- The Facts:
With the Alex Jones and Infowars ban, the game is changing as to how YouTube, Facebook, Apple and other social media giants feature content. Consumers of news must now be vigilant and proactive in the truth discovery process.
- Reflect On:
As conscious truth-seekers, what standards should we hold media sources, journalists, and corporations to? In the realm of public discourse, are popular pundits and theorists like Alex Jones held to sufficient standards of journalistic integrity?
In our quest for truth, we all have intuitions, hunches, and personal insights that we may not be able to prove. Whether it’s spiritual premonitions, conspiracy theories, or superstitious synchronicity, our conscious thought is an explorer in a universe of ideas, possibilities, and theories. However, if there is no filter in place to bring form and meaning to these free-flowing ideas, the truth quickly becomes whatever we want it to be; feelings and opinions become just as “true” as verifiable, well-researched facts.
The revolutionary ideas that produced the American experiment enshrining the Enlightenment principle of freedom of expression has produced an unchained intellect. With that conscious liberty comes a responsibility to quest for truth with journalistic integrity. In our current media free-fall of anything goes think-pieces and political punditry, we have reached a post-truth stage in our history where “fake news” is simply whatever we want it to be, usually characterized by a viewpoint we disagree with.
--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.
As explorers of consciousness, we have a deep responsibility to substantiate our thoughts & theories in order to foster legitimate discussion of the important matters of our time.
“We risk being the first people in history to have been
able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive,
so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them.” — Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to
Pseudo-Events in America (1961)
Alex Jones & The “Mainstream” Media
By now, everyone has chimed in on the concerted effort among major companies (YouTube, Facebook, Apple) to ban Alex Jones & Infowars from its platforms. Many in the conscious community remember when Alex first came on the scene in Austin, Texas where he developed his signature gravelly voice that shouted conspiracy from the mountaintop. Since his early underground days on community radio, Jones has ascended in popularity and has become a prominent voice in media buoyed by audiences fascinated with his conspiratorial takes and fervent support of President Trump (who granted Infowars White House press passes after his election in 2016).
Jones and his supporters continually lambast the “mainstream media” when framing commentary on global events. However, Alex Jones has become mainstream media, boasting view stats in the billions with subscribers in the millions that rival and eclipse traditional media giants like CNN and NBC.
Since Jones was banned, his Infowars app has surged on the Google Play and iTunes charts, ranking third among trending apps behind only Twitter and News Break. It’s important to acknowledge just how vast the Alex Jones audience has become, and the bulk of his viewers solely rely on Infowars for information gathering on political and global events.
Ironically, the ascent of Alex Jones into the mainstream has been buoyed by Facebook & YouTube, who actively promoted and pushed out Alex Jones content in their respective feeds as his popularity sky-rocketed and his content raked in considerable advertisement profits for the Silicon Valley behemoths. But unlike newspapers and traditional media sources who are liable for what they publish, Facebook & YouTube have been shielded from liability in the U.S. for what their users publish – which largely has resulted in the quest for truth taking a back-seat to the quest to go virile.
Freedom Of Speech & Responsibility
The aptly named “Infowars” is emblematic of the information war that is currently taking place in America. From traditional media giants like Fox, CNN & MSNBC to emerging internet media forces like The Young Turks, Mark Dice & Secular Talk, there is a jockeying for power and news authority that is shaking up the global political landscape – and this is significantly changing how (and what) people think.
Indeed, freedom of speech and a free press is something that truth-seekers should hold sacred, but Jones being banned is not about freedom of speech. Jones is free to broadcast his message as he sees fit – but that doesn’t guarantee that private companies like YouTube and Facebook will feature his content.
An important question that must be answered in response to the ban is this: What responsibility should Alex Jones, YouTube & Facebook assume in presenting “truth” to audiences? While many say that they should bear no responsibility as it pertains to journalistic integrity, what effect is that having on our aggregate consciousness? America is in a mental health crisis. Suicides are increasing at alarming rates, iPhones, social media and technology have dominated the lives of young children with distraction and fantasy. Reality is becoming so abstract that more and more are losing grip on their day-to-day lives, opting to live in a world where truth is malleable and whatever you want it to be.
Media sources like Infowars that purposely and knowingly perpetuate false information and sensationalized conspiracy under the guise of “the truth that the mainstream media won’t tell you” have significantly contributed to the growing American population that is misinformed and increasingly mentally unstable.
“Every single school/public shooting is a hoax staged with crisis actors.” “Queen Elizabeth is converting to Islam and is a Jihadi.” “Democrats (and only Democrats) are running a global prostitution ring.” “Obama is having sex with 10 men a day on taxpayer dime.”
The aforementioned are actual quotes and takes from recent Alex Jones broadcasts, and they are seeding millions of minds with precisely what they are purportedly railing against: Fake News. In effect, Jones has produced the same kind of disinformation that he accuses “The Liberal Left” of producing – and that has a very real effect on public consciousness. In order to educate, enlighten, and challenge the conventionally programmed mind, you must credibly appeal to truth. You cannot do that when you are peddling junk theories. There are real instances of false flag events and manipulated events for geopolitical gain without us pressing to find conspiracy where there is none.
There are real global cabals and child prostitution rings to expose and bring to justice without us having to go down a rabbit hole of gutter dialogue, obsessing over “Pizzagate” and other poorly evidenced theories while actual instances of human trafficking are taking place right in front of our eyes. There is a real war on our planet, environment and bodily integrity without entertaining lunatic claims that “they are putting chemicals in the water that make frogs gay!”
This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate grievances and critiques of traditional media. The American public’s faith in the media is at a historic law – and there is good reason for that. The level of discourse, global news coverage, and critical thinking displayed on CNN, NBC, & Fox are numbingly restrictive, biased, and dishonest. Major newspapers were complicit in presenting false and poorly sourced information to readers that precipitated the criminal and illegal Iraq War. The New York Times (and others) peddled conspiracy theories from the NeoCon Bush Administration which knowingly lied and deceived Americans with lies and false information – and this greatly influenced public opinion in the lead-up to the war.
Both things can be true: Our media institutions have often failed to enlighten and inform us – *and* Alex Jones is contributing to the post-truth movement that is further skewing truth in favor of journalistic anarchy and chaos. There are kernels of truth that can be found on Infowars, just as there are kernels of truth to be found within traditional, “mainstream” media. But what separates the real from the fake are journalists and media that take deep personal responsibility in presenting information, news & intelligence that is in service to truth, and not just in service to shares, likes, views & trending statistics regardless of the actual integrity of the content.
While many rail against the New York Times or the Washington Post, there is a level of journalistic standard (citation, sourced information, liability for slander/libel) that is too often absent from alternative news. As writers within conscious media, we should take that responsibility to heart as we are already exploring thought forms, theories, and ideas that are often outside of the parameters of what the restrictive corporate media sources will broadcast and publish. It is imperative that we report and explore ideas with integrity, and that means thoroughly investigating, researching, and filtering our ideas and claims before blindly adopting popularized conspiracy theory that has no firm grounding to stand on.
Unintended Consequences of “Chilling” Alex Jones Content
Regardless of whether you resonate with Alex Jones and his content, the larger question to explore is the implication of banning his content on YouTube, Facebook and other mainstream platforms. As reported above, Infowars has gained massive popularity and its app has soared since the ban. Banning Jones only increases his allure and – in effect – martyrs Jones and Infowars, giving credence to supporters who feel that his message is being chilled and suppressed by the Deep State.
This type of censorship often produces unintended consequences. For example, Europe has criminalized the denial of the holocaust. The result of that has seen more people in Europe actually denying the holocaust, as their viewpoint gets pushed to the fringes and foments rebellion amongst those who declare that the State is suppressing their voice. America leans more heavily on free speech than any country in the world, creating an environment where there’s a competition of opposing views and a marketplace of ideas.
This traditional American defense of freedom of speech posits the notion that the way to challenge the false claims of someone like Alex Jones is to challenge that viewpoint, expose it, and present an argument so that readers/viewers can make up their own mind. The censorship of Jones is a relative divorce from this principle, and there is legitimate concern as to whether a precedent will be set to ban other commentators and media sources simply because they report, write, and opine on controversial topics and conspiracy.
Unlike authoritarian regimes in China and Russia, American jurisprudence has long held that the State is not permitted to infringe upon free speech unless speech directly incites violence. Given the immense power and influence of giant companies like Facebook and YouTube, the question that is now being presented is whether they are the proper arbiters of truth and permissible dialogue. Facebook & YouTube have never been neutral in presenting information. They control timelines and push certain content that is trending in order to increase their advertisement sales, viewership, and profitability – which is one reason why Alex Jones became so popular in the first place. Just as our very own Joe Martino reported earlier this week, Facebook deliberately governs the content that you see and thus can greatly influence (or diminish) any organization’s reach and view-power.
Relying on Facebook & YouTube – en masse – for information and access to news is problematic in itself – and this challenges consumer behavior to be proactive in its quest for information. Taking control of the narrative by not being simply a receiver of a manipulated timeline will become paramount. Visiting websites directly will become an important way to sift through the emerging regulation and censorship that will change the way companies like YouTube and Facebook operate. While they’ve been immune from liability for slander and defamation (unlike traditional newspapers and media), the U.S. Congress is intent on taking away the absolute shield of protection for these corporations. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) actually wrote the law himself (circa 1996) which prevented internet companies from being sued over user-generated content.
Earlier this week he stated,
“I just want to be clear, as the author of Section 230, the days when these pipelines are considered neutral are over.”
This signals a new era of social media regulation that will have significant impact on how news and opinion are presented on platforms like YouTube and Facebook. This presents a challenge to you: the truth-seeker; the information gatherer; the critical thinker. How active will you be in seeking out truth? Will you rely on the State for your information? Will you rely on YouTube and Facebook for your information? Will you actively search for and frequent the journalism and viewpoints that resonate with you, regardless of censorship?
As journalists, will we take more responsibility in our own viewpoints, ensuring that standards of empirical truth and grounded arguments are upheld? We are at a dangerous point in our history as it pertains to steering the collective consciousness of the planet. Now more than ever, discernment and active participation in creating the narrative of now is a task that cannot be left to the control of someone or something else. As with everything else, it starts from within to where we are self-reliant in our quest for truth. Once we take that responsibility within ourselves, we will see that moral imperative extended to institutions (like Big Media) which have too often twisted reality via half-truths and mis-truths to service veiled agendas.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’
- The Facts:
CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.
“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield
Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…”
Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here. The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Are Masks Effective?
Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,
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.
You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.
When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.
Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
They are one of many who have emphasized this point.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.
Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.
How Effective Are Vaccines?
Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.
According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services. VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines..
In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.
According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.
It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.
Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Noam Chomsky Explains How Immoral & Unethical Extraditing Julian Assange Would Be
- The Facts:
Noam Chomsky explains that Julian Assange is locked up for spreading truth, and exposing information that the general public has the right to know.
- Reflect On:
Why do people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden face such a harsh backlash from Governments? If governments and elite corporations aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide? Why are the censoring so much information?
What Happened: Popular activist and academic Noam Chomsky recently sat down with RT for an interview regarding the attempted extradition of Julian Assange to the United States. He (Assange) is facing multiple life sentences for leaking classified information, but the reality is, as hundreds of academics, legal professionals, and what seems to be a staggering majority all over the world, feel what is happening to Julian Assange is a result of simply sharing information that that exposes immoral and unethical actions by various governments and big corporations. In fact, more than 150 politicians, lawyers, and legal academics, including 13 former presidents recently called on the UK to free Assange. You can access that letter here. For this, not only has he been imprisoned, but tortured as well. Chomsky mentions this as well.
Of course, the opposition would argue that the information Assange shared threatened “national security” but in my opinion, national security has simply become an umbrella term to cover up these immoral actions by governments and corporations.
According to Chomsky, ‘Julian Assange committed the crime of letting the general population know things that they have a right to know and that powerful states don’t want them to know.’ You can watch the interview clip here.
Why This Is Important: I’ve written about Assange quite a bit, and a quite I like to use often comes from – Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.
Related CE Articles:
The Takeaway: In my opinion, politics has become a cesspool of corruption, and it’s now corporations and big banks that seem to dictate political policy. What we are presented with on our TV when it comes to geopolitical issues and war is far different from what’s happening in reality, and this is what Julian Assange made evident. Whether it’s the funding, arming and creation of terrorist organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda by our governments, creating problems so they can propose the solutions, or documents showing the influence Big Pharma has on global health policy, obtaining this information and using it to inform the public is not a “threat” to the people, it’s a threat to to the people in power. These people in power are using “national “security as they always due to justify the locking Assange up for the rest of his life.
Do we really live on a planet right now where those who expose truth, expose corporate corruption, and those who want what’s best for the world and want to change the world, are locked away, murdered, silenced, censored, and thrown in jail? Furthermore, what time of ‘machine’ is required to justify his jailing in the minds of the masses? What kind of propaganda tools are used and how powerful are they if they have the ability to completely control human consciousness and perception in a way that best fits their interests?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
1 Million + People Download Study Showing Heavy Aluminum Deposits In Autistic Brains
- The Facts:
A landmark paper published in 2018 showing high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains has not been dowloaded more than 1 million times.
- Reflect On:
Why are federal health regulatory agencies ignoring the emerging science showing concerns with regards to injected aluminum? Why don't they address the concerns and conduct safety studies?
What Happened: In 2018, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine & Biology showing very high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. Exley has examined more than 100 brains, and the aluminum content in these people is some of the highest he has ever seen and raises new questions about the role of aluminum in the etiology of autism. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
It’s now been downloaded by more than 1 million people. The photo below was posted recently via his Instagram account.
Here is a summary of the study’s main findings:
-All five individuals had at least one brain tissue with a “pathologically significant” level of aluminum, defined as greater than or equal to 3.00 micrograms per gram of dry brain weight (μg/g dry wt). (Dr. Exley and colleagues developed categories to classify aluminum-related pathology after conducting other brain studies, wherein older adults who died healthy had less than 1 μg/g dry wt of brain aluminum.)
-Roughly two-thirds (67%) of all the tissue samples displayed a pathologically significant aluminum content.
-Aluminum levels were particularly high in the male brains, including in a 15-year-old boy with ASD who had the study’s single highest brain aluminum measurement (22.11 μg/g dry wt)—many times higher than the pathologically significant threshold and far greater than levels that might be considered as acceptable even for an aged adult.
-Some of the elevated aluminum levels rivaled the very high levels historically reported in victims of dialysis encephalopathy syndrome (a serious iatrogenic disorder resulting from aluminum-containing dialysis solutions).
-In males, most aluminum deposits were inside cells (80/129), whereas aluminum deposits in females were primarily extracellular (15/21). The majority of intracellular aluminum was inside non-neuronal cells (microglia and astrocytes).
-Aluminum was present in both grey matter (88 deposits) and white matter (62 deposits). (The brain’s grey matter serves to process information, while the white matter provides connectivity.)
-The researchers also identified aluminum-loaded lymphocytes in the meninges (the layers of protective tissue that surround the brain and spinal cord) and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature, furnishing evidence of aluminum’s entry into the brain “via immune cells circulating in the blood and lymph” and perhaps explaining how youth with ASD came to acquire such shockingly high levels of brain aluminum.
Following up this paper, Exely recently published recently published a paper titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”
In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was:
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.
The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty seconds mark.
Why This Is Important: There are many concerns being raised about aluminum in vaccines, and where that aluminum goes when it’s injected into the body. Multiple animal studies have now shown that when you inject aluminum, it doesn’t exit the body but travels to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain where it’s detectable 1-10 years after injection. When we take in aluminum from our food or whatever however, the body does a great job of getting rid of it.
When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr Christopher Shaw, University of British Columbia. (source)
Furthermore, federal health regulatory agencies have not appropriately studied the aluminum adjuvants mechanisms of action after injection, it’s simply been presumed safe after more than 90 years of use in various vaccines.
It’s also important to note that A group of scientists and physicians known as The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) have discovered a crucial math error in a FDA paper regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines.
If you want to access the science and studies about injected aluminum not exiting the body, and more information about aluminum in vaccines in general, you can refer to THIS article, and THIS article I recently published on the subject that goes into more detail and provides more sources, science and exampels.
The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Conspireality: Is It Time For A Serious Conversation?
One thing I’m noticing now more than ever before in my experience as a journalist and researcher, and as a...
“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19
Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence...