Connect with us

Awareness

A Strong Association Has Been Found Between The HPV Vaccine & Infertility

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A plague is spreading silently across the globe. The young generation in America, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, Australia – in virtually every western country – is afflicted by rapidly increasing rates of infertility.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are vaccines marketed as completely safe when there are clearly numerous issues associated with them? Why is the mainstream completely ignorant of these issues?

This spring, the United States reported its lowest birth rate in 30 years, despite an economic boom. Finland’s birth rate plummeted to a low not seen in 150 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently introduced a string of reforms aimed at stemming the country’s “deep demographic declines.”  The government of Denmark introduced an ad campaign to encourage couples to “Do it for Denmark” and conceive on vacations, and Poland produced a campaign urging its citizens to “breed like rabbits.”

advertisement - learn more

“Something – or things – are robbing young women and men of their capacity to procreate and public health admits it doesn’t have a clue where to start to fix the emerging priority.”

The “population bomb” we were all endlessly warned about by environmentalists failed to blow, and instead, demographers have been trying to raise the alarm about the population implosion crisis unfolding across the West — the graying of societies facing an unprecedented aging demographic in which there will be too few young to support the old. Most often, they blame social factors: young women embracing careers instead of motherhood, men shunning marriage and fatherhood, rising consumerism or couples choosing to delay raising a family until the economy settles. But there is another phenomenon that is rarely mentioned – the growing numbers of young people who are not childless by choice but who are incapable of bearing children.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that more than 12 percent of American women – one in eight—have trouble conceiving and bearing a child. Male fertility is plunging, too, and the trend is global. Something – or things — are robbing young women and men of their capacity to procreate and public health admits it doesn’t have a clue where to start to fix the emerging priority. Besides bantering about expanding access to costly and risky artificial reproductive technologies, very little is being done to discern the cause of the rising infertility crisis.

So, earlier this month, when an unprecedented study was released that looked at a database of more than eight million American women and singled out a whopping  25 percent increase in childlessness associated with one ubiquitous drug that young women have been taking for only a decade — in tandem with a marked decline in fecundity — you would have thought there would be significant interest from public health, the medical profession and the media, wouldn’t you?

A Common Denominator Behind Growing Infertility Rates

Instead, all three of these behemoths remain stone silent. The reason? Because the study, published in the current Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, examines the childbearing capacity of women who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine – compared to those who didn’t — and the results are chilling. No one in public health, medicine or mainstream media, which are tangled up in the money-making machine of this vaccine, dare to publicly question the “safe and effective” mantra they’ve promulgated about Merck and GSK pharmaceuticals’ “blockbuster” commodity worth billions.

advertisement - learn more

The study is by Gayle DeLong, associate professor of economics and finance, at Baruch College at City University of New York. She observed that the declining birth rate had plunged in America in recent years – from 118 per 1,000 in 2007, to 105 in 2015 for the cohort aged 25 to 29.

The HPV vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the US in 2006 to prevent cervical cancer – an illness women face a 0.6% lifetime risk of being diagnosed with. Although it is diagnosed most frequently at age 47 in the United States, it was rolled out en masse, initially targeting girls aged 11 to 26 (and has since been marketed to boys as young as nine to prevent rare anal and penile cancers  — a disease that afflicts 0.2 % of men in their lifetime.).

“They raised troubling questions about some vaccine ingredients’ documented impact on reproduction, cited serious deficiencies (some would say criminal negligence) in preliminary vaccine trials and concluded that further research was urgently required…for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.”

DeLong had read a case study in the British Medical Journal by Australian physicians Deirdre Little and Harvey Ward, who described a 16-year-old girl whose regular menstruation ceased after receiving HPV vaccinations and she was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure.

In 2014, the doctors published a case series of more teens who had entered premature menopause — a phenomenon Little and Ward described as ordinarily “so rare as to be also unknown.” They raised troubling questions about some vaccine ingredients’ documented impact on reproduction, cited serious deficiencies (some would say criminal negligence) in preliminary vaccine trials and concluded that further research was “urgently required….for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.”

As well, between 2006 and 2014, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) cited 48 cases of ovarian damage associated with autoimmune reactions in HPV vaccine recipients. Between 2006 and May, 2018, VAERS catalogued other reproductive issues: spontaneous abortion (256 cases), amenorrhea (172 cases), and irregular menstruation (172 cases), all of which are likely under-reported symptoms.

All of this intrigued DeLong, who has followed the vaccine debate for years and makes no secret of the fact that she has two daughters, 18 and 21, both having been diagnosed on the autism spectrum, whom she saw regress developmentally and withdraw following vaccinations early in life.  “I am skeptical of vaccine science and the safety studies that are done, or not done,” she says.

She set out to analyze information gathered in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women living in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Using logistic regression, she matched the young women for other variables, including age, and compared pregnancy as an outcome in those who received an HPV vaccine compared with those who did not get any of the shots.

“Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had an HPV shot had ever conceived.”

“I just wanted to see if there was an issue,” says DeLong. “I certainly didn’t expect to find such a strong association.” Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had had an HPV shot had ever conceived. For married women, the gap was also about 25%:  75% who did not receive the shot were found to have conceived, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. “Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot,” the study says. It concludes, as all studies like this do, that the data points to an association, not causation, between the new vaccine and reduced fertility but that further study is warranted.

If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children. It is millions of American children missing from a single cohort. The implication, considering the sweeping breadth of the global HPV vaccine campaign targeted now at both males and females aged nine years old and up, is staggering.

The Skeptic Response

Skeptics are reliable vaccine industry defenders. Armchair scientists who frequently hide behind pseudonyms, they have sort of schizophrenia about vaccines. They insist vaccines are powerfully immune-modulating drugs capable of altering the immune system’s response to infectious exposure. But they can’t accept that, like all drugs, vaccines can and do have thousands of documented long-term adverse reactions  — especially because they are designed to induce the delayed manufacture of antibodies by the adaptive immune system. Because these responses are mediated by the immune system, they are diverse, unpredictable and profound.

As expected, the Skeptics welcomed DeLong’s research with snide and personal (read unscientific) attacks. They slammed her failure to include data on contraceptive use. As a result, DeLong intends to attach that data to an addendum on the study, but what she found and reported on Age of Autism’s website only bolsters the study’s findings. Among married women in the survey, 36.6 % of those who had received the HPV shot told the NHANES that they were using contraception (condoms at least half the time, birth control or injectables otherwise) compared to more than half (51.5%) of those who didn’t get the shot – a difference of almost 15%.

Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated. But, it seems that the vaccinated women in the study were actually trying harder to conceive (or at least not so worried about it) but still having less luck – not good for the Skeptic argument.

DeLong “isn’t even an epidemiologist” the Skeptics howled. (In other words, shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.) To which she replies, “No. I’m not. I am a statistician, however. I would be grateful if epidemiologists would do their job and conduct this research thoroughly.” This is precisely what her study called for. If they did, mothers of vaccine injured children would not be required to.

Infertile Women Excluded From Study on Infertility

DeLong cites another study, from Boston University’s Schools of Public Health and Medicine and the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) in North Carolina, which found no such association between HPV vaccination and impaired fertility. Interestingly, Boston University has been the recipient of tens of millions from globalist vaccine promoters Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as has RTI, an organization that has received more than $47 million dollars in grant funds in recent years. RTI has published a number of recent studies on HPV vaccine, including one  jointly-funded with GSK (a vaccine manufacturer) on the safety of the company’s HPV vaccine, and another, cautioning public health agencies to “take special measures to ensure their messages are not perceived as sponsored by drug companies” lest they incite “reduced liking and trust” by parents who will be less likely to give the HPV vaccine to their sons. Other RTI publications describe “Promising alternative settings for HPV vaccination of US adolescents,” changing “provider behavior” to enhance HPV uptake and more.

“These could be the women with ‘hardcore’ issues of fecundity,” says Delong, “but they are precisely the women who should be included.”

The RTI study about HPV vaccine’s impact on fertility was based on patients’ own recall of vaccines received (remember how the Skeptics howled at self-reporting before?). But the study did not control for a far more important factor in fertility – age. Age in this context affects not just the possible effect of the vaccine itself on fertility, but fertility is skewed dramatically in favor of the young and the study lumps 18 year-olds in with 30-year-olds. As well, at the outset, it excludes 881 women from a pool of 5,020 because they were already trying – without luck – to conceive a baby for more than six months. This has the effect of shrinking the infertility finding overall. “These could be the women with ‘hard core’ issues of fecundity,” says DeLong, “but they are precisely the women who should be included.”

Environmental Concerns

t safe without any adverse impact on maternal or fetal outcome in pregnancy.

A recent paper from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center cautions that this CDC assurance is based on incomplete data. It points out biases in reporting and gaps in data. “Certain adverse effects of the vaccine against HPV that have not been well studied as they are not well defined,” add the researchers who describe a host of documented, diverse autoimmune, neurological and cardiovascular disease in the wake of the vaccine. The most frequent reported symptoms after HPV vaccination are poorly understood – fainting, chronic pain with tingling or burning sensations, headaches, fatigue, and dizziness, nausea and other symptoms that are worsened on standing upright, for example.

HPV vaccination – as well as tetanus vaccination – has been linked in medical literature to a condition called anti-phospholipid syndrome which is a poorly defined disease caused when the immune system erroneously manufactures antibodies against certain lipid proteins found in membranes that are in a host of tissues — eyes, heart, brain, nerves, skin – and the reproductive system.  One 2012 study by Serbian researchers at the Institute for Virology, Vaccines and Ser “Torlak” found that “hyperimmunisation” of the immune system with different adjuvants, including aluminum, in mice, resulted in induction of antiphospholipid syndrome and the tandem lowering of fertility.

“Unequivocal evidence” of high concentrations of the metal were found, especially in the eme of men with low sperm counts.”

Other research has implicated aluminum in conception problems. French infertility researcher Jean-Philippe Klein and his colleagues at the University of Lyon published the results of their 2014 study of the sperm of men seeking assistance at a French infertility clinic. They dispatched semen samples from 62 men who were having infertility issues to Christopher Exley’s aluminum research laboratory at Keele University in England where they were fluorescently stained to show the aluminum content as a luminescent blue.  “Unequivocal evidence” of high concentrations of the metal were found, especially in the semen of men with low sperm counts. Clearly fluorescing and concentrated aluminum in the DNA-rich heads of the sperm led the researchers to speculate about what impact this may have on the ability to procreate and on the development of newly formed embryos.

Deirdre Little, the Australian GP who documented primary ovarian failure following HPV vaccination, has also criticized the fact that Merck’s product information was misleading about what sort of “saline” placebo was used in trials of the Gardasil vaccine – it failed to mention that the “placebos” contained both the high doses of aluminium as well as another scary ingredient, polysorbate 80. This chemical has exhibited delayed ovarian toxicity to rat ovaries at all injected doses tested over a tenfold range.

None of the trials accurately assessed the long-term impact of the vaccine on the reproductive health of girls, Deirdre and Ward said, adding that drug damage to reproductive health may take years or decades to manifest.

“What kind of public health agency brushes off 45,277 reports of adverse events – including neurological and reproductive symptoms – among young women of childbearing age?”

Urgent and Unanswered Questions

The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is why the HPV vaccine is so heavily marketed to begin with? Why make a vaccine for a disease that afflicts less than 0.3% of people in their lifetime? And why include ingredients that are toxic, especially high doses of ingredients that scientists have objected to, and with documented toxicity to reproductive organs? Why not use a true control in the trials? What kind of scientist would do that kind of science? What kind of public health agency brushes off 45,277 reports of adverse events – including neurological and reproductive symptoms — among young women of childbearing age?

Answering these questions turns out to be a lot more awkward than it seems at first. There are chilling facts that are hard to set aside.  There are, as recently as 2015, the charges by Catholic bishops and human rights activists that public health agencies had deliberately tainted  tetanus vaccines given only to women of reproductive age in Kenya. Public health organizations denied they had laced tetanus vaccines with miscarriage-inducing Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) – a key sterilizing ingredient described in the extensive medical literature about the quest for a contraceptive vaccine to control population growth. The Kenyan bishops insisted they had laboratory evidence that was ignored and the issue was ignored like DeLong’s study.

Another inconvenient truth is that the very people funding the HPV vaccine juggernaut are the same people most interested in reducing birth rates.  When Melinda Gates launched her Family Planning Summit in 2012 with the objective of bringing contraceptives to the world’s poor, it was clear she had one measure for that goal in mind: “If you see what’s happened in other countries that have had contraceptives, they use them first of all and the birth rates go down,” she said at the time. “The question is could it have come down even more quickly?”

“So long as there is no satisfactory answer as to why the West is facing an infertility crisis, questions about the long-term impact of the HPV vaccine on human fertility are not only fair and reasonable but the future is vvery bleak if we do not answer them.”

Although she swore her campaign was “not about population control,” Gates’ goals are the same as those who conducted the mass sterilizations of Indian men on railway platforms in the 70s and who continue to sterilize Indian women today en masse to get the birth rate down.  For Gates, success is not measured in access to clean water or energy or in the development of infrastructure or political freedom, it is measured in access to drugs, drugs she and her husband hold stock in: contraceptives and vaccines. Their success is measured by exporting what most western countries are facing as social catastrophe: demographic decline.

So long as there is no satisfactory answer as to why the West is facing an infertility crisis, questions about the long-term impact of the HPV vaccine on human fertility are not only fair and reasonable, but the future is very bleak if we do not answer them.

By Celeste McGovern, for Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute

 

Help Support Collective Evolution

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!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

12 Reasons Why Even Low Levels of Glyphosate Are Unsafe

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Decades of research have shown how Glyphosate is toxic in any amount, both for human and and the environment. This is not debatable.

  • Reflect On:

    Glyphosate is illegal in several dozen countries around the world due to health and environmental concerns. How can this product be approved for use when it's abundantly clear it's extremely unsafe, just like DDT was?

By Zen Honeycutt, Founding Executive Director Mom’s Across AmericaChildren’s Heath Defense Coalition Partner

Proponents of GMOs and Glyphosate-based herbicides and staunch believers in the EPA have long argued that low levels of glyphosate exposure are safe for humans. Even our own EPA tells us that Americans can consume 17 times more glyphosate in our drinking water than European residents. The EWG asserts that 160 ppb of glyphosate found in breakfast cereal is safe for a child to consume due to their own safety assessments, and yet renowned scientists and health advocates have long stated that no level is safe.  Confusion amongst consumers and the media is rampant.

Glyphosate is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro, which are both manufactured by Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Agent Orange and DDT. There are 750 brands of glyphosate-based herbicides.Glyphosate based herbicides are the most widely used in the world and residues of glyphosate have been found in tap water, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested.

The detection of glyphosate in these foods has set off alarms of concern in households and food manufacturers’ offices around the world. Lawsuits have sprung up against companies that make food products that claim to be “100% Natural” and yet contain glyphosate residues. These lawsuits have been successful. Debates, using the argument that “the dose makes the poison,” have been pushed by media. Speculation is that these media outlets are funded by advertisers that make or sell these chemicals or have sister companies that do, and threatening their profits would be unwise for all involved – except the consumers.

It is time to set the record straight

Here are 12 reasons why there is no safe level of glyphosate herbicide residue in our food or beverages.

  1. Babies, toddlers, and young children have kidneys and livers which are underdeveloped and do not have the ability to detox toxins the way adults doTheir bodies are less capable of eliminating toxins and therefore are particularly susceptible. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that children, especially, should avoid pesticides because, “prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.”
  2. Glyphosate does not wash, dry or cook off, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in the bone marrow, tendons and muscle tissue. Bioaccumulation of low levels over time will result in levels which we cannot predict or determine; therefore there is no scientific basis to state that the low levels are not dangerous, as they can accumulate to high levels in an unforeseeable amount of time.
  3. “There is no current reliable way to determine the incidence of pesticide exposure and illness in US children.” -AAP  Children are exposed through food, air, contact with grass and pets. How much they are being exposed to daily from all these possibilities is simply not something that we have been able to determine. Therefore no one is capable of assessing what levels are safe from any one modality of exposure because an additional low level from other modalities could add up to a high level of exposure.
    1. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides have been proven to cause non-alcoholic liver disease in a long term animal study by Michael Antoniou, Giles Eric Seralini et al.  The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
    2. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate have been shown to be  endocrine and hormone disrupting.Changes to hormones can lead to birth defects, miscarriage, autoimmune disease, cancer, mental and chronic illness.
    3. The  EPA Allowable Daily Intake Levels (ADIs) of glyphosate exposure were set for a 175-pound man, not a pregnant mother, infant, or child.
    4. Glyphosate alone has been shown to be chronically toxic causing organ and cell damage. Glyphosate herbicides final formulations, have been shown to be acutely toxic, causing immediate damage at low levels.
    5. The detection of glyphosate at low levels could mean the presence of the other toxic ingredients in glyphosate herbicides on our food. Until studies are done, one must practice the Precautionary Principle. The label on glyphosate herbicides does not specify the pesticide class or “other”/“inert” ingredients that may have significant acute toxicity and can account for up to 54% of the product.
    6. Regarding the label and low-level exposure: “Chronic toxicity information is not included, and labels are predominantly available in English. There is significant use of illegal pesticides(especially in immigrant communities), off-label use, and overuse, underscoring the importance of education, monitoring, and enforcement.” – AAP. Exposure to low levels of glyphosate herbicides can occur through pregnant wives or children hugging the father who is a pesticide applicator.  The chronic health impacts such as rashes which can, years later, result in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are often ignored, especially by low income or non-English speaking users dependent on their pesticide application occupation for survival.
    7. The EPA has admitted to not having any long-term animal studies with blood analysis on the final formulation of any glyphosate herbicides.  The EPA cannot state that the final formulation is safe.
    8. For approval of pesticides and herbicides, the EPA only requires safety studies, by the manufacturer who benefits from the sales, on the one declared active chemical ingredient—in this case glyphosate. Glyphosate is never used alone.
    9. The main manufacturer, Monsanto, has been found to be guilty on all counts by a San Francisco Supreme Court Jury in the Johnson v Monsanto. This includes guilty of “malice and oppression” which means that the company executives knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

    Clearly, it is time for food and beverage manufacturers to have a zero tolerance for glyphosate residue levels and for the US EPA and regulatory agencies everywhere to stop ignoring the science and to revoke the license of glyphosate immediately.

    advertisement - learn more

    Moms Across America is a 501c3 non profit organization whose motto is “Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Cannabis Oil Was Used To Treat Epilepsy 176 Years Ago

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cannabis has been used to treat people with Epilepsy for more than 100 years. Numerous people including children have had tremendous success with it, but it's not disclosed within the mainstream as much as it should be.

  • Reflect On:

    The medicinal properties of cannabis have been known for a long time, so why is it so difficult for patients to access? Today, things are changing, but big pharma is taking it over for themselves. How will they grow it? What will they spray it with?

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic issues such as strokes and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Non-psychoactive cannabinoids such as cannabidiol are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3. (Source)

The statement above comes from a patent owned by the United States government, which was assigned decades ago. Since then, countless amounts of studies have shown how the active constituents within cannabis, like cannabidiol for example,  completely obliterate cancer cells in the lab in vitro. As illustrated above, it has a wide variety of health applications, which begs the question when it comes to various diseases, why have we not seen any clinical trials? There are so many published studies warranting clinical trials when it comes to using cannabis to treat cancer, among several other diseases.

When the development of a drug shows even a quarter of the potential that cannabis has over the years, it seems that funding for clinical trials becomes instant. But when it comes to cannabis, which has obviously shown huge potential, we’ve seen nothing. I am more so referring to clinical trials with regards to cancer. Just imagine if we funded studies using natural remedies with the same amount of money we invest into pharmaceuticals. Would certain cancers be cured? Again, we don’t know, because the resources haven’t been adequately dished out, and if it did turn out that cannabis could obliterate multiple cancers in vivo (full living biological organisms), it would be against corporate interests.

However, this will likely change now that medical marijuana is being legalized across the world, the most recent example being Canada. This has brought up multiple concerns from citizens, as Big Pharma is now taking over the medical cannabis industry. How it’s grown, what pesticides are being put on it, and whether or not it’s genetically modified is still unknown. The truth is, pharmaceutical marijuana will not at all compare to marijuana that’s grown naturally in nature. If one were to study the medicinal properties comparing the two, I bet there would be a significant difference.

Big pharma is taking over the medical marijuana industry. Legalization in Canada and various US states was largely done in order to profit these big corporations who don’t really seem to care about our health at all. The main reason why cannabis has been illegal for so long is that powerful corporate interests have had a huge hand in keeping cannabis off the market. Cannabis can eliminate the need for many prescription drugs, for example, and these alone kill approximately 100,000 people a year, and that’s in the United States alone.

Cannabis & Epilepsy

Children and people with epilepsy have had a very hard time accessing medical marijuana to treat their condition. Again, this is largely because the use of it threatens corporate interests. This became even more evident a couple years ago when 12 year old Alexis Bortell sued Attorney General Jeff Sessions and The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). She needed access to clean, pure, natural cannabis for the treatment of her illnesses and medical conditions. The family had no choice but to relocate from Texas to Colorado and uproot their entire lives just to treat her severe epilepsy.

advertisement - learn more

The crazy thing about cannabis and epilepsy is the fact that it works, and that’s something that has been known for a number of years. Sure, it might take a lot of time to find the right strand, make it into oil, and get the dosage amounts exactly right, but that’s only because parents and doctors who are actively engaged in using this as medicine don’t have the resources to figure this out in an efficient way.

Cannabis and its ability to treat epilepsy has been known for a long time, probably much longer than we are aware of. Prior to Rockefeller creating medical education, it was probably used a lot. Rockefeller and other ‘philanthropists’ played a large role in shutting down all medical schools before they began funding and building their own medical education and treatment methods. During this process, an enormous amount of knowledge was lost, and the treatment methods that were most profitable became mainstream.

The first detailed modern description of cannabis as an anti-seizure medication was published in 1843 by W.B. O’Shaughnessy, a physician in the Bengal Army and Late Professor of Chemistry and Materia Medica at the Medical College of Calcutta. A perfect example of what I just referred to above with regards to medical education.

After testing the behavioural effects of various preparations of Cannabis indica in healthy fish, dogs, swines, vultures, crows, horses, deers, monkeys, goats, sheep, cows, and military assistants, he investigated the potential value of extracts of the plant in patients with different disorders, and reported remarkable anti-seizure effects in a 40-days-old baby girl with recurrent convulsive seizures. These observations were taken up by other physicians, including Sir William Gowers, who described the effectiveness of Cannabis Indica against seizures resistant to bromides. (source)

In the twentieth century the use of cannabis declined somewhat because cultivation of the plant was made illegal in many countries.

Below is a graph of  the number of articles retrieved in PubMed by using the search terms ‘cannabis and epilepsy’, grouped by year of publication.

One of Many Real World Examples

Alex Repetski, father of three year old daughter, Gwenevere, has spent a long time reading through studies and medical journals and researching CBD and its healing properties to help her with the tonic, myoclonic, and clinical seizures she was having — sometimes up to 50 a day. She was diagnosed with epilepsy and, as her EEGs revealed, was experiencing constant subclinical seizure activity throughout the day. It may not have looked like she was having a seizure from the outside, but at the brain level there were neurons firing constantly, and such activity can produce significant brain damage.

Gwenevere had a team of doctors that were trying an array of treatment methods to reduce the number of seizures she was having each day. At one point she was on 9 different medications. They kept hoping each subsequent medication would work, but nothing did. That’s when Alex decided to look into cannabis oil. “At that point, we really didn’t have anything to lose,” he said, as he recalled the struggle of trying to help his daughter achieve a better quality of life.

After acquiring the cannabis and reducing it down to its oil form, Alex proceeded with many rounds of trial and error, trying to find just the right dosage for Gwenevere. After five days, they noticed no seizures. Then another week went by, and then a month, and then two months of no seizures. Two Januaries ago, she went in for her 17th EEG after being on cannabis oil for 5 weeks.

This EEG was strikingly different from her previous ones. It seemed the cannabis oil had helped straighten out her brainwaves, working at the subclinical level. This was a huge moment for the Repetski family.

The Takeaway

Corporations have amassed so much power that plants and natural substances with unbelievable healing properties are being made illegal. Furthermore, many doctors are brainwashed to believe that this is still a controversial topic. And with legalization comes the takeover of this medicine by big pharmaceutical companies. If you want to know about the healing properties of cannabis, you don’t have to look far. It’s also important to acknowledge that theses benefits typically do not include smoking the plant, since that completely changes its chemical composition.

It’s very hard to find pure, healthy, and properly grown cannabis today. It requires a lot of research and a lot of work to find, which is in large part due to government regulations and big pharma. Anything that threatens corporate interests, no matter how helpful it can be for humanity, is often hidden from us or made illegal.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Tylenol Damages The Brains of Children, Research Reveals

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Tylenol has a wide range of toxic side effects you should be aware of, especially if you are pregnant or use it with your children. Article written by William Parker, Ph.D for Greenmedinfo.com, published here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we keep taking Tylenol and other over-the-counter drugs when it's unquestionable that they do more harm than good? Why don't we ever look into healthy ways to alleviate our symptoms?

Original Article Link

A number of non-peer-reviewed articles have been written and published on the web claiming that there is literally nothing to fear from acetaminophen during pregnancy. There are two types of articles that fall into this category. First, reputable watchdog organizations have weighed in on the issue, declaring acetaminophen use during pregnancy and during childhood to be proven safe. In particular, the National Health Service of the UK and the Center for Accountability in Science have both strongly criticized the Spanish study from 2016 showing a link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and ADHD/autism.

The second type of article is generally written by a science writer working for an organization that runs a website. Often quoting one to three experts who claim that is perfectly safe and that pregnant women and families should not be concerned, many of these articles are published by reputable sources that are generally trustworthy. Typically, an expert is being asked to comment on one particular publication showing a link between acetaminophen use (usually during pregnancy) and some sort of neuropsychiatric problem (autism, lowered IQ, hyperactivity, and/or social/behavioral problems, depending on the study). There are several important things to consider when evaluating these articles:

1.  There are a number of University Professors who have studied the use of acetaminophen on the developing brain and who are keenly aware of the potential dangers. A partial list of these individuals is provided below.

2.  Being an expert in acetaminophen neurotoxicity during development means that considerable time has been invested in studying the issue. Any true expert in this issue will be aware of basic facts regarding acetaminophen neurotoxicity. These facts include the following:

(a) Studies in animal models (both in mice and in rats) demonstrate that acetaminophen use during a sensitive period of brain development causes long-term alterations in the brain and is manifested as problems with social function.

advertisement - learn more

(b)  Margaret McCarthy, Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, has worked out the probable mechanism by which acetaminophen-induced brain damage occurs. Her research team has found that the male brain is considerably more sensitive to acetaminophen than the female brain, possibly accounting for the gender bias in autism.

(c) There are (as of January 2017) a total of 8 published studies evaluating the long terms effects on children of acetaminophen use during pregnancy or during childhood. Two of these (one in 2014, one in 2016) were published in JAMA Pediatrics, one of the most highly respected pediatric journals. All studies point toward acetaminophen use being associated with long-term problems with neurological function. Each study design has included some attempt to control for indication. In all studies, acetaminophen use rather than indication has been identified as the key factor associated with cognitive problems. A formal meta-analysis is not currently possible because of the varied outcome measures and study designs, but all 8 studies point in the same direction: Acetaminophen is neurotoxic to the developing brain. The studies are not “cherry picked”, selecting only those which find an effect. All studies point toward a neurotoxic effect of acetaminophen in the developing brain.

(d)   Acetaminophen substantially alters brain chemistry and temporarily impairs awareness of social issues in adult humans.

(e)  Testing of acetaminophen safety in children did not include any evaluation of brain function, and no long-term studies were ever conducted. The primary manufacturer of acetaminophen in the US acknowledges that the drug has never been shown to be safe for brain development when used during pregnancy or in childhood. All safety tests were performed with the assumption that any side effects would be acute in nature (e.g., bleeding or acute organ damage). This assumption was based on observations made with acetaminophen in adults and with aspirin in children. It was not based on any experience with acetaminophen use in children.

3.     Having prescribed tens of thousands of doses of acetaminophen does not make anyone an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen, any more than eating thousands of pounds of chips makes somebody an expert in the effects of an inflammatory diet. Credentials and certifications that allow physicians to prescribe acetaminophen do not make them experts, and elevated positions in the medical community do not qualify anybody as an expert on the effects of acetaminophen. If somebody does not know those basic facts listed above, then they are not an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen. Usually, the experts will have published one or more peer-reviewed manuscripts on the topic. Those are the people to ask when an expert is needed.

4.     It is tempting to point accusing fingers at physicians who say that acetaminophen is safe when they literally have no grasp whatsoever of the relevant scientific literature. However, this would be a mistake. I have tracked down a few of these individuals who were quoted in a very public format, and one individual, in particular, didn’t even remember having made a comment on the topic. The most likely explanation is that a reporter asked them if acetaminophen was safe, and their response based on their training (not on the knowledge of the literature) was that it is safe. After all, if they didn’t think it was safe, they would not be administering it dozens of times per day. So, if a reporter asks a physician if something is safe, and they provide their knowledge based on what they have been taught and how they practice, then it is hard to blame them. The reporter didn’t ask them to spend days or even weeks reviewing the literature in detail, but rather assumed that any physician administering something dozens of times per day would know the literature. (This is a false assumption. No physician has the time to study all current literature on every drug they administer.) So, in a nutshell, a tragic propagation of incorrect information is occurring despite the best of intentions of all parties involved.

5.     Unless an organization such as the National Health Service has the time to review a topic thoroughly, they should remain silent on an issue. It took a team of us two years to put together our summary of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, regarding the potential neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during development. It took the NHS only days to publish their recent criticism of the 2016 Spanish study. Offering questionable criticisms of a single paper without reviewing the literature to see how that publication fits into the big picture is a disservice to the public being served.

6. Reading the published quotes from many “experts” who exonerate acetaminophen, it is apparent that the logic falls into one of two categories.

(a) Everybody is doing it, so it must be OK.

(b) This single study is not perfect, so no change in practice should be made.

Neither of these criticisms is logically sound, of course. These two criticisms are often combined and were, in fact, part of the critical comments directed toward the first paper showing that acetaminophen probably has substantial neurotoxicity during development (published in 2008 by Steve Shultz). Further, the evaluation of study weaknesses is usually skewed and not entirely valid. Since the idea that acetaminophen is safe is being embraced, then any merit in the paper is often undermined to make the case. This is certainly true of the published (peer reviewed) criticisms of the 2008 Shultz paper.

7.     Many on-line sources support the view that acetaminophen can be very dangerous to the developing brain. Probably the most reliable source, the FDA, is remaining silent on the topic until something more definitive is done. The FDA knows that this is extremely urgent, but unfortunately, our FDA is not linked well (in a practical manner) with our NIH, and thus they can’t dictate research priorities.

8.     Here is a list (not comprehensive) of experts regarding the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during brain development.

a) First, I’ll thank the wonderful team of individuals who helped put together our comprehensive review on this topic. Shu Lin, a professor with me in Duke’s Surgery Department, is a very dear and long-time friend of mine who has supported me through countless projects over the past 22 years. Staci Bilbo, director for research on Autism at Harvard, is a friend and collaborator who has helped me understand what causes inflammation and the role of inflammation in brain dysfunction. Chi Dang Hornik, a pediatric pharmacist at Duke, contributed greatly to our understanding of the frequency of acetaminophen administration and the available formulations of the drug. Many thanks to Martha Herbert. As a Harvard professor and clinician, she has a great appreciation for the clinical data obtained from patients with autism. Cindy Nevison, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, rounds out our team, providing critical information about the epidemiology of autism. (Thanks also to our interns (Rasika Rao and Lauren Gentry) and research analyst (Zoie Holzknecht) who were a tremendous help in compiling information and preparing that information for publication.)

b) Margaret McCarthy, chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, it the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the biochemistry of the human brain and how that is affected by acetaminophen and other drugs in that class.

c) Chittaranjan Andrade, Chair of Psychopharmacology at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, has written a peer reviewed paper on the topic of acetaminophen induced brain damage. He nicely summarized a number of studies looking at the connection between acetaminophen and neurological damage. His final conclusion is that the drug is probably more associated with ADHD than autism, but the conclusion was limited to exposure during pregnancy and his work was conducted before some critical studies were published in 2016.

d) Henrik Viberg is a professor in the Department of Organismal Biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. He has studied how exposure of mice to acetaminophen during development can cause long term brain damage.

e) In 2015, a group of scientists working with Laurence de Fays at the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products in Brussels acknowledged the clinical studies and the studies in animal models which indicated that acetaminophen could be dangerous to the developing fetus, but concluded that paracetamol is “still to be considered safe in pregnancy”. At the same time, they state that “additional carefully designed studies are necessary to confirm or disprove the association (between acetaminophen and brain damage to children)”, and that “care should be taken to avoid raising poorly founded concerns among pregnant females”. We very strongly agree with the conclusion that more studies are needed, but very strongly disagree with the conclusion that women should be kept in the dark about the matter. It is important to point out that several more studies have come out since Laurence de Fays’ report. One of those is a 2016 manuscript in JAMA Pediatrics(see the next expert), a highly reputable peer reviewed journal, which addresses the concerns raised by de Fays, so it is possible that de Fays’ group may now have a different opinion.

f) A team of scientists and doctors working with Evie Stergiakouli at the University of Bristol analyzed data from a prospective birth cohort, and concluded that “children exposed to acetaminophen prenatally are at increased risk of multiple behavioral difficulties”. They found considerable evidence indicating that the association was not due to the confounding factors that concerned de Fays’ group (previous expert).

g) Jordi Julvez at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain worked with a team of a dozen clinicians and scientists to publish their 2016 study linking acetaminophen with autism and ADHD.

h) Amany A. Abdin, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology, Tanta University, Egypt, wrote a review of the acetaminophen/autism connection and published it in the journal Biochemistry and Pharmacology: Open Access. Her conclusion in 2013 was that the drug is not safe and that the acetaminophen/autism connection should receive attention.

i) The original paper that identified a connection between neuropsychiatric disorders and acetaminophen was published by Steve Shultz while at the University of California at San Diego. Coauthors on the paper included Hillary Klonoff-Cohen, currently an Endowed Professor and Director of the MPH program at the University of Illinois.

j) Four scientists, including research scientist Ragnhild Eek Brandlistuen and professors Hedvig Nordeng and Eivind Ystrom in the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Oslo, coauthored a study showing a connection between adverse neurodevelopment and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

k) Jorn Olsen, Professor and Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at UCLA, published one of the more recent papers (2016) showing a connection between autism and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

l) Five professors (John M. D. Thompson, Karen E. Waldie, Clare R. Wall, Rinky Murphy, and Edwin A. Mitchell) from four different departments at The University of Auckland published their findings in PLOSone in 2014 which “strengthen the contention that acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy increases the risk of ADHD-like behaviours. Our study also supports earlier claims that findings are specific to acetaminophen.”

For evidence-based research on the dangers of acetaminophen, visit the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard.\

Read their related article on Tylenol: 

Tylenol Kills Emotions As Well As Pain, Study Reveals

Sign Up For The Greenmedinfo Newsletter HERE.


William Parker is an Associate Professor at Duke University, where he has worked in the Department of Surgery since 1993.  William is currently investigating a number of issues associated with inflammation and Western society, including vitamin D deficiency, heart disease and alteration of the symbionts of the human body (“biota alteration”). He has been interested in “natural” immune function for some time, which has led him down a path that includes the first studies of immune function in wild rats and the discovery of the function of the human appendix.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

Watch this 4-part Exclusive Interview Series with Anneke Lucas.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.