Connect with us

General

Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered In Multiple Childhood Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

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

advertisement - learn more

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

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

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

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

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

The petition states,

advertisement - learn more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

The Bigger Pandemic Is The Financial Crisis – What’s The Solution?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 1 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

During COVID, it is no secret that the world’s economy has suffered. Regardless of what markets might say or what PR comes from any current administration, the average person is not doing well. People are losing jobs, savings, their business, and their houses.

In response, we consistently hear the same rhetoric: “It will recover,” “we need more jobs,” “we’ll build, back, better,” “Raise minimum wage.” And while some of these things are going to be helpful in the short run, it’s truly the long run that we have to be discussing.

We need to start thinking outside the box.

In this week’s Setty Report, we seek to explore a solution to our existing global financial problems. But in order to get there, we have to first understand what the problem is, and why we can’t solve it with ‘inside the box thinking.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Exopolitics

French Space Agency Releases Information About UFOs: 600 Cases Over 64 Years

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The French counterpart of the UAP Task Force who reports to the France's Space Agency offers a detailed analysis of 600 UFO cases over 64 years.

  • Reflect On:

    Why, after decades of study, encounters and what seems to be an official ridicule campaign are governments admitting that the phenomenon is very real?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

Reporting to France’s Space Agency (CNES) is a little-known unit that investigates the unidentified aerial phenomenon and makes its findings public. GEIPAN stands for Groupe d’Études et d’Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (unidentified aerospace phenomenon research and information group)

While everyone is focused on the American version of the study, which will contain over 120 events, GEIPAN has released a report that covers over 600 recorded incidents by pilots over a 64-year period. The paper concentrates on 290 of these incidents when the unidentified aerial device had (or may have had) an impact on flight safety.

While the study has received little attention, there are several data points that are essential in establishing or verifying particular aspects of the phenomena. It will be fascinating to see if the DNI’s report to Congress has comparable results, or if they will disclose these findings in the public realm.

1952 & 1954 — The Peak Years

The distribution of the 600 cases by year reveals that 320 instances (53%) occurred over a 16-year period (from 1946 to 1960), with 275 cases (46%) occurring between 1950 and 1957. The year with the most instances (83 cases) was 1952, followed by 1954 with 40 cases. The years 1952 in the United States and 1954 in Europe are regarded as the two peak years for UAP sightings.

There is no discernible seasonal trend in the distribution of these 600 cases per month. July has the most instances (75) compared to the other months, and April has the fewest cases (29). The remaining 10 months had between 42 and 56 instances, which does not appear to be a substantial difference.

Witnesses failed to indicate the time of day in 38 cases (6 percent). Out of the remaining 562 occurrences, 305 (54%) occurred at night and 257 (46%) occurred during the day.

A Global Phenomenon

The 600 instances are almost universally dispersed. They are positioned over continental zones (564 in total), encompassing 56 nations, as well as above marine zones (36 cases). The American continent (North, Central, and South America) had 376 cases (58 percent), with North America having 298 instances (Canada and USA). 108 instances have been reported above Europe, with 33 of them occurring in French airspace.

Witness Credibility — Pilots Only

The UAP sightings recorded by military pilots are the most common among the 600 occurrences documented during a 64-year period: 251 instances (42 percent ). Commercial pilots reported 233 instances (39%), while private pilots recorded 105 cases (18 percent ).

When the latter section of the time range investigated (1990 to 2010) is included, the outcome is completely different. The commercial aircraft instances are the most frequent of the 70: 49 in total (70 percent ). Military pilots reported 12 instances (17 percent), while private pilots reported 9 cases (13 percent ). This, I believe, is related to the secrecy that armies throughout the world have taken when it comes to disclosing UAP sightings.

A thorough study of the distribution of military aircraft cases by year reveals that 75% of them (189 instances) happened during a 14-year period (from 1946 for 1959). The majority of these instances were military cases from the 1950s, and numerous official records from that time period were declassified in the years that followed (U.S. Air Force Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book).

In 141 cases (24%), almost a quarter of the 600 cases, the phenomenon was observed from two or more aircraft in flight.

There were two or more eyewitnesses in 415 incidents (69 percent). The pilot or co-pilot was the lone witness in 185 incidents (31%). The findings reveal that in more than two-thirds of the 600 cases, there were two or more witnesses.

Flight Characteristics & Radar Detection

The distribution of incidents by flight phase reveals that the vast majority of sightings happened when the aircraft was in cruise flight. It should be noted that the pilot has more time to look at the sky during this phase of flight because the aircraft is frequently on autopilot. Pilots, on the other hand, focus their attention on flying and flight instruments throughout the other four phases of flight.

Radar-Visual (RV) sightings are classified into three types: (1) detection by ground radar, (2) detection by airborne radar (AR), and (3) detection by both ground radar and aerial radar (AGR). When ground control checks but does not detect any targets on the radar display and cannot corroborate the visual sighting, a fourth category (NR) occurs.

Among the 600 cases chosen, a radar check (positive or negative) was performed in 278 (46%) of them, and the findings are as follows:

Positive radar detection (GR+AR+AGR) 162 cases (27% of 600 cases)
Negative radar detection (NR) 115 cases

It’s worth noting that the proportion of positive radar detection (27%) is precisely the same as the result of a prior research of 300 instances.

The visual observation of the event was verified by both airborne and ground radar in 34 (21%) cases.

Example: On a landing approach, the co-pilot of a Caravelle spotted five or six lights off the right wing tip that followed the aircraft on a parallel track. He inquired with the air traffic controller if there were any other planes on final approach. ATC provided a negative response but confirmed that there was a radar echo on the right of the aircraft that followed it. The lights vanished off the right wing tip and reappeared off the left wing tip. The pilot activated the autopilot and examined the on-board radar, which revealed an echo to the left.

Simultaneously, the air traffic controller reported that the unknown echo had moved to the left of the Caravelle. (Case: 1352, France 1979)

Radar-visual cases are very important and interesting for two reasons: (1) they confirm the visual testimony of the pilot and/or the crew by a technical record of the phenomenon; (2) and sometimes they give technical measures like speed, altitude or trajectory of the UAP.

Example: The crew of a B-757 noticed a black cigar-shaped wingless object below their aircraft off to the right, around 15–20 miles away. Tacoma’s NORAD/WASD (Western Air Defence Sector) HQ has an unclear track. It looked to be motionless at first, then surged in a burst of speed for 20 to 30 seconds before coming to a complete halt. It lingered for one and a half minutes before accelerating again in a burst of speed. This was done many times during a four-minute period, after which the target vanished. The calculated speed was between 1000 and 1400 mph.

(Case:1266 USA 1995)

The Phenomenon

Pilots classify the things they see into two categories: “light” points and “objects,” which have a “solid” appearance. UAP reported by pilots and crews is described as having a material or three-dimensional, solid aspect in over three-quarters of the instances (74 percent). UAP is described as solid, although it is most commonly reported as “objects,” which come in a variety of forms. The most commonly reported forms are round (or elliptical) with a metallic appearance (sphere, silvery disc, etc). Meanwhile, several additional forms were noticed, some of which were quite odd and contradictory to traditional aerodynamic designs.

Examples: Two yellow objects shaped like hamburgers (Case 1149, USA 1980); a black cylindrical object 24 feet long and nine feet wide (Case 1123, Italy 1979); a giant triagle-shaped with intense lights joining the edges (Case 1113, Chile 1978); a long brown cigar-shaped object (Case 1050, Portugal 1976); an airliner fuselage without any wings or tail and with potholes lighted from inside (Case 1347, France 1985); an elliptical shape, flat below and slightly domed on the upper part (Case 1245, Sahara 1965); a large elliptical object looking like a metallic mushroom, which at times appeared to be translucent and seemed to have a transparent glass-line dome (Case 556, Australia 1954).

In more than two third of the 600 selected cases (474 cases — 78%) the witnesses have reported only one UAP.

In 117 cases (20%), pilots reported sightings of two or more UAP. In 12 cases, groups of more than 10 UAP were observed at the same time.

A pilot recorded the lowest estimated altitude as 500 feet. Major Joe Walker, who was piloting the X-15 rocket propelled aircraft on a test flight at more than 2000 mph when his rear view movie camera caught five disc-shaped cylindrical objects flying in echelon formation, reported the greatest UAP height of 246,000 feet. (Case 854, April 1964).

Interaction

Interaction cases are those in which the UAP appears to react to the presence of an aircraft. Interactions between UAP and aircraft were observed in 299 instances (almost 50%). These cases are about the following events: (1) UAP conducts manoeuvres to approach, chase, or escape from the aircraft; (2) dogfights with military aircraft; and (3) UAP circles or performs manoeuvres near to the aircraft. This category includes reports of electromagnetic impacts on aviation systems.

The phenomena approached the aeroplane on a collision path in 78 occasions, and there was a near-collision with the aircraft in six more. The pilot was required to take evasive action in 31 occasions to avoid colliding with the UAP, including three cases (all commercial aircraft incidents) in which passengers were wounded during the move.

In 59 of the incidents, the UAP circled or moved close to the aircraft. This sort of occurrence has the most reports (20 cases) of suspected electro-magnetic impacts on aviation equipment, particularly for commercial (8 cases) and private aircraft (8 cases).

Aggressive Tic-Tacs

In terms of events that may have an influence on flight safety, the most common kind reported by commercial pilots is “UAP approaches aircraft on a collision course,” with a total of 38 instances. The pilots claimed that the “UAP circles aircraft and/or moves close to aircraft” in 24 occasions. Pilots most commonly reported claimed electromagnetic impacts on their aircraft systems during this sort of occurrence. In 15 cases, the pilot had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the object that resulted in passengers injured in three cases.

Example: The three crew members of a B747–300 saw an extremely rapid white rocket-like object overflowing their plane between 200 and 400 feet above in the opposite direction. The item, which they characterised as cylindrical, lacked a wing. There was no TCAS warning. The object flew just above their head. It was close enough that the flight officer lowered his head, fearing it might strike them. It was white and spherical in form. There was no apparent smoke or flames coming from the item. ARTCC observed no radar echo in the aircraft’s opposite direction. The National Transportation Safety Board has reached no judgments on the identify of the object, but the matter is considered closed. (Case 1293, USA 1997)

Private aircraft instances with potential influence on flight safety account for the majority of the cases, accounting for 34 of the 65 cases in which pilots reported claimed Electro-magnetic impacts on aircraft systems: Instances involving private aircraft account for 54% of all cases (compared with commercial aircraft cases: 15% and military aircraft cases: 27%).

Electro-Magnetic Effects

The most troublesome element of UAP contacts appears to be situations in which permanent or transitory electromagnetic impacts occurred on aircraft systems during flight, either directly or indirectly as a result of the relatively close presence of one or more UAP.

In 81 of the 600 chosen cases, claimed electromagnetic interference was seen and reported (14%). Everything from radios to weaponry was impacted.

Readers should remember this information and realise that studies that have gone to great efforts to assist us in figuring out the nature of the UAP enigma already exist.

They’ve been studied by reputable organisations staffed by qualified scientists and professionals.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

General

Fact Checkers & Big Tech Censorship Are Tearing Apart Society

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 1 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

Journalist Laurie Clarke published an article in the British Medical Journal examining hundreds of millions of pieces of content that Facebook has removed in an attempt to stop ‘covid misinformation.’ As a result of censorship, we are seeing a breakdown of important dialogue. Here is our deeper written analysis of her piece.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!