Connect with us

Alternative News

A Deeper Discussion On The Defeated Virginia Bill Allowing Abortions Up Until Birth

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A Bill was proposed in Virginia that aims to make it easier for a woman to get a late-term abortion. Subsequent comments made about it by the Governor of Virginia have some suggesting that this bill pushes infanticide.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see how the abortion issue is so polarized these days that there is little room to have the kinds of discussions that bring us together on this matter and try to define who we want to be as a collective?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The proposal of a Bill in Virginia that aims to make it easier for a woman to get a late-term abortion, and subsequent comments made about it by the Governor of Virginia, have set off a firestorm in public discourse, and understandably so.

advertisement - learn more

However, rather than getting into the polarized ‘discussions’ that are taking place both in the political arena and between everyday citizens, let’s take a seat above the fray and try to see what’s going on here at a higher level.

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

If you consume information on this subject from mainstream media, what is inevitably highlighted are the most extreme conclusions coming from the two sides, where the battle of rhetoric between left and right seems to be what is considered newsworthy rather than the issue at hand.

And this is as it was meant to be. For there is an agenda behind how mainstream media reports on the news. As long as it keeps people in a polarized state it actually maintains the system in place and forces people to stay within the control matrix. Those who continue to rigidly identify as a Democrat or as a Republican, as Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, are leaving themselves open to being controlled. The mainstream narrative will continue to think for you, rather than create a space in which you can think for yourself, the latter being one of the main aims of conscious media.

The Facts About The Virginia Bill

Let’s begin with the facts about the Virginia Bill and see if we can navigate through what has happened with a greater degree of emotional neutrality and perspective.

Kathy Tran Introduces The Bill. Kathy Tran is a Democrat who was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017. She introduced HB 2491 earlier this year, which sought to change the number of physicians required for an abortion to be sanctioned as well as broaden the health circumstances under which an abortion would be allowed. As with many bills, this one was introduced with little fanfare and only really came to public attention in a committee hearing on Monday, where she was questioned about the bill by fellow delegate Todd Gilbert, a Republican.

advertisement - learn more

The Committee Hearing. If you watch the video closely–and I believe it is certainly worthwhile to do so–you will see in Kathy Tran a person who is pushing for significant changes in abortion law, but seems neither well-informed about the bill itself nor a particularly passionate defender of it. Tran often evades questions or gives inappropriate answers, or simply doesn’t have an answer and defends her lack of knowledge by saying “I’m not a physician,” while she and her lawyer rue the fact that “expert witnesses” who are physicians were not present because they were “seeing patients.”

The most significant line of questioning can be illustrated in this exchange in which Gilbert is concerned specifically about the leeway being afforded to allowing abortions right up until birth based on a physician’s assessment of the risk to a woman’s mental health:

Gilbert: “How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?”

Tran: “Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.”

Gilbert: “Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.”

Tran: “My bill would allow that.”

It took a while for Gilbert to make clear to Tran that he was asking about mental health only, and got no answer from either Tran or her lawyer as to what kind of standards or examples of mental health risks would be considered legitimate. However, Tran finally did concede that the bill did not require the physician to have any ‘specialized training in mental health’ in order to certify a third-trimester abortion based on mental health risks.

Governor Northam’s Comments. The Governor of Virginia stepped in with some ill-advised comments during station WTOP’s Ask The Governor radio show two days later. Northam went strong on the stance that what a women does with her body should be her decision in consultations with her physician(s). But he did nothing to distinguish whether a baby that had actually been delivered was no longer a part of the mother’s body. Here are the comments that caused the greatest ruckus:

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Now, it must be said that when Northam talks about third-trimester abortions, he created the context that ‘it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.’ But still, he seems to be going beyond even what Tran was proposing, saying here that a baby that is delivered and is still alive may be subject to a decision between the doctor and the mother as to whether that baby should live or die. There is a bit of vagueness and contradiction in his thought process, so you can follow along in this short clip and judge what he really meant to say.

What Is Really Going On Here?

Does the evidence suggest that the Democratic party should be considered supporters of infanticide, which represents the killing of a child after that child had been delivered? Kathy Tran has since said that she ‘misspoke’ when she said that her bill would allow a woman’s request for an abortion while she was in labor to be executed. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Gov. Northam told Vox his comments were “absolutely not” a reference to infanticide, and that they “focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.”

But really, this has little to do with Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam. This has much more to do with the long-term social engineering plans of the powerful elite that are behind the Democratic party. While I believe there is some validity in a woman’s right to choose, there appears to be a darker overriding agenda to gradually desensitize human beings to the sanctity of life, which would then allow practices such as pedophilia, child blood sacrifice, and cannibalism to continue in the shadows with increasingly less resistance. 

Kathy Tran, by all appearances, is hardly part of this group, and in all likelihood unaware of their sinister agenda. The first-term representative, however, was likely chosen by the party brass to introduce this bill because of the optics, being not only a woman but a mother of 4 who breastfed her daughter on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates. Who better to introduce a sensitive piece of legislation that further tries to facilitate late-term abortions?

For his part, Governor Northram has been instructed to be a champion of women’s rights, often repeating the mantra that ‘men shouldn’t be deciding what women do with their bodies’ and that ‘we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions, we want these decisions to be made by the mothers and their [health] providers.’ With Tran’s bill attempting to reduce the number of physicians needed to consent to a late-term abortion down to 1, this would enable pro-abortion doctors to use their authority and knowledge to subtly steer women towards the decision to have an abortion.

Where Planned Parenthood Comes In

And this is where Planned Parenthood enters into the equation. This organization receives $500 million in funding from the government each year, and has disclosed that it contributed $30 million back to the Democratic Party (source), (with actual undisclosed contributions allegedly closer to $65 million (source, post 2674)).

This closed loop reveals one of the fulcrums of this abortion agenda fronted by the Democratic party. As I discussed in my article ‘Illuminati Pedophilia: Attempts To Normalize Sex Between Adults And Children (Part 2),’ there is fairly incontestable evidence that Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of human fetuses for tremendous profits.

Let’s look again at the main three aspects of HB2491:

1) Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital.

2) Eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion.

3) Eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.

All of these aspects point to facilitating abortions that could further erode a societal respect for human life. They make it easier for a single doctor who is aligned with the Planned Parenthood agenda to make a personal assessment without any psychiatric training about the risks of the delivery to the mother’s ‘mental health,’ thereby subtly influencing mothers to consent more to abortions, which then enriches the business end of the Planned Parenthood agenda.

Backlash Against Northam

While the global elite may hope to eventually achieve some conditional acceptance of infanticide, given that they have absolutely no regard for human life, their plan has always unfolded slowly and incrementally, done in the shadows as much as possible. They know full well that at this time they cannot just introduce legislation that would permit allowing  a woman to ‘abort’ a baby after it had been delivered, because it would cause outrage and bring attention to their agenda. As it turns out, this is exactly what has happened.

In this regard, Governor Northam unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and now he is being demonized by the Democratic party with some racist scandal from a photo that appears on Northam’s medical school yearbook page which shows Northam  dressed in blackface and another student in a KKK costume, obviously for some kind of costume party. On the basis of this one picture from 35 years ago conveniently surfacing, the Democratic party is trying to hide their own agenda by distancing themselves from Northam and having many party members now echoing the call for him to resign as governor. Too bad Northam couldn’t be as effective as Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who recently celebrated the passing of legislation in New York that loosens restrictions on abortions.

It’s Not Just About Democrats

While the abortion agenda has long been the domain of the Democratic party, it should be made clear here that the overall agenda of the global elite has always run through both parties to a large extent. The global elite will advance their agenda in ways that are always disguised to associate with each party’s particular policies. While the Democratic party is used to erode the sanctity of human life, the Republican party may be used more to ensure that a global corporatocracy is strengthened and any signs of sympathy towards socialist doctrines and a minimum standard of living for the poor are effectively quashed.

The fight that rages between Democrats and Republicans has long been to give the illusion of choice to the people, to make us feel that the power of our vote allows us to be masters of our own destiny. In reality, from our seat high above the fray, we see that this has been a false dichotomy which only serves to polarize us, and no matter which party is seen as ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ a particular battle, the outcome is designed to continue to advance the ultimate agenda of the global elite, which is world domination and the enslavement of humanity.

The Takeaway

On most issues that are subjected to the violent political tug-of-war between the left and the right, the everyday person feels that they have to identify with one polarity or the other if they want to participate in the discussion. Back when I was younger, and the passing of Roe v. Wade was still in its infancy, the abortion debate was conducted with a bit more openness and curiosity into the nature of what it is to be human, and how we wanted to govern ourselves as a society.

I was always one who supported a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, and so in a sense I always supported a women’s right to an abortion to the extent that I believed what was being aborted was a part of her body and not a discrete living being. That does not mean I supported the performing of abortions as such; however, I did favor that those women who had good reasons to want or need to abort a fetus should be able to do it in a safe way rather than in an unsanctioned back-room clinic.

That said, two questions remained difficult to answer. The first was, what reasons (aside from the birthing process threatening the life of the mother) could be accepted as justifying getting an abortion? The second was, at what point does the fetus stop being a part of the mother’s anatomy and start being a discrete being on its own? On one extreme, the fetus is considered a separate being from the moment of conception; on the other extreme, the fetus is considered a separate being only after the umbilical cord has been cut. Generally speaking, the debate occurred in between these two extremes, and can only be resolved by reasonable people in an open discussion of the rights and essence of both a mother and a fetus, as well as the essence of who we are as a society. There was a sense of curiosity, and some humility in terms of nobody really knowing the definitive answers to these questions, but being willing to put thoughts and feelings forth in order to arrive at some consensus in terms of legislation on this matter.

Today, the matter is dominated by extremists, and that fits in with the globalist agenda. It is important that those of us who are awakening to the big picture disengage from the polarized discussion, and realize that such discussions about the nature of who we are and who we want to be as people and as a society have to take place in that seat high above the fray of polarity, and in recognition of how this and many other important issues have been co-opted by powerful forces.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

New Footage of “Transmedium” Sphere (UFO) Disappearing Into The Ocean From The U.S. Navy

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The US Navy photographed and filmed “spherical” shaped UFOs that seem to be capable of travelling not only in air, but underwater also. Footage of one of these objects has been leaked.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we rely on government to give us an accurate depiction of what these objects may represent or what they actually know? Should this be a citizens initiative? Has government manipulated our perception of major global issues? Will this be different?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Footage filmed (video below) in the CIC  (Combat Information Center) of the USS Omaha on July 15th 2019 off the coast of San Diego depicting an unidentified flying object (UFO) has made its way into the pubic domain. It’s one of several incidents when U.S. warships were what seems to be continuously observed by multiple objects of unknown origin. One video and multiple images have been released of these particular incidents, and the Pentagon confirmed these leaks that are apparently being investigated by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF).

The Pentagon has also confirmed this particular video to be authentic as well.

The Debrief reached out to the Pentagon about the newly leaked video asking whether it could be confirmed as authentic, and whether it was obtained by Navy personnel aboard the USS Omaha.  “I can confirm that the video was taken by Navy personnel, and that the UAPTF included it in their ongoing examinations,” said Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough in an email response.

This particular video is the second one that has been leaked, the first one mentioned above shows triangular or “pyramid” shaped UFOs flying near the military vessels, again, the footage was confirmed to originate from Navy personnel. They did not release anymore information about the incident.

In the new video below, we see a small spherical object hovering, changing direction, flying above the ocean and also capable of “flying” underwater it seems, hence the term “transmedium.” Navy submarines searched for the object but did not recover anything. This object was filmed using Night Vision and FLIR technologies, and was also tracked on military radar. It was released and published by investigative filmmaker Jeremy Corbell.

One thing that’s important to stress is the fact that military encounters with UFOs is not a new phenomenon, in fact it dates back decades.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), at the actions which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely. -General Nathan Twining, U.S. Air Force, 1947. (source)

Common themes among these objects, based on our research here at Collective Evolution, seem to be evasive maneuvers as well as the capability to travel at speeds and perform maneuvers that no known man made piece of machinery can. It’s not uncommon for these “vehicles” to enter and exit our oceans, and what seems to be materializing and dematerializing, starting and stopping on a dime, splitting into multiple objects and much more. In one incident released by the U.S. Navy in 2016, the pilot described one of the objects descending from 60,000 feet and stopping right above the ocean surface, instantaneously.

Critical equipment failure, like radar and weapons systems going offline, also seems to be common in various instances of documented encounters with military aircraft. Here’s one example from Iran in 1976 when military jets attempted to fire on one of these objects. At that exact moment, their weapons and electronic systems were “paralyzed.” How could the occupants or “controllers” of these objects know the exact moment they would be fired upon?

As far as what these objects are, where they come from, why all of a sudden the mainstream is legitimizing this topic after years of secrecy and ridicule, it’s impact on human consciousness and more, we’ve had these discussions and speculations quite a bit. You can access our article archive on the topic here if interested. There are a lot of articles we’ve published that go more in depth than this one.

We’ve been covering this topic since our inception in 2009, and one thing we believe is that it’s OK to speculate and discuss possibilities. Relying on mainstream media as well as government to constantly tell us what something is doesn’t seem to be, in our opinion, the most intelligent thing to do. Years of lies, propaganda (perception manipulation) on various global issues make it clear that independent investigation into this issue is quite important. We must ask ourselves, why does information and evidence need to come from the government for it to be confirmed as real? What does this tell us about ourselves and the influence these “institutions” may have over human consciousness? That being said, it’s great to see more legitimacy pertaining to this topic emerge into the public domain. So far,what we’ve seen is great.

 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Fully Vaccinated Individuals Are Testing Positive For The Coronavirus: More Examples Emerge

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reports around the globe are showing that fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID.

  • Reflect On:

    How safe and effective are the vaccines?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: News of fully vaccinated individuals testing positive for COVID seem to be making headlines everywhere. For example, six people who tested positive in a Sydney hotel quarantine had already been fully vaccinated. According to data from NSW Health’s weekly COVID-19 surveillance report, between April 10 and May 1, six people in quarantine who reported being fully vaccinated were among the 150 overseas cases recorded. One had received a one-shot vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson, and the remaining cases had received both doses of a two-shot vaccine, such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Moderna. University of Sydney epidemiologist Dr. Fiona Stanaway said, given no COVID-19 vaccine is 100 percent effective, it was to be expected that some people who have been vaccinated test positive.

The New York Yankees recently announced that they had two coaches and one support staff member test positive for COVID despite all of them being fully vaccinated. In Seychelles, East Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that on Tuesday it was reviewing coronavirus data in the region after the health ministry said more than a third of people who tested positive for COVID-19 in the past week had been fully vaccinated.

These are a few of many examples, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise as people have been warned throughout the pandemic that the full dosage of COVID vaccines will not be 100 percent effective. Canada’s Chief Public Health officer Teresa Tam, for example, recently reminded Canadians on Saturday that even those who are fully vaccinated are susceptible to COVID. She did say, however, that the risk of asymptomatic transmission is far lower for anyone who is fully vaccinated, but how much lower? What about asymptomatic individuals who are not vaccinated?

According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University’s School of Medicine,

The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.

Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals, even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household. Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals – including religious services, in-person restaurant visits, gyms, and other public settings – are likely to be even less likely than in the household. (source)

Something to think about.

It’s hard to say. In the United States, for example, the CDC makes it quite clear that “there will be a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated who still get sick, are hospitalized, or die from COVID-19” and that “symptomatic breakthrough cases will occur, even though the vaccines are working as expected. Asymptomatic infections among vaccinated people also will occur.”

But the concern here is the fact that the CDC recently announced the following,

As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021.

This means that people who get infected with COVID after being vaccinated will not be reported unless they are hospitalized or died. It begs the question, how can any appropriate data in the United States, for example, be collected regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine if those who test positive and have had the vaccine are not being reported?

It is a bit confusing, because the CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold. A common occurrence when using this test is a Ct value greater than 35, which makes the probability of “false positives” quite high. Why are they all of a sudden specifying a Ct value for vaccinated individuals? You can read more about that, in depth, here.

Why This Is Important: Prior to the rollout of these vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, published a paper titled “Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data.” Even today, there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is.

A paper recently published by Dr. Ronald B. Brown, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers, and only reported relative risk reduction numbers.

Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Brown’s paper also cites Doshi’s paper which makes the same point, “As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wouldn’t it be reported? (source)

Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias. which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.” – Brown

Furthermore, there are a variety of other factors that may be responsible for a drop in cases that we are likely to see in combination with the rollout of these vaccines. One of those factors is previous infection, as there is evidence suggesting that previous infection is more efficient than the vaccine when it comes to creating immunity.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. – Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine physician based in the United States

Vaccine expert and Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff recently tweeted that, “After having protected themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated Zoomers now want Vaccine Passports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people.”

There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades. For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.”

With all of this said, there is also evidence suggesting that the vaccines are indeed working. 22 renowned scientists published an article titled “The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown.” It was pertaining to the United Kingdom. Many of these scientists have also been quite vocal about their belief that not everybody needs to be vaccinated, and the fact that this is indeed the message we are being bombarded with is suspicious given the fact that this messaging does not, as one of the Professors, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University explains, does not align with the science. All this is expressed by her, and others, while maintaining their belief that the vaccine can be used as a great tool for focused protection, on those who are vulnerable and who need it the most.

In the article, they explain,

It is time to recognize that, in our substantially vaccinated population, Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed. This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer. For most vaccinated and other low-risk people, Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection, likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS.

Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life, especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit. Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens; to the education of children and young people; to people with disabilities; to new entrants to the workforce; and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge. The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May. Mandatory face coverings, physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions. All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.

The Takeaway: Regardless of how effective the vaccine is at preventing the spread of COVID, and more, there are a number of valid scientific reasons why freedom of choice and informed consent should always remain. A number of “pro-vaccine” scientists who believe and point to the idea that these vaccines are indeed working are also pointing out that they believe mandatory vaccines for travel, employment, and school are unscientific and unethical. If this vaccine was completely safe and effective, travel mandates, for example wouldn’t be needed, everybody would be rushing to get one. Do we really want to give governments the power to implement health mandates when it goes against the will of so many people, doctors, and scientists? Is it not enough to simply promote and recommend people receive the vaccine instead of using measures to coerce the entire population to do so? Why are certain viewpoints, opinions, research and evidence of so many experts in the field being completely ignored and in some cases ridiculed if they oppose the common narrative we receive from governments and mainstream media?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered In Multiple Childhood Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A team of aluminum experts at Keele University has found that multiple childhood vaccines contain significantly more or less aluminum than what is listed on product labels. They have filed a petition with the FDA in an attempt to resolve this issue.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the consequences of misleading or incorrect product information, like vaccines, listed on the product label? Should these labels not be completely accurate?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The aluminium adjuvant that’s used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It’s been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May 6th of this year.

The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that’s actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here.

A team of the world’s foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum, made this discovery. Six vaccine products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta) and four childhood vaccines were found to contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than what is outlined on the label for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix.

This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where researchers point to the fact that since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, it’s content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety.

Another paper of interest for readers might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised.

The petition states,

These deviations from the products’ labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA.

The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so.

  Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.

If you would like to provide the FDA a comment regarding the petitions filed regarding aluminum levels in childhood vaccines, you can do so here and here.

Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,

We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.

You can read more about what’s going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here.

Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows,

Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren’t these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn’t that correct?

How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe.

No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants.

I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the ‘academic’ Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.

The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of  certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream.

If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can’t we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly and collectively? What is going on here? You might imagine that everybody would support research like the kind Exley and his team are doing, as it only seeks to make a healthier world. Then again,  it may not be in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies and their business model.

Isn’t human health and ‘doing no harm’ the key oath public health is interested in upholding? The implications of science should not impede progression of health, but rather accelerate it.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!