Connect with us

Opinion

Harvard Doctors Examine Whether or Not Masks Can Provide Any Protection From Infection

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in the New England Medical Journal outlines how it's already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we have the freedom to wear masks? Why are so many things we are doing right now contrary to data and evidence? Are these measures helping us thrive, or are they totalitarian type measures?

What Happened: A paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D states:

advertisement - learn more

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

-->Facebook Just Shut Us Down: We need your help in taking our power back from big tech, to overcome censorship and the attack on free speech. Click here to help!

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients.

That being said, the study acknowledged that the mask “may” provide some protection, and so do other published studies as well, but we can’t say this for sure, at least according to those studies. It might simply be a harmless precautionary measure in the minds of many as well. But to mandate them seems to be, in the minds of many, not the correct thing to do, especially when there is science on both ends of the coin with some of them suggesting it can be dangerous. More on that below.

There are also a number of studies suddenly emerging claiming that wearing a mask can supposedly help stop the transmission of Covid-19. That’s important to note. For example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that wearing a wet washcloth greatly reduces exposure to speech droplets in the air. Another study in ACS Nano observed that well-fitted face masks made of common materials, such as cotton, can filter out between 80 and 99% of droplets, depending on droplet size. Finally, Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco, and other scientists have compiled a list of research publications supporting the use of face coverings for reducing disease transmission.

It’s not hard to see why people are so confused.

advertisement - learn more

This particular study goes on to examine whether a mask alone is even an effective health-care measure, and discusses its capability alone devoid of other, what seem to be more important practices, like washing your hands. Instead of a mandate, should the citizenry simply be encouraged to wear masks, with the government explaining the science and still giving people a choice?  Why are they saying it’s to protect other people when there is no evidence that it actually does that?

What’s interesting about this particular study is that it’s one of multiple that mention how masks are more of a symbolic representation. As mentioned above, the paper states that “in many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Again, the study is an examination of the validity of masks in a health care setting (which is also questionable) with regards to the new coronavirus, and clearly states that it’s already known that they offer almost zero protection in a public setting.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19.

Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016, titled “The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction.”

As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high. The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.

The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…

A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.

The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)

There are studies out there that also suggest that wearing masks can indeed help prevent Covid-19, especially in an acute care setting, it’s just that we are hearing so much of it that we forget to examine the science on the other side of the coin.

The list goes on, these are just a few examples.

Manufactured Panic?

The next important question to ask ourselves is, are health authorities making this pandemic out to be more serious than it actually is? Many scientists and epidemiologists from around the world have expressed this belief, and many of them, as a result, have been censored by social media platforms. Why is there an authoritarian “fact-checker” going around censoring information, evidence, and opinions being presented by some of the worlds leading scientists in this area simply because it opposes the narrative given to us by organizations like The World Health Organization? (WHO)

Are masks being used to prolong fear and hysteria?

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. Why are we taking such measures for a respiratory infection when tens of millions of people get infected and die from respiratory viruses every single year?

Why is there so much controversy surrounding the deaths? For example, in Toronto Canada, “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” (source)

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.

Vittorio Sgarbi, Italian politician Mayor of Sutri gave an emotional speech at a hearing on the 24th of April where he emphasized that the number of deaths in Italy due to COVID-19 are completely false and that the people are being lied to.

This isn’t even the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to manufactured deaths.

What’s really going on here? Is this actually about the pandemic, or was Edward Snowden right? That governments are using the new coronavirus to impose more authoritarian measures on the population, measures that will stick around long after the virus is gone? You can read more about his comments here.

Was Dr. Ron Paul correct when he said that this virus is less dangerous than it’s being made out to be? And that people will profit both politically and financially from this in the form of more of our basic rights being taken away? Is this simply being used like the justification for mass surveillance was used? To protect the population, or is it for, as NSA whistle-blower William Binney says, “total population control?” You can read more about his comments here.

The Takeaway

It’s quite clear that a large portion of the population doesn’t agree with various medical mandates, and wearing masks is one of those mandates. The reason is justified, and that’s simply because there is no evidence that they can protect the general public, and depending on the material, in some cases it can be harmful. I find it hard to believe that someone would have an issue with someone else not wanting to breathe in their own carbon monoxide, but I also understand that many peoples perception with regards to this pandemic has been severely manipulated.

On the flip side, due to so many instances where things don’t make sense, this pandemic is contributing to another large amount of people questioning what we are being told and being forced to do by our government, this is causing a deep awakening of the masses. Perhaps this is the larger reason it’s playing out from a collective consciousness perspective.

At the end of the day, more measures are continually pushed upon the population without their consent. We don’t have to continue to obey, continue to elect, and help maintain a system that is clearly not serving us to thrive.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Trump Says COVID-19 Vaccine Won’t Be Mandatory, Biden Says It Should Be

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    It doesn't seem likely that a COVID vaccine will be mandatory under the Trump administration, but Joe Biden recently shared that he believes it should be.

  • Reflect On:

    If the vaccine did become mandatory, would you take it? Will there be too much of a backlash if the vaccine is made mandatory, or mandatory to travel for example?

What Happened: US President Donald Trump told Stuart Varney on Fox Business Network’s ‘Varney &Co’ that he doesn’t plan to make the coronavirus vaccine mandatory for American citizens, because “there are some people who feel strongly about the whole situation,’ alluding to the idea that people should still have freedom of choice when it comes to what they choose to do with their own body.

On the other hand, presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would urge all state representatives, governors, mayors and council members to make the vaccine mandatory, just like some have done with masks. He acknowledged that such a mandate would be difficult to enforce, but stated that “we should be thinking about making it mandatory.”

Trump has long been promoting alternative therapies for COVID, many have come under scrutiny by mainstream media. The scientific and medical community have both promoted these therapies as well as criticized them, the only difference seems to be that those who support them don’t seem to receive much media attention, while simultaneously become subjected to a censorship campaign by media and social media outlets.

Scientists who share opinions that contradict the World Health Organization (WHO) have also been heavily censored. Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University is one of many who have criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.

The Great Barrington Declaration is experiencing the same thing for questioning lockdown measures, it’s now been signed by nearly 40,000 doctors and scientists.

A paper recently published in Global Advances in Health and Medicine titled Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions points out:

A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.

The paper also promotes the use of alternate therapies like intravenous vitamin C and provides evidence showing its success in COVID patients. It’s one of multiple studies to do so, but vitamin C has been heavily ridiculed and censored by mainstream media and social media for being able to provide any help when it comes to healing from COVID, or to help prevent it.

We are being made to believe that a vaccine is the only answer. No other suggestions seem to be acceptable. Why?

Why This Is Important

Why is there an authoritarian ‘fact-checker’ patrolling the internet and censoring information? Sure, a lot of stories may be completely false and irresponsibly written, especially ones that don’t provide any sources for their claims, but a lot of legitimate information is also being censored. Should people not have the right to examine information and opinions that go against the grain and decide for themselves what is, and what isn’t? Are we not capable of this? Can the mainstream media make the minority feel like the majority and the majority feel like the minority?

I’ve emphasized in many of my articles how vaccine hesitancy continues to grow. That’s no big secret. This is occurring not only with much of the general population, but doctors and scientists as well.

Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that:

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…

Many people are asking why doesn’t mainstream media or Bill Gates actually addresses the concerns that are being raised by scientists and doctors? Why is ridicule and terms like “conspiracy theory” always used instead?

What are the concerns? Vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

There are several concers.

If you’d like to access more of articles that are properly sourced regarding vaccine concerns, there is a link to a few at the bottom of this article I recently published.

Big Politics: Every single year big politics, in my opinion, continues to be exposed as a system that’s no longer capable of dealing with and appropriately handling big issues our planet faces today. I often ask myself, does voting simply uphold a system that’s no longer capable of creating any meaningful change? Big politics is filled with an enormous amount of corruption, and many would say that corporations now dictate policy, not government.

When it comes to health policy, there are many conflicts of interests to be concerned about, scientists from within federal health regulatory agencies have been bringing awareness to this fact for many years. For example, few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out public statement detailing the influence corporations have within the CDC, how corrupt things are, how it happens in all departments  how many high ranking people within the CDC condone this behaviour. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.

Award winning medical investigator Jeanne Lenzer also made this quite clear in a 2015 paper published in the British Medical Journal.

The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law. Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

This is a huge problem, and it’s one that seems to plague all industries, not just the medical industry.

The Takeaway

We are pitted against each other like never before these days, and it doesn’t seem that politics helps us find common ground. It’s about belittling and ridiculing every move an opponent makes, and does not in any way shape or for represent a system of people who are willing to pool their resources and work together for meaningful change. So why do we continue to be captured by it? Why do we even pay attention? How can we change things and take matters into our own hands? Why do we live the way we do?

Power has corrupted our political process, and decisions today are made for politicians, corporations and those who seem to control these entities in order to gain more power from and profit off of.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today – Theodore Roosevelt

Honesty, morality, empathy, and an overall unawareness regarding the interconnectedness of life is severely lacking, and I do believe human beings are capable of creating a human experience where all life can thrive. We have the solutions, but many of them never see the light of day or receive any attention, so ask yourself, if we have the solutions, what’s preventing them from being implemented?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Trump Scorned For Saying “I Don’t Know” If A Satanic Pedohphile Ring Exists

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Donald Trump was recently featured on Thursday night NBC News in a discussion where he was asked a number of questions, including one about a "satanic pedophile ring."

  • Reflect On:

    Why are controversial topics that are hard to belief never really investigated or properly looked into? Why are they simply ridiculed and deemed a "conspiracy?"

Mainstream media has been used as a political weapon for quite some time now. With Operation Mockingbird becoming public, a decades old CIA campaign to infiltrate media in order to shape the perception of the masses, the idea that mainstream media was and is largely a brainwashing tool has become valid. Today, in my opinion, it’s become even more evident thanks to multiple award winning mainstream media journalists blowing the whistle, as well as documents that have been released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing just how much influence not only big corporations have, but also the intelligence community has with mainstream media and shaping perception.

This is exactly what big politics is about, shaping people’s perception. Voting seems to uphold a system that’s no longer capable of making the best decisions for the people and our planet, but that’s just my opinion. Instead of seriously discussing and investigating important issues, big politics has become a disaster.

As we move through another presidential election, we see the same thing. The latest example comes from President Donald Trump’ recent interview on NBC news. The ‘questioner’ Savannah Guthrie brought up “Q Anon” and ridiculed Trump for simply stating that he knows nothing about it. He was also ridiculed when refusing to denounce a Democratic “satanic pedophile ring.” He didn’t say he believes it’s real, he simply stated that he knows nothing on the subject, that he is obviously against pedophilia and again, that he just doesn’t know about the subject.

Here we have mainstream media, again, completely ridiculing the idea of some sort of elite level pedophile cult, deeming it a “conspiracy theory” over and over again, using nothing but ridicule and also ridiculing anybody who may think that it’s actually a possibility.

We don’t need “Q anon” to see this, there is actually legitimate evidence behind this activity and credible sources can be used to relay that to the public. By using “Q anon” as a source one is almost doing a disservice to the movement of transparency, because it makes it very easy for another to simply label this claim as a conspiracy theory when no evidence is provided.

Let me ask you this, what if it were true that there was an elite level pedophile cult, or multiple similar type of cults that are in operation throughout the world? Imagine how the children being used would feel to learn that what they go through, or are possibly going through is perceived as completely fake by the masses? How can mainstream media ridicule and denounce something without really doing any proper investigation into the topic? How can they label something a conspiracy theory so easily simply based on the idea that it sounds ridiculous?

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not true, but “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” Big media today is lacking big time, in my opinion, in their ability to explore subjects and conduct investigations as well as ask the right questions.

Is There Any Evidence? Obviously, there is plenty of evidence for pedophilia and child trafficking, nobody can really deny that and I doubt anybody ever would. There are countless examples to choose from, for example, the Pentagon. Not long ago, it was disclosed that the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service subsequently identified hundreds of DOD-affiliated individuals as suspects involved in accessing child pornography, several of whom used government devices to use and share the images.

Recently, Retired Army Maj. Gen. James Grazioplene has been given 20 years for continually sexually abusing his daughter from a young age. Grazioplene retired in 2005 after a career that included stints as a commander within the 82nd Airborne Division and senior staff positions at the Pentagon. He also became a vice president at the contractor DynCorp International but is no longer with the company.

DynCorp has also been implicated in trafficking children abroad. DynCorp receives nearly all of its income from doing work for the U.S. military and has been implicated in multiple sex trafficking scandals.

Another great example comes Cardinal George Pell, who a couple of years ago became the highest-ranking Vatican official to ever be convicted of child sexual abuse. Of course, he has now been freed from jail after Australia’s highest court overturned his conviction, but did you know that he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse?  This is a common theme. The ones who we go to combat these problems may themselves involved.

A paper published in European Psychiatry titled The cremation of care ritual: Burning of effigies or human sacrifice murder? The importance of differentiating complex trauma from schizophrenia in extreme abuse settings” by Dr. Rainer Kurz, explains, a chartered occupational psychologist (Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) at The University of Manchester. Master of Science (MSc) Industrial Psychology at The University of Hull) explains:

In the wake of institutional abuse enquiries and the ‘unbelievable’ child abuse perpetrated by celebrities like Jimmy Saville and Ian Watkins, a ‘new reality’ is setting in that child abuse is pervasive and knows no limits. Reports of elaborate rituals with ‘mock’ human sacrifices at the highly secretive annual ‘Bohemian Grove’ summer festival point towards a pervasive interest in the occult in high society. Mental health professionals have a ‘duty of care’ towards their service users. Unless clear and irrefutable counter-evidence is available it is inappropriate to claim that disclosures of extreme abuse and/or human sacrifice rituals are ‘delusions’ and indicative of Schizophrenia.

It goes on to provide another example of this type of activity, this time among high ranking “establishment” members:

Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 and was exposed since the age of 9 and was exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.

The point I am making is that the examples above are not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this type of activity within places of high power. There was more awareness created about this and about the sex trafficking and abuse of children for those who were inspired to dig deep into the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell saga.

Multiple sources claim Maxwell and Epstein had a blackmail operation, and they they had/have evidence of politicians sexually abusing children.

To read more examples, you can refer to THIS article I wrote that dives in a bit deeper and provides more examples.

Then there are multiple examples, as the paper above indicates, of potential victims who have come forth. We’ve interviewed one. Her name is Anneke Lucas, who is now an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model.Her work is based off her 30-year journey to restore her mental and physical wellbeing after surviving some of the worst atrocities known to humankind before the age of 12.

You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

All systems on our planet seem to be plagued with corruption. The consciousness of our whole system seems to be based on greed, ego, fear, and competition instead of cooperation. Is it possible, and are human beings capable of creating an experience where everybody can thrive?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Johnson & Johnson To Pay Over 100 Million To Settle 1000 Baby Powder Cancer Suits

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay more than $100 million to resolve over 1,000 lawsuits blaming its baby powder for causing cancer. There are still approximately 20,000 lawsuits that will remain ongoing.

  • Reflect On:

    How safe are our everyday off the shelf health products? What kins of process of approval do they go through? How much influence do these companies have on our federal health regulatory agencies?

What Happened: Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest maker of health care products, will pay more than $100 million to settle more than 1,000 lawsuits that blame the company’s baby powder for causing cancer. These lawsuits have been happening for a few years now, and according to Bloomberg, the company has 20,000 similar lawsuits still pending.

The deals come seven months since J&J last faced a jury reviewing evidence about the cancer risk of its signature talc product, which it maintains is safe, although it has replaced it with a cornstarch version in the U.S. and Canada. The company used the lull, due to the pandemic, to hold settlement talks, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private.

Kim Montagnino, a J&J spokeswoman said that, “In certain circumstances, we do choose to settle lawsuits, which is done without an admission of liability and in no way changes our position regarding the safety of our products. According to her, the “scientific evidence” supports that position.

If this is the case, it begs the question, why so many many lawsuits and settlements over the years if the “scientific evidence” does actually support that position, and not the other?

According to a statement from SOKOLOVE Law,

Companies that mine talc are required to take extra steps to ensure the absence of asbestos in their talc. Instead, J&J allegedly went to great lengths to fake it.

Not only did the company know about the asbestos contamination, evidence suggests, but J&J also failed to warn its customers about the link between Baby Powder and cancer or replace its talc with a safer alternative. As a result, J&J guaranteed its customers’ exposure to asbestos.

And regardless of their size or numbers, asbestos fibers are lethal at any capacity. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has stressed repeatedly, there is no safe level of exposure.

Talc in their baby powder hasn’t been the only issue, not long ago, the company had to recall approximately 33,000 bottles on baby powder after asbestos was detected in one of its bottles by the FDA.

Why This Is Important: When it comes to products that deal with our health we have to ask ourselves if the process they go through in order to get approved is corrupt. Are there products that are marketed as wonderful, but may be harmful to consumers on the shelves of our favourite stores? Can we really trust our federal health regulatory agencies? In my opinion we can’t, and it’s important for people to do their own research before using a product that goes on our or our child’s skin/body.

I feel this way due to the conflicts of interests that exist between federal health regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies, employees always seem to hold high level positions and jock back and forth from company to agency. Julie Gerberding is one of many examples, holding high level positions within the FDA and big pharmaceutical companies, like Merck.

I also feel this way because we hear it directly from those within these agencies. There are several other great examples that illustrate this point, in fact there are decades of examples. One of the best would be the SPIDER papers. A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).

Here’s another great quote from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that I’ve used multiple times to illustrate why I have great concerns.

Even 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. (source)

Again, there are many examples of foul play. Glyphosate, an active ingredient within Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, was recently re-licensed and approved by the European Parliament. However, MEPs found the science given to them was plagiarized, full of industry science written by Monsanto.

The Takeaway: In my opinion, it’s quite clear that government policy is heavily dictated by powerful corporations, and as a result the approval of some products and substances that perhaps should not be approved may be commonplace. This begs the question, can we continue to rely, listen to and follow our government heath regulatory agencies when there is so much information put out by independent bodies and scientists that contradict their claims? Is it time to take our health into our own hands and look into things instead of simply believing what we’ve been told?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

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!