Connect with us

Awareness

CDC’s Infant Hep B Vaccine Recommendations – No Proof of Safety?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by Jeremy R. Hammond, Contributing Writer, Children’s Health Defense. Posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is the mainstream opposing credible information? Why do they say the science is settled when it's not? Why are they trying to shut down conversation and further investigation?

The CDC’s recommendation for universal hepatitis B vaccination of infants puts most children at unnecessary risk of harm from the vaccine.

advertisement - learn more

[Note: This is the second installment of a three-part Hep B series examining the CDC’s rationale for its universal infant hepatitis B vaccination recommendation. Part 1 explores the risk to infants of a Hepatitis B infection. (The vast majority of children in the US today are not at significant risk of hepatitis B infection.) Part 2 reveals how the agency began recommending vaccination for pregnant women and infants despite a complete lack of randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrating that these practices are safe. Part 3 examines the CDC’s 1991 policy shift to recommending that infants be ‘universally’ vaccinated, typically on the first day of their lives, thus placing millions of children at unnecessary risk of neurodevelopmental harm from the vaccine.]

-->Watch now: Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting and hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!

Before the introduction of the vaccine, numerous effective prevention measures had already been implemented to some degree in the US, including blood screening and administration of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) to infants born to HBsAg-positive women. HBIG containsprotective antibodies obtained from the blood plasma of selected donors, conferring passive immunity to the infant. It’s estimated to be about 75 percent effective in preventing chronic infection when given soon after exposure. Additionally, newborn infants may have maternal antibodies passively acquired through the placenta.

Nevertheless, the number of cases occurring in the US annually continued to increase until it peaked in 1985 at about 26,000 reported cases. The increase in prevalence was occurringparticularly among young adults. The decline seen during the second half of the 1980s through the early 1990s is attributed to a reduction in transmission among gay men and drug users as a result of efforts to prevent transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). From 1990 to 2004, incidence of acute hepatitis B infection declined by 75 percent, with most of the decline occurring among children and adolescents, coinciding with greater vaccination coverage.

Persons considered at “substantial risk” included various categories of health care workers, gay men, illicit injectable drug users, recipients of certain blood products, household and sexual contacts of HBV carriers, Alaskan Eskimos, immigrants or refugees from countries where HBV is highly endemic, and prison inmates.

The hepatitis B vaccine was first licensed for use in the United States in 1981. The following year, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued a recommendation for vaccination of high-risk individuals. The estimated lifetime risk of HBV infection at the time was approximately 5 percent for the US population as a whole, but rose to almost 100 percent for the highest-risk groups. Persons considered at “substantial risk” included various categories of health care workers, gay men, illicit injectable drug users, recipients of certain blood products, household and sexual contacts of HBV carriers, Alaskan Eskimos, immigrants or refugees from countries where HBV is highly endemic, and prison inmates.

advertisement - learn more

For infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers, the CDC recommended administration of HBIG. For infants whose mothers were chronic carriers (positive HBsAg but negative IgM-anti-HBc), the CDC additionally recommended a 3-dose vaccination regimen starting no sooner than 3 months of age. The CDC added that “Studies to determine the immunogenicity and efficacy of vaccine at birth, with or without HBIG, are currently under way.” (Emphasis added.)

The CDC admitted that, with respect to the developing fetus, safety data were not available, but assumed that the risk should be negligible on the grounds that the viral antigen contained in the vaccine was non-infectious. However, since the viral antigen was not the only component of the vaccine, the CDC’s conclusion did not logically follow.

The CDC did not say whether studies were being done to determine the safety of vaccinating infants at birth. This curious oversight was made despite the CDC’s acknowledgment that the vaccine included aluminum—a known neurotoxin—as an “adjuvant”. An adjuvant, as defined by the CDC, is “an ingredient used in some vaccines that helps create a stronger immune response in people receiving the vaccine.” Inasmuch as aluminum is a foreign substance in the body capable of causing disease and which triggers an immune response, aluminum also meets the CDC’s definition of an “antigen”.

Additionally, the hepatitis B vaccine being used at the time included another known neurotoxin: mercury.

Furthermore, the CDC included high-risk pregnant women within the scope of its recommendation by stating that pregnancy “should not be considered a contraindication to the use of this vaccine”.

The CDC admitted that, with respect to the developing fetus, safety data were “not available”, but assumed that the risk “should be negligible” on the grounds that the viral antigen contained in the vaccine was non-infectious. However, since the viral antigen was not the only component of the vaccine, the CDC’s conclusion did not logically follow.

This glaring non sequitur fallacy by the CDC is illustrative of a complete lack of concern among public health officials about the neurotoxicity of mercury and aluminum, both of which are known to pass through both the placental and blood-brain barriers.

In fact, the CDC issued its recommendations that high-risk pregnant women and infants of carrier mothers be vaccinated despite a complete absence of studies demonstrating that either practice was safe. The clinical trials used to obtain licensure for the vaccine had included only gay men.

Additionally, the CDC acknowledged that the duration of protection conferred by the vaccine had “not yet been determined.”

In 1984, the CDC revised its recommendation to include vaccination of infants at birth. Under the new policy, women belonging to high risk groups were to be tested routinely during prenatal visits, and if positive for HBsAg, HBIG was to be administered to the infant as soon as possible after delivery and preferably within twelve hours of birth. Now, instead of waiting until at least a week to initiate the vaccine regimen, the CDC advised giving the first dose within seven days of birth, further implying that this should preferably be done on the very first day of life by stating that the effectiveness of HBIG administered concurrently with vaccination increased the effectiveness of preventing chronic infection from 75 percent up to 90 percent. (According to the Pink Book, vaccination alone is 70 percent to 95 percent effective, while vaccination concurrent with HBIG within twenty-four hours of birth is 85 to 95 percent effective.)

While emphasizing that studies had shown vaccination to be effective, the CDC mentioned no studies demonstrating that it was safe to vaccinate newborn babies or to expose developing fetuses to mercury and aluminum by vaccinating pregnant women.

In an updated recommendation the following year, the CDC explicitly recommended vaccinating infants born to infected mothers concurrently with HBIG within twelve hours of birth. Once again, safety studies were not forthcoming.

In 1986, a new version of the hepatitis B vaccine was licensed for use in all ages. The older version was manufactured by isolating and purifying HBsAg from the blood plasma of infected individuals. The new vaccine, Merck’s Recombivax HB, instead contained viral proteins that were genetically engineered, manufactured by cloning the virus’s genetic coding for HBsAg into “recombinant” yeast.

Under federal law, vaccine manufacturers are required to include package inserts with their products providing adequate warnings about the risks of using them. These are publicly available on the FDA’s website. The current package insert for Recombivax HB, with respect to its effectiveness, states that “The duration of the protective effect of RECOMBIVAX HB in healthy vaccines is unknown at present and the need for booster doses is not yet defined.” The vaccine may also be ineffective if administered to an individual who is already infected.

It’s not known whether the vaccine’s contents are excreted in human milk, and there are no studies of the effects on breastfed infants or milk production. There are no studies to determine whether the vaccine can cause genetic mutations or cancer, or whether it can impair fertility.

With respect to its safety, Merck states that “There are no adequate and well-controlled studies designed to evaluate RECOMBIVAX HB in pregnant women.” Additionally, “Developmental toxicity studies have not been conducted with the vaccine in animals.” It’s not known whether the vaccine’s contents are excreted in human milk, and there are no studies of the effects on breastfed infants or milk production. There are no studies to determine whether the vaccine can cause genetic mutations or cancer, or whether it can impair fertility.

Merck does refer to post-licensure clinical studies relevant to pregnant women, but these were not actually designed to test the safety of the vaccine for this group. Instead, twenty-three pregnant women were vaccinated “inadvertently” early in their first trimester, four of whom ended up having a miscarriage. Merck states that this 17 percent miscarriage rate is “consistent with estimated background rates”, but given the fact these studies weren’t designed to determine whether fetal harm might occur, included a very small number of pregnant women, and didn’t include a placebo control group, this information is totally worthless in terms of risk assessment.

The only information about safety with respect to vaccinating infants refers to three clinical trials including a total of only “147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age)”. Since the infants were grouped with older children and their number unspecified, this information is uninterpretable with respect to the safety of vaccinating infants still in the earliest stages of childhood development. The number of children included was also too low for these studies to have the statistical power necessary to detect any harms apart from those that occur very frequently. There was no placebo control group even to determine the statistical significance of reported adverse events, such as fever or rhinitis. Furthermore, these children were monitored for adverse events for only five days, so any adverse events occurring after that period of time were entirely missed.

This is particularly concerning given that symptoms of neurological damage from toxins like mercury and aluminum might not be noticeable for many weeks, months, or even years following exposure—not to mention the fact that it is not only single exposures that need to be taken into consideration, but the cumulative impact of all environmental toxic exposures.

Despite the total inadequacy of the clinical trials for determining the safety of vaccinating pregnant women and infants, a microbiologist from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Richard Daemer, assured the public of the new vaccine’s safety by stating that it “just can’t do any damage, period”.

The sole premise upon which that fallacious conclusion was based was, once again, that the vaccine did not contain a live virus capable of infection. It was a statement that once again demonstrated the complete lack of consideration among public health officials that mercury and aluminum, both of which were also included in Recombivax HB, could potentially cause neurodevelopmental harm to vulnerable fetuses and young infants.

That same year, the US Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which granted broad legal immunity against vaccine injury lawsuits to the pharmaceutical industry and established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, funded by an excise tax on each vaccine dose, to effectively shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the manufacturers and onto the taxpaying consumers. The Supreme Court in 2011 upheld legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and design defects are “not a basis for liability”.

In 1988, the CDC once again revised its policy by recommending screening for all pregnant women, not just those in high risk groups, in an effort to reduce the number of perinatally infected infants who become chronic carriers. The number of such infants born each year was estimated to be about 3,500, which represented about one-fifth of the estimated number of births to HBsAg-positive women annually (16,500). A study done ten years later estimated that 97 percent of pregnant women in the US receive prenatal screening.

Once again, there was no placebo control group, and the researchers solicited only certain pre-selected adverse events by providing a symptom checklist. Once again, subjects were monitored for a very short term, which was only four days.

In 1989, a second recombinant HepB vaccine was licensed for use in all ages: GlaxoSmithKline’s Engerix‑B. Its package insert includes similar warnings as are included with Merck’s product. In thirty-six clinical trials, Engerix‑B was administered to 5,071 healthy adults, children, and newborn infants. Once again, including the unspecified number of infants with older children and adults renders this information uninterpretable with respect to the risks of vaccinating infants. Once again, there was no placebo control group, and the researchers solicited only certain pre-selected adverse events by providing a symptom checklist. Once again, subjects were monitored for a very short term, which was only four days.

[Part 3 examines the CDC’s 1991 policy shift to recommending that infants be ‘universally’ vaccinated, typically on the first day of their lives, thus placing millions of children at unnecessary risk of neurodevelopmental harm from the vaccine.]

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.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Our Biology Responds To Events Before They Even Happen

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple experiments have shown strong evidence for precognition in several different ways. One of them comes in the form of activity within the heart and the brain responding to events before they even happen.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we have extra human capacities we are unaware of? Perhaps we can learn them, develop them, and use them for good. Perhaps when the human race is ready, we will start learning more.

Is precognition real? There are many examples suggesting that yes, it is. The remote viewing program conducted by the CIA in conjunction with Stanford University was a good example of that.  After its declassification in 1995, or at least partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate:

To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise… The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions. (source)

The kicker? Part of remote viewing involves peering into future events as well as events that happened in the past.

It’s not only within the Department of Defense that we find this stuff, but a lot of science is emerging on this subject as well.

For example, a study (meta analysis) published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding this phenomenon that were conducted by several different laboratories. These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event and reacts to the event before it has occurred. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured regarding the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system.

A few years ago, the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Dean Radin, visited the scientists over at HearthMath Institute and shared the results of one of his studies. Radin is also one of multiple scientists who authored the paper above. These studies, as mentioned above, tracked the autonomic nervous system, physiological changes, etc.

Scientists at HeartMath Institute (HMI) added more protocols, which included measuring participants’ brain waves (EEG), their hearts’ electrical activity (ECG), and their heart rate variability (HRV).

As HMI explains:

Twenty-six adults experienced in using HeartMath techniques and who could sustain a heart-coherent state completed two rounds of study protocols approximately two weeks apart. Half of the participants completed the protocols after they intentionally achieved a heart-coherent state for 10 minutes. The other half completed the same procedures without first achieving heart coherence. Then they reversed the process for the second round of monitoring, with the first group not becoming heart-coherent before completing the protocols and the second group becoming heart-coherent before. The point was to test whether heart coherence affected the results of the experiment.

Participants were told the study’s purpose was to test stress reactions and were unaware of its actual purpose. (This practice meets institutional-review-board standards.) Each participant sat at a computer and was instructed to click a mouse when ready to begin.

The screen stayed blank for six seconds. The participant’s physiological data was recorded by a special software program, and then, one by one, a series of 45 pictures was displayed on the screen. Each picture, displayed for 3 seconds, evoked either a strong emotional reaction or a calm state. After each picture, the screen went blank for 10 seconds. Participants repeated this process for all 45 pictures, 30 of which were known to evoke a calm response and 15 a strong emotional response.

The Results

The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.

How mind-altering is that?

Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”

Another significant study (meta-analysis) that was published in Journal of Parapsychology by Charles Honorton and Diane C. Ferrari in 1989 examined a number of studies that were published between 1935 and 1987. The studies involved individuals’ attempts to predict “the identity of target stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred million seconds to one year following the individuals responses.” These authors investigated over 300 studies conducted by over 60 authors, using approximately 2 million individual trials by more than 50,000 people. (source)

It concluded that their analysis of precognition experiments “confirms the existence of a small but highly significant precognition effect. The effect appears to be repeatable; significant outcomes are reported by 40 investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations. The precognition effect is not merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline, but rather is an effect that covaries with factors known to influence more familiar aspects of human performance.” (source)

The Takeaway

“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
 Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)

We are living in a day and age where new information and evidence are constantly emerging, challenging what we once thought was real or what we think we know about ourselves as human beings.  It’s best to keep an open mind. Perhaps there are aspects of ourselves and our consciousness that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps if we learn and grow from these studies, they can help us better ourselves and others.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Top Three “Alternative” Treatments For Covid-19 That’ve Been Ridiculed By Mainstream Media

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple "alternative" treatments have shown success with regards to treating COVID-19 patients. These treatments have been ridiculed and labelled as fake within the mainstream instead of being explored and discussed openly.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there is much ridicule when it comes to health solutions that don't come from big pharmaceutical companies?

“Fact-checkers” are patrolling the internet hard and censoring an enormous amount of content and specific media organizations, like Collective Evolution. Working simultaneously together with this fact-checker is mainstream media, which for the most part have become mouthpieces for the “establishment,” and have become a tool to promote information that just isn’t true or has very little backing while simultaneously  ridiculing anything that threatens their narrative. Big media’s connections with special interests from big corporations and government agencies alone is quite large. You can read more about that and find multiple examples in an article I published earlier on that specific topic that goes into more detail, here.

Mainstream media has been exposed many times with regards to spreading misinformation and propaganda. Examples of misinformation from mainstream media keep pouring out, and there’s little doubt in the eyes of many that they are simply being used to push a false narrative, and have been doing so on many different topics for a long time.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. … It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernay’s (Propaganda 128)

The latest example of perception manipulation comes with regards to alternative treatments for the new coronavirus that have appeared to generate some success, at least enough that should warrant a joint investigation by multiple countries and health organizations. Instead of that happening, ridicule is instantly created using big media, and casting doubt on these alternate treatments ensues. This, to me, appears to be a very clever business tactic.

What’s even more alarming is the fact that the world’s leading epidemiologists, scientists, and many doctors are being banned from YouTube and other social media platforms for simply sharing their research and opinions, many of which go against that of our federal health regulatory organizations and The World Health Organization (WHO).

These days, it’s big business that regulates and controls what is deemed to be “the cure” or “the treatment.” This doesn’t seem to be a battle to stop Covid-19 as much as much as it seems to be a battle to exaggerate the danger and harms of Covid-19, as well as market the vaccine as the only possible solution, as the only thing without question that has any potential to work. But this simply isn’t true.

Why are people like Bill Gates becoming our health authority, why are some countries attacking the WHO? Why is there a digital “fact-checker” going around the internet? Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Should people not have the right to examine information, sources, expert opinions and evidence openly and freely and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t? What’s really going on here?

Events like this pandemic only serve the collective and encourage people to ask more questions. It helps them see and become more aware of the corruption our world is dealing with, and has been dealing with for a long time. In order to stop it, we must first at the very least become aware of it. This process has been taking place for quite some time now, and gets more intense every single day, month and year.

Who are the treatments below ridiculed? Why does the mainstream claim they have no legitimacy when clearly, they do? Instead we are told to wear masks like our lives depend on it. You can read more about the legitimacy of masks with regards to fighting the new coronavirus, here.

This does not mean that these are cures, they are simply examples of low risk treatments for coronavirus patients that have, again shown potential and success, which means they should have been openly explored by our health authorities, not ridiculed.

Vitamin C. Any Legitimacy?

Vitamin C has been completely ignored as being a substance of great use during this pandemic, and for health and other ailments in general. More than once did mainstream media and fact-checkers claim that there is no evidence whatsoever that Vitamin C could be of some assistance, but this simply isn’t true.

A doctor who was seeing success with it on Covid-19 patients recently had his practice raided by the FBI as a result of using it. You can read more about that here.

Meanwhile in China, Dr. Zhi Yong Peng, a professor and the Chief of Critical Care Medicine at Zhongnan Hospital, in Wuhan, China, recently explained how  treating COVID-19 patients with high dose intravenous vitamin C has been successful. He is the principle investigator for “Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia” (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. The article was written by Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist from Shanghai, China. Dr. Cheng has been updating everyone via his YouTube channel about vitamin C treatment cases out of China for quite some time now. The published article explains how 50 moderate to severe Covid-19 cases have been successfully treated with intravenous vitamin C.

Multiple hospitals in New York were noticing that it was helping as well. You can read more about that here.

Again, instead of health authority figures coming together to examine this kind of thing, it’s instant ridicule and condemnation without any investigation. This doesn’t seem right? Why aren’t we working together? Why are big business interests coming before people’s health? This isn’t anything new.

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine along with Zinc have also made a lot of noise. Dr. Anthony Cardillo, an ER specialist and CEO of Mend Urgent Care explained the treatment combination he is seeing great success with or severe COVID patients. He has been prescribing the zinc and hydroxychloroquine combination on patients experiencing severe symptoms associated with COVID-19, and he’s not the only one. You can read more about that here.

Professor Didier Raoult from France not long ago published his early results for Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. 973 patients out of 1063, according to him, have shown “a good clinical outcome.” You can read more about that and find other examples, here.

President Trump has even taken this treatment, along with others within the political realm like the president of El Salvador, for example.

This drug was never considered dangerous, all of a sudden, it is now? Why?

Herbs in Madagascar

Tremendous success has been seen in Covid-19 patients in Madagascar. In an and interview with FRANCE 24 and RFI, Madagascar’s President Andry Rajoelina defended his promotion of a controversial homegrown remedy for Covid-19 despite an absence of clinical trials. “It works really well,” he said of the herbal drink “Covid-Organics.” They are, as the president expressed, herbs that have been brewed to extract their medicinal properties. He explains that his country has been doing things this way for a very long time, and they’ve always worked.

You can learn more about that by watching an interview with him here.

The discussion also goes into the western pharmaceutical lobby, which is quite large. Vimeo also recently banned a documentary showing the strong influence that pharmaceutical companies have on the WHO. This type of thing gained a lot more attention years ago when Wikileaks released documents showing a great deal for concern with regards to pharmaceutical influence within the WHO.

The pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (source)

The Takeaway

Many would compare what’s going on today as a medical tyranny. It’s powerful, and in my opinion it’s one of the main causes of poor health and dangerous medicines. What’s happening in the world of medicine, from business to academia is being exposed more and more everyday. At the end of the day, this type of system needs people who believe in it. Our perception, our own consciousness has been manipulated to accept a system that greatly harms and oppresses our full potential. Imagine a world we we all explored cures and treatments for various diseases based on what works best, instead of finding a way to somehow own it, and sell it. We have the potential to do a lot better than what we are doing. Big business and control is standing in the way, and we are the tools the use to sustain their business model. The more of us that snap out of it, the closer we get to creating something completely new and effective, and something that is a true representation of our potential to treat and heal the sick.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Neurosurgeon Explains How Masks “Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Russel Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, and former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center shares his thoughts on wearing masks for the new coronavirus.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has so much controversy surrounded this pandemic? Why is one side going really hard to ridicule another? Why is there so much censorship of information?

There are a number of weird facts and pieces of evidence that’ve emerged regarding the new coronavirus which are putting into question the measures we have taken, and are taking as a collective. One major theme during this outbreak seems to be the fact that not everything that we’re being told within the mainstream is true. For example, there have been multiple credible sources explaining how Covid-19 deaths have been inflated. For example, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, recently stated that, even if it’s clear one died of an alternative cause, their death will still be marked as a COVID death. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths amid complaints that it inflated numbers. This has been a common theme throughout the US as well as the World. A few recent studies have also pointed out that what we are seeing here infection fatality rate wise, is something within the ball park of a seasonal flu. You can read more about that here.

Controversy has also surrounded testing kits. Tanzania’s President John Magufuli has dismissed imported coronavirus testing kits as faulty, saying they returned positive results on samples taken from a goat and a pawpaw. This made no sense at all and suggests foul play. Testing kits in the recent past have also been found to be contaminated with bacteria or Covid-19 itself. You can read more about that here.

Complimenting this type of information comes statements from people like Edward Snowden, emphasizing that governments are using this to push more authoritarian measures on the citizenry that will remain in place just as they did after 9/11.

As a result of new information, mainstream media has started a massive ridicule campaign of any type of information that opposes or provides another narrative to that of the World Health Organization (WHO).

We have to ask ourselves, why is this information our there? What does it mean? And why is there such a tremendous effort to ridicule it? What’s really going on here? When the world’s leading scientists and epidemiologists get censored from social media platforms for sharing their research and opinion, yet people like Bill Gates become our health authority, that should immediately set off some red flags and raise questions.

Should people not have the right for themselves to examine information and evidence and determine for themselves what is real and what is not?

Not only have social distancing and lockdown measures been heavily criticized, so to has the idea of wearing a mask, something that’s being promoted and recommended by various health authorities.

Below are a few recent articles on the subject that we’ve already published if you’re interested:

Study Finds That Cloth Masks Can Increase Healthcare Workers Risk of Infection

Masks: Are There Benefits or Just a Comfort Prop? Let the Facts Speak

One of the latest to offer their opinion on the matter is Dr. Russel Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, and former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

Below was a piece written by him that was originally published at Technocracy.

“By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” — Russell Blaylock, MD

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.   Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.  Repeated episodes of hypoxia have been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!