Connect with us

Alternative News

Risks to Children from Water Fluoridation—One Dose Does Not Fit All

Published

on

By Amanda Just, MS, and David Kennedy, DDS,  from CHD’s Partner: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)

advertisement - learn more

Fluoridation is the addition of an industrial compound to the public drinking water for the purpose of altering the consumer’s oral health. Municipalities that add fluoride to their water supplies do so based on a “one dose fits all” approach.  This blanket approach fails to address the smaller size of infants and children and the larger proportions of water and other fluoridated beverages they drink. Significantly, a formula-fed infant drinks its weight in water every three to four days, resulting in the most vulnerable members of the population consuming by far the largest dose of fluoride.

Fluoridation advocates have acknowledged that fluoride’s predominant effects for growing decay-resistant, harder teeth come from topical use (i.e., applying it directly onto teeth) as opposed to systemic exposure (i.e., drinking or ingesting fluoride through water or other means). However, research also has indicated that fluoride does not aid in preventing pit and fissure decay (the most prevalent form of tooth decay in the U.S.) or in preventing baby bottle tooth decay (prevalent in less affluent communities). In malnourished children and individuals of lower socioeconomic status, fluoride may actually increase the risk of dental caries due to calcium depletion and other circumstances. Given this body of research—and Harvard experts’ warning that fluoride is one of 12 industrial chemicals known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings—why do public health officials persist in claiming that water fluoridation is either necessary or safe?

[Researchers] found that the reasonable maximum exposure estimates exceeded the upper tolerable intake and concluded that some children may be at risk for fluorosis.

Overexposure and Dental Fluorosis

Exposure to excess fluoride in children is known to result in dental fluorosis, a condition in which the tooth enamel becomes irreversibly damaged and the teeth become permanently discolored, displaying a white or brown mottling pattern and forming brittle teeth that break and stain easily. Dental researchers have identified dental fluorosis as a first sign of fluoride toxicity.

advertisement - learn more

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released in 2010, 41% of children aged 12-15 exhibit fluorosis to some degree, up from 23% of 12-15-year-olds in 1986 (see figure below). These increases in rates of dental fluorosis were a factor in the U.S. Public Health Service’s 2015 decision to dramatically lower its water fluoridation level recommendations, from a high of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) down to 0.7 mg/L.

The downward revision of the Public Health Service’s recommendations for fluoride concentrations in drinking water fails to account for the fact that children are exposed to many different sources of fluoride on a daily basis. Exposure to these diverse sources has drastically increased since community water fluoridation began in the U.S. in the 1940s. In addition to water and other beverages, fluoride exposure occurs through food, air, soil, dental products used at home and in the dental office, and through an array of other sources.

Several studies conducted in the United States have offered data about children’s exposure to multiple sources of fluoride, as well as warnings about the situation. Markedly, a study published in 2015 by researchers at the University of Iowa considered exposure from water, toothpaste, fluoride “supplements” and foods. The researchers found that there was considerable individual variation in exposure levels and offered data showing that some children exceed the alleged “optimal” range. Highlighting the problematic nature of issuing recommendations about fluoride intake, the authors concluded:

[I]t’s doubtful that parents or clinicians could adequately track children’s fluoride intake and compare it [to] the recommended level, rendering the concept of an “optimal” or target intake relatively moot.

A similar 2005 study by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago evaluated children’s fluoride exposure from drinking water, beverages, cow’s milk, foods, fluoride “supplements,” toothpaste swallowing and soil ingestion. They found that the reasonable maximum exposure estimates exceeded the upper tolerable intake and concluded that “some children may be at risk for fluorosis.”

… research completed by Dr. Elise Bassin while at Harvard School of Dental Medicine showed that exposure to fluoride at ‘recommended’ levels correlated with a seven-fold increase in osteosarcoma in boys who had been exposed between the ages of five and seven.

Pediatric Cancers and Fluoride

In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report discussing the potential link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. This type of bone cancer is one of the most common groups of malignant tumors in children and adolescents. The NRC stated that while the evidence was as of yet tentative, fluoride appeared to have the potential to promote bone cancers; the authors also cited biological plausibility due to “fluoride’s deposition into bone and its mitogenic effects on bone cells.” A mitogen is a chemical substance that triggers cell division (mitosis)—and cancer represents mitosis that has run amok.

While some epidemiological studies have failed to find an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma, research completed by Dr. Elise Bassin while at Harvard School of Dental Medicine showed that exposure to fluoride at “recommended” levels correlated with a seven-fold increase in osteosarcoma in boys who had been exposed between the ages of five and seven. Bassin’s research, published in 2006, is the only study about osteosarcoma that has taken age- and sex-specific risks into account.

… discussion has ensued as a result of several research studies published in 2018 that linked fluoride to underactive thyroid, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other adverse impacts on health and behavior.

Other Adverse Impacts

A large number of studies associate fluoride with loss of IQ. For example, a landmark study published in 2017 (funded by the National Institutes of Health) found that prenatal fluoride exposure was strongly associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring. Interestingly, silicofluoride—the fluoride compound used in the vast majority of water fluoridation schemes—has been associated with higher blood lead levels in children, and lead is known to lower IQ. Lead has also been linked to violent behavior, and research likewise supports the potential association of silicofluoride with violence.

Meanwhile, discussion has ensued as a result of several research studies published in 2018 that linked fluoride to underactive thyroid, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other adverse impacts on health and behavior.

Protect our Children, Protect our Water

While adding a developmental neurotoxin to the water supply endangers everyone in the community, infants and children are obviously at highest risk for harmful effects. In addition to the potential adverse outcomes for this susceptible population discussed above (cancer, IQ loss and thyroid dysfunction), water fluoridation poses other health risks such as arthritis, bone fractures and learning disorders. We need to protect our children—and protect our water—by learning the facts and demanding policies that reduce and eliminate avoidable sources of fluoride, including artificial water fluoridation.


Amanda Just, MS is the Program Director of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT). She is also a freelance writer and dental consumer who has shared her writings about the impact of toxic dental materials with the United Nations Environment Programme, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and various nongovernmental organizations.

David Kennedy, DDS is a Past President of the IAOMT. He has published a number of research articles about the safety of dental materials and has been active in warning others about the risks of fluoride. He is a world lecturer to the dental profession on the safety of dental materials in the human body, including addresses to the World Health Organization, the American Dental Society of Europe, the German Department of Health, and Brazil Rio Eco-Odonto. In 2017, these writers co-authored a 95-page “International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) Position Paper against Fluoride Use in Water, Dental Materials, and Other Products for Dental and Medical Practitioners, Dental and Medical Students, Consumers, and Policy Makers.”

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.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Prince Harry: “I Will Not Be Bullied Into Playing A Game That Killed My Mom”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Last week Prince Harry and Meaghan Markle announced that they would be stepping down from their royal duties, and ultimately their life as royals.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do so many view powerful figures like the Royal's as gods? Is it time to end this type of perception?

Last week Prince Harry and Meaghan Markle announced that they would be stepping down from their royal duties, and ultimately their life as royals. This is pretty huge news. In regards to what prompted this decision there is certainly a lot we could speculate over, perhaps they want to distance themselves from the royal family because of the recent scandal involving Uncle Prince Andrew and the allegations against him being involved in child sex trafficking, maybe they simply want to get out of the public eye, or perhaps they see how the monarchy has already started to crumble and want to get out while they can.

Whatever the reason may be, it certainly seems to validate the massive shift in consciousness that is currently taking place on our planet and perhaps throughout the entire Universe. Some people have already been calling for the abolishment of the British monarchy after the Queen passes away, as many feel this system is very archaic in this day and age.

On The Surface

It was reported that the Queen had no idea of Harry and Meaghan’s decision before it was announced, and inside sources have told reporters that the “monarchy has never been seen in such a bad state.” (source)

Longtime friend of Prince Harry, JJ Chalmers, made an insightful comment during an interview on BBC’s The One on January 10th, stating that he feels Harry likely made this decision in order to “protect his family” and was simply attempting to put his family first and do what was right for them. The details regarding what Harry might be wanting to “protect his family” from weren’t disclosed.

A video that has gained a lot of popularity on social media over the past week or so, being retweeted over 70,000 times since being posted on January 8th, is an interview of Harry himself discussing the need to protect his family.

In another clip from that same interview we can clearly hear Harry saying that, “I will not be bullied into playing the same game that killed my mom.”

How’s The Queen Taking The News?

This past Monday, January 13th a meeting took place to address Harry’s decision. According to CNN.com,

The highly unusual meeting was called after the couple’s bombshell announcement last week that they wished to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family. The Queen was joined at the summit by Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry, while Meghan was due to have dialed in from Canada.

After a crisis meeting of senior royals at the Queen’s Sandringham estate north of London, the Queen said she had agreed that Prince Harry and Meghan could split their time between the UK and Canada but that “complex matters” would have to be resolved. The monarch said she had ordered final plans to be drawn up in the next few days.

In a statement after the meeting, the Queen said the family would have preferred the couple to “remain full-time working members of the royal family,” but that they “respect and understand” Prince Harry and Meghan’s “wish to live a more independent life.”

The Queen said the family had “very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family” during the meeting, adding that they are “entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family.”

There were “complex matters for my family to resolve,” and no final agreement had been reached, particularly over Harry and Meghan’s desire to become “financially independent.”

“There is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” the Queen said in the statement.

Going A Bit Deeper

When we look at what happened to “the game that killed William and Harry’s mum,” she was harassed relentlessly by the media, and ultimately ended in a fatal car crash. However, there is a lot of controversy behind this official story. Many believe that Princess Diana was against the monarchy in some ways and was attempting to break free from it’s clutches and even potentially expose some of their secrets, and thus believe that her death was no accident, but rather that she was silenced by being taken out by the Royal family.

Are Harry and Meaghan stepping away because they refuse to continue to be harassed by paparazzi, or are they making a bold statement and declaring their values by taking a stance that shows that they no longer wish to be affiliated with or support the Royal family? Could this signify the beginning of the end for the British monarchy? Only time will tell.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The US Navy Says Sharing UFO Footage & Documents Could ‘Cause Grave Damage to National Security’

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The US Navy recently released a statement claiming that more disclosure regarding a 2004 UFO incident in the form of video footage and documentation would be a big threat to national security.

  • Reflect On:

    The mainstream media has long used false information, or real information, and shaped the narrative to suit a particular agenda that serves the interests of their funders. Are we seeing the same thing here?

There is perhaps no other topic that used to be considered a ‘conspiracy theory’ that’s now taken extremely seriously within the mainstream, like the topic of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), also sometimes referred to Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon (UAP’s). This is in large part due to the fact that official, declassified documents and footage have been released from a number of intelligence agencies and military organizations, on a global scale. Furthermore, all of it’s complimented by statements from high ranking military personnel, ex-astronauts, and many more.

An incident that really blew this subject open in the United States occurred in 2004, where several Navy pilots that were stationed aboard the USS Nimitz encountered a “Tic-Tac-Shaped” UFO. To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science (TTSA) headed by Tom Delonge alongside several ex-high ranking intelligence personnell, like Christopher Mellon who served 30 years in the federal government and was Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Intelligence from 1997  to 2002, obtained the video from the United States Navy, which the Navy later verified was real.  He has published detailed articles for outlets like The Hill as well as The Washington Post emphasizing the reality and seriousness of this subject. He is one of several to do so

Here’s one of the videos of the object, here’s another, and here’s one more of other instances that they’ve obtained.

The 2004 incident was beamed by the New York times, and high ranking people, like Louis Elizondo who headed a an “Ariel Threat Identification Program” at the Pentagon (he’s also part of the TTSA) stated that he believed these objects are extraterrestrial. He also made the point to emphasize that we should not get caught up in this particular 2004 incident, as there are many. He told VICE that “people should not be surprised by the revelation that other videos exist and at greater length.”

More news has come out regarding the 2004 incident, at it’s in response to a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that was filed for more video footage and documents regarding the incident. The footage and documents that were released of the incident don’t show the entire video, and don’t make up all of the documents. A spokesperson from the Navy’s Office of Intelligence (ONI) confirmed that the agency posses at least one classified video pertaining to this incident.

According to an ONI  spokesperson, sharing the information with the public “would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States.”

advertisement - learn more

The ONI also admitted to possessing at least one video of unknown length, classified as “secret” by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). ONI didn’t reveal whether this footage is the same 1-minute video that was leaked online in 2007 and widely released by The New York Times in 2017. However, in November 2019, several naval officers who witnessed the incident aboard the Nimitz told Popular Mechanics that they had seen a much longer video of the encounter that was between 8 and 10 minutes long. These original recordings were promptly collected and erased by “unknown individuals” who arrived on the ship by helicopter shortly after the incident, one officer said. (source)

In the 2004 incident, the object in question was performing maneuvers and flying at speeds that no known air craft on Earth can perform.

Grave Damage To National Security?? Seriously??

One thing that seems to rub me the wrong way about mainstream UFO disclosure is what seems to be a constant ‘threat narrative.’ This is a phenomenon that dates back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Cases have ben documented for a very, very long time. If there was some sort of ‘extraterrestrial threat’ or a threat to national security by these objects, wouldn’t some type of ‘event’ have already taken place by now?

Based on my research, and the research of many other UFO researchers around the world, the majority of documented UFO incidents around the world have shown no sign of a threat. Sure, they may be intrusive, but there these objects have not behaved in any way that has been indicative of threat. That being said, this does not mean that footage of these objets performing in a way that represents a threat doesn’t exist, but based on what we have now, 99.99 percent of these cases, in my opinion, do not display behaviour that is at all indicative of a threat.

In fact, not only do these objects not display characteristics of hostility, they are documented performing predominantly evasive manures, making multiple efforts to avoid our air-craft. For example, Canadian defense minister Paul Hellyer said that these objects commonly take “corrective measures to avoid our aircraft,” and that our military tends to “shoot first and ask questions after.” (source)  Don’t forget four star General Nathan Twinning, who stated in a declassified intelligence document decades ago that,

“The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly air-craft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically, or remotely.” (source)

With all of this being said, it’s understandable how, from our current level of consciousness that these objects would be seen as a threat, especially from a military and intelligence perspective. For example, when a UFO is tracked on radar, military air-craft are usually sent out to take a closer look. There are many documented cases that show electronic systems within the military jet go down, they don’t work.  For example, here’s an interesting case from Iran via a declassified NSA document:

As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nautical miles it lost all instrumentation and communications. When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it, the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications. Another brightly lighted object came out of the original object. The second object headed straight toward the F4.

 UFOs in close proximity to nuclear missile facilities have also been associated with the complete shut-down and deactivation of nuclear missiles. So that’s interesting.

The issue is, is the threat narrative being pushed by the mainstream for some sort of ulterior motive, the same way we’ve seen the mainstream push the war on terror ? Are we being lied to again? To be honest, it’s hard to believe anything that comes from mainstream media these days, and many people have lost their trust in these networks. Truth is not synonymous with mainstream media, so what makes the UFO topic any different? Are they trying to control the narrative?

What’s curious to me is why all of a sudden do a select group of people get to publish serious pieces on the subject in mainstream media outlets while a number of ‘credible’ people as well as UFO researchers have been doing this for years, yet continue to go largely ignored by the mainstream media? These are all important questions to ask?

I go deeper in an article I recently published, which you can read below if you’re interested:

Do UFOs Represent Some Sort of Threat? Or Is This Just Government Propaganda? 

The Takeaway

This is a subject that’s full of truth, but also full of disinformation. At the end of the day, it’s curious as to why mainstream media has control over the narrative and never addresses incidents and facts that’ve been uncovered by academics and researchers for decades. And why now? This is a topic that truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched, it has large implications, especially for human consciousness. That being said, we have a lot of work to do down here on planet Earth to get our ‘stuff’ together, but this topic is no doubt always interesting to explore, and can assist one in expanding their consciousness.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Scientists Share Facts About Vaccines At World Health Organization Conference For Vaccine Safety

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are so many people fighting against each other? Why are there "pro-vax" and "anti-vax" groups? Are these terms not useless? Do they prevent us from having discussions that need to be had and moving forward appropriately?

According to organizations like the American Medical Association as well as the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy among people, parents, and, as mentioned by scientists at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit, health professionals and scientists continues to increase. This is no secret, as vaccines have become a very popular topic over the past few years alone. In fact, the World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health security.

The issue of vaccine hesitancy is no secret, for example, one study (of many) published in the journal EbioMedicine outlines this point, stating in the introduction:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

At the conference, this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

She also stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider, and if we lose that, we’re in trouble.

advertisement - learn more

She also brought up her belief that safety studies are incomplete, and that to continue to refer people to the same old science on safety is not adequately addressing their new concerns because better studies need to be done. Furthermore, she recommended that doctors and professionals forego name-calling with ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax”. She recommended encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety. After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination. After all, that’s just good science, and it’s in everyone’s best interest.

Another interesting point that caught my attention was brought up by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization. He brought up the topic of vaccine adjuvants like thimerosal or aluminum, for example. In certain vaccines, without these adjuvants the vaccine simply doesn’t work. Dr. Friede mentioned that there are clinical studies that blame adjuvants for adverse events seen as a result of administering vaccines, and how people in general often blame adverse reactions to vaccines being the result of the vaccine adjuvant. He mentioned aluminum specifically.

He showed concern given the fact that “without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.”

He also stated that,

When we add an adjuvant, it’s because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so, but when we add them it adds to the complexity. And I give courses every year on ‘how do you develop vaccines’ and ‘how do you make vaccines’ and the first lesson is, while you are making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety, and lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.

Furthermore, he criticized the assumption that if an adjuvant like aluminum appears to be safe for one vaccine, that it should be not be presumed to be safe for other vaccines. Dr. Friede said that current safety surveillance is quite effective at determining immediate effects (such as immediate injury to the arm at the injection site), but not as effective in identifying “systemic” long term adverse events.

When I heard him mention lesson two, that “if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety,” it instantly reminded me of aluminum because it’s an adjuvant used in multiple vaccines like the HPV vaccine, for example, but has no history of safety.

A study published as far back as 2011 in Current Medical Chemistry makes this quite clear, emphasizing that,

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. (source)

The key sentence here is that “their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor.” Based on what Dr. Friede said at the conference, it really makes you think.

A study published in BMC Med in 2015 found that “Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.”

This brings me to another point made at the conference by many scientists in attendance, which was that according to some of them, vaccines seem to lack the appropriate safety testing. This is another big reason why people are so confused and have voiced their concerns about safety, as mentioned above by Professor Larson.

Marion Gruber, PhD and Director of the FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review, questioned the scope of vaccine safety surveillance and monitoring during pre-licensing vaccine trials as well during the conference.

One source of confusion might be that ‘high-ranking’ health authorities sometimes making conflicting statements. For example, Soumya Swaminathan, MD and Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, stated at the conference,

I don’t think we can overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear cut answers when people ask questions about deaths that have occurred due to particular vaccines… One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly is happening, what the cause of deaths are, but in most cases there’s some obfuscation at that level and therefore there’s less and less trust then in the system.

Prior to this statement, in a promotional video released just days before the conference began, she stated that “we have vaccine safety systems, robust vaccine safety systems.”

She completely contradicted herself.

If you’d like access to the entire conference, you can do so at the World Health Organization’s website.

The Takeaway

The scientific community should never stop questioning, especially when it comes to medication. Based on the information that’s come out at this conference, it’s quite clear that there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to the development of vaccines and vaccine safety overall. Discussion is always encouraging, as long as it’s peaceful and facts are presented like they were at this conference. It’s better to understand the reasons why a lot of people are hesitant about vaccination and appropriately respond, instead of simply using ridicule and hatred because that’s never effective and both parties cannot move forward that way. At the end of the day, scientists should never cease to question.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!