedule. Like early reports about mercury, now children’s toxic profiles show alarming amounts of aluminum. And the problems don’t end with heavy metals. There are other vaccine contaminants that can cause harm, like retroviruses, formaldehyde, and aborted human fetal tissue. In short, we are in desperate need of an agency that can protect our citizens, especially children, from vaccine injuries. How can the controversy and handling of thimerosal-containing vaccines instruct us as we move forward for real reform?

advertisement - learn more

Thimerosal is the infamous mercury-containing preservative in use, to this day, in some vaccines and also in dozens of other pharmaceutical products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1-3 Public health agencies, government regulators and medical trade groups have repeatedly declared thimerosal to be safe,4,5 but the published peer-reviewed science argues that nothing could be further from the truth. For anyone who bothers to investigate thimerosal’s appalling record, there is a vast, still accumulating and compelling body of research that contradicts the public health establishment’s deceptive safety claims.

Thimerosal is almost 50 percent ethylmercury by weight. Ethylmercury is an organic mercury compound with toxicity mechanisms similar to methylmercury6 (the hazardous type of mercury in seafood). The danger posed by both types of mercury was evident in earlier eras when fungicides containing either ethyl- or methylmercury poisoned farmers, sometimes on a large scale, from the 1950s through the 1970s.7,8 Of the two compounds, the ethylmercury in vaccines is far more toxic to and persistent in the brain, where it has a propensity to accumulate as inorganic mercury,9,10 with an estimated half-life of as long as twenty-seven years.11


Before the invention of modern antibiotics and antiseptics, physicians experimented with mercury-containing compounds to try to stave off microbial pathogens. Thimerosal was born of those efforts. Dr. Morris Kharasch, a university chemist and Eli Lilly fellow, developed thimerosal and filed for a patent in June, 1929, describing thimerosal as an “alkyl mercuric sulfur compound” with antibacterial properties. Eli Lilly and Company registered thimerosal under the trade name Merthiolate later that year.

Eli Lilly researchers reported in 1931 that animals seemed to tolerate high doses of thimerosal. However, many of those animals died of evident mercury poisoning just days after the study ended. Also noteworthy is the fact that in early animal toxicity studies and many later research efforts, researchers did not assess socialization behaviors or perform cognition tests. In other words, they did not consider the possibility of mercury-induced brain damage.

During this same time period, the Eli Lilly researchers reported on the first injections of thimerosal into humans. The unlucky recipients of large doses of Merthiolate were twenty-two patients hospitalized during a 1929 epidemic of meningococcal meningitis in Indianapolis. The thimerosal had no apparent therapeutic benefit, and all twenty-two patients died—seven of them within one day of thimerosal administration. The researchers nevertheless described the experiment as a success, and a published paper stated that “these large doses did not produce any anaphylactoid or shock symptoms” (neither of which is associated with toxic mercury exposure). However, the clinician who treated the meningitis patients apparently was not convinced of thimerosal’s efficacy, stating, “Beneficial effects of the drug were not definitely proven.” Moreover, any short-term neurological or other deleterious effects of the thimerosal would likely have been masked by or attributed to the patients’ meningitis infections.

advertisement - learn more

For decades, Eli Lilly promoted its confident version of the Indianapolis results as evidence of thimerosal’s safety, paving the way for thimerosal’s inclusion in various antiseptic products, including nasal sprays, eyewashes, vaginal spermicides and diaper rash treatments. This escalation of thimerosal use in consumer products occurred despite numerous studies from the 1930s showing that thimerosal was not, in fact, “highly germicidal” and actually was more effective at destroying human cells than killing pathogens. Thimerosal never measured up to its supposed raison d’être of safely preventing microbial contamination, and studies continued to chalk up clear and unequivocal evidence that thimerosal was deadly to human cells.


Nonetheless, starting in the 1930s, pharmaceutical companies began to use thimerosal in multidose vials of vaccine to extend shelf life and lessen the risk of bacterial and fungal contamination that arises when several doses are drawn from the same vial. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines allow health providers to administer extra doses from multidose vials up until the printed expiration date “if the vial has been stored correctly and the vaccine is not visibly contaminated.”12 (The CDC does not say what to do about contamination that may not be “visible.”)

Through the 1970s and 1980s, children in the U.S. generally received eight injections of three types of vaccines—oral polio, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine—in their first eighteen months. The DTP vaccine contained fifty micrograms of thimerosal per shot, translating into one hundred micrograms of mercury exposure by eighteen months. In 1986, after more and more people began suing vaccine manufacturers for serious vaccine injuries primarily related to the DTP vaccine, Congress took the unprecedented step of granting vaccine manufacturers full immunity from lawsuits. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established a compensation program “as an alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries.”13 By making it impossible for vaccine-injured plaintiffs to sue pharmaceutical companies, the result—whether intended or unintended—was to eliminate any financial incentive to make vaccine safety a priority.

By making it impossible for vaccine-injured plaintiffs to sue pharmaceutical companies, the result—whether intended or unintended—was to eliminate any financial incentive to make vaccine safety a priority.

Beginning in 1989, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) began steadily increasing the types and total number of vaccines required for school attendance, including thimerosal-containing vaccines. By 1999, the expanded vaccine schedule called for children to receive nineteen vaccine injections by age two, eleven of which contained thimerosal. Children born in the 1990s could be injected, therefore, with up to 237.5 micrograms of mercury by their second birthday, and as much as 62.5 micrograms at a single doctor’s visit.

In my book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak,14 I quote school nurse Patti White, who noticed, early on, the vaccine-induced mercury overload in young children. In 1999, White testified before Congress about the thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine administered to newborns:

The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological and/or immune system damage: epilepsy, seizure disorders, various kinds of palsies, autism, mental retardation, learning disabilities, juvenile-onset diabetes, asthma, vision/hearing loss, and a multitude of new conduct/behavior disorders. We [school nurses] have come to believe the hepatitis B vaccine is an assault on a newborn’s developing neurological and immune system. Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier. However, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.

School nurses were not the only ones to call attention to the mounting evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines were having neurotoxic effects. In response to pressure from Congress and the public, the FDA conducted a review in the late 1990s that found that the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccine schedule surpassed some federal safety guidelines. Accordingly, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a lukewarm statement in 1999 about thimerosal’s potential risks. The statement’s authors called for the phase-out of thimerosal-containing vaccines “as expeditiously as possible,“ while still avowing that “the large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first 6 months of life.”15


A year later (June 7-8, 2000), the CDC convened a secret scientific review panel of over fifty experts who began backpedaling from the AAP-USPHS pronouncement.16 The group that met at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center near Atlanta included high-ranking CDC and FDA representatives, state and international public health officials, vaccine company representatives and others. At the outset, the meeting’s chair, immunologist Richard Johnston, expressed regret that the group had not met to consider the data sooner, “in advance of…the public health decisions [to phase out thimerosal] that were made last summer.” Further betraying his preconceptions, Johnston stated that there was “no evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that young infants’ developing brains were being exposed to an organomercurial.”

The group then heard a presentation by Thomas Verstraeten, a research fellow at CDC who subsequently went on to a decade-long career at GlaxoSmithKline. Verstraeten had been working up a study using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (established by the CDC in 1990 to study rare and serious vaccine adverse events), scrutinizing data from roughly one hundred and ten thousand children born between 1992 and 1997 and enrolled at U.S. health maintenance organizations. The study sought to assess the relationship between thimerosal exposure (at one, two, three and six months of age) and neurological damage. After the initial findings showed a possible causal link, Verstraeten reworked the study design and analyses several times prior to Simpsonwood.

Despite these apparent attempts to make the association “go away,” Verstraeten was obligated to present the troublesome finding of linear and statistically significant dose-related relationships between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders to the group assembled at Simpsonwood.

Although differing viewpoints emerged, many of the Simpsonwood attendees were less than persuaded by Verstraeten’s results. Some, such as John Clements of the World Health Organization’s Expanded Program on Immunization, focused more on the public relations implications. Clements stated:

I hear the majority of the consultants say…that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes. …The research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association…through freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. […] My mandate…is to make sure…that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal-containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe. […] How will it be presented to a public and a media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they have in store for them? …I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here.

Despite the clear association between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders demonstrated by the Verstraeten study, many of the industry and public health scientists present tried to minimize the implications by voting them away. When polled at the end of the day’s discussion, most of them voted to rate the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders as “weak.” In his summary comments as meeting rapporteur, Paul Stehr-Green described Verstraeten’s results as being only weakly indicative of a safety signal—defined as “information on a new or known adverse event that may be caused by a medicine.”17 While acknowledging that the signal “deserved further investigation and…raised some perhaps disquieting possibilities,” Stehr-Green concluded that “there was not anything close to sufficient evidence to support a finding of a causal relationship.”

Pediatrician William Weil observed that “the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before.”

Attendee William Weil (a pediatrician representing the AAP) noted that even accepting Stehr-Green’s assertion that Verstraeten hadn’t proven a link to neurodevelopmental disorders, it was alarming that he hadn’t disproven it, and there was insufficient evidence, he pointed out, to reject a possible causal relationship. He stated that “the possibility that the associations could be causal has major significance for public and professional acceptance of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” Weil also observed that “the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before.” Another of his observations was that thimerosal in vaccines represented “repeated acute exposures” and that “the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these [neurodevelopmental] effects.” Finally, Weil pointed out the limitations of epidemiological studies, calling for further indepth animal and developmental neurotoxicity studies and stating: “Some of the really gutsy questions from a person who is very concerned about neurodevelopment cannot be answered out of this.” At the same time, Weil cautioned others not to overly minimize or “play with” the VSD data. Weil was the only reviewer present to rate the association between thimerosal and the neurodevelopmental outcomes as strong, giving it a four on a scale of one to six (where one was weakest).

…CDC moved aggressively to hastily gin up five poorly designed epidemiological studies to disprove the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders.

The groupthink on display at Simpsonwood primarily illustrates that most public health and medical experts were itching to exonerate thimerosal, regardless of the science, and continue with business as usual. Following the Simpsonwood meeting, CDC moved aggressively to hastily gin up five poorly designed epidemiological studies18-22 to disprove the link between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. Written by industry scientists, the published studies focused solely on one injury (autism), and four out of the five were done on foreign populations with minimal exposure to thimerosal. Three of the five studies were published in a compromised journal, Pediatrics, which receives a significant portion of its revenue from vaccine-makers. In 2002, the AAP dutifully “retired” its 1999 joint statement on thimerosal.23 In January 2013, the AAP went even further in several articles in Pediatrics, going on record in favor of exempting thimerosal from an international treaty on the elimination of avoidable mercury exposures.24

The notion that “trace amounts” of a substance as highly toxic as mercury might be benign is exceedingly misleading.


Even when vaccines do not contain thimerosal as a preservative, manufacturers use it in some single-dose and multidose vaccines to impede bacterial growth during the manufacturing process.5 The CDC states that “when thimerosal is used this way, it is removed later in the process” and only “trace amounts” remain (no more than one microgram per dose).25

The notion that “trace amounts” of a substance as highly toxic as mercury might be benign is exceedingly misleading. In a seminal 2014 publication in the prestigious journal Lancet Neurology, toxicology experts Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan observed that the developing human brain is uniquely vulnerable to mercury and other neurotoxins, often “at much lower exposure levels than had previously been thought to be safe.”26

Discussing methylmercury, the Lancet authors also noted that developmental neurotoxicity occurs at far lower exposure levels than “the concentrations that affect adult brain function.” Other investigators have argued that there may be no meaningful safety threshold for methylmercury.27 Given the body of research indicating that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury and that both have comparable mechanisms of toxicity, it stands to reason that warnings about the risks of lower exposure levels would also apply to ethylmercury.

A 2012 Italian study showed that ethylmercury-containing thimerosal diminished the viability of human cells in the lab at a concentration one-fiftieth that of methylmercury.28Although thimerosal’s apologists like to state that ethylmercury disappears from the bloodstream more quickly than methylmercury, this is no evidence that it has cleared the body. Ethylmercury migrates more rapidly to and then lingers in the organs.29

A study that analyzed hair samples from babies’ first haircuts found that children with autism who had received thimerosal-preserved vaccines excreted lower levels of mercury into their hair as infants compared with normal, same-aged children also receiving these vaccines, suggesting that the mercury had lodged in the autistic children’s brains and was hindering neurological development.30


Thimerosal passes more easily from a mother’s bloodstream through the placenta than does methylmercury.31 Fetal cord blood mercury levels are typically about double the mother’s mercury blood levels.32 This is cause for concern for developing babies in light of the CDC’s 2004 recommendation that all pregnant women in any trimester get flu shots. By 2012–2013, uptake of flu shots during pregnancy had steadily increased to approximately 50 percent.33 Manufacturers still preserve millions of flu shots with massive bolus doses of thimerosal (about thirty-six million flu shots containing twenty-five micrograms of mercury in the 2017-2018 flu season),34 meaning that children born since 2004 have been increasingly likely to be exposed to thimerosal in utero.

A 2017 CDC study reviewing data from the 2010–11 and 2011–2012 flu seasons linked spontaneous abortions to flu vaccines, finding that women vaccinated with the inactivated influenza vaccine had 3.7-fold greater odds of spontaneous abortion within twenty-three days than women not receiving the vaccine.35 For women who received the H1N1 vaccine in both seasons covered in the study, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the month after receiving a flu vaccine were 7.7 times greater. The vast majority of flu vaccines available during the seasons studied were multidose formulations containing twenty-five micrograms of mercury.


While the thimerosal debate has carried on in the United States, children around the world have never stopped receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines. The mindset revealed by Simpsonwood attendee John Clements of the WHO—who described a “mandate” to vaccinate one hundred million children “this year, next year and for many years to come” with thimerosal-containing vaccines—has not changed. In fact, the medical community continues to argue that the benefits of keeping thimerosal in vaccines outweigh the risks and that thimerosal is “critical” for low-resource countries that rely on multidose vials as the most affordable option.36 One of the AAP’s former presidents has asserted that, for the good of the global community, the Academy’s pro-thimerosal position is a “no-brainer.”37 The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety states that “no additional studies of the safety of [thimerosal] in vaccines are warranted.”38

The global health authorities making cavalier and single-minded pronouncements on “life-saving vaccines” should consider the bigger health picture. For example, exposure to toxic metals such as mercury can contribute to malnutrition and, conversely, malnutrition may also increase susceptibility to mercury toxicity.39,40 Mercury is also a potent immunosuppressant, which has implications in low-resource settings where children already face numerous other health challenges and environmental pollutants.41


The medical establishment’s defense of thimerosal’s safety has proven highly successful in tamping down deeper investigation into thimerosal and the vaccine industry. Perhaps because major pharmaceutical companies (the makers of vaccines) are among the biggest advertisers in the U.S., the mainstream press has accepted these government orthodoxies and ignored the ample evidence showing that thimerosal is toxic. In fact, the thimerosal saga illustrates the aggressive, knee-jerk rejection by the press, the medical community and allied financial interests of any scientific information suggesting that established medical practices are harming public health. Nevertheless, continuing to wait for more research is not a reasonable public policy option. Thimerosal is dangerous to human health and should immediately be removed from all vaccines (as well as other pharmaceutical and cosmetic products), both in the U.S. and globally.


1. Geier DA, Sykes LK, Geier MR. A review of thimerosal (Merthiolate) and its ethylmercury breakdown product: specific historical considerations regarding safety and effectiveness. J Toxicol Environ Health B 2007;10:575-596.
2. Food and Drug Administration. “Mercury in drug and biologic products.”
3. World Mercury Project. “Mercury in medicine.”
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Thimerosal in vaccines.”
5. Food and Drug Administration. “Thimerosal and vaccines.” Last updated Jan. 5, 2018.
6. Risher JF, Tucker P. Alkyl mercury-induced toxicity: multiple mechanisms of action. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 2017;240:105-149.
7. Al-Tikriti K, Al-Mufti AW. An outbreak of organomercury poisoning among Iraqi farmers. Bull World Health Organ 1976;53(Suppl):15-21.
8. Hilmy MI, Rahim SA, Abbas AH. Normal and lethal mercury levels in human beings. Toxicol 1976;6:155-159.
9. Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson T. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methymercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113(8):1015-1021.
10. Dórea JG. Integrating experimental (in vitro and in vivo) neurotoxicity studies of low-dose thimerosal relevant to vaccines. Neurochem Res 2011;36(6):927-938.
11. Rooney JP. The retention time of inorganic mercury in the brain—a systematic review of the evidence. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2014;274(3):425-435.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2011;60(2).
13. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
14. Kennedy, RF Jr. Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing; 2015.
15. Joint statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS). Pediatrics 1999;104(3).
16. Scientific review of Vaccine Safety Datalink information. Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, GA; June 7-8, 2000. Available at:
17. European Medicines Agency. “Signal management.”
18. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003;112:1039-1048.
19. Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. Am J Prev Med2003;25:101-106.
20. Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 2003;290:1763-1766.
21. Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB et al. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics2003;112:604-606.
22. Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 2004;114:584-591.
23. Orenstein WA, Paulson JA, Brady MT, Cooper LZ, Seib K. Global vaccination recommendations and thimerosal. Pediatrics 2013;131(1).
24. Cooper LZ, Katz SL. Ban on thimerosal in draft treaty on mercury: why the AAP’s position in 2012 is so important. Pediatrics 2013;131(1).
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Understanding thimerosal, mercury, and vaccine safety.” Last reviewed Feb. 2013.
26. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol 2014;13: 330-338.
27. Rice DC. The U.S. EPA reference dose for methylmercury: sources of uncertainty. Environ Res 2004;95:406-413.
28. Guzzi G, Pigatto PD, Spadari F, La Porta CA. Effect of thimerosal, methylmercury, and mercuric chloride in Jurkat T Cell Line. Interdiscip Toxicol 2012;5(3):159-161.
29. Harry GJ, Harris MW, Burka LT. Mercury concentrations in brain and kidney following ethylmercury, methylmercury, and Thimerosal administration to neonatal mice. Toxicol Lett 2004;154(3):183-189.
30. Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol 2003;22(4):277-285.
31. Leonard A, Jacquet P, Lauwerys RR. Mutagenicity and teratogenicity of mercury compounds. Mutat Res 1983;114(1):1-18.
32. Stern AH, Smith AE. An assessment of the cord blood: maternal blood methylmercury ratio: implications for risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 2003;111(12):1465-1470.
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women—United States, 2012-13 influenza season. MMWR 2013;62(38):787-792.
34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Seasonal influenza vaccine supply for the U.S. 2017-2018 influenza season.
35. Donahue JG, Kieke BA, King JP, et al. Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010-11 and 2011-12. Vaccine2017;35(40):5314-5322.
36. Sifferlin A. Experts argue to keep thimerosal in some vaccines. TIME, Dec. 27, 2012.
37. Tavernise S. Vaccine rule is said to hurt health efforts. The New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012.
38. World Health Organization. “Thiomersal in vaccines.”
39. Anetor GO. Waste dumps in local communities in developing countries and hidden danger to health. Perspect Public Health 2016;136(4):245-251.
40. Chakrabarti SK, Bai C. Effects of protein-deficient nutrition during rat pregnancy and development on developmental hindlimb crossing due to methylmercury intoxication. Arch Toxicol 2000;74(4-5):196-202.
41. Tsai MS, Chen MH, Lin CC, et al. Children’s environmental health based on birth cohort studies of Asia. Sci Total Environ 2017;609:396-409.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2018.

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.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



advertisement - learn more


Study Says It’s Not Just Brain Tumours – Cell Phones Are Also Causing Heart Tumours



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Unusual cancer called Schwannoma, cancer of the heart, in male rats has been caused by electromagnetic radiation. In addition, a study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumours.

  • Reflect On:

    Animal testing is unnecessary at this point. We have tonnes of data on this, there is no more need for scientific discussion as this doesn't seem to be a debate, so why does the corporation always put up a fight?

The thing is, it’s not just cell phone radiation, but rather a plethora of electromagnetic radiation that’s currently being beamed out by our cell towers, cell phones, computers, wireless routers etc. It’s a complete sandwich and not one safety study has addressed just how much electromagnetic radiation is currently present in our environment and what our current human exposure levels are. Perhaps this is because it’s becoming so evidently clear that there are no safe levels of exposure. Now, multiple studies are emerging on the topic that is raising a clear cause for concern.

There are already existing issues with current technologies, but right now, 5G wireless is making a lot of noise. Research has also shown that the same frequencies used by the Department of Defense in crowd control weapons actually form the foundation of the 5G network.  Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor recently gave her testimony at a hearing in Michigan about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. It’s a very powerful testimony.

Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review 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…5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research.” – Goldberg

You can watch the entire video and read more about it here.

There are currently hundreds of scientists that have been petitioning the United Nations to look into this topic more deeply. Ask yourself, why are there more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies that show what we are doing with EMF exposure is not safe?

According to the appeal sent to Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, about the EMF issue:

advertisement - learn more

Numerous scientific publications have found that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below international exposure guidelines adopted by most industrialized nations. There is discrepancy in how this matter is considered at the WHO, however. While WHO accepted its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s recommendation that classifies both ELF/EMF and RF/EMF as Group 2B “Possible Carcinogens,” it also, in direct contrast to these warnings, recommends the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) guidelines for exposure standards. These guidelines, developed by a self-selected 2 independent industry group, have long been criticized as not protective given the science now established.

This information, and much more, is exactly why multiple countries around the world have completely banned cell phones when it comes to young users, cell phones in school, wireless internet within elementary schools, daycare and pre-schools.

Awareness in Europe seems to be progressing at a faster rate than awareness in North America. Take France for example, they passed a law in 2015 banning WiFi from all nursery schools. In addition to that, the law states that Wi-Fi must be turned off in all elementary schools when it’s not in use. A wired connection, if possible, is preferred. When it comes to cell phones in France, all advertisements must recommend headsets to reduce the phones radiation exposure to the brain. Furthermore, advertisements directing cell phone use for young children are banned.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.” –
Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University (source)

The Heart

Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy announced that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer. A $25 million study of much higher levels of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has also reported finding the same unusual cancer, called Schwannoma of the heart, in male rats treated at the highest dose. In addition, the RI study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats and precancerous conditions including Schwann cells hyperplasia in both male and female rats.

The study’s findings are making headline news. Read the Corriere Di Bologna article “Cellulari, a study by Ramazzini: “They cause very rare tumours.

Our findings of cancerous tumours in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumours of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans,” said Fiorella Belpoggi Ph.D., study author and RI Director of Research. (source)

The Study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from birth all the way until their natural death to cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day. The exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell towers antennas, and this is an important point,

“All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according to the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding,” explained Ronald Melnick Ph.D., formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). (source)

Here’s another telling quote about the study, coming from Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, Univesity Hospital, Orebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on the environmental cause of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

The US NTP results combined now with the Ramazzini study, reinforce human studies from our team and others providing clear evidence that RF radiation causes acoustic neuromaa (vestibular schwannoma) and gliomas, and should be classified carcinogenic to humans. (source)

Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds, and their study design is unique in that animals are allowed to live until their natural deaths in order to allow detection of late-developing tumours. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age.

Below is an interview with the lead author of the study:

If you’d like to access more information and science regarding the electromagnetic radiation problem, be sure to visit the Environmental Health Trust(EHT). There are still several issues of critical importance that need to be addressed without somebody rolling their eyes at you. This is one of them.

EHT is a scientific virtual think tank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. EHT maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies: more than a dozen countries recommend reducing wireless exposure to children.

What You Can Do

So, what can you do about it? Well, you could turn off your cell phone when you get the chance. You could have a wired internet connection, which is also faster than wireless. You could unplug some of your appliances before you go to bed, you can purchase electromagnetic shielding materials, like bed canopies, sheets, clothes, paint to protect your entire home etc. These materials are out there, all you need is an internet search to find them.

You could also write to your government or local authority. You can create awareness by citing the science and showing it to others. At the end of the day, there are a number of ways to limit your exposure, but the truth is, it doesn’t have to be this way. These signals can be transmuted without the use of damaging high-frequency radiation, so ask yourself, what’s really going on here? Why are we purposefully selecting frequencies that harm humans?

You can also keep a healthy immune system, one that can fight off and defend any disease or harm caused by these exposures. Here at CE, we’ve created a lot of awareness about the mind-body connection and how strong it is. Fear will only make things worse and doesn’t help when trying to spark your very own placebo effect.

We’ve been living with this technology for some time, but only now are younger generations actually being born into it.

The Takeaway

This is one of many examples where industry science is clearly shown to be false, as there are a number of repeatable scientific studies showing otherwise. This is an important issue, and even more important is the recognition of the corporate control over government policy. We clearly do not live in a democracy, when so many people can become aware and concerned about an issue, yet it never receives any attention from the mainstream media and is constantly swept under the rug, while the corporation maintains its safety.

How could a human being, the one who is making these decisions and approving these process, do such a thing in good conscience? The takeaway here is to recognize that ultimately, a shift in consciousness is needed. Ethics, morality and a desire to do no harm to the human race is needed and should represent the core of our technological and intellectual advancements. These examples show us the backwards nature of how we are living so we can recognize it within ourselves and begin to operate more harmoniously. As we do in our individual lives, the greater collective does as well. No longer can we rely on a broken system to fix our problems, we have to take the initiative, like all of the people mentioned in this article are doing.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



Continue Reading


Scientist Replies To The Medical Industry’s False Claims About Aluminum Safety



In Brief

  • The Facts: is a pro-aluminum industry website. It even lists an Aluminum Caucus. This is a look into their list of “myths” about the safety of aluminum product they promote to see if their claims pass the proof-by-Pubmed test.

  • Reflect On:

    With all of the science clearly contradicting the medical and aluminum industry's claims of safety, how are they still able to approve the use of aluminum in our medications? It makes to sense, especially from a scientific standpoint.

By: James Lyons-Weiler, CEO/Director, The Institute for Pure and Applied KnowledgeCHD Contributing Writer

“Myth” #1: Exposure to aluminum causes Alzheimer’s Disease Claim: “Aluminum is not linked to Alzheimer’s disease, the cause (or causes) of which is unknown. In the words of the Alzheimer’s Association, ‘The research community is generally convinced that aluminum is not a key risk factor in developing Alzheimer’s disease.’

The World Health Organization has also concluded that “there is no evidence to support a primary causative role of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease.’”

JLW’S ANALYSIS: It is highly odd to see the Alzheimer’s Association and the World Health Organization describing a type of consensus that there is no role for aluminum as a primary cause in Alzheimer’s disease for one simple fact: amyloid, the gunk that gums up the brain in Alzheimer’s dementia, is part aluminum. In fact, this has been known since 1985 [1].

…when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

So why and how could these organizations claim that aluminum does not play a primary causal role? The most likely explanation is the use of incorrect science and/or focus on the incorrect level of evidence. When a substance is co-localized to the site of condition, that’s pretty strong evidence that is play some role in the process – even if it is an inhibitory role, it’s still a role. But when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

advertisement - learn more

Examples include asbestos and various lung conditions. Asbestos fibres are extremely small; the most dangerous are <2 microns. When you breathe asbestos fibre in, the fibres remain in lung tissue for a long time and cause scarring and inflammation, leading to pleural plaques, widespread pleural thickening, pleural effusion, asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma [2].

Another example is the CDC’s use of the finding of the Zika virus in one brain of an aborted fetus with microcephaly to conclude that the Zika virus induces microcephaly. Dr. Anthony Fauci of US NIAID proclaimed that the finding was the “strongest evidence yet” that Zika was the cause of microcephaly in Brazil in 2015. However, oddly, although the incidence of Zika infection in Brazil increased with the mosquito season in 2016, there was no corresponding uptick in microcephaly– and no study was conducted to seek a role of the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccination in the slums of Northeast Brazil where the microcephaly outbreak peaked. So, evidence at multiple levels should be considered in the assessment of causality.

Amyloid is, of course, universally recognized as key deposit in the brain of people with Alzheimer’s disease. But what many people do not realize is that amyloid is produced in the bones, and as people age, their bone density reduces, and amyloid can be released. When it deposits in the brain, the compound (which is part aluminum), can lead to cerebral amyloid angiopathy, a condition in which blood vessels in the brain become coated and clogged with amyloid. This can lead to strokes and contributes to age-related dementia. So healthy bones are very important to reduce the amount of amyloid, and therefore aluminum, in the brain. Medium weight training is required as people age to keep bones strong.

The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia.

When aluminum itself enters the brain (and there is zero doubt that occurs [3-5]), it can have numerous effects. One, of course, is to serve as a building block by combining with amyloid precursor protein. Aluminum can also have nefarious influences on a brain cell’s ability to fold proteins properly, lead to disease condition in which cellular necrosis (seepage of oddly, improperly shaped proteins) can occur, wreaking havoc with intercellular signaling. The inflammasome can be activated, leading to the recruitment of intrinsic immunity cellular responses (including microglial activation[6]). It causes the release of cytokines, especially IL-6, which make the brain’s innate immune cells act as if nearby cells are under viral attack. The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia. Vaccine Papers has a good resource for studies on the effects of various forms of aluminum [7].

“Myth” #2: Aluminum present as an active ingredient in some antiperspirants leads to breast cancer. Claim: “Aluminum is not, nor has it ever been, classified as a carcinogen. Further, there is no convincing scientific evidence that aluminum-based antiperspirant use contributes to the development of breast cancer. Less than 0.02% of aluminum in contact with skin is taken up by the body, the rest being excreted in a very short time.”

“The American Cancer Society states “There are no strong epidemiologic studies in the medical literature that link breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, and very little scientific evidence to support this claim. In fact, a carefully designed epidemiologic study of this issue published in 2002 compared 813 women with breast cancer and 793 women without the disease. The researchers found no link between breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, deodorant use, or underarm shaving.’”

JLW ANALYSIS: study by Linhart et al. (2017)[8] found that the use of aluminum-containing deodorant increased both aluminum content in breast tissue and breast cancer risk, confirming studies from as early as 2003 (McGrath 2003) [9]. A growing number of studies show that mammary epithelial cells cultured accumulate mutations when exposed to aluminum [10]. While the epidemiological literature is divided, it is surprising to see provide only the single study that found no link, while two other studies, including one that pre-dated the study they did cite, do report increased tissue burden and increased risk of breast cancer.

Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

“Myth” #3: Consuming aluminum in antacid pills can cause health problems. Claim: “Aluminum is poorly absorbed by the body. This means that most (at least 99.9%) of aluminum ingested from food and water merely passes through the digestive tract and out of the body. Several studies have found no adverse effects for those who have ingested even large quantities of aluminum-containing antacids from antacids…

Additional reassurance regarding aluminum’s safety can be derived from the fact that frequent users of oral antacids may consume very high quantities of aluminum (e.g. up to 1000 mg/day), several orders of magnitude higher than the intake from ordinary food and water intake, yet no adverse health effects have been demonstrated…

The Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry notes, ‘An extremely small amount of the aluminum found in antacids [is] absorbed [through ingestion].’ And further, ‘The FDA has determined that aluminum used as food additives and medicinals such as antacids are generally safe.’”

JLW Analysis: Now this is interesting, because Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital says that we get “far more” aluminum from diet than from vaccines. But we will come back that. is correct to say we absorb a tiny fraction of the aluminum we ingest. However, any dietary aluminum from one source has a cumulative effect from dietary aluminum from any other source. So, for example, cooking rhubarb in aluminum foil will lead to very high levels of ingested aluminum. Following that up with an antacid that contains aluminum adds to the total. Taking pills that contain aluminum in a carrier base also increases the dose. And then taking aluminum-containing vaccines at the same time increases the total aluminum compound dose even further. Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

For a given day, a one-time exposure is probably not a concern for 130-lb woman or 1 180 lb-man. But in children, it’s a different story. Why? Body weight determines the toxicity of a dose. And while ATSDR looked at the effects of dietary aluminum, it is incorrect to say that studies found no ill effects. One key study (Golub et al., 1989) [11] in fact did report food intake problems (cyclic food intake, indicative of exposure to a toxin, or poison), in spite of being represented by the FDA as not finding any adverse reactions. Numerous other studies also showed that dietary forms of aluminum have adverse events (see accumulated list [12]).

The primary concern over aluminum toxicity are its whole-body accumulation, and its synergistic effect on the toxicity of other toxic chemicals in our environment – such as fluoride. A study by Kaur et al. in 2009 [13] found alterations in the neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin) due to fluoride in rats, and that the changes were more pronounced in animals given fluoride and aluminum together. They reported that histological evidence showed “deprivation of neuronal integrity with higher magnitude in concurrent fluoride and aluminum exposure, as compared to fluoride alone” and they concluded that aluminum appears to enhance the neurotoxic hazards caused by fluoride.

“Myth” #4: It is dangerous to cook with aluminum pots and pans. Claim: “The Food and Drug Administration studied this issue in the early 1980s and reported no safety concerns from using aluminum cookware. More recently, the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry reported that ‘foods cooked in aluminum pots are generally considered to be safe.’

An independent study by America’s Test Kitchen in 2012 found that “In lab tests … tomato sauce … cooked in an aluminum pot for two hours and then stored in the same pot overnight was found to contain only .0024 milligrams of aluminum per cup.” For the sake of comparison, according to the FDA, ‘the daily aluminum intake for man from all dietary sources can range from 10 to 100 mg per day.’ Consumption at this level is considered safe.”

JLW Analysis: The category “GRAS” is an archaic category based on no science, but rather a general assumption of safety applied to food additives based on information available prior to the 1960s (and before). As we know, we are living in an increasingly toxic environment; we do not live on our grandparent’s planet. But even absent concern with low doses of aluminum from pots and pans, any amount is cumulative to aluminum from other exposures. Since there are alternative materials, why take on further risk given that aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous?

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

“Myth” #5: The aluminum salts used to clean municipal drinking water pose a danger to human health. Claim: “Virtually every municipal water purification system in the world uses aluminum salts to remove impurities and provide safe, healthy and accessible drinking water. The global public health benefits enabled by these systems are numerous and have prevented innumerable water-borne diseases.

Health Canada spent 10 years and millions of dollars studying this issue and concluded: ‘There is no consistent, convincing evidence that aluminum in drinking water causes adverse health effects in humans, and aluminum does not affect the acceptance of drinking water by consumers or interfere with practices for supplying good water.’”

JLW Analysis: Here we have a clearly misleading effort to cherry-pick not just from the scientific literature. The same report cited by also reported:

An increase in pre-weaning mortality and a delay in weight gain and neuromotor development in surviving pups were reported in the offspring of albino Wistar rats given oral doses (in the diet) of aluminum chloride (equivalent to about 155 and 192 mg Al/kg bw per day) from day 8 of gestation through parturition… Neurotoxicity and weight loss were also reported in mouse dams fed a diet containing aluminum lactate at 500 or 1000 ppm from day 0 of gestation to day 21 postpartum.

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

In a study in which pregnant rats were exposed to a 20% solution of Maalox (a stomach antacid) in tap water (approximately 3.2 mg Al/mL) from the second day of gestation, Anderson et al.205 found that offspring of aluminum-exposed dams showed significantly more aggressive responses, although the time spent on each aggressive response was less than in controls. Furthermore, the offspring of aluminum-exposed mothers showed a significantly longer latency period in the escape-training phase following a three-day period of exposure to non-avoidable shocks.

The report cited by also included:

Several epidemiological studies have reported a small increased relative risk of AD associated with high aluminum concentrations in drinking water… All these studies have methodological weaknesses, but a true association between high aluminum concentrations in drinking water and dementia (including AD) cannot be ruled out, especially for the most elderly (e.g., over 75)…

According to a review by Doll… the evidence from several epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies suggests that aluminum is neurotoxic in humans but does not suggest that it causes AD. However, Doll… stressed that the possibility that aluminum does cause AD must be kept open until the uncertainty about the neuropathological evidence is resolved.

Aluminum in water can easily be avoided by consuming silica-rich mineral water, which is purported to help reduce total body burden of aluminum [14]

On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.

“Myth” #6: Aluminum contained in certain vaccines make them unsafe. Claim: “Aluminum salts have been used to improve the immune system’s response to vaccines for more than 70 years. Most of the small amount of aluminum used in the vaccinations is quickly expelled by the body. About half of the aluminum is gone in 24 hours; three-quarters is eliminated in two weeks and virtually all of it disappears within three years.”

“There are recent reports of a neurologic disease called macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) suspected to be caused by injections of aluminum-containing vaccines. The role of aluminum in the mechanism of this disorder is unclear. The only known undesirable effects that are attributable directly to aluminium salts contained in vaccines are possible local inflammatory reactions, which in some cases are due to the speed of the injection of the vaccine or to insufficient agitation of the vial.”

“In 2008, the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) stated: “From the most recent evidence, there is no reason to conclude that a health risk exists as a result of administration of aluminium-containing vaccines. Neither is there any good scientific or clinical basis for recommending any change in vaccination practice.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that the use of aluminum in vaccines is safe.”

JLW Analysis: Here we see the same abuse of logic that was used to argue that ethyl mercury from vaccines cleared quickly: the “gone” that is referencing here are serum levels; there are precious few studies that examine whole-body elimination rates but Flarend et al. [15] found only 4.6% of aluminum left the body of rabbits after 28 days.

Calculations of the “safe” levels of aluminum by Mitkus et al. (the US FDA) [16] were based on myriad flawed assumptions, most importantly the use of dietary aluminum vs. injected vaccine forms of aluminum, on adult mice (instead of infant mice) to assess the safety of aluminum for use as injected forms in infant humans. But even then, we now know that their actual calculations were flawed exercises in a shell game: divide doses into three body compartments, use serum clearance rather than whole body clearance, and divide exposure by 365 days… and then the numbers look safe. We don’t need the numbers to just look safe. We need to know the safe levels of doses of injectable forms of aluminum using dose escalation studies. This was the conclusion of an extensive and careful IPAK analysis [17] which found these and other flaws and concluded that:

“On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.”

Regarding aluminum from vaccines and diet, Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia offers health care consumers a video on the webpage featuring Dr. Paul Offit, a CHOP employee claiming (quite incorrectly for infants up to six months of age) that we get far more aluminum from food and water, and anything made of water, than we would ever get from vaccines.

Again, IPAK’s analysis shows, considering body weight, that the information published on the CHOP website is incorrect, and, like, is misleading consumers into a false sense of safety. This finding is consistent with that of Dorea and Marques [18].

IPAK Calculated Accumulations of Aluminum in Humans by Source. See report [19] for details and additional results. (mcg/kg = micrograms per kilogram cumulative body burden.)

Parents are being tricked by the CHOP website into bringing their infants to be exposed – repeatedly – to acute toxic doses of injected aluminum to accept a medical procedure and pharmaceutical product that is only assumed to be safe – not shown to be safe by science.

Studies now exist that show that aluminum is found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease – and studies exist that show that safe removal of aluminum via chelation is effective in reducing the symptoms of these and other conditions (19). The consumption of silica-rich mineral waters was found to increase urinary excretion of aluminum from patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS) (20).  Reversal of a disease by removing a factor proves that factor is a key cause.

Therefore, I believe that both CHOP and are committing fraudulent false advertising, and one or more class action suits against both should be taken up as soon as possible. The webpage and the CHOP video spreading false and misleading information on aluminum safety must come down.



We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



Continue Reading


The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reasons exist explaining why it makes more sense not to receive the flu vaccine. It makes more sense to focus on a strong and healthy immune system to combat the flu, yet the vaccine is heavily marketed every single year.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many concerns being raised every single year regarding the flu shot, why does the corporation still blast out mass marketing, propaganda false information and fear?

This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of His work is reproduced and distributed here with the permission. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:”

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivations which generate the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review (CDR), considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to be the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic value of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or outright propaganda that flu vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’ao-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter (see our article on the vaccine agenda: Transhumanism/Dehumanism).  In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to-produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, xenotrophic retroviruses, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove real world “effectiveness,” only a surrogate marker of “efficacy.”  Yet, recent research indicates in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses, running diametrically opposed to the orthodox tenets of classical vaccinology.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strain) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).

advertisement - learn more

It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Support of the immune system, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.

Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection

The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress, influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune system to function effectively. [Note: In some cases, we may become infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater immunity.]

Moreover, there is an ever-growing appreciation within the scientific community that influenza cannot be defined as a completely exterior vector of morbidity and mortality, as portrayed within the mainstream, but is actually comprised of many proteins and lipids derived from the host it occupies, and may even be more accurately described as a hijacked cellular microvesicle (exosome), i.e. it’s as much us as other.

Learn more by reading our recent articles on the topic, “Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory,” and “Profound Implications of the Virome for Human Health and Autoimmunity,”and by watching the incredibly eye-opening NIH lecture by Dr. Herbert Virgin below on the virome and the potentially indispensable role that viruses play in establishing the baseline genotype-phenotype relationship within the human immune system:

Additionally, while there are a broad spectrum of natural substances which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.

For instance, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma attack. For more information on Vitamin D and immunity, visit the amazing research resource on the topic:

Other preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and are available without a prescription include:

1) Echinacea Tea: J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Aug;6(4):327-34

2) Elderberry:  J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.

3) American Ginseng:  J Altern Complement Med.  2006 Mar;12(2):153-7.

4) Green Tea: J Nutr. 2011 Oct ;141(10):1862-70. Epub   2011 Aug 10.

5) Probiotics: Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):e172-9.

6) Vitamin D: PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11088. Epub 2010 Jun 14.

Learn more by visiting our Anti-Influenza Research Portal.

Sayer Ji is founder of, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!



Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more



We Need Your Support...


With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.