That our civilization could be wiped out in the blink of an eye is a very real threat. Consider the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis and the growing body of evidence supporting it: large comet fragments hit the North American Ice Cap at the end of the last ice age and caused cataclysmic flooding. If an advanced civilization existed back then, as some researchers suspect, there wouldn’t have been much of it left afterwards, which probably accounts for the ancient myths about a terrible deluge that brought civilization to its knees. Does history repeat? Or at least rhyme? Have we become so inured in our secular techno-specialness that we have forgotten just how unimportant we are from a cosmic perspective? And does human civilization need a little (or large) reminder of that from time to time?
An increasing amount of doctors and scientists are calling EMF radiation “the new smoking”. Should you be worried?
Consider these 3 facts:
- Top independent scientists argue that EMFs should be classified as a Class 1 “Definite carcinogen”, next to tobacco and asbestos
- Children’s heads absorb twice the radiation compared to adults. Regardless of that fact, a 2014 survey by the AAP showed that up to 75% of 4-year-old children already own a cell phone!
- EMF safety standards have not been updated since 1996 and are based on a 220-pound adult.
We can’t put our heads in the sand anymore. Learn how 5G and other sources of EMF radiation really impact your health inside this 100% FREE guide. Download Now
[i] CBS News. “After Several Childhood Cancer Cases at One School, Parents Question Radiation from Cell Tower.” CBS News. April 04, 2019. Accessed Here April 22, 2019.
[ii] Jiang, Jingjing. “How Teens and Parents Navigate Screen Time and Device Distractions.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. November 30, 2018. Accessed Here April 22, 2019.
[iii] Kheifets, L., Repacholi, M., Saunders, R., & van Deventer, E. (2005). The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics, 116(2), 303-313. Retrieved from here
[iv] Rosenberg, Suzanne. “Cell Phones and Children: Follow the Precautionary Road.” CNE, Pediatric Nursing (March-April 2013); 39(2): 65-70; PDF
[v] Morgan, L. Llyod. “Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults.” Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine30, no. 3 (2013): 270. doi:10.5835/jecm.omu.30.03.016
[vi] Christ, Andreas, Marie-Christine Gosselin, Maria Christopoulou, Sven Kühn, and Niels Kuster. “Age-dependent Tissue-specific Exposure of Cell Phone Users.” Physics in Medicine and Biology55, no. 7 (2010): 1767-783. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/7/001
[vii] Gandhi, Om P., L. Lloyd Morgan, Alvaro Augusto De Salles, Yueh-Ying Han, Ronald B. Herberman, and Devra Lee Davis. “Exposure Limits: The Underestimation of Absorbed Cell Phone Radiation, Especially in Children.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine31, no. 1 (2011): 34-51. doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.
[viii] Johansson, Olle. “Disturbance of the Immune System by Electromagnetic Fields-A Potentially Underlying Cause for Cellular Damage and Tissue Repair Reduction Which Could Lead to Disease and Impairment.” Pathophysiology16, no. 2-3 (August 2009): 157-77. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.03.004
[ix] “Data and Statistics on Children’s Mental Health | CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed Here April 22, 2019.
[x] “Gray Matters: Too Much Screen Time Damages the Brain.” Psychology Today. February 27, 2014. Accessed April 22, 2019.
[xi] “Quotes from Experts.” Electromagnetichealth.org. July 18, 2010. Accessed April 22, 2019. http://electromagnetichealth.org/quotes-from-experts/
[xii] “The BioInitiative Report” 2012. Accessed April 22, 2019.
[xiii] Pall, Martin L., PhD. “5G: Great Risk for EU, U.S. and International Health …” May 17, 2018. Accessed April 22, 2019.
Being angry or being sad aren’t particularly ideal dispositions for sound mental health, but which is worse when it comes to physical health? A new study finds that anger appears to be much more harmful, with the potential to increase one’s risk for ailments like heart disease, arthritis, and even cancer in old age.
Older adults may be more prone to feeling upset as their health worsens and day-to-day tasks grow more challenging. But for those who seem to become angry over the most trivial things, here’s more reason to show greater concern rather than shrug them off as simply becoming the grumpy old men or angry old ladies in our lives.
Researchers say that older adults who regularly show anger are more likely to have higher levels of inflammation, which can lead to numerous chronic illnesses. Inflammation occurs when the immune system attempts to protect the body and fight off bacterial infections and viruses after an injury or when battling an illness.
“As most people age, they simply cannot do the activities they once did, or they may experience the loss of a spouse or a decline in their physical mobility and they can become angry,” says lead author Meaghan A. Barlow, a researcher at Concordia University, in a release by the American Psychological Association. “Our study showed that anger can lead to the development of chronic illnesses, whereas sadness did not.”
For the study, Wrosch and her co-authors examined data from 226 adults in Montreal between ages 59 and 93. Participants completed daily surveys for a week to gauge their levels of anger and sadness, and they submitted blood samples to measure inflammation.
“We found that experiencing anger daily was related to higher levels of inflammation and chronic illness for people 80 years old and older, but not for younger seniors,” says co-author Carsten Wrosch. “Sadness, on the other hand, was not related to inflammation or chronic illness.”
It could be that sadness is more likely to help the elderly accept their physical limitations, as they see their condition as a reality that requires them to make necessary changes in their lives. But anger can also come with some benefits, too.
“Anger is an energizing emotion that can help motivate people to pursue life goals,” says Barlow. “Younger seniors may be able to use that anger as fuel to overcome life’s challenges and emerging age-related losses and that can keep them healthier. Anger becomes problematic for adults once they reach 80 years old, however, because that is when many experience irreversible losses and some of life’s pleasures fall out of reach.”
The authors say that anger can be tempered among the elderly through interventions such as therapy or by using coping strategies when they’re feeling upset. Barlow says educating individuals on the harm that anger can cause and showing them how to cope with loss or change can help them let go of those feelings.
The study is published in the journal Psychology and Aging.
We all know the movie scene: a nervous aide has to deliver bad news to his villainous boss, stumbling over his words and incessantly apologising. For a second, it looks like he will be OK – until the boss turns around and summarily executes him.
But it turns out this phenomenon of “shooting the messenger” is not just restricted to fiction. A new paper in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General has demonstrated that we do tend to take a dim view of the bearers of bad news – even when these people are simply innocent messengers.
Previous work had already shown that we often form unfavourable opinions of people who give us negative feedback. But this could be justified: the reviewer could have been unfairly biased against us, for example. Leslie John and colleagues at Harvard University wanted to take things further and find out how we view others who are simply a conduit for bad news, and who clearly have no control over the content of the message they’re sharing.
Across a series of 11 experiments, the team looked at how people responded when taking part in, or imagining, a situation where someone delivered them bad or good news.
The first study confirmed that bearers of bad news are not well-liked. Participants had the chance to win an extra $2 when a research assistant picked a number from a hat, depending on whether it was odd or even. After picking the number, the research assistant handed it to a colleague – the “messenger” – to read out. Participants who received bad news – that they had not won the extra $2 – later rated this innocent messenger as less likeable than those who received good news.
In the subsequent studies, the team tried to figure out exactly what was driving people to shoot the messenger. The effect seemed to be specific to those who deliver the news, with others present at the same time remaining unaffected. In one scenario, for example, participants imagined a hospital appointment where they received either good or bad news about whether a skin biopsy was cancerous. There were two nurses in the scenario, one who delivered the news and the other who was there to schedule a follow-up appointment – but only the “messenger” nurse was rated as less likeable when the news was bad.
The team also found that the effect was stronger in situations in which bad news was unexpected or made less sense. In another scenario, participants imagined that while waiting at the airport, a staff member announced that their flight was delayed by three hours. Half of the participants were told that flights would still be departing in the scheduled order, while the rest were told that another plane had been given their flight’s departure slot. In the latter situation (which, the authors write, “violate[s] the commonly held beliefs that the world is just, predictable, and comprehensible”), the participants gave the staff member a particularly low likeability rating.
And a handful of experiments revealed that people may shoot the messenger because they believe the messenger has nefarious motives – even when this doesn’t make logical sense. One group had the chance to win 50 cents if they predicted correctly whether the number of words in the main headline of the next day’s Wall Street Journal was even or odd. The next day, those who heard from a research assistant that they had guessed wrong didn’t just rate this researcher as less likable – they also said they thought that the researcher had been hoping they’d get it wrong, even though she clearly had no control over the situation.
Altogether, the research suggests that “shooting the messenger” has a real basis in the way people act in everyday situations. It seems to stem from a number of sources, including a desire to make sense of negative or unexpected situations, and a tendency to misattribute malicious motives to messengers. While the researchers concentrated on the “likability” of the messenger, they add that participants could be making other negative judgements as well: for example, one of the studies found that people also judge bringers of bad news as less competent.
These tendencies make life harder for both messenger and receiver, the authors say. Delivering bad news is already a difficult task, and being seen as unlikable only adds to that struggle. And because people aren’t keen on accepting advice from those they dislike, they might miss out on important help. “Especially when the messenger is integral to the solution, as is often the case in medical contexts, ‘shooting the messenger’ may impede people from taking steps to make their own futures brighter,” the authors write.
The relationship between alcohol and humans has been around for millennia. Yet it seems we’re still not entirely sure about our love-hate relationship. The news headlines don’t help – one day a ‘study’ is saying moderate alcohol consumption will prevent any number of illnesses, the next another ‘study’ says even a drop will eventually kill you. And what the heck does ‘moderate consumption’ mean? How much is too much and how do we know if we’re over-indulging?
Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we discuss all things boozy; looking past the exaggerated alcohol industry sponsored claims, getting down to the reality of drinking and some interesting methods of treatment for alcoholism.
And stay tuned for Zoya’s Pet Health Segment, as she shares some tips on car rides for anxious doggies!
Running Time: 01:05:21
Download: MP3 – 59.6 MB
The Grayzone‘s Aaron Maté has done an interview with his father titled “America in denial: Gabor Maté on the psychology of Russiagate”, and it is the single best and most insightful political video I’ve ever seen. In 27 minutes it essentially describes the fundamental problems of our times, not just with Russiagate but with world politics as a whole, from the overarching behaviors of globe-dominating forces all the way down to the ways our own inner reluctance to face reality objectively helps to prop up those forces. So it deserves its own article.
Back when I learned that Gabor was Aaron’s father my first thought was, “That makes so much sense.” Aaron had exploded onto the Russiagate debate scene seemingly out of nowhere and quickly became the most thorough and lucid voice on the subject, holding to strict principles of valuing facts and evidence over the aggressive pressure to conform from his media peers and the authoritative assertions of government agencies. Gabor I’d known of for years because of how widely respected he is in other circles I’ve moved in for his penetrating insights into the human psyche. It makes perfect sense that someone with the moral fortitude to swim against the groupthink current and speak the truth no matter what would have someone like that as part of his personal formation.
I highly recommend watching the full interview, but since I know many of my readers aren’t big on watching videos I’ll sum up what I consider the highlights here with excerpts from the Grayzone transcript, because I really do think it’s that good and that important.
The elder Maté talked about the public support for the Russiagate narrative, and the inevitable disappointment which followed after Robert Mueller failed to turn up any evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the 2016 Trump campaign, as the result of emotional investment.
“Now, disappointment means that you’re expecting something and you wanted something to happen, and it didn’t happen,” Maté said. “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it. It wasn’t just that they wanted to know the truth. They actually wanted the truth to look a certain way. And wherever we want the truth to look a certain way, there’s some reason that has to do with their own emotional needs and not just with the concern for reality.”
Gabor explained that the reason for this emotional investment ensued from the trauma of seeing Trump elected. They had the choice between consciously feeling through the pain and fear of that trauma and then doing some serious examinations of the factors that led to Trump’s election, or blaming the whole thing on a foreign boogeyman and avoiding that self-confrontation altogether.
“You can look at that,” Maté explained. “Or you can say there must be a devil somewhere behind all this, and that devil is a foreign power, and his name is Putin, and his country is Russia. Now you’ve got a simple explanation that doesn’t invite you or necessitate that you explore your own pain and your own fear and your own trauma.”
“So I really believe that really this Russiagate narrative was, on the part of a lot of people, a sign of genuine upset at something genuinely upsetting,” Maté continued. “But rather than dealing with the upset, it was an easier way to in a sense draw off the energy of it in to some kind of a believable and comforting narrative. It’s much more comforting to believe that some enemy is doing this to us than to look at what does it say about us as a society.”
Maté went on to discuss Trump himself as not just traumatizing, but traumatized. Someone acting out his own inner issues in the world in a deeply unconscious way:
Donald Trump is the clearest example of a traumatized politician one could ever see. He’s in denial of reality all the time. He is self aggrandizing. His fundamental self concept is that of a nobody. So he has to make himself huge and big all the time and keep proving to the world how powerful and smart, what kind of degrees he’s got and how smart he is. It’s a compensation for terrible self image. He can’t pay attention to anything, which means that his brain is too scattered because it was too painful for him to pay attention.
What does this all come down to? The childhood that we know that he had in the home of a dictatorial child disparaging father… who demeaned his children mercilessly. One of Trump’s brothers drank himself to death. And Trump compensates for all that by trying to make himself as big and powerful and successful as possible. And, of course, he makes up for his anger towards his mother for not protecting him by attacking women and exploiting women and boasting about it publicly. I mean, it’s a clear trauma example. I’m not saying this to invite sympathy for Trump’s politics. I’m just describing that that’s who the man is.
Maté tied his observations about the refusal of Russiagaters to confront their inner trauma and Trump’s refusal to confront his to the refusal of Americans as a whole to confront the horrors that their own country has inflicted upon the world which dwarf even the most severe things the Russian government has been accused of doing to America.
“No serious student of history can possibly deny how the United States has interfered in the internal politics of just about every nation on earth,” Maté said, adding that this interference often consists of mass murder. “For example, in Chile, there’s an elected government that America cheerfully overthrows, even boasts about it. Not to mention the current interference in Venezuela, the internal politics. Not to mention, how as you’ve pointed out, many others have pointed out, and [Time] boasts about it on its cover, about how United States helped Boris Yeltsin get elected... Even if the worst thing that’s alleged about the Russians is true, it’s not even on miniscule proportion of what America has publicly acknowledged it has done all around the world.”
Maté talked about how “it’s always easier to see ourselves as the victims than as the perpetrators,” adding that “whether it’s Great Britain, or whether it’s France with their vast colonial empires, they’re always the victims of everybody else. The United States is always the victim of everybody else. All these enemies that are threatening us. It’s the most powerful nation on earth, a nation that could single handedly destroy the earth a billion times over with the weapons that are at its disposal, and it’s always the victim.”
“So this victimhood, there is something comforting about it because, again, it allows us not to look at ourselves,” Maté said. “And I think there was this huge element of victimhood in this Russiagate process.”
Maté talked about how Mueller, despite his horrible track record of supporting the WMD lie in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, has been made into a hero, because Hollywood has trained the public psyche to seek out “good guys” and “bad guys” in every intense situation. This is what led Putin to be depicted as an omnipotent supervillain capable of infiltrating the highest levels of the US government, and Mueller as a knight in shining armor who was going to rescue us all.
“Rather than saying, okay, there’s a big problem here. We’ve elected a highly traumatized grandiose, intellectually unstable, emotionally unstable, misogynist, self aggrandizer to power. Something in our society made that happen. And let’s look at what that was. And let’s clear up those issues if we can. And let’s look at the people on the liberal side who, instead of challenging all those issues, put all their energies into this foreign conspiracy explanation. Because to have challenged those issues would have meant looking at their own policies, which tended in the same direction.
“Rather than looking at how under Clinton, they’ve jailed hundreds of thousands of people who should never have been in jail. Looking at how under the Bushes and under Obama, there was this massive transfer of wealth upwards. Instead of asking why Barack Obama gets $400,000 for an hour speech to Wall Street, which means that maybe our faith in how our system operates needs to be shaken a bit so we can actually look at what’s really going on, let’s just put our attention on some foreign devil again.”
Maté talked about how Obama, despite being a warmonger like the other US presidents, represented a nice ideal in people’s minds, so the contrast between that ideal and Trump’s election made it especially traumatic. This made people unwilling to look at the actual root causes of Hillary Clinton’s loss, which taken together are far more threatening to democracy than anything Russia is accused of doing, even if those accusations are all 100 percent true.
In conclusion the younger Maté asked his father for his advice on what people can do going forward to avoid the mistakes that led to Trump’s election, and to the years of Russia hysteria that followed, or at least to deal with similar challenges in a more mature way.
“Well, first of all, I advise people to do something that I find hard to do myself, but I think it’s essential,” replied the elder Maté. “Which is that when there’s hard emotions there, just own them. Just own that you’re hurt. Own that you’re confused. Just own it. Say I’m hurt, I’m confused, I’m terrified. And rather than try and find an explanation right away, just own the feeling. And then when you’re ready, then actually ask, what happened here? What actually happened here? What are the facts? What behaviors or beliefs on my part maybe contributed to the situation? So be curious. Be really curious.”
With regard to the press, Gabor advised to be objective and skeptical of the government agencies which have so consistently deceived America into wars:
“At least be objective. Don’t be so quick to jump on board. Don’t be so quick to assume that because almost the whole media is broadcasting, trumpeting a certain line, that that line represents reality. Learn from history. Learn from this one. Learn from this Russiagate thing that they were all saying for years that this is a given fact. All of a sudden it turns out not to be a given fact. Well, next time, don’t be so quick to believe them.”
Gabor pointed out that for all people’s efforts at avoiding the internal confrontations which necessarily come along with disillusionment, it is much better to be disillusioned than illusioned.
“Would you rather believe in something that’s false, which means to have an illusion? Or would you rather be disillusioned?” Maté asked. “In other words, to see the truth. And I’m saying that we should be glad to be disillusioned. So this Russiagate and this ignoble end to the Russiagate narrative, it’s a disillusionment for a lot of people, but that’s a good thing. If they say, okay, I had this illusion, this illusion I no longer have, which means I’ve been disillusioned, now I can actually look at the truth. So it’s good to be disillusioned.”
“So this could be a positive beginning for a lot of people if they take the right attitude,” Maté concluded.
Man, I really hope so.
About The Author
Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Being of Nature
“Every aspect of nature is its own distinct contribution, sometimes greatly opposing the properties of another, and yet they find their complement together, and there is no question of belonging. Nature invited me into listening. It invited me into synergy and serendipity, and that coordination is both planned and spontaneously co-created. Nature asked me to widen in my heart and trust that the answers live way beyond me or what I can directly control.” – Vassilisa Johri
She Holds Us Still
Prentis Hemphill and Kasha Ho are two of the most beautiful humans I have ever met, and they found each other, and I love and learn so much from how they live.
Prentis: “I moved to Hawaii two and a half years ago to be with my partner, whose family came here generations ago to work the plantations. Soon after moving, I had this experience of sitting in our backyard in the Palolo Valley of Oahu, which was mostly a section of jungle and less a yard. But I was sitting there on the dirt considering Western psychology (I’m a therapist) and this concept of the ‘good-enough mother,’ of being an imperfect but mostly present mother as enough to raise a healthy child. I was thinking about the isolation of Western parenting and how the burden fell absolutely on women, but also I was considering and feeling this human longing to be held completely.
Sitting on that ground, it occurred to me, through my body first, then my thoughts, that the Earth, the land was the key. The Earth has held everything that’s ever happened to us. And in psychology we see health indicated by our romantic or familial or work relationships, but there’s never an assessment of our relationship with place and land. It was a huge realization for me to feel that as a healing justice organizer and practitioner, I could borrow from the ground because it has always had the most capacity. And I can keep pointing our people in the direction of the ground and the land to hold what seems impossible. For Black people in the U.S., this is a complicated conversation and one I feel is critical to our collective healing.”
The question is:
Can I get bigger than myself?
Not lose myself or let myself go
but become wide enough to contain all that is true.
Resist the temptation to retract around what is right
or makes me feel in control.
Broaden my hips out wide like the valley.
The Earth holds all of this
and doesn’t feel responsible.
Her water is moved by the moon.
Her surface is warmed by the sun.
And she doesn’t fight the feelingor feel self-conscious.
We have torn and prodded and blown her apart.
She holds us still.
We kill each other and hate each other on her shores.
Sends rains to cleanse.
She doesn’t question her existence.
She just continues to be.
From the Online Zine Let the Choir Say Wow to accompany Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds.
Young and old alike can rejoice in a new finding by researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Chicago. There is hope for us all when it comes to creativity, they say.
“Many people believe that creativity is exclusively associated with youth, but it really depends on what kind of creativity you’re talking about,” explains Bruce Weinberg, lead author of the study and professor of economics at Ohio State University, in a statement.
According to the study, published in the journal De Economist on April 26, there are two types of creativity that can blossom at different points in a person’s life. Conceptual innovators tend to do their best work in their mid-twenties, while experimental innovators peak in their fifties, the researchers contend.
The reason for this difference is that radical thinkers who come up with something new usually do so before they are steeped in the conventions of their field. Meanwhile, experimenters take decades of trial and error and accumulated knowledge to make unusual connections, going beyond the conventions of their domain.
To reach this conclusion, Weinberg and his co-author David Galenson, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, focused on the 31 most notable Nobel Prize laureates in economics, classifying them as either conceptual or experimental thinkers. The two academics have previously worked on research together that examines the creative life cycles of artists, so they already had experience using this lens to examine their subjects.
They explain in the paper that they already knew, based on analyses of modern painters, poets, novelists, and natural scientists, that there are “two polar types of innovators.” There are conceptual thinkers, who seek to communicate specific ideas or emotions and have precise goals for their works, planning them carefully in advance, and executing them systematically. Pablo Picasso, TS Eliot, Herman Melville, and Albert Einstein all did their greatest work in youth. Experimental innovators, on the other hand, are ambitious but vague, so they take much longer to develop. The paper cites Paul Cézanne, Robert Frost, Virginia Woolf, and Charles Darwin all as late bloomers.
Applying the distinctions between conceptual and experimental innovations, the researchers found that the Nobel laureates who did their most groundbreaking work early in their careers were also “conceptual” innovators who challenge conventional wisdom and come up with new ideas suddenly, just like with the artists and writers. They peak early. However, “experimental” innovators have longer periods of experimentation and learn from errors, and these thinkers tend to do their best work later in life. “Whether you hit your creative peak early or late in your career depends on whether you have a conceptual or experimental approach,” Weinberg said.
Prior studies by other social scientists have compared creative life cycles across various domains in academia and have found peak creativity averages between the ages of 30 and 40. Weinberg and Galenson note, however, that they chose to only focus on 31 of the most notable Nobel laureates in a single field, economics, in order to eliminate distortions in data caused by variations in the demands or conditions of any particular field. It turned out that the economists had much in common with artists, writers, and scientists whose creative lives Weinberg and Galenson analyzed in previous research.
After classifying the laureates’ thinking, the researchers determined the age at which each made their most important contribution to economics and could be considered at the creative peak. They determined peak creativity by the point at which the subjects’ scientific papers had the most citations and were thus most influential. Their analysis showed that conceptual laureates peaked between 25 and 29 years old and experimental laureates did best when they were about twice as old, in their mid-fifties. The study states:
Many scholars believe that creativity is the particular domain of the young. One prominent economist, former President Lawrence Summers of Harvard University, vetoed offers of tenured professorships to two 54-year-old scholars out of concern for what the university’s Dean of the Faculty called the problem of “extinct volcanoes.” In support of Summers, a 35-year-old professor of earth sciences explained that “It’s more exciting to be around a place where things are going on now-not a place where people have done important things in the past.”
Their findings suggest that this kind of biased thinking leads to bad decisions. It ignores the fact that there are different types of innovators and that different problems demand different kinds of contributions and solutions. They hope their work will chip away at the world’s favoritism for precocious geniuses and its disdain of the creativity that comes with age. Weinberg said, “We believe what we found in this study isn’t limited to economics, but could apply to creativity more generally.”
That means your best days may lay just ahead.
For a variety of medical reasons, a percentage of the population are either immuno-suppressed or resistant to vaccination. If compulsory vaccination is forced upon us, there is a distinct possibility the mass population would shed potentially more lethal strains of a virus, thereby presenting a far greater risk, not only to the vulnerable, but to themselves and everyone else.
It gets worse (possibly.) Repeated vaccination, over time, frequently reduces immunity, potentially leaving the vaccinated unable to resist naturally occurring viruses in later life. We could see a significant decrease in average lifespan.
Prior to widespread vaccination the population possessed inbuilt natural immunity and generally had healthy microbiomes. The evidence clearly shows that the significant advancements in public health were achieved through better standards of sanitation and other essential infrastructure developments. It was not due to vaccines, which actually played a relatively minor role. If vaccines were the savior then, certainly in the post war period until the 1970’s, we should have seen far more epidemics and the massive reduction in infection rates should not have occurred.
None of this means vaccines don’t work. For example there are a many peer reviewed, scientific papers which demonstrate how vaccination could have reduced the impact of the Poliovirus.
However there is solid justification for some skepticism. Questions definitely need to be answered before we start throwing people in prison for expressing reasonable doubt. For the pro vaccine majority to ignore these questions, without ever considering them, simply because they have been convinced by the MSM and vaccine manufacturer funded research, is to deny scientific debate.
Unquestioned science is not science. It’s belief.
My own confirmation bias leads me to be highly skeptical of any scientific research which is funded by corporations with a massive vested interest in the outcome. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. Therefore the vast amount of papers ‘proving’ that various vaccines are perfectly safe can be discarded as untrustworthy. Personally, I only find research compelling if it is genuinely independent and based upon measurable, empirical data. Modeling and projections are far less convincing in my view.